# Shooting Against a Black Background.



## rodnunley (May 24, 2011)

So I have two Yongnuo Speedlight YN460 II flashes with one DIY snoot/grid to use.  THose are what I have been using to take some pictures against a black background.  

The look that I am going for is this image from a local photographer that I know named David De Lara: 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/delara/5722469833/in/photostream
 
The above is an amazing image and I am trying to learn about lighting by attempting to do a shot with a lighting set up like his.  Now he had two Alien Bees and a softbox grid overlay.  I know that I can't get the exact same set up (I do have a large softbox but no monolight as of yet ) with just my flashes ... but I'm trying.

So my first attempt was just under powered:







Without a modeling light it's so difficult to adjust the lighting properly.  Also this image is clearly under lit.

I have one flash above and at 2 o' clock of the model (me) and the other flash at 8 o' clock of the model and angled up at lowest power setting.






For this one I turned off the back flash and turned up the power of the front flash.

It's better than the first.






For this one (the best of what I did today) I turned up the front flash to about half way and moved the back flash up to about hip height at 9 o' clock of the model.

I would love some feedback on ways that I might be able to improve the lighting I have going here.  It's a struggle without a strobe with a modeling light (ordered one and will hopefully have it soon) but there must be more that I can do to get a better look from my existing lighting.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## TheBiles (May 24, 2011)

Try not to post images that aren't your own. 

Sent from my HTC Glacier


----------



## rodnunley (May 24, 2011)

TheBiles said:


> Try not to post images that aren't your own.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Glacier


 
Will do.  I was going to link to his webpage but it's not safe for work.  Same with his flikr page.  That's why I put his name so he would get credit.  Should I just go ahead and remove it?


----------



## Geaux (May 24, 2011)

Shoot a higher aperture f/14ish and bump that flash power up.

Example from some of my shots.





This one was f/20, but wasn't necessary.  F/14 or 16 would have sufficed I'm sure.


----------



## Geaux (May 24, 2011)

rodnunley said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > Try not to post images that aren't your own.
> ...



The same link you used to post the image, just post that as a link.  No need to post his website.


----------



## rodnunley (May 24, 2011)

Geaux said:


> Shoot a higher aperture f/14ish and bump that flash power up.
> 
> Example from some of my shots.
> 
> ...



Awesome.  I will try that.


----------



## mrpink (May 24, 2011)

My lighting setup....




DSC_9968 by Matt Francosky, on Flickr

Resulting images...




S_P1BB by Matt Francosky, on Flickr




S_P3ww by Matt Francosky, on Flickr

I totally agree about stopping way down if you are looking for that low key lighting look.  I did these a while back (self portrait) and believe they were shot at either f/11 or f/16 in a completely blacked out basement.




p!nK


----------



## Big Mike (May 25, 2011)

The first thing you need to figure out, is the exposure.  That has nothing to do with modeling lights.  
It looks like you are starting to figure it out, but this is something that you should get right before trying to worry about the other stuff.

I doesn't sound like you have a flash meter, so you'll have to figure it out another way.  Guessing & testing isn't ideal, but it should get you close enough.  

Keep in mind that for flash exposure, you can use the aperture, the ISO, the power of the flash or the distance from the flash (not the shutter speed).


----------



## TheBiles (May 25, 2011)

Use your flash guide numbers to determine flash power.


----------



## Derrel (May 25, 2011)

Looks to me that you are simply under-exposing your shots...not enough flash power, or too low of an ISO setting, or too small an aperture, or any combination of those three things...


----------



## rodnunley (May 25, 2011)

I love how everyone has a sort of different answer on how they would approach the issue.  It's a lot of great advice and now I just have to sort through it all.  

It doesn't help that I struggle with math ... ugh.  

Also ... the guide I have claims a guide number of 34 for my flash.  Now I just have to do the research and see what that means.

I love doing things like this though.  It shows that I still have a lot to learn but at least I am seeing the results of working out how to do this stuff.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (May 25, 2011)

rodnunley said:


> Without a modeling light it's so difficult to adjust the lighting properly. Also this image is clearly under lit.


Best advice I can offer, and I hope you take this in the manner that is intended, don't post crap shots for C&C.  Why did you include #1?  You already mentioned that it is underexposed (badly), so that's a no-brainer.  If you can't bump the exposure in post, dump it to the recycle bin.  Secondly, (still on #1) why are you posting an image about lighting when you have clearly missed the target, the face, and lit the chest?  I highly doubt that was your intention, otherwise there would be other elements within the image to better define your subject.  Again another perfect reason to dump this image in the recycle bin.

