jbl said:
And it's used perpendicularly (is that a word, sorry I'm french) with the subject? I thought it was better to use an angle.

Also, it makes sense to me that some people would like to use a single source, as long as it's as diffused as possible. I guess it gives a kind of lighting that we are quite used to: the sun.

Typically, no; although there's nothing necessarily "wrong" with positioning a key with its source parallel to your subject's eyeline. I lowered his strobe a few feet to use as a background element. Yes, most position the key a bit higher, at approximately a 45-degree angle (usually, at a slightly shallower angle, perhaps, about 30-degrees) in the vertical axis, to their subject.

do sth with eyes - bounce the light as they are too dark IMHO

And it's used perpendicularly (is that a word, sorry I'm french) with the subject? I thought it was better to use an angle.

Also, it makes sense to me that some people would like to use a single source, as long as it's as diffused as possible. I guess it gives a kind of lighting that we are quite used to: the sun.

For this style of shooting, you're on the right on-track. Large, soft sources . . . the bigger the better. Typically, the majority of studio photo sessions I've seen (I often shoot behind-the-scenes for magazine cover shoots) are shot with a single, large source (and I mean LARGE), dead-center on the subject. Not that some modeling, or visible lighting ratio on your subject is a bad thing at all, it's just how most commercial photographers I've seen light.

Ignore the video lighting equipment for the moment--see that large umbrella in the background? As I recall, this is the only source the photographer used for a key. The light was initially placed dead-center, a few feet above his lens (I later re-positioned it, as seen here, to use as a background prop for our interview). This is from a magazine cover shoot for Katy Perry.

oh thanks!

I didn't really see that hair light problem until now.. it would definitely help and allow me to pull back that keylight..

You're definitely right about shooting dead on, I'll keep that in mind for next shoot.

There's obviously way too much vignette.. I wanted to try it that way but it's really cheesy.

Now about using more space.. I'm not sure exactly what you mean.. are you referring to my keylight being too close? and maybe me being to close (most of those were shot at 50mm on DX) so maybe I should go more tele..

What about the distance between the background and my subject? I tried to place my subject far from the bg to get that darken background effect.. so I guess it depends on how I want my relation between subject and bg.

Thanks for your comments.

They're pretty good but you've got a few problems. The keylight seems a little too close to your model, and a hairlight (or a noticeable one) would help. It seems as if your strobes/lamps are at a perfect 45% angle from your subject. That only looks good for copy work. Also shooting dead on (face directly facing the lens is too uninteresting). I will add that the vignette is overkill so you might want to lower it's intensity.

Overall you hit the nail on the head and almost any client would be happy, but it is the details that would take a seemingly drab portrait and make it a little more engaging.

My recommendations use more space, bounce the fill instead of softboxing it, and get a hairlight.

Hi,

I've been posting here for a while, some of you probably remember my name from some threads around here, mostly talking about gear and specs.. I'd now like to get feedback on a kind of photography that I have little experience with and no formation at all.. studio shoots

Now let me tell you what I'm into: weird stuff. But when it comes to studio, most of the time, your client will need something that looks good, not weird. This kind of standardized photography is really the opposite of what I am but I still enjoy touching new aspects of photography and I would like to get better at it... I have absolutely no eye for such standard because I don't know it.

Here's my request, tell me what I do wrong. (lighting, pose, frame, whatever) The 3 first are meant to be clean unoriginal poses, like what do I need to do if I want the most standard shot? Did I nailed it? What did I do wrong? I understand the 4th one is a bit more funky, is that kind of stuff even acceptable (if I'm aiming for super corporate contracts and stuff like that?) I understand that it all comes down to what your client wants / needs.. but what if you compare it to the standard? What if I was asked by some teacher (whatever) to make the most conventional / standard (boring) shot, would that be ok?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5084123330_c163a2a5ca_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/5084123722_49a90c80a4_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5083529961_43ce87146f_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5084124182_7f8c20e71d_b.jpg

Now for some specs:

three first shots: Nikon D300 with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Shot at f/6.3, ISO 200, 1/160s
last shot: sigma 20mm f/1.8, shot at f/5

Those shots were post processed with lightroom and photoshop, to fix the background sometimes.. I also added lots of vignette with lightroom... Note that I wasn't aiming for that pure white bg.. otherwise I would have used 4 flashes.

I used a white background with 2 studio flash in kinda big softboxes. The studio has 4 flashes available but I wanted that gray background + vignette effect and I kind of struggle when I try to use the 4 flashes. Most of the time, those flashes were very close to my subject and I did not use much power..