The Natural Light Thread

[cjnicolai]

There's no light more beautiful in photography than natural light. It's actually very simple to master, but for a lot of photogs it can be a bit confusing or intimidating.

I'm a natural light shooter (primarily "people" shots) and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about using/metering/seeing/controlling natural light. I'm sure there are lots of other natural light shooters on this board, too, who could pitch in as well. Hopefully we can make this thread a valuable resource.

- CJ

www.cheryljacobsportraits.com

[petemc]

Great idea. I'm also a big fan of natural light over flash. The wedding I was at the other day I shot mostly natural light. I think shooting B&W allows you to bend a few rules too. If you shoot colour a blown out sky is obvious. If you shoot B&W it seems to work.

[pxl8]

Add me to the list as well, natural light for 99% of my stuff as for me the light is what it's all about.

[steveinspain]

CJ - why do you think I want to be on that workshop of yours..!
I'll try to post a picture of 2 over the next few days, when I am home (if we can get online) to show the sort of stuff I want to do more of - kids (mine this time), available light..
Controling light seems to be the biggie for me - I need more idea how to do it !

[cjnicolai]

Cool, then. Let's do it!

Anyone with a question to ask, feel free to throw it out there. You can ask how to achieve a certain look, how to deal with a specific lighting scenario, post an image for help, whatever you need related to natural light.

[Raymond Lin]

i have one, at a wedding, what is your fav lens? specially indoors. thanks

[cjnicolai]

i have one, at a wedding, what is your fav lens? specially indoors. thanks


Raymond, when shooting indoors, a fast lens is key. It's great to have a f/1.2 or f/1.8 to enable you to shoot in low light. (Remember that if you must shot at f/1.2, you can gain significantly more depth of field by simply backing further away from your subject. I've done many indoor family shoots at f/2.8!) Keep in mind, too, that just as important is the focal length. You can successfully handhold a 50mm lens at significantly slower speeds that an 80mm or 100mm. If you don't already know it, the general rule of thumb is that you can typically expect to get sharp images handheld at speeds of at least the reciprocal of your lens length; so if you're shooting with a 50mm lens, the reciprocal is 1/50, which rounds to approximately a 1/60th shutter speed. You may find yourself falling to either side of that, but it's a good guideline.

When I'm shooting the bride as she's getting ready (and my normal portrait sessions) I prefer to shoot medium format, which means the fastest lens available is f/2.8. The means I have to be careful about bracing myself well to handhold successfully at slower shutter speeds. I've done it enough that I've learned to successfully handhold at a 1/4th shutter speed.

However, during a ceremony, I need to be able to zoom to get shots I couldn't otherwise get. I trust my Canon 28 - 135mm for my 35mm camera. Although it is only a f/3.5, the image stabilizer on it allows me to shoot at 1/30th and 1/15th handheld when my subjects aren't moving around too much. There are faster zooms, to be sure, but this lens is incredibly affordable and is good for the job.

Does that answer your question?

- CJ

[Raymond Lin]

Raymond, when shooting indoors, a fast lens is key. It's great to have a f/1.2 or f/1.8 to enable you to shoot in low light. (Remember that if you must shot at f/1.2, you can gain significantly more depth of field by simply backing further away from your subject. I've done many indoor family shoots at f/2.8!) Keep in mind, too, that just as important is the focal length. You can successfully handhold a 50mm lens at significantly slower speeds that an 80mm or 100mm. If you don't already know it, the general rule of thumb is that you can typically expect to get sharp images handheld at speeds of at least the reciprocal of your lens length; so if you're shooting with a 50mm lens, the reciprocal is 1/50, which rounds to approximately a 1/60th shutter speed. You may find yourself falling to either side of that, but it's a good guideline.

When I'm shooting the bride as she's getting ready (and my normal portrait sessions) I prefer to shoot medium format, which means the fastest lens available is f/2.8. The means I have to be careful about bracing myself well to handhold successfully at slower shutter speeds. I've done it enough that I've learned to successfully handhold at a 1/4th shutter speed.

However, during a ceremony, I need to be able to zoom to get shots I couldn't otherwise get. I trust my Canon 28 - 135mm for my 35mm camera. Although it is only a f/3.5, the image stabilizer on it allows me to shoot at 1/30th and 1/15th handheld when my subjects aren't moving around too much. There are faster zooms, to be sure, but this lens is incredibly affordable and is good for the job.

Does that answer your question?

- CJ

That is very useful thanks :)

The reason I am asking is because a friend of mine asked me to photograph his, a kinda photojournalism style. He already have someone else coming in for the formal group shots (I am glad actually I don't feel comfortable doing those).

I understand the general rule of thumb relative to the focal length to shutter speed (1/focal length). It will mean I am going to be restricted to using my 50mm 1/8 most of the time, I don't have the money to get a 17-40mm at the moment and a friend who has some L-Glass has just moved away so can't borrow one. I'll be stuck with the 50mm, 28-105 and the kit lens...:eek:

Another question, when in doors, how do to meter for the subject ? Do you put the camera in M, F/2.8 and 1/60 (for example) and then adjust the ISO so you get the right exposure with a couple of test shots ? Or shoot in Tv, 1/Focal length and let the camera pick the Aperture ?

[Ewan]

I use natural light practically all the time. Hardly ever see a need for flash.

