etee's Photo Blog

In her post "Stu-Stu-studio (lighting)" over at Shutterblog, Steph Davis talks about the use of natural lighting for portraits. Which is all well and good, but where she and I have differing opinions is on the use of reflectors. She said

...Portraits should have some depth, and some shadows that add character, in my opinion. If you use reflectors to remove all the shadows, you risk that awful photographer's nemesis: flat light.

Now, this is a statement that is technically correct, as far as it goes. Flat lighting (that is, where the shadows are all but obliterated, as in what happens when you shoot with the sun at your back), oftentimes makes for a very dull photograph. However, it doesn't tell the complete story.

To explain, I will use as a reference the second photo in her post, titled "John doing his very serious young man impression", as well as the third, titled "A little splash of color thrown in for good measure". You might want to bring Steph's post up in a new tab/window so you can switch to it while reading this.

The second photo is certainly very dramatic, given the deep contrast between the lighted and shadow side. However, in my opinion (which is a very important thing to remember - this is opinion, not some sort of Holy Photographic Truth or anything), the shadows are too dark, lacking detail, and could have benefited from a bit of light which would have opened them up just a little. As it is, the mood of the picture is too dark, almost angry (which doesn't match the facial expression) - it would have been a great shot if he had a bit more of a scowl on his face, and it was titled something like 'Son, sitting in time-out'.

The other thing I noticed in this photo is the contradiction in clothing: that great big heavy knit sweater doesn't really work with bare feet. I would have had him wear snow boots - or at least heavy socks.

The third photo could have also used some opening up of the shadows. Not so much light that it looks flat, mind you - but enough to give some definition to the shadow side of the face. His right ear is almost lost in the shadows, as is pretty much the whole right side of his face. In fact, he sorta reminds me of those alien beings from the planet Cheron, in the Star Trek episode 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield'. This shot, once again, seems very dramatic - not the impression you get from looking at the facial expression.

Please don't get the idea I am ripping on Steph. I am actually a fan of her photo blog, as well as many of her photographs. It is just that these two illustrated the point I wanted to make (which is pretty much a counterpoint to the one in her post.) Now, let's look at a shot which works: if you look at the first photo (titled "Michael and Frosty"), you see a case where no extra light was needed. There is detail in the shadow side of the face, and the overall impression of this photo is that of a bright, cheery little boy.

So, by now you may be thinking: does this mean I have to spend all my Christmas dollar$ on fancy reflectors, and hire an assistant to go everywhere with me? Certainly not. While it is true that I own a couple of reflectors, there is one (which is actually "5-in-1") I use most often, and so it travels with me. And, in the event I don't have my reflector around, there are many things that will do in a pinch - like a sheet of plain white construction paper (just don't use the colored stuff, not unless you enjoy your subject having a sickly green or off-orange hue, that is.)

One last thing: in order to get the jump on Steph, I will point you to several articles (15, in fact) on natural lighting: Go to the NYI website, and type in 'natural lighting' (without the quotes works fine) in the Search box. It will bring up 15 articles, covering a variety of conditions for using natural lighting.

Enjoy!