Creative portraiture: ultra-shallow DOF

They're beauties Shaheed! Definitely worth me experimenting, but one of the looks I'm after is a close crop.

I've taken the Schoeller style and tried to make a comparable lighting set up. The only issue is my softboxes (and I think he uses panels?) look to be a fair bit broader than his, judging by the width of the catchlight bands. This has caused the light to really flatten out and almost look like head-on lighting, which obviously I don't want. It might also be because I have the lighting setup a lot closer than in his videos, so maybe just back things out a bit. It was just enough space to squeeze my camera in between the softboxes :)


Schoeller-style close crop portrait by Paul M, on Flickr

At least my wife is finally getting some benefit from me surreptitiously buying lots of gear ;)

Although she was a bit shocked to see how sharp the macro lens actually is... Oops!

This is not as shallow a DOF as I want, but again as part of the journey it's an interesting step.

Edited to add - Mrs Pjm1 was putting me under time pressure (needed to cook dinner!) so I just shot and she ran... I've obviously overcooked the backlight on her hair, but it's not the end of the world given this is just testing and playing...
 
Last edited:
pjm1 said:
They're beauties Shaheed! Definitely worth me experimenting, but one of the looks I'm after is a close crop.

I've taken the Schoeller style and tried to make a comparable lighting set up. The only issue is my softboxes (and I think he uses panels?) look to be a fair bit broader than his, judging by the width of the catchlight bands. This has caused the light to really flatten out and almost look like head-on lighting, which obviously I don't want. It might also be because I have the lighting setup a lot closer than in his videos, so maybe just back things out a bit. It was just enough space to squeeze my camera in between the softboxes :)


Schoeller-style close crop portrait by Paul M, on Flickr

At least my wife is finally getting some benefit from me surreptitiously buying lots of gear ;)

Although she was a bit shocked to see how sharp the macro lens actually is... Oops!

This is not as shallow a DOF as I want, but again as part of the journey it's an interesting step.

Edited to add - Mrs Pjm1 was putting me under time pressure (needed to cook dinner!) so I just shot and she ran... I've obviously overcooked the backlight on her hair, but it's not the end of the world given this is just testing and playing...
Click to expand...

Get some black card/cinefoil to narrow your soft boxes??
 
Yes, that's a very sensible idea :) I could also turn them slightly more towards each other which would expose less area to the model. Basically feather them a bit further.

I've changed my mind on his look - I do like the catchlights, even if mine are a bit too broad. It really makes the eyes seem alive...

Now I just need to get the rest of the lighting right, the DOF right, the engagement better, the... :)
 
pjm1 said:
Yes, that's a very sensible idea :) I could also turn them slightly more towards each other which would expose less area to the model. Basically feather them a bit further.

I've changed my mind on his look - I do like the catchlights, even if mine are a bit too broad. It really makes the eyes seem alive...

Now I just need to get the rest of the lighting right, the DOF right, the engagement better, the... :)
Click to expand...

I do exactly that sometimes - this one was taken with normal large softboxes facing each other - totally parallel - but the model behind their rear edges - and some black panels either side of her to increase the shadow density.

(don't look too closely at the retouching, this is an old one now!!!)


Amber by Simon Carter, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
That's really helpful Simon. In terms of comparison you can see the difference moving the softboxes away and angled towards each other has: it hardens the light just enough to "soft" rather than ubiquitous and totally flat. It's not what I'm after, but it's nearer to it than my attempt: a closer crop and shallower DOF with something more like this lighting (perhaps slightly larger catchlights) would be though!
 
@pjm1
Interesting discussion.
Paul are you after a consistent look? Something that you could dial in on a regular basis.
I know its a different look to what you are after but I found Peter Hurleys work quite inspiring. He shoots with continuous lighting but its expensive. I was toying with the idea of building a cheap and cheerful alternative with led light fittings.
 
blakester said:
@pjm1
Interesting discussion.
Paul are you after a consistent look? Something that you could dial in on a regular basis.
I know its a different look to what you are after but I found Peter Hurleys work quite inspiring. He shoots with continuous lighting but its expensive. I was toying with the idea of building a cheap and cheerful alternative with led light fittings.
Click to expand...

In my (very) limited experience cheap LEDs can be really unkind to skin tones. Quality issues aside, I much prefer flash because of the rhythm it brings to a shoot.
 
I do like Mr Hurley's look too but it's definitely not what I'm after here... I also like how posing tips etc, he was one of the first portrait pros I started following!

Re: continuous lighting, Ikea's Ledare bulbs are supposed to be excellent if you're after consistency in a DIY solution...
 
juggler said:
In my (very) limited experience cheap LEDs can be really unkind to skin tones. Quality issues aside, I much prefer flash because of the rhythm it brings to a shoot.
Click to expand...
pjm1 said:
I do like Mr Hurley's look too but it's definitely not what I'm after here... I also like how posing tips etc, he was one of the first portrait pros I started following!

Re: continuous lighting, Ikea's Ledare bulbs are supposed to be excellent if you're after consistency in a DIY solution...
Click to expand...

Thanks guys, I can't remember where I was reading about it but there was an article where someone made a Peter Hurley'esque lighting set up from led shop display lights. It was very Americanised but that didn't take anything away from it.
They managed to get a consistent look from them.

Anyway, I digress Paul, back OT.
Sorry for derailing your thread a little :D
 
blakester said:
Thanks guys, I can't remember where I was reading about it but there was an article where someone made a Peter Hurley'esque lighting set up from led shop display lights. It was very Americanised but that didn't take anything away from it.
They managed to get a consistent look from them.

Anyway, I digress Paul, back OT.
Sorry for derailing your thread a little :D
Click to expand...

Not at all, Iain - this thread is a bit of a waffle from me because I'm not 100% sure what I'm after - apart from something a "bit different" and with shallow (but still somewhat sensible DOF).

I'm not au fait enough with lighting to really be able to understand what fundamental different continuous lights would make to a portrait shot - assuming all are properly colour balanced etc. A large part of me is sceptical and thinks that because good quality continuous lights are expensive, the manufacturers will push them as a great thing simply because of their margin. And people like Hurley who no doubt get all their kit for free anyway are effectively paid to promote it.
 
blakester said:
Thanks guys, I can't remember where I was reading about it but there was an article where someone made a Peter Hurley'esque lighting set up from led shop display lights. It was very Americanised but that didn't take anything away from it.
They managed to get a consistent look from them.

Anyway, I digress Paul, back OT.
Sorry for derailing your thread a little :D
Click to expand...


I wonder if this was where you saw the details of the led lighting set up or if it a similar set up

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvyW2BZzvKo
.
 
pjm1 said:
I'm not au fait enough with lighting to really be able to understand what fundamental different continuous lights would make to a portrait shot - assuming all are properly colour balanced etc. A large part of me is sceptical and thinks that because good quality continuous lights are expensive, the manufacturers will push them as a great thing simply because of their margin. And people like Hurley who no doubt get all their kit for free anyway are effectively paid to promote it.
Click to expand...
No difference whatsoever. He probably likes the WYSIWYG effect and actually needs to use flash for the white background (otherwise he needed twice the lighting power in Kinoflos, ewgh). If you watch more of his stuff, you'll find out that he probably prefers continuous light, as he used to shoot with his "arse parked against a north facing window".

I'm not keen on his trainings. Most of them can be summarised in a few sentences and he doesn't really actively tackle the stuff he does intuitively right - building rapport with the client, getting them in the correct mindset.

Right, enough OT :D
 
juggler said:
In the last Hurley video I saw he was promoting Profoto flash stuff.
Click to expand...

Sir SR said:
They promote whoever pay/sponsor them which proved the fact that they're all just tools to do a job.
Click to expand...
He became famous as the 'continuous light guy' but it's all about the lighting pattern. Whilst I actually like the look, I'm amazed he's got so big as a one trick pony.
 
Phil V said:
He became famous as the 'continuous light guy' but it's all about the lighting pattern. Whilst I actually like the look, I'm amazed he's got so big as a one trick pony.
Click to expand...
Well, we know that business success has little to do with artistic skill. He does great work for the actor portraits and has business sense. With the proper marketing in a city full of actors, I'm sure he flourishes.
 
Last edited:
pjm1 said:
To be fair I reckon he may have made a few quid out of his modelling before photography as well...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether being a model is such a lucrative business. Besides, I'm sure he works his arse off for his business. So that is something to admire him for.
 
Phil V said:
He became famous as the 'continuous light guy' but it's all about the lighting pattern. Whilst I actually like the look, I'm amazed he's got so big as a one trick pony.
Click to expand...

I used to think that but some of his wider location stuff is actually quite good, he just doesn't seem to do it very often.

Though to be fair, most of us would produce great results with the same team behind us.
 
juggler said:
I used to think that but some of his wider location stuff is actually quite good, he just doesn't seem to do it very often.

Though to be fair, most of us would produce great results with the same team behind us.
Click to expand...

He understands light and hence can translate that to all his photos.

As we keep saying it's all about the light!!
 
Interesting.. I think the parallel lights work best with the subject properly upright between them and either square on or a complete profile. For me the in between angles can end up looking like broad lighting.
You have got the nose and eye both sharp, though, and I imagine that was properly tricky.
 
Thanks Simon, I agree it does look reasonably flat again doesn't it?! She was standing quite a way back from the parallel lights (which were this time) but I do think the setup worked a bit better than last time. And actually, given the focus, the eyes are where it's at so this is all (for me) about creating those catchlights.

She's a 2-yo who obviously moves at the speed of light, so it's always a challenge to get any set up (apart from giant softbox right in front of them!) to work well. The more technical the setup, the worse it usually works. I was actually reasonably pleased with this as far as it went: it's still very much experimentation phase and I think this is about as far as I can push shallow DOF. Although in my mind I wanted less!
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks Simon, I agree it does look reasonably flat again doesn't it?! She was standing quite a way back from the parallel lights (which were this time) but I do think the setup worked a bit better than last time. And actually, given the focus, the eyes are where it's at so this is all (for me) about creating those catchlights.

She's a 2-yo who obviously moves at the speed of light, so it's always a challenge to get any set up (apart from giant softbox right in front of them!) to work well. The more technical the setup, the worse it usually works. I was actually reasonably pleased with this as far as it went: it's still very much experimentation phase and I think this is about as far as I can push shallow DOF. Although in my mind I wanted less!
Click to expand...

Is your 2 year old the intended subject?
The projects worth doing tend to be the hard ones but I might try a setup requiring less precision. Which has given me an idea...
 
juggler said:
Is your 2 year old the intended subject?
The projects worth doing tend to be the hard ones but I might try a setup requiring less precision. Which has given me an idea...
Click to expand...

Hiya

Not for this... it's just she was a willing model. The benefit of testing thing out with her is it improves my skill level every time (because she doesn't stay still) and she and I are usually delighted to get the photos :) Downside is she doesn't stop moving, so trying to do something a bit more "accurate" is destined to fail...

Looking forward to seeing your idea!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top