[petemc]

I use natural light practically all the time. Hardly ever see a need for flash.

How do you work with shadowy eyes in certain light conditions without blowing out the background?

[Messiah Khan]

I work almost entirely with natural light, both because I don't own a decent flashgun, and because I prefer natural light and the challenege it brings. However, I do have a question; Are there any tricks, tips or secrets for manipulating natural light when its very flat and boring? Say I found a great location, for example a building and this is my only opportunity to shoot it, but the light is grey, flat and boring. How would you go about making best use of the light available, either on location or during post processing?:)

[cjnicolai]

Messiah, can you please clarify whether you're photographing the building itself, or using it as a location for a shoot? The answer will be very different depending on which you mean.

CJ

[cjnicolai]

How do you work with shadowy eyes in certain light conditions without blowing out the background?

Pete, shadowy eyes come from light coming from the wrong direction. For example, shooting a portrait at high noon, with the light coming from directly overhead. If you shoot from a slightlu higher angle, the subject will look up at you and the shadows will greatly decrease. Alternately, you can use a large reflector to fill the shadows, which is far softer and more flattering than flash.

CJ

[Ewan]

How do you work with shadowy eyes in certain light conditions without blowing out the background?

TBH I never take pictures of people, so tis not a problem :)

[petemc]

Pete, shadowy eyes come from light coming from the wrong direction. For example, shooting a portrait at high noon, with the light coming from directly overhead. If you shoot from a slightlu higher angle, the subject will look up at you and the shadows will greatly decrease. Alternately, you can use a large reflector to fill the shadows, which is far softer and more flattering than flash.

CJ

I think the problem with a reflector, from what i've seen as I've never used one, is that you need a random joe to hold it.

TBH I never take pictures of people, so tis not a problem :)

I kinda got that impression a few minutes later :) I figured since cjnicolai started this thread and shoots people mostly that this was a thread for taking fantastic people shots without the reliance on a flash :)

[cjnicolai]

Another question, when in doors, how do to meter for the subject ? Do you put the camera in M, F/2.8 and 1/60 (for example) and then adjust the ISO so you get the right exposure with a couple of test shots ? Or shoot in Tv, 1/Focal length and let the camera pick the Aperture ?

As a film shooter, I don't have that option. ;) I have to shoot with total confidence that I've metered correctly, as there's no double checking a screen or histogram to be sure.

First things first: you NEVER want the camera to determine your aperture. You need to be the one to decide which aperture you use, because it has a huge impact on the look of the image. Always pick the aperture you want for the look you're after, and then decide (with the help of a meter) which shutter speed you'll need to use, adjusting the ISO if necessary.

I am not at all an equipment junkie, but I HIGHLY recommend buying a simple handheld meter. The digital folks I teach are always surprised by that. Really, though, it is such a simple way to work. Very few people TRULY understand their in-camera meter and how to use it absolutely correctly in every situation. The result is that you have little control over your exposure.

The camera can ONLY tell you how to make what it's metering 18% grey. It doesn't have any idea what you want the image to look like. How do you know whether the camera is metering for the shadows on your subject's face, or the highlights on your subject's hair? What if you want to expose for silhouette? Or compensate for backlight?

Camera meters are pretty good these days, but they can ONLY be as good as the user's understanding of it. For that reason, I find that the vast majority of photogs gain tremendous control and understanding of exposure when they switch to a handheld meter.

Now, if you're shooting digital, you probably already know that you have more latitude in underexposure than you do in overexposure; film is directly opposite. So, if I'm shooting digital and I want to correctly expose a face in window light, I will place my handheld meter on the bright side of her face pointing toward the light source and take the reading. That will render the bright part of her face approximately 18% grey. I set my camera in manual mode to the readings on the meter, and I'm good to go. There's no need to remeter unless I change locations, or the light changes.

Make sense?

- CJ

[cjnicolai]

Pete, reflectors really aren't all that difficult to manage. Frankly, quite often I will put the subject's parent/spouse/sibling to the task of reflector-holding because it makes them feel useful without allowing them to interfere. ;) You can also use a reflector stand if you like.

Consider, too, that lots of other things reflect besides reflectors. Light-colored buildings, sidewalks, sand, snow, tablecloths, light walls -- they can all be useful reflectors if you keep your eyes open.

This one was shot using a concrete wall as a reflector.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6111/girlbx2.jpg

- CJ

[Messiah Khan]

Messiah, can you please clarify whether you're photographing the building itself, or using it as a location for a shoot? The answer will be very different depending on which you mean.

CJ

Building itself. Or any other relatively large inanimate object. Thanks.

Edit; Slightly off topic, but CJ, you wouldn't happen to have had an article about youself in 'Black & White Photography Magazine'? I think something has just clicked as to who you are.

Edit Edit; And after a bit more reseach, I can answer that myself. You are indeed the very same CJ. Wow, didn't realise we had a celebrity amongst us. :thumbs: I have to say, that picture of the girl sitting on the logpile really is hauntingly good. Fantastic work.:)

[petemc]

This one was shot using a concrete wall as a reflector.

