Club President strobe magic

[Garth Herrick]

Hi everyone,

Here are original and modified versions of a reference for a portrait I took two days ago. The gentleman is the president of a prominent club, who has engaged me to paint him and add his portrait to the more than fifty predecessor presidential portraits hanging in the ballroom.

I used a primary and secondary strobe (I only have the two monolights), then without moving the camera tripod, I moved one strobe to the rear to fill some light in the background. In Photoshop I sandwiched the two images, editing with an eraser tool to produce the modified version below.

I did this because I was not satisfied with the original illumination in the background and wanted lighting that better related to natural light through the windows.

Some technical details:
Camera: Nikon D3, AF Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom ( actual focal length 62mm), f/7.1, 1/60 second, +1.0 EV, Flash white balance, ISO 200, RAW format, Adobe RGB colorspace, SD standard saturation setting.
Strobes: Calumet Travelite 750 kit (two 375 watt/second monolights, two 45 inch convertible umbrellas, two 12 foot light stands), two PC cords from the camera to each monolight, the principal light shot through the umbrella at medium power about six feet from the subject, and the secondary light shot reflected from the umbrella at lowest power about nine feet away.
Image processing: I had the camera connected ("tethered") via USB to a MacBook Pro laptop so the client could watch his own photo session in real time, using Aperture 2.0 as the software. From Aperture, I dragged the images into Photoshop as jpegs.

I'll admit, the camera is awesome! Any critique or thoughts are welcome. I am leaning toward the modified version for the portrait.

All the best,

Garth

[Mike McCarty]

Hey Garth,

My leaning would be toward the first. I'm sure you could make a wonderful portrait out of either, and we are just knitting around the edges here, but since you ask ...

I think I like the first for the very reason that you don't. The more dimly lit, less literal background in the first seems to advance the subject a little more. Also, the subjects skin has a little more color. Not that that's a big deal, you will make whatever adjustments you need.

The lighting style is a little more complex than the usual side lit that we often see. Your "above" lighting has given an accentuation to the shadows on either side of the nose, and an almost equal distribution of light on either side of the face. I wonder if you tried setting your lights on only one side? Or, maybe diminishing the off side even more?

It's a great composition and you will make a great painting I'm sure.

[Garth Herrick]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your good thoughts. The color is supposed to be identical on the subject between the two versions. You are right that the subject advances more with the darker background. While the lighting is slightly complex, if you look at the highlight position on the forehead, he really is way more side lit rather than top lit. The lights were slightly above him at seven feet, and definitely obliquely from the side. It would have been nice to have been able to power down the secondary fill light even more, were it possible. Without it however, we would be in effect looking at a phase of the moon! The one time it did not fire, it was horrible looking with just the main light.

I can't shoot again, but if I could, perhaps I'd stop down the aperture even more and add more power to the principal light. As I said, the secondary light was at its lowest setting already.

Thanks again,

Garth

[Carlos Ygoa]

Garth,

I also tend to like the first version more, for the same reason that Mike states and I would say that the dimmer background gives the whole painting more depth and since you are thinking of painting the room as a background and not just a neutral backdrop, your main concern (after the figure, of course) would be achieving the illusion of space behind the figure. In the second photo, the elements in the background seem too defined since more light was given to them, and although it still seems very obvious there is distance between the figure and those elements, in comparison to the first photo it doesn

[Garth Herrick]

Thanks Carlos!

For you and Mike, I am offering some compromises:
26%
50%
66%

Garth

[Richard Monro]

Garth,

The 26% picture is the one. It has just the right amount of detail and yet is low enough in value that the subject really commands attention. It will make a great painting. Nice set up and composition. A D3 ...I'm very jealous!

[Mike McCarty]

The one problem I see in creating a more muted background is the clock and mirror on the mantle.

The lighter you go the more obvious it is as to exactly what these objects are. However, the darker they get the more curiousity there will be as to just what they are. Couple that with the mirror offering the double image and it might get a little awkward in it's translation.

I'm sure the selection of this room gives some additional meaning to the portrait, therefore, you probably wouldn't want to eliminate the clock. But it is something that comes to my mind. Also, in your efforts to explain the object with sufficient light it might lead you toward more and more of a literal translation which would tend not to advance the subject.

If I had complete authority I would mute the background, still suggesting the mirror, and eliminate the clock.

It's always a puzzle, isn't it. Even with really good reference.