Prom of Michaela
- Thread starter papalin4o
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm slightly puzzled by the lighting. The shadows suggest that the flash was off-camera, but only just, though the catch lights indicate that it was on the camera. It looks as though you bounced the flash off the ceiling between you and the subject, is that right? Or is there a window or skylight behind you?
Whatever the answer, you've done well to get natural looking results in the circumstances. I'm happy when I've got time to control and adjust my lighting but using flash on the move takes me right out of my comfort zone.
- Messages
- 2,080
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How, how, HOW do you work this out? Would love to know. It's something I've always wanted to find out about.
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
Well.. it takes practice, and I'm still learning to do it - which is why I post daft questions here!
Learning to shoot with a single flash & convertible brolly is really educational, too.
In this case, take #4 for instance.
Look at the catch lights in her eyes - there's a bright dot dead centre, so the flash was on camera.
Then there's a large square patch above the dot, hence bounce flash, reflector or skylight.
Normally with on-camera flash the shadow would be directly behind her, but it's not, so there must be another light source somewhere. The shadow has defined edges so is not a terribly soft light source, hence my confusion. Window light is usually more diffuse than this but it may have been South facing.
It's possible that there will be no catchlights - perhaps due to photoshoppery - or a shadow on a wall so it's always worth looking at the highlights on the skin as well. Then look at where the light falls off, where the shadows are, how dense they are, how well defined the edges are.
In this case there is a shadow directly below the nose with a fairly soft edge - hence light from above - but highly specular highlights on the lips and forehead, hence small direct lightsource. Then the shadow is denser on the subject's left cheek, so there must be another light source somewhere to her right.
IMO being able to take an image's lighting apart is the first step in being able to recreate it, or visualise something and produce what's in your head. I sometimes study fashion magazines & adverts for just this reason. One does need to be aware of how much manipulation goes on in PS though.
edit: This is a kind of basic analysis. There are lighting ninjas who can make an informed guess as to which way round the deflector in a beauty dish was fitted. I worship at their feet
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
All bang on, your confusion is caused by the fact the camera was vertical with the flash to the left of it causing that shadow.Well.. it takes practice, and I'm still learning to do it - which is why I post daft questions here!
Learning to shoot with a single flash & convertible brolly is really educational, too.
In this case, take #4 for instance.
Look at the catch lights in her eyes - there's a bright dot dead centre, so the flash was on camera.
Then there's a large square patch above the dot, hence bounce flash, reflector or skylight.
Normally with on-camera flash the shadow would be directly behind her, but it's not, so there must be another light source somewhere. The shadow has defined edges so is not a terribly soft light source, hence my confusion. Window light is usually more diffuse than this but it may have been South facing.
It's possible that there will be no catchlights - perhaps due to photoshoppery - or a shadow on a wall so it's always worth looking at the highlights on the skin as well. Then look at where the light falls off, where the shadows are, how dense they are, how well defined the edges are.
In this case there is a shadow directly below the nose with a fairly soft edge - hence light from above - but highly specular highlights on the lips and forehead, hence small direct lightsource. Then the shadow is denser on the subject's left cheek, so there must be another light source somewhere to her right.
IMO being able to take an image's lighting apart is the first step in being able to recreate it, or visualise something and produce what's in your head. I sometimes study fashion magazines & adverts for just this reason. One does need to be aware of how much manipulation goes on in PS though.
edit: This is a kind of basic analysis. There are lighting ninjas who can make an informed guess as to which way round the deflector in a beauty dish was fitted. I worship at their feet
But, this is the best way to learn about lighting, and most people think it's irrelevant. It's common for people to look for composition elements, but they ignore lighting which is crucial
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
All bang on, your confusion is caused by the fact the camera was vertical with the flash to the left of it causing that shadow.
But, this is the best way to learn about lighting, and most people think it's irrelevant. It's common for people to look for composition elements, but they ignore lighting which is crucial
Doh!!!
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
But back to the OP, if forced to use on camera flash in that situation, remove the diffuser and put it in a drawer (then forget about it), zoom the flash to max focal length and bounce it from the ceiling / wall join at the side the 'model' is facing. That way she'll be roughly 'short lit' and if you need to you can add a bounce card for a catchlight.
Purely from a lighting perspective the only interesting face is the shot in daylight, which shows up the ineffectiveness of a diffuser/bounced flash arrangement.
- Messages
- 4,907
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
True. Yet without light (and colour) there is no composition. Learning about lighting has improved all my work - street, landscape or architecture, even if I'm not modifying the available light - and I'm a bit mystified by those who don't bother.