# Casual-Executive Portrait- FINAL RESULTS (5pic).



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

Somebody approached me from my church and asked if I would be willing to take staff portraits (headshot) for the launch of their website. 
They know I'm not an established professional; however, they've seen some of my pictures and like what they see.  
   Now I need to do some research to help produce the best I can do. 

What I have and what I would use:
-Olympus EM-5 Mark ii
-Olympus 45mm 1.8
-Olympus 12-40 pro
Olympus 75-300
-Olympus FL600 Flash
-Olympus on-camera flash
-Tripod
-(2) 42" 5-in-one reflector screens
-tripod stand for reflector screen

With all the above, I have been researching setups for 1 flash light source, possibly utilizing the small on-camera flash for a ceiling bounce or fill-flash. 
I also considered outdoors using the sun as a 2nd light source. 
I would utilize a reflector screen for opposite side of flash. 
I'm undecided if the background is going to be the interior of the church, or if it will be a plain wall for a backdrop.

I was leaning toward the Rembrandt style lighting, at the 45*.  This is also more of a casual portrait, so I'm unsure if that style of light is too "strong".

Am I on the right track?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2015)

As long as you can trigger that speedlight off-camera, your golden.  If not, well, it's still 100% do-able.  Ideally, have the speedlight off-camera , 30 degrees off of lens-axis, use some sort of diffuser if possible, if not consider bouncing off of a white card or wall, and have your reflector close in on the opposite side.  Have the client turn their body so they're facing the light ("See the light") and then turn their head back to you.  This is my quick & dirty headshot recipe and produces images like this:






This was done with one speedlight, a 30" Lastolite Ezy-Box and a 42" reflector.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

tirediron said:


> As long as you can trigger that speedlight off-camera, your golden.  If not, well, it's still 100% do-able.  Ideally, have the speedlight off-camera , 30 degrees off of lens-axis, use some sort of diffuser if possible, if not consider bouncing off of a white card or wall, and have your reflector close in on the opposite side.  Have the client turn their body so they're facing the light ("See the light") and then turn their head back to you.  This is my quick & dirty headshot recipe and produces images like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for that tip, Tirediron!  
I was considering purchasing an umbrella reflector or softbox to use with my off-camera flash.  I think I can get a decent one for under $50.  Do you think this is necessary?
The Olympus FL600 is a TTL flash. Since I don't have a wireless trigger, I would be using the on-camera flash to trigger it.  The nice thing about the EM-5ii's supplemental flash, is that it can tilt away!


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

One thing that is really going to be an experiment is the power of the flash and the distance from the subject.  
How did you figure that distance of 30" for the flash softbox?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> I was considering purchasing an umbrella reflector or softbox to use with my off-camera flash.  I think I can get a decent one for under $50.  Do you think this is necessary?
> The Olympus FL600 is a TTL flash. Since I don't have a wireless trigger, I would be using the on-camera flash to trigger it.  The nice thing about the EM-5ii's supplemental flash, is that it can tilt away!


I definitely would purchase the umbrella; that will make your life much, much easier, and you can get a serviceable one for much less than $50 these days.  As for working distance, 30" was the size of my softbox, as in 30" square.  In the above example, my light was about 2' away and at 1/64 power IIRC.  Determining exposure is easy, simply use the guide-number method.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

tirediron said:


> PropilotBW said:
> 
> 
> > I was considering purchasing an umbrella reflector or softbox to use with my off-camera flash.  I think I can get a decent one for under $50.  Do you think this is necessary?
> ...



Is an umbrella more versatile than a softbox?  After I typed my response, I was actually researching your Lastolite softball.

Another option I was considering is using the 75-300mm @75mm f/4.8.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2015)

I would say that the umbrella is more versatile, but the softbox produces a marginally nicer quality of light..  umbrellas are also cheaper, easier to store and less of a pain in general.  If you have room, the 75-300 would be an option.  I generally use an 85 1.4 for portrait work.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 21, 2015)

If I am going for a light, delicate feel to the light, I usually do not move my modifiers close than about six feet. That keeps the rate of light fall-off very low on the shadow side. The closer the light is to the face, the more the shadow side falls off quickly. Moving the light back a ways keeps the highlight side and the shadow side closer in actual exposure levels, so this lessens the need for fill light.

You can do plenty of good portraiture with just one flash in a 40 to 43-inch umbrella, either a reflecting umbrella, or something like the Lastolite Umbrella Box, or a low-priced made in China knock-off, something like the ones that sell for $23 - $29 from Steve Kaeser Enterprises.

