NikonGear'23
Images => Critique => Topic started by: aerobat on February 28, 2017, 17:51:40
-
Here's a portrait with my daughter and I'm looking for advice on lighting and composition.
Gear used is D750 with AF-S 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4; 1/640s; ISO 200; no flash.
-
Beautiful Daniel, maybe better in portrait mode but that would be a nitpick!
-
I always ask this question in response to the OP's original question:
Is there something about the image that you feel is "off" or that you want to do better?
As is, for me, it is a beautiful portrait. As Mike had mentioned, for the subject alone, having the picture in portrait orientation may be a more effective presentation.
Personally, I might find that the lighting is a bit too flat. I like the background as it is, but I might have introduced a reflector or off camera flash to give the facial features a bit more depth, even slightly.
The blouse is lovely as well, and I really like the pattern and texture of it. I would have explored possibility of including more of the material - perhaps a 3/4 framing(if it were a top only) or more(if it is a whole dress).
-
Beautiful model and picture. Composition-wise you should have framed an additional part of the waist. 😊👍🏻
(https://1f0c7243sbms4c9a3d39xz61-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/exemples-plan-poitrine.jpg)
All what is green is acceptable.
-
Portraits of course have an expected approach, as given by the term 'portrait mode' :D
However rules are there to be broken, and I for one find this portrait very nice and conveying a relaxed and friendly personality set against a likewise pleasant background.
-
Agree with Mr Floyd. Crop in the wring place. Also you can improve the image with background editing - but that is a personal choice directly related to what you want to achieve. Beautiful girl
-
Many thanks for your comments Mike, Andrew, MFloyd, Bjørn and Elsa.
I'll work more on composition and posing of the model.
Elsa, what do you mean with background editing? I'd like to learn this.
-
This is a good example of a portrait in about similar circumstances as yours https://flic.kr/p/SxpjED
-
I like it as is! Super :)
There is no right or wrong, sure you could crop or get closer or further away,,,
-
I agree with Erik, I like it as it now. Beautiful classical portrait, with good light, and a very matching bokeh.
-
+1 on Erick's comment, but I do tend to get closer and keep the landscape orientation
-
To me the bokeh is competing with a beautiful portrait, thus somewhat distracting.
-
Daniel, beautiful daughter and really great image of her. Not crazy about the background light sources around her head. I cannot offer any additional advice since I really only shoot candid portraits and have never really worked much with external light sources. I am normally not big on full face at a 90 degrees and normally prefer the face to be at an angle but this one works well. Where possible, I do look for a shooting angle which gives me the best back ground be it birds or people ;) . At times I run across great natural light with some possibilities of very good BG but I never know when and seldom have my wife with me. When we plan a session the light just doesn't cooperate :( . My wife has probably 40+ years on your daughter which means I am only allowed to use her favourite lenses (135 2.8 Q being her current favourite and not the Samyang 135 f2 ... ;) ) . She likes the 85 1.4D :) She also likes 'soft focus' from Nik ... lol
Edit: I really like the depth to her face, well done. Many , of my, images from the Oly 75 f1.8 , 45 f1.8, Sony 55 1.8 seem flat/canned(?)
-
Indeed a beautiful portrait, Daniel! I can feel a special communication that is only possible between a father and his daughter on different levels. In this sense, I could hardly find anything to criticize.
However, if you would force me to nitpick (LOL), I would say that the background bokeh feels ever-so-slightly too busy, especially the trunk on the right side and the blurred point light sources around her head.
If I understand correctly, the bokeh of a fast mid-tele lens could become a touch smoother when it is stopped down just a little. So, maybe I would try another frame with the lens stopped down to, say, f2.0, unless you look for different backgrounds. Of course, the background will be a bit sharper, but chances could be that it would become a nice "environmental" portrait.
-
You put the full aperture at a good use :)
I tend to use that lens at f/2.2 for portraits; call it a fetish since I have not done systematic comparisons. Just memories of keepers shot at that aperture. (Note: With the old 85/1.8 AF-D, sharpness soared at that aperture. There is no such behaviour with the AFS, because it is much better wide open)
Minor edits could be :
- cropping part of the right side a little: about 1/10th of the width but no more, lest she would get short breath (I think MFloyd's recommendation is right, no matter if framed vertically or horizontally)
- getting rid of the green LoCA around the lights in the background; it will look more natural, and slightly less busy.
