August 21, 2010

positioning your subject – direction of light & choice of background

Taking cover from the rain under this awning, we ended up in the same spot where I took this available light portrait posted here previously.  Looking along the wall at the same angle, the black paint of the wall reflected the light from behind, completely changing the character of the background.  Since the available light was low level, and not flattering, we added some light from an off-camera flash in a softbox …

Shooting nearly completely in line with the flash, the light on Catherine was very even.  Or flat.  (Depends on how you want to perceive it.  (One man’s meat is another man’s poison .. and all that.) As you can see here, shooting more straight-on to the wall, it does indeed look black.

But moving positioning the light, and myself and the model at angles to each other … I was able to get the light from the background, and more dramatic light on Catherine, as in the top image.  As you can see in the pull-back shot, there is a huge amount of random clutter outside the frame.  Zooming to 165mm and moving closer to Catherine, and shooting along the wall … isolated her against the out-of-focus colors in the background.

Even though off-camera light was used here, the approach is very much in line as described in the previous post where we just used available light to photograph Catherine.  But once again it was a combination of how I, as the photographer, position myself and the model and the background in relation to the light and the background. It’s a repeatable approach that works pretty much every time to give successful straight-forward portraits on location.

Settings for the photo at the top:
1/80 @ f2.8 @ 640 ISO;  TTL flash at -0.7 EV

Equipment used during this photo session:
Nikon D3;   Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S II (B&H);  Nikon SB-900 (B&H);
Lastolite EZYBOX 24×24 softbox (B&H);  Nikon SD-9 battery pack (B&H)
Manfrotto 680B monopod (B&H);
brass stud to attach softbox to monopod (B&H)

 

 

help support this website

{ 15 comments. } Add a Comment

1 Bob Harrington August 22, 2010 at 7:54 am

HI Neil,

I’m looking forward the the August 26 B+H Eventspace Lecture. Great posts and job. You need to get your assistant one of those things the marching bands use to hold the flags at their waist. I think California Sunbounce makes one.

Best,

Bob

Reply

2 Neil vN August 22, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Oh, she doesn’t have to be super-tough to hold up just one of them. ; )

Neil vN

Reply

3 Bob Harrington August 22, 2010 at 3:01 pm

Whoa! I can’t wait to meet the real Charles Atlas of Photography!

Reply

4 Roman August 22, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Hi Neil,

what’s is the specific about your decision about compensate TTL flash to FEC -0,7, when you are using the off camera softbox. I saw it by previous posts also.
Thanks
Roman

Reply

5 Neil vN August 22, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Roman, since this is TTL flash, I have to control the exposure with FEC. In this case the test shot was over-bright. So I dialed down the FEC until I liked what I saw on my camera’s preview.

Neil vN

Reply

6 David August 22, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Wow! Kinda reminds me of the old song by Snap – I’ve got the power! :-)

3 cameras, 2 softboxes and you still manage to take photos, amazing! (Kidding)

Speaking of which, I just bought the Lastolite Hot Shoe EZYBOX Softbox Kit – 24×24″ (60x60cm) on you for your recommendation. So easy to assemble. Thank you!

One quick question, being a photography blog, why does the spell checker throw a wobbly when typing the word “softbox / softboxes” in the ‘Leave a comment’ box?

Take care,

David

PS: It’s a good job you didn’t get any planes coming in to land! :-)

Reply

7 Neil vN August 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm

I keep trying to tell everyone how hardcore I am. ; )
Actually, what happened was that I wanted the person who was helping me, to also shoot .. and by this time during the workshop, we had combined the models. So I took over the light-stand duties.

I find the same spellchecker anomaly with ‘speedlights’ and ‘softbox’.

Neil vN

Reply

8 Dajuan August 22, 2010 at 9:06 pm

OK, TTL flash. So that’s explains the double catch lights in the second image. Is that just the signal from the master, or additional fill? Either way, very, very cool.

Reply

9 Neil vN August 22, 2010 at 9:11 pm

I’m not sure why TTL flash would imply a double catch-light?

Zooming in on the original image, it would appear like the one catch-light is from the softbox, and the other from the sky.

Neil vN

Reply

10 Stephen August 23, 2010 at 5:28 pm

If I can consistently get shots like the second one in this blog, I’d still be happy. However, I do understand what you mean about the background. It is really dark and lacking “punch.”

Reply

11 Hansie Myburgh September 8, 2010 at 8:22 am

Hi Neil, in this http://neilvn.com/tangents/images/models/catherine/NV1_7118-900.jpg shot how do you mount your flash to a softbox? I have a Canon 580EX II but I use the umbrellas that look like a softbox and would like to mount my flash to a propper softbox like this.

Love you work, busy with your book on camera flash now.

Kind Regards
Hansie

Reply

12 Stephen September 8, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Hansie,
Neil used a Lastolite Ezybox to mount the Nikon SB-900. It should work for Canon flashes as well.

See this post of his: http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/06/06/lastolite-ezybox/

Reply

13 Hansie Myburgh September 9, 2010 at 3:16 am

Thanks Stephen. I looks awesome. Will check it out.

Reply

14 Martin September 9, 2010 at 11:11 am

Hi Neil,
Thanks for yet another interesting article. From what I have gathered, reading through your website, is that you dislike any shadow cast from the flash (shadow being distracting and providing evidence that a flash was used). However, what I am trying to understand is that shadow can be important as it creates a more “three dimensional” (depth) effect to an image. Just to clarify I am referring to shadows on a model’s face and not background shadow. In the first image there is an obvious shadow (on the model’s face) and you did this on purpose to create more depth to the portrait. The second image has a small but noticeable shadow beneath the model’s nose (very few images I have seen of yours show any sign of shadow). Was this also intentional, unavoidable in this instance or just to emphasise that the first image is better in avoiding a “flat” look? Looking at the second image (and lets assume this is the angle you wanted the picture) given the model’s skin tone if there was not a slight shadow under her nose it would look VERY flat and her nose would be hardly noticeable. I have also read the very good article on this site by Chuck Arlund (Simple & Effective on-location lighting techniques) and notice some harsh shadows under the model’s nose yet they look to me like excellent images. I do appreciate that there is leeway on what is an acceptable shadow and to some extent a photographer’s artistic style. I guess what I am trying to understand is how you would decide when shadow is effective or distracting?
Regards,
Martin

Reply

15 Neil vN September 9, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Martin … what I dislike is that hard flash shadow from an on-camera flash, when pointed directly at the subject. Especially when used indoors.

However, this doesn’t mean I don’t want that interplay between highlights and shaded areas that give our subjects shape and dimension.

Removing all shadow would make an image flatly lit. While there are times we want this, usually we want some kind of shading on our subjects. It just is how light works.

Neil vN

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: