How to eliminate specular highlights in portraits

RichardH

RichardH

Messages
97
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I am reasonably well versed in using strobes, but seem to struggle with managing/eliminating specular highlights. I...
  • shoot manually
  • use a couple of (admittedly) fairly cheap softboxes (Lastolite Ezybox - 24" I think) and brollies. I know I need to get the boxes as close as I can to the subject.
  • use diffusers on my strobes.
  • where necessary, add a 1/4 cut CTO to ease up on the white light produced by the strobes.
  • zoom out where possible to spread the light.
But I still can't seem to hide those white highlights typically on the forehead and nose of the subject. Everything I read says the next step is to go bigger and buy a 48" octobox or similar. Before I splash the cash, am I missing something?

Thanks for any help.
 
Matt makeup, yes.
Larger softboxes "should" help but there's more to it than that - getting the angle right (which is also usually more flattering to bone structure anyway) makes a huge difference. Never forget that the angle of reflectance always equals the angle of incidence. And better quality softboxes matter too, cheap ones tend to have poor diffusers.
RichardH said:
  • where necessary, add a 1/4 cut CTO to ease up on the white light produced by the strobes.
  • zoom out where possible to spread the light.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the relevance of these points.
Do you have any examples we can look at?
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't understand the relevance of these points.
Do you have any examples we can look at?
Click to expand...
I wasn't certain they were relevant, just wanted to put as much info down as possible. Here is an example that I took earlier today. Please forgive the model (my missus), I wanted to test a shot ahead of our now non-existent family Christmas, so she is un-made up, and un-dressed up. The softbox was just out of shot to her left. DSCF0311.jpg
 
Last edited:
Short of matt foundation there isn't really any way of improving this dramatically, although my points about softbox quality and angle are valid, and the second light hinders rather than helps. I appreciate that she wasn't wearing makeup and maybe isn't a makeup person, but it's essential for this type of shot.

And of course, nearly all non-models tend to think that they look better in dramatic, "clubbing" type makeup that shines, which exacerbates the problem.
 
No she doesn't do make up as a rule, and to be honest, looking at my few more serious shots with models, they do and the results are much better. I suppose for professional results, you need to be professional about it.

Anyone care to suggest a proven, non bankrupting, larger softbox option for strobes?
 
RichardH said:
This sort of thing?

Godox Brolly
Click to expand...
Godox make a mixture of good and bad products. I wouldn't describe their softboxes as being particularly bad, but they're cheap for a reason and you'd do much better with a better designed, better-made product that has twin diffusers as well, even though the cost is inevitably higher. And, although these umbrella softboxes are useful, you'll get more even light distribution from a conventional softbox. This one is 95cm, which is as large as reasonably practicable in a home studio. https://www.lencarta.com/redline-pro-profold-folding-octa-softbox-lencarta-95cm

I designed it myself, and specified the materials, it's about as good as anything else that you can get. Elinchrom also make some good softboxes, also not cheap.

As for a grid (or Honeycomb in English:) ) these are useful tools, for special effects. You don't need one as a portrait key light,
 
Garry Edwards said:
I wouldn't describe their softboxes as being particularly bad, but they're cheap for a reason
Click to expand...

The thing I'd pay more money for on a soft-box is a well made grid/honeycomb. I.e. with stitched intersections. Those slot-together ones fall apart after one use.
 
Thank you all, I think I will have to think more on it. I am tending towards the good quality, larger softbox option, but it is also making me wonder whether to move up from strobes to more powerful heads, which in turn dictates the type of softbox.
 
Scooter said:
The thing I'd pay more money for on a soft-box is a well made grid/honeycomb. I.e. with stitched intersections. Those slot-together ones fall apart after one use.
Click to expand...
A lot of people say that, but the reality is that they're so expensive that hardly anyone actually buys them . . .
RichardH said:
Thank you all, I think I will have to think more on it. I am tending towards the good quality, larger softbox option, but it is also making me wonder whether to move up from strobes to more powerful heads, which in turn dictates the type of softbox.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that you're using flashguns, not studio flash heads? You mentioned in your first post that you're using strobes . . .
If you really are using flashguns then the built-in reflector will cause problems, because softboxes are designed to be used with flash heads that don't have a reflector. This allows the light to bounce around inside the softbox and produce evenly distributed light, which is then diffused by (normally) two separate diffusers. With flashguns all the light goes forward and is badly distributed, relying entirely on the diffuser(s).. Also, flashguns are limited to small softboxes in the sense that there's always a hotspot when using large softboxes. Flashguns are however not as bad when used in umbrella softboxes.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So are you saying that you're using flashguns, not studio flash heads? You mentioned in your first post that you're using strobes . . .
If you really are using flashguns then the built-in reflector will cause problems, because softboxes are designed to be used with flash heads that don't have a reflector. This allows the light to bounce around inside the softbox and produce evenly distributed light, which is then diffused by (normally) two separate diffusers. With flashguns all the light goes forward and is badly distributed, relying entirely on the diffuser(s).. Also, flashguns are limited to small softboxes in the sense that there's always a hotspot when using large softboxes. Flashguns are however not as bad when used in umbrella softboxes.
Click to expand...

Should be clearer on terminology. I always thought speedlights/flashguns were also called strobes.. Good information- thank you. Studio heads are a big jump in quality and price, but sounds like part of the solution for me. Or I could try an umbrella softbox with my current speedlights and see if that works better.
 
The term "Strobe" refers to studio flash heads, named after a particular (early) brand, it's a bit vague really - calling a studio flash head a strobe is a bit like calling a Dyson vacuum cleaner a Hoover:)
Studio flash heads are a massive jump in quality but prices have come down. For example, the Lencarta SmartFlash, complete with built-in remote control/radion receiver is £129 https://www.lencarta.com/lencarta-smartflash-4 and if you want to take a risk on warranty and customer service, there are plenty of similar offerings on Ebay for even less.

You can of course pay far more than that, but there's no point unless you want really short flash durations for action-stopping.
 
Garry Edwards said:
A lot of people say that, but the reality is that they're so expensive that hardly anyone actually buys them . . .
Click to expand...
I can appreciate it is a dilemma for softbox vendors - it's difficult to demonstrate what you are getting for, say, double the price. Nobody knows they want/need a better grid, until they've had to untangle and re-slot one of those cheap ones. :p
 
RichardH said:
Should be clearer on terminology. I always thought speedlights/flashguns were also called strobes.. Good information- thank you. Studio heads are a big jump in quality and price, but sounds like part of the solution for me. Or I could try an umbrella softbox with my current speedlights and see if that works better.
Click to expand...
Studio heads are actually lots cheaper than speedlights unless you’re buying the very cheapest speedlights.

A Godox 300Ws head is around £100 and is 3 or 4 times the power of a Canon or Nikon Speedlight at c£300
 
Phil V said:
Studio heads are actually lots cheaper than speedlights unless you’re buying the very cheapest speedlights.

A Godox 300Ws head is around £100 and is 3 or 4 times the power of a Canon or Nikon Speedlight at c£300
Click to expand...
Which is why £40 Yongnuo's have served me well for many years ;-). That said, you make a good point, The 2 or so extra stops of power on a studio head would come in handy. Many times I find myself when shooting with a narrow aperture, that I have to have the Yongnuos on at full power and wish for more. A silly thing putting me off the jump is the fear of having to relearn a new transmitter, so that it works flawlessly when on a shoot.
 
soeren said:
Polarizer. Takes some work to dial in but can get rid of reflections from at least one source
Click to expand...
Why didn't I think of that! You don't see many people use it on portrait shoots. Will try it out.
 
in portraits like the lady above, I do not find that amount of shine any sort of problem. it is perfectly natural. and looks healthy.
However in more formal portraits a judicious use of powder is the norm in all studios. and used by every TV make up girl for running repairs.
However a few matching skin tone colours are helpful.
Unfortunately the best position to set the lights to bring out the facial structure inevitably adds some shine to some parts, so some makeup is mostly necessary when using lights.
 
