# How would you have lit this?



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 25, 2018)

So I was asked by my church to champion a Christmas photo wall. I shoot with a Sony a7iii, 24-70 2.8 GM and 70-200 2.8 GM. I used to shoot Canon, had a half dozen L-series lenses, but recently jumped ship and downsized my lenses to the 2 that I used most. 

Anyway, in terms of lighting, all I have are 64” shoot-through Paul Buff umbrellas and 150WS Flashpoint strobes. As seen I only used 1 strobe and 1 umbrella, however I did add a reflector next to the tree for a little fill. 

My end results were adequate, all of the recipients loved what they received but I, of course saw room for improvement. It was the 1st year we did this so it was a learning platform for everyone. I’m just a hobbyist and I saw about 1,000 people through my line. It was quite the day. 

I shot tethered with my 24-70 at 5.6, 1/125 and ISO 100. I found that in almost every shot my highlights and shadows were high, which were quickly fixed in LR before we printed onsite with a 4x6 photo printer. I quickly added a lens correction and a bit of contrast, then printed. 

Because artificial light is new to me, I’m all ears for suggestions. Please help. I’m looking to improve in this area as I believe my church will continue to ask me about these types of projects. It was a HUGE hit on Christmas Eve for families. Thanks in advance my friends! 

BTW, I’ll buy whatever is necessary. I want to do this right. I’m already planning a new tripod and head, mine is Manfrotto but annoys the heck out of me. 








Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Dec 26, 2018)

Do you have any of the actual pictures you shot sooc?


----------



## Braineack (Dec 26, 2018)

I would have added an on-camera-axis fill light.  This would help your highlight problem, as the on-axis light would be providing an even base exposure on the subjects, then your key light wouldn't have to work as hard to bring up the exposure.


I'd also put the reflector back on the strobe so you're not losing light -- especially with such a low-powered strobe.


this is a great writeup which outlines: 45 degree Portrait Lighting Setup

what I love is how he shows the light provided by each light.  As you can see the key light alone exposes the face nicely, but the shadows are very dark and the image is very harsh.

Add in the on-axis fill directly behind/above the camera to bring all the shadows up.  You can see in this shot that overall it's really underexposed but now there's information in areas that were pitch black in the previous shot.

Then you can see in the final shot with all the lights together, he was able to get a really nice exposure.  I've always liked this post as a good workflow for setting up my lights.



Just try not to make the images look so straight out of 1970 as this guy does. rofl.


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 26, 2018)

Thanks for the replies! I’ll pull my own SOOC and post as soon as I can. 

Great advice, I’ll definitely check out that link. I’m looking to really step it up this next year in the artificial light arena without braking the bank preferably. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 27, 2018)




----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 27, 2018)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Do you have any of the actual pictures you shot sooc?


Above.

I had to downsize it a little so it would post, and my daughter was cringing at the flash, ROFL. 

This is SOOC, untouched.  Your thoughts?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 27, 2018)

First off, your results are decent, and honestly, in this situation, that's more than sufficient.  That said I think a few small tweaks would definitely have improved things.  The nice thing about a large shoot-through is that it scatters light everywhere and you have a fairly wide range of "decent lighting".  The annoying thing about a large shoot-through is that it scatters light everywhere and you get no control, and no planned shadows. 
The main thing I see for improvement in the set-up you used was raising your light.  Light normally falls on us from above; we're used to seeing that (sunlight, overhead structure lighting, street lighting, etc).  In your set-up the light is almost directly in the talent's face.  I would have gone up probably another 3' from where you are (estimating based on tripod height and assuming you're somewhere in the 5'6" - 6' height range).  If you look at the as-shot you posted, you can see that the child's face is probably a full stop brighter than the father's.  Increasing your light-height would have helped with this. 

I don't know that an on-axis fill would have helped greatly; the exposure is decent, and there are no harsh shadows that need filling.  If you do this again, consider going with two lights and reflecting umbrellas.  When I do this sort of work (and I do a LOT of it) I use a 42" reflecting umbrella as key about 30 degrees off-axis and with the light head at about the 8-9' mark and aimed down at about 30-40 degrees.  I use a large (72") reflecting umbrella just off the opposite axis (maybe ten degrees; just enough for a clear shooting path) with the light head parallel to the floor (or aimed very slightly down) at about 6' in height and 1.5 stops below key. 

