Move away from the background a few feet.
Put the main light at about a 45 degree & the fill right next to the
camera on the same side as the main. The main should be 1 stop
brighter than the fill. Keep the side of the face toward the camera in
shadow.
Then, get all the details at:
http://www.msnusers.com/Asktheoleproaboutphotography/joezeltsman.msnw
Jo - 03 Sep 2003 06:52 GMT
Thanks Randall - I really appreciate your comments. I haven't had
time to take a look at the web link yet but I will.
Thanks again
Jo
Lionel - 03 Sep 2003 10:12 GMT
Word has it that on Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:24:45 -0700, in this august
forum, Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> said:
> Then, get all the details at:
>
>http://www.msnusers.com/Asktheoleproaboutphotography/joezeltsman.msnw
Joanne, I also strongly recommend this website. I'm also an amateur in
portraiture, & I found it very educational. Joe's example photos are old
fashioned, but all the techniques are excellent.

Signature
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Ainsworth - 03 Sep 2003 12:19 GMT
> Joanne, I also strongly recommend this website. I'm also an amateur in
> portraiture, & I found it very educational. Joe's example photos are old
> fashioned, but all the techniques are excellent.
They may look old-fashioned, but this is bread-and-butter portraiture.
This is the basics, the foundation upon which all other portraiture is
based.
Lionel - 03 Sep 2003 14:22 GMT
Word has it that on Wed, 03 Sep 2003 04:19:12 -0700, in this august
forum, Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> said:
>> Joanne, I also strongly recommend this website. I'm also an amateur in
>> portraiture, & I found it very educational. Joe's example photos are old
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>This is the basics, the foundation upon which all other portraiture is
>based.
Yes, exactly. The pictures on the website look dated, but that's just
because of the hair styles & clothing (60s/70s?). I just mentioned it
because the photos caused a me to raise my eyebrows a little until I
tooked more closely, & it'd be a shame if anyone rejected it on that
basis.

Signature
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
zeitgeist - 04 Sep 2003 04:50 GMT
> > Then, get all the details at:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> portraiture, & I found it very educational. Joe's example photos are old
> fashioned, but all the techniques are excellent.
I think all of Zeltsman's tutorials are also found at www.zuga.net He was
Monte's inspiration and that says a lot.
everything joe says about posing and most all of his lighting is dead on, I
don't think anybody else explains how a particular pose and lighting is
choosen for a particular face, he teaches a systematic method of deciding
those choices, and not just give you the usual this is rembrandt and that is
something else. Here the rules of lighting and posing become creative
methodology instead of constraints.
I thought his use of a woman model to demo masculine posing actually quite
helpful to drive the point home (even if it was his wife.)
the only drawback I have found is the fill based system of exposure, a very
good system in the days of black of white where you could expose for the
shadows and develope for the highlights, (or in the case of color negs,
print for the highlights)
these days if you expose for the shadows you may find you have no highlights
to work with, and so, as with transparency films and digital, we really need
to expose for the highlights.
> Hello
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> ES slave flash. I am positioning my subject almost immediately in
> front of the background paper
Mistake No. 1
> and positioning each lamp about 5 feet
> away at 45 degrees to the subject.
Mistake No. 2
> I am positioned head-on to the
> subject
Mistake No. 3
>at about 12-15 feet away and I am not using the camera flash
> (canon 10D) at all.
> I am getting terrible shadows.
That's because of the way you set everything up.
> I am going to try moving the subject
> further away from the background paper but without a softbox (which I
> know I should have but I don't) what would you recommend?
Send the customer to a pro until you get it right. This requires
professional skill. Take a lighting class at a local college or ask a
pro to teach you. Pay him for his time and knowledge.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jo
Jo - 03 Sep 2003 06:57 GMT
Mike - thanks for taking the time to post a reponse to my message.
However, I am not sure how constructive your comments were. I know I
am making mistakes and I know that a professional would do a better
job but I am merely an amateur looking for some words of encouragement
and advice.
Thanks again.
Jo
Michael Scarpitti - 03 Sep 2003 14:52 GMT
> Mike - thanks for taking the time to post a reponse to my message.
> However, I am not sure how constructive your comments were. I know I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Jo
Get yourself to the library or a camera store or bookstore that has
books on lighting available. There are several that cover this. It
really is not that easy to get professional lighting effects without
the right equipment, and that's what you pay pros for. It takes years
to get really good at lighting, and I'm not discouraging you.
And for Pete's sake don't over-light!
The biggest mistake amateurs make is to use too many sources and
create too many shadows.
Look at some of the Hollywood portaits of George Hurrell for
inspiration.
http://www.odarainternet.com.br/supers/cinema/glamour9.htm
http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/gallery.html
Marc 182 - 03 Sep 2003 09:28 GMT
> > Hello
> >
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> professional skill. Take a lighting class at a local college or ask a
> pro to teach you. Pay him for his time and knowledge.
What customer? When did she say customer? Your "advice" is singularly
unhelpful and rather pointless.
Marc
Lionel - 03 Sep 2003 10:09 GMT
Word has it that on 2 Sep 2003 18:55:53 -0700, in this august forum,
mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) said:
>Send the customer to a pro until you get it right. This requires
>professional skill. Take a lighting class at a local college or ask a
>pro to teach you. Pay him for his time and knowledge.
What customer?
Jeez Mike, you sure like to make friends!

