How did I light that? An umbrella, a reflector, and a strip box
This article is written by a member of our expert community. It expresses that member’s views only. We welcome other perspectives. Here’s how to contribute to MM EDU.
With Christmas right around the corner, my friend Lex C (MM# 2006439) and I started brainstorming what we could do for a Christmas shoot. She already had this outfit with a bow on the front. We thought it would be cool if we build a huge present box that she could jump out of. The trip to Home Depot was priceless when the guy asked, “What are you going to wrap?” Of course, Lex said, “ME!” Ahhh, good times.
As with my other “How Did I Light That?” posts, I just want to share with you how I set up to shoot certain shots, as well as walk you through a little bit of what’s going on in my head.
OK, on to the photo.
Main light
I’ve been on this umbrella kick lately because the room in which I’ve been shooting isn’t very big, so when I use a shoot-through umbrella, light just goes everywhere to make things nice and soft. This main light was setup above and to my right with enough power for me to shoot 1/200 f10 ISO 125 through a 50mm f1.2L.
Fill light
There were some harsher shadows from the ribbon and the box. So I added another strobe shooting through a field reflector with a 20 degree grid close to the ground, shooting up at her. The light was on my left to balance the umbrella on my right. This filled things in nicely and I was happy with it. As for settings, I fiddled around with it a bit to get her face/skin lit the way I wanted. (PS – the bow might look flat to you in the bottom two. This is a settings/compression issue that I’m going to have to take a look into).
Rim light
For this first shot I had a strip soft box to the model’s left and up behind her, with a grid. It did double duty lighting up the box, as well as providing a rim light. This highlighted Lex’s right arm, but wasn’t what I really wanted. We pulled the box to do a few shots of just her. When Lex turned into the camera a little bit (yeah, I know we broke a posing rule, but I still like this photo so I’m okay with it), I was able to direct the light more and give her a nice hair and side rim light. I would have added another rim light on her left side, but there’s a wall right there so I didn’t quite have enough room.
February 06, 2012 at 2:03 pm, Kamala Photo said:
Thanks for the tips Reuben =)
December 13, 2011 at 11:10 pm, Andrew said:
Man you guys are unreal! I cant imagine how anyone can get better in this industry with people like these bagging your work. Reuben you are doing just great, you’re learning from any mistakes you do make or ways that you can improve and that is all that matters. Keep up the good work and build on that.
Don’t listen to self confessed ‘Dumb models’ and others that bag your stuff like some of these horrible comments, you’re doing well.
December 08, 2011 at 8:54 pm, saigonphotog said:
Totally agree Ranger. Army Ranger or Ranger Quadra? 🙂 I admire this kid’s spirit but to call himself “very experienced” and to write articles as an “expert” is pretty darn presumptuous. The shots he is posting to guide beginners would have earned me a solid C- in school. They are MM ho-hum amateur stuff at best. Sorry Reuben if we don’t all sing your praises but hey, if you can get paid with your work like your profile says, more power to you kid. You’re ahead of a lot of them.
December 08, 2011 at 7:04 pm, Ranger said:
I know I’m going to get beat up for this, but I’ll speak my peace anyway… I feel that it’s wrong for everyone to flog the people that don’t agree that this is great photography. Some people are better with words than others, and I totally don’t agree with personal attacks, but when someone states that this is not a fabulous photo, they should not be ran down by the mob. Right now all these people are getting ready to type back to me that I should write my own article… That seems to be the standard reply here… My reply is this- I’m not an expert and I do not feel qualified to write here when there are so many better photographers that use this site.
MM has a chance to do something really good here with the educational articles, but they need to go about it differently. MM has all these different lists and groups, and everything else, why not have a group of members who review these “experts” and then decide if their article needs to be published or not? There should be some sort of a minimum qualifications standard in place, sort of like “gatekeepers” for the EDU portion of the site. I’m sure Reuben is a great guy and I admire the work he puts into submitting these articles, but his photography is very mediocre and I truly believe he would benefit from reading about lighting rather than writing about it.
As everyone knows, there are a lot of hobby photographers on this site who are just moving beyond a pop-up flash. I don’t believe that MM is steering them on the right course for developing their skills by posting shots like these for them to learn from and emulate. Just my $.02
December 08, 2011 at 10:30 am, Firepaws2003 said:
Very cute photos. I didn’t think Santa was that cute. I look forward to my gifts this year
December 08, 2011 at 8:40 am, Anonymous said:
Thanks for sharing your setup Reuben!
December 08, 2011 at 8:01 am, Photofag said:
Great info , next time I need to shoot a flat looking photo that will be over photoshoped I’ll keep this technique in mind. You forgot the 5th light to wipe out the remaining shadows from the gigantic bow
December 08, 2011 at 5:57 am, Images by D'sel said:
Reuben, Not the best and not the worst photos i’ve seen on here, but good for you to have a go and I am sure there are photographers that will benefit from this.
As for the bow looking good in RAW and flat here it could be due to the color space.
The RAW has full color depth of the camera, the screens are only SRGB. So you need to output the JPG for web in SRGB which is a low color range. If you convert without knowing what colorspace then you leave it up to the computer to try and make do. Better to tweak yourself.
December 08, 2011 at 5:47 am, Lusk Photo said:
“How did you lose her tonal range” oh I know terrible skin editing.
December 08, 2011 at 4:05 am, CountryConcepts said:
Thank you for this information – as an amateur hobbyist photographer, this was helpful 🙂
December 08, 2011 at 1:26 am, Ewgrantham said:
People, really? “RULES” LMAO. “never more than 45 degrees… Never wider than, such and such…. Aways, never, must, must not, dont…. ” so very one dimentional. Hello, art!? You guys are killing me! Haaahaha :-0
December 07, 2011 at 6:58 pm, MM Edu said:
Just a quick note… critiquing the work is fine but personal attacks on the author, or anyone featured in the articles won’t be tolerated (i.e. we delete them).
We welcome all viewpoints and encourage a healthy discussion. If you want to rebut an article, please submit your ideas to [email protected].
December 07, 2011 at 6:06 pm, Goose said:
Great work Rueben.
OTOH: “”Randall Chambers:
Why are you using such a wide angle of a lens for a portrait? The standard, smallest you should use is a 80mm in order to get proper portions on the human body. Just FYI. “”
This is not only incorrect, it’s absurd to think one should limit their techniques based on something you read in a photography 101 book.
December 07, 2011 at 4:16 pm, Anonymous said:
Hi Reuben,as a request mate,could you please take some behind the scene images of your lighting set up at your next shoot,instead of just having a top view of the diagram you provide ? Keep up the good work mate,and do not worry about the keyboard heroes trying to put you down.
December 08, 2011 at 4:46 am, reuben dixon said:
I can definitely do that. I actually have some Behind The Scenes photos from this shoot that I will go through and append to this article.
PS – thanks for the constructive feedback!
December 07, 2011 at 3:37 pm, Deforestphotograhy said:
I took the extra time to look at Mr. Randall’s website to see if he can quantify his degrading statements towards Reuben, because he obviously has way too much time on his hands. 90 percent of his website, outside of a group of average pictures with various items in hands, states “coming soon.” I would expect more from a photography expert who teaches photography to students or people with less experience that he is so quick to criticize. Dear Mr. Randall, guide us to your website, and bless us with the knowledge on how you lit those photos that aren’t showing up! Show us your step-by-step process instead of petty words that make you feel better about yourself.. We all know the saying, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anytihing at all. There is no set rules in photography. If Reuben has a lighting set up he likes, and others seem to like it, then so be it. Merry Christmas.
December 07, 2011 at 2:37 pm, Vanreilhautecouture said:
Great work
December 07, 2011 at 2:13 pm, Xhandgolfer said:
Reuben, I really really appreciate the time you take to write these articles, as well as your willingness to share techniques. I have learned something new from every post. Please focus on the useful posts below and ignore the ones that seem to live to critique others, but lack any skill or talent themselves…
December 07, 2011 at 2:55 am, bill green said:
What about the height of the lights. Are they about head level? Or at different heights.
December 08, 2011 at 4:48 am, reuben dixon said:
Hi Bill,
Great question. The umbrella is above the model’s eye level. The front fill is maybe a couple feet off the floor. The rim light is up way above her head.
Per another comment, I am going to find a behind the scenes photo that shows some of the lights to append to this article.
December 11, 2011 at 4:30 am, bill green said:
That would be a great idea for me anyway. try to show the same shot, one without the lights in the frame and one without the lights in the frame. That would help me!
December 07, 2011 at 1:10 am, Fozzybear88 said:
Good light setup. I enjoy your insight on your lighting techniques and the beautiful models you shoot with. That bow still casts a shadow on the model’s body. I think I would use a ring flash as solution to get that shadow free look.
December 08, 2011 at 4:49 am, reuben dixon said:
Hmm, good idea. I think I’ll try that out next time
(PS – this is the type of useful and constructive criticism that I love!)
December 06, 2011 at 7:07 pm, Mark said:
What I find the MOST interesting is that those that critique the harshest have the worst photos!!! Have you guys LOOKED at your own photography? I wouldn’t post some of that stuff when criticizing someone else – I would be embarrassed!!!
I don’t think Reuben is Joe McNally. And even Joe is not perfect!
But Reuben’s insights encourage me try out things and learn from them and get better as I evolve as a photographer.
And just for THAT he should be applauded.
December 07, 2011 at 12:09 am, reuben dixon said:
Thanks for sticking up for me, Mark. I appreciate it.
December 09, 2011 at 6:08 am, Randizzle said:
I agree. It says “How Did I Light That” and Reuben takes the time to share what he did. It’s easy enough to ponder how that might work for oneself, and make adaptations or adjustments. If it’s useful, use it, if not, still try to learn what you can. The article wasn’t “The absolute best way to light a fashion style portrait for publication or sale.” So, I’d give the guy props too. Is it that hard to be a decent human being and also continue to develop yourself as a professional. What’s the point of being a pro, if you’re just outrageously arrogant and unwilling to learn? (Well, money and fame, haha). But seriously, good points are raised here and true, but it doesn’t have to be nasty and hateful. Just MHO.
December 06, 2011 at 5:29 pm, A-train said:
Dude, sorry everyone is so critical all the time. I think people can use whatever lens they want for whatever look they want. Also, I think the glow and rim on this particular photo are perfectly appropriate for a fun christmas shoot, even if it wouldn’t be epic for an editorial fashion.
December 06, 2011 at 5:40 pm, Guest said:
It’s not that everyone is being critical. This is an article to help people take better images. All we’re doing is pointing out that this guy may not be the best one to be giving advice on technical photography when he can not properly explain or show the proper examples. If you have a great or good image ok. I personally would like to know his background. Maybe he knows his stuff and just isn’t good at explaining.
December 06, 2011 at 11:44 pm, Dennis said:
Of course there is a polite way and then Adam Sternberg’s way with is totally out of line and inappropriate.
December 08, 2011 at 7:48 am, Adam Sternberg said:
My comments (which were unfortunately censored) were spot on and more than appropriate. I’m sure Reuben is a nice guy, but his skills as a teacher are less than adequate. He’s doing a tutorial on lighting when it’s clear to even an amateur photographer that the image is a perfect example of how NOT to light a subject properly. His foreground is totally blown out and he’s shown, time after time, a complete lack of experience in photography (such as not knowing what a polarized filter is) and so forth. While he has good intentions, we all know what road those pave.
December 08, 2011 at 6:27 pm, MM Edu said:
Hi Adam,
If you’re interested in writing an article on lighting, or another topic, please submit your ideas or a draft to [email protected] and we’ll review it.
Thanks!
December 08, 2011 at 10:32 pm, Adam Sternberg said:
It’s not a matter of me writing my own article. That’s actually a very weak, cop-out answer. What might be a better idea is for the MM-EDU staff to actually scrutinize what is being submitted more rather than just post something up as being “educational” just because someone wants to submit content. So here you have Reuben pumping out article after article as a means of free advertising…nothing wrong with that I suppose, but it might have some more merit if his work was reflective of the content of the articles he is submitting. In two of his lighting articles, he is submitting sample shots that are clearly not lit well. As someone else mentioned in this discussion, his work is C- caliber. By having someone submit articles, proclaiming to be an expert at something, it may behoove Model Mayhem to actually scrutinize the work a little better. Otherwise it just dilutes the value of having article content on this website in the first place.
December 09, 2011 at 4:30 am, CourtneyD. said:
+100 I may just be a “dumb model”, but I would be very upset if these images were delivered to me on a TFCD shoot, let alone on a paid shoot. Reuben seems more of a GWC wanting to run with the big boys than anything. Model Mayhem needs to have these articles peer reviewed.
December 09, 2011 at 2:29 pm, Goose said:
There you have it : “”I may just be a “dumb model” “”
December 09, 2011 at 3:58 pm, CourtneyD said:
haha, yeah… I’d love to see your port and how many paid shoots you do if you’re calling this work “great”. So now we all know that “Goose” is one of the million “photographers” on here begging to do TF shoots. I bet you also go on in your profile that you are a “natural light shooter” and “prefer location work”, i.e. I don’t know how to light with strobes nor do I have a studio. LOL. Have fun with your Rebel.
December 09, 2011 at 9:57 pm, Goose said:
I didn’t say the pics were great. I said great work meaning the whole package he presented was done in a manner that granted me saying Great Work. Get over your high horse attitude. He didn’t present this to impress you, he did so to allow a comparative analysis of how things are done differently and that work… I like the presentation. I think the pics are a bit over PS’s but that isn’t what the post is about, it’s about lighting.
December 09, 2011 at 9:58 pm, Goose said:
and yes I prefer outdoors over my studio I have….
April 05, 2012 at 8:24 pm, H0nd0 said:
Hmm… since we’re on a critiquing roll, how about we discuss your portfolio Adam? Lets start with the clutter in many of your images. Or how about your lack of shallow depth of field use when photographing portraits? Or the lack of experience in Photoshop; exhibited by poor masking, lack of shadow detail in eyes, over-contrasted images (by the way Dave Hill technique is so yesterday). How about your lighting technique? If your going to use on-board flash, at least invest in a Gary Fong puffer or a Scoop. Natural light, it’s looking pretty flat. I would highly recommend doing your homework on your strobe / strobist technique.
Care to elaborate on the use of a polarizer in studio? I don’t recall that ever being covered in my portrait photography class.I’m sure your a nice guy Adam, but your skills as a ‘very experienced’ photographer are less than adequate. Might I suggest Art Institute, Brooks, or NYIP?
With regards to MM and how they approve articles, if you don’t like it, maybe you should consider starting your own?
Last, if you don’t like Reuben’s articles, then why read them?
December 07, 2011 at 12:11 am, reuben dixon said:
Thanks. And yes, this was just a fun shoot. It’s not going to be on the cover of Maxim magazine. I just thought people might like to know how I lit it, even if it’s not “perfect”.
December 09, 2011 at 5:42 pm, Anonymous said:
Yes Reuben,
I think this is the best point. People that might light this different for whatever reason can now compare your lighting with theirs and the comparison will act as a good lesson. I don’t agree with others that you are coming off as an expert in lighting, but you are really just sharing what you enjoy doing and if some people get something out of it, even better. I’ve always been fond of saying I am who I am more for what my Father didn’t do rather than what he did do. Reverse engineered in a way.
In turn, you get to hear people’s retort which is teaching you a thing a too. The best lesson’s in life are done in failure.
December 09, 2011 at 6:02 pm, Ranger said:
Maybe the tag line under the Edu tab stating something along the lines of “learn from modeling industry experts” confused us all?
Nobody gets the point here, the people who are critical are looking out for the newbies best interests and getting flogged for it by those very same people. We know good lighting from bad, you don’t or you would not be reading this and commenting how great it is. Some of us feel a responsibility to point out that these are really poor shots and you should not learn from them if you are hoping to advance your skills as a photographer. This is nothing more than free publicity for a guy who’s mom tells him what a great photographer he is. (His words not mine.) These articles need to be reviewed by a group of professional volunteers before they are posted, otherwise it is more of this stuff…. but you know what, I’m done. This is real garbage and if you’re too clueless to realize it and you want to call it great, by all means do so.
December 06, 2011 at 3:47 pm, Guest said:
Do you know the basic principles in lighting in a studio environment? The light should not cross the plain of your lens. Also, a simple way to light is formulated at 45 degrees from the camera and the subject. I would suggest investing in a light meter so you know how many stops you have between your highlights and darks. Can I ask where did you go to school for photography?
December 07, 2011 at 6:36 am, cbs said:
maybe once you get out of school you’ll realize that the best photographers know how to successfully break the rules. HAS to be 45 degrees huh? I remember my first couple of years in the business too.
December 07, 2011 at 2:51 pm, Dennis said:
Randall, everything you mention are guidelines not rules. Yes a simple way to light a subject is 45 degrees from the camera and it’s a very simple grade 8 student photo setup as well. If one wants to advance in studio lighting one must be willing to take a chance and brake the rules. You will understand more as you progress Grasshopper!
