# Frustrated with harsh shadows!  Help!



## jwbryson1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Below are 2 quick and dirty shots of my quick and dirty basement "studio" and a sample image of my daughter.  I am trying to use the softboxes to get some nice shadows on her face but I am failing miserably and getting sick of this!  Please help me.  What am I doing wrong?!?!

What I am calling my key light (camera left) is on 1/16 power and my fill light (camera right) is on 1/64 power.  I am not happy with the shadows I am creating.  YN 560 Mark II units fired with Phottix Strato II radio triggers, Nikon D90, 1/200 second, f/5.6 I think, ISO 500.

1.  Studio shot (it's a mess):

http://

 Wide Angle Studio 2 by jwbryson1, on Flickr


2.  Studio shot 2:

http://

 Wide Angle Studio by jwbryson1, on Flickr



3.  Portrait 1

http://

 TEB Harsh Shadows by jwbryson1, on Flickr


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 17, 2012)

You are letting yourself get frustrated. Stop. Slow down. It's really very simple-unless you let your frustration take over.
LOOK at your image. 1. Are you happy with the exposure from your key light? I'd say you are. 2. What are you not happy with: the shadows. 3.LOOK at those shadows and where are they falling? On the right side of your subject. SO, what do you need to do to make the shadows a little less? 
I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with your key light.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 17, 2012)

One more thing to add here: Your lights are very far away from your subject. The further a light source is from the subject the harsher the light and shadows will be. The closer the light source the softer the light will be on the subject.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 17, 2012)

I don't see that as too bad at all.  As MLeet suggested, bring your lights in as close as you can (generally they should only be just out of frame) without killing the exposure.  Next, reposition the child so that her shoulders are 30-ish degrees to the camera and she is looking into the lens NOT the light.  'Football' shoulders never look good on a female, regardless of age!  The other thing that will really help is to get some background/separation light in the equation.  If you don't have a third light, then replace the fill light with a large reflector close in, and use that light as a hair/rim or background light.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 17, 2012)

I thought the further away they are the more dispersed and spread out they would be because of falloff.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 17, 2012)

I put the softboxes MUCH closer to her and added a 3rd light for rim/hair lighting.  The hair light was not diffused--straight speedlight due to lack of time.  I am more worried about my key and fill at the moment.

Look better?  You people are GOLDEN!!

http://

 Revised Light Placement by jwbryson1, on Flickr


----------



## KmH (Nov 17, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I thought the further away they are the more dispersed and spread out they would be because of falloff.


Nope.

The further away the light source is the smaller it appears to be, and because of falloff, to get the same exposure you then have to turn the power up, which negates the diffussion and spread distance adds.

Smaller apparent light sources also make more defined, harsher shadow edges.

By placing a modified light source close, it becomes apparently much larger, requires less power to make the same exposure, and delivers softer light with more diffuse shadow edges.


----------



## Tee (Nov 17, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I put the softboxes MUCH closer to her and added a 3rd light for rim/hair lighting.  The hair light was not diffused--straight speedlight due to lack of time.  I am more worried about my key and fill at the moment.
> 
> Look better?  You people are GOLDEN!!
> 
> ...



You should short light this.  I bet it would make the image stronger.  The hair light is a bit too strong.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 17, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I put the softboxes MUCH closer to her and added a 3rd light for rim/hair lighting.  The hair light was not diffused--straight speedlight due to lack of time.  I am more worried about my key and fill at the moment.
> 
> Look better?  You people are GOLDEN!!
> 
> ...


Much nicer!!!
Tone down that hair light!!!


----------



## kundalini (Nov 17, 2012)

You're killing (canceling) your modeling (shadows) by having your Fill light so far to the opposite side of the Main light.  Try "feathering" the Main light towards the camera so that the center of your light source is crossing in front of the subject.  Try moving your Fill light behind the camera along the lens axis.  Then try moving the Fill towards the Main in the same arc from your subject up to 18" off lens axis.  This will give you an idea of how the Fill will react with the Main to create the modeling.  Try having the Fill light 1 to 3 stops less than your Main.  Snoot the Hair light to tighten the beam, this can be "feathered" as well, to just "kiss" your subjects hair, not lighting it up.


----------



## shefjr (Nov 17, 2012)

Definitely a big difference! I have no critique other than thanks for this thread. I've been stalking this post to learn from your mistakes and or trial and error. Honestly I'm sure I'll still have issues when I play with lighting, but hopefully some of this sticks. It's great to have such knowledgeable people to help.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 17, 2012)

Yep, when you want soft light, the general strategy is to have your light source as close as it can get without being in your actual picture.  The only way you could get away with having lights that far back and be soft is if your softboxes were HUGE.  Which, obviously they're not.  If you want soft light, push it in close, and turn your power down.  