A couple of general comments:  Try to avoid pushing the talent right against the backdrop; 3-4' of separation is generally a minimum if you can.  As well, give people something to do with their hands.  In this case Mom and Dad could have each rested a hand on the child's shoulder, held hands, or Dad could have tucked his fingers/thumb into a pocket.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 28, 2018)

on-axis. 10° off-axis.  same idea.  

But I agree, the large shoot-through really helped out here -- looking at the SOOC photo and the setup again, I see the light is pretty much 10-20° and why it worked out well here and didn't leave a lot of empty eye-sockets, it was pretty much able to completely flood the face with light and fall off sharply on the very side.

I also agree I think I would have raised it a touch, but I would have also moved it closer to 40-50° and added the on-axis fill.  Which will work to bring out the BG and the really harsh shadows, and it removes any harsh contrast and makes skin look better imho.


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 28, 2018)

tirediron said:


> First off, your results are decent, and honestly, in this situation, that's more than sufficient.  That said I think a few small tweaks would definitely have improved things.  The nice thing about a large shoot-through is that it scatters light everywhere and you have a fairly wide range of "decent lighting".  The annoying thing about a large shoot-through is that it scatters light everywhere and you get no control, and no planned shadows.
> The main thing I see for improvement in the set-up you used was raising your light.  Light normally falls on us from above; we're used to seeing that (sunlight, overhead structure lighting, street lighting, etc).  In your set-up the light is almost directly in the talent's face.  I would have gone up probably another 3' from where you are (estimating based on tripod height and assuming you're somewhere in the 5'6" - 6' height range).  If you look at the as-shot you posted, you can see that the child's face is probably a full stop brighter than the father's.  Increasing your light-height would have helped with this.
> 
> I don't know that an on-axis fill would have helped greatly; the exposure is decent, and there are no harsh shadows that need filling.  If you do this again, consider going with two lights and reflecting umbrellas.  When I do this sort of work (and I do a LOT of it) I use a 42" reflecting umbrella as key about 30 degrees off-axis and with the light head at about the 8-9' mark and aimed down at about 30-40 degrees.  I use a large (72") reflecting umbrella just off the opposite axis (maybe ten degrees; just enough for a clear shooting path) with the light head parallel to the floor (or aimed very slightly down) at about 6' in height and 1.5 stops below key.
> ...


Thanks a million for your input, your suggestions make perfect sense and their simplicity has me excited to try again.  I really wish the shoot weren't over and I could go back and try your suggestions, definitely next time!

Let me ask you this, in the case of a lower ceiling and the large-size umbrella I used, how would you handle that if I could not get 3' higher?  Smaller umbrella?  Softbox?  

So I currently have (2) Buff 64" shoot-throughs and (1) Buff 64" reflecting.  To be honest I've been afraid to use the reflecting as I thought it would produce too harsh of a light.  Now you have me wanting to invest in the 86" Buff reflecting to match with my 64".  Again, just been so afraid to use it, that silver coating is intimidating. 

I really didn't want the talent right up against the backdrop, however I didn't make the backdrop and I was asked to "frame the scene" with the 'r' church logo, and trim of garland left, top and right.  While this wasn't my preference, it was leadership's preference so I obliged.  Next year I plan on suggesting a larger backdrop and that they brand it top-left or top-right so it isn't blocked.  

"Mom and Dad" were my wife and I, lol, we were rushed so my 'poser' wasn't nearby to pose us (and of course I didn't take the shot or I would have re-taken.  I've never been much of a poser, hate to be in front of the camera but my wife wanted the photo.  Other photos were done very well, I just didn't want to post without permission.  My 'poser' (who I rewarded dearly) spent 2 decades as a professional before chasing another line of work; I was thankful for her that day.  



Braineack said:


> on-axis. 10° off-axis.  same idea.
> 
> But I agree, the large shoot-through really helped out here -- looking at the SOOC photo and the setup again, I see the light is pretty much 10-20° and why it worked out well here and didn't leave a lot of empty eye-sockets, it was pretty much able to completely flood the face with light and fall off sharply on the very side.
> 
> I also agree I think I would have raised it a touch, but I would have also moved it closer to 40-50° and added the on-axis fill.  Which will work to bring out the BG and the really harsh shadows, and it removes any harsh contrast and makes skin look better imho.


