Catchlights - Too Many

[atlas]

Hi All,

Am trying to take some portraits in our mini home studio... All is going pretty well, but we are ending up with 2 catchlights in each eye... We are using 2 umbrella flashes so this would explain the 2 catchlights, but how do I set the flashes to avoid this ?

I have main about 45 deg and 3 feet away, the other next to the camera... Hard to explain..

Any help appreciated

[Asylum Steve]

atlas,

I guess it goes without saying that each light source (including reflectors) will register a catchlight in your subject's eyes.

So, either eliminate the source in the studio, or do it in an image editing program like photoshop.

I guess the 6 Million Aussie$ question is: WHY do you not want the second catchlight???

Someone posted not too long ago about a so-called "one catchlight rule", but I have to say, as someone who's been doing studio fashion and portrait work for many years, that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

There are no "correct" amount of catchlights that should or shouldn't be in a subject's eyes. But I can tell you that a standard or normal amount is three: one from the main light, one from the fill light, and one from the reflector. This is probably the amount you see most often in commercial work...

I'll also give you a hint: multiple catchlights are actually considered desirable in most fashion and portrait work...

[Ronnoco]

atlas,
Someone posted not too long ago about a so-called "one catchlight rule", but I have to say, as someone who's been doing studio fashion and portrait work for many years, that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

That person who posted the one catchlight rule was me and it is a regulation for juried competitions among professional photographers in the area of portraiture, so you may think it is silly but it makes a lot of sense to anyone with a good eye.

Bluntly put, two strong catchlights distracts the attention of the viewer away from the model toward the "artificiallity" of the shot created by the lighting.

I agree with the regulations of the professional judges in this case, since it supports quality in the area of portraiture. Sure, some pros have got lazy in this area and hope that customers will not notice, but that is no excuse for reducing quality and attention to detail.

Ronnoco

[zrfraser]

If you shine bright lights in someones eyes it is going to catch that is sall there is to it. I am sure juried exhibits have rules for such a thing, but he is more than likely not submitting them to be professionally critiqued. I say run it through PS and just get rid of the catchlight if it bothers your customer. It is a relatively easy fix, but the average customer isn;t going ot notice especially if they are somewhat close together. They are simply going to think of it as a twinkle in their eye so to speak.

I don't know if a softbox would make any difference, but I do think softbox light is still softer than a diffused umbrella light setup.

I hope this helps somewhat-Zack

[Ronnoco]

If you shine bright lights in someones eyes it is going to catch that is sall there is to it. I am sure juried exhibits have rules for such a thing, but he is more than likely not submitting them to be professionally critiqued. I say run it through PS and just get rid of the catchlight if it bothers your customer. It is a relatively easy fix, but the average customer isn;t going ot notice especially if they are somewhat close together. They are simply going to think of it as a twinkle in their eye so to speak.

I don't know if a softbox would make any difference, but I do think softbox light is still softer than a diffused umbrella light setup.

I hope this helps somewhat-Zack

Whether a customer is going to notice or not depends on both the eye of the customer and the brightness of the catchlights, but it is an easy fix as you say, and one that I think pros should make the effort to do, since it is minimal.

Ronnoco

[atlas]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the varied opinions... I just finished a basic intro course where I first learnt the term 'catchlights' and honestly up until then I never took any notice, but now I see it all the time in photos etc !!

Other than PS I thought there must be a 'secret' way of positioning the lights so you could avoid them to start with

Thanks again.

[readingr]

Whether a customer is going to notice or not depends on both the eye of the customer and the brightness of the catchlights, but it is an easy fix as you say, and one that I think pros should make the effort to do, since it is minimal.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

What are you saying that photographers with the reputation of Lord Patrick Lichfield would never win any of these competitions? Even though his photographs sell for £1000's.

I think someone in your photography club has got something seriously wrong if that's the case and for one I would walk out of the club.

Roger

[zrfraser]

I think he is saying only robots and immortals can win these contests...There can be only one Highlander....

[Loupey]

Ah, the one vs. multiple catchlight debate rages on...