What makes light soft is how big it 'looks' from the point of view of the subject.  THink about what a light looks like when something gets closer to you perspective wise, it gets bigger.  So, to have soft light, you can either have it really close, or be really big (or both for ultra soft light).  

WIth speed light softboxes, if I want soft, diffuse light, I'll often have the light no more than a couple feet away from my subject.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 17, 2012)

My only nit-pick is that her pupils are dilated.  There's an easy way to avoid that but not being a portrait shooter I can't remember what it is.  Fire a modeling flash so that the pupils will close down or something simple like that.  Someone will know I'm sure.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 17, 2012)

shefjr said:


> Definitely a big difference! I have no critique other than thanks for this thread. I've been stalking this post to learn from your mistakes and or trial and error. Honestly I'm sure I'll still have issues when I play with lighting, but hopefully some of this sticks. It's great to have such knowledgeable people to help.




Stick around and keep learning.  I've been on this board for under 2 years and have made some nice friends.  Good people with an incredible depth of knowledge who are willing to share and help others learn.  The thing I have taken away from my experience here is to give everybody a chance and pay the knowledge forward.


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 17, 2012)

If you haven't already read this from one of the fathers of modern portraiture.

Zeltsman Apporach to Traditionla Classic Portraiture

You might want to copy it to some where because it's getting harder and harder to find.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 18, 2012)

Better?  I got my hair light in place this morning.

http://

 Taylor Hair Light by jwbryson1, on Flickr


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 18, 2012)

^^^^
seems about 1/3 stop underexposed


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 18, 2012)

Agreed.  Thanks.  Tweak #2.  My only gripe with this is that her skin looks a bit bright.  I think that's why I tend to underexpose these shots...

http://

 Taylor Hair Light 2 by jwbryson1, on Flickr


----------



## ratssass (Nov 18, 2012)

...i hope your daughter is being well compensated   :waiting::waiting::waiting::waiting:


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 18, 2012)

I think the skin tone looks bright because of the black background.  It's technically correct in your revised shot.  You've stumbled upon the exact reason you don't see black backgrounds for portraits of caucasians all that often.  With traditional lighting, it's hard to really get the skin tones to look right with a black background.  When they're correct they look too bright.  If you compensate for the background, it looks too dark.  And finding a compromise point rarely works either.  Black backgrounds work for very dramatic portrait lighting, but your traditional soft lighting portrait, you probably want a medium grey.


----------



## KmH (Nov 18, 2012)

A guideline I used - facial skin highlights should be between 235 and 240 in the red channel. The darkest area, opposite the main light, should not be darker than 15 in any channel.

In the photo in post #18, the highlight on her right cheek measures only 186 in the red channel using ACR's Color Sampler tool.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 18, 2012)

KmH said:


> A guideline I used - facial skin highlights should be between 235 and 240 in the red channel. The darkest area, opposite the main light, should not be darker than 15 in any channel.
> 
> In the photo in post #18, the highlight on her right cheek measures only 186 in the red channel using ACR's Color Sampler tool.



Yup, if you ignore the background, even that shot is slightly underexposed.  Black backgrounds really mess with portraits.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 18, 2012)

ratssass said:


> ...i hope your daughter is being well compensated   :waiting::waiting::waiting::waiting:



 She has a roof over her head, clothes on her back, a bike, unlimited Xbox games, and it goes on and on.

If you don't like the images, go look elsewhere.  :er:


EDIT:  I am trying to learn portrait lighting and she jumps at the chance to pose and be silly in front of the camera. Being my model is compensation to her.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 18, 2012)

KmH said:


> A guideline I used - facial skin highlights should be between 235 and 240 in the red channel. The darkest area, opposite the main light, should not be darker than 15 in any channel.
> 
> In the photo in post #18, the highlight on her right cheek measures only 186 in the red channel using ACR's Color Sampler tool.




Keith, this is a bit over my head (I will do my research on your reply), but if good tones fall between 235-240 and she's at 186, doesn't that mean that it needs to be brighter?  Am I misunderstanding your response?

 Truth be told, once I learned how to get the blacked out backgrounds, I really liked them which is why I tend to shoot them.  I have a white muslin and a gray/marble muslin backdrop that I hope to try later today for the first time to see what I get.

I assume to be sure to get really white backgrounds, I should shoot for the ambient light about 2 stops overexposed?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2012)

I think you still have the main and fill lights too low, and too far off to the side...it looks to me like you are cross-lighting these...I think you'd do better to move to a single main light and no fill light. I do not really see any harsh shadows...shadows show us shape...