I would try not to over-complicate the portrait shooting process.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If I am going for a light, delicate feel to the light, I usually do not move my modifiers close than about six feet. That keeps the rate of light fall-off very low on the shadow side. The closer the light is to the face, the more the shadow side falls off quickly. Moving the light back a ways keeps the highlight side and the shadow side closer in actual exposure levels, so this lessens the need for fill light.
> 
> You can do plenty of good portraiture with just one flash in a 40 to 43-inch umbrella, either a reflecting umbrella, or something like the Lastolite Umbrella Box, or a low-priced made in China knock-off, something like the ones that sell for $23 - $29 from Steve Kaeser Enterprises.
> 
> I would try not to over-complicate the portrait shooting process.



Thanks for your tip with the light fall-off/shadowing.  I didn't even think about that.  That is very helpful.    

I don't want to complicate it, nor do I want to make it expensive.  I think I can swing $100 for a nice umbrella kit with stand, so I think that'll be what I do.  
This shoot is on January 8th...so I have about 2 weeks to test out some shots with varying guide numbers.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

tirediron said:


> I would say that the umbrella is more versatile, but the softbox produces a marginally nicer quality of light..  umbrellas are also cheaper, easier to store and less of a pain in general.  If you have room, the 75-300 would be an option.  I generally use an 85 1.4 for portrait work.



Nice lens!  Wouldn't you say you stop it down to around f/5.6 for depth?  
That's why I was thinking my 75-300 would work at the low end of 75mm f/4.8 since I would most likely use the 45mm prime at f/4 or f/5.6 anyway.


----------



## AKUK (Dec 21, 2015)

Just a thought but, if those 5-in-1 reflectors you have contain the inner panel with the diffusion screen, you can simply use that as an alternative to the softbox or umbrella without spending another penny. Set it up on the light stand and position it as suggested above. Then fire the flash into it.

Keep the flash about 2ft away to allow the light to spread and illuminate the diffusion panel more evenly. Place the other 5-in-1 reflector at 180 degrees to the diffusion panel, behind your subject. This will give you clamshell lighting and essentially act as a soft fill, giving a nice hair/rim lighting effect. Keep this out of frame if possible. If not just crop or edit out later. It will be less bright than the front light, due to the inverse square law but, if it is too bright you can control the exposure by moving it further away or vice versus. Just watch for lens flares and angle the reflector away from you if you can, and still have the light hitting them from behind. Try and keep the main light source above your subjects too. Light tends to come from above normally. You can sit your subjects on a chair so you don't have to raise the light stands so high, or if ceiling heights are a problem.

Personally I would use the 75-300mm at the longest focal length you can comfortably work with. Typically I avoid using focal lengths below 70mm for beauty/headshots. The reason being is they give less flattering compression on the face. 105mm - 135mm are my preferred. It will also give you a tighter background so you won't have to crop or edit stuff out. Stop the lens down to f/8-f/11 to give optimum sharpness and also increase the DOF so that both eyes are in focus if the head is slightly angled.

If you want to step it up a notch, then you can aim for specific lighting styles like loop, short, broad, Rembrandt or butterfly, to add a bit more of a professional look.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Dec 21, 2015)

I purchased one of the cheap lightstands from Adorama (about $50ish including shipping) and got 2-42" diffused umbrellas for about $15 on eBay. That was over a year ago and I still use those for everything from soft, portrait lighting to more contrasty stuff. Can't beat the versatility and improvement in image quality for the price...


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If I am going for a light, delicate feel to the light, I usually do not move my modifiers close than about six feet. That keeps the rate of light fall-off very low on the shadow side. The closer the light is to the face, the more the shadow side falls off quickly. Moving the light back a ways keeps the highlight side and the shadow side closer in actual exposure levels, so this lessens the need for fill light.


Excellent point; my technique has evolved from the fact that invariably when I do these, I wind up stuck in the corner of a board room fight with the table, or at the end of a hall against the fire-escape and moving the light 6' back isn't an option.  If you have room, Derrel's recommendation will definitely be simpler.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 21, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Just a thought but, if those 5-in-1 reflectors you have contain the inner panel with the diffusion screen, you can simply use that as an alternative to the softbox or umbrella without spending another penny. Set it up on the light stand and position it as suggested above. Then fire the flash into it.
> 
> Keep the flash about 2ft away to allow the light to spread and illuminate the diffusion panel more evenly. Place the other 5-in-1 reflector at 180 degrees to the diffusion panel, behind your subject. This will give you clamshell lighting and essentially act as a soft fill, giving a nice hair/rim lighting effect. Keep this out of frame if possible. If not just crop or edit out later. It will be less bright than the front light, due to the inverse square law but, if it is too bright you can control the exposure by moving it further away or vice versus. Just watch for lens flares and angle the reflector away from you if you can, and still have the light hitting them from behind. Try and keep the main light source above your subjects too. Light tends to come from above normally. You can sit your subjects on a chair so you don't have to raise the light stands so high, or if ceiling heights are a problem.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your post.  I had thought about shooting the flash through one of the diffuser screens; however, I'd still need to buy a light stand with the shoe mount to hold the flash (since I don't own one).  I currently have a stand that holds a reflector, but I'd still need to supplement that with either a shoe mount adapter, or another stand all together.  I was leaning towards having a 2nd stand all together.    