-
It all depends on what you want.
As is, it speaks to you as a father and that is great and no critique will ever change that.
However, if you wish to be either artsy or fashion or commercial. The pic will not cut.
Always but always and I repeat always when shooting Beauty and Portraits is to look for the shadows. Photographers look always for the light and forget the shadows. What makes a picture is the existence of shadows which allows Modeling, Depth and Perspective.
You lack shadows in your dynamic range and you lack shadows on her features.
It is a rule of thumb when shooting portraits to have the B/G darker than the subject as this:
B/W balance
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/Darker_zpsn2g1944b.jpg)
B/G Blur/Bokeh:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/Blur_zpszvvvxjrn.jpg)
Crop Vertical:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/crop_zpsaxozw7sf.jpg)
Retouch Face (Dbl eyelid - Eye Bags - Contour - MU - Nose Bridge - Hair):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/Black-1_zpsotqyorpg.jpg)
Side by Side Final (Contrast to taste - No Sharpening whatsoever was done):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/Side-by-Side_zpsy4lgtvlq.jpg)
-
Face edits do not work for me - looks like bleaching and de-personalizing
-
Airy, I'm with you on the face edits. They can go too far in the name of "beauty"
For example how far would you go with removing features from a face like this
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2755/4419395503_6b660440eb_b.jpg)
-
Different cases, same conclusion:
- why on earth should an elderly person get rid of her wrinkles - should she also get her memory (and ours) reset?
- why on earth should a pretty young women be made prettier - who owns the definition of pretty anyway?
The yardstick of a really good portrait is the subject accepting his or herself, unretouched. There are enough tricks to be applied before triggering.
Removing a pimple or cat scratch in PP makes sense though (these being temporary blemishes, and as far as they do not contribute to the story).
-
2- Pretty can be made Beautiful. Beautiful can be made Sublime. Why you want to deny it to any woman?
Are you going to negate trousers for women or skirts and lingerie?
What is it to you if women use beautifying products and photographic imagery.
I am sure the following would love to hear your views such as Anna Wintour - Joyann King - Marie-José Susskindo Jalou and others.
Here is a quote from Anna Wintour:
"It was so unlike the studied and elegant close-ups that were typical of Vogue’s covers back then, with tons of makeup and major jewelry. This one broke all the rules. Michaela wasn't looking at you, and worse, she had her eyes almost closed. Her hair was blowing across her face. It looked easy, casual, a moment that had been snapped on the street, which it had been, and which was the whole point. Afterwards, in the way that these things can happen, people applied all sorts of interpretations: It was about mixing high and low, Michaela was pregnant, it was a religious statement. But none of these things was true. I had just looked at that picture and sensed the winds of change. And you can’t ask for more from a cover image than that"
Doesn't sound like she is caught up in perfection.
But no need to argue. There is room for different approaches. I'm in favor of a more natural look, but Ethan is not wrong to pursue his own vision.
-
Ethan, no need to revert to personal attacks.
Bleaching and plastifying does not necessarily mean beautifying. While on the one hand (correctly) recommending to enhance contrast with the background, a few steps later you flatten her face, following current magazine standards. The cult of pale faced blondes has been damaging enough (not to mention D-sized bra cups and twiggy bodies).
The only sublime lady is the one in front of the lens. Whatever picture ensues is necessarily a crippled version of her self. What features can or should be retained is photographer's choice and skill. But yes, I resent industrial processing. That's just my honest opinion.
BTW I have nothing against sophisticated poses and racy clothing (or lack thereof), as well exemplified by your provided link. But that's not "portrait" in the strict sense.
-
My apologies for the late reply. I have been traveling a bit.
Let's be honest - everybody has their own opinion and everyone's opinion is good for that person. What we see is subjective and we base that on our frame of reference, style and taste.
I prefer images that have a finer touch - the next person likes to see it journalistic style. You decide what you like. As said - I prefer images that are more fine art to print and hang on the wall rather than something that would be good for the family album. BUT THAT IS MY TASTE. Doesnt have to be anyone else's taste. Often people comment that they don't do ANY retouching - those people normally don't know how ;D ;D Any image can benefit from retouching. How you retouch though is personal taste.
Rough edit - small image. Crop is a bit awkward but obviously I left it as such.
-
Ethan I dont agree with your comments regarding the shadows. Your edits looks hard, orange and is not flattering in my opinion. This is a soft portrait. Its a girl in lace. Not a chick in leathers. Editing should fit the subject and not the rules.
