PDA

View Full Version : studio lighting - Do you bother about the reflections in the eyes?



Patrik Roseen
7-Aug-2007, 01:41
I am planning some photosessions with my girlfriend using studiolighting ...aiming for that (old) Hollywood-glamour style a'la Garbo (if possible).

So, I have been studying photographs from the 1930s-1940s.
I have also read alot of guides about modern portrait lighting in studio using strobes etc. I learn but I also get annnoyed and concerned.

Most of the modern recommended light setups seem to be great for avoiding shadows or creating shadows in the models appearance...BUT they seem to mess up the light reflection in the eyes (from what I see in the pictures in the books).
Often there are many strobes reflected and/or a large square bouncer...AND the photographer is clearly visible since the light source is behind the camera.

Looking at the photo's from the 1930's there is only one small round reflection per eye. They seem to have been more concerned about this (and maybe they did retouching?).

I would assume that with Photoshop digital retouching would be a simple matter. But in todays magazines there are lots of beautiful models with expensive makeup with those darned messed up reflections.

When did photographers stop thinking about reflections and why?
What is your view on this?

Patrik Roseen
7-Aug-2007, 03:43
...here is an example of what I am talking about...and this from a Hasselblad Master.
See the photo with the blue mascara.

blue eye (http://www.hasselblad.com/masters-2007/july---laurence-laborie.aspx)

Frank Petronio
7-Aug-2007, 04:46
As long as there is something bright in the eyes I'm happy to get a good shot... and yes, George Hurill and Karsh and those guys had awesome retouchers.

David A. Goldfarb
7-Aug-2007, 05:29
The catchlight is something you can use. It can open up the eyes or it can be a distraction. Retouching catchlights is simple work. They can be etched out on the neg or spotted out on the print or cloned out in PhotoShop. You can also enhance a catchlight for more sparkle.

I think the reflection of the photographer in the blue eye shot is okay--it's something of a self-portrait, probably intentional.

Virtually all professional portraiture until maybe the late 1960s involved retouching, and Hollywood portraiture usually involved heavy retouching.

Scott Davis
7-Aug-2007, 05:39
Another reason for the single round catchlight in the old Hollywood Glamour photos was the primary use of undiffused hotlights. The normal main light in those days was a multi-thousand watt incandescent lamp in a focusable fresnel spot housing. Your subjects baked under those lights. If you want to improve the catchlights, and stick with strobes, you can use a smaller softbox on your main, and get a circle vignetter for the box face. Then you'll get the round catchlight.

Patrik Roseen
7-Aug-2007, 09:44
Thanks for sharing your experience and views on this subject.

The thing is I can not look at a portrait anymore without paying attention to those reflections in the eyes. And if the photographer is there I start to itch. When comparing those older portraits with modern ones the difference is striking.

Frank, I realize they had excellent retouchers back in those days. When studying photos real close one can even see individual hairs that have been removed, and even parts of the chin and cheek to make the model more slim or symmetric.

David and Scott, I will play around myself trying to create that single round catch light. I did read somewhere that they had some specific light just for this, which was strong enough to register in the eye but too weak to affect the overall lighting.

I am currently reading a book about (old) studio lighting in film making. There are very interesting suggestions that would be benefical also for the still photographer to know.

If you have any suggestions for guides to Hollywood glamour lighting please feel free to propose some.

Darren Kruger
7-Aug-2007, 10:12
I will play around myself trying to create that single round catch light.


See if you can find some black foil to play with (check out theater supply shops.) you can make any shape reflection you want with it. Another idea is to use some tape or ribbon to make fake window panes on your soft box.

If you are concerned about the photographer being in the picture, get some black velvet to drape over the camera and such to make them less visible (black clothing and black tripods help too.)

-Darren

Ron Bose
7-Aug-2007, 10:15
When you get a rembrandt, butterfly, broad, short lit portrait right the catchlights fall in place automatically.

In my opinion, keeping a simple one or two light portrait is far more appealing than huge light-banks with the photographer in the catchlight !!

Scott Davis
7-Aug-2007, 11:13
There's a classic book on Hollywood Glamour lighting by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos-

http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8903821-2482456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186510291&sr=8-2

Ron Marshall
7-Aug-2007, 11:51
There's a classic book on Hollywood Glamour lighting by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos-

http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8903821-2482456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186510291&sr=8-2

That's a great book. If you havn't yet read it, it would be very useful for your project.

Have you considered an octabox or a beauty dish?

