A couple of simple questions.

[Rebel]

Hi Guys,

Forgive me if this has been covered many times before. I checked the sticky topics and FAQs, but got nothing in the way of an answer.

1) Are catchlights in the eyes bad? If so, how do you get rid of them? Sometimes I get two, which can make the subject look a little like a reptile.

2) If I only have two lights, is it better to use them both at front (45degrees) or one directly in front and one from the back?

Help :)

[kav]

Catch lights are good, the site below has some examples of lighting setups.

http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Lighting_Lessons/index.html

K.

[MaxZoom]

1) Are catchlights in the eyes bad? If so, how do you get rid of them? Sometimes I get two, which can make the subject look a little like a reptile.Without catch lights your subject's eyes will look dead. For traditional portrait photography you need 2 sources of illimination main and fill. Your main light will give shadow and catch lights, your fill light controls the depth of the shadow where the main light does not reach.

2) If I only have two lights, is it better to use them both at front (45degrees) or one directly in front and one from the back?You can use one light for main and a reflector to give fill then your second source can be hair-light or illuminate the background.

Do an internet search for "Rembrant Lighting" and you'll find useful information on how to use one or more light sources for portrait photography. Even if you never take a protrait photograph I would recommend any photographer to study this topic, understanding light and how it interacts in a 3-d world is what photography is all about and the human face shows the effects of different lighting very clearly.

[Rebel]

Really appreciate the help, fellas. Thank you.

[LightingMan]

Dear Rebel:
This question comes up quite frequently so I think it’s worth some discussion.

A catch light in the eye is nothing more than a specular reflection of the light source. Specular is a word that literally means “mirror like”. There is nothing about catch lights that is magical or sacred. They are simple reflections of whatever light sources are in front of them. For some reason, there are a number of photographers who like to teach that catch lights have rigid rules of placement and numbers. This has never made much sense to me and I would always question why and how they got to believing that way when there is so little logic to it.

The laws of physics place these highlights precisely where they belong. Just like in billiards, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Place a light source far to the camera left and you will see the catch light to the left side of the eye. Place a light over the camera and the catch light will be just above the center of the eye. It’s not a very difficult concept to understand.

In fashion photography where many different lighting techniques are used, the guidelines can be a little different than in studio portrait work. A fashion photographer might place umbrellas or soft boxes above and either side of the lens with another placed directly under the lens. This would of course create a unique 3 light pattern of catch lights that would usually be left as it appears. Catch lights showing the entire pattern of light sources are not only common but almost expected in fashion work.

The problem comes in when studio portrait photographers decide that they need to let the catch lights dictate where they place their lights. This could not be more wrong. Catch lights are a RESULT of lighting, NOT the reason for it. We light a portrait to create flattering patterns of light on the face. We do not create portrait lighting to place the catch lights in a particular location. The mere concept of lighting for the catch lights has no logic in it whatsoever. Just think about it. If that were all there is to it, then lighting a portrait would be no more difficult than placing the catch lights at 10 or 2 o’clock and the heck with how everything else looks. Just not a good or logical course of action when your goal is to produce a pleasing image that will sell.

I was once on a judging panel at a convention when a portrait came up of a girl in a swim suit standing in shallow water in a river just as the sun was at the horizon. Rather than leave the natural gold catch lights where nature put them which was at the 9 o’clock position, he removed them and put in fake highlight at the 10 o’clock position. Several of us noticed this right away and how strange it made the portrait look. All natural shadows created by the setting sun were moving from left to right while the catch lights suggested that the light was coming from 45 degrees up in the sky. It was a real visual conflict and the print was scored much lower than if he had left the natural highlights where nature had placed them.

When we learn about portrait lighting, we learn to place light on the subject so that certain features of the face are lit in such a way as to flatter the subject or create a specific lighting effect. Halloween lighting is not necessarily flattering but on occasion we use it to create a specific look.

So how important is it that we pay attention to catch lights and their location? The answer is rather basic. The laws of physics will place them where they belong without our intervention. Our thinking should be toward correct portrait lighting and NOT about where the catch lights will appear. Letting the catch lights drive our lighting technique can only lead to confusion and a lack of understanding about proper portrait lighting.