- CJ

Damn! Nothing else? The detail in her eyes is brilliant. Its like you used a studio. I'm very tempted to run out and buy a light meter and things because you really are selling them to me :)

[Raymond Lin]

Now, if you're shooting digital, you probably already know that you have more latitude in underexposure than you do in overexposure; film is directly opposite. So, if I'm shooting digital and I want to correctly expose a face in window light, I will place my handheld meter on the bright side of her face pointing toward the light source and take the reading. That will render the bright part of her face approximately 18% grey. I set my camera in manual mode to the readings on the meter, and I'm good to go. There's no need to remeter unless I change locations, or the light changes.

Make sense?

- CJ

Yup :) and thanks again, guess i'll get a light meter then, used one in the past belong to someone else but because i've always had E-TTL I never truly needed one.



This one was shot using a concrete wall as a reflector.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6111/girlbx2.jpg

- CJ

How did you make her "glow" like that ? Was it a post processing technique ?

[cjnicolai]

Thanks, guys! Messiah, yup, correct about Black & White mag; I had a great six-page feature in the Dec. 2004 issues and another little one in February of this year. Great mag! The image of the girl on the logs was shot while demonstrating at a workshop in DC. What you can't see is fifteen students standing behind me. LOL.

Pete, yes, just the wall as a reflector. It's natural light, coming from behind her at left and right, hitting the wall, and bouncing back onto her face. Notice how she appears to have two catchlights in her eyes? That's because I'm standing between her and the wall, of course. ;) I metered the shot for her face, and let the background fall dark.

I really, really highly advise owning and using a light meter. There's no better tool for learning your lighting and nailing it the first time. You don't need to buy the fanciest meter, either. I spend about $200 US for my little polaris meter. It handles both ambient light and flash, and both spot and incident modes. Please do not convince yourself that a $600 meter is the only way to go. ;)

Messiah, in terms of shooting a building or other large object that can't be moved, patience is a virtue. Just as landscape shooters can't move the landscape into better light, you'll have to wait for great light if you want great light. ;) That said, one overwhelming weakness that I see these days in photography is extremely weak midtones. Remember that it's not the highlights or the shadows that give an image its glow; it's the midtones. So even in bright, less-than-ideal light, darkening the midtones slightly (particularly in B&W) can make a world of difference. Resist the urge to increase the contrast, as that actually DECREASES the midtones. Rather, go into levels or curves in photoshop (or the equivalent) and adjust the midtones only, and watch the effect on your shot.

- CJ

[cjnicolai]

Raymond, even with E-TTL, you still need a light meter. Unless you're just planning to use fill flash on every shot. ;) Using a handheld meter means you have to consciously decide what you want to expose for, and set your camera accordingly. There's no chance of the meter being fooled by bright backgrounds and the like.

As far as post-processing on that shot, there's really very little. Again, keep in mind that I'm a film shooter, so digital effects are out for me. For this image, I burned down the background slightly (to make an already-dark background a little darker, as there's a concrete seam in the wall behind her.) In the darkroom, I diffused the image slightly to make it just a little surreal. It's 99% lighting.

- CJ

[steveinspain]

CJ - I have just posted a couple of pictures in my gallery - if you have time and the inclination, could you please have a little look and offer any suggestions..
Not sure if this should be here or in a different place, but you opinions count..!
Cheers
Steve

[cjnicolai]

Jhob asked a question in another thread that is fairly well related to this one. So, I'm posting my reply in this thread as well.

The question was what to do with a family session in terms of posing and getting them to relax.

*********************

OK, let's start with positioning the family. (Obviously, first you'll have chosen the place and the light you'll be using.)

There are two "rules" that I give the families I'm photographing. The first one is: everyone has to get close together. I mean very close together. That will prompt the family to sit or stand reasonably close, but not nearly close enough for me. LOL. I want their faces touching. I at least want them to try. Getting them that close together accomplishes several things.

- It eliminates dead space between family members, implying a close relationship

- It improves their body language; you can't get all those faces close together without the subjects turning their shoulders (preventing them from squaring up to the camera)

- It makes them giggle! It feels silly to be that close to each other, and more times than not, someone will tickle someone else, whatever.

- It helps them to relax, having the other family members to lean on, literally and figuratively.

- If you don't have a lot of light, getting your subjects' faces together is very helpful as it will get them closer to the same plane; the result is that you can get away with a wider aperture if needed.

Once you've got them close together, take a look at the composition they've created, and simply tweak out anything that doesn't work. If you can hardly see Mom because she's gotten squished behind Dad, adjust it. Be sure to look at the shape the faces are making. Generally you're looking for triangles (as opposed to rows and rectangles.) So, rather than YOU having to come up with a specific pose, you're letting them do the work, and you're just moving around what doesn't work for you.

The second rule for families is that everyone has to touch someone else. Don't tell them HOW to do it. Let them come up with it on their own. It may result in Dad grabbing everyone up in a bear hug. The kid sitting on Mom's lap may reach up and do the "reverse hug." Whatever. If anyone doesn't voluntarily touch someone else, often I'll grab the "dead limb" and with a wink and a smile, shake it until it loosens up, and drop it around someone, which always elicits a chuckle. Again, tweak anything that doesn't work for you.

Having them all touch each other accomplishes the following:

- It enhances the appearance of a close relationship even further.

- It eliminates the compositional problem of having limp, hanging arms, and gives them something to do with their hands.

- It keeps everyone in place! That's really important when working with families with young children.

