High Key Lighting Set up

[Songman45]

The following text is from Benji's tutorial here on the Camel. I'll try to find some text that explains the logic for why the fill is placed on the same side as the main.

Re: Studio Portrait Lighting-A How To
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmrdesign
Hi Benji,

I've been exploring your tutorials again and really think they're great. I do have 2 questions about the lighting setup.

1. Is the fill light in the wide angle shot to camera left due to the fact that you moved back to take the shot or are you positioning the main and fill to camera left?

2. I'm working on posing female models. Do you always position the body so it is turned away from the main light and the shoulder and profile are lit from the main light as opposed to having the subject's body facing the main light and lit head on?

TMR,

Thanks for the kind words.

1. The fill light should be behind the photographer (I moved it slightly forward and stepped behind it for the wide angle shot for illustration purposes) and it should also be on the same side as the main light is.

2. I pose nearly all of my females in the manner you described above as this will assist in getting the 1-3-2 posing technique quickly and easily.

[EOS_JD]

Yes I have a book that shows a few places for the fill light and the effect is quite different - but not sure which I preferred

[C Webb]

If one studies the first image as well as in several others, you will find "Ikeeney" is absolutely correct in seeing lens "flare" . The images look to have been made with out using a "lens hood/shade" . The use of a good hood would prevent a lot of stray light finding its way into the lens. Thus degrading the image. See the top of the head in the first image. Also look at how the bright BG is eroding
the top of her right arm.

C Webb

[Songman45]

I'm not so sure a lens hood/shade would eliminate the backwash of light. True the purpose of the shade is to keep stray light from hitting the lens, its for angular light strikes. I think the majority of the wash out is coming directly from the background. It might be rather diffucult to shade that light without blocking a portion of the lens.

If there is a phenomenon of invisible light bouncing aound then some light absorbers along the boundaries of the shooting area might help straighten that out. Getting that background over exposed just enough that it is white, without unneccessary light flooding the shooting area can be a trick. Once it goes white that's all it can be, any additional light is just going to present further challenges. I think this is what occurrs most times when we see high-key where the subject actually looks milky or contrasty.

[georgann]

I was thinking that because I am in a small room(living room) my bg lights may be too close to my fill light, so I purchased a black cloth and hung it on the wall that is between the fill light and the bg . I will post the image soon so you can see the result.

I am familiar with Monte Zuker ideas on the same side fill light as well.

My mind set is to get the lighting consistent and correct and that will work for me on a continuous basis.
Thanks

[Benji]

Geo,

Several things. If you are in a small room with a white ceiling and light colored walls, the background lights will bounce off the white background and add light to the entire room and will increase your fill light reading. This is why I have my side walls painted black.

Also the further out you put the subject from the background the better. I usually have them about six or eight feet, that way you will not get so much "bleeding" of the background light into the shadow side of the image. I never meter the background light at the background because I don't care what that reading is, I only care what it is at the subject.

You might want to try a lesser extreme angle of the background lights in relation to the background. It appears you have them at about a 90 degree angle I would try a 60 degree and see if you get less flare. You can also take some black cloth and wrap some 4 x 8 sheets of styrofoam and place them on each side of the subject just out of camera range. That will absorb some of the excess light you have bouncing around in the room.

Make certain your lens is free from any dust or fingerprints as they can add flare also.

Benji

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by Benji

I never meter the background light at the background because I don't care what that reading is, I only care what it is at the subject.

Benji
I find this odd? Can I ask why? I think I know but every book/person I've spoken to measures the light at the B/G to be about 1 stop sometimes 2 stops brighter at the background itself. You wouldn't want the light that bright at your subject?

[georgann]

Thanks, I am anxious to try it again today and see the results!

[Brooks]

Georgann,

As your setup photo shows, you have your background lights much too close to the background. You can see raw light from those bkgd lights hitting the side of your face and arm.

As Benji said, you need more space between the subject and background and more space from the bkgd lights to the bkgd.