Thanks man!  I'll definitely give you guys' suggestions a try next time around!


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 28, 2018)

Is this what you guys mean by on-axis and off-axis?  "On" being what they have labeled as "fill" and "off" what they have labeled as "main"?


----------



## Braineack (Dec 29, 2018)

correct.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 29, 2018)

R0ck3tm@n said:


> really didn't want the talent right up against the backdrop, however I didn't make the backdrop and I was asked to "frame the scene" with the 'r' church logo, and trim of garland left, top and right. While this wasn't my preference, it was leadership's preference so I obliged. Next year I plan on suggesting a larger backdrop and that they brand it top-left or top-right so it isn't blocked.



Lighting, posing etc pretty much covered, so a comment on the logo, which you mentioned. It's an orange blob of distraction that is going to be a distraction pretty much anywhere you locate it in the frame. IMO I would seriously try to dissuade them from affixing it to the background. Perhaps incorporate something recognizable from the Church as the background, or if they are determined to have the logo on the print, then place it as a watermark at lower opacity, along with the year.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Dec 29, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> R0ck3tm@n said:
> 
> 
> > really didn't want the talent right up against the backdrop, however I didn't make the backdrop and I was asked to "frame the scene" with the 'r' church logo, and trim of garland left, top and right. While this wasn't my preference, it was leadership's preference so I obliged. Next year I plan on suggesting a larger backdrop and that they brand it top-left or top-right so it isn't blocked.
> ...



I like the watermark idea. 

Also, for a low ceiling I’ve used it as my reflector and bounced the flash off it.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 29, 2018)

In the case of low ceinglings, I get things up as high as I can, and smaller modifiers are definitely an option, as is using the ceding as a modifier as mentioned by @TreeofLifeStairs.  Smoke's comments on the logo are spot-on.  It's large (and in a photographic sense) ugly.  A lot of times our role as a photographer is correcting people's less than optimal ideas.  Non-photographers get an idea but they don't understand all of the ramifications.  The big thing that strikes me here from a branding perspective is that you'll almost never see the whole logo, generally considered a 'no-no'.

Don't go crazy buying huge umbrellas.  They have their uses, but they're not the be-all and end-all.  There's no portrait scene you can't light decently with two 42" umbrellas.  You will get significantly different light from a white shoot-thru compared to a silver reflector.  The silver will be a lot more specular and 'crisper'.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 29, 2018)

Adding to Tiredirons comment above I much prefer the versatility of a reflective umbrella. If you find the light a little to specular you can add add a diffusion panel https://www.adorama.com/paiup5di.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImdGRpM7F3wIVi1qGCh0bVgbREAQYAyABEgKGyfD_BwE


----------



## Braineack (Dec 30, 2018)

this was two 42" diffused bounce umbrellas:

main at ~40°. The other, on the same side, just to the side of the camera, about 10°




DSC_3136 by Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 30, 2018)

Braineack said:


> this was two 42" diffused bounce umbrellas:
> 
> main at ~40°. The other, on the same side, just to the side of the camera, about 10°



Interesting approach, with two lights same side, I think I'll try this in the future. One thing I noticed is the catch lights in both the man and woman appear lower then I prefer, and there appears to be a difference in the exposure on the woman and the man. Could this be an example of Tirediron's earlier comments on the height of the lights?


----------



## Braineack (Dec 30, 2018)

It's possible I could have gone higher -- it was in their living room that may have only had 8' ceilings.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 30, 2018)

R0ck3tm@n said:
			
		

> View attachment 167240



I generally like this lighting,except that your daughter's face seems overly bright. A bit of burn tool in lightroom, like three passes at Minus 0.4, ought to help. She's got a lighter complexion than Mother has, and I think the light might have been angled downward a bit, so that she was in slightly stronger light than were you two adults.Still, this light imbalance could/can be corrected in post-processing with a bit of selective correction.

