# Self Portrait with darker background



## DaPOPO (Apr 23, 2019)

I have been watching some product photography videos on YouTube and noticed the photographer always changes the camera settings so the camera is showing black before he starts turning on his lighting. This way none of the natural light is effecting the photograph.

I tried the same thing last week and this is the outcome.

All three are using my Nikon D7100 at ISO 200, 1/250, F8 with Nikon 50mm 1.8d.

I used a gray cloth backdrop that was approximately 4, maybe 5 feet back.

1) Rectangular soft-box with a grid camera right at approximately 45 degrees.






2) Same soft-box, same location camera right with a strip soft-box and grid 90 degrees camera left. The strip soft-box is pulled forward so the back of it is a little behind my head.





3) Same strip soft-box 90 degrees camera left, same location. I darkened up the background a little bit on this one so make it almost but not completely black. 





C&C welcome, always learning. Thanks guys.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 23, 2019)

i like the last.  it's also the best exposure on your face, the others seem a little dim.


----------



## DaPOPO (Apr 23, 2019)

Braineack said:


> i like the last.  it's also the best exposure on your face, the others seem a little dim.


Thanks, you know I was thinking the last one is a little overexposed due to the highlights shining on my head more than the others.. Interesting..


----------



## Braineack (Apr 23, 2019)

highlights gonna highlight...


----------



## LRLala (Apr 23, 2019)

I like all three, however your face is angled just a little more in the second and third, putting the edge of your face that shows inside your glasses (next to your right eye) on a different plane than the portion outside of your glasses. Don't know if that makes a difference to you. Nice lighting effects, though.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2019)

I like the dramatic look of the lighting in the first shot, plus the glasses' refraction is thrown into shadow, making the first, IMO, the best of the three.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 23, 2019)

Glasses, the bane of photographers everywhere. You're either fighting reflections or refraction. As the poster above mentioned #2 & #3 shows how annoying refraction can be. 

#1 is my preference. As Derrel said the dramatic look of it and the convient shadow over the eye make it the better choice.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Glasses, the bane of photographers everywhere. You're either fighting reflections or refraction. As the poster above mentioned #2 & #3 shows how annoying refraction can be.
> 
> #1 is my preference. As Derrel said the dramatic look of it and the convenient shadow over the eye make it the better choice.



Four or five very good points!


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 23, 2019)

Just an after thought on the glasses. Nothing short of using empty frames is going to keep from having clean up in post, but one thing you might try is turning the head straight on to the camera.  Here's an extreme crop of a subject with glasses that hasn't been final processed.


 Raising your lights and moving them closer to the camera center line puts more light into the eye socket, but the angle of incidence is such that any reflection is still away from the lens. You can see from comparing the skin around the glasses to that closer to the eye, that the glasses act like a magnifying glass but the refraction is minimal. Plus, shooting straight on makes it easier to smooth the skin behind the glasses. Wait till you try shooting someone with Photochromic lenses, you'll really pull your hair out!


----------



## DaPOPO (Apr 23, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I like the dramatic look of the lighting in the first shot, plus the glasses' refraction is thrown into shadow, making the first, IMO, the best of the three.



I like the second with both light boxes the best, but the refraction is annoying and I am sure fixable in post, but I am not the proficient to fix it. Something to explore in the future...


----------



## DaPOPO (Apr 23, 2019)

Braineack said:


> highlights gonna highlight...


I'm not sure you really can't get rid of them completely, except if I processed in post more than what I would want to do. Probably not worth the time, I think it would take from the natural look of it...


----------



## DaPOPO (Apr 23, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Just an after thought on the glasses. Nothing short of using empty frames is going to keep from having clean up in post, but one thing you might try is turning the head straight on to the camera.  Here's an extreme crop of a subject with glasses that hasn't been final processed.
> View attachment 171981 Raising your lights and moving them closer to the camera center line puts more light into the eye socket, but the angle of incidence is such that any reflection is still away from the lens. You can see from comparing the skin around the glasses to that closer to the eye, that the glasses act like a magnifying glass but the refraction is minimal. Plus, shooting straight on makes it easier to smooth the skin behind the glasses. Wait till you try shooting someone with Photochromic lenses, you'll really pull your hair out!



Thanks, I will try that with my Foster Parents next week when I visit.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 24, 2019)

DaPOPO said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > highlights gonna highlight...
> ...



why would you want to?  They are natural and give dimension -- we expect to see speculator highlights from a single light source; they are litterally the reflection from the light source.

The first two shots, imho, look intentionally underexposed in post as an effort to reduce the highlights. It makes your skin look dull -- highlights should open up the true tone of your skin, artificially lowering them changes this natural effect.

Strobist: Lighting 102: Controlling Specular Highlights

Strobist: Lighting 102: Unit 2.2 - Specular Highlight Control


----------



## Barb King (Apr 24, 2019)

I like the second. There seems to be a lot of depth to it. All three are fantastic and make me want to learn portrait lighting. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 24, 2019)

Braineack said:


> why would you want to? They are natural and give dimension -- we expect to see speculator highlights from a single light source; they are litterally the reflection from the light source.



I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. If you're saying specular blown highlights are desired,  then I have to disagree. Likewise if you're saying it's impossible to not blow the highlights with a single light then I'd also disagree. The principals of managing the light on the subject are the same regardless of the number of lights you use. You add reflector fill or flags to block, compressing the tonal range between the shadows and highlights. Adding a modifier, and moving your light closer will both increase the size of the light source relative to the subject, decreasing the intensity of the light per sq.in. on the subject, softening and spreading your highlights over a larger area. Then based on the reflectivity of the skin (light, dark, oily, etc), you adjust your exposure accordingly. Blown specular highlights are not natural or unavoidable.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 24, 2019)

did I say anything about blown?  Put a color picker on the brightest highlight in image #3.  Put another on the brightest in image #2.

You'll end up with 243 230 224 vs. 209 196 190.  IE. healthy, live-flesh colored vs. gray zombie colored.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 24, 2019)

Braineack said:


> did I say anything about blown?



No but your use of specular vs highlight or diffused reflection had me confused which is why I started by saying that. I tend to think of specularity as an uncontrolled reflection which by nature are blown. No offense was intended, merely clarification.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > did I say anything about blown?
> ...



Semantics, pedantry, correct definitions, misinterpretations of terms, all difficult to discuss rapidly and fluidly in an online forum context. Let me say this: selfies are HARD to do well, when one cannot get exact, real-time viewfinder feedback. The eyeglass refraction is relatively easy to correct by moving the lens a few inches, but if one cannot SEE this issue before the shutter is tripped...one gets unwanted eyeglass issues.


----------



## DaPOPO (May 1, 2019)

Braineack said:


> did I say anything about blown?  Put a color picker on the brightest highlight in image #3.  Put another on the brightest in image #2.
> 
> You'll end up with 243 230 224 vs. 209 196 190.  IE. healthy, live-flesh colored vs. gray zombie colored.



Damn, I could have been with the white walker and had a great time fighting in GOT!!!


----------



## Braineack (May 2, 2019)




----------

