For this exercise I chose to light a soft toy lion. The reasons for the choice included the surface texture and the mane, which I hoped would pick up rim lighting. In practice, the furry surface texture killed the definition of the shadows and specular highlights and, thus, the definition of form.
On the basis that every mistake is an opportunity to learn, I will post the results anyway, but will repeat the exercise with a new subject.
This is intended as the ‘control’ exercise. The camera is, effectively, at the bottom-centre of a 1000mm x 2000mm soft box, giving flat an almost shadowless light on the subject. The outline shape and colour are clearly delineated but there is no sense of three-dimensional form.
It is said that the skill of studio lighting lies not in where one places the lights but where one places the shadows. This is explored in the other lighting set-ups.
I first attempted this set-up using the large soft box, but the light-source was too large and the lighting too flat. ‘Rembrandt lighting’ is intended to emulate the painter’s studio, which had large windows at high level. The main light is large, and high at at about 45˚ to one side. Because I was operating in a small room, there is a lot of stray bounce-light, which fills the shadows even without a reflector on the lit side. Having tried both, I prefer the version without reflector which has a greater lit:unlit contrast.
Of course, the shape of the subject’s head is non-human and does not show the characteristic triangular light on the far cheek.
rim lights not feathered
feathered rim lights, no reflector
final version with feathered rim lights and front reflector
This is a first attempt to emulate ‘Karsh lighting’, which fails because the shape of the subject’s head does not suit the technique. However, experimenting was instructive and it appears that the placing of the rim lights is critical.
I first placed them at 45˚ to the rear of the subject, which gave really good backlighting to the mane but put the face in deep shadow that could not be relieved by the reflector. This might have worked if a third light was available as fill-in to light the face from the front.
With the lights only slightly behind the subject, there is better wrap-around but a lot of spill onto the background. ‘Feathering’ the lights forward reduced the background spill and, usefully, put more light onto the reflector and, therefore, onto the face.
On reflection, I am pleased with the final result (largest image)
This is the same set-up as the Rembrandt lighting but with a much larger light source, therefore softer lighting. The image shown above is made without the reflector. With a reflector in place at the left, the contrast is lower and the lighting almost flat.
The large soft box is a light-source that extends from 45˚ in front of the subject to 45˚ behind, causing the light to ‘wrap around’ the right-hand side. The version without the reflector is reasonably successful.
The same set-up as above but with a bare-bulb light-source. The shadow cuts the subject in half and, unlike the set-ups with large, soft light sources, the version with a reflector is preferable as it gives some detail to the left-hand side of the face.
Finally, and just for fun, an exercise in sinister lighting from below. Lighting is a single flash with a snoot and honeycomb, and a red gel, directed at a mirror on the table in front of the subject and reflecting upward.