I agree with using the 75-300.  I did a couple test shots on myself, and the nice focal length for head plus shoulders was about 7'.  Keeping in mind, this is a Olympus M4/3 sensor, so the 75mm is equivalent to your 150mm on your full frame.  Any longer than 75, I feel requires too much space.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 23, 2015)

How could I go about illuminating the backdrop slightly?   
As low cost is the goal, I was considering purchasing an Impact Ac Flashi screwed into a desk lamp like this one. 

Will this work at all?  Is there another option?


----------



## AKUK (Dec 23, 2015)

Are there any power output controls on the Impact Flash? If not, I would advise against it as the only way you can control its exposure is using the inverse square law, or having to adjust the power of the juice coming out of the key lighting flashes and stopping down your aperture. It does not afford much flexibility at all. For a few bucks more I would suggest just going with a Yongnuo flash, like a YN-560 III. It's a manual flash but has the 2.4Ghz trigger inbuilt.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 23, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Are there any power output controls on the Impact Flash? If not, I would advise against it as the only way you can control its exposure is using the inverse square law, or having to adjust the power of the juice coming out of the key lighting flashes and stopping down your aperture. It does not afford much flexibility at all. For a few bucks more I would suggest just going with a Yongnuo flash, like a YN-560 III. It's a manual flash but has the 2.4Ghz trigger inbuilt.



That's a good point, I don't think there is a way to control power output.


----------



## AKUK (Dec 23, 2015)

Yeah, I think I'd give it a miss. When you're working with multiple light sources, keeping them all independently adjustable will save you a lot of headaches. Also you'll be limited by the lack of light modifiers too. At least with flashes you can use umbrellas, or a bowens adapter to use softboxes, 7" reflectors with barn doors, grids, beauty dishes, etc.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 24, 2015)

This is the result I am hoping to achieve.  
How would you go about setting up the flash for this shot?  It looks like the light is at a 45*, just wondering how the photographer also lit up the backdrop with only one light?  

Portrait 2010: One Light Assignment


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 24, 2015)

Try to keep the gear simple but have everything you need. And backups. Some piece of gear goes on the fritz and you're in the soup. Good luck.


----------



## AKUK (Dec 24, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> This is the result I am hoping to achieve.
> How would you go about setting up the flash for this shot?  It looks like the light is at a 45*, just wondering how the photographer also lit up the backdrop with only one light?
> 
> Portrait 2010: One Light Assignment



The flash is roughly in that direction as the key light. I would suggest placing it in that vicinity and then fine tune its position relative to the angle of your subjects head/face. I have a guide on my site which gives a brief introduction to traditional lighting styles that shows the difference between them. I you want a Rembrant style you'll be looking for the triangle on the opposite cheek. The contrast will/fall off will depend on the size of the modifier and the distance to the subject, as Derrel mentioned earlier. 

The backdrop can either be lit from the front or behind. If you light from the front, you'll need a grid over the flash to contain the spill. Just be sure that your subject doesn't move and block it. I prefer to place the strobe behind the model and fire it at the backdrop. This contains the spill automatically and means you can use a lower power since you aren't throwing the light very far. So long as you have the space between your subject and the backdrop it's the better option IMO. Just take care that the flash unit remains hidden by their body. Experiment with direct distances to control the spill size. 

Cheap flash modifiers can be had on eBay that slip over the flash to give you a round light source for a more even shape. If the flash is on the floor being fired up, just be aware that the lower portion will be brighter than the top. Normally I place it around chest height and fire it straight at the backdrop. If you have a dual bracket and an additional strobe you can point the second one at the shoulders/back of the head. This gives a nice kicker/rim/hair light without the need for extra stands. Maybe a little more advanced for now but something to consider for the future to kick your lighting up a notch. 

