Beginner Alison

[Harlequin565]

So this is my 2nd shoot with the lights I got for Christmas (lucky me!) The first one was a bit rubbish and I'm a bit happier with this one.

Alison 2016 by Ian, on Flickr

Excuses:
- Working in a very small space in the lounge, so separation from the background was impossible beyond the 12 inches or so. Would remove shadow on background if I could. Didn't want to mess around in PP trying to lift it though as it would probably look unnatural with my skills.
- The stands are "out of the bag" ones, so they don't boom or go very low and had to be at a slight angle which has caused a deeper shadow under the chin than I was aiming for.

Contact sheet here: https://flic.kr/p/CUZVVx

 

[MatBin]

Be interesting to see what other more expert opinion is, but doesn't look too bad to me. I like the shadow under the chin and my guess is so would any woman over the age of 25 as it will hide/soften any lines. Don't mind the shadow behind either. Very flattering shot of an attractive lady, I would be happy with it.
Matt

 

[Harlequin565]

Very flattering shot of an attractive lady, I would be happy with it.

Many thanks for taking the time to comment Matt. You're my wife's #1 best friend after that comment too!

 

[blakester]

Good work Ian, the shadows give depth and definition to your Wife's portrait. I think they work well.
What was your lighting setup?
Do you have a reflector for fill?

As you said, your light had to be at an angle but one way of eliminating the shadow behind your wife would be to have the key light higher and directly on axis perhaps with a reflector beneath. This would be clamshell lighting but that tends to be flat, although flattering to the more mature subjects.

As it stands though, I think the portrait is fine as it is.
What does your model think of it?

 

[Harlequin565]

Thanks Ian. @blakester

Had a beauty dish up high - touching the ceiling in fact (we live in a 50's/60's semi and I can touch the ceiling on tiptoe) and a rectangular softbox letterbox format down low - both almost directly in front of the subject. Ideally, I would have liked to have dropped the softbox by at least a foot but the stand prevented that, and also to have them both vertically aligned (which I couldn't do without a boom stand as all the feet got in the way of each other).

A reflector is on my list of things to get, but January... Well, it's January...

My model looked at the contact sheet, pulled a face and said "I look old".

 

[juggler]

My model looked at the contact sheet, pulled a face and said "I look old".

More experienced folk than me would say beauty dishes are only for young female subjects with good skin. The smaller and further away the dish, the more unflattering they are.
They're good at (a) carving out cheekbones & lips and (b) revealing texture - and they only do (a) if they're higher than yours was here. If it was higher it would reveal more texture, too, but that's exactly what you don't want.

They do have other uses but if I had to use a dish for conventional portraits I'd stick a sock on and get it as close as I could, or position it facing downwards just in front of and above the subject (I mean inches) and attempt to feather the light. And I'd still use a sock and a reflector then.

 

[juggler]

Damn, I should have said.. I actually think it's a nice flattering portrait. The low angle of the dish means it isn't revealing texture, the only problem is that it's adding some unsightly specular highlights.

 

[Harlequin565]

I'd stick a sock on and get it as close as I could

Thanks for that Simon. Sock? You don't mean... like... an actual sock... do you?

My wife picked this gear up second hand for me. Bowens lights (x2)+brollies+attachments, a snoot, a beauty dish and an oblong softbox. I know I'm suffering for lack or reflectors. Do you think swapping them around (Softbox as key light, beauty dish as a fill which I've been setting on about 1/3 of the key light power) would work better? I also have a couple of brollies with the light attachment but I haven't played with them yet.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

 

[Fatheadedlizard]

Damn, I should have said.. I actually think it's a nice flattering portrait. The low angle of the dish means it isn't revealing texture, the only problem is that it's adding some unsightly specular highlights.

Im no expert in this area, google butterfly/clamshell lighting and give that a try, do you have a 3rd light you can use for a rim/hair light?

 

[juggler]

Thanks for that Simon. Sock? You don't mean... like... an actual sock... do you?

My wife picked this gear up second hand for me. Bowens lights (x2)+brollies+attachments, a snoot, a beauty dish and an oblong softbox. I know I'm suffering for lack or reflectors. Do you think swapping them around (Softbox as key light, beauty dish as a fill which I've been setting on about 1/3 of the key light power) would work better? I also have a couple of brollies with the light attachment but I haven't played with them yet.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

How very nice of her!

A sock is an elasticated diffuser which goes on a beauty dish - it effectively turns the dish into a small round softbox.

Rather than swapping your lights round I'd suggest using just a single light - the softbox - and a reflector. A piece of white card will do. I'd do what I could to get the softbox a bit higher than the subject, marginally off to one side and nice and close and tweak from there. If you want to play with clamshell lighting and don't have room to get the softbox up high then try using a brolly & reflector instead. I posted this reflector comparison before, it might be useful.

I might be a bit odd but I find large softboxes rather tricky to get pleasing results from. How big is yours?