Tamsin - CC please.

The first images weren't that bad but I agree with the others comments.

Less is more when it comes to facial touch ups. Don't smooth skin into oblivion on a model that has beatiful skin. Sure, make minor touch ups on blemishes and imperfections that really stand out but for most women I'd prefer a more natural look.

I'll also add that I don't mind skin detail at all but I would not sharpen it. I'd only selectively sharpen eyes and maybe mouth, teeth and/or hair but in a way that looks natural.

Also, wouldn't making the lighting more diffuse negate the need for as many touch ups by making imperfections stand out less?

BTW, the models are lovely.

Thanks gooble.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5487345
Thanks for your complimentary remarks midnitejam. When you say there's too much detail in her complexion, did you mean in my original post (the one that had been PP'd) or my subsequent unprocessed one? And did you mean Picture 1 or 2 (or both). I'm sorry there are more questions, but I'm interested in your opinion.

Hi Roy, ThanX for bringing this to my attention. When I made that remark I was mistakenly looking at the unedited version. BTW, that's a nice shot for an unprocessed digital.

You mentioned you were using only one flash??? I could have sworn that I see a kicker hair light in addition to the main. Nice work with the hair.

My interpretation of ‘flat light’ is an image which has only one level of light (1:1 ratio). Your images have dynamic lighting and a nice light ratio (the difference between the darkest dark and the lightest lights where detail is expected).

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5487193
Thank you for your full reply Robert. I think I didn't make it clear when I said it was a flash shot that I meant a studio flash on a stand. The lighting was, therefore, essentially the same in both pictures.

I can see why the "lighting" could be thought of as "the same" when you think solely in terms of where the light is at and where it is pointed and its strength. However, in the discussion of lighting from the standpoint of what light hits the subject with what intensity and from what direction, then it's NOT the same. In these two portraits the lighting is quite different for the two shots insofar as how it plays on the face of the model. I think you would agree with that.

I don't know where that would come from. It's pure physics, and I stand by my comments above.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5487193
... I think I didn't make it clear when I said it was a flash shot that I meant a studio flash on a stand. The lighting was, therefore, essentially the same in both pictures. ...

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5488386
I can see why the "lighting" could be thought of as "the same" when you think solely in terms of where the light is at and where it is pointed and its strength. However, in the discussion of lighting from the standpoint of what light hits the subject with what intensity and from what direction, then it's NOT the same. In these two portraits the lighting is quite different for the two shots insofar as how it plays on the face of the model. I think you would agree with that.....

I agree with what Robert says here. Rather than considering the camera and lighting set up as a fixed entity into which the model is placed, consider instead that the lighting is set up for the model and then the camera placement (within reasonable bounds) becomes a matter of composition that is not rigidly tied to some orientation based on the lighting location. I think that most of the texts that I have seen on studio lighting show diagrams where the lighting is referenced to the lens LOS (line-of-sight) and camera location. These are generalized guidelines and not hard unbreakable rules. Unfortunately, this probably all to often becomes ingrained into one's mind as the lighting locations are referenced off the camera. To some extent it is, but that just defines your latitude in placing the camera.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5487193
... There is one thing I'm still confused about. I've always understood that the closer the light source is, the softer it is, and the further away it is, the harsher ...

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5488386
... I don't know where that would come from. It's pure physics, and I stand by my comments above.

I think that I may understand where your ideas originate on this, Roy, but once again, I agree with Robert. It is easy to rationalize that a flash being bounced off an umbrella that is close to the subject will be spread over a wide area whereas a distant light begins to approach a point source that would create sharp shadows. However, there are many problems with that line of reasoning:

• The difference in lighting distance is only a few feet and not something that would approach cosmic proportions.
  
• A reflector such as an umbrella has a curvature is nowhere close to being parabolic and because of that, the intensity of the light being reflected towards the subject is not uniformly distributed. From one perspective, this is fortunate because a parabola produces parallel rays of light ... something that would not be desirable. However, the bad news is that the light is very center weighted in intensity and feathers out to very weak at the perimeter. Therefore, when the light reflector is close to the subject it is not a great deal different than turning the flash around and aiming it straight at the subject.
  
• Moving the reflector a few feet back allows the hot spot of lighting to become more diffuse and, therefore, more gentle.
  
• Although, I specifically mentioned umbrella reflectors, the same thing can be said for just about any kind of lighting. It is difficult to get truly diffuse lighting sources which means that just about all sources will have some sort of hot spots which are more troublesome the closer you get to the subject. Distance is the answer to solving this problem.
  