The other two images are worthy of discussion, but #1 makes me wonder about your ability to self-critique.  I don't mean to be offensive, just trying to understand.


----------



## gsgary (May 25, 2011)

Looking at your examples it shows you  have not studied the shot in the link properly, he has 2 lights opposite each other, 1 high and from behind her left shoulder as a hair light and his softbox opposite at the front, the back light is harder than the front light. You could use one from behind and above with the flash zoomed to about 70mm at 1/2 power and one opposite zoomed at about 50mm bounced off some white card at full power dial it down to suit, try setting your camera to iso100, 1/125, F8 and see what you get

This shot uses a similar technique, but different tools


----------



## rodnunley (May 25, 2011)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> rodnunley said:
> 
> 
> > Without a modeling light it's so difficult to adjust the lighting properly. Also this image is clearly under lit.
> ...


 
I included #1 to illustrate how the lighting itself looked in the different ways I was shooting.  These were all test images so that I could show what I was (and clearly wasn't) doing so I could seek guidance from others in a photography forum.  

And correct me if I'm wrong but this is supposed to be a forum about learning photography.  So I thought it might be appropriate to show both what I was doing correctly and what I was doing incorrectly.  

This isn't directed solely at you but I get pretty aggravated with some of the smug and often times rude responses that people give out here.  There are a lot of very nice people around here that continue to share their advice for free (which I know lots of us appreciate). But there are also a lot of people who want to be snarky for no real purpose.

Of course the first image is crap ... but isn't talking about what is wrong with an image also a valuable way of learning?  Isn't there value in talking about why something is crap so that something can be learned from it?

Just my two cents.


----------



## rodnunley (May 25, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Looking at your examples it shows you  have not studied the shot in the link properly, he has 2 lights opposite each other, 1 high and from behind her left shoulder as a hair light and his softbox opposite at the front, the back light is harder than the front light. You could use one from behind and above with the flash zoomed to about 70mm at 1/2 power and one opposite zoomed at about 50mm bounced off some white card at full power dial it down to suit, try setting your camera to iso100, 1/125, F8 and see what you get
> 
> This shot uses a similar technique, but different tools



Thanks for your input and advice.  I have a couple of questions though.

When you say the back light is "harder" do you mean more powerful?  So the front light is dialed lower than the back light?

I will try shooting with your suggestions tonight.  Thanks again.


----------



## mrpink (May 25, 2011)

Hard light comes from a small source, also a closer to the subject source will cause the light to be hard.  It really has little to do with power.

Soft light is from a large source, think SOFTbox, also, a light source further away will be softer.






p!nK


----------



## dxqcanada (May 25, 2011)

rodnunley said:


> Also ... the guide I have claims a guide number of 34 for my flash.  Now I just have to do the research and see what that means.


 
GN = aperture x flash distance to subject
therefore ... aperture = GN / distance

The GN is noted as a distance (in meters or feet) at a given ISO (usually 100).

34 is probably meters = aprox 112ft

The GN will double as you quadruple the ISO ... so 224ft @ 400 ISO


----------



## rodnunley (May 25, 2011)

Shot this tonight.  Didn't have as much time to play as I thought I would but I think it's getting better.  I removed the grid and just used the snoot on the back flash and moved the front flash closer.  I also adjusted the camera to f8 and 1/125.  I didn't have the time to get the back light adjusted just right so it's on my shoulder more than I want it to be.  Still not perfect but I can see some improvement thanks to all of your tips.







Also got my wife to join in for a moment and moved the snooted back flash to a 12 o clock position behind her.  It's low and angled up at her.  Just wanted to see what that would do.






Both images are straight from the camera.  No work done in post.

Still lots to learn but I am having a blast playing with all this and taking to you guys about it.  Thanks again for all the kind words and assistance.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (May 26, 2011)

rodnunley said:


> I included #1 to illustrate how the lighting itself looked in the different ways I was shooting. These were all test images so that I could show what I was (and clearly wasn't) doing so I could seek guidance from others in a photography forum.
> 
> And correct me if I'm wrong but this is supposed to be a forum about learning photography. So I thought it might be appropriate to show both what I was doing correctly and what I was doing incorrectly.