By now, you should have a very good starting point for your family. They should be nicely positioned, fairly loosened up, and they'll have a clear idea of what sort of images you're looking for. It's a great time to turn your back on them and let them chat amongst themselves for a few minutes. I call it "marinating." ;) It gives them a chance to relax into the position and make it their own.

Once you're ready to start, always keep in mind the goal. You probably don't want them wholly focused on the fact that they're being photographed. You probably don't want them staring at you. I would rather get them focused on each other. You can ask them questions about each other. Ask about their favorite vacation together. Whatever.

I could go on for days about working with families, but really, the majority of it is wrapped up in those two "rules."

Relax! You'll do great.

- CJ

[cjnicolai]

CJ - I have just posted a couple of pictures in my gallery - if you have time and the inclination, could you please have a little look and offer any suggestions..
Not sure if this should be here or in a different place, but you opinions count..!
Cheers
Steve

Steve, absolutely. Would you mind choosing maybe two of them and posting them here? That way, everyone can benefit from it. Thanks!

- CJ

[ShawWellPete]

Cheryl, I've just looked at your site, I love your work. Thanks for taking the time to give this advice...

:)

[steveinspain]

CJ - Having written my message, I have since learned how to post in thread, so have posted them in another place, but at the risk of being boring, will do so again here..

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/IMG_4371_edit_edited-1_Medium_blurred_2_Medium_.jpg

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/IMG_4356_edit_Medium_.jpg

I am new to so much here, especially editing, and you get such wonderful 'glow' to your pictures - I want to know how to make mine look more like yours..! (OK, I need to take better pictures as well, but I need to start someplace !!)
It is much appreciated that you are offering to help so many of us out, as you clearly have a lot of skill and feeling.
Thanks !
Steve

[Messiah Khan]

Really like that second one Steve. for some reson I think it looks like a shot out of an old film or something. You could do with adjusting the levels a bit though as the blacks look very gray and washed out in my opinion.

[steveinspain]

MK - OK, thanks for that - I have a very old monitor, and have just bought, but not tried a Huey monitor calibration thingie - on my screen, the blacks look pretty black, so thats my excuse......
Will give it a whirl though !

Not really relevant, but Jessie is only 3 - she seems to look a lot older in this shot..

[PapaLazarou]

How right you are, without light there would be dark. And the world would be void and without light. And then there would be no me, it's a saga now DAVE.

[Raymond Lin]

The first one is lovely, the eyes really holds the viewer's attention.

[Sisteron]

First things first: you NEVER want the camera to determine your aperture. You need to be the one to decide which aperture you use, because it has a huge impact on the look of the image. Always pick the aperture you want for the look you're after, and then decide (with the help of a meter) which shutter speed you'll need to use, adjusting the ISO if necessary.

Must agree 100%.In my view unless I'm shooting motorsport where shutter speed is my first thought but for the rest of my work aperture is KING.Aperture is where creativity is born.
I'm a hugh fan of Bryan F. Peterson and to quote his examples of "three types of aperture"."Singular Theme Apertures (f2.8 , f4, f5.6), Who Cares (f8, f11, f13) and Storytelling (f22 , f29 , f32.)"

[pxl8]

I'll add my vote to aperture control as well. I think DoF is just as important in composition as the rule of thirds, etc.

[cjnicolai]

Steve, sorry to be so long in replying. I've had an exceptionally busy last few days!

The light looks pretty good in both the shots you posted. The direction of the light is very nice, lighting the mask of the face and creating nice catchlights. Do keep in mind that the closer your subjects are to the light source, the softer the light will be. Particularly in the second shot, look at the shadow by her nose and the catchlights in her eyes: do you see how you could outline them with a pencil? It's an indicator of light being a bit on the hard side. The softer/larger the light source, the less sharply defined the shadows and catchlights will be. Remember, too, that a large light source is only a large light source if the subject is close to it. ;)

One suggestion compositionally. See how your subjects' eyes are dead center in both images? It's generally more efffective to place the eyes in the upper third of the image. In the first image, that also would have allowed you to eliminate a bit of extra background, and keep the hands in the frame. That would've made a huge difference.

The tones are just a bit on the weak side, as was previously mentioned. The glow you mentioned in my shots is equal parts careful lighting and a full range of tones. Darken up the shadows and play with your midtones until you start to see that same glow. It's there, really. ;)

- CJ



CJ - Having written my message, I have since learned how to post in thread, so have posted them in another place, but at the risk of being boring, will do so again here..

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/IMG_4371_edit_edited-1_Medium_blurred_2_Medium_.jpg

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/IMG_4356_edit_Medium_.jpg

I am new to so much here, especially editing, and you get such wonderful 'glow' to your pictures - I want to know how to make mine look more like yours..! (OK, I need to take better pictures as well, but I need to start someplace !!)
It is much appreciated that you are offering to help so many of us out, as you clearly have a lot of skill and feeling.
Thanks !
Steve

[steveinspain]

CJ - Get your butt over here in Spring - I need to spend sopme time with you to focus my mind more..
Thanks for your comments - I need some time to go over them when I am not mentally full of work stuff (I am a builder..) but I hear what you are saying - I just need to work out how to do it...! (especially the bit about being close to the light source makes the light softer - coming from a basic knowledge of flash, it was always the closer to the flash, the harsher the light..)
As for the eyes being in the centre - that is just me and my poor techinque - focus on the eyes and then forget to move the camera........
I am very grateful for your input, along with all the others who have taken time to respond,
Many thanks,
Steve

[cjnicolai]

No problem!

