Creating Rembrandt Lighting + Look in Portraitiure

[Garry Edwards]

I know the thread is about lighting but the OP says in the original post " I have a shoot planned and want to make it look like a Rembrandt painting. Just using similar light wont make an image look like a Rembrandt painting.
Rebrandt lighting itself isnt difficult really. You just need a big window, that what he used.

Yes and no. It's a very simple, single-light technique that can be achieved in many different ways. He may or may not have used a big window, or he may have just imagined his light source, painters can do that, but photographers can't.

But, as I and others have said repeatedly, it's about light placement, angle, distance and the relative size of the light source.

Any and all changes, including very subtle ones, will affect the result. All variations are valid, and a "good" result is whatever the photographer is happy with.

Dont think he was a fan of Godox....

 

[sk66]

Rebrandt lighting itself isnt difficult really. You just need a big window, that what he used. Dont think he was a fan of Godox....

Rembrandt used a variety of light sources... but I would say that it was rarely light from a big window; at least not what most think of when they say "large window." That would not create the small specular catchlight or hard shadows that is typical of many Rembrandt portraits. He also used frontal lighting and short lighting on many occasions (particularly for females); although the light/shadow (chiaroscuro) aspect tends to be pretty constant.

And "window light" isn't really descriptive IMO... If you have the sun shining directly through an open window the character will be very different from if there are sheer curtains over that window, and that would be very different from if the window is facing north or the sky is cloudy.

 

[swanseamale47]

Rembrandt used a variety of light sources... but I would say that it was rarely light from a big window; at least not what most think of when they say "large window." That would not create the small specular catchlight or hard shadows that is typical of many Rembrandt portraits. He also used frontal lighting and short lighting on many occasions (particularly for females); although the light/shadow (chiaroscuro) aspect tends to be pretty constant.

And "window light" isn't really descriptive IMO... If you have the sun shining directly through an open window the character will be very different from if there are sheer curtains over that window, and that would be very different from if the window is facing north or the sky is cloudy.

The room he's supposed to have used for his studio has several large windows, I'd be guessing and say around 6x6 foot. You can visit it in Amsterdam.
Your right about the light varying, but lets not forget he was an artist. He'didnt have to paint what he saw, he could paint it as he wanted it. Darker or lighter, shadows as he wanted.
His "lighting" is really about the highlight under the eye and the nose shadow, and the mostly dark background, and even that varies a fair bit if you study his paintings.

 

[Phil V]

Well there’s a bit to unpack here. It’s great that you want to learn and to push the boundaries, but as before there’s some terminology use that has led to some confusion (yours and others)

A lot of people hate the term painterly but - to my knowledge it just means treating your photography with a lot more focus on feeling, emotion

I’d argue that creating feeling and emotion in a portrait, whether painted or photographed is primarily about the sitters relationship with the artist. Although once that’s established, further context can be added with the use of the environment, attire, props and lighting.

alllow you to become very slightly more abstract and break away from the rigid technical rules of photography (aperture, iso, shutter speeds, light).

The similarity between painted ‘art’ and photography does break here though. In modern art the need for a certain amount of ‘craft’ isn’t really necessary. Although at the time of Caravaggio and Rembrandt that was definitely not the case. Those guys had enormous amounts of skill.

For photographers though, we have to examine what photography is before we consider whether there are any rigid rules and if there are have you listed them here (you haven’t, just more misunderstandings)

Well there are rules. They’re the laws of physics. And they’re important because:
The science of photography is to capture light reflecting off a subject on a light sensitive medium. And requires that the correct amount of light is captured.

The Art of photography therefore is to create an image on our light sensitive medium that enables us to convey our thoughts and feelings. Which we can only do by applying the laws of physics. And having an understanding of composition.

I’m not suggesting your desire is to recreate exactly the Rembrandt, but it’s important to understand how to do that which is by careful control of light and the location costume etc. and then directing the subject in a way as to convey the same emotion. And whatever our vision, those tools remain.