• Don't confuse lighting that is located further from the subject as being on the same scale as a light source located at infinity where it becomes a point source. By cosmic standards, the differences in distance that we are talking about are a nit when it comes to thinking in terms of sharper shadows for a more distant source.

midnitejam wrote in post #5487995
Hi Roy, ThanX for bringing this to my attention. When I made that remark I was mistakenly looking at the unedited version. BTW, that's a nice shot for an unprocessed digital.

You mentioned you were using only one flash??? I could have sworn that I see a kicker hair light in addition to the main. Nice work with the hair.

My interpretation of ‘flat light’ is an image which has only one level of light (1:1 ratio). Your images have dynamic lighting and a nice light ratio (the difference between the darkest dark and the lightest lights where detail is expected).

Yes, sorry midnitejam, I meant one frontal light. You are right in saying that there is a hair light.

Bill - that's a great reply, and thanks for the time. Your explanation of the even-ness of light relative to its distance is very clear and understandable. I don't know where I got the idea that the closer the light source is, the more diffuse - but I'm obviously mistaken. Thanks again.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5488386
I don't know where that would come from. It's pure physics, and I stand by my comments above.

Robert - as I said to Bill in the post above ' I don't know where I got the idea that the closer the light source is, the more diffuse - but I'm obviously mistaken.' I stand corrected! Thanks for your help.

Ok...In essence Robert is right here and I wouldn't dare question his experience, but this is how it was explained to me and at least as I'm learning this, has proven to be true...

Think of the sun.... -BIG- light source....REALLY BIG...and in theory it should be quite soft being such a large light source, but because it is so far away it produces a really harsh light on a day with no clouds. If it's a cloudy day however, the clouds diffuse the light or cause it to "spread out". Now if you were say on Mercury instead of here on Earth -and- you could turn down the intensity of the sun to the same approximate light level as you get here on Earth, as I understand it you would indeed have a much softer light because of it's relative size to your relative position.

I think the issue here simply goes beyond the "distance" of a given light source to the subject. If for example you were to say, take an ordinary light bulb and put it next to any given subject, you would certainly see very harsh shadows (and harsh light respectively) and as you move the light bulb away from the subject, the light gets dimmer and shadows are of course going to "spread out" as the light bulb moves further and further away. -If- this were the only way we were lighting a subject for photography then certainly what Robert says is quite true...and yes, it is basic physics as he suggests. In regards to the light bulb analogy though I would also mention that "different light bulbs will produce different light". In this case a "soft white" bulb is going to produce a "softer light" than say a clear bulb of the same intensity...the clear bulb is going to produce a harsher light with more contrast. Why? Because the "soft bulb" is diffused...the light isn't as directional. It's this directional aspect of light that causes harsh contrast. This is why we use "light modifiers" such as softboxes and umbrellas, etc.. The laws of physics are still the same of course, but here when something such as a softbox is really close to a subject it produces a softer light because it makes the light source "bigger" relative to the subject and of course it also diffuses the light. But as you move it away (assuming you turn up the power of the flash to compensate) the light becomes less diffused because now only a portion of the light is actually hitting the subject and that portion of light is more directional and thus becomes harsher.

Please excuse my really crude diagrams here, but hopefully this will illustrate what I'm trying to explain here...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I think this is developing into a very interesting discussion Jim! Let's see what Robert has to say (and I too value his experience).

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5491943
Ok...In essence Robert is right here and I wouldn't dare question his experience, but this is how it was explained to me and at least as I'm learning this, has proven to be true...

Think of the sun.... -BIG- light source....REALLY BIG...and in theory it should be quite soft being such a large light source, but because it is so far away it produces a really harsh light on a day with no clouds. If it's a cloudy day however, the clouds diffuse the light or cause it to "spread out". Now if you were say on Mercury instead of here on Earth -and- you could turn down the intensity of the sun to the same approximate light level as you get here on Earth, as I understand it you would indeed have a much softer light because of it's relative size to your relative position.

