# A few from recent corporate shot



## Robin Usagani (Aug 1, 2012)

Hopefully this thread doesn't end up like the other portrait thread.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 2, 2012)

Very nice Robin; well shot!  For the benefit of others, perhaps you could describe your lighting set-up for these?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 2, 2012)

shoot trough umbrella on the right high and really close to the subject 30 degree from me.   Bounced umbrella on the left 90 degree from me.

The background is actually just a wall.  I actually shot their corporate photos about 2 years ago but there has been death and change in staff members.  I know I will have this wall.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 2, 2012)

Really nice, Robin! These are excellent examples of the Corporate Portrait! Did you consider either rim light, or possibly lighting the background separately for better separation?


----------



## OrionsByte (Aug 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> shoot trough umbrella on the right high and really close to the subject 30 degree from me.   Bounced umbrella on the left 90 degree from me.
> 
> The background is actually just a wall.  I actually shot their corporate photos about 2 years ago but there has been death and change in staff members.  I know I will have this wall.



Interesting.  I figured out the lighting on the right, and realized that the effect on the background behind them was just the light reflecting off the wall, so I realized you must have had it pretty high, but I wouldn't have guessed you had a second light on the left.  I guess it's mostly just softening the shadows up a bit, but I don't even see that light reflected in their eyes.  I'm guessing you were either shooting TTL with the flash comp for the flash on the left dialed down a few stops, or you were shooting manual and it was set to a fairly low power.

Am I close?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 2, 2012)

Never shoot with a TTL on studio setting.  All manual.  You dont see the catch light on the left because it is next to them.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 2, 2012)

last week I took some heat from forum members for saying that you dont need a handheld meter as much with DSLR as opposed to film (since you can preview your shot).  Well, that's what I did.  Maybe I am just lucky, maybe my eyes are calibrated , or maybe I am just a dumb ass for saying what I said.  Maybe these shots are really poor since I have not done studio setting photos fro that long.  You be da judge.


----------



## j_mejia17 (Aug 2, 2012)

I agree with you, a light meter is NOT necessary. Ive done some studio work and even I was able to dial in the light just by trial and error. Im sure it would be easier and faster with a light meter but its not impossible to get it right by using instinct and common sense.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 2, 2012)

I think it is a luxury item.  I would love to have one eventually.   Most of the time I am only using 1 or 2 light sources for a group shot at weddings and not doing anything fancy.  I absolutely do not need one on that scenario.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2012)

Not too bad.One thing to watch for on portraits of people who wear eyeglasses is what the camera lens sees THROUGH the outside lens. In the man's individual portrait, we can see the distortion his right eyeglass lens causes. At the cheekline, his head shrinks inward, due to the effect of his eyeglass lens...if his head had been turned a bit more, that would have been avoided. This flaw does not look too bad at this small web size, but in a closer view it would look very bad. In the dual portrait, you can see the camera's view is more straight-on, and does not cause that.

These shots show how much better OCF and an umbrella looks that just ad hoc light! Good use of the wall, dropped to darkish gray...color-neutral, kind of formal and business-like. Her nose shadow looks a bit stronger than his, and SHE has kind of a more-aggressive and harder light than he does...perhaps that's okay though, but I think she looks a wee bit too hard-lighted. It's always a challenge when there's no modeling light to get the light and the subject positioned EXACTLY, shot-to-shot or when the subject changes his/her relationship to the flash.

As far as a light meter: a MUCH more-valuable tool is a "real" studio flash, that has a continuous light source as a modeling light; it can REALLY help in avoiding eyeglass reflections and surprises in where the shadows fall, and it REALLY aids in getting the EXACT placement of the shadows from the nose and chin. A good trade off is the modeling light of a monolight or studio electronic flash system over the meter, if you have to choose just one...

If one wants to improve his/her lighting skills and set-ups, modeling lights will help a lot faster than the strobist-type shooting blind system.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Really nice, Robin! These are excellent examples of the Corporate Portrait! Did you consider either rim light, or possibly lighting the background separately for better separation?



I didnt have much room.  My back is almost on the wall already with 50mm and I cant make them stand farther from the wall.