-
,,,,,
It is a rule of thumb when shooting portraits to have the B/G darker than the subject as this:
,,,,
This might be your rule, but definitely not a rule I have ever used or even heard of :)
-
Many thanks for the numerous comments and also for taking your time and editing to different styles.
I like Elsa's airy style for this kind of portrait. Admittedly I have no clue about retouching and would have to learn this.
Another photo from same series which was taken in portrait mode. Framing and pose could still be better.
The bokeh is less distracting in my view.
-
Nice one. Maybe let her do something with her arms; now they are more in the frame but still "hanging".
-
I made also my edit :) Frequency separation for skin & face editing; correction on some parts of the hair colour; correction of left eye which is slightly smaller than the right one (as everybody); no sharpness correction; no reframing; no background bokeh correction.
Please, no philosophy about the evil or appropriateness of face editing. By now, we all got the message.
-
Daniel, I feel , for me, your last one is a big improvement. The light bokeh is not as distracting. I also like Elsa's take. I hope your daughter is in the loop on all of the options. What does she think? :) . I am so bad with PS that I always send the NEFs to my wife and let her PP as she likes. I would not dare post a portrait of her online without prior approval. Same goes for my vain teenaged son these days :( .
-
Daniel, the most detracting part (again, if I would ever nitpick and exaggerate the "problem") to me is the bright bokeh of the point light sources around her head, especially the ones on top left of her head that touches her hair.
Sure enough, Elsa drastically reduced the brightness (intentionally or unintentionally) of the very part I'm talking about, and made it into a fairly-tale-like image!
-
Photography styles do change with time - and is closely linked to the current fashion.
Currently lighter skin tones are fashionable. So are light spots / bokeh. At some point about 10 years ago everybody and his uncle gave every portrait an orange glow. SO last season now.
-
Interesting portrait, and I am a firm believer that it is perfectly legit to use lenses wide open. I use my 55mm f1,2 wide open almost all the time, even if folks complain about vignetting, lack of sharpness, coma and whatnot.
I studied photography for a while and one of my tutors at the time said that the first thing he would like to do is glue the paerture ring stuck at the wide open aperture on all student cameras (mostly a bunch of Minolta X300's and a few Canons and Nikons thrown in the mix, mostly equipped with a 50mm f,4, 50mm f1,7 or 50mm f1,8)
Through my personal struggle to understanding photograph and how to make it work for me, I found that with certain lenses, stopping down often takes more away then it does add. Less is more would be a general wisdom that applies here. Bring along the message by omitting everything else. Of course, this can be taken to extremes, or seen as a loose guideline depending on your personal interest in photography. I stick with the loose guideline)
Another wise word this tutor spoke was that rules are there to be broken. Bjorn already said that, but I would like to repeat it here.
As much as fashion photography dictates how young ladies want o look these days (and the past 2-3 decades for that matter), I think that beauty edits belong to glossy magazines. Not to family photos. So, Daniel, in my opinion, your daughter looks really nice just the way she is, and favorable light can add it's bit. I don't see an issue with a removing a blemish on the skin, or removing the one or other imperfection.
I expect Ethan meant to help. Most likely coming from a different perspective, he sure made that photograph pop and it would look great printed in a glossy, but as others mentioned, this kind of aggressive editing takes away from the character of a person. The character your photograph manages to capture so nicely.
Then some go on about the busy bokeh bubbles around her head. I just happen to love those, and I never found them to be distracting even in your first version of the photo. To be honest, I miss them in the later photo you posted. The background becomes too dark and dull without hem.
The 85mm f1,4 has a distinct look to it, and the outlined bokeh bubbles belong to that. If you want the edited smoothed bubbles posted by some, try the 5cm f2 Nikkor-S. That lens gives you those straight from the camera. Personally, I like the outlined ones in this shot.
Now on to the only point of critique from my behalf. Watch your background. You won't see it that way through the viewfinder of your camera, but that tree on the right. Now that's distracting! The vertical crop of the first picture gets rid of that and to me, is the perfect solution here. No further background editing required.
