Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Loop lighting 3+1
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:50 pm    Post subject: Loop lighting 3+1 Reply with quote

Demonstration of my elaboration of classic loop lighting scheme for portraiture
3 flashes without diffusers: one main (loop light), a second one for hair accent, and a third one to create a localized light accent on the background.
1 white reflective panel at approx. 135° angle from main flash



(5D MkII, Planar 1.4/50 ZS)


grayscale version:



PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks good. Perhaps another reflector to milden the nose shadow on her right cheek?


PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some of the shadows (the one under "her" chin) are still a bit too hars even though the overall effect is pleasant because of the way you arranged the flashes.
I think it's a bit nicer to have an umbrella at 45° in front of the model/mannequin as it is enough most of the time. You can maybe add a white matte panel or piece of fabric on the opposite side so the "wasted" light will bounce on it and act as a little fill.


PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Loop lighting is not supposed to be a beauty lighting.
These shadows are already weak. If you want weaker than this, then you want flat lighting with no shadows, which means you have a different purpose than loop lighting.
In that case, you use beauty dishes, or shoot inside a light tent, or under a Skylite.
But that is not what I wanted.
Beauty scheme is not the only way to photograph a woman. Here's a classic example of loop lighting in a female portrait by Arturo Ghergo:



PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most people would say that classic portrait has serious lightning issues with the harsh shadows and all. Your results seemed very nice though. Softer shadows.

Having a doll like though.. creepy? Laughing

I am not too fond of the back light that stroke the "model"'s hair. Dunno if the flash was pointer at the wall or at the "model"'s back. I am very inexperience in what comes to lightning (and photography in general hehe).


PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChromaticAberration wrote:
Most people would say that classic portrait has serious lightning issues with the harsh shadows and all.


Because most people is only familiar with beauty magazines, unfortunately, and think that that is the only way to photograph a female portrait.
By the way, loop lighting dates much more back than photography, as shown by this portrait by Georges De La Tour (17th century) Wink



Quote:
Your results seemed very nice though. Softer shadows.


Thanks. I would not have minded stronger shadows, but on the plastic mannequin they don't look good. With a real female and skin I would have probably used a stronger contrast.

Quote:
Having a doll like though.. creepy? Laughing


It's not the first time I read this objection, and I have trouble understanding what's creepy about that. I am a photographer and I like to study and experiment with lighting.
Not having a model at my disposal all the time, I use a mannequin (like most photographic studios do when they prepare a set)
People see no wrong in photographing statues, I wonder why it should be wrong to photograph a mannequin. Mannequins are not inflatable sex dolls...

Quote:
I am not too fond of the back light that stroke the "model"'s hair. Dunno if the flash was pointer at the wall or at the "model"'s back.


Like I wrote, I used one flash on the hair, and another on the background. I too would have liked the hair light to be placed higher and with a snoot, but I don't have a snoot and neither a light support tall enough, so I did how I could.