Sorry to keep boring you all, but I did some experimenting over lunch. I have a Westcott 36" reflective umbrella, forgotten about in the loft. Rigged it up, and got an even more reluctant and unmade up wife to pose (she knows how to fake a smile). Same camera, same lens, but not a terribly scientific test. Minimal work in lightroom (lifting shadows a bit), and am very happy with the result. To my eye the specular highlights are much more under control, and the light is much softer. I think a similar sized octagon with diffusers will do a better job of it, and feel this is sufficient for my needs. Only concern is I needed to up the power from 1/8 to 1/4 (I guess representing the greater distance to bounce the light, and that is with a f/2.4 aperture, which leaves little wiggle room with narrower apertures. So, still thinking about a flash head.

DSCF0338.jpg
 
RichardH said:
Sorry to keep boring you all, but I did some experimenting over lunch. I have a Westcott 36" reflective umbrella, forgotten about in the loft. Rigged it up, and got an even more reluctant and unmade up wife to pose (she knows how to fake a smile). Same camera, same lens, but not a terribly scientific test. Minimal work in lightroom (lifting shadows a bit), and am very happy with the result. To my eye the specular highlights are much more under control, and the light is much softer. I think a similar sized octagon with diffusers will do a better job of it, and feel this is sufficient for my needs. Only concern is I needed to up the power from 1/8 to 1/4 (I guess representing the greater distance to bounce the light, and that is with a f/2.4 aperture, which leaves little wiggle room with narrower apertures. So, still thinking about a flash head.

View attachment 302679
Click to expand...
Only a flash head and a good softbox will help with the light quality, but you can deal with the power issue by raising the ISO - assuming of course that your camera isn't Yongnu quality :)
 
RichardH said:
Sorry to keep boring you all, but I did some experimenting over lunch. I have a Westcott 36" reflective umbrella, forgotten about in the loft. Rigged it up, and got an even more reluctant and unmade up wife to pose (she knows how to fake a smile). Same camera, same lens, but not a terribly scientific test. Minimal work in lightroom (lifting shadows a bit), and am very happy with the result. To my eye the specular highlights are much more under control, and the light is much softer. I think a similar sized octagon with diffusers will do a better job of it, and feel this is sufficient for my needs. Only concern is I needed to up the power from 1/8 to 1/4 (I guess representing the greater distance to bounce the light, and that is with a f/2.4 aperture, which leaves little wiggle room with narrower apertures. So, still thinking about a flash head.

View attachment 302679
Click to expand...
How far away is your light source from your subject
 
The larger your modifier is, relative to the area being lit, the more even the lighting (more wrap/fewer shadows); but that doesn't really have much impact on how translucent the highlights are. The translucence of the highlights is controlled by distance; because a shorter distance requires a lower power setting. But a shorter distance also increases the rate of falloff.
Personally, I think you will be better off adding another light/modifier rather than trying to do it all with one.
 
All shiny things have spectral highlights, however you light them.. it is why we call them shiny.
The more evenly that they are lit by reflected light the less the shiny bits stand out.
Any direct light will result in a spectral highlight.

Unfortunately flat non directional lighting is very boring for portraiture, and not the way to go.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
All shiny things have spectral highlights, however you light them.. it is why we call them shiny.
The more evenly that they are lit by reflected light the less the shiny bits stand out.
Any direct light will result in a spectral highlight.

Unfortunately flat non directional lighting is very boring for portraiture, and not the way to go.
Click to expand...
I agree that flat, non directional lighting is very boring, but it is quite flattering. Unfortunately, the result of a long discussion on Strobist basically concluded that women who are not particularly interested in photography would rather be flattered than interesting. I believe Joanna Lumley made a comment to that effect as well.