‘Art’ isn’t something that just happens because you ‘feel artistic’; you have to put in the hard yards. What’s the old saying ‘10% inspiration and 90% perspiration’.

 

[mrk123]

Tips on covering big windows?
I have 2 Bowens light stands that would have been good with grip clamps and some fabric but one will definitely be in use - and one on its own will not work.
I am taking gaffer / duck tape but it's not really the type of venue you can be using sticky tape on anything. I guess investing in another stand? Any hacks?

 

[sk66]

Tips on covering big windows?
I have 2 Bowens light stands that would have been good with grip clamps and some fabric but one will definitely be in use - and one on its own will not work.
I am taking gaffer / duck tape but it's not really the type of venue you can be using sticky tape on anything. I guess investing in another stand? Any hacks?

Can you orient the subject/table/scene so that the window is the ~45˚ source of light? If there's not enough light from it (or too soft) you can add supplemental from the same location/direction. I.e. use the window light; not cover it.

 

[mrk123]

Can you orient the subject/table/scene so that the window is the ~45˚ source of light? If there's not enough light from it (or too soft) you can add supplemental from the same location/direction. I.e. use the window light; not cover it.

I certainly planned to move the furniture around yes, I read somewhere that Rembrandt only used light from the left, I may be mistaken, I am by no means trying to stick to any sort of rules, I don't even know them all (Rembrandt) if I am honest... But I am keen to create a more moody dramatic image set and may need to cancel some of that light one way or another. I just done a slat wall job and used that black and light fencing fabric which would be perfect with gaffa tape as it is light and seems to have good light blocking properties.

 

[Phil V]

I guess investing in another stand?

You got it.
The Lencarta one I linked is probably the best bang for buck stand you’ll find.

 

[swanseamale47]

Tips on covering big windows?
I have 2 Bowens light stands that would have been good with grip clamps and some fabric but one will definitely be in use - and one on its own will not work.
I am taking gaffer / duck tape but it's not really the type of venue you can be using sticky tape on anything. I guess investing in another stand? Any hacks?

You can buy "blackout" fabric (couriously it's white-ish) I've used a Lastolite pop up background in the past, just market clamp some blackout material to that if needed, and stand it over the window, sometimes if your lucky you can hang it off the curtain rod with a bit of string.

 

[sk66]

I certainly planned to move the furniture around yes, I read somewhere that Rembrandt only used light from the left, I may be mistaken, I am by no means trying to stick to any sort of rules, I don't even know them all (Rembrandt) if I am honest... But I am keen to create a more moody dramatic image set and may need to cancel some of that light one way or another. I just done a slat wall job and used that black and light fencing fabric which would be perfect with gaffa tape as it is light and seems to have good light blocking properties.

Not only from the left; but a majority of them... you can always flip your image in post and almost no one would ever know.
To cancel some of that light just drop the ambient exposure (smaller aperture/lower ISO). Covering it is also a valid option, but it just seems perhaps redundant if you're going to be working to create a single light source that already exists.

 

[Scooter]

I certainly planned to move the furniture around yes, I read somewhere that Rembrandt only used light from the left, I may be mistaken, I am by no means trying to stick to any sort of rules, I don't even know them all (Rembrandt) if I am honest... But I am keen to create a more moody dramatic image set and may need to cancel some of that light one way or another. I just done a slat wall job and used that black and light fencing fabric which would be perfect with gaffa tape as it is light and seems to have good light-blocking properties.

Tbh, if you're going to light your subject with flash, even 200 Joules worth from your AD200, the window light won't be too much of an issue. At say 1/200th of a second Iso 100 and f/5.6 or f/8 the daylight isn't going to show up tbh. If you're putting an AD200 in a softbox, you may need to open up the aperture a bit and crank up the Iso, so some daylight may start to show up.

I regularly use an AD200 with the Fresnel (Speedlight type) head on it on location - inside and outside and as that head is quite efficient, it's usually enough to control the ambient light in the room.