Signature
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
> I am a newcomer to portraiture and I am having the inevitable problems
> newcomers have with shadows.
here I go again, you've started me off on my favorite rant.
problem shadows are merely a symptom of a far bigger problem, your
highlights.
remember that we photograph reflected light off the subjects, lights don't
make shadows, they only make highlights. If you have a shadow you don't
like its because your light (and I am not using a plural here) isn't getting
any there. putting a second light on the other side is only giving you a
second set of highlights, compounding the original problem of god awful
highlights even more.
> I have a 336VM flash head with a white/silver brollie and a 208W Wide
> ES slave flash.
99% of lighting has nothing to do with brand or quality of gear, it is the
size of the light source to the size of the subject. an 18 inch metal
reflector used at a typical 3 feet is about the same as a 36 or 42 inch
brollie used at its typical distance of six feet.
I am positioning my subject almost immediately in
> front of the background paper and positioning each lamp about 5 feet
> away at 45 degrees to the subject.
This is the worst possible lighting set up you can do, cross lighting, mug
shot lighting.
I am positioned head-on to the
> subject at about 12-15 feet away and I am not using the camera flash
> (canon 10D) at all.
>
> I am getting terrible shadows. I am going to try moving the subject
> further away from the background paper but without a softbox (which I
> know I should have but I don't) what would you recommend?
take your flash heads, remove the brollies and aim them at the side wall, if
it ain't white then either hang a white sheet, buy a panel or two of white
styrofoam (home improvement warehouses have them in the lumber dept for
house insulation, 10 to 12 bucks each. get another to use as a reflector.
If you can get a good exposure with one flash then use the other as a hair
light.
but first make sure you can get a good image from the one main light, what
you want to do is expose so that you get detail right down to the brightest
highlight, and detail in the shadow side too, all with one 'source' of light
(even if you need more than one head over there.) ignore your shadows for
awhile, print for your highlights, work with the one light till you get it
spread around far enough so your shadows have detail. a rule of thumb is
that the light needs to be twice as big as the subject.
get some fabric, sports nylon, its translucent and you can hang a curtain to
shoot your lights through, or still bounce off the side wall.
Oh, and move your subject away from the background, six feet I'd recommend.
brollies and almost all traditional lighting reflect qwerty thinking, you
know how teh qwerty keyboard was invented? 100 years ago the first
typewriters where not only mechanical contraptions but built without
accurate machining. Even beginners could type faster than the contraption
could operate, so the inventor decided to spread the keys around to slow
typists down. and to this day we still use the damn qwerty layout.
typical portrait lighting kits are kludge fixes for problems that don't
exist anymore. early studios used flamable fabrics and metal lights, I mean
they only had cotton, wool, linen, wood and metal to work with, they had
slow film and slow lenses. they needed to get every bit of light they could
generate into the smallest spaces, the space of the face, head and shoulders
etc. thats why they used spot lights, parabolic reflectors. the invention
of flash meant they could move those lights back to light larger areas, and
use a slightly larger brollie, but they were still focusing as much of the
flash output towards the subject to get as much of it aimed there. today
you can get mono heads with more power than an entire four flash head power
pack could blast in total for less money than what a single head cost, we
don't have to worry (as much) as the pioneers about the heat from 2,000
watts of light bulb in a small metal can, we have heat resistant plastics
now, we have a flash that can light up a white tent and blast through and
offer a soft light as lovely as any twilight.
This reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups where I
rant frequently about crosslighting and all the evil it does.
Jo - 03 Sep 2003 10:47 GMT
Thanks zeitgeist for your comprehensive reply. I will try the things
you mention. In particular, I think the white sheet will work well
with the set up I have. I take your point totally about 'mugshot'
lighting. That's exactly how it appeared in print!
Jo