hi key experiment

a) i know im the wrong subject for hi key lighting...
b) i looked at a couple of youtube videos and i tried to accomplish what they expressed...
c) i used a pair of speedlites on either side for background lighting in 33" shoot through umbrellas, at about shoulder height...
d) i used a speedlite directly overhead of the camera in a 40" shoot through umbrella...
e) the background lights were set at 1/2 power, the overhead at full power...

diagram with location of lights relative to subject, background would be helpful.
The images you have suggest that the background lights were spilling onto subject and relatively close.
The main light was probably farther away.

Shoot through umbrellas are omni-directional modifiers. they would not be my first choice for this kind of project.

If your intent is to have a white background it should be lit with lights that can be flagged so they do not light the subject. Then light the subject. For high key a large umbrella or other modifier near the camera offers a smooth bright light for fill. Then use a key light, if you want, to highlight the subject.

When I do this approach I'd rather have 5 lights than three.

ive got reflective umbrellas, that i will swap out for the backgound shoot throughs, and see what that does...

Looks like the spill is overexposing everything here, imho.

Bring your subject forward at least 2 ft so the side umbrellas are behind him. Raise the height of the key umbrella. foot above the head, only a slight tilt down or none if it's big enough.

Then adjust exposure after that.

You want the white, white for the back ground, but if you have white walls / ceiling that is close, they are adding more exposure to the front that the key is providing, and so you are over in the exposure. If you can't bring the subject forward, I'd consider flagging the side lights so light hits the bg but not the subject.

Umbrellas = No control. So that's why I don't use them. Simple. You better off using your strobes firing into V-flats if you don't have softboxes.

Ltdave wrote in post #18644533
ive got reflective umbrellas, that i will swap out for the backgound shoot throughs, and see what that does...

Hosted photo: posted by Ltdave in
./showthread.php?p=186​44533&i=i165040951
forum: Flash and Studio Lighting

the distances are approximate but pretty close. im working off memory. the distance between subject and background lights might be closer to 3' and slightly closer to the background than indicated...

Notice that your front light is 2 1/2 to 3 times the distance from the subject as the side umbrellas. That explains the underexposed front of the subject relative to the sides.

The umbrellas being closer to the subject than the background explains the rest of the exposure problem.

As Bobby said. Umbrellas, especially shoot throughs, are uncontrolled light source.

What you are attempting to accomplish needs to be done with soft boxes, reflectors and grids.

Light the white background with two lights that can be flagged to keep them off the subject.
If you have a light meter use it in incident mode to get the background evenly lit. Then move to subject position and use it in incident mode pointed at white background to set power on light.
The meter should read, at subject position no more than your intended f number for the main light.

If you don't have a light meter use the blinkies on your camera. Shooting raw have the blinkies just starting to appear on the background at the f number for the main light. The blinkies will also help you determine how smoothly the background it lit.

Subject far enough in front of background so there is no obvious halo or light spill from background on subject.

Now light the subject as desired.

swapped to reflector umbrellas vs the shoot through and made sure that the light wasnt shining on me, and that i was ahead of the background lighting...

i ran my mainlight and camera as far away as i could to make sure i was not getting any extraneous lighting from the background lights...

without any more lights (only shooting with 3) i couldnt get rid of the "shadow" on the floor in front of me. if i bumped up the mainlight, i over exposed me and it took a lot of light to wipe out that shadow...

i think this is much better...

sorry for the sourpuss expression. my sciatica is acting up and im a bit tired from a busy weekend already

I suggest finding the nearest couch and taking a nap. It's done wonders for my outlook today.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18646489
I suggest finding the nearest couch and taking a nap. It's done wonders for my outlook today.

laying down or sitting down might just move my ache to another part of my leg or the other leg/knee/hip. of course if i could lose about 80-90 pounds THAT would really do great wonders for my outlook, everyday!

Do you have a subject/pose in mind for this shot later on?

I notice the second shot is 44mm and the first 35mm, do you have more room to move the camera back?

I would also recommend shooting from further distance and lower angle. Then you see none of the floor.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18646499
Do you have a subject/pose in mind for this shot later on?

I notice the second shot is 44mm and the first 35mm, do you have more room to move the camera back?

not really. ive only ever once shot any kind of fashion/beauty/glamour stuff and it wasnt hi-key, at all...

the very last picture i moved the camera and main light as far back as i could go, before the umbrella starting hitting the ceiling, so it had the longest focal length...

bobbyz wrote in post #18646515
I would also recommend shooting from further distance and lower angle. Then you see none of the floor.

im all out of room without moving all of the furniture and getting out my backdrop stand. where im at (in the picture) its easy to just take 3-4 photos off the white wall and use it. i was thinking i was already shooting a lower angle than usual but i can play around with that some. i didnt think there was much floor showing, there only being a couple of inches in front of my feet...

Moving the camera back should be totally separate from moving the main light back. No reason to do both.

Bobby is talking about one of the things I was going to mention. It's not the floor in front of your feet, it is the floor behind your legs that can be reduced by moving the camera back and zooming in. It will also be more flattering to your (since you've already mentioned it) belly. I probably wouldn't worry about going lower.

It also seems that the center of the frame/wall is a tad under pure white. Minimize the angle of view and you can squeak the background lights in just a bit more.

so getting rid of the full length and going with more of a chest to head, crop?

wall looked good last night. ill take another peak at it..