Salvation Army portrait

P

PeteStewardson

Messages
2,470
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Some photos from a portrait session recently. A friend had a new Salvation Army uniform and wanted some photos in it for Christmas presents for family.

I struggled lighting this and not catching too much light on the medals. I'm not 100% happy with them so any CC appreciated.

keith4.jpgkeith3_1.jpgkeith_1.jpg
 
I like the second one best, maybe just clean up the BG to the left of his shoulder.
 
Hi Pete.

I too like the second one. Tbh theres not much in it I like the first image also. I know it's a portrait but there are some great textures and details in that uniform.


Did you use the one light ?

Gaz
 
never seen a Salvation Army uniform like this before at first I thought it was Green Jackets/Light infantry uniform I like the 2nd photo the most
 
Think the second image shows the Medals off better though the first one is a slightly better pose. done well to avoid any reflection in the glasses.
 
cargo said:
Hi Pete.

I too like the second one. Tbh theres not much in it I like the first image also. I know it's a portrait but there are some great textures and details in that uniform.


Did you use the one light ?

Gaz
Click to expand...

Hi Gaz,

It's an AD200Pro camera left in front of the subject for main light and I had a V1 back right to try and separate from the background a little. I think I could have gone higher in power for the V1.
 
sk66 said:
I think the first image has the best pose/angles; but you needed to flip your light to the rt side, and then maybe add some fill.
Click to expand...
Hiya
I can't work out why you suggest the light position change ? Not a critism just wanna learn.

Gaz
 
sk66 said:
Because it would have fixed the reflections on the medals. It would be more of a broad lighting/typical rembrandt type setup.
Click to expand...

But then his body would be in shadow rather than in the light if the main light had been the other side. Being the jacket is a very dark green it needs a lot of light to lift it out.
 
PeteStewardson said:
But then his body would be in shadow rather than in the light if the main light had been the other side. Being the jacket is a very dark green it needs a lot of light to lift it out.
Click to expand...
If the light was still at the same 3/4 frontal angle, just camera right instead of camera left, then the front of the jacket would not be in shadow. But the angle of incidence would have changed, and due to that change the jacket might drop some; which is why I mentioned it might also require some additional fill.

Basically, the hard/linear reflections from the flat metal surfaces would be sent camera left. But the diffused reflections (fabric, etc) would still be diffused and mostly visible to the camera, only the shadows/highlights within the fabric weave/details would have switched sides.
 
sk66 said:
Basically, the hard/linear reflections from the flat metal surfaces would be sent camera left. But the diffused reflections (fabric, etc) would still be diffused and mostly visible to the camera, only the shadows/highlights within the fabric weave/details would have switched sides.
Click to expand...
Hi Steven

Thanks for the reply.

I find it very clever and interesting that you know these things before even picking the camera up.

Thanks again.
Gaz
 
sk66 said:
If the light was still at the same 3/4 frontal angle, just camera right instead of camera left, then the front of the jacket would not be in shadow. But the angle of incidence would have changed, and due to that change the jacket might drop some; which is why I mentioned it might also require some additional fill.

Basically, the hard/linear reflections from the flat metal surfaces would be sent camera left. But the diffused reflections (fabric, etc) would still be diffused and mostly visible to the camera, only the shadows/highlights within the fabric weave/details would have switched sides.
Click to expand...
Hmmm I see what you mean I think. Something to consider in future.
 
toohuge said:
Have you shot these with a fast aperture OP? To my eyes - the subjects eyes are not both sharp in image 1 - or do I need to go to specsavers?
Click to expand...

I think it’s because of the resizing to post here. They’re both sharp in the originals.
 
cargo said:
Hi Steven

Thanks for the reply.

I find it very clever and interesting that you know these things before even picking the camera up.

Thanks again.
Gaz
Click to expand...
It's just years of experience.

PeteStewardson said:
Hmmm I see what you mean I think. Something to consider in future.
Click to expand...
You can think of a textured/diffused surface as being similar to a bunch of half spheres; i.e. each stitch/texture has some spherical/curved/raised aspect to it. And if you've ever tried lighting a sphere you know that no matter where the light is placed the camera will see it in the reflection (unless it is entirely behind).

Similarly, if you light fabric from a very shallow angle from the side it doesn't make the fabric fall away entirely, instead it brings out the texture in the fabric. You can actually see the effect in your three images as you rotated the body to a shallower angle relative to the lighting position.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun :)

WR6wEvV.jpg


Les :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top