(And I'm working on the spring thing -- still need to find an affordable or free venue, and that ain't easy from across the ocean!)

- CJ

[steveinspain]

CJ - If I can help, then let me know - not that I am too much closer than you much of the time, but let me know what sort of place/size etc, and I can ask...

[cjnicolai]

Kicking this thread back into play. Anyone else have a natural light question or anything else related to portraiture?

- CJ

(Steve, I'll drop you a line in a bit.)

[steveinspain]

Hey, CJ, me again..
Ok, well if no other questions are coming, how about a few pointers about using a light meter - you say it a good thing to use - I don't have one, so what sort of thing is good enough to start with, and how do use it..?
(I did have use of one 30 odd years ago, with a borrowed Nikon which had no meter, but never really worked out how it worked to the best..)
Also, portraiture - most of your pictures (that I have seen, ie in your gallery) are of kids/young people. How do you go about taking them - do you set up a place, then try to get them to feel happy in it, and with you, or do you let them choose, or what ? I seem to take a fair few of my kids and a few of other peoples kids - getting them to relax and not pose in any way is pretty hard for me, and normally they have the best expressions at times when they are in the worst place for light. As you use film, I guess you don't shoot hundreds of pictures in a session, so you must have developed some 'technique', or is it that you are just a really lovely person that has the knack - if so, I hate you.
Seems like you need to make a video of a shoot - I'm sure a lot of folks here might be interested in buying a copy..!

[J Gordon]

Cheryl, their is something deeply beautiful about your photography. Film stands out so much in this digital age, it is very refreshing to see film shots, and inspiring.
I love natural light, a little fill flash for the eyes, sometimes a lightbox to put light in the eyes, but by far and away natural light is best.
Really impressive, lovely work. :)

[..MD..]

cj if you could have a look at this shot for me i would be grateful . it was taken in my garage about 12 noon. next to a window. i would like to learn alot more about natural light usage .
great thread by the way..
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/861/best-freinds-copy.jpg
thanks dave :thumbs:

[cjnicolai]

J, thanks for the wonderful compliment. Much appreciated! I see you're in Brighton; I did a workshop there at the Friends Meeting House this past March. We had such a great time there!

Dave, very nice moment caught. Your lighting is very soft -- as mentioned above in the critique of Steve's shots, you can tell this light is quite soft because the shadows have no distinct outlines. So, you're working with a large/close lightsource. Additionally, the white walls of your garage are working to reflect the light around, making it even softer.

Let's look at the direction of the light, though. Look closely at the catchlights in your subjects' eyes. Are there any? Where are they located? The girl at camera right has just a tiny hint of catchlight in both eyes as she's looking slightly upward at the camera. From the position of the catchlights, we know that the light is coming from a high angle at left. Typically, you want the light a little lower, coming in from slighly above and to the side of your subjects's faces, which allows the light to brighten the eyes and fill the shadows under them. You get away with it somewhat in this image because the light is so soft and is bouncing around, but you'll want to watch that angle in future shots.

Steve, I haven't forgotten your questions. Just need a bit of time to finishing answering them thoroughly.

- CJ

[..MD..]

thanks for that i will angle them alittle more towards the window in future and use a reflector ..

[cjnicolai]

Dave, I wouldn't break out the reflector in this situation. Modeling shadows are what give the image depth and dimension; adding a reflector here (in addition to the light already reflecting) will make your light flat. Simply angling them a bit more toward the light and having them look up at you a bit more (taking the shot from a slightly higher angle) will fix the lighting direction issue and maintain good modeling shadows.

I've attached the following image to show how having the subjects look up can compensate for overhead light. I could've introduced a reflector rather than waiting for them to look up, however I'd have lost the beautiful shadows that give the image its glow.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5371/bathsmpk3.jpg

- CJ

[J Gordon]

You're welcome C. Friends Meeting House in Brighton is great for staging exhibitions, it is very central and reasonably priced too. Great folk working their too. Let me know if you run another, I would be v interested in attending.
Thanks,
Jim

[cjnicolai]

Also, portraiture - most of your pictures (that I have seen, ie in your gallery) are of kids/young people. How do you go about taking them - do you set up a place, then try to get them to feel happy in it, and with you, or do you let them choose, or what ? I seem to take a fair few of my kids and a few of other peoples kids - getting them to relax and not pose in any way is pretty hard for me, and normally they have the best expressions at times when they are in the worst place for light. As you use film, I guess you don't shoot hundreds of pictures in a session, so you must have developed some 'technique', or is it that you are just a really lovely person that has the knack - if so, I hate you.

Now, now, you're not allowed to hate me for any reason. ;)

You're very correct that I don't shoot hundreds of images per session. Part of that is definitely because I'm a film shooter, and an even bigger part of that is because I'm a medium format film shooter. That means that after each shot, I have to bring the camera down and wind it to the next frame. For me, there's no such thing as shooting fifteen shots rapid-fire in hopes of getting "the shot." It may sound like a handicap, but in reality, it's forced me to learn how to anticipate the shot, rather than trying to react to it or "spray" it. ("Spraying" means shooting continuously in hopes of hitting something. ;))

The problem with shooting hundreds of shots in a short portrait session is that it necessitates the camera being continuously in front of your face. That means all your subject sees is a black box. It's asking a lot for your subject to give meaningful, natural expressions when they have only a camera to bond with. By keeping my camera at the ready but NOT in front of my face, I give my subjects someone to interact with, and I allow myself to really see my subject. I shoot only when there's a reason to.

I typically do my sessions at my clients' homes, where they're the most comfortable. When I arrive at the home, I have the kids give me a tour of the house so I can scope out light. I always tell my clients that I'm looking for great light regardless of where it might be. Could be a bedroom, the laundry room, the kitchen, wherever. I find the light first, then make the environment work. By getting my subjects into great light before I start the session, I ensure that I won't be stuck in the situation of having a great expression in hideous light. ;)

The key to getting relaxed and meaningful expressions of your subjects is to find a connection with them. Typically, photogs assume that asking their subjects lots of questions helps their subject relax. Not necessarily true. I've seen countless numbers of photogs try to engage their subjects like this:

photog: What's your favorite color?

4-year-old: Red

photog: What's your favorite TV show?

4-year-old: Teletubbies

photog: Do you have brothers or sisters?

4-year-old: A big brother

photog: What's your favorite food?

yada yada yada.

It's true that the photog has gotten the child to talk, but are you really likely to forge a great connection over those questions? And what has the child learned about the photographer? So often, the photographer is simply flinging out questions and not listening to the answers. Frankly, the photog is too busy coming up with the next line of questioning in his photointerrogation . And wondering if his exposure is right. And wondering why all of his shots feature the kid's mouth wide open in mid-word.

Instead of firing out questions solely designed to get the subject talking, use your questions to find something meaningful that you have in common with your subject. Don't ask questions that are boring to you (the photog) because you're not going to care or pay attention to the answer. Never ask a question without answering it yourself as well. And remember that the ideal time to hit the shutter is when YOU are speaking and the child is listening.

An example of me interacting with a child subject:

me: Do you have brothers and sisters?

4-year-old: A big brother.

me: Really? Do you like having a big brother?

4-year-old: Yeah, but sometimes he's mean to me.

me: You know, I have a big sister, and sometimes she was mean to me, too.

4-year-old: Sometimes he doesn't share his toys with me.

me: My big sister didn't share her toys with me, either. But you know what?

4-year-old: What?

me: Now that we're grown up (click) we share with each other all the time.

And so on.

The point being, you need to find something to connect with your subjects, so you can have a conversation instead of an interrogation. Keep in mind that kids couldn't care less about you getting good pictures -- so why should they cooperate with you? Think about it: you, the photog, are getting paid to shoot, and the parents are getting the portraits. What is the child getting out of it?


Hope this is making some sense, as I've only just started my first cup of coffee. I'll hit on metering a little later today.

Forgive me for posting first and proof-reading later. LOL.

- CJ

[Hacker]

CJ, some great advice on here and I'd appreciate a critique on this natural light picture of my son.


http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f273/HackerUK/James-13th-April009mono6.jpg

[steveinspain]

Thanks CJ,
The more I read and see youre pictures, the more you owe it to me to come to the Uk asap, but please make sure I know way ahead to book in some time...
Another lovely picture of yours of the kids in the bath, and loads of sound advice - I try to have my camera away from my face so I can talk to whoever, and either use a remote release or just hold it and hope..
When I am done working and have more time to think, I'll be asking many more questions and posting more pictures for you to comment on, so please keep on checking..!
Thanks again, and for giving me something to aspire to !

PS Hacker - a lovely picture !!

[cjnicolai]

Sorry for the long delay between posts -- crazy busy week, and I'm trying (in vain!) to catch up.

Hacker, that's a gorgeous shot. You've used the light very well, and the light suits the mood of the shot. The composition is also just right, tight enough to be very personal, but well balanced and with great use of negative space. The shadows add definition but are kept very soft to not ruin the mood. If I HAD to find a fault (and it would be a fairly petty one) it would have been nice to get his chin just a touch higher so as to allow a catchlight in his left eye and keep the shadow of his nose from crossing his lip. That's a very minor technical point that doesn't at all detract from the impact of the shot. Well done.

Handheld metering info still to come. It's turning into a book that needs editing. ;)

- CJ

[Raymond Lin]

I have a question CJ.

Found out today, the wedding I am going to shoot, at the reception dinner the B&G + Best man + parents' table is in front of the window. So there will be strong back lighting, as a Photog of available light yourself, what would your advice be? I am thinking putting the camera in manual just in case it'll get fool by the backlight and do a test shot or 2 til exposure is right while using spot metering for focus.

Thanks :)

[cjnicolai]

Raymond,

Finally getting back to you on this one. Sorry! Keep thinking I'll have a bit of time to sit down and type something coherent, but I keep having to put out small fires....

Yes, in the scenario you describe, you're much better off putting your camera in manual mode to avoid it being fooled by the backlight, which almost certainly would happen. If I were in your position, I'd use my handheld meter placed in front of the subject's face pointed toward the camera and use that reading, letting the light behind them fall where it may. If you don't have a handheld meter, then, yes, it would work fine to take a test shot or two to find your exposure. As far as focus, you may find that your camera doesn't autofocus easily with strong backlight. In those situations, I prefer to focus manually so I know precisely what will be in focus. (Actually, since I shoot mostly MF gear, I always have to manually focus anyway. Even with 35mm gear, though, I can manually focus much faster in lowlight than my camera can autofocus.)