I think the issue here simply goes beyond the "distance" of a given light source to the subject. If for example you were to say, take an ordinary light bulb and put it next to any given subject, you would certainly see very harsh shadows (and harsh light respectively) and as you move the light bulb away from the subject, the light gets dimmer and shadows are of course going to "spread out" as the light bulb moves further and further away. -If- this were the only way we were lighting a subject for photography then certainly what Robert says is quite true...and yes, it is basic physics as he suggests. In regards to the light bulb analogy though I would also mention that "different light bulbs will produce different light". In this case a "soft white" bulb is going to produce a "softer light" than say a clear bulb of the same intensity...the clear bulb is going to produce a harsher light with more contrast. Why? Because the "soft bulb" is diffused...the light isn't as directional. It's this directional aspect of light that causes harsh contrast. This is why we use "light modifiers" such as softboxes and umbrellas, etc.. The laws of physics are still the same of course, but here when something such as a softbox is really close to a subject it produces a softer light because it makes the light source "bigger" relative to the subject and of course it also diffuses the light. But as you move it away (assuming you turn up the power of the flash to compensate) the light becomes less diffused because now only a portion of the light is actually hitting the subject and that portion of light is more directional and thus becomes harsher.

I certainly have to acknowledge that when the light source is as large and as diffuse as it is with a sofbox, or a large umbrella or a large reflector, the situation does change. One of the differences between such sources and small sources at the same distance is that the more diffuse light can be placed closer with less danger of being contrasty or harsh. In fact, that is why they are used.

The primary bone of contention in that paragraph is that the light emanating from the diffuse source is going out in all directions from each point on its surface, whereas the diagrams are not showing anything other than the parallel or nearly parallel rays. The large diffuse source has to be quite far away before it begins to look like a point source (very harsh or contrasty). The primary usage configuration of large diffuse sources is close in, which means that they simply aren't used in situations where they are far away. For that reason, I would conclude that in real world applications the large diffuse source is always relatively soft - not harsh and contrasty.

Not an issue - I agree with that.

I don't want to comment on that, because it really depends quite strongly on just how big the larger light source is. Remember that the open sky, without any direct rays from the sun (open shade) is considered a very diffuse light source.

I acknowledge that my suggestion to move the light source back was made based on my assumption that the light source was an inherently harsh and contrasty source in comparison with a sofbox.

The point here is that in regards to how harsh light is in regards to the subject, "the distance" from the light source isn't the only consideration...the size of the light source plays an equal roll as well as how the light source is diffused and all must be considered together (along with the output as well for correct exposure, brigher/dimmer lights with different corresponding apertures again in regards to exposure, the temperature for correct color balance, etc). In other words, as Einstein would say, "It's all relative" .

I don't think I have any argument with that.

Again, I could be very wrong on all of this...I too am just learning this fine art, but that's the way I understand it and so far it's been working for me . If I've gotten nothing else right here, I know this much is true...directional light = harsh/contrast, diffused light = softer.

Ugly ass can of worms ain't it? LOL!!!

I hope this helps!
Peace,
Jim

I agree wholeheartedly, and I think the open discussion on the issues has been quite revealing

Robert,
Let me say first and foremost thank you for your comments and taking the time to address what I've said directly. Again I too am really just learning this stuff and am in fact learning much of it by trial and error as I go. I do read and study, but I seem to get more simply "by doing". I will certainly go back and read what you said...both where you've agreed with me and disagreed and hopefully it will sink in!

Also please know that I wasn't really trying to debate your comments as such but in my case I do find that when I try to explain things to others, that very often it helps me to better understand the same things myself. Kind of makes me have to think about what I'm saying as it were .

Now I do have one small question...

While as a natural light shooter to begin with I certainly agree that "shade" is certainly softer light, isn't the reason for this, for all intensive purposes, because it's essentially "bounced" light and not technically diffused? The indirect light that makes into a shaded area actually just bounces off of everything else to get in there (so to speak)? Or is it just that it tends to bounce so much that by the time it makes it into a shaded area, it is diffused? The reason I ask this particular question is since I do a great deal of natural light shooting with animals, I have noticed a definite difference in the quality of light in regards to shade vs. cloudy/over cast days. I won't post any examples here right now as I don't want to hijack the thread, but I do see a difference.

Perhaps my trouble here may simply be with the definitions of "diffused light" versus "bounced light"... I understand the basic principles of each...bounced light being basically "reflected parallel rays" and diffused light essentially meaning the rays are "scattered" but I think there's a nuance here that I may be missing.

Roy,

I agree completely and I am enjoying this thread a great deal . Also I'm usually the odd man out on topics such as this because very often my methods are a tich unorthodox...it's nice to see that a good portion of what I said for a change is in line with that of a vet like Robert.

Peace,
Jim

This has been an enlightening thread (OK, shoot me for the bad pun) that has been very beneficial. I think that one important lesson to be gained from this discussion is that it is important to have a good understanding of the particular sight sources that one uses so that the strong points and limitations of each are well understood. Another important lesson is that oversimplified "rules" found in some text books can't simply be followed by rote.

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5495400
Robert,
Let me say first and foremost thank you for your comments and taking the time to address what I've said directly. Again I too am really just learning this stuff and am in fact learning much of it by trial and error as I go. I do read and study, but I seem to get more simply "by doing". I will certainly go back and read what you said...both where you've agreed with me and disagreed and hopefully it will sink in!

Also please know that I wasn't really trying to debate your comments as such but in my case I do find that when I try to explain things to others, that very often it helps me to better understand the same things myself. Kind of makes me have to think about what I'm saying as it were .

Now I do have one small question...

While as a natural light shooter to begin with I certainly agree that "shade" is certainly softer light, isn't the reason for this, for all intensive purposes, because it's essentially "bounced" light and not technically diffused?

I agree that "shade" is generally softer lighting, but I would have no trouble make a case for it being bounced or diffuse. I think it is fair to assume that in most photographic environments, bounced and diffuse go hand in hand (we are excluding mirror-like or specular reflections, because they are quite different). In other words, bounced or diffuse are not always exactly the same, but in practice they seem to end up with same effect.

I think that at this point we are saying essentially the same thing about bounced and diffuse light. However, we aren't through with that issue yet.

I've been looking for an appropriate place in the discussion to clarify that very issue, so I'm glad you brought it up. Shade and cloudy/overcast skies should be treated differently, because that is one example where there can be some serious differences. Shade is generally not a good photo environment. Open shade is much better. Shade should be understood to mean shaded from all light sources, and that means that while the light in shade may be quite diffuse, it is also likely to have a pronounced color cast. For example, green if in the shade of a tree. However, when your subject is in "open shade" you do not have direct rays of the sun, but you have the bright sky overhead to provide diffuse light (coming from a wide spread of sky). It doesn't matter whether the Open Shade is lighted from an open blue sky or a cloudy or overcast sky - it will be very diffuse and is considered a good lighting environment for outdoor portraits. Finally, in summary, Open Shade is found in the north side of structures (in the Northern hemisphere) and keeps all direct rays of the sun from hitting the subject but provides a large expanse of sky to provide diffuse lighting of the subject.

I would rather describe "bounced light" as light that is diffuse in that it emanates from a sheet or plane that is considered to radiate light from every point on that surface to all directions in the hemisphere normal to that surface. In other words, that definition would be quite contrary to light being reflected as parallel rays, because parallel rays would be more like specular or mirror-like reflection, which is generally not what you want.

Roy,
I agree completely and I am enjoying this thread a great deal . Also I'm usually the odd man out on topics such as this because very often my methods are a tich unorthodox...it's nice to see that a good portion of what I said for a change is in line with that of a vet like Robert.

Peace,
Jim

Hey Robert,
I thank you for sharing your time, wisdom and experience! I'd like to pick your brain on one other quick issue if I may...

Ok...I can feel a brain synapse starting to fire on that one and on one level I do understand it, but it also raises a very dumb, very newbie question...

Let's assume that I'm shooting indoors next to a large North facing window on a very clear day...no haze, no clouds, bright blue sky. Now without the direct lighting of the sun (or any supplemental flash) since the sky is so big and so blue...why don't my shots come out with an intense blue hue to them? (BTW...I've never actually tried shooting this way and maybe they would end up really blue without any consideration to white balance, but that doesn't usually seem to be the case with other shots I've seen.) I know that when one shoots in shade, there is a tendency towards a blue shift with digitals, but I don't know if it actually happens with the situation I described.

Also one quick arbitrary comment just for the sake of reference. Something inside the musician and particularly the studio engineer portion of my brain is starting to twitch over this a bit. Much of this in regards to how light reflects, bounces, diffuses and behaves in general seems very much the same way that "sound" behaves as well. If I were to think about this logically (which may give me a headache), I think at this point I would be willing to guess that we're dealing with basic principles of "energy" here...frequency, wave length, etc... Hmmmmmm......

I think once this whole thread is done, I'm going to print the whole thing out and hang on to it for posterity .

Peace,
Jim