worst model ever?

[kriminaldesigns]

Not sure this belongs here. Just a few snaps of myself I did today playing with my lights because I got bored and didn't have anything better to shoot.

C/C are more than welcome, just take it easy on the subject haha

[R. House]

Hey...look pretty good. I'm no expert on this and trying to learn too. One thing I watch for is the eyes, I want to see them or not...just not half way (hidden by hat). I hope some of the experts chime in, then we can both learn somemore!

[Songman45]

I think in the fist image you lights are aimed too directly at the subject. Lateral lighting isn't conventional for lighting humans. You can see why exhibited by the shadow in the face. Its almost a wedge putting the mask of the face in shadow, just about reversed from typical. I'm not sure what you were going for here but you didn't really nail anything either conventional or new age. The light is way to hot where it is hitting and not really hitting in great areas. The subject turned square into the camera isn't helping. Which takes us to image number two.

In your second image, the lights are pretty much the same as the first. You have added the feature of turning the subject across the camera's axis. This accomplishes getting the light to strike your subject in different areas simply by virtue of the turning of the body. She lights are still on equal and opposite planes. You almost have a main and kicker, but not quite. The composition is termed "weak" because it is static. Those are know-it-all terms for everything goes the same direction and the viewer's attention tends to fall off the page. The cropping through the hands isn't highly desirable. The sense of apathy goes beyond the expression and body language of the subject. Looking at this sort of image also makes the viewer feel apathetic about the image. It goes nowhere and the viewer doesn't care. I digrress.

Most everything pleasant to the eye is asymetrical. We use odd numbers (especially thrids) in arranging atrsy things. We also use uneven ratios in lighting rather than equalateral balance.

I don't generally just spout off criticism without the foundation for the opinon and the suggestion for emprovement or enhancements. Here's what I'd like to see from you.

Utilize the body angle from the second image. Elevate the foot farther from the camera about 10-12 inches on a block. Put the hand on that side of the body, closed into a loose fist on the thigh so the upper arm is falling straight down. Hang only the thumb of the other hand in the pocket, rather than jamming the fingers in there. Bed the body slightly from the waist (very slightly) forward. Bring the light on camera right to a 45 degree angle and turn it so the hot (brightest) part of the light passes behind the subject. With the face turned toward the camera, you'll be lighting the face similarly as you have here, only mor visibly. Take the light on camera left beyond the line its currently on (90 degree, give or take) but not in line with the main light (that would be the opposite 45 degrees) about 30 degrees or so. Now its lighting the back of the head, to separate the subject from the background but not quite straight across him. Again adjust the hot spot so its past your subject.

You're going to get a dramatic shadow on the camera side of the face this way. I know that. Just look at the resulting image. Now, if you had a reflector you could pull it right into the shadow side of the face to make that shadow visible. Leave the first light but bring the camera left light back to the front side of the subject and just far enough off the camera axis that you won't see it in the picture. Turn it to camera right (it'll dang near be pointed at the first light stand) bring it down so its lighting the top and bottom evenly, and bring the tilt to nearly level. This is what the reflector would have been doing as described above. What do you have?

You have the first light replicating light coming from the sun. That second light represents the other light in the world that bounces off things like buildings fences and such. Why have I gone though all this? To explain the effect your presented lighting has. Don't be insulted by the terminology. The lighting you set up is illogical. You have the equivalent of the ambient light, or that light bouncing off walls, buildings, fences and its coming from two different directions. However you are missing the "sun" or primary or main light source. This is demostrated by the rather un-natural shadowing of the face. Imagine your subject standing on a street in a metropolitan city. A huge white skyscraper on either side of him lighting his shoulders and sides of his face. Only no sun above it all (and brighter by the way) to create those side lights.

I'm sure you didn't bargain for all that. But there ya go.

Regards,
Steve

[gaopa2]

Hey, those are not bad at all!

[Travis F]

Originally Posted by Songman45

The lighting you set up is illogical.
Regards,
Steve

And that to me makes the shots a little edgy and unexpected. I like them both to be honest.

Travis

[Songman45]

Originally Posted by Travis F

And that to me makes the shots a little edgy and unexpected. I like them both to be honest.

Travis

Travis, if you have the answers there really isnt need in asking the questions.
Steve

[Travis F]

Originally Posted by Songman45

Travis, if you have the answers there really isnt need in asking the questions.
Steve

I'm sorry, did I ask a question here? I don't know what you mean really. If you are reffering to me liking what you dislike in this image, OK. I'll give you that.

Alot of times my eye is caught by lighting that is not what it would expect. These images offered that. Just because it isn't "natural" lighting doesn't make it wrong. And again, these images show that very well to me.

I'm not being agrumentative, just giving my assesement (which honestly is'nt worth much).

Travis

[gumper]

Thanks for posting your test shots, Kriminal. I'm always looking to learn here. Keep on working on your technique.

Songman, great pointers. Thorough and helpful. I guess that why you have so much Camel Karma.

[00silvergt]

I don't think it is that the lightning is not "natural", since that much is obvious since these are in studio. Are these hot lights, btw? I agree with Songman that many of the photogs here would not have placed them in the same position. Both appear as if the picture was lit from behind, which most photogs try not to do in the "wild" (on location) and defnitely will not try in a controlled environment like a studio. Maybe the OP can explain his light setup and why it setup that way?

[Johnny Perkka]

Hmm, there is this uk photog who goes by the name of Rankin who took a picture of Justin Timberlake two years (or so) ago. It had the similar atypical lighting. At the time I thought it was a pretty ballsy move from him (usually with celebs people want to see the faces better). The picture also had Justin with a cap like that, obscuring the face. It was on the cover of Dazed magazine. Maybe they liked the mystery the obscurity brought to the picture.
So, it maybe unconventional etc. but it sure is not wrong... Keep it up!