CO

I attend critique nights at my camera club. One of the evaluators is an excellent portrait photographer who has won awards for his work from Kodak and Fuji. He always tells us to never use broad lighting on women. Short lighting should be used where the main light is illuminating the side of the face that is away from the camera. I recently attended a photo shoot that recreated a 1940's and 50's look. I took this photo. The light source was a 22" beauty dish with a diffuser sock stretched over it. We can see that this is broad lighting. Is this lighting wrong for her?

(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

No photo attached.

CO

My computer is slow. It finally attached.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Too many feathers.

CO

The organizer of the photo shoot was able to get vintage style clothing. Even the chair she's sitting on has a retro look.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

CO, broad light is the most common for most headshots, women's beauty shots and most conventional portraits that you see, men and women, or fairly even lighting.
In fact I wasn't seeing a lot of short light until more recently when a few famous photographers started to use it a lot, like Joey L.
Short light ads a lot of drama to a shot so works well in that situation.
It also was used a lot in the Noir era of B&W Hollywood. It looks really good in B&W and again adds a lot of contrasty drama to shots.
I want to shoot it a lot more than I do. I want to use it on environmental portraits like Joey L does. It adds a lot of mood to a location shot, I think!
SS

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This is an excellent question!

The best lighting to apply to any individual portrait subjects has very little to do with trends, styles, eras, or what any one photographer extols as his or her favorite. If your goal is to produce a good and flattering likeness and a true artistic interpretation of yous subjects, the lighting you should apply has only to do with the subject's facial structure, body type and their expectation as to the final results of their portrait sitting.

There are certain rules or truisms that have become traditional among portrait photographers but there are many exceptions to theses tenets but we should examine some of theses basics to start off with.

Short lighting is where the main light is placed on the far side of the subject. In a typical 2/3 or profile view of the face, the shadow would appear on the segment of the face nearest the camera. Aesthetically speaking, this lighting form can be used on a variety of facial structures and is especially handy in slimming down a very round face or, combined with strategic posing techniques, a remedial application for heavy set body types. It is somewhat easier to create the illusion of dimension with this application. It is not necessarily the best lighting for a subject with a considerably narrow or “long” face.

Also, in is important to realize that most folks do not have symmetrical faces, that is, if we were to divide the face in two equal segments, there would be a noticeable aesthetic differential between the two sides. One side is likely to be more photogenic than the other. With shot lighting it is easier to highlight the the more photogenic side and de-emphasizing the other side. Highlighting the thinner side of the face and leaving the heaver side in some degree of shadow is a popular and effective method.

Broad lighting is where the main light is placed on the near side of the subject. The highlights will appear on the part of the face nearest the camera and the shadows will be projected toward the far side of the subject. This is a better choice of lighting for those with a narrow or long facial structure. Broad lighting, as others here have stated, is commonly applied to many kinds of fashion, theatrical, so called head-shots and what some call “Old Hollywood” period styles of portraiture. We see it all the time on fashion magazine covers. Butterfly lighting also falls into this category. Theses tends may lead many to believe that broad light is the best lighting approach for feminine portraiture, glamour styles and head-shots, but here's the kinks in the theory. Many of the models that are selected for those magazine covers and ads have very symmetrical facial structures and there is a lesser need for lighting solutions to problematic facial features. Some of theses cover girls can appear perfectly glamorous even with totally flat lighting. There are fashion photography trends using ring lights, butterfly lighting or reflectors placed below the subject's face to totally flatten out the lighting. In theatrical and fashion portraits, oftentimes many issues are solved by professionally applied rather heavy makeup and radical retouching. In many cases the light is oriented toward the garments, fabrics and/or furs and the models' faces are kinda washed out or secondary to the motif of the image.

Many theatrical and modeling agencies prefer broad lighted head shots because they tend to be more revealing and are perhaps a truer representation of the subjects. Theses agencies will oftentimes recommend that there models and actors seek out a commercial photographer rather than a traditional portraitist as the don't want certain aspects of the face to be hidden or overly retouched. They want to see how the unadulterated subject photographs in a less manipulated methodology.

For most professional portrait photographers and advanced enthusiasts, we are dealing with ordinary subjects- not professional models or actors. It is not likely that our average client or subjects is going to have professionally applied heavy makeup. Most folks want a flattering but natural look. This places the photographer in control of aesthetics and it becomes his or her job to advise the subject on makeup, hair style choices, costume and many other preparatory steps. The application of lighting that is compatible with the subhead's physical features is a vital issue. Even after facial analysis and a decision to use a particular lighting form or style, only by SEEING the play of light on the subject can the final exact lighting be determined. A slight change in the lateral, vertical positioning or feathering of the main light can make a significant difference. There are “clean and unclean” forms of popular lighting patterns where both variations can be used effectively. There is butterfly and modified butterfly and “loop” lighting. There is an advanced concept called “form fill and double main lights” where two lighting forms are overlapped and used at the same time. Hey folks- we've got a whole lot to discover.

There is not one cure-all lighting for every subject type or gender. The artfulness in photographic portraiture lies in finding the most fitting effect for each individual subject.

CO

SharpShooter, thanks for the advice on that. I like the high contrast Hollywood film noir look. I can see how short lighting could add drama. I'm going to explore that more.

CO

Mr. Shapiro, Thanks for the analysis of this. It looks like I will need to evaluate each individual to determine what sort of lighting to use. I can see how differences in facial structure such as a round face or narrow face will be a factor in this.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

CO, BTW, this is a beautiful foto! I love shooting white on white and do it a lot.
I think it's a very bold look that's just not seen that often. It has a very high key look, which I like as well.
The red LoL stick really sets it off. I use red lipstick in white on white as well, or other red items, like clothes, to really make the white pop!
I have a couple questions. The pic is sharp, yet there are areas in the middle of the feathers that are OOF, at least it seems. Are they just where the feathers curl back or did you actually soften some of those areas. If intentional, why?
I would also consider possibly cropping just below the lower elbow. That would draw all the attention to the feathers(the uniqueness of the foto) and the face(here beauty)! Just saying!
Thanks
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Ed, thanks so much for that in-depth and well thought out explanation.
It greatly reinforces some of what I've thought was appropriate uses of short light. Thanks
SS

CO

I didn't soften any areas. It could be that the feathers are curling back. I'm thinking that there's so little contrast in those areas that the feathers appear out of focus. Someone else who saw my photo also suggested cropping away some of the lower portion.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Is it possible it’s a resolution issue? Could it be an artifact of the downsampling that happens when uploading to the site? Does the original look the same way? Those feathers are pretty fine. Is it a problem with undersampling? Maybe the native resolution is not high enough? Or perhaps the lens could not resolve the fine lines of the feathers?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

JD, I have a pic of some shoes that shows this very well. As the detail becomes horizontal, it can take on an OOF perception.
In this case, it's possible each curled back feather might give that illusion in the horizontal area.
I'll try to find my pic and post it.
Maybe Ed knows some solutions. Mine was a product shot, and nobody ever said anything, but I've now seen it in other images as well!
SS

CO

I had an 11" x 14" print made of the image. I sent the lab the full resolution image (5,568 x 3,712 pixels). The feathers have good detail on the print and are in focus.