Neil Danton

I’ve photographed some famous people, some unknown people, some Very Important People, both those who really are VIP and a few who are only legends in their own minds. I’ve photographed royalty, presidents, Taoisigh (Prime Ministers of Ireland) and lots and lots of common-or-garden people just like me.

Recently was the first time I can ever remember that I was nervous about photographing my subject.

It didn’t help that I only had half an hour notice as he just happened to be in Cork City at a meeting regarding his up-coming exhibition and I had to squeeze in this shoot before the other two I had that day. Then the classic three drops of rain and the traffic comes to a standstill in the city factor, meant I was 20 minutes late for the appointment before I even started, and I’m NEVER late usually.

Whether he was actually in the slightest bit bothered I’ll never know, but he certainly didn’t seem at all concerned and after an all too short chat (about 4 hours too short as far as I was concerned) I knocked-out a couple of quick portraits in the (very short) time I had available.

My subject was music photographer Fin Costello.

You might not know the name, but I’m sure you’d know some of his images. He’s been a photographer since the late 60s and shot The Stones, Kiss, Pete Townsend, Cat Stevens, Peter Gabriel, Robert Plant, Phil Lynott and many others. His portfolio is like a who’s who of the music industry.

The shoot was for a magazine supplement in a Sunday newspaper but it was much too early to have his exhibition images at the shoot, so much as I’d have liked him with some of his work, it wasn’t to be:

A brilliant photographer but just as importantly (maybe more so), a true gentleman.

His Pictures in Rock exhibition will be at the Cork Vision Centre from 2nd June – 28th July. I haven’t seen the exhibits but it’s highly recommended anyway!

TTFN

Had an assignment recently for one of the Sunday newspaper magazines to feature some images of an art exhibition.

It was in the Crawford Art Gallery in the city, which has 2 main gallery sections, the light bright section, and the dark moody section and on the way there I was wondering which one the exhibition would be in, obviously from the point of view that more light = less work for me. Which section was it in? Yep, you got it, it had to be the dimly lit section.

Apart from some exhibits of paintings & drawings which might be interesting but are very err, flat, one of the pieces I had to get was a sculpture. At least there’s some form to that.

Two minor problems: very low light levels and the colour-balance of the lighting. This was the result of my first test shot on daylight white-balance:

Nice huh?

I tried tungsten white balance but that wasn’t exactly correct either:

so I ended up setting a custom white-balance and throwing up a flash with a white-shoot through umbrella and just giving the scene a little “pop” of flash to give some shape to the exhibit:

TTFN

…and other light modifiers.

This post is pretty long as it seemed to grow legs of it’s own and get bigger and bigger as I wrote it, so grab yourself a coffee or your preferred choice of alcoholic beverage and sit down and relax for a while…

I’ve been getting quite a lot of hits on this-here blog from search terms that refer to umbrellas or white umbrellas or shoot-through umbrellas or combinations of the above.

So, if the whole idea of using umbrellas is confusing you, I’ll try and give you the idiot’s guide to using them (the idiot being the person giving the guide, not you) and in the process try and cover as many of the queries as I can.

Our cousins across the water may need to substitute “flash” for “strobe” from here-on as that’s the term they generally use for a hot-shoe flash.

First up I need to explain that if your camera has one of those green-spot settings – otherwise known as “use this setting and let’s all hope the camera will work out WTF I’m shooting and give me incredible images” – then I probably can’t help you, because you need to start taking control.

Similarly if you are using flash in ETTL mode (that’s the Canon term, not sure about Nikon or others) or automatic flash control, some of this stuff won’t work either. From what I can gather, the Nikon auto-flash seems better than the Canon, but I’m not changing brands now, and I rarely use auto-flash anyway. That’s just me, old fashioned. OK just old.

Using flash, whether it’s the hot-shoe type or the bigger studio type, is all about you controlling the light you want for your subject, rather than letting the light control you. When I use lights everything is in manual mode. The camera’s exposure, and the flash output, but not usually the camera focus, although I do revert to that on occasion.

An umbrella is just a light modifier and the circumstances in which you use light modifiers are so varied and diverse that it’s more than I can cover in a single post, I’d need to write a book *ding – lightbulb moment*.

There are however some generalisations. Mostly there’s hard light and soft light (and you use modifiers to get the “soft” bit). Then there’s directional modifiers, basically converging or concentrating, and the opposite of diverging or spreading.