Here's an example taken during the day, inside. The light through the window behind is a second AD200 outside in the yard. I may have used some of the ambient as fill light, but as the shutter speed was maxed out for regular flash on my Nikon D850 at 1/250th of a second I don't think I meant to The shadows are fairly dark tbh so there isn't a lot of fill, intentional or not You need to be a bit more precise with your light position with a small source, and you may not want the crisp shadow edges, but you can make very nice light with a bare AD200. I do typically control them with some DIY barn doors (Godox BD07 kit with black card extensions held on by small magnets).

https://flic.kr/p/2q6GKeq

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/owenlloyd/53885787366/in/dateposted-public/

 

[mrk123]

Tbh, if you're going to light your subject with flash, even 200 Joules worth from your AD200, the window light won't be too much of an issue. At say 1/200th of a second Iso 100 and f/5.6 or f/8 the daylight isn't going to show up tbh. If you're putting an AD200 in a softbox, you may need to open up the aperture a bit and crank up the Iso, so some daylight may start to show up.

I regularly use an AD200 with the Fresnel (Speedlight type) head on it on location - inside and outside and as that head is quite efficient, it's usually enough to control the ambient light in the room.

Here's an example taken during the day, inside. The light through the window behind is a second AD200 outside in the yard. I may have used some of the ambient as fill light, but as the shutter speed was maxed out for regular flash on my Nikon D850 at 1/250th of a second I don't think I meant to The shadows are fairly dark tbh so there isn't a lot of fill, intentional or not You need to be a bit more precise with your light position with a small source, and you may not want the crisp shadow edges, but you can make very nice light with a bare AD200. I do typically control them with some DIY barn doors (Godox BD07 kit with black card extensions held on by small magnets).

https://flic.kr/p/2q6GKeq

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/owenlloyd/53885787366/in/dateposted-public/

Nice shot, love the smoke.. I just borrowed a fog machine for to create a little bit of haze and really bring the light alive. Your flash was fairly central here just slightly off to camera right?

 

[Scooter]

Nice shot, love the smoke.. I just borrowed a fog machine for to create a little bit of haze and really bring the light alive. Your flash was fairly central here just slightly off to camera right?

If you draw a line from a shadow point, through the object that cast that shadow and extrapolate, you can establish where the light was (and if you draw two lines, like this, the light will be where they cross). In this shot, the flash is more or less directly overhead, and a bit to the right. The depth of the shadows (vertical distance from the object that cast it) indicates how far in front of the subject it was. This classic Hollywood lighting look from the 1930s usually involved a high key light, which gave eyelash shadows

I do like a bit of fog/haze in the room for this style, and while it's a bit structured in this frame, you can always imagine it's cigarette smoke and that the house is not, in fact, on fire

Adding haze to a shot like this can give you "regression" - just like the effect you see of foreground, hills and layers of distant mountains in early morning mist. It gives the shot depth. Fog needs a backlight to be effective*, and if you have a small source lighting it from behind through an aperture of some sort, you can see a visible shaft of light: volumetric light.

In this shot we used a Lensgo Smoke B 40 Watt vape machine. These battery-powered fog machines are built using the same parts as vapes, and use the same fluid (just without the flavourings and nicotine). The resulting vapour is heavier than air at the same temperature and very dense. The Smoke B does come with a fan attachment to chop the fog up to make haze but I wasn't using that for this shot. It's also got a quarter-twenty thread on the bottom so you can put it on a light stand, but we just hand it on a chair behind Nicole.

* or sidelight, but that is more for making solid looking clouds.

 

[Phil V]

Nice shot, love the smoke.. I just borrowed a fog machine for to create a little bit of haze and really bring the light alive. Your flash was fairly central here just slightly off to camera right?

Seeing as @Scooter was very polite, and described his thinking in that image beautifully.

I feel the need to point out:

In the Rembrandt examples shown the atmosphere is clear. So if you’re adding a smoke machine you’re detracting from the ‘look’ you’re trying to emulate. So unless you want to pretend the child is smoking, and you can magic up another light*, you’re heading in the wrong direction.