I would also recommend setting the power/exposure of each flash independently. That way you aren't distracted or confused as to what light is causing effect. Start with the background light first and get a brightness you're happy with. Then do the key light on your model. If the key light is spilling onto the backdrop move your model forward and the flash, if you're happy with the fall off on their face/body. Even moving a meter can have a big impact because of the inverse square law. For example moving from 1m to 2m away from the backdrop will cut the light to only 1/4. From 1m to 3m the power of the light hitting the backdrop would be 1/9th as bright, and so on. 

Another tip is to kill all ambient light use your lowest native ISO and max shutter sync (making sure you don't get a black bar across the bottom of the image). If using the 75-300, f/8 to f/11 should definitely kill the ambient light indoors. The reason for this is so that continuous light doesn't get recorded, creating exposure issues or unwanted shadows/highlights.  F/11 will also be around optimum sharpness for that lens and also give a decent enough depth of field to ensure facial features are in focus of the head is at an angle. Personally I don't like to have the head too far from centre as too much of the eye whites become visible. 

Letting the camera kill ambient light will mean you don't have to darken the room. If the room is reasonably bright the iris of the eye will be small, revealing more of it, rather than a big, black, dialated pupil.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 25, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> This is the result I am hoping to achieve.
> How would you go about setting up the flash for this shot?
> Portrait 2010: One Light Assignment



That looks like a basic 2 light setup that I use now and then.

1 light 45 degrees up and to one side and in front of subject using an umbrella
1 light on the background.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 25, 2015)

Something AKUK mentioned above is very important: if the background light is positioned aiming upwardly, the bottom of the backdrop will be brighter than the higher parts of the background. The closer the flash is to the backdrop screen, the stronger the degree of falloff,and the more obvious that falloff is to the eye. 

With undiffused flash fired at the backdrop screen, if it is seamless paper or wrinkly fabric, aiming the background light at a steep angle causes the lighting to become texture-revealing! So keep in mind that if the background light* rakes* across the backdrop screen and causes highlighted areas, and then shadowed areas, it in effect makes the background turn into an actual, lighted object, with a definable plane in space--rather than the featureless "blobby thing" many of us expect it to be. 

As AKUK mentioned, placing the light behind the subject, at around the mid-back to chest height is the traditional way to do this, with the light firing STRAIGHT back toward the paper,canvas,muslin, or wall.Sometimes people will light the backdrop from off to one side, striving to create a gradient...again, if the light is firing and _*raking directly across*_ the surface, it can act as side-lighting and create a LOT of (unwanted) texture; if the light is moved forward, more toward the sitter, and then aimed more "at" rather than raking across the backdrop, there will be less of a side-lighted, texture-revealing issue.

I mention this for one reason: with APS-C or smaller camera formats, at typical flash f/stops of f/6.3 to f/11, due to the typical subject coverages (full-length, 3/4 body,half-body, bust) in formal portraiture, as the distances required to frame such pictures, the small sensor and the small f/stop mean that the depth of field is such that the background in most situations will be very recognizable. THis is one of the MAIN differences between medium format rollfilm studio work, and 35mm or 25x36 or FX digital portraiture; the sophisticated viewer will easily see the background's in-focus nature with the smaller cameras like APS-C or m4/3, unless the background is lighted to create extremely low texture. On full-body shots, with an APS-C camera and short tele lens, your camera will be afar enough away that the background paper or muslin will be _almost in focus, so it's important to light the background properly_, with attention to details that make a difference.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 27, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Are there any power output controls on the Impact Flash? If not, I would advise against it as the only way you can control its exposure is using the inverse square law, or having to adjust the power of the juice coming out of the key lighting flashes and stopping down your aperture. It does not afford much flexibility at all. For a few bucks more I would suggest just going with a Yongnuo flash, like a YN-560 III. It's a manual flash but has the 2.4Ghz trigger inbuilt.



Thank you very much AKUK for all your tips, they have been very helpful.   I have to admit, this is starting to get a little over my head.   I'm most worried about getting the flash power settings just right in a very unfamiliar indoor environment. 

I was looking at adding the Yonguno 560 IV. Since it's only a few dollars more, I thought I'd try a newer model.  My other concern is buying a 3rd party flash. There wouldn't be any compatibility issues with my Olympis FL600?   I would just use the flash in manual, as a TTL trigger from the Olympus flash (which would also be TTL triggered from my camera flash, angled away from the subject). 
This would give my setup 3 total flashes, but the one on-camera would really only be a trigger since I don't have any hot-shoe or corded triggers.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Something AKUK mentioned above is very important: if the background light is positioned aiming upwardly, the bottom of the backdrop will be brighter than the higher parts of the background. The closer the flash is to the backdrop screen, the stronger the degree of falloff,and the more obvious that falloff is to the eye.
> 
> With undiffused flash fired at the backdrop screen, if it is seamless paper or wrinkly fabric, aiming the background light at a steep angle causes the lighting to become texture-revealing! So keep in mind that if the background light* rakes* across the backdrop screen and causes highlighted areas, and then shadowed areas, it in effect makes the background turn into an actual, lighted object, with a definable plane in space--rather than the featureless "blobby thing" many of us expect it to be.
> 
> ...



