Catchlights
Dec 13, 2012 12:29:32 #
I have read several articles on catch lights in the eyes. What are
your opinions on this subject? In so far as portrait photography is concerned do we try and position our mono light to alleviate the
catch light or just not worry about it and position light best to
light the model? In other words is it a good thing or bad thing?
your opinions on this subject? In so far as portrait photography is concerned do we try and position our mono light to alleviate the
catch light or just not worry about it and position light best to
light the model? In other words is it a good thing or bad thing?
Dec 13, 2012 12:52:32 #
Photo, I'm a little on the fence on this. I think a catchlight is always better, but nothing looks worse than a sexy model with a big expesive rectangular soft box in her/his eyes. Looks like an advertisement for brand X.
But I may prefer that to the big dilated pupils many get with strobes.
I think good light is paramount, followed very closely by placement.
JMO
But I may prefer that to the big dilated pupils many get with strobes.
I think good light is paramount, followed very closely by placement.
JMO
Dec 13, 2012 13:39:34 #
Sharp shooter, thats my quandry...I usually use a large 48" octogox as key light, but usually position it to the far left of my subject with a reflector to the far right. I've just started shooting with this box and not sure how to position it and confused on what I want or need in respect to the catch light in the eyes.
Dec 13, 2012 16:27:54 #
I am usually not too concerned about catch lights when I am taking photos. When looking at my photos later on on the computer, I will often notice the lack of catch lights rather than their presence. To me eyes without catch lights look lifeless and dull.
But in this age of Photoshop, Elements and other editors, it is easy to experiment: remove catch lights where they are, or add them where they're not, and see the difference. One thing to keep in mind is the direction the light is coming from: If it is coming from (your) left and you put a catch light to (your) right of the eye, it may look worse than no catch light at all.
They don't need to be large, just a pinpoint is often enough.
Just my thoughts
EstherP
But in this age of Photoshop, Elements and other editors, it is easy to experiment: remove catch lights where they are, or add them where they're not, and see the difference. One thing to keep in mind is the direction the light is coming from: If it is coming from (your) left and you put a catch light to (your) right of the eye, it may look worse than no catch light at all.
They don't need to be large, just a pinpoint is often enough.
Just my thoughts
EstherP
Dec 13, 2012 22:49:05 #
gonate
Loc: sacramento,calif
EstherP wrote:
I am usually not too concerned about catch lights ... (show quote)
Well it so happins that i like catch lights, however to each his own. Have a good day.enjoy your photography
Dec 13, 2012 23:54:40 #
One catchlight per eye is ok- it adds a twinkle.
If it's more than one, it becomes distracting.
If it's more than one, it becomes distracting.
Dec 14, 2012 00:10:54 #
gonate wrote:
quote=EstherP I am usually not too concerned abou... (show quote)
Hmmm, gonate.... read my message again. Even though I didn't say so explicitly, I think you can make out from what I wrote that I prefer catch lights as well, and that I find eyes without catch light lifeless and flat.
EstherP
Dec 14, 2012 00:18:36 #
Without the catchlight the eyes are dead. for a decent portrait, it is a requirement. Ideally, just one per eye.
Dec 14, 2012 01:55:01 #
It's usually a good idea to have catchlights.
However, some of the finest portraits have no or almost undetectable catchlights.
I would agree that good portraits usually do and come as a by product of good lighting. Or you can fake the light and add them in post. It's one of the easiest things to add to a portrait in post if you have too. Its also easy to make the catch lights look real in post.
Here's an example of a world class portrait with no detectable catchlights.
You can list portraits on 500px with no detectable catchlights that will run for pages. Many of the portraits have slight almost undetectable catchlights.
Many of the new photographers in the world are breaking old standing rules that have been around for some time.
THe iris on the pic below seems to have been burned around the lower edges for depth.
http://500px.com/photo/20348057
No catchlight shots are common in fashion where the emphasis is as much on what the model is wearing as anything.
However, some of the finest portraits have no or almost undetectable catchlights.
I would agree that good portraits usually do and come as a by product of good lighting. Or you can fake the light and add them in post. It's one of the easiest things to add to a portrait in post if you have too. Its also easy to make the catch lights look real in post.
Here's an example of a world class portrait with no detectable catchlights.
You can list portraits on 500px with no detectable catchlights that will run for pages. Many of the portraits have slight almost undetectable catchlights.
Many of the new photographers in the world are breaking old standing rules that have been around for some time.
THe iris on the pic below seems to have been burned around the lower edges for depth.
http://500px.com/photo/20348057
No catchlight shots are common in fashion where the emphasis is as much on what the model is wearing as anything.
Dec 14, 2012 02:27:05 #
As I was taught many moons ago.....Catch lights in the eye should be singular,and like the hand placement on a steering wheel,at either 10 or 2 o'clock. They should look like a light.and not a reflection of a light source.(i.e.: a square soft box) Move your lighting setup accordingly.This is all a matter of preference.Work with one light at a time until you figure out where your placement should be in each setting.
Dec 14, 2012 06:23:23 #
PHOTOBILL71 wrote:
I have read several articles on catch lights in the eyes. What are
your opinions on this subject? In so far as portrait photography is concerned do we try and position our mono light to alleviate the
catch light or just not worry about it and position light best to
light the model? In other words is it a good thing or bad thing?
your opinions on this subject? In so far as portrait photography is concerned do we try and position our mono light to alleviate the
catch light or just not worry about it and position light best to
light the model? In other words is it a good thing or bad thing?
Personally I like catch lights in the eyes. But to some extent does it depend on the "mood" of the portrait? If you want a dark, somber, hard face in a man is it not better without catch lights? It's a question not a statement.
Dec 14, 2012 07:44:52 #
One catch light in the eyes, one each that is, not square or octagon, round, enough diffuse light to keep the eyes looking normal, Bob.
Dec 14, 2012 08:23:35 #
Catchlights bring attention to the eyes--one of the purposes of portraiture. They should be present to bring life to the eyes--but only one per eye. Often, one has to remove other catchlights from sources such as fill lights, etc.
The Colonel
The Colonel
Dec 14, 2012 08:42:27 #
gonate
Loc: sacramento,calif
EstherP wrote:
quote=gonate quote=EstherP I am usually not too ... (show quote)
EstherP,Yes I understood your message, and I agree with you.
Dec 14, 2012 09:24:21 #
Catch lights add life to the eyes....I have actually added them when I didn't have them! But ditto to all those who have said too many are distracting.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.