Atlas, just position your lights to get what you're looking for on the face. If you get 1 or 2 catchlights, as Steve said, you can edit it out or leave it in. As long as you and your clients are happy, who cares?

One thing about umbrella lights - they tend to leave an undesirable shape of catchlight. Below is an example. An inexpensive softbox produces a more pleasing "bent rectangular" shape.


To add to the on-going debate: what about ring lights? It that ring catchlight considered one or infinite ;)

[Asylum Steve]

Tell you what. Why don't we get this catchlight thing settled once and for all, ok?

After all, with everything that one needs to learn about studio shooting: using hot and flash lighting, modifying it and/or mixing it with natural light, styling a shot and dealing with portrait subjects and models, white and color balance as well as pre and post-production, how many catchlights are in your subject's eyes (let alone making rules about it) is not even a blip on the radar of importance...

Let me start Ronnoco by apologizing for labeling your earlier remarks as "silly". It was never my intention to diminish your opinion or your post. I value both here in this forum.

Silly was a poor choice of a word. ODD is probably more accurate...

I find it very odd that folks are going around making these "rules" about catchlights. Odd, because in over fifteen years of shooting studio work, having good friends that were also very good and accomplished studio shooters, and also many friends that were Art Dircectors, Editors, and Production Managers at local, regional, and national magazines and newspapers, a discussion about removing catchlights from subject's eyes has NEVER come up...

"one catchlight rule...is a regulation for juried competitions among professional photographers in the area of portraiture..."

Well, I have say, this explains things a bit, and gives us a point of reference.

Personally, I have a distain for art competitions (and particularly dislike photo contests), so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not impressed with any "self-imposed" restrictions for submitting work for whatever it is you're referring to.

Truth is, those things are usually a pretty poor model to use for establishing shooting rules or guidelines in real life. IMO, it's much better to look to the infinitely larger world of commercial photography, publishing, and fine art exhibition to get an idea of what is and isn't acceptable.

"Bluntly put, two strong catchlights distracts the attention of the viewer away from the model toward the "artificiallity" of the shot created by the lighting..."

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I can tell you this is based on a somewhat flawed logic.

First of all, there is no connection between catchlights and the "naturalness" or "artificiality" of any given shot. Want proof? I can show you many shots of subjects taken outside using only natural light that have two or sometimes three catchlights. I could also create a studio shot using multiple lights (with multiple catchlights) that would look exactly like someone sitting next to a window in natural light.

In both instances, the catchlights alone would not give away the method used to create the shot.

Catchlights do not just come from artificial point light sources. They come from anything that is reflected in your subject's eyes. That can mean white walls, light colored sidewalks, a bright sky, window sunlight, even things like large hanging signs or objects near your subject.

Any photo of a person can have catchlights, beit indoors or out, natural light or artificial.

Now, you mention two STRONG catchlights, and actually that's the first time the word strong has been inserted into the discussion.

The only studio lighting scheme that should have more than one STRONG catchlight would be a symmetrical lighting setup, and I address that below.

Otherwise, no one ever said catchlights should be equal. In fact, the additional catchlights from both fill lights as well as reflectors should be MUCH LESS intense than a key light. If they're not, you're most likely doing something wrong. It's not the number of catchlights, but rather they're respective intensity...

A falloff in second and third catchlights should occur naturally, as your fill light should be broad (umbrella or softbox), and a reflector also (usually a large card or panel). Subtlety is the key with additional catchlights.

"it makes a lot of sense to anyone with a good eye..."

Again, I disagree. In fact, I think it's the opposite. The catchlights of a shot need to match the lighting that you see on your subject's face. Removing one of the catchlights from a strong symmetrically lit shot (like the two examples I posted previously), would actually make the image look more unnatural.

In real life you see those reflections, so in a photo you'd expect to see them, too...

The average person might not notice, but the more experienced the eye of the viewer, the more flawed the pic would look with a catchlight removed.

Editing out catchlights from shots is easily done, but remember: your chance of making a shot look less natural is as as great as making it look more natural. It's a delicate balance..

