Portrait Photography in general
 

Photography is a tough subject. I really struggle to get good photographs of my subjects to work from.

I am still searching for a good course on Portrait Photography but all I have found utilize multiple lighting sources and I refuse to do that.

Using a single source of light is the ONLY way I will shoot portraits. Also, I do not wish to shoot out doors as there is no light control and the shoot becomes weather and season dependent.

Last year I found a book of portrait photographs by David Seidner that really knocked my sox off.
His poses, composition and lighting are works of art. Right now, I'm working hard to figure out how he does it.

Peggy Baumgaertner once said (Forgive me Peggy if I didn't get your wording exactly right).

The author of the following book that I find so inspirational took photographs with a single source of light that look like beautiful old paintings. And I'm trying very hard to learn to do this. Unfortunately David Seidner has passed away.

Here is the cover of his book "Portraits", does this photo look a bit like Sargent?...and wouldn't it make a beautiful painting?

Administrator's Note: Click book title above to see this book at Amazon.com.

Ponder this
 

Karin,

I

I agree to disagree with you Marvin about using a single source of light in a photo shoot. I have gotten some spectacular shots using only a white cardboard reflector.

I've tried it both ways but I dearly love the subtleties of the effect of a single light source and that works well for me.

I've visited your website and can clearly see by your beautiful work that your method of lighting works very well for you...and many people feel the need to experiment with both. Any guidance we can give (or get) is good.

However, we definitely agree that it is one heck of a lot of work to take a good photographic reference for a painting.

The harder you work, the better the result. There are no shortcuts here and mastering this is not for wimps.

Hard work
 

Karin,

The hard work is in learning the photographic process. Much repetitive experimentation and trial and error is the key to mastery.

However, once you understand lighting, light to shadow ratios and the relationship between exposure and development, the actual taking of the photos is quite easy. Since photograpy is a strictly mechanical process, the key is consistency, the results are repeatable and the act of photographing anything is actually a no brainer.

All true...it is purely technical and can be mastered. My particular problem however, is translating what I see in three dimensions into two dimensions, BEFORE I snap the shutter.

I spend a lot of time and effort to set something up and think that it looks great, until I see the result.

Thank heavens for digital cameras...they really help with this.

My other problem is to snap the shutter at EXACTLY the right moment, especially when you're working with a small child.

:) Your employment of the "kazoo maneuver" (posted elsewhere) is brilliant here! Can't wait to try it.

The secret
 

The secret that all great photographers share is when you get exactly what you are looking for shoot many many more rolls of film than you think necessary.

I think you are both right....
 

Karin and Marvin,

I have done a fair amount of portrait photography myself and I believe that you are both correct in how you shoot your reference photos.

Marvin, your description of using a second source closer to the camera in order to get some soft light to detail the shadows is something I have been doing for some time. A soft light box works well for this. Karin's method of using a reflector, (Karin I think you do this yes?) to bounce light from a single source can be just as effective however if you understand, as I suspect Karin does, that the reflector should not be too close to the subject and should be angled at an equal distance from the subject as possible.

With both techniques you get the "effect" of single source lighting. The trick to both is knowing where to put that source of secondary light (reflector or box) - distance from subject, angle, etc. It can make a big difference.

Try the following books, both available at:
http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/photography.htm

"Posing and Lighting Techniques for Studio Portrait Photography"
J. J. Allen
Publisher: Amherst Media

"Portrait Photographer's Handbook"
Bill Hurter
Publisher: Amherst Media

Photo books (under)exposed
 

Somehow, I find myself in the role of the royal poo-pooer. I must enjoy this because here I go again. I recently purchased "Portrait Photographer's Handbook" and I

I've been a photographer, and am now returning to where it all started - drawing and painting. Personally, I don't like photographs that look like paintings done centuries ago. For that reason, I disliked Seidner's book. I found it derivative, more reminiscent of Ingres than Sargent. It was a cute concept and the subjects played along.

Let's get back to lighting.

Marvin has eloquently expressed his preference for multiple lights. I prefer to use multiple lights. I've had to learn to use multiple lights, since my business depended on it. I've also gotten great results from a large diffused single light source (a light aimed into a white cardboard reflector) or shooting outdoors in open shade. If the light is soft enough so that the highlights don't get blocked out and close enough so that the shadows show substantial detail, one light source is adequate. Multiple light sources add a certain nuance that isn't possible to achieve with one light. To each his own. If you are happy with your own personal results, and if your clients are happy, then there is no reason to change. Either way, the only way to learn is to practice, practice, practice. There is no magic formula that will work for everyone.

As for the photography books. I have not seen any that espoused 'overpowering' the subject with a multitude of lights. The ones that I've seen usually have examples of what each light does. It is really up to you to decide whether you want to or need to use that light. I've seen good and mediocre photography books. I've also seen good and mediocre painting books, specifically where the use of lighting is concerned.

Would you say the problem with painting books is that painters write them? Just kidding.

Here are some more sources -

http://www.lightingmagic.com/

http://deancollins.com/flvideo.html

Dean Collins is a photographer that has spent a lifetime refining his knowledge of lighting. In particular, these two videos might be very useful.

LIGHTING BASICS 1

Marvin, can you elaborate on this statement:

Can you give us some examples, please?

An illuminating foray?
 

I

Marvin,

Would you share with us exactly what type of lights you use? Sorry if I missed it in an earlier post.

What I use
 

Alicia,

I use strobe lights manufactured by a Japanese company called Comet. They are very compact and are professional level quality. The power pack is the Comet Cb1200-iii Ultra Cmpct 1200ws Pk. I have two Comet Clx-25 Mini-g 2400ws Flash Heads. They are distributed by Dyna-Lite an American company.