Derrel said:


> Not too bad.One thing to watch for on portraits of people who wear eyeglasses is what the camera lens sees THROUGH the outside lens. In the man's individual portrait, we can see the distortion his right eyeglass lens causes. At the cheekline, his head shrinks inward, due to the effect of his eyeglass lens...if his head had been turned a bit more, that would have been avoided. This flaw does not look too bad at this small web size, but in a closer view it would look very bad. In the dual portrait, you can see the camera's view is more straight-on, and does not cause that.
> 
> These shots show how much better OCF and an umbrella looks that just ad hoc light! Good use of the wall, dropped to darkish gray...color-neutral, kind of formal and business-like. Her nose shadow looks a bit stronger than his, and SHE has kind of a more-aggressive and harder light than he does...perhaps that's okay though, but I think she looks a wee bit too hard-lighted. It's always a challenge when there's no modeling light to get the light and the subject positioned EXACTLY, shot-to-shot or when the subject changes his/her relationship to the flash.
> 
> As far as a light meter: a MUCH more-valuable tool is a "real" studio flash, that has a continuous light source as a modeling light; it can REALLY helk in avoiding eyeglass reflections and surprises in where the shadows fall, and it REALLY aids in getting the EXACT placement of the shadows from the nose and chin. A good trade off is the modeling light over the meter, if you have to choose just one...



Good observation derrel.  I changed the lighting on her a bit because of her hair.  I moved the main light closer to me and her because the hair on the left was causing too much shadow.  Good point about the glasses too.  I noticed it when I edited it.  Didnt notice it on my preview screen.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2012)

Let me clarify one thing---avoiding eyeglass glares is the MOST-critical thing....and you did that very well. Eyeglasses can be a MAJOR PITA, at times, and it depends on the camwera-to-subject alignment, the eyeglasses and their lenses, their curvature/size, the light source(s) used, and the presence of any ambient light that might cause glares off the lenses. You did very well on controlling eyeglass glares!


----------



## KABfoto (Aug 2, 2012)

These look to me like fine examples of corporate photography. Thanks for sharing the lighting setup also. Since I mostly do outdoor photography with wildlife and some sports (which I am nearer to), I haven't really done any portrait work indoors myself. One of my weakest areas as a photographer is using artificial light and lighting setups. It is something I am hoping to learn more about on this forum.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 2, 2012)

Nice exposures and poses, but there are some inconsistencies in the paint around their heads. I would smooth them out. Should be really easy and make the images look a touch cleaner.


----------



## ababysean (Aug 3, 2012)

Oh these are very nice!  

I think they look great, skin tones are wonderful, they are shadowed to define their faces.  The lighting suggests a powerful person with class.

Good job!


----------



## Designer (Aug 3, 2012)

Just from an ignorant, non-professional, I am wondering why the 3/4 shot?  Are all the other protraits done this way?  

We see that each of them has to do something with their hands, and to me it just kind of throws another unnecessary twist into the mix.  See the gentleman chose to clasp his hands in front, making his suit wrinkle up.  The lady chose to place her hands behind her, throwing her ribcage downward.  I would rather have seen the frame go up to just under the ribs, and tell the subjects to simply let their hands fall to their sides.

But hey, that's just me.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 3, 2012)

Designer said:


> Just from an ignorant, non-professional, I am wondering why the 3/4 shot?  Are all the other protraits done this way?
> 
> We see that each of them has to do something with their hands, and to me it just kind of throws another unnecessary twist into the mix.  See the gentleman chose to clasp his hands in front, making his suit wrinkle up.  The lady chose to place her hands behind her, throwing her ribcage downward.  I would rather have seen the frame go up to just under the ribs, and tell the subjects to simply let their hands fall to their sides.
> 
> But hey, that's just me.



There are a lot of choices man.  I let them decide to choose whichever they want to use on their website.  I updated the first post and show more.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 5, 2012)

I dig that last guy's tie dimple. A man should tie his tie well, and he's done it perfectly!


----------



## TheoGraphics (Aug 6, 2012)

these are very nice, schwetty! corporate portraits are something i'd like to become more comfortable with, and these are great inspiration!


----------



## spacefuzz (Aug 7, 2012)

These are great!

But shouldn't all studio photography be boudoir?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 8, 2012)

Gah... just got a feedback from them.  They said they are not liking the dark background.  I did light the background with a speedlight but  I didt like how the paint on the wall is a little shiny.  I really thought I nailed these shots and they look so classy.


----------



## TheoGraphics (Aug 14, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Gah... just got a feedback from them.  They said they are not liking the dark background.  I did light the background with a speedlight but  I didt like how the paint on the wall is a little shiny.  I really thought I nailed these shots and they look so classy.



you did nail em. it just comes down to personal preference and, for better or for worse, the client is always right in this case, haha


----------