Even with the proper amount of space, and especially with the lack of space that you have, you should be using large 4'x8' black flags (foam-core works well) to block all but the light directly behind your subject from striking the lens.

Using a longer focal length lens will help narrow the angle of view and reduce the amount of bkgd bounce light entering your camera. And of course a lens shade is a must.

Look at this lighting diagram for an idea of how to light and flag a white background.

[camrajoky]

The diagram above will assist you better in your quest. You are getting flare onto your subject that is washing out the details and colors of her skin. Moving the sunject out at least 6 feet will help. Flagging the sides will reduce the over flow. You have the right ideas, just need to dial them in some.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by EOS_JD

Benji
I find this odd? Can I ask why? I think I know but every book/person I've spoken to measures the light at the B/G to be about 1 stop sometimes 2 stops brighter at the background itself. You wouldn't want the light that bright at your subject?

Due to the inverse square law, [light intensity falls off rapidly with distance from its source] one should meter the background at the subject. I want to know at the subject what the backgound will look like.

So, using "every book/person I've spoken to" I meter my subject and it is f/6.3, so in order to have a pure white background I need about 1 to 1.3rd stops more light on the background then what my main light and fill light combination reading is at the subject. One stop over f/6.3 is f/9.0, so I shoot at f/9.0. The background will be pure white provided the subject is plastered against the background, but I shoot with the subject out about 8 to 12 feet in front of the background. Using the inverse square law I know I will lose about 2 stops (give or take) of light when I move the subject out from the wall, so that means I will need a meter reading of f/10 or f/11 at the background. But I have discovered it is a lot easier to simply meter the main and fill lights at the subject then add my needed 1 to 1-1/3rd stops of light and make the background match that reading.

Benji

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by Benji

The background will be pure white provided the subject is plastered against the background, but I shoot with the subject out about 8 to 12 feet in front of the background. Using the inverse square law I know I will lose about 2 stops (give or take) of light when I move the subject out from the wall, so that means I will need a meter reading of f/10 or f/11 at the background.

Benji,

Are you metering the background from the subject's position by facing an incident meter towards the bkgd? If so, you're taking a reflected reading with an incident meter. You'd be better to use a reflected light flash meter to read the background and if you used a spot flash meter you could take that reading of the bkgd from the camera position or the subject position and the reading would be the same. Actually taking a reading from the camera position would be the most accurate with a spot meter because the angles of reflection and incidence of the light would be the same for the meter and the camera.

Using an incident meter when it would be more accurate to use a reflected light meter in this case explains why you have to take into consideration the additional distance from the background to the subject. In effect you're using the light bouncing from the bkgd to illuminate the dome or disc of your incident meter.

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by Brooks

Benji,

Are you metering the background from the subject's position by facing an incident meter towards the bkgd? If so, you're taking a reflected reading with an incident meter. You'd be better to use a reflected light flash meter to read the background and if you used a spot flash meter you could take that reading of the bkgd from the camera position or the subject position and the reading would be the same. Actually taking a reading from the camera position would be the most accurate with a spot meter because the angles of reflection and incidence of the light would be the same for the meter and the camera.

Using an incident meter when it would be more accurate to use a reflected light meter in this case explains why you have to take into consideration the additional distance from the background to the subject. In effect you're using the light bouncing from the bkgd to illuminate the dome or disc of your incident meter.

That was my thinking.

[KmH]

Originally Posted by Songman45

I don't think its so much a matter of being right or wrong. I've been studying this same notion for quite some time. I'll see if I can find a link to what's been shared to me. I believe the general notion of same-side fill comes from Monte Zuker. He's probably not the father of the idea, nor is he the last to refine the idea. He's just most likely the most famous cat to do it that way. Doesn't make him right, might just make the idea good.

Steve

It's my understand it semantics. Fill light is always on or very near the lens axis. Any light off the lens axis, at a ratio less than the main light, is a second light.

So, it's possible to have 2 lights (main,second), neither of which is fill.