They are extremely small and lightweight as compared to almost any other strobes. Since I use two lights (one main and one fill) this setup is extremely flexible. Depending on how I modify the light (softbox, reflector, umbrella or diffuser) I can recreate many types of lighting effects such as daylight, north light sunlight etc.

I like the powerpack and separate heads over the monolights which have the powerpack built into the head because there is much less of a chance of the light falling (less weight) and easier adjustment, since the pack can be placed near you. However you do need a special meter, a flash meter, to measure the light with all flash units. The cost of all this equipment is between $2000 and $2500. It seems pricey but working from good reference material saves a lot of time, and time is money.

You can, however, take excellent photos with much more economical equipment. The advantage of the strobes is that you can get greater light output without melting your subject. Sweaty subjects are not so ideal to paint. More light means greater depth of field (more things in focus) and the chance to use a finer grain film (more detail.)

In the past I have run one-day photography workshops demonstrating the procedure and, more importantly, explaining the photographic process in layman terms. The result is knowing how to take high quality photo reference on a consistent basis. If enough people were interested I would be happy to do this again.

The problem I see demonstrated both here and in the forum, as well as in all my years of teaching, even photos that look beautiful are not necessarily adequate in terms of recreating how the eye sees.

I am enclosing a recent photo I have taken for an upcoming portrait. In addition to what you see here (a hastily made preliminary print) the negative contains great shadow detail, which I can access by making lighter prints. I'll post the painting when I finish it.

I hope this is helpful.

Marvin, I'm not sure what to make of your last comment. Apparently, you don't think too much of photographers in general.

I appreciate the work of painters such as Thomas Eakins, William Merritt Chase, Jacques Dominique Ingres, Joaquin Sorolla y Battista, John Singer Sargent, Rembrandt, Caravaggio, Vermeer, Goya, Velasquez and Rubens.

I also appreciate the work of great portrait photographers such as Karsh, Horst, William McIntosh, Arnold Newman, Victor Skrebneski, Duane Michals, Matthew Rolston, Mapplethorpe, Charis, Timothy White, Herb Ritts, Greg Gorman, Penn and others. I could go on and on, but what's the point.

You've already made it clear that you don't think too highly of the crop of photographic technique books that are on the market. What are the alternatives? I've done a great deal of research and I have yet to find a portrait painting technique book that devotes more than about four pages to the subject of lighting. I've also been to Art school. Didn't get much help there at the time, either.

Let me reiterate a point that seems to fall on deaf ears all around. The reason to use a light, - any light, is to create a desired effect. Generally that effect is to model the face or create some separation, or fill in a shadow area with just enough detail that would otherwise be lost due to the compressed latitude of most modern film emulsions.

I think Michele was looking for some direction, as in detailed examples of how to use light to create a 'pleasing' portrait. Instead she got a discourse on the philosophy of light in a portrait. A skillful artist can work miracles, so to speak, but how does one become a skillful artist without the proper direction? Who is to teach?

You do great work, BTW.

Beautiful photograph!

Marvin, when I asked my earlier question about using flattering light for different subjects I was wondering if you could share with us any tips as to how to position the light/camera to solve specific problems: ie lighting and photographing a heavy model in the most flattering way, minimizing wrinkles, etc.

I'm sure what you know could fill volumes, but can you share a couple of quick pointers?

I would be very interested in seeing the finished result. Two items that caught my eye, immediately were the spread fingers in the right hand, and the way the chair's arm meets the elbow of the left arm. Do you plan on modifying the pose in the final portrait?

Clarification or stimulation
 

Peter and Michele,

Yes you are partially correct in your assumption. I don

Thank you, Marvin! Tips like that were exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks Marvin,

At this point in time, I can't afford to spend $2000.00 on lights, but I will investigate a cheaper way to go. I think my photographs need something and it is more light. I don't want to have to lug a great deal of equipment around and will look for a simple solution.

Just want you to know that I, as well as the other painters out there who are struggling and searching for answers, appreciate the time and effort you put into your answers. I have not been lucky enough to devote my life to painting and studying the art of painting as you have. I have come to love it later in life, although it was always with me. It means a great deal to be able to sit at the computer and ask a question from artists such as you and others on this forum. The forum is an Atelier without walls.

I am sure others struggle as I do. I remember not that long ago when I painted my first portrait how absolutely awful it was. I was determined then and there that I would keep reading, painting and searching for answers. Answers are not easy to find. There is no one definitive book that we can all go to that says, "this is the way to do it". So, I am locked into this pattern of searching, struggling and experimentation. At times it is frustrating, but also exhilirating when you step back and think, whoa! thats not too shabby. There is always that little voice whispering in your ear and telling you you know you can do better.

Oh and by the way, I've scrubbed on brain surgery and I must say that the instrumentation for brain surgery is a little more complicated than what we use, but you're right, this is harder. Sorry if I rambled a bit, but you know we painters spend an awful lot of time alone smelling paint fumes.

Portait photography
 

Karin, this an interesting and useful thread.

I use a combination of photography and painting from life. I use the method you described, a single source and a reflector fill. I then have the photograph blown up either to size or as big as I can get. I place the enlargement next to my model in the same light as the picture had been taken. I have had some pretty large prints made! As models move I always have my photos for reference and use the natural light for color. I need not emphasize that this is especially useful for painting children.

I use the Portra film NC iso 160. The skin tones are beautiful, the lights are not washed out and the darks have a lot of imformation. I do not use digital because I can't get the large blowups I need from that technology.

I also heavily rouge and lipstick my subjects, even children, before photographing them, as skin tones can wash out.