# B & W Portrait



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Experimenting with B & W portrait. Might as well use the Nikon F but trying it digital. Looking for improvement tips in general. Really disappointed that the pupils are huge using the monolight. Can't figure out how to get around that in the future. I noticed that a lot of European photographers have their subjects pupils big for some reason. I don't care for it, it really bugs me. I played around with this for a while and everytime I tried to bring in better tonal range, I was unhappy with the results, kept coming back to this. 
D7200, 35mm1.8, f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO100, AF-S, Center Weighted metering, WB Auto1,


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

I am not a big fan of BW portraits, but I like the hard noir-esque lighting you used. As Charley Rose knows, you can't go wrong with a black background.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> I am not a big fan of BW portraits, but I like the hard noir-esque lighting you used. As Charley Rose knows, you can't go wrong with a black background.



Thank you for the comment. I didn't think anyone would get the film noir look, that makes me happy that you see that. I have been studying on and off for several weeks into the techniques, equipment, styles, and reviews. I have been studying @tirediron's recommended book on lighting but translation to equipment has been slow. Amazing book but I am working with limited lighting budget, and lack of knowledge. I love working with lights, it seems like it opens up another dimension that better resembles my pre-visualization.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 1, 2016)

I like B&W portraits.  The exposure is spot on, but the image lacks an impact to draw the viewer into the shot.  Maybe the lack of eye contact, maybe the subject looking out of the photo, maybe the body positioned right and the head looking right ... maybe a combo of all these elements ... but for me the image isn't personal to me.


----------



## zombiesniper (Nov 1, 2016)

Very nice.
It almost looks to me as if you caught a moment instead of a portrait. As if she's mid scene.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 1, 2016)

Excellent lighting, 'though perhaps just a touch more on the crown?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2016)

If you do not like the large-ish pupils, it would be easiest to use a light that has a brighter modeling lamp in it. which would give smaller irises. Like Gary mentioned above, the photo seems impersonal to me as well...probably due to her pose and her looking out of the frame.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> I like B&W portraits.  The exposure is spot on, but the image lacks an impact to draw the viewer into the shot.  Maybe the lack of eye contact, maybe the subject looking out of the photo, maybe the body positioned right and the head looking right ... maybe a combo of all these elements ... but for me the image isn't personal to me.


OK. I guess it must draw visual contact to have more impact. I was more drawn to to the line and flow from her hair. I have other pics of her looking at the glass, I chose this because she was natural, not expecting a shutter sound.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

It is good to know that I have a handle on exposure in this. I brought out my string with nots, light meter, and reflector. So much fun.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 1, 2016)

It is a very nice portrait ... but not gripping ... compelling.  There is nothing wrong with not being compelling ... if that is yur intent.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> It is a very nice portrait ... but not gripping ... compelling.  There is nothing wrong with not being compelling ... if that is yur intent.


Thanks Gary. I would rather be compelling. However, I am motivated by the exposure value. I think I am right where I am. I have so much to improve on. So I can work on compelling now I am confident in exposure, conversions, and tonal value. Thank you very much for your direction.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 1, 2016)




----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Derrel said:


> If you do not like the large-ish pupils, it would be easiest to use a light that has a brighter modeling lamp in it. which would give smaller irises. Like Gary mentioned above, the photo seems impersonal to me as well...probably due to her pose and her looking out of the frame.


Ahh, well I invested in it, promaster 600w monolight. Maybe turn it into a snoot hair light? The model lamp is helpful bit very dim. Any suggestions?


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Gary A. said:


>


Wow. Man I got a lot to learn. Very compelling.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2016)

jcdeboever said:
			
		

> Ahh, well I invested in it, promaster 600w monolight. Maybe turn it into a snoot hair light? The model lamp is helpful bit very dim. Any suggestions?



Not sure what exact modeling lamp it uses: I found a Promaster 600 9at this URL: ProMaster PSF-600 Portable Monolight | Lighting: Portable/Photo/Stage and Studio - Lighting: Portable/Photo/Stage and Studio) that has a mere 10-Watt LED modeling lamp in it...that is going to be very dim; as far as constricting human eyeballs, a 10-Watt light is not going to do too much.

I dunno...I personally like to see COLOR in the human eyeball, so I favor brighter modeling lights; to me, that zonked out on heroin look is unappealing; for that reason, a LOT of speedlight-lit stuff looks bad to me.

Modeling lamps range from 10- to 25-Watt, to 3 x 25 Watt, to 100, 150-, or even 250- or 300-Watt quartz halogen bulbs; different types of lights have different usefulness. The difference between a single, 10- to 25-Watt lamp and a 150 or 250-Watt quartz halogen light is very real; with the first type, you can barely focus unless the lens is fast and the conditions are optimal; with the 150- to 250-Watt quartz modeling lights, there is PLENTY of light to both constrict the eye, so you have color in the eye, and plenty of light to focus by, and to 'see' by. One give you a dimly-lit studio, the other *lights up* the shooting area.

In the current era, there's a trend toward low power draw, and low-Wattage LED bulbs, whereas older, professionally-oriented lights tend more toward higher-draw bulbs in the 100-,150-,250-Watt range. There is no one, specific answer.

As far as snoots go: not a big fan of snoots, never have been. I prefer honeycomb grid accessories in 7,10,and 20 degree spread; More useful, more adaptable than a snoot.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

Derrel said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is the 10w. Crap. So if you made the same mistake I did, what would be your next purchase?


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 1, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


How did you get the dark thirds background? Wonderful really.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2016)

[QUOTE="jcdeboever"[/QUOTE] It is the 10w. Crap. So if you made the same mistake I did, what would be your next purchase?[/QUOTE]

I dunno...depends on how important studio type lights are to you...depends on budget...maybe it's no big thing to you...opinions are divided on light types...I prefer pack and head systems, most younger people like monolights...


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 1, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...


This was window lighting and the background dark-light, I think, was created by the corner of the room.  This was taken in her college apartment.  Hasselblad 500 C/M, Zeiss 80mm, Tri-X.


----------



## otherprof (Nov 2, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> Experimenting with B & W portrait. Might as well use the Nikon F but trying it digital. Looking for improvement tips in general. Really disappointed that the pupils are huge using the monolight. Can't figure out how to get around that in the future. I noticed that a lot of European photographers have their subjects pupils big for some reason. I don't care for it, it really bugs me. I played around with this for a while and everytime I tried to bring in better tonal range, I was unhappy with the results, kept coming back to this.
> D7200, 35mm1.8, f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO100, AF-S, Center Weighted metering, WB Auto1,
> 
> View attachment 129689


A note on large pupils: psychologists confirm that when you see something that interests you, your pupils dilate. Someone being interested in us makes them more appealing and, literally attractive.  Women in the Renaissance knew this instinctively, and would put drops of belladonna in their eyes to dilate the pupils and make them, the women, more attractive.


----------