Thanks Derrel for taking the time to type this, it's helpful!

For the moment, I have only 1 flash to light the subject.  It would be mounted at the 45* in a shoot-through umbrella.  I would also utilize a reflector on the opposing side of the model to fill shadows.  
I was then asking about how to make the background appear lighted with this setup, which I'm not sure I have the skills to make that happen without adding (buying) a 2nd TTL flash for aiming at the background. 
Now I'm wondering, if I buy a 2nd flash, should I just put it in a 2nd umbrella rather than worry about lighting the background?
I could buy a 2 umbrella kit from BH for $99, and the Yonguno 560IV for $70. 
Again, all these flashes would be Synced by the on-camera "flash".   I have no hot-shoe triggers.


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 27, 2015)

I found an extremely helpful link by Tony Northrup for almost exactly what I'm trying to do. 
Using all tips on here, plus some flash positioning help from the video, I feel SLIGHTLY more confident about taking on this project.  

Here's the link.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 27, 2015)

Watch the Northrup video and notice how close to the lens axis he has the main light; it's nowhere near as far as 45 degrees off-axis in the indoor session. Plus...when the subject turns his or her head, the placement of the light changes in relation to the face. If the camera is moved off to the side, then relationship changes yet again. He was working on "full face" subject positioning, with both ears visible...that's not the only way the subject might be presented to the camera, so keep in mind that rote light placements at say 20,30,45 degrees to the "camera" might not be the same "to the face". (Chuck Gardner has an on-line tutorial describing his system of inter-relating subject and light placement relationships).

In the one colored-background, one-light tutorial linked to above, I think they might have simply burned down the background in post, to get the lighter colored paper in the center.

If you want the background lighted, you can light it with a second flash, either bare, or gridded, or with an umbrella or softbox on it; it just depends what effect you want. However as you can see from Tony's video, if there is any ambient light present, one can light the background by slowing the shutter down, and raising the ISO level, so that there **is** some ambient light making an image. Recall how at the start of his video, Tony shot at 1/200 second at ISO 100 and around the 2:47 mark, he shows the NO FLASH image made that way--it's totally BLACK. However, had he raised the ISO to say 400 to 800, and slowed the shutter down to 1/60, the faint room light will show some background. At genuinely slow speeds, like say 1/15 second, you can pick up a LOT of ambient light at times.

As Tony shows, using the camera's pop up flash in Manual mode at 1/128 power, it's easily possible to trigger a remote slave flash via its optical slave function in an indoor setting, and he does it outdoors as well. So...if the Yonguo has an optical slave setting, you ought to be okay to trigger two separate flashes, a main light, and a background flash, right from the camera's pop-up flash.

DON'T be afraid of this..*.if you can successfully make a ham and cheese sandwich from a whole ham and a whole brick of cheese, using a knife, and some mayo, and maybe a bit of a nice mild onion, you can shoot a one- or two-umbrella flash portrait.*


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 2, 2016)

Well folks, the umbrella stand has arrived!  Now off to practice flash photography!


Here is a test shot of exactly what I want to do.  Comments and Critiques please on what I am missing.  


ISO 200
f/5.6
1/125
Flash at 1/2 power,  around 3 feet
Reflector screen is about 24" from subject @ "Camera Right"


----------



## tirediron (Jan 2, 2016)

Nicely done!  Lighting-wise, the only thing I would do is drop the highlights ever so slightly in post.  As far as the rest goes, make sure you deal with those background wrinkles, as that doesn't look good.  If you have another light, you might consider gelling it and using it as a background light for some added interest; medium grey, while versatile is a bit bland.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 2, 2016)

nose and ears are oof.  turn up light and stop down lens.

move further away from the background.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 2, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Nicely done!  Lighting-wise, the only thing I would do is drop the highlights ever so slightly in post.  As far as the rest goes, make sure you deal with those background wrinkles, as that doesn't look good.  If you have another light, you might consider gelling it and using it as a background light for some added interest; medium grey, while versatile is a bit bland.