Elsa, even though I expect you also only intedn the best here, your added bubbles, to me, take away from the pureness of the picture and make it into a fairytale shot. The rest of your edit towards delicacy works real well for me, even though the overall image apperas a bit cold. But the added bubbles are of different shape and opacity, and of different texture compared to the original ones. Maybe it would have been better to copy a few of the original bubbles, or leave them as they were. I'm not into the smooth bubbles either, but the added ones really take away from your edit. (That is just my opinion though)
With all of that out of the way, really cool conversation you got going here. One thing I appreciate from this forum. A lot of very different opinions and approaches based upon who we all are. :)
-
Elsa, even though I expect you also only intedn the best here, your added bubbles, to me, take away from the pureness of the picture and make it into a fairytale shot. The rest of your edit towards delicacy works real well for me, even though the overall image apperas a bit cold. But the added bubbles are of different shape and opacity, and of different texture compared to the original ones. Maybe it would have been better to copy a few of the original bubbles, or leave them as they were. I'm not into the smooth bubbles either, but the added ones really take away from your edit. (That is just my opinion though)
As said - my edit is merely my opinion and style. You would edit differently - and your style is different to mine or anyone else's for that matter. It wouldn't have been better to copy some of the original "bubbles" - that wouldn't be my style. But it might be the next person's. Any other "style" is probably just as valid as mine. It's a matter of taste. I don't see a portrait as a family shot - but that's semantics and I suspect each have our own definition of the aforementioned. A bit like pornography - you recognize it when you see it :) ;D ;D
-
Ethan I dont agree with your comments regarding the shadows. Your edits looks hard, orange and is not flattering in my opinion. This is a soft portrait. Its a girl in lace. Not a chick in leathers. Editing should fit the subject and not the rules.
Actually, you are perfectly right and your edit with bubbles is so good and fits the subject matter so perfectly.
So jealous of your outstanding Lemonade edit.
Nevermind that you seem to have missed the first three lines of my post
-
This might be your rule, but definitely not a rule I have ever used or even heard of :)
Unfortunately, it is not my rule. If you do not know or heard about it before is no big deal to learn something new each day.
I strive to learn something new each day including making Lemonade portraits.
-
Actually, you are perfectly right and your edit with bubbles is so good and fits the subject matter so perfectly.
So jealous of your outstanding Lemonade edit.
Nevermind that you seem to have missed the first three lines of my post
Oops - sorry - I thought "Always but always and I repeat always" superseded the first 3 lines. Thank you for the kind comment on my edit. I teach lemonade. Let me know when you have a Friday off.
-
As said - my edit is merely my opinion and style. You would edit differently - and your style is different to mine or anyone else's for that matter. It wouldn't have been better to copy some of the original "bubbles" - that wouldn't be my style. But it might be the next person's. Any other "style" is probably just as valid as mine. It's a matter of taste. I don't see a portrait as a family shot - but that's semantics and I suspect each have our own definition of the aforementioned. A bit like pornography - you recognize it when you see it :) ;D ;D
Neither want to dive too deep into semantics, nor in the finer points of pornography here as I hope to take part in friendly banter on the subject of photography. As you mention, style is a part of personal preference and that's what it all boils down to.
Ethan, I think your write up was a good and helpful one. I agree with others that I personally wouldn't apply it in such a situation, but I have applied similar editing to photography for paid assignments in the past.
-
I so often hear or read: "there are no rules" or "rules are there to be broken". But one should understand that there are things which work and other which don't work. And, that you need (a lot) more talent to make things work which don't follow the rules. Thinking "outside of the box" is much more demanding. And this should certainly not be an excuse for people who can't even produce something which simply follows the rules.
-
When stating rules, it would be nice to cite a reference.
If it is a rule in portraiture to have a background that is darker than the face, are all high key portraits against the rule?
Do you shoot portraits of black people only in front of a black background then?
-
I so often hear or read: "there are no rules" or "rules are there to be broken". But one should understand that there are things which work and other which don't work. And, that you need (a lot) more talent to make things work which don't follow the rules. Thinking "outside of the box" is much more demanding. And this should certainly not be an excuse for people who can't even produce something which simply follows the rules.
I would hope this site is for thinking out of the box ;)
Have you heard of this particular rule with the dark back ground? Can you explain it, what and why?
Of course there are rules to follow, like guides to not mess completely up - that is mostly how we get into new things, but they always make sense,,, This one just doesn't - so far,,,
-
For me there is just one rule with portraits. Don't light from below - unless you want your subject to look like a ghost. I have never seen that it works lighting from below - so that is one I stick to. However - I would love somebody to prove that wrong. New ideas - anytime.