Randy H
7-Aug-2007, 12:11
The catchlights are on purpose. In the last few years, most have gone to a rectangular soft-box for the main light, at about 45 deg up and right, hence the "square" catchlight. The earlier photogs used a round light for main, placed essentially the same place, hence the round catchlights. In an earlier thread, someone asked about the flourescent setup using a "box" setting. This will produce a "halo" light around the pupil. If the catchlight is wanted, without the shadows, try using a softer light, either in a gobo setup, or a small snoot, set about 45 degrees up and 45 degrees right about halfway between the model and the camera, facing the model. Move around to get catchlight placement where you want. Then use your strobes for shadows or main lighting.

Patrik Roseen
8-Aug-2007, 07:10
Scott and Ron, thanks for recommending this book. I will try to buy it.
Now that I see the author Christopher Nisperos, I recall seeing his name on this forum!

Randy, I understand that the catchlight is intentional but do you also mean that photographers are deliberately 'messing up' the reflection. It does become more lively this way but I can not help but think that it also becomes disturbing in many cases.

...(edit) Yes, I found the thread about Cristopher Nisperos and his 1950s portraits.
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.de/testimonials/christopher_nisperos.htm

Randy H
8-Aug-2007, 13:17
"Intentional"? If you mean shape of catchlight, most likely, yes. As stated, the current popular lighting is the rectangular and square boxes. If you are referring to the photographer's image in the catchlight, because of lighting behind him, no. That is just poor setup, in my opinion. Or someone with an overly inflated ego problem. Main light should be between camera and model (to one side). There are some really good lighting tips and modelling setup info, for both indoor and outdoor portraiture here (http://www.glamour1.com/forums/view.php?pg=phototips)

They will also occasionally show "how" they set up the lighting for a particular shot, especially if you ask.

Patrik Roseen
10-Aug-2007, 04:31
Thanks Randy for the great link!

I guess the rectangular and square lighting are used because they offer more versatile, better and more even light throughout the framed subject rather than the traditional round ones...and that the resulting rectangular catchlight in the eyes is something one just have to live with.

Gordon Moat
10-Aug-2007, 11:22
Square or rectangular can often be used for area, though there are really large octagon and round soft boxes and reflector. The Broncolor Para (http://www.bron.ch/bc_pd_ps_en/detail.php?nr=2788) starts at 170cm on up. The idea is that as you get much larger the light becomes more diffuse. Broncolor have a nice overview of lighting in their eye school (http://www.bron.ch/bc_pd_lg_es_en/index.php) on-line.

Sometimes shooting into a really large reflector can make a smaller lightsource throw a larger area of light. This can help to get closer to the diffuse look. It really depends upon what you want to achieve. Sometimes having a catch light in the eyes can be interesting. Sometimes your model has to stand close to a wall, and you don't want much (or any) indication of shadows.

Really big parabolic reflectors and large softboxes are not items you want to transport often, use under windy conditions, nor often use on location. After years of softboxes, monolight, and studio lights, I now use a more portable set-up of multiple Nikon Speedlights and large folding flat reflectors.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Randy H
10-Aug-2007, 12:38
Square or rectangular can often be used for area,...

Sometimes shooting into a really large reflector can make a smaller lightsource throw a larger area of light. This can help to get closer to the diffuse look. It really depends upon what you want to achieve...

Sometimes having a catch light in the eyes can be interesting.

Agree. The "catchlights" bring "life" (sparkle) to the eyes. Look at two identical shots. One with and one without the catchlights. Major difference.

For a main light, I use a 36 inch octagon that I built with a 350 flood, a linen cover for diffuser over the whole shebang, and about an 8 inch round reflector in the center front, facing back towards the flood, to eliminate a "hot spot" on the subject, and four gold and four silver reflectors on alternating sides, on the inside flats of the box. Gives great coverage. This gives a pretty "soft" catchlight at about 2:00 o'clock in their eyes. I have a 200 flood with barn doors for side lighting and shadowing, and another 250 flood on either snoot or gobo for background and/or backlighting. If for background, dirctly at background. If for backlight, set a little behind subject, and directed more towards the back of their head, or almost directly beside them, and aimed at a reflector set behind them. For indoor portraits, I usually shoot either fuji NPS or Kodak VC, and use the gold reflectors for skin tone.

These are personal preferences, and best thing to do is to get or build a set and "experiment" to see what "trips your trigger".

Patrik Roseen
13-Aug-2007, 06:00
Gordon and Randy, thanks again for great information. The link Gordon provided was very informative.

Ron Marshall
13-Aug-2007, 09:42
Patrik, here is a link to photos taken with one light. Some are interesting. Not what you are looking for, but may give you some ideas:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/printthread.php?TopicID=424115

Mark Carney
13-Aug-2007, 13:09
Patrik

Keep it simple. You can do really amazing things with 1 light and a reflector or two. Maybe a simple back light for seperation, this light can be directed either toward the background or your girlfriends back.

It's very easy to get too complicated.

There's been alot of really good advice and links given.

Mark