That answer it for you? It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on it, really.

- CJ

[h.r.ford]

OK CJ since you've allowed to have your brain picked, I'm going to take you up on it. I have tried to get a decent pic of my son and our dog together with natural light. But the dog's eyes just disappear. So end up using fill flash and then everything looks flat... HELP?

Where should the light be to make this easier. Should I be using reflectors? Sorry if this is a really basic question. Thanks in advance.

Here's an example (feel free to pick it apart)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1374/1128821716_fc42294821_o.jpg

[cjnicolai]

No problem! Tell me first, though, if you will, what time of day was this shot taken? Can't tell with the flash.

- CJ

[steveinspain]

..and CJ, if you have time on your hands, how about a few moments to point me your way with these shots - my first meeting with my first wedding couple, and he is a photrographer (No, I am not planning on marrying him..!)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/MG_5064_copy_resized.jpg

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/MG_5034_copy_resized.jpg

Not in the same league as your stuff, and a bit of fill-in flash was used on the second, but you seem to have a way of pointing my otherwise empty mind towards what I need to look at and think about..
As always, many thanks,
Steve

[h.r.ford]

No problem! Tell me first, though, if you will, what time of day was this shot taken? Can't tell with the flash.

- CJ


I'm not sure myself but I'm guessing by the light on the shed that it was about 10 or 10.30. My camera time isn't set correctly!

[steveinspain]

Another for you to comment on CJ, if and when you have time - Jessie again, but hopefully I have got the lighting slightly better...?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/Jessie_edit_resized_2.jpg

[cjnicolai]

OK CJ since you've allowed to have your brain picked, I'm going to take you up on it. I have tried to get a decent pic of my son and our dog together with natural light. But the dog's eyes just disappear. So end up using fill flash and then everything looks flat... HELP?

Where should the light be to make this easier. Should I be using reflectors? Sorry if this is a really basic question. Thanks in advance.

Here's an example (feel free to pick it apart)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1374/1128821716_fc42294821_o.jpg

What you were dealing with here was a simple lighting direction issue. The reason the dog didn't have catchlights in its eyes is because he wasn't looking in the direction of the light. Rather than popping a flash (which, as you pointed out only serves to flatten the image) simply getting the dog and boy to look in the direction of the light would have fixed the majority of the lighting issue. As long as you are standing with the light behind (or nearly behind) you, having the subject looking at you will mean having the subject looking toward the light. If the light is coming from top down (as well may have been the case during the summer at 10:30 AM) try shooting from a slightly higher angle, which will cause your subjects to look slightly upwards into the light.

(Am I making any sense? Late night last night and coffee's still brewing.)

If you didn't want to change the direction of your subjects' gaze, a reflector would definitely work, without flattening the image as the on-camera flash has. You'll need a large reflector situated as close to the subjects as it can be without getting into your frame. When you use the reflector, watch the catchlights and shadows as you position it. If you're not getting catchlights from the reflector, it isn't positioned where you want it. Move it until it does. Hope that helps! I'll try to reread this post a little later to be sure it was coherent. LOL.

- CJ

[cjnicolai]

Another for you to comment on CJ, if and when you have time - Jessie again, but hopefully I have got the lighting slightly better...?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/Jessie_edit_resized_2.jpg

Steve, well done on the light! Nice job. On your last images, I mentioned looking at the shadows to judge the softness or harshness of the light. In this latest shot, you'll notice that the shadows are very gradual without definite lines (i.e. can't outline them with a pencil) so your light source was much bigger in relation to your subject than it was last time (i.e. your subject was closer to the window.) The lighting direction is also very well done, lighting the mask of her face and providing nice catchlights.

Compositionally, be careful of centering. Here eyes are dead-centered vertically, which serves to de-emphasize them. Generally speaking, you'll want to compose so that the eyes are in the top third of the frame. Don't worry about cropping off the top of the head.

- CJ

[cjnicolai]

OK, Steve, the beach shots....

So you were dealt a fairly overcast day, which is great in terms of portrait lighting. It allows you a lot more lattitude to shoot in places you might not have been able to otherwise, as direct sun wouldn't have been so kind.

It's quite easy to meter in overcast weather, as demonstrated in the first shot. With no real bright and very dark areas, the in-camera meter can do its thing without being confused. In the second shot, however, the camera WITHOUT flash would've likely read the brighter sky behind the couple and as a result rendered their faces a bit dark. You resolved this with fill flash which, although it has resulted in a fairly correct exposure, has also flattened your subjects a bit. Next time, try metering the faces specifically and shooting without flash, letting the sky go a bit brighter. If you REALLY still need more light on the faces, a reflector will do the job with a lot more definition, still allowing the modeling shadows to give dimension to the shot.

What will make a world of difference in shots like the second one will be getting your subjects to touch each other. While their faces look relaxed, their body language implies that they really don't want to be close together. ;) Remember the two "rules": everybody has to be very close together, and everybody has to touch each other.