-
I would hope this site is for thinking out of the box ;)
Have you heard of this particular rule with the dark back ground? Can you explain it, what and why?
No. But, to be clear, I didn't made that statement. ::)
-
When stating rules, it would be nice to cite a reference.
If it is a rule in portraiture to have a background that is darker than the face, are all high key portraits against the rule?
Do you shoot portraits of black people only in front of a black background then?
You need a reference on plain logic?
The idea is to make the subject stand out of the background.
Plain logic really.
What is it exactly you are disputing?
I specifically exemplified in my post saying "as a rule of thumb" and and not a rule per se. Further more, I said DARKER and not DARK.
It is a rule of thumb when shooting portraits to have the B/G darker than the subject as this:
You need not resort to sarcasm by asking how to shoot black on black or in other words a specialty style of Low Key High Contrast/ deep black and mid tones vs a High Key Low Contrast/Low mid tones and blacks or Whatever rocks your boat.
If you are to shoot a dark skin person in front of a dark or darker background, there are many lighting techniques to achieve that depending on which look you are after.
Please read carefully:
You need separation between B/G and subject.
You could have the subject back lit (obviously front lit as well just in case you wish to query that part as well), you could have the B/G lit, you could have your light as close as possible or further away to the subject with or without a grid and/or the subject further away from your backdrop, you can have a combination of these. There are many more lighting techniques and lighting set ups and iterations and I wonder why I even bother state the obvious!
I am an avid learner. First Lemonade and then Black on Black.
Please direct me where can I see your Black on Black Beauty shots and Portraits Photography lest I continue my learning journey?
-
Many thanks for the numerous comments and also for taking your time and editing to different styles.
I like Elsa's airy style for this kind of portrait. Admittedly I have no clue about retouching and would have to learn this.
Another photo from same series which was taken in portrait mode. Framing and pose could still be better.
The bokeh is less distracting in my view.
I like the second shot, the one in this post- portrait mode for a portrait works best. Shooting wide-open certainly isolates the subject from the background.
I like the slightly "crooked smile", something that we Dads can expect when shooting portraits of daughters. Makes the shot memorable, as it folds in a relationship. Your daughter is beautiful.
-
Ethan, I was not trying to be sarcastic. I was asking for clarification.
I thought the statement you made was phrased too generally, since there are many exceptions to that rule of thumb.
I unterstand your points about separation and fully agree.
As you state, separation can be achieved in many ways.
The explanations you gave in your last post contain substantially more than just 'plain logic'.
I am an avid learner. First Lemonade and then Black on Black.
Please direct me where can I see your Black on Black Beauty shots and Portraits Photography lest I continue my learning journey?
This sounds as if you are now being sarcastic. Sorry to say, I have nothing to teach you.
I would love to shoot some black on black shots sometime.
-
No need to impose rules or call names. There are many ways to make a portrait successful, it all depends on what you want to convey.
I tend to like dark backgrounds for mine but this is just personal taste.
When I see Avedon's work (many many white backgrounds!), I think he was no slouch...
Daniel: you have a lovely daughter and you did a good job here. I think that Elsa's edit (bubbles not needed for me though!) goes very well with her kind and somewhat "shy" expression.
-
Daniel, Gorgeous girl you must be proud.
First portrait, the subject looks nervous which spoils the image for me. The second image is more pleasing to my eye, perhaps it was later in the session when she was a little more relaxed.
The editing is personal to you and your daughter, I think it is up to you to decide.
The background issue raised, made me think ....I adored black many years ago at art school. David Bailey my photographer icon became famous for shooting on a white background. Now I'm older I like grey :-)
-
Great shot, I'm fascinated by Elsa's edit - I like how "airy" it is.
-
For me there is just one rule with portraits. Don't light from below - unless you want your subject to look like a ghost. I have never seen that it works lighting from below - so that is one I stick to. However - I would love somebody to prove that wrong. New ideas - anytime.
In Artschool I made a self portrait (pencil and paper) using light from below, and it worked really well actually. Not sure if I still own that drawing as that was well over 15 years ago
-
In Artschool I made a self portrait (pencil and paper) using light from below, and it worked really well actually. Not sure if I still own that drawing as that was well over 15 years ago
Would really have loved to see it. Perhaps a challenge to myself - making it work :)
-
You need a reference on plain logic?
The idea is to make the subject stand out of the background.