Umbrellas generally fall into the spreading and softening category, although it’s not always as simple as that. There are shoot-through umbrellas (usually white), and reflective umbrellas (usually white, silver or gold). My preference is white shoot-through, for a couple of reasons:

Haven’t written so much for a long time without throwing in some images, so here goes:

This is a reflective silver umbrella. It’s a very small one, for head-shots or half-length portraits:

and with the flash firing:

Same thing, but the gold version:

and with the flash firing:

White shoot-through umbrella opened ready for action:

and with the flash firing:

There are also many other light modifiers of course. The ones I use are a couple of different soft-boxes, one a tiny Lumiquest mini soft-box that fits on a 580EX flash, and a 60cm (2ft) Ezybox soft-box that fits into the front pocket of my gear roller-bag. Bigger is nearly always better, but not when you always work on location and are 99% of the time on your own without an assistant. I also (occasionally) use a snoot, which is a cone-like device to really concentrate the light into a small area, often used by glamour or fashion photographers behind and to the side of a subject, just to light the hair. Not what I use it for!

Here’s a few examples of different light modifying…

First up, outside, no light modifier:

Outside with a 60cm soft-box:

and outside with 2 white shoot-through umbrellas:

Moving inside, shot with a mini beauty dish (hard light):

Inside with a softbox (soft but quite concentrated light):

and inside with 2 white shoot-through umbrellas (softened light and sprayed everywhere!):

and again:

No I haven’t suddenly started doing family portraits, that was shot for the Money section of a Sunday newspaper!

I mentioned a snoot earlier, this is one that’s designed for small flash instead of studio lights:

and can be fitted with a grid to concentrate light even more:

Here’s an example of an image shot with a snoot:

and one shot with a snoot fitted with a grid:

So back to the original “hit list” of search terms by which people came to my blog, and some answers:

TTFN

Those CEO portraits don’t always have to be from the man-with-folded-arms school.

TTFN

…is not a camera setting to be used when shooting Caucasian people

This is one of the settings that a lot of people ignore, leaving a camera on “Auto” because they don’t understand it, or are just a teeny bit frightened of it.

I have no intention of going into too much detail about it at the moment, as it’s just a way of quickly referencing a couple of tricks I use on occasion, to jazz-up an image when I’m looking for something a little different.

Truth be told, I forgot to write today’s post, and so this is being done in a panic, waaay too early in the morning, before I head out for a busy day.

Before I go on then, a quick explanation of white balance (WB):

Light has a colour temperature. You might not think so, but that’s because the human eye is a wonderful creation, far more intelligent than all the electronics that camera manufacturers can jam-in to the latest cameras. When, for instance, the human eye receives a scene that isn’t natural daylight, it compensates for any colour shift and still displays white as white so it appears that the scene is “normal”.

Cameras can’t do that. Adjusting the WB setting on the camera tells it what is really white. The “auto” setting can do it to a certain extent, but not completely.

Light varies in colour temperature from warm to cold, with different types of light in different situations giving a different temperature. Even outdoor daylight varies, depending on whether it is sunlight, cloudy, shade etc. The “value” of the light is measured in Kelvin, with daylight being very roughly 5,000 to 6,000. Camera “Auto” can usually cope from about 3,000 to 7,000, but can still give differing results between one shot and the next. That’s why about 90% of the time it’s better to set the WB manually. At least then, even if the setting is slightly wrong, all the images are going to be wrong in exactly the same way, and can be easily fixed in post-production. Manually setting the WB allows a far greater range, from about 2,000 to 10,000.

An added complication is artificial light, tungsten & fluorescent, have a tint to them. Un-corrected, a scene lit with tungsten lighting will appear to the camera to be yellowy-orange, while a scene lit with fluorescent lighting will appear green.

When using flash as a primary light source it doesn’t matter an awful amount. Portable flash (strobes) are daylight balanced, so that will eliminate much of the problem.

Oh dear, I said it wasn’t going to get techie, and it’s starting to, so I’ll head myself off at the pass and move on.

The whole (original) point before I got distracted, was that occasionally I use a little trick to change the background of an indoor scene. This little trick (and the 2nd one I’ll mention in a moment) have to be used sparingly otherwise they start to look ridiculous.

Trick 1 then is to set the camera to tungsten WB when in daylight, or a mix of artificial light and daylight, which has the effect of turning the scene blue. Of course any people in the scene turn blue as well, even if it’s not very very cold. The solution to that is to light them with flash, and fire the flash through a coloured gel. In this case it’s a CTO gel that I use. CTO = Colour Temperature Orange, orange being the opposite end of the colour spectrum to blue. Oh dear, getting techie again.

So, turn an industrial scene with dubious lighting blue, light the subjects with a gel-covered flash shooting through a white umbrella, et voila:

Used sparingly it gives another option to change a scene.

Another trick, again occasional use only, is to use a wacky lens. In this case I mean a fisheye. You can usually tell when someone gets one of these as a new toy, because every image they produce will look like someone has bent every straight line in the world. I use mine 3 or 4 times a year I’d say, no more, but sometimes it works:

That’s it, got to run…

TTFN

…including completely flooding the basement of the prestigious Lewis Glucksman Gallery in University College Cork. Kind-of created a bit of a problem, as that’s where artworks are stored when an exhibition finishes, before being returned to their source.