- CJ

[steveinspain]

Does that mean me too - Can I touch all the people I photograph.... (please..!)
Seriously, I am a touchy type of person, and not in a dirty old man kind of way - It means contact, which is just what you are saying. I did take a few shots when the sun was poking out from the clouds, and the contrast in the waves was so high that to me, it seemed to distract from the subjects, despite being a nice enough pose.
In the picture of Jessie, I was tempted to cut of more of her head, to focus more on her eyes, and had not noticed that the eyes were so central.
I will read through what you have written again tomorrow, and many thanks for taking the time to write - very much appreciated !
Cheers CJ

Steve

[inophoto]

No specific questions, just wanted to butt in and add that I am enjoying this thread and finding it very useful. Hopefully I will have something useful to add at some point but in the meantime I shall read on with interest..

[Keltic Ice Man]

Really interesting thread CJ.

My question is one on metering, what determines where you should meter, and what should I meter under the different conditions?

Ive got an old manual light meter after reading this thread I'm going to have a try with it.

Thanks

Allan

[h.r.ford]

CJ - Thank you very much. Now I need to wait for a decent day, get the dog and boy dressed up again and try try try! It is just remembering everything all at the same time for teh same pic!

[Raymond Lin]

Raymond,

Finally getting back to you on this one. Sorry! Keep thinking I'll have a bit of time to sit down and type something coherent, but I keep having to put out small fires....

Yes, in the scenario you describe, you're much better off putting your camera in manual mode to avoid it being fooled by the backlight, which almost certainly would happen. If I were in your position, I'd use my handheld meter placed in front of the subject's face pointed toward the camera and use that reading, letting the light behind them fall where it may. If you don't have a handheld meter, then, yes, it would work fine to take a test shot or two to find your exposure. As far as focus, you may find that your camera doesn't autofocus easily with strong backlight. In those situations, I prefer to focus manually so I know precisely what will be in focus. (Actually, since I shoot mostly MF gear, I always have to manually focus anyway. Even with 35mm gear, though, I can manually focus much faster in lowlight than my camera can autofocus.)

That answer it for you? It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on it, really.

- CJ

First, thanks for the explaination CJ, I guess it'll be like this pic from Jeff, let the back blown out. Question is how does it adjust his metering so quick from pic to pic ?

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/984/peekriggott021vj7.jpg

[cjnicolai]

Raymond, if you're using a handheld meter, you can simply take a reading for when your subjects are facing the window, and another for when they're backlit. With those two readings in mind, I can simply flip back and forth between the settings with ease. Bear in mind that when you're using a handheld meter, your subjects don't have to be in the light in order to meter. You can meter in advance for approximately where your subjects will be.

The more you get used to using a handheld meter, the more you learn about light and the faster you get comfortable in these situations.

- CJ

[cjnicolai]

Just kicking this thread up. More questions?

- CJ

[steveinspain]

I've been struggling to upload pictures for the last few hours, as they are all too big, I am told (if only the women in my life...No, you don't need to know that sort of detail...)
Anyway, a picture of Jessie that may (CJ, tell me what you think..) be showing something of what I might be trying to show (how vague is that, but it might make sense to one or two of you....)
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/IMG_6352edit_for_tp.jpg

Any comments ?

[Graeme]

CJ, Here is one I posted in the portrait section and would love to here your thoughts on it.

http://www.fielden-family.com/gallery/Portraits/images/Amy.jpg


Also, As I am sure you are now aware, rooms in british houses are generally quite small, especially compared to houses I have seen in the US. How do you select a suitable background against which to photograph especially if there isn't a suitable background in the light available if you know what I mean.

Super thread by the way.

[nfulcher]

I was tidying up my subscriptions and came across this thread - which I was really enjoying. Is CJ still around - she hasnt been on TP since January.

[cjnicolai]

Hello, Neil,

Yes, I'm still alive, sort of. I've had some health issues and can't seem to feel good two days in a row. It's been a rough summer. I'll try to look in on this thread more often, though.

- CJ

[nfulcher]

Hi CJ

Sorry to hear you've not been feeling to good.

I wish you a speedy recovery and look forward to enjoying your inspiring comments and critique soon.

Best wishes

Neil

[rdh]

Hi CJ. How wonderful of you to offer help to the forum! Hope you manage to get some free time to recover fully :)

I took the following portrait using available light in the hot midday sun.

http://www.rdhphoto.co.uk/images/10.jpg

From your experience, do you think there enough shadow detail in the face? It was intended to be a high key shot with focus on her dark eyes, and positioned the sun over her back right shoulder (using my white tee shirt as a reflector). Should I have turned her more? Or perhaps not used my t-shirt as a reflector?

Your input would be very much appreciated as to get more from this type of shot!

[subseasniper]

Hi CJ,

Hope you are feeling better and all is well.

This thread is fantastic, the information is so useful.

I was wondering what your thoughts are on lenses, I am planning on getting either a Canon 35mm f2 or a 50mm f1.4. I use a Canon EOS 40D with crop factor of 1.6. This would mean the 35 would roughly be a 50 and the 50 would be closer to 85mm.

I want a lens for doing shots of my kids but also something that would serve as a general walkabout lens. What do you recommend?

[Grendel]

Hi CJ :wave: Sorry to hear you've not been well. I hope you're on the road to recovery now :) You've been missed round here ;)

[djs]

CJ!!
:wave:
Yep, what Grendel said :plusone: