Critique More background photos of the kids. What can I do better??

Messages
2,812
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
So following on from this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/my-homemade-studio-in-a-small-space.567933/ and trying to use advice from this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...fun-in-front-of-a-background-of-sorts.567970/ I've tried some more. I took these photos for the Christmas photo competition on here.

On this photo I was shooting into the brolly using the bounce light (theres no black cover though) which was next to me on the right.
I also used a reflector that was around 45 degress to my left.


This one was the same with maybe a flash adjustment, but I shot through the brolly


I will say that I edited these to look different in PSE and I upped the exposure in ACR in the first photo. My concern is the very heavy shadow on the background from the refletor. Would it have been better at 90 degrees?

I have my little subjects as far as I can from the background, but I am limited for space, something I'm really trying to work out how to solve until we can build an extension on the house. I may have to just do waist up images for now.

All advice very much appreciated, thanks, Mike
 
Last edited:
I find the drop shadow a little too sharp.
If the children were further from the wall, the shadow will be less harsh
Great picture none the less !
 
Last edited:
If you are stuck with the harsh shadows could you reduce their intensity during PP?
 
If you are stuck with the harsh shadows could you reduce their intensity during PP?


Nooooooooooooooooooooo!



PP is not the answer. Why do people insist on advising people that the best way to improve their photography is to carry on doing it wrong, and then fix it later on a computer? That good photography these days? No... never will be either. Good photographers use good lighting. After imagination, creativity and originality, LIGHTING is the most important aspect of photography... stop advising people to ignore it and fix it in post. That's not photography... that's ****. He may have limited space to move the subjects away, and if that's the case, then he can't achieve what he wants, and trying to remove the shadows will look awful, especially as there are objects in from of objects, all casting shadows upon each other. It's almost impossible to retouch, as then it would make no sense. The girl sitting is casting really hard shadows onto the boy behind, so if you remove the backdrop shadows, you're just making massively obvious it's been retouched.


The problem is you're standing your subjects right against the backdrop, and then lighting them with one, single hard light source... on the right? Clearly not... the shadows would suggest the light source was to your left, not right. (unless you've flipped the image). I feel you know this though, as we've discussed this before.


Step 1: Shining through brolly - If you're now no longer doing this, then there's clearly still direct light from the flash reaching the subject, as those shadows are REALLY hard, and not consistent with using a white brolly properly at all.


Step2: Get your subjects away from the backdrop. There's no way you can stop shadows like this when your models are so close to the backdrop, even with a soft light source. If this is impossible, then you're just going to have to admit you don't have space for these full length roomset type images. You really need a lot of space for these... or.. use a VERY large light source.


Step3: Once you have distance between your subject and background, then you can think about separately lighting the background.


It's absolutely crucial you get your subjects away from that backdrop, and give sufficient space to light it separately or you're always going to struggle, or have to rely on post processing... which is a really p**s poor way of working. If you stand your subjects close to a backdrop and use a small lightsource you WILL get shadows. The only way to avoid this if you site the models close to the backdrop is to use truly huge light sources such as massive 6ft soft boxes and and equally massive reflectors on the opposite sides. A fill light directly behind the camera will also help massively, but again, this must be a very large light source.

You'll still get shadows, but they'll be soft... like this... (sorry about IMGUR's jpeg compression)

F8j0hXI.jpg


Here, the model was lit from the left with a huge 6ft x5ft softbox, and then the red gelled light from the lower right is also filling in the shadow too. It's very rare I'd shoot so close to a backdrop unless I WANT a shadow, and in fact, this is the only image I can find where I've done it. Even though that red gelled light is really confusing the image as an example of what I'm referring to, you can still see how SOFT that shadow would have been even without the red light It's not the fact that there are shadows, it's the fact that they are so hard in your case. It makes the image look like it's been shot with on camera flash... very snapshot-like

Ideally though, if you don't want shadows, you need to get your subjects away from the background.


My concern is the very heavy shadow on the background from the refletor. Would it have been better at 90 degrees?

Not really... no.

I have my little subjects as far as I can from the background, but I am limited for space, something I'm really trying to work out how to solve until we can build an extension on the house. I may have to just do waist up images for now.

If you can't get then away from the background, there's nothing you can do except use very, very large light sources, or concentrate on closer shots and get the kids away from that background.... light the background separately, but flag off the background lights so that no light from them hits the subject. This will also need more lights of course.
 
Last edited:
PP is not the answer. Why do people insist on advising people that the best way to improve their photography is to carry on doing it wrong, and then fix it later on a computer?

Exactly. Get it right to start with.

light the background separately, but flag off the background lights so that no light from them hits the subject. This will also need more lights of course.

Do you think it could be done with a reflector from the main light if there are not enough separate flashes available? It would certainly take the harsh edge off of the shadows.

EDIT: Mike said that he had a reflector to his left and his light is coming from the left. I think moving the reflector to the right could both add a bit of fill to that side and light the background a bit.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Get it right to start with.



Do you think it could be done with a reflector from the main light if there are not enough separate flashes available? It would certainly take the harsh edge off of the shadows.


Steve.


A large reflector will help, yes, but it will merely reduce contrast, as the hardness of the shadows is a product of the key light, and will not be affected by any amount of reflected light to lower contrast. A reflector will only ever be lowering contrast, not modifying the qualities of the key light.

If he can't get distance... he needs MASSIVE lights.

@Steve Smith
@Raptor Mike

[EDIT] you mean bounce the key light off a massive reflector, so the reflector BECOMES the key light? Yes.. that could well be a good way of fixing this... but it would need a large bounce surface. Maybe 5ft square.... and it would need a means of flagging the flashgun off so no direct light from it hits the subject. It would also rely on the fact that the room isn't gonna just bounce uncontrolled, as then you'll lose all directivity and modelling... and just have a flat light.... however, even that would be better than the hard light he's using now.


EDIT again.....

As an exercise to demonstrate how a single flashgun can give impressive results, I demonstrate this to students by using a single SB800 to shoot a white paper cup on a white background.

This was lit by a single SB800.. straight off camera... no editing

5K4LZom.jpg


The SB800 was aimed upwards at a 5ft x5ft piece of polystyrene board hung 2 metres above the set ( I think... either that or it was a pure white ceiling... I've done this demo to students a few times now). The white background is just a piece of A1 paper formed into a scoop. There was no direct light from the SB800 hitting the set.... it was all coming from the reflector. As the flash was 6ft from the reflector, the whole reflector surface was now the light source, and hence I have a 5ft square light source... hence no shadows. Bigger lights = softer light.

Apply this theory to Mike's set, and it SHOULD be possible to get around this problem in such a way. It's certainly worth a try. Mike would obviously NOT be using a reflector above... but instead to the side :)
 
Last edited:
As above, that doesn't look like it was lit as you described, is there a chance you were using on camera flash to trigger the other lights and that was actually then the key light?

And I can't really offer much that hasn't been said, other than that photography is often about problem solving. Your biggest problem is a lack of space, the solution (as you've realised) is to shoot smaller objects to give you a better amount of space. A little thought could have got you this group as a 3/4 portrait, tighter and neater.

It seems unfair to compare, but see what @Sir SR does in modest spaces. And this is what I always advise, stop trying 'to make a studio' in a living room, and start trying to create great pictures in a living room.
 
Thank you all. I did really to this this morning but its not there which is strange.

Anyway what I wrote was thank you David for all that help you'd written, but also thanks to everyone else.

The brolly was next to me on my right and the reflector was on my left at about 45 degres from me.. That's what I think caused the shadows to the right. I am using the pop up to trigger the 430ex2 so I checked to see what the flash settings on my camera for that are in case the pop up was contributing to the photo,but it was set so its only enough to send the signal to the off camera flash.

My son was approx 90cm from the background and I was aprrox 160cm from the from of the tinsil in front of the girls.

The relector I used was this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002ZIMEMW?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00 And my brolly was this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0065245B2?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00 Would a larger brolly or a soft box help?

EDIT. I know this isn't top gear but I don't want to spend a fortune until I get resaults. I understand that may be a catch 22 though lol

I will give firing into the reflector though, that makes lots of sense. Like bouncing flash of the ceiling but being able to direct it with the reflector.

As for Christmas someone on here put a very helpful link to an article by a guy who set up two speed lights in opposite corners of the room and had them bouncing flash off the ceiling so he could get his kids lit no matter where they where in the room while opening presents. I'm going to do that. These photos were all about me trying to nail background shots.

Thanks all
 
Last edited:
As above, that doesn't look like it was lit as you described, is there a chance you were using on camera flash to trigger the other lights and that was actually then the key light?

And I can't really offer much that hasn't been said, other than that photography is often about problem solving. Your biggest problem is a lack of space, the solution (as you've realised) is to shoot smaller objects to give you a better amount of space. A little thought could have got you this group as a 3/4 portrait, tighter and neater.

It seems unfair to compare, but see what @Sir SR does in modest spaces. And this is what I always advise, stop trying 'to make a studio' in a living room, and start trying to create great pictures in a living room.
Yes I often look at what he's doing and I'm always impressed.
 
@Raptor Mike

It's the same with Nikon. You can set the internal flash to trigger an external speedlight, BUT it's a separate menu control to stop it contributing to the exposure. Check it's not the same with Canon... I bet it is. I thought that looked VERY hard for a reflected brolly shot.
 
@Raptor Mike

It's the same with Nikon. You can set the internal flash to trigger an external speedlight, BUT it's a separate menu control to stop it contributing to the exposure. Check it's not the same with Canon... I bet it is. I thought that looked VERY hard for a reflected brolly shot.
I know what you mean and after I had reviewed the photos I checked the setting because I thought it could be a cause. I found this menu image online and mine was set to the middle one. However I cant be 100% sure I have to admit but that was the setting it was on the last time I used the speedlights wireless.
wirelessfunc.jpg
 
Just to add a page of my camea manual in the wireless flash section has just fallen out due to reading that area of the book so much lol
 
Mike.
There's no subtle way of saying it:

Your pop up flash is what lit those shots. If you need convincing, just put one of the kids in front of the wall and shoot them with just the pop up and the camera vertical. You'll see it's 90% of the shot above. Your brolly softened speedlight and reflector are doing virtually nothing on those shots.

Put some wireless triggers on your list for Santa. The Canon wireless system is over complicated and under reliable, making it a great system to 'play' with, but a nightmare if you're looking for consistent results you can learn from.
 
Mike.
Put some wireless triggers on your list for Santa. The Canon wireless system is over complicated and under reliable, making it a great system to 'play' with, but a nightmare if you're looking for consistent results you can learn from.
I remembered you recommended some triggers in another thread. Could you remind me which ones it was please? I cant afford them at the moment what with Christams and work being slow at the mo, but I can add them to my Amazon wish list.

Oh and thanks to you and David for being up front. I never mind people telling me Im wrong when Im trying to learn :D (y)

EDIT: Especially when I start making excuses:sorry:
 
Last edited:
Yep. The TX is a very good controller by all accounts and just makes changing settings so much quicker and easier. Keep meaning to pick a set up, but there is always something else I want aswell. :LOL:
 
I always have bits of cheap interesting gear on my Amazon wish list, some people have bought me stuff when they have no idea what it does. (The most 'random' gift was a grid for an Octobox, I didn't even have an octobox)

You never know who might choose to get you something to keep you quiet.

And David's right, they're YN622s and a TX I'd recommend. Even if you just use them manually, they're worth the money.
 
Back
Top