Plain logic really.
What is it exactly you are disputing?
Since you keep coming back to this, yes! In most cases, you want to seperate the subject from the background. But there are as many ways of doing that as there are photographers.
As Erik said, hopefully, on this website, as learning photographers amongst each other, thinking out of the box should be promoted. I hope to learn from others on here by looking at what they do differently from how I approach my images.
With that in mind, logic hasn't always been the same when it comes to imagery of any kind, nor is it uniform across the globe. Different cultures address the subject in different ways. Again, "thinking out of the box" is a wording that comes to mind, but the question is: What or who exactly determines the outer boundaries of said box?
150 years ago, subject seperation was already well known through painting. There were many ways of achieving this. About 100 years ago photographers started experimenting with techniques used in painting, and techniques plain impossible in classic painting, to set their subjects apart from a background. They did not use f1,4, nor did they rely on dark(er) backgrounds in all instances. Which brings me to:
Please read carefully:
You need separation between B/G and subject.
You could have the subject back lit (obviously front lit as well just in case you wish to query that part as well), you could have the B/G lit, you could have your light as close as possible or further away to the subject with or without a grid and/or the subject further away from your backdrop, you can have a combination of these. There are many more lighting techniques and lighting set ups and iterations and I wonder why I even bother state the obvious!
That's contemporary standard thinking on the topic of portrait photography. It hasn't walways been that way, nor does it need to be the golden rule, or even a rule of thumb. By copying others, you can learn a lot, but just as much can be learned from leaving that path and trying to find out for yourself whether/why other scenarios do/do not work for you. I have in mind a brilliant portrait of a black man on a chair (full body portrait) with his hands folded together in front of his face. Lighting was achieved with a single standard lightbulb at a 45 degree angle from above, but at the same height as the subject. (I will link to the photo if I can find it again). All I can say is that the photographer made this "out of the box"scenario work really well for him. I even believe this photo was of a celebrity and he didn't need to hire his model.
So closing with:
I am an avid learner. First Lemonade and then Black on Black.
Hang on to that thought. But think further. If you want to learn, why not learn from others by accepting that they do things differently? I'm not a fan of Bjorns UV work because the color rendition just doesn't work for me, but I still watch his photo entries with interest, because I might find a scenario where I could make this technique work for me. I try to be an avid learner too, and I would find it a real shame if everyone would stick to these "rules of thumb" because it would mean that every portrait would look more or less the same.
Agreed, the learning curve wouldn't be as steep, butthe outcome a bit bland in my opinion.
Now I want to try my luck at painting my girlfriends face an even, neutral grey, ask her to lie down on a bed of even grey pebbles, maybe cover half her face with an even grey scarf and take a portrait at f16 or f32 to see how I can make that scenario work, using a single lightsource from an angle about 60 degrees behind my back. There are just so many interesting scenarios to explore here. The human mind is capable of more then being fooled by simple trickery. The shape of a face, facial features, eyes, mouth, nose. Each of those can be enough to seperate a portrait from a background because these shapes are engraved in our brains. You just need to remove enough external references to make them stand out enough.
Maybe there is a rule I try to follow in my photography. If the intent of a photo is not clear at first glance, there is too much information. Reduce external references until you bring across the point....
But then again, there are plenty of good photos, and even famous photographers, who intentionally break with this rule and make it work for their photography.
-
This sums the whole thread up very nicely! Thank You ;) and stay creative,,,
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/309/19589835165_78f7a94ab0_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vR62uH)Skyline Caverns (https://flic.kr/p/vR62uH) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
50/1.1 Nokton, wide-open, M Monochrom.
An example of a portrait with harsh lighting. Lighting is "pretty much" from side/below, or at least not typical- took what I could get in a Cavern. I like the results.
-
Brian the light source is not from below. It is from the side and high enough as you can see from the catch light position as well as the shadows.
If you posted in response to my post about wanting to see an image lit from below that works - what I mean is literally a light source - say below the chin (or much lower). That type of lighting gives a ghost-like effect which your image doesn't. (thats why it works and you like it :) )
-
This a good example to what Elsa is referring to:
(http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Hitchcock,%20Alfred/Annex/Annex%20-%20Hitchcock,%20Alfred_04.jpg)
Sir Alfred Hitchcock
-
Exactly.
-
"Bohemian Rhapsody"?
-
"Bohemian Rhapsody"?
Lit directly above the group.