The catchlights in her eyes seem too low to me...and I can see two lights reflected in the catchlights in her eyes, and both lights appear too low,and there seems to be no shadow under her nose...this is not quite what I want to see in a portrait. The main light needs to have a "direction", from where it is coming from....but the fill light being placed identically, or nearly so, on the opposite side, is canceling out the main light's shadow-creation effect. So...I say, try it with JUST the main light on her face, and if you want that hairlight effect, well, keep using that. But I would eliminate the fill light.

I think what you need to do is get the main light VERY close to her, and a bit higher, so the light kind of "rains down on her" from an angle...and the angle I am thinking of is with the light high enough so that the main light's catchlight shows up HIGH on the eyeball,well,well,well above the center-level of the eyeball, and somewhere between the 10 to 2 o'clock placement. Even with shadows, that oughtta look pretty good. Look for a shadow to be cast by the nose; a shadow that comes downward, and slightly off to the side of the bottom of the nose, and which does NOT touch her upper lip...that is a pretty traditional main light height, and one that looks natural, creates sparkly eyes, and looks good.

Problems like those you are having are pretty common when trying to learn how to light using speedlights, with NO modeling lights, and no on-site mentor, and basically, on your own by trial and error.


----------



## Dao (Nov 18, 2012)

I am not expert on this.  But I think I may try to bring the main light a little bit higher (and closer) and aim down with a white reflector at her waist level to bounce some light back up.

Edit: Next time, I need to type faster than Derrel


----------



## ratssass (Nov 19, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > ...i hope your daughter is being well compensated   :waiting::waiting::waiting::waiting:
> ...



WOW..............relax,dude..........it was meant  "tongue in cheek".  my apologies....


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 19, 2012)

ratssass said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ratssass said:
> ...




No sweat---just working too hard for off the cuff comments like that.  Plus, I had been drinking for hours at that point. I'm good now.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 19, 2012)

With the last photo posted, you are still cross-lighting your subject, but have moved your Hair light to a position where it has become a Rim light.

I threw this together this morning.  See if it makes any sense to you.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 19, 2012)

kundalini said:


> With the last photo posted, you are still cross-lighting your subject, but have moved your Hair light to a position where it has become a Rim light.
> 
> I threw this together this morning.  See if it makes any sense to you.




Graphically, it makes sense to me.  Logically, it does not make sense to me because I have never seen a fill light (1) that far from the subject relative to the key light, and (2) located on the same side of the camera as the key light.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2012)

Yeah, most people place the fill light on the opposite side of the camera, but what Kundalini's TEXT says is to place the main light anywhere from *directly behind the camera *(ie, directly on-axis, AKA the *CLASSIC* *on-axis fill-light approach*), to as much as 18 inches on the same side as the main light. Anyway...looking at that actual drawing he offered, the majority of the fill light will be blocked by the softbox that is the MAIN LIGHT . In the drawing as shown, the very weak edges of the fill light's beam will hit the shadowed side of the subject, with the way the subject is shown placed. So.....his drawing is going to provide very weak fill light. The DISTANCES shown seem pretty reasonable to me, given identical power...especially considering the way the user creates those diagrams at onlinelightingdiagrams.com....one extra pull off that bottle and the distances go all to he((!! lol. But seriously, the site's a bit tricky to use in terms of exact distances.

But, the thing is...Kundalini's TEXT and his diagram both have multiple good suggestions. Subject's body angled, check. Softbox for main pretty close, check. Hair light cut wayyy down so it just kisses side of head, check. Feather the main light, check. Place main for 10 to 2 o'clock catchlight, check.

The BIGGEST mistake "most people" make is to set up the main light on one side, and then set up a so-called "fill" on the opposite side at the exact, same angle...which is totally,totally,totally awful. Although I normally set my fill light right next to the camera, on the opposite side of the camera as my main light, his diagram, as-shown, WILL WORK as a fill light, at the placement stated (in text, *right behind the camera*) and even 18 inches off to the "wrong" side; with the fill light being wither a softbox placed as shown or an umbrella, the light that hits on the shadowed side will be "fill light", and it will be WEAK, and acting as "fill", and NOT, most definitely not, as a competing main light source that was erroneously fired in from the "wrong side".


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 19, 2012)

When you place the fill behind the camera and on axis as described, pardon my ignorance, where does the photographer stand so he does not block the fill light?  Or do you raise the fill above the photographer's head and point it down?  :scratch:


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 19, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> When you place the fill behind the camera and on axis as described, pardon my ignorance, where does the photographer stand so he does not block the fill light?  Or do you raise the fill above the photographer's head and point it down?  :scratch:



Put it just to the right of you or above your or below you. As close as you can get to on axis. The point it that it's not going to be powerful enough to generate it's own shadows. It's use is to cook off some of the shadows from the main light if they're too over powering.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2012)

There is plenty of light being projected by an umbrella, or a softbox, to make the fill light. If you were working with studio flash with continuous quartz modeling lamps in each flash head, you'd be able to literally "see" this wall of light...but since you are working with speedlights, you do not have that advantage...

...in that same vein, I think you might still be placing your main light too LOW in relation to your daughter's eye-height. Working in a basement, even with a child of her age, I think she ought to be seated in order to get that eye catchlight HIGHER up on the eyeball. In the most-recent shot I saw (the white backdrop shot you posted in another thrread, this AM) , the catchlight and nose shadow both appear to be still a bit too low to be considered optimal.

Not trying to be elitist or snobby or anything, but the struggles you are having constitute a good example of why I have long maintained that for beginners, studio flash units with modeling lights in them, allow the beginner to make MUCH faster progress; because he or she can *literally SEE*, in real time, exactly WHAT then lights "do" when placed in different locations and at different heights. You are learning things "the hard way", without many advantages from your lighting gear itself.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 19, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Not trying to be elitist or snobby or anything, but the struggles you are having constitute a good example of why I have long maintained that for beginners, studio flash units with modeling lights in them, allow the beginner to make MUCH faster progress; because he or she can *literally SEE*, in real time, exactly WHAT then lights "do" when placed in different locations and at different heights. You are learning things "the hard way", without many advantages from your lighting gear itself.




Not at all.  I'm here to learn and I understand my limits.  My basement is unfinished as you can see from my post, and the things I struggle with are a low ceiling and exposed beams + light reflecting off of metal AC vents which can move the light in various directions.  I'm good with that and it will come in time.  The worst part is all the toys and crap I have to work around.  Now those are a pain in the a$$!  :lmao:


----------



## kundalini (Nov 19, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Yeah, most people place the fill light on the opposite side of the camera, but what Kundalini's TEXT says is to place the main light anywhere from *directly behind the camera *(ie, directly on-axis, AKA the *CLASSIC* *on-axis fill-light approach*), to as much as 18 inches on the same side as the main light. Anyway...looking at that actual drawing he offered, the majority of the fill light will be blocked by the softbox that is the MAIN LIGHT . In the drawing as shown, the very weak edges of the fill light's beam will hit the shadowed side of the subject, with the way the subject is shown placed. So.....his drawing is going to provide very weak fill light. The DISTANCES shown seem pretty reasonable to me, given identical power...especially considering the way the user creates those diagrams at onlinelightingdiagrams.com....one extra pull off that bottle and the distances go all to he((!! lol. But seriously, the site's a bit tricky to use in terms of exact distances.
> 
> But, the thing is...Kundalini's TEXT and his diagram both have multiple good suggestions. Subject's body angled, check. Softbox for main pretty close, check. Hair light cut wayyy down so it just kisses side of head, check. Feather the main light, check. Place main for 10 to 2 o'clock catchlight, check.
> 
> The BIGGEST mistake "most people" make is to set up the main light on one side, and then set up a so-called "fill" on the opposite side at the exact, same angle...which is totally,totally,totally awful. Although I normally set my fill light right next to the camera, on the opposite side of the camera as my main light, his diagram, as-shown, WILL WORK as a fill light, at the placement stated (in text, *right behind the camera*) and even 18 inches off to the "wrong" side; with the fill light being wither a softbox placed as shown or an umbrella, the light that hits on the shadowed side will be "fill light", and it will be WEAK, and acting as "fill", and NOT, most definitely not, as a competing main light source that was erroneously fired in from the "wrong side".


Yeah, I got a little flustered this morning with the Lighting tool and the time constraints I had to do it in.  Just remember that it is a diagram, not a plan.

I got the useful information about setting the Fill light as described in the diagram from Ben, most notably from thephotocamel dot com as Benji and is often linked for his writing of *The Rules of Good Portraiture*.  In his studio, he will use two less powerful heads bounced off a white wall for his Fill light.  I've picked his brain a few times on-line and on the phone.  Although he is very much a traditional portraiture photographer, there is much to be learned, even if his style doesn't match yours.


----------



## Dubaiian (Nov 19, 2012)

Hi Guys,  


I am reading this thread with great interest and really appreciate all of the knowledge being shared.   Whenever I do portraits, I am also limited to speed lights, reflectors and smallish softboxes.   Do any of you more experienced guys have a recommendation for a first "proper" lighting setup?  I don't want to break the bank so just something that would get me going?   Based upon Derrels comments they should have modelling ability.  

 Have stands etc and some modifiers as mentioned sois it possible just to buy the lights and power alone?

Any ideas?


----------