December 07, 2011 at 8:35 pm, Xhandgolfer said:
OMG Randall…I just looked at your FB “pictures”, please don’t ever critique anyone ever again until you learn the basics of using your iphone to take pictures…wow…
December 09, 2011 at 4:38 pm, Fahad Ayyad said:
I just took a quick look at your FB page .. You’re using a scanner in almost all of the pictures.
Are you by any means a professional photographer? or are you a Professional Scanner of some sort
December 09, 2011 at 5:10 pm, Eddie said:
Oh no Randall they’ve found you. You better take that picture of Allah having sex with a pig off your facebook page before the Jihadist guys blow you up. LMFAO
December 06, 2011 at 1:37 am, Decoff said:
I appreciate you posting this however I’m having a brain fart in the reading and looking at your setup. You mention bringing in a fill light bottom left of camera filling at -1 to your key shoot-true umbrella, to fill in shadows. But when I look at the Images posted, which are nicely lite, I see more shadow coming from the fill than from the main. I’m wondering how this image would have looked without the fill and if your sources were switched (Fill camera right and Main left). Ideally I would like to see less hard shadow from the bow.
December 06, 2011 at 1:40 am, Decoff said:
in addition, I thinking adding another strip box camera right would balance the left side nicely. I might have also considered bracketing or adjusting for the bow, it has lost its detail.
December 07, 2011 at 12:58 am, reuben dixon said:
Thanks for the suggestions. Yah, I wish I had lit her other side also. I started at -1 stops for the fill but probably just kept bumping it up until it could very well have been brighter than the “main”.
If I nitpicked every shot I took I would go insane! Every time I look back at a photo I wish I had done this or that. I look back at photos I took a month ago and think they suck!
December 05, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Nathaniel Westveer said:
I would like to see the bow not Blown out, And the texture brought out of it more
December 07, 2011 at 12:46 am, reuben dixon said:
Thanks for noticing. For some reason my JPEG compression/settings are flattening that out. In my RAW/Photoshop file things are fine. I’m going to play around with the output and see if I can’t get a better version up.
December 05, 2011 at 8:13 pm, Johnmather01 said:
Matt its described as a 3 light set up,main fill and rim. Three!
December 05, 2011 at 7:54 pm, Matt said:
So this was a 3 light setup or two? In the diagram it looks like 3, but you described it as 2…
December 05, 2011 at 8:18 pm, Guy Vindigni said:
There are three different shots, lit differently it seems. The diagram depicts the lighting on the bottom two if I am correct. For the top one, the rim light was behind her and to her left.
December 05, 2011 at 9:29 pm, gary said:
what camera you shoot with just wondering
gary
December 06, 2011 at 12:29 am, reuben dixon said:
5D mkII with a 50mm f1.2L. The last shot used a 35mm f1.4L
December 06, 2011 at 3:49 pm, Guest said:
Why are you using such a wide angle of a lens for a portrait? The standard, smallest you should use is a 80mm in order to get proper portions on the human body. Just FYI.
December 07, 2011 at 12:51 am, reuben dixon said:
I used a 35mm only on the last photo. THe first two were with a 50mm (a standard portrait lens and also replicates what the human eye sees – but of course you know that)
Often times I will use a wide lens to distort models (in a good way) because it makes them look taller. But you know that already.
December 07, 2011 at 3:24 am, Matt said:
Randall, what does it matter what lens he used, or if the lights were at a perfect 45, or how many stops were between the highlights and the shadows? The model is certainly much more interesting, and much better lit, than the water bottle and flowers that are on your facebook! If you want to post an article about the mediocre lighting of plastic bottles, go ahead, but I’ll take Reuben’s articles any day! He took his time to help educate readers on HIS methods for lighting, which many of us find very helpful and educational. If you would like to educate us on YOUR methods for lighting, please post an article, and we’ll see what types of critiques you get! Thanks Reuben for another great article!
December 07, 2011 at 5:53 pm, Dennis said:
Randall, for the record could you give us your age and level you are at in photography? Everything you bring up is appreciated but is at a very elementary level of discussion. “Does Reuben know that the lights should be at 45 degrees and you know that nothing under a 80mm lens should be used” As mentioned before these are guidelines and every good photographer breaks those everyday. If you want to take a save picture and have all your photos look the same, the 45 degree will do just that for you. If you want some stunning, eye popping images that people will be in awe of… THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
December 06, 2011 at 12:28 am, reuben dixon said:
The lighting diagram is accurate for all three shots, but for the first shot the rim light was up a little higher and aimed a little farther back so there wasn’t much of a rim light on her.