Thanks for your comments!  The background was just a bed sheet I threw up real quick .  It'll be a different background, most likely outdoor greenery or the church alter.
If it is white, I do have that Yongnuo flash in transit that I'll use per your suggestion.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 2, 2016)

Braineack said:


> nose and ears are oof.  turn up light and stop down lens.
> 
> move further away from the background.




Thanks for your comment,  Braineack.

I had the flash at 1/2 power.  You think I should go to, maybe, 1/1.6 power and f/8?
I tried several shots at full power adjusting the distance of the umbrella from the face, and it just came off too hot.  I played around with ISO and shutter speed, but didn't really play with the aperture.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2016)

Only thing missing is a Photoshopped-in _star-twinkle_ off the camera-left incisor tooth!

Evaluating this, I think that honestly the light is a little too flat...too much fill light, not quite enough a lighting ratio. The shadow side of the face doesn't have much shadow, really, so the face does not have quite as much fullness, as much three-dimensionality, as maybe it could have. On a female, or a person with fairly wrinkled skill this lighting set-up would look better. This is a very flat lighting ratio, like 1 to 1.5...it's low in contrast, has a pretty close match in terms of highlight and shadow side. But by the same token if this subject were a woman or girl in pastel colors, this lighting would look really nice.

I think I might rotate this counter-clockwise about 1 to 1.5 degrees at the most. Tilting a man's head toward the lower shoulder implies a more masculine pose, and increasing the shoulder angle will make this appear more dynamic at a sub-conscious level. I'd like to see a bit more cloth below the bottom button on the shirt, and I think I'd darken the shirt and the bottom of the frame a little bit with a subtle edge burn in Lightroom. I think the neck looks like a minus .5 EV burn in would improve the shot quite a bit.

The issues I'm pointing out are mostly because the light is VERY CLOSE to the face, and coming in from a relatively straight angle, lighting the face fairly evenly. Lifting the main light up just a little higher would have moved the catchlight up on the eyeballs, and would have caused a little bit more shadow under the chin. You have to look very,very closely to see lighting effects; a good way to see them more-easily is to open the image in software, then pull the exposure down to Minus 3.5 EV, and see where the "brights" are...what areas are being hit by light most directly? It's subtle, but you can see that the umbrella is lighting underneath the chin, striking the neck a fair bit, and with a black shirt at the bottom, the neck skin is just a bit too bright...an _under-chin shadow_ really can help keep the focus on the face. Same with a bit of shadow somewhere being cast by the nose--often but not always, a nose shadow can be a good thing.

I don't want anything said above to be construed as negative, because what you have created here is a very nice lighting effect, and overall this is a pretty surprisingly good first effort. The light is fairly even, focus is good (tip/bridge of nose is just beginning to trend ever so slightly toward OOF), and the degree of realism is very high; stubble, hair, facial texture, teeth,eyes, all look very real. I think on this particular man, eliminating the reflector fill might have looked better. Overall though, this is like an 85 score out of 100. Background wrinkles are the only real flaw; everything I have mentioned above is just minor stylistic/artistic nuance. I think for a first effort this might be the best one-person umbrella lighted portrait I have ever seen on TPF.

I think you might want to keep a good idea of how you did this, For experimentation, try moving the main light just a little *bit* higher, and maybe try to create a bit more of a highlight/shadow side on masculine-looking men like this guy, by reducing the fill light or feathering the light beam a bit, so it's not aimed quite so "square into" the mask of the face, but so that the light rakes across the face a little more, being interrupted by the nose, and casting a little bit of a nose shadow, and creating a bit more of an under-chin shadow.(For the record, I think it is easier to move the main light back a bit farther away that you are doing here, to avoid "lighting up" all the skin on a person so evenly...) Again, on younger people, on women or girls, or elder ladies, this lighting pattern would look very nice. I've not been C&C'ing this on the beginner scale, I've been looking at this image as if you are a professional shooter asking, "What, exactly, does this need to make it the best it can be."


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 2, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Only thing missing is a Photoshopped-in _star-twinkle_ off the camera-left incisor tooth!
> 
> Evaluating this, I think that honestly the light is a little too flat...too much fill light, not quite enough a lighting ratio. The shadow side of the face doesn't have much shadow, really, so the face does not have quite as much fullness, as much three-dimensionality, as maybe it could have. On a female, or a person with fairly wrinkled skill this lighting set-up would look better. This is a very flat lighting ratio, like 1 to 1.5...it's low in contrast, has a pretty close match in terms of highlight and shadow side. But by the same token if this subject were a woman or girl in pastel colors, this lighting would look really nice.
> 
> ...