@Scooters image is a great example of the tips I gave. He has added ‘glamorous’ lighting that harks back to the golden age of Hollywood, and the implied nude and smoke further create a mood of ‘sultry’. Finish off with getting the model to show a ‘superior’ attitude, and strengthen that by lowering the camera angle slightly, and bingo.

But none of those specific actions help you.

You want to a fairly soft light with a hint of a hard shadow, but in a very controlled area, a bare speedlight might get close to that, I’d be tempted to soften, but your call.

The camera angle wants to be at the child’s level (engagement) but slightly higher, to show that they’re still a child. You’ll notice the very slight difference in viewpoint between Rembrandts portrait of the adult and child.

These are the clues you’re looking for to emulate a ‘look’, and why ‘experimenting’ can lead to hours of wasted time and frustration.

You’re almost certainly going to end up blending exposures unless you can make the window light work, because the subject and background clearly both need a light to recreate the ‘look’.

* you’ll note the description wasn’t just ‘smoke machine’ but included lighting the smoke from behind to make it visible.

Every detail exists to add to the image, if it’s not adding, remove it.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Seeing as @Scooter was very polite, and described his thinking in that image beautifully.

I feel the need to point out:

In the Rembrandt examples shown the atmosphere is clear. So if you’re adding a smoke machine you’re detracting from the ‘look’ you’re trying to emulate. So unless you want to pretend the child is smoking, and you can magic up another light*, you’re heading in the wrong direction.

@Scooters image is a great example of the tips I gave. He has added ‘glamorous’ lighting that harks back to the golden age of Hollywood, and the implied nude and smoke further create a mood of ‘sultry’. Finish off with getting the model to show a ‘superior’ attitude, and strengthen that by lowering the camera angle slightly, and bingo.

But none of those specific actions help you.

You want to a fairly soft light with a hint of a hard shadow, but in a very controlled area, a bare speedlight might get close to that, I’d be tempted to soften, but your call.

The camera angle wants to be at the child’s level (engagement) but slightly higher, to show that they’re still a child. You’ll notice the very slight difference in viewpoint between Rembrandts portrait of the adult and child.

These are the clues you’re looking for to emulate a ‘look’, and why ‘experimenting’ can lead to hours of wasted time and frustration.

You’re almost certainly going to end up blending exposures unless you can make the window light work, because the subject and background clearly both need a light to recreate the ‘look’.

* you’ll note the description wasn’t just ‘smoke machine’ but included lighting the smoke from behind to make it visible.

Every detail exists to add to the image, if it’s not adding, remove it.

I agree. @Scooter is a talented and creative photographer who is very capable of adding extra elements, this isn't beginner stuff. I'm not saying that he's a grand master, but he isn't average either and his understanding of the physics involved must have improved since I last shot with him, many years ago

@mrk123 my advice is don't try to do what he can do, stick to the basics and almost guarantee a worthwhile result. Or at the very least, get that shot in the bag before adding to the complications. And, as I suggested way back in post 21, practice first without a live model.

We're now up to 55 posts before you've taken a single shot, that must be some kind of a record

 

[GreenNinja67]

Buy a studio light.

Buy a softbox (larger the softbox the softer the effect).

Practice.

Realise it's the best way forward.

 

[Scooter]

Seeing as @Scooter was very polite, and described his thinking in that image beautifully.

I feel the need to point out:

In the Rembrandt examples shown the atmosphere is clear. So if you’re adding a smoke machine you’re detracting from the ‘look’ you’re trying to emulate. So unless you want to pretend the child is smoking, and you can magic up another light*, you’re heading in the wrong direction.

@Scooters image is a great example of the tips I gave. He has added ‘glamorous’ lighting that harks back to the golden age of Hollywood, and the implied nude and smoke further create a mood of ‘sultry’. Finish off with getting the model to show a ‘superior’ attitude, and strengthen that by lowering the camera angle slightly, and bingo.

But none of those specific actions help you.

You want to a fairly soft light with a hint of a hard shadow, but in a very controlled area, a bare speedlight might get close to that, I’d be tempted to soften, but your call.

The camera angle wants to be at the child’s level (engagement) but slightly higher, to show that they’re still a child. You’ll notice the very slight difference in viewpoint between Rembrandts portrait of the adult and child.

These are the clues you’re looking for to emulate a ‘look’, and why ‘experimenting’ can lead to hours of wasted time and frustration.

You’re almost certainly going to end up blending exposures unless you can make the window light work, because the subject and background clearly both need a light to recreate the ‘look’.

* you’ll note the description wasn’t just ‘smoke machine’ but included lighting the smoke from behind to make it visible.

Every detail exists to add to the image, if it’s not adding, remove it.

Yes, sorry, I started off with the point about the exposure for flash, removing most of the ambient anyway, and then looked for examples with an AD200 - but, I just don't use them inside a softbox tbh, so, Kane. as Phil says the given example is not the lighting style you're after - just an example of how you can control the window light with an AD200 (or any flash ).

 

[Scooter]

I agree. @Scooter is a talented and creative photographer who is very capable of adding extra elements, this isn't beginner stuff. I'm not saying that he's a grand master, but he isn't average either and his understanding of the physics involved must have improved since I last shot with him, many years ago

@mrk123 my advice is don't try to do what he can do, stick to the basics and almost guarantee a worthwhile result. Or at the very least, get that shot in the bag before adding to the complications. And, as I suggested way back in post 21, practice first without a live model.

We're now up to 55 posts before you've taken a single shot, that must be some kind of a record

"isn't average". I'll take that

Garry is a wise man Kane and you should absolutely just use one light and nothing else to start off with. This is why I didn't talk about the fog in that shot in my first post, and I only mentioned the second light to say that the window light is not from the sun.

Practice and testing is key to getting really comfortable with this, as Garry says. A mannequin head can work really well. Another option which I used extensively to work out lighting years ago (and still use occasionally to test out projection patterns and colour combinations) is Set.a.light.3D

It is an incredibly accurate lighting simulator (although it always underdoes the light from a reflector panel) and allows you to play around with equipment you don't actually have - to see if you might need it. You can look at lighting simulations from other users in a browser here https://community.elixxier.com/mol/portal/setfiles

22 of my lighting solutions are on there and you can see them here https://community.elixxier.com/mol/portal/user-profile/owen-lloyd/setups

I've added the actual studio result to all of my lighting sets. You'll need to create an account (which is free) to view them online. If you buy a license for set.a.light.3D though, you can download them in the app, and view/edit them in the 3D workspace. Note - it's all pretty much "not safe for work".

It's not going to be as good a learning experience as doing it for real, but it does have the advantage of being available 24/7 and full of all the kit you don't own You should absolutely still practice with real lights even if you do use set.a.light too - if only to realise the practical problems of putting the lights where you need them: it's all very well, putting a 6kg light 20 foot in the air in set.a.light, but then you need to work out how to do that in the real world

 

[mrk123]

Seeing as @Scooter was very polite, and described his thinking in that image beautifully.

I feel the need to point out:

In the Rembrandt examples shown the atmosphere is clear. So if you’re adding a smoke machine you’re detracting from the ‘look’ you’re trying to emulate. So unless you want to pretend the child is smoking, and you can magic up another light*, you’re heading in the wrong direction.

@Scooters image is a great example of the tips I gave. He has added ‘glamorous’ lighting that harks back to the golden age of Hollywood, and the implied nude and smoke further create a mood of ‘sultry’. Finish off with getting the model to show a ‘superior’ attitude, and strengthen that by lowering the camera angle slightly, and bingo.

But none of those specific actions help you.

You want to a fairly soft light with a hint of a hard shadow, but in a very controlled area, a bare speedlight might get close to that, I’d be tempted to soften, but your call.