It’s truly amazing how many photographers are obsessed about catch light placement. They agonize over it as if it is the end all be all of lighting. How very sad for them. Lighting is supposed to be fun, creative and rewarding without the photographer being held hostage by the lowly little catch lights.

If you are using a ring light of any kind and doing fashion photography, you will see a centrally located catch light that mimics the shape of the light source. You can’t change that, so why even think about it? In traditional studio portrait lighting however, we usually have a main light and a fill light. The fill can be a powered light which should always be located as close to the camera axis as possible to control shadows without creating it’s own. A fill can also be a reflector that returns some of the main light back into the subject to control the shadows. Once again it should be located as close to the axis of the lens as possible to avoid creating it’s own shadows. The only evidence that a fill light exists should be that the shadows created by the main light are not completely black. The fill light should have no direction at all.

For most traditional portrait work, you will find the main light roughly 45 degrees off the axis of the face. This is ONLY the most basic starting point. Portrait lighting is about understanding where you place the LIGHT and NOT where you place the lights. If you are using the most common portrait lighting which is simple loop lighting or the more dramatic Rembrandt lighting, the main light will place a catch light in both eyes equally at roughly the 2 or 10 o’clock position. Remember that catch lights are the result of good lighting and not the reason for it. There is a huge difference. Do not let catch light placement control your lighting technique.

Simply observing catch lights can be an aid while you are in the process of learning to see light and shadow which takes some time for many people. If you believe you have properly lit the subject with simple loop or Rembrandt lighting and only see the main light reflecting in one of the subject’s eyes, then you are not yet seeing the light correctly and have missed lighting the second eye. Begin your practice with no fill light so you can see more clearly where the main light is lighting the subject and where it is NOT lighting the subject. The eyes are very important and we want to have even lighting in both of them. It’s your job to carefully observe the eyes and not just have them be half lit or lit unevenly.

What you end up in your final image is of course controlled by you. For most consumers who buy portraiture, they don’t know or care anything about catch lights. They just want to purchase a pleasing portrait. If a catch light is to be removed from your final images, then it should always be the fill light leaving the main light to help show the directional qualities of the main light. Leaving a center fill catch light is no great sin and many studios make no effort to remove it. In the world of professional print competition however, it is generally expected that the fill light reflection will be removed thus simplifying the look of the eyes and mimicking a single sun light source as we have in nature. For larger more expensive wall portraits sold to consumers, we would generally remove the fill catch lights. For small portraits, many studios don’t bother with it because it’s just not that much of an issue to consumers. It’s only a 5 second job to remove the fill light using Photoshop but that’s the call of the studio owner.

I hope this has shed a little light on the sometimes controversial topic of catch lights. I hope your emphasis will be on learning great lighting without letting catch lights complicate things for you.

Best wishes,

[TMR Design]

Great post Scott. Very helpful. When you speak of the fill light catch lights you are referring to the second catch light that can appear? In a few threads there were discussions about whether 2 catchlights was acceptable and how you create lighting that does not produce a second catchlight. From what I understand, it would seem that if you have light sources set up for correct lighting that you will undoubtedly see a reflection of any and all lights, with placement and intensity of the light dictating placement and intensity of the catch light. Is this correct?

[LightingMan]

HI Robert
You are right on the money. We don't create lighting for the purpose of controling catch lights. That is a total reversal of simple logic and very counter productive. The catchlights are the RESULT of lighting. Never the cause of it.
take care,

[Robocop]

Wow!
What a great post Scott. I too have heard many cuss and discuss the so called rules of catch lights. Until now, non of it made any sense and there was never any consistency. As usual, your explanation makes complete sense and I for one am grateful for the knowledge you so generously share.
Thanks!
Have a great day.

[FlashZebra]

Catchlights in eyes are neither "bad" or "good".

They are the result of particular lighting techniques.

The same resulting catchlights may be viewed as just peachy by some, and gross mistakes by others, just like any other general attribute of an image.

Sort of just like fire. Fire good. Fire bad.

Enjoy! Lon

[AHDL247]

Hello Scott:
I'm so glad that you are willing to take time to post such informative and comprehensive information. While anyone can toss in an easily dismissed two or three line opinion without anything to substantiate it, your posts actually provide concrete information in abundance and the logical reasoning behind it. For that, I, like many others here, thank you. I eagerly look forward to your next post.
Roy