Derel, thank you for taking the time to critique.  
I never take your critique as negative.  I really appreciate the tips.  Thank you for your compliments on the picture as well.  I have about 7 days of flash photography under my belt....since I received the flash for Christmas.  This is all extremely new to me. 
I will experiment in the next couple days with your suggestions and the other suggestions. 

I did end up bringing up the shadows of this picture in post to increase the brightness on the reflector side.   Since this thread is for a Pastor, Assistant Pastor, and the rest of the church staff, I wanted the face to be bright and lively.  I did experiment without a reflector and some more dramatic lighting tones, I just felt it didn't feel like "church pastor" portraits.  
I'll try to heighten the umbrella stand to create those chin shadows and reduce the exposure on the neck.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 2, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Only thing missing is a Photoshopped-in _star-twinkle_ off the camera-left incisor tooth!
> 
> Evaluating this, I think that honestly the light is a little too flat...too much fill light, not quite enough a lighting ratio. The shadow side of the face doesn't have much shadow, really, so the face does not have quite as much fullness, as much three-dimensionality, as maybe it could have. On a female, or a person with fairly wrinkled skill this lighting set-up would look better. This is a very flat lighting ratio, like 1 to 1.5...it's low in contrast, has a pretty close match in terms of highlight and shadow side. But by the same token if this subject were a woman or girl in pastel colors, this lighting would look really nice.
> 
> ...



This was uploaded from my iPad, so there may not be any exit data.  Here is another shot, slightly different edit.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2016)

Pretty good! A bit less realism, but still very nice. I rotated this 2.2 degrees CCW, thus needing to clone in some backdrop all the way across the top of the frame, a bit in the lower right corner, clone the loose threads on the shirt, three or four long neck whiskers, the tiny hairs over the ear-tops on both ears, and the few small prominent gray hairs on the right hand side, right above the ear top. Realized I missed the lower left area that needed to be cloned, so I cropped some more off the left, then needed to crop a sliver off the right to balance/center the thing up. Again, what you have created is pretty impressive.


Minor,minor retouching version


*VERY nice work you did, propilotBW!*

As I was cloning across the top of the background, my son entered the room and he said, "Who is that actor!? Is that Amy Poehler's husband?" (Will Arnett).


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 2, 2016)

Derrel said:


> *VERY nice work you did, propilotBW!*



Thank you for the edit and tips.  Very insightful.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 9, 2016)

These are the final results from the shoot.  
I have not submitted them to the client yet, so CC is welcomed.  It's 5 pics, so I'm not asking for detailed critique.  
I tried to remember and apply all the tips and suggestions from this thread.  In the heat of the moment, sometimes things slip the mind!  
I had some technical issues with the flash triggering, but after an embarrassing 10 minutes, I figured out the problem.    I also attempted to use the 2nd flash for lighting the background, but I couldn't get the exposure the way I liked it, so I scrapped it.


----------



## Designer (Jan 9, 2016)

These are wanting a bit more headroom.  If your SOOC file has more acreage then extend the crop upwards.  

It also appears that the camera position was a bit too low.  I think portraits look best when the subject's eyes are level with the lens.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 9, 2016)

A couple of thoughts...  overall, not a bad set.  I think in #1, I would have asked her to try some different smiles; that's a LOT of teeth, and people don't always know what they look like when they smile.  2 & 3 are shot from slightly too low a perspective, putting the subject in a superior position to the viewer (and a hint of 'up the nose' as well), and in the last one, the young lady has a bit of a squint.  What I do for people with this sort of eye is ask them to hold their eye open as wide as they can, and make them hold it for 5-10 seconds and as soon as I say, 'okay, relax' press the shutter.  This usually results ina  slightly larger eye, and in most cases, the client prefers it.  YMMV

You got the main points though, nice poses, good lighting, and glare-free glasses.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 9, 2016)

Yea, I notice the low camera angle now.  Too late for that, unless they want a re-do.   They wanted the backdrop on the stage, so they're 2 steps higher than my tripod.  I had it extended all the way, I guess not enough.  The thought didn't even cross my mind.  It seemed ok at the time.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 9, 2016)

pretty good.

If it were me, I'd be adding in more sharpness in post.   Did you add blur to both the woman?   they have a certain glow up them.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 9, 2016)

Braineack said:


> pretty good.
> 
> If it were me, I'd be adding in more sharpness in post.   Did you add blur to both the woman?   they have a certain glow up them.