The camera angle wants to be at the child’s level (engagement) but slightly higher, to show that they’re still a child. You’ll notice the very slight difference in viewpoint between Rembrandts portrait of the adult and child.

These are the clues you’re looking for to emulate a ‘look’, and why ‘experimenting’ can lead to hours of wasted time and frustration.

You’re almost certainly going to end up blending exposures unless you can make the window light work, because the subject and background clearly both need a light to recreate the ‘look’.

* you’ll note the description wasn’t just ‘smoke machine’ but included lighting the smoke from behind to make it visible.

Every detail exists to add to the image, if it’s not adding, remove it.

Thank, I am not shooting a child thouugh, but a 27 year old woman. Bt points taken.
Also I hate smoking, I would not create a smoking vibe, it looks like it in scooters image that she is smoking, I would use haze as a more balanced light vehicle, not a prop.

 

[Phil V]

Also I hate smoking, I would not create a smoking vibe, it looks like it in scooters image that she is smoking, I would use haze as a more balanced light vehicle, not a prop.

Just to note, I appreciate what you’re intending to show, but what will the audience read into it?

And haze / mist isn’t visible unless you backlight it, which creates the issue that now you’re looking for 3 light sources, subject, background and haze.

Hopefully you’re finding this logical walkthrough useful though.

 

[Phil V]

Thank, I am not shooting a child thouugh, but a 27 year old woman. Bt points taken.

This is an issue!

You show an image you want to emulate.
And that image is… a picture of innocence, a wistful child daydreaming.

But what you actually want to photograph is something else entirely.

Back to what we’ve all been trying to ram home through this thread.

You need to consider every ingredient in order to create the image you are aiming for.

There’s some saying about taking a sharp image of a fuzzy concept that probably fits here. But the essence is that you entered with a question re ‘Rembrandt lighting’ and got perfect pointers. Then showed a Rembrandt painting as an example, and we all agree it’s not typical ‘Rembrandt lighting’ but we told you how to create it.

And now it seems, you don’t want to recreate that image at all.

And I’m certain no one here knows exactly what it is you’re trying to do.

Surely you understand that in order to achieve a goal, you have to be absolutely certain what the goal is. And right now I can only say that if you know what it is, you’ve failed to convey that to us.

 

[DerbyTog]

The two classic styles of portraiture are from Rembrant and Vermeer.

Their lighting was much defined by their studios.

Rembrant's studio had poor light, but he made use of a roof light. This is where the 45/45 degrees comes from. It typically causes light to be across the face and to form a tell-tale triangle below the eye furthest from the light source.

Vermeer's studio had a large north facing window. A large light source near the subject causes the light to be wrapped around the face and produces a low contrast portrait.

If you want to emulate these styles of painting, you need to deconstruct the light sources, as I have pretty much done above, and work out how you can produce the same effect with either natural light or studio lights.

For Rembrant, check out 3 point lighting.
For Vermeer, check out clamshell lighting.

Compare the results and you'll see what I am describing.

I am a professional headshot photographer, 12 years now. Photographer for 40+ years. I studied portraiture from the basics up before entering headshot photography.

I hope this helps.

This is an issue!

You show an image you want to emulate.
And that image is… a picture of innocence, a wistful child daydreaming.

But what you actually want to photograph is something else entirely.

Back to what we’ve all been trying to ram home through this thread.

You need to consider every ingredient in order to create the image you are aiming for.

There’s some saying about taking a sharp image of a fuzzy concept that probably fits here. But the essence is that you entered with a question re ‘Rembrandt lighting’ and got perfect pointers. Then showed a Rembrandt painting as an example, and we all agree it’s not typical ‘Rembrandt lighting’ but we told you how to create it.

And now it seems, you don’t want to recreate that image at all.

And I’m certain no one here knows exactly what it is you’re trying to do.

Surely you understand that in order to achieve a goal, you have to be absolutely certain what the goal is. And right now I can only say that if you know what it is, you’ve failed to convey that to us.

Nothing like a fun challenge!