It rains a lot in Cork of course, but this was ever so slightly over-the-top rain. It was like India in monsoon season this past winter, and so when an already just-about-breaking-it’s-banks river had a gazillion tons of water released into it from the dam up-river, the city ended up like Venice on a bad day (and I know Venice on a bad day, I lived near it for some time).

A couple of months later and I was assigned by one of the “Sundays” to create some images for one of their magazine supplements. This was to be a “How is it now?” type feature after most of the art that was damaged has undergone a conservation process. Not much to be done on images showing the actual conservation, but some of the work was back on display, and that would do me. Of course I’d need to add a yooman-been into the images as well, as that’s what I mostly do, make images with yoomans in them (well apart from wedding images of course, I’d rather eat a bucket of s…..).

So, luckily for me the Director of the gallery was available to be photographed. Pause for a moment now, while you imagine some kind of mad-professor type (like astronomer Patrick Moore) wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches.

Fortunately, SHE is nothing like that. There is one problem with her though (it’s OK F, don’t panic), she wears glasses (eyeglasses for U.S. readers). Very nice they look too, BUT, glasses as with anything reflective, can create a problem when using flash lighting. I want to see my subjects eyes, not a big flare from the glass, so particular care is needed when making images with a subject wearing glasses.

So here’s a little look at how I lit this assignment. For once I kept quite a few of the setting-up and testing shots to give me enough ammunition for this post.

So here’s one of the images (the one that was used in the magazine btw):

Looks simple enough right?

Except, this was the starting point at the aperture & shutter speed I wanted to work at:

I started off with half an idea that I was going to try and get away with the one-light approach, but in reducing the flare on the painting, I was starting to get too much of a side-lit portrait. That’s not too bad if the subject is a man and you want dramatic lighting, but for a lady? I don’t think so. There was too much “fall-off” to the right side of the painting as well:

I really needed to get some separation as well. No, not as in “Six Degrees of Separation”, I just needed one degree, subject – separation – painting. The separation is basically just getting some light behind the subject in order to “lift” them away from the backdrop, so they don’t merge into too much of a “flat” image.

So, I was going to keep the one-light (Ezybox softbox) as the key from left, but add a second light as the fill from the right. Hmm, small problem, there’s a wall in the way.

Time I think for the famous napkin lighting-diagram, except I can’t find a white paper napkin, so it’ll have to be kitchen roll:

As is customary with extremely accurate and highly complex Technical Plans & Drawings, I offer the following warnings:
Not to scale.
Double-check all measurements.
If in doubt ask.

That gave me just about what I wanted:

And the final image again:

The umbrella just put some nice soft light between subject and painting. If you want to see it larger it’s on my website in the Editorial section. Can’t put a permalink to the specific image as I move things around in the portfolio, but it won’t be far from the start. I think the image really “pops”.

I then went for something slightly different, and put subject and a part-restored piece on the floor, softbox on subject, and umbrella into ceiling bouncing back for art-piece. Shame it still needed to be covered as part of the conservation, but we rotated it until there was enough clarity to see what it was:

In between those two images, I made another one, but I saved it until last, as it’s my favourite.

There was a wall where there was some descriptive text regarding the conservation. This was the ambient light that I had to work with:

Similar lighting problem to image-one there though. Too much direct flash and the writing would disappear. Not enough and it would be too dark to see that any writing was there at all. Solution was similar to the first image, except softbox and umbrella reversed like this:

And the resultant image:

So there it is.

The Glucksman Gallery is a fabulous place to visit if you happen to have some time when in Cork. Wonderful location, fabulous (award winning) building, great exhibitions and ADMISSION IS FREE!! (make a donation though, it’ll cost you less than a couple of cappuccini). Open every day except Mondays. No-one gets in on Mondays, unless you happen to be a photographer on assignment .

TTFN

…metaphorically and literally.

When on a commission I normally try and get the “safe” shots first, and then go for something more interesting. In this instance though, because of the timing being rapidly approaching dusk, I went the other way around.

This commission was to create some images for the launch of the Ashbourne & Purcell cup-finals week-end. These are competitions for 3rd level institutions (University age) in the sport of Camogie. Camogie is the ladies form of the men’s game of hurling with a few subtle rule changes. It looks a bit vicious with lumps of wood being flailed around, but has less injuries caused than Gaelic Football.

As always I was trying to think up something that would be a little bit different and when they sky started turning nice I knew I had the shot in mind.

So in reverse order of timing, the standard shot:

Two-light, no modifiers.

The slightly more interesting shot:

One light, white shoot through.

The nice sky (and the “oops missed shot”):

and the, well you decide:

Two-light, no modifiers.

TTFN