[georgann]

Brooks,
Thanks for the diagram. It was very helpful as all others that I have received from everyone that's assisting me with valuable information on high key portraits. I have studied the diagram and I made the black flag as suggested from Benji and yourself. I am not ready to set the light up now. I can place the subject 8 Ft from the bg and the black flags to the side of the subject. What is your suggestion for the distance between the bg lights and the subject? I also plan to place the fill light in front to the side of the subject as Benji suggested and I am going over Benji's tutorial on how to light the high key set up, taking the meter reading from the subject just in case I missed something before.

Thanks everyone for your input, it was greatly appreciated!

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by Brooks

Benji,

Are you metering the background from the subject's position by facing an incident meter towards the bkgd? If so, you're taking a reflected reading with an incident meter. You'd be better to use a reflected light flash meter to read the background and if you used a spot flash meter you could take that reading of the bkgd from the camera position or the subject position and the reading would be the same. Actually taking a reading from the camera position would be the most accurate with a spot meter because the angles of reflection and incidence of the light would be the same for the meter and the camera.

Using an incident meter when it would be more accurate to use a reflected light meter in this case explains why you have to take into consideration the additional distance from the background to the subject. In effect you're using the light bouncing from the bkgd to illuminate the dome or disc of your incident meter.

Just a rethink of my thoughts. Benji is measusing the B/G light at the subject knowing that the inverse Sq law will mean the distance to the background will mean around 2 stops difference so the bg will be pure white. I understand although I'm not sure most would use that and you would perhaps need to be a little more precice with the subject placement.

Regards the note about a reflected meter reading or spot meter is correct. The spot meter wouldn't see the flash would it?

I can see what Benji is doing but it seems it's more a tried and tested method than that which will wor well wityh everyone as the distance from subject to background is critical. I shoot with a hilite and measure my background to between f11 and f16 (measured at the background) with a shooting aperture of around f8. I use two lights and get a nice even white.

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by EOS_JD

Regards the note about a reflected meter reading or spot meter is correct. The spot meter wouldn't see the flash would it?

I can see what Benji is doing but it seems it's more a tried and tested method than that which will wor well wityh everyone as the distance from subject to background is critical.

There have been spot meters that read both flash and ambient for a while now. Sekonic makes a nice one. Sekonic | L-758DR DigitalMaster Flash Meter | 401-758 | B&H

I think Benji has a work-around using an incident meter to read the background from the subject's position that works well for him and allows him to use just one meter. If it works for him then that's what matters and honestly with digital capture today tethered to a laptop the correct background exposure can be easily judged. I wouldn't want to judge that sort of exposure using only the camera's lcd screen though. A reflected spot flash reading is easier for me.

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by Brooks

There have been spot meters that read both flash and ambient for a while now. Sekonic makes a nice one. Sekonic | L-758DR DigitalMaster Flash Meter | 401-758 | B&H

I think Benji has a work-around using an incident meter to read the background from the subject's position that works well for him and allows him to use just one meter. If it works for him then that's what matters and honestly with digital capture today tethered to a laptop the correct background exposure can be easily judged. I wouldn't want to judge that sort of exposure using only the camera's lcd screen though. A reflected spot flash reading is easier for me.

yes I did know you can get a spot meter tat reads flash, just wondered if that's what you meant. usually very expensive

I just use my flash against the background pointed back at my camera (tried pointing at the lights too but didn't see any great difference). Beji's way works mainly through his knowledge and experience - i guess he doesn't need to calculate the inverse sq law each time his subject moves

I will remeter my subject but always knowing my background can be turned up or down by the same amount if required (rare).

[georgann]

Benji & Everyone,

Thank you for all the advice that was given in my high key practice! I know that I am a work in progress so please have patience with me, I love you guys!

Georgann

[Benji]

Georgia,

We love you too. Hey your fill light is dialed in perfectly. The blacks in this image (above your left ear and below your right ear) are 40 and 36 respectively. This is excellent. This gives you "blacks with detail" instead of blacks with no detail which look bad. The lighting in your image looks like modified butterfly lighting, and it works for you. Keep it up!

Benji