Forum menu
The upper is mostly lit by a single light source (I suspect a window) far away from the subject, in a brightly painted room so there is lots of fill light.
Dashed fine deduction 🙂
Upper is lit only by slightly cloud-diffused sunlight. It’s taken with an ipad in a magnolia-coloured kitchen. There are three windows, one at a right angle to the other two. I’m in the way of the largest window
The second is lit by a single light source very close to the subject, so it looks unnatural. This is the flash image I suspect.
Angle-poise desk-lamp with 5000k (IIRC) LED. Some diffused window light (IIRC)
Great colour and saturation, but as you say it’s obviously a close light-source, hence unnatural. A reflector/soft box would help but the emitter output is low compared to a flash.
Here’s another (top pic) I just took on the ipad, except with white kitchen paper taped over the lamp. It’s virtually the same, just a faint softening/diffusion:
Pic of apples OTOH is simple natural daylight on a cloudyish day. (Can’t remember the camera. Probably iPad, I only really shoot for drawing reference these days so don’t require to print large)
Generally prefer using this natural method of lighting for my usual style of photography. Having a bigger sensor would help here to be able to push the shadows and reflected light in PP to save faffing with reflectors etc.
Didn’t ever really get into strobeism as only had one decent flash unit (500EX) and then had to sell it on a rainy day. From what little I did manage to achieve (and from what I’ve seen from others) I like it a lot.
So, have you answered their question?
Yes. And the Zeiss guide Goldfish linked to is very good.
With reference to P7’s quote, what advantages does FF bring which makes it a better choice over an APS-C body with a larger megapixel sensor count?
Not quite sure what you mean here, as FF cameras generally have at least as many, often more megapixels than smaller formats. But generally, the more pixels, the smaller they are. So in a FF camera with say 24Mp, vs an APS-C camera with the same number, the FF camera's pixels are larger, and therefore can gather more light. Basic physics. This enables better low light capabilities; less noise etc. This has been mentioned already though.
To a hobbyist, that is.
Forget this notion of a distinction between 'hobbyist' and 'professional'; it's all just photographers. Whether or not you earn money from photography is pretty much irrelevant. You buy what suits your needs, budget and talent. Or indeed whatever you want; if someone wants to buy a £5k+ bike just for pottering about on, why shouldn't they?
Because I read what they posted. They said themselves, “I’m no photographer”.
I gave advice based on my experience and knowledge. They asked about portraiture; a FF camera would be better than an APS-C one, for the reasons already explained. But you'll also notice I'm not actually telling them they have to buy a FF camera, and that they can enjoy portraiture and other genres, with the equipment they have already.
In regards to light, with portrait photography, the key element will very often be the subject's eyes. Irrespective of whether or not you are using natural light, studio lighting etc, it's important to focus (literally and metaphorically) on the eyes. A little bit of white card or similar, can provide enough to just give a little 'catchlight' in the eyes, a little reflection that adds that bit of sparkle.
https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-create-catch-lights-in-your-natural-light-portraits/
Concentrate more on capturing the personality of the subject, try to tell a 'story', before worrying so much about lighting. What is that's so interesting about this person?
Get good with the kit lens or the nifty fifty offered above. Learn about composition and camera control before spending more. Find the limitations of the lens and your requirements.
A good book on lighting I got was the speedliters handbook by Syl Arena.