Yes, I added -20ish to Clarity.   Too much?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 9, 2016)

I have my clarity slider on +10 on default.  Ive never gone negative with it ever and I always also add sharpening on top.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2016)

I agree that these would have benefitted from a bit more top space. I think the solution is simply to crop these, and eliminate the excess shirt/blouse, and change these into "headshots". I think that just eliminating all the chest/shirt/blouse will significantly improve them, and make that lower camera position/superior subject feeling significantly less of a factor. I would add a bit of the tooth whitening tool in Lightroom.

I would crop the mens' shirts down to one button on most, two on the suspender-wearing fellow, and also lop off the left and right hand sides of the frame as needed to get the right balance. More head, less shirt will change the feel of these quite markedly, and that goes double if these will be seen smallish.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 9, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I have my clarity slider on +10 on default.  Ive never gone negative with it ever and I always also add sharpening on top.



Ok, thanks for that.  I'll play around with it.  I guess I thought women wanted their skin smoother rather than crystal clear.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 9, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I agree that these would have benefitted from a bit more top space. I think the solution is simply to crop these, and eliminate the excess shirt/blouse, and change these into "headshots". I think that just eliminating all the chest/shirt/blouse will significantly improve them, and make that lower camera position/superior subject feeling significantly less of a factor. I would add a bit of the tooth whitening tool in Lightroom.
> 
> I would crop the mens' shirts down to one button on most, two on the suspender-wearing fellow, and also lop off the left and right hand sides of the frame as needed to get the right balance. More head, less shirt will change the feel of these quite markedly, and that goes double if these will be seen smallish.



I'll mess around with the crop and see if I can get something to work out nicely.  Thanks for that comment.  

Tooth Whitening tool?  I'm not aware of that.  I've been using the adjustment brush, and brushing in exposure.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2016)

PropilotBW said:
			
		

> Tooth Whitening tool?  I'm not aware of that.  I've been using the adjustment brush, and brushing in exposure.



Yes, works sooooo amazingly well. Perhaps the best Adobe invention since...well, Iris Enhance.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Jan 9, 2016)

I use the Teeth Whitening in Lightroom too. I think it not only boosts exposure but also desaturates a little. If the person already whitens their teeth, it can be a bit strong and I have to tone it down. But usually it's great as-is.

I think they look great. I agree with the other comments. I'm not real crazy about the half-white half-purplish lighting in the background, but it sounds like they chose that spot for a reason so it has significance to them. I wish a couple of the eyes were a little brighter.

As for skin softening, this is what I usually use: How to Professionally Retouch Portraits in Lightroom - Digital Photography School

I saved those brushes and use them nearly every time I edit an adult's face (children generally don't need it.) There are some brushes already in LR, but I found them to be a little too heavy-handed. These were more natural. I also like editing the skin (pores) separately from creases and wrinkles, as it shows in the tutorial. It's worth a shot to see if that workflow works for you. 

I think your clients will be very happy with these!


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 10, 2016)

cherylynne1 said:


> I use the Teeth Whitening in Lightroom too. I think it not only boosts exposure but also desaturates a little. If the person already whitens their teeth, it can be a bit strong and I have to tone it down. But usually it's great as-is.
> 
> I think they look great. I agree with the other comments. I'm not real crazy about the half-white half-purplish lighting in the background, but it sounds like they chose that spot for a reason so it has significance to them. I wish a couple of the eyes were a little brighter.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link and comments!


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 11, 2016)

Thank you, folks, for ALL the tips!!

The client really liked the pics!   
I wasn't able to correct some of the flaws, but I stI'll think they looked great.  ( and I surprised myself, too!)


----------



## chuasam (Jan 14, 2016)

tirediron said:


> As long as you can trigger that speedlight off-camera, your golden.  If not, well, it's still 100% do-able.  Ideally, have the speedlight off-camera , 30 degrees off of lens-axis, use some sort of diffuser if possible, if not consider bouncing off of a white card or wall, and have your reflector close in on the opposite side.  Have the client turn their body so they're facing the light ("See the light") and then turn their head back to you.  This is my quick & dirty headshot recipe and produces images like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


her expression is too blank and her pupils are too dilated here.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jan 14, 2016)

chuasam said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you can trigger that speedlight off-camera, your golden.  If not, well, it's still 100% do-able.  Ideally, have the speedlight off-camera , 30 degrees off of lens-axis, use some sort of diffuser if possible, if not consider bouncing off of a white card or wall, and have your reflector close in on the opposite side.  Have the client turn their body so they're facing the light ("See the light") and then turn their head back to you.  This is my quick & dirty headshot recipe and produces images like this:
> ...



It was a great example, and it helped me figure out what lighting I needed to replicate.  
His pic isn't posted for critique.


----------