 

[cargo]

Hi Kane

I have nothing to add to the conversation but have enjoyed reading the thread. I was really into my photography a few years back and loved this section of the forum. I was helped loads by the folk whom have been posting in this thread.
Although I seldom touch my camera these days I'm really looking forwards to seeing how you get on with this shoot.

Best of luck with it.
Gaz

 

[mrk123]

Hi Kane

I have nothing to add to the conversation but have enjoyed reading the thread. I was really into my photography a few years back and loved this section of the forum. I was helped loads by the folk whom have been posting in this thread.
Although I seldom touch my camera these days I'm really looking forwards to seeing how you get on with this shoot.

Best of luck with it.
Gaz

Thank you, I am looking over the images now and I am very pleased. I will upload some here when I get time very soon, even out of camera I think they look great and I think Rembrandt and Caravaggio would be happy.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Thank you, I am looking over the images now and I am very pleased. I will upload some here when I get time very soon, even out of camera I think they look great and I think Rembrandt and Caravaggio would be happy.

Good.
If you want helpful comments you should post the shots SOOC - by all means crop them to shape, but don't do any PP work at all, so that we can see what the camera saw.

Do the PP work later.

 

[mrk123]

There are 250+ images, but here's 3 that stand out to me, SOOC.
I am more than pleased with them as they are and I am keen to preserve as much warmth as possible.
The one where she is glancing to the right in hindsight could have done with a bit of light on the hair, I can try bring it back in post, but I was more than happy to go with moody / chiaroscuro too much over technical precision.
I did not get too bogged down trying to create 'Rembrandt' lighting but used it as a guide only, the warm low sun coming in from that window was too irresistable to not go with it. I used aa white umbrella in the end to the left of model as some fill light on low power setting.
Gnerally all shot at iso 125. - 3.2 mostly some at 2.8. - 640/sec
p.s all the quality has been drained out of them in these low kb.

 

[sk66]

The second image is very close IMO... although the ratio is a bit high IMO; it could have used a bit more fill/ambient (easy edit).

The first image is more tenebrism than Rembrandt/chiaroscuro IMO; but the two styles have a lot in common. I don't feel the image really benefits from the table/candle/her rt arm.

The third image is my favorite of the three; but a little less of the style you said you were going for.

 

[GreenNinja67]

If the OP's happy with them then that's all that matters.

I think it's a nice job.

 

[mrk123]

The second image is very close IMO... although the ratio is a bit high IMO; it could have used a bit more fill/ambient (easy edit).

The first image is more tenebrism than Rembrandt/chiaroscuro IMO; but the two styles have a lot in common. I don't feel the image really benefits from the table/candle/her rt arm.

The third image is my favorite of the three; but a little less of the style you said you were going for.

As i say, I had 'Rembrandt' as a guide - but did deviate to work with the available lighting that I was intending to block out. In the end I placed a large white sheet over the window to soften the direct sun.
I will look up Tenebrism.

 

[cargo]

I'm not a technical person by any means. These look great to me I'd have been very pleased to have taken them.
Well done.

Gaz

 

[Garry Edwards]

Quite a big departure from your original thinking, in terms of both lighting and the use of the props, but where there isn't a client to satisfy it's fine to change direction.
I think that the lighting is generally good, except for the 2nd shot, personally I wouldn't have lit her left hand at all, let alone so brightly, but that's just my opinion.

I think you're entitled to feel very pleased with what you've achieved, you've done a good job generally.

 

[mrk123]

What do we think of the shadow details around the face here? Acceptable? I think it is myself.
The way I see it is - this was the light falling on her from the window form the right of camera, with a little low power fill light coming from a white umbrella.

I won't say I got lucky, but that low warm sun really helped out, it made me do the reverse of what I was wanting to do, which was use the flash light as main key, then the window as fill..

How would you go about recreating warm sun again? Like those irresistible warm oranges and gold, ever representative of the renaissance paintings?

