Jonny Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Hi all, been trying out UV portraits using artificial lighting, wondered what people think Shot on Nikon D3100, ISO 1600 with flash on hotshoe. 1/160 at f8Flash is YN560ii with freznel removed at full powerLens is Optomax 35mm with U340 S8162 stackDisplay is BGR Link to comment
OlDoinyo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 The UV brings out the sheen on the hair well. I understand the reason for closing the eyes, but cannot say that I care for the effect--is there some other solution, such as sunglasses? I have seen some UV portraits done without doing this, but I will not presume to take sides on the safety debate about that point. You might consider moving the subject well away from the wall to get rid of the distracting shadow. The frontal angle is OK for a passport photo or police mug shot, but feel free to allow your subject to adopt a more natural, relaxed pose. You might consider raising the primary light a bit and then placing a reflector out of frame at lower right to provide some fill light. Feel free to play with color balance and channel assignment. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Cara Phillips did a nice set which used the eyes-closed look to good effect, or at least I thought so. There is room for more than one way or doing a portrait, however. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I looked at Jonny's portrait and the Cara Phillips portraits and have grown to like the idea of the closed-eye portrait. They are interesting once you've overcome the closed-eyes as being somehow unnatural. Although we regard eyes as 'windows of the soul', I think I can still see some of the person's character in the closed-eye portraits. Did anyone else get that feeling?? It's in the slight smile or the tilt of the head or the general expression (or lack of). Proper lighting is the key for any good portrait. So you could try using two flashes? Or try this kind of portrait in the sunlight? Or maybe have mixed sunlight and UV-flash? Reflectors might help? Also you could try a longer exposure with two flashes - one to the right then one to the left. Also it is possible to make two portraits - one with flash on right, one with flash on left. Then swap in a shadowless background. Or make a stack with Lighter Colour layers. These alternate methods require a patient subject who can hold still between two UV flashes!! Link to comment
Cadmium Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Jonny, nice shot. Andy, nice set you linked.I have a small somewhat unrelated technical question. The red. I sometimes see this red in some UV shots posted.Clark, you sometimes have UV pics with some red in them.For me I get blue, some yellow (like with some flowers), black and white, lavender, but I never get any red in my UV shots.This red doesn't just look like white balance, it reminds me of what it looks like if the channels have been swapped. But I don't think you are swapping channels, right?I don't think of a 'normal' UV shot to to have any red, even though they do look like a 'normal' UV shot overall. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Aren't they channel swapped? I know my skin usually comes out cyanish, which makes people look like smurfs. I thought it was a red/blue channel swap. Link to comment
OlDoinyo Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Most of my Bayer-sensor shots are displayed BGR, so I get orange where most others get blue-grey. I rarely get outright red except from light sources emitting deep blue but not much UV. My old pictures from Times Square at night are displayed RGB, but were taken with a laminar sensor, and they display some light sources as red. This phenomenon may be due to out-of-band leakage, as I have speculated elsewhere, but I have no definitive proof of anything and I no longer own such a camera. I have not attempted UV portraiture with digital gear. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Thanks Clark. Here I am just referring to the redness in the background (wall?) color, and even some in the facial tone.So when you say displayed BGR, you mean in post processing then? Link to comment
Jonny Posted May 18, 2016 Author Share Posted May 18, 2016 Hi, thanks for the comments and advice, I am trying out the 2 flashes and I'll see where that leads. Sunlight is great but a little unpredictable!The Cara Phillips series does look great, I'm guessing that it's shot on large format film under studio lighting With regards to the colours yes it has been channel swapped - RGB -> BGR but also I have applied individual tone curves to each channel to make the image somewhat more human. This is just a sketch, I think with more time I can refine this. I was really excited by achieving the "UV effect" on the skin though, its taken some time to get this to work! The reflector idea sounds great and yes moving away from the backdrop is intended - currently I'm working in a 9ft kitchen As an aside, I've noticed that the camera has a real issue with shadow banding but it presents itself much more with UV flash - not sure if it is the particular way in which the channels respond to UV that causes it or just bad luck. I can replicate it, but once I switch to a non-UV flash the problem is replaced with a more random noise pattern Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Jonny, you gave us no info about the camera, lens, filter, flash or exposure used !Such info might help diagnose the problem with the banding. :) Banding like this is typically due to high ISO noise and can be affected by such things as bit depth or white balance changes or lifting shadows. Does it occur in the original raw photo prior to WB or channel reassignment? Link to comment
Jonny Posted May 18, 2016 Author Share Posted May 18, 2016 Sorry Andrea, I didn't think about that when posting! I've added the details to the original post, but it could be ISO noise - 1600 on the d3100 does seem high, all my landscapes are shot below 400Shot on the best RAW setting the camera has, and the same pattern is visible in the OOC Jpeg and in RAW Digger Weird that it goes away when I use a non-UV flash for the same shot, not sure if thats a factor Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 If ALL exposure factors are the same (shutter speed, ISO, aperture) and camera settings (wb, etc.) are the same between the raw UV-flash photo and the raw non-UV-flash photo, then I suppose we would have to conclude that UV flash plays a role but I can't think why because the banding is in the shadows where the UV flash does not reach. A sample from both photos would help here. :) Link to comment
nfoto Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Banding would be indicative of a sensor issue and not directly due to the illumination. Earlier cameras could show quite a bit of banding, in particular at higher ISO setting and/or combined with underexposure and shadow lifting. Try slowing the exposure time to see whether less banding occurs, and of course use lower ISO settings. The difference between non-UV and UV flash might result from the latter not being able to expose the frame sufficiently. Lower ISO, move UV flash closer, and the banding ought to be mitigated. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now