The OP may want to also look at his camera settings and tone down the saturation a bit. Too much saturation brings out the red tones in the skin which also makes specular highlights more pronounced. I've taken the liberty of taking down the red saturation on this portrait. It might not be to everyone's taste but I personally would prefer it.

specular portrait.jpg
 
Stegosaurus said:
I agree that flat, non directional lighting is very boring, but it is quite flattering. Unfortunately, the result of a long discussion on Strobist basically concluded that women who are not particularly interested in photography would rather be flattered than interesting. I believe Joanna Lumley made a comment to that effect as well.

The OP may want to also look at his camera settings and tone down the saturation a bit. Too much saturation brings out the red tones in the skin which also makes specular highlights more pronounced. I've taken the liberty of taking down the red saturation on this portrait. It might not be to everyone's taste but I personally would prefer it.

View attachment 303019
Click to expand...
I like! Though a bit too desaturated for me.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The larger your modifier is, relative to the area being lit, the more even the lighting (more wrap/fewer shadows); but that doesn't really have much impact on how translucent the highlights are. The translucence of the highlights is controlled by distance; because a shorter distance requires a lower power setting. But a shorter distance also increases the rate of falloff.
Personally, I think you will be better off adding another light/modifier rather than trying to do it all with one.
Click to expand...
Would upgrading to a more powerful flash head help rather than two lights?
 
From my background in film....
Large sheets of polystyrene board as reflectors to bounce the flash? In film they tend to be either 8x4 or 4x4.
 
Dubbledom said:
From my background in film....
Large sheets of polystyrene board as reflectors to bounce the flash? In film they tend to be either 8x4 or 4x4.
Click to expand...
Useful for fill, but not sure how that would reduce the highlights. If you are suggesting bouncing the key light off of the polystyrene and then onto the subject, then that must reduce power by, what, 2 stops minimum?
 
sk66 said:
The larger your modifier is, relative to the area being lit, the more even the lighting (more wrap/fewer shadows); but that doesn't really have much impact on how translucent the highlights are. The translucence of the highlights is controlled by distance; because a shorter distance requires a lower power setting. But a shorter distance also increases the rate of falloff.
Personally, I think you will be better off adding another light/modifier rather than trying to do it all with one.
Click to expand...
The translucence of the specular highlight is controlled by its size, although angle is relevant too. The trick is to effectively spread the highlight in size so that it's less bright and we can see through it to the subject that it will hide if it's small and bright.
If the subject isn't flat, and especially if it has a convex shape, then the light source needs to be even larger and closer.
 
sk66 said:
The larger your modifier is, relative to the area being lit, the more even the lighting (more wrap/fewer shadows); but that doesn't really have much impact on how translucent the highlights are. The translucence of the highlights is controlled by distance; because a shorter distance requires a lower power setting. But a shorter distance also increases the rate of falloff.
Personally, I think you will be better off adding another light/modifier rather than trying to do it all with one.
Click to expand...
Power is irrelevant.
 
Dubbledom said:
From my background in film....
Large sheets of polystyrene board as reflectors to bounce the flash? In film they tend to be either 8x4 or 4x4.
Click to expand...
This, and adding more lights, is just a distraction.
 
RichardH said:
Would upgrading to a more powerful flash head help rather than two lights?
Click to expand...
No, as previously explained in detail, power is irrelevant and your solution is simply to use a flash head that doesn't have a built-in reflector at the rear of a decent softbox, job done.
 
Garry Edwards said:
The trick is to effectively spread the highlight in size so that it's less bright and we can see through it
Click to expand...
Garry Edwards said:
Power is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You can make the highlight any size you want by changing the size of the source/modifier; that will not make it translucent (e.g. catchlights). It is when you spread it out and make it larger by moving the source closer that it becomes "less bright" and more translucent... because that also requires a reduction in power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top