 

[Garry Edwards]

If you think that the shadow detail is acceptable then it is, you're the client here. But FWIW I think it is too - "Real" portrait photography is very much about the creation of the right shadows in the right places, a million miles away from those horrible overlit commercial shots that once dominated and which are still fairly popular, with pure white backgrounds, zero shadows and zero character.

If your model is also happy with your shots then that's a bonus, but what really matters is your opinion of your own work.

The way I see it is - this was the light falling on her from the window form the right of camera, with a little low power fill light coming from a white umbrella.

Your whole approach was the opposite of everything we suggested. Having the light coming from the right instead of the left is the least important of these, but personally I would have controlled or blocked the window light and used flash, as we all suggested, mainly because we have full control of artificial light but very limited control of natural light, especially when it's coming from a window that someone else installed . . .

How would you go about recreating warm sun again? Like those irresistible warm oranges and gold, ever representative of the renaissance paintings?

That's easy. Just take some more photos exactly 1 year after the first ones and hope that the light conditions are identical, you never know your luck . . .

Or create the light with flash, which is entirely controllable in every way - brightness, position, distance, angle, level of softness, fill, colour.

It's all about consistency of approach and result. Watch the top pro snooker players on TV, their brilliant consistency is mainly due to the fact that they approach every single shot with the same level of care, regardless of whether it's almost impossible or unmissable. Other factors, such as their understanding of the physics, endless practice, natural talent, excellent hand/eye coordination and an element of luck also have a role to play of course, but it's their consistent approach and routine that produces the almost-guaranteed success rate. And the same applies to photography too. Studio photographers don't rely on luck, or weather, or natural talent, we rely on a consistent approach and on having the environment completely under our control, that's why we get very consistent and very predictable results with a minimum of shots and time, and that involves using flash instead of natural light.

I think that that's the real difference between the amateur and the professional approach - by which I mean the difference between amateur and professional attitude, whether or not the photographer gets paid is neither here nor there and many amateurs are far better than many professionals, it's all about leaving nothing to chance, because a pro must produce the required result every time, but someone with an amateur approach can trust to luck, or to the weather.

 

[sk66]

What do we think of the shadow details around the face here? Acceptable? I think it is myself.
The way I see it is - this was the light falling on her from the window form the right of camera, with a little low power fill light coming from a white umbrella.

I won't say I got lucky, but that low warm sun really helped out, it made me do the reverse of what I was wanting to do, which was use the flash light as main key, then the window as fill..

How would you go about recreating warm sun again? Like those irresistible warm oranges and gold, ever representative of the renaissance paintings?

I think you did generally very well in recreating the Rembrandt lighting. Most of the images have the light coming from an upwards compound angle and creating the characteristic triangular highlight on the opposite cheek.

Sure, they are photos and much more "real" looking... pretty hard to avoid that. And there are things I would have changed, such as the highlight on her right hand in this example (either at the time or in post). But overall, I think you accomplished the goal.

However, recreating the warm window light is not particularly hard; just set a cooler white balance. And as I said before, "window light" doesn't actually mean anything in particular; here it is rather hard and strong/direct.

 

[mrk123]

If you think that the shadow detail is accepta.......

Thanks, good advice, I am definitely keen to master light (what photographer isn't). I like the idea of forgoing natural light and choosing to control every aspect of it with flash. Personally I am just more drawn to natural light, but if I want to shoot in studio conditions / on set, have consistent lighting and be able to create any type of lighting at any point in time then obvioulsy studio lighting is essential.
Thankd for your advice.

 

[CharleyL]

Rembrandt had a skylight window high in his studio. He frequently posed his subjects to take advantage of this window light, as it produced good light and shadows on the faces of his subjects. The nose shadow produced from this window and pose was a small triangle shadow on the cheek adjacent to the subject's nose. In your example, you seem to be close, but a higher light (like one from Rembrandt's sky light), plus a slight turn of the subject's head to the right would be required to achieve what they call "Rembrandt Lighting". Again, you are close, but not quite there. Look at some of Rembrandt's paintings to see better what I am referring to.

Charley