As far as the lighting, it's okay! It reveals dimensionality, through shadowing. On this post, I think having the girl stand on an apple box, to bring her head and shoulders up higher, would be considered a good posing adjustment at the time of shooting, since the head heights are not working that well in the horizontal camera framing. The dress, and her shoulders/head, are just too low in relation to the adults heads for this pose. This is a classic type of formal portrait pose, and there are some ways to make the pose look its best. Head heights are one thing; shadows are another. The need for a fill light would have been almost totally eliminated, had the girl been elevated, and brought back, physically closer to the body of Mom and Dad, which would have eliminated the shadow that she caused on Dad's T-shirt and pants. When posing formal groups like this, many times (most) the people have to be very close to one another, as in actually touching, front-to-back. Again, had the child been closer to the parents, the shadow would have been lessened in width, yet still present. Still...the shadow adds a degree of "realness" through dimensionality being revealed. My issue is the daughter's overly bright face, and the way she's riding low in the frame, and is cropped off too much. She has a beautiful lace-type Christmas dress, but not very much of her, or her clothing, is shown.

An on-axis fill light, right next to or behind the camera, used to be standard for this type of shooting...it is what it is...it can make things look flat, and dimension-less (as in the above tutorial Braineack linked to)--especially when the photographer uses large umbrellas or large softboxes, which FLOOD the shooting area with lights. I was actually trained and worked in old-school formal portrait lighting; the biggest problem I see with the linked-to tutorial is that the photographer is using using modern-era, VERY large light sources with a classic, old-fashioned portrait lighting setup, which is often best with SMALL lights, like 16- to 20-inch parabolic metal reflectors with diffusion material. Lights that caused actual, visible, obvious shadows on noses,cheeks,chins,dimples,lips,etc..


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 30, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> R0ck3tm@n said:
> 
> 
> > really didn't want the talent right up against the backdrop, however I didn't make the backdrop and I was asked to "frame the scene" with the 'r' church logo, and trim of garland left, top and right. While this wasn't my preference, it was leadership's preference so I obliged. Next year I plan on suggesting a larger backdrop and that they brand it top-left or top-right so it isn't blocked.
> ...



Yeah I actually left that out, in my post-delivery notes I identified many areas of improvement, the watermark lower-right was one of them.  I agree completely, it’s distracting.  Thanks for your suggestion!


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 30, 2018)

Braineack said:


> this was two 42" diffused bounce umbrellas:
> 
> main at ~40°. The other, on the same side, just to the side of the camera, about 10°
> 
> ...



WOW, awesome results.  Thank you for posting, super excited for next year and to try all of these suggestions.  

Well in the end I’ll have 64” and 82” reflective umbrellas, figure I can pick up one size down for more cramped spaces.  For the church, in most cases I have tons of ceiling, but for personal applications I can see the smaller being handy.  Plus, they’re cheap.    


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Dec 30, 2018)

Derrel said:


> R0ck3tm@n said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Derrel, I like all of your points and agree, I think what others said, my light being low so my daughter getting blasted with light was a major contributor.  In fact that’s why she’s squinting, this is the 2nd shot and is what I found with a lot of the little ones shot that day.  The 2nd shots left them hesitating the light so I would capture the shot when they weren’t expecting it to avoid this.

Funny that my family was posted the worst, not to say others weren’t as bad but we had some really good poses.  The speed at which this happened (1,000-1,200 people in about 2.5-3 hours, posing, shot(s), quick LR process, print and information harvesting.  I’m sure my helpers were just a little on edge so mine was rushed, plus I sort-of rushed it too.  My Apple Watch was barking at me all day due to elevated heart rates, ROFL, first time I’ve ever done something like this.  Last was about 70 3-6 year olds over 3 days.


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## R0ck3tm@n (Jan 3, 2019)

One last question if I may gents, do you agree with my choice in f/5.6?  I captured anywhere from 1 person to 14, just not sure at a distance of about 8' what your typical aperture target would be.  Given that my subjects were far too close to the backdrop, frankly I know I could've gone higher.  Just curious as to your rule of thumb.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 3, 2019)

My rule of thumb is 5.6 - 8, but any time there's a question I actually drag out a tape measure and check it against a DoF table.


----------