Yes, this is a place for learning.  Given the fact that you obviously have some understanding of what your desired results are to be, by way of the last two images posted, there is nothing more to learn with #1 other than becoming more self-aware of the "misses" all of us get.  In my opinion, this awareness is just as important of a learning tool as knowing how to interpret your GN information.  Let the Recycle Bin become your friend.



> This isn't directed solely at you but I get pretty aggravated with some of the smug and often times rude responses that people give out here. There are a lot of very nice people around here that continue to share their advice for free (which I know lots of us appreciate). But there are also a lot of people who want to be snarky for no real purpose.


I did not intend to be rude nor snarky, thus my opening sentence.  But on the other hand, I will be direct.  Including #1 was a step backwards because it served no real purpose for you.  You knew it was under exposed, you knew the aim of the lighting was well off.  I suppose the one thing to learn though is to be astute with the images you post in an effort to increase your understanding of off camera flash.



> Of course the first image is crap ... but isn't talking about what is wrong with an image also a valuable way of learning? Isn't there value in talking about why something is crap so that something can be learned from it?


Well then, let's discuss the other images because they aren't crap and there is enough to provide feedback.

As a begining, in studio situations there are 5 basic lights with specific purposes.  Back light is not one of them.... backlight, backlighting, backlit; yes...... background light, yes.

Main / Key - This sets the mood and modeling for the subject.
Fill - This fills in the shadows created be the Main and smoothes the transition from lighted side to shadow side.
Background - This illuminates the background to provide separation from subject to background
Hair / Rim - This adds light and life to the subjects hair adding another layer of separation and dimensionality.
Accent - This adds illumination on specific areas of the subject to create a spark of interest without overpowering the image.
Okay, so with #2 - The Main lighting is pretty good as it is well controlled to illuminate the face making it stand apart as the main interest of the photo. I think turning off the Hair light was a mistake though.  The subject is melting into, or rather, being swallowed by the background where some separation would certainly add more life to the image.  The lack of detail in the shadow side is a problem.  One option to try if you didn't want the Hair light is to feather the Main light towards the camera slightly.  This will help with some extra light getting to the shadowed side.  Another option to try if you didn't want the Hair light (and this would always be my first) is to use the second flash as a Fill.  Either hotshoe mounted or better yet, slightly off lens axis on the same side as the Main light.  By using Fill flash some if not all the shadow on the face would have some detail, probably would also lessen the hard shadow from the arm of the eyeware as well as the reflection line from the glass on the left cheek.

Personal taste here, but up-the-nose shots have never been appealing to me.  With the subject looking up and to the left, a position in the lower right interset point would be more appealing.

I hope this is a more helpful post for you.


----------



## gsgary (May 26, 2011)

rodnunley said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at your examples it shows you  have not studied the shot in the link properly, he has 2 lights opposite each other, 1 high and from behind her left shoulder as a hair light and his softbox opposite at the front, the back light is harder than the front light. You could use one from behind and above with the flash zoomed to about 70mm at 1/2 power and one opposite zoomed at about 50mm bounced off some white card at full power dial it down to suit, try setting your camera to iso100, 1/125, F8 and see what you get
> ...


 

No the back light has no diffusion bare light with just a grid, front light is diffused with a softbox so it is softer, the front light is usually set higher but because the back light is bare it looks as if it is set higher 
This is how i set up for the dog shot (i didn't have room for my octobox)


----------



## AgentDrex (May 26, 2011)

Here are a couple I did with my "hobo" lighting...not a lot of people like them but the subjects and I like them...so I guess that's what counts...taken with a Canon Elura 80 (photo function) and one light (100-watt bulb in a floor lamp, cardboard box and tinfoil) pitch black room....then PP'd my glow effect into the photo...not professional but I was just starting with portraits...and still are pretty much my only ones...gotta do some new ones with this 1000d:

#1





This one was without the glow effect (obviously) and in color (again obviously):
#2





And no, I refuse to use reflectors, etc. to fill in the shadows...I LIKE HEAVY SHADOWED AREAS darnit!


----------



## gsgary (May 26, 2011)

mrpink said:


> Hard light comes from a small source, also a closer to the subject source will cause the light to be hard.  It really has little to do with power.
> 
> Soft light is from a large source, think SOFTbox, also, a light source further away will be softer.
> 
> ...


 

Light gets harder the more you move it from the subject, closer softer


----------



## AgentDrex (May 26, 2011)

Yes sir gsgary...certainly correct...if the sun is closer to us...the shadows cast will have softer edges....as it is...they are sharp as h-e double hockey sticks


----------