And I guess this brings up another point: why should we care if a studio shot looks natural or not? In my experience, the vast majority of studio shots are not trying to mimmick natural lighting at all, so why is this even a factor?

Don't get me wrong. If you want to make a studio shot look like a natural light shot, that's fine (and relatively easy to do), but that's certainly not the goal of studio lighting. More importantly, natural-looking shots are no better nor more "legitimate" than studio shots that you can tell were lit in a studio.

They're just different, that's all...

Finally, I shouldn't have to point out (but will, heh heh) that I have been professing the "one light shot" in this forum for years now, and as you might guess, one light shots usually have just one main catchlight.

Which means I am no stranger to that effect and have used it many times...

So, bottom line. Different types of lighting setups yield different types and amounts of catchlights. That's all. No one effect is better or worse than any of the others. The goal of studio portraiture is not neccessarlily to look "natural", and anyone who tells you there need to be "rules" is pretty much just blowin' smoke, closed-minded, or sponsoring a photo contest...

[Asylum Steve]

"One thing about umbrella lights - they tend to leave an undesirable shape of catchlight. Below is an example. An inexpensive softbox produces a more pleasing "bent rectangular" shape..."

Again, subjective. You'll find a lot of pros disagree with that idea, and specifically use umbrellas because of the catchlight shape.

As I've said here many times, a lightbox mimmicks window light, with less spill and a rectangular catchlight. An umbrella gives a much broader illumination, with the "slicker" catchlight.

Different effects for different situations, and remember, shooters don't always want their light to look or behave like window light...

"To add to the on-going debate: what about ring lights? It that ring catchlight considered one or infinite ;) "

LOL! Obviously, a philisophical question best discussed over a few beers...

[Asylum Steve]

Other than PS I thought there must be a 'secret' way of positioning the lights so you could avoid them to start with...

Ok, not gonna get into it again. All I can say is for many year aspiring and emerging photographers have learned lighting setups by studying subject's eye catchlights with a magniying glass in magazine studio shots to figure out how the lights were positioned.

Still a tried and true method. Catchlights are GOOD...

[JTcooper]

just want you all to know, I agree about it cause if a customer like it. who care! and Steve, I dont thinks his intension by saying what he did is to put anyone down but then I guess some time people take it in the wrong way. love this forum, anytime there is a debate, I learn...

[Loupey]

My son obliged for a quick demonstation this evening.

I'm only illustrating the shape of the catchlights. I agree that there is no magic number. In both, I left the strobes in the same position about 45 degrees to each side and about 4' from my son (the right strobe is higher by about 1 1/2'). The top image is with the strobes pointing 180 degrees into umbrellas. The bottom image is with the strobes pointing straight on with flash mounted softboxes.

There is more to it than just the number of catchlights to consider.


Steve, if we ever meet, ALL the drinks are on me :thumbsup:

[Ronnoco]

More than one catchlight in each eye is distracting. The level of distraction depends on the brightness and size of the catchlights. The model, not the catchlights is meant to be the centre of interest and that is the true bottom line. If the catchlights rather than the model draws the eye of the viewer, then the portrait photographer has badly failed.

Ronnoco

[adina]

I wasn't even going to post here, since Steve pretty much answered everything with his first post. But the later posts in this thread reminded me of an email I got from a family member.


'I have a tech question- Should the white spots in the eyes be fixed- do professional photos get them and if so do the photographers erase them? (like stuff you've seen at shows)"

To me, I think the number of catchlights is a personal preference. I can think of one photo I have where there must be at least 6 in each eye. Track lighting on the ceiling. Is it distracting? Well, numerous (and I mean numerous as in lots and lots) of people have seen it, and no one has ever said, "what's the deal with her eyes?"

One catchlight? In some instances. But as a rule? Ehh. I don't think the number of catchlights is the determining factor on what makes a photo work or not.

adina (who has more than one catchlight 99% of the time, and no one has ever complained)

[adina]

Catchlights are GOOD...

Some would go as far as to say that a lack of catchlights makes your subject look dead.

Imagine that! What radical thinking!