LEE Filters - Portrait Lighting at Home with Jake Hicks

I often get told by people that they struggle to get the amount of experience they need to improve their studio lighting because they can't always afford to rent a studio. In this short video by LEE Filters I share how you can turn practically any space into your studio and even make this four light setup a reality in your living room with the right amount of light control.

Editorial fashion photographer Jake Hicks demonstrates a range of creative lighting effects that can be easily set-up in the home. He starts with a key light, then he adds a fill light followed by two hair lights. Then he introduces LEE coloured gels and finally achieves some gel flare with a LEE Soft Focus camera filter.

The LEE Filters coloured gels used in this video were from my 'Definitive' Gels pack. More info can be found on my website here: Jake Hicks Photography 'Definitive' Gels Collection

The LEE Filters product that I had in front of my lens to create the flared effect was the LEE Filters 'Soft'. This filter comes in a pack of 5 varying powers and I was using the 'Soft 2'. More details can be found on the LEE Filters website here. LEE Filters - Soft Set

Featured Model: Gabriella Grigo

Colour Grading Tips and Techniques - Colour Grading with Intent

Colour grading tends to refer specifically to the colouring of video, and in photography, we often call this colour toning. Whatever you're happier calling it, this process of making a conscious decision to apply a specific colour look to an image in post-production is an incredibly powerful tool.

But although not particularly tricky to actually do, colour toning and grading are complex simply due to their incredibly subjective nature. So how do we colour grade? When should we do it? Do we need to have a colour grade in mind before we shoot? And what's the difference between colour grading and colour 'correcting'?

The difference between colour grading and colour correction

Before we begin, just let me clarify what qualifies as colour correction and colour grading.

Colour Correction

Colour correction, as a rule, tends to be more objective in that its goal is to make a scene look as 'accurate' to reality as possible. For example, if you take a shot and your white balance is incorrect, making the subject look a little yellow, you would colour-correct this by adding blue, thereby cooling the image and correcting the skin tone to a more natural, realistic colour.

Colour Grading

Colour grading and toning usually build on a colour-corrected image to change a scene's colour to convey a specific look and feel. This is a far more subjective process and not necessarily right or wrong. For example, if your shot was a beach scene, you might add a little orange and yellow via a colour grade to give the image a warmer feel. Conversely, a shot of a skier on a mountain might have blues added in post-production to give the final photo a cooler, crisper impression. Colour grading is far less about right or wrong but more about personal artistic intent.

Colour Grading with Intent

Okay, so now that we know what colour grading actually is, we can start to look at some processes and examples. You may have noticed that earlier I mentioned colour grading will often build upon a colour-corrected image. What I mean is that I find it much easier to colour grade a colour-corrected image. There are a couple of reasons for this, but most importantly, it gives me the option to adjust my colour grade if I change my mind later on. By applying colour grading and colour correction separately, I still have my colour corrected base to work on rather than starting from scratch each time.

In the image below, I first colour-corrected it, then colour-graded it. You may be asking why I had to colour correct it to begin with. Well, that's because I purposely shot this incorrectly coloured, intending to correct it later in post. This slightly odd way of working can provide some very unique looks.

This series of images was shot of an actress and model, Lucy B, with the goal of creating cinematic portraits. In the original setup, I was drenching the scene in colour with the intention of colour correcting it afterwards. This might sound strange (and frankly very risky), but if you look again in the shadows, especially around the eyes, you should see that there are subtle colours in the shadows and highlights of the shot that are outside the grasp of the colour grading. It's this subtle yet effective look that I was going for.

Just to be clear, colour grading does not always have to have odd and tricky coloured lighting already present in the shot. Any image can be colour graded/toned, it's just that I'm showing you extreme examples of colour correcting and colour grading here to prove just how powerful the technique can be.

It's intentional lighting techniques, including deliberately washing a scene in colour like my image here, that can go hand in hand with colour grading as a final look rather than just an afterthought. Cinematographers will often employ this same colour wash technique in-camera, along with extreme makeup, to make a scene effective.

For example, JJ Abrams shot a very cold-looking scene in his original Star Trek film. He heavily lit the scene with strong blue light, and the actors had their lips painted bright magenta so that, under the strong blue lighting and after some colour grading, their lips looked a somewhat normal colour. This is colour grading with intent, and although colour toning and grading can be applied to any image, with a little forethought before shooting, you can make colour grading a very powerful tool indeed.

Colour Corrected and Colour Graded Examples

The Three Stages

Take a look at the three shots below. The first is the original file, followed by the colour-corrected one, and finally the colour-graded one.

Original shot -click to enlarge — Original shot *-click to enlarge*

Colour corrected -click to enlarge — Colour corrected -*click to enlarge*

Colour graded -click to enlarge — Colour graded *-click to enlarge*

You should now be able to see the process behind the look, and hopefully, elements like the subtle coloured shadows and highlights should make more sense.

The Curve Stacks

Now let's look at the actual process of applying these colour corrections and colour grades.

In the image above, you can see how I have my colour correction curves laid out in my layers stack as well as my colour grading ones too.

There are so many ways to colour-tone an image, so please do what works for you, but I simply use curves. The reason is that curves interact with each other more dynamically than other colouring options. For example, if I tweak the midtones, it slightly affects both the shadows and highlights, giving a far more organic feel to the colouring. Also, curves are incredibly good for being adjusted multiple times after the fact and can also be manipulated very intuitively when looking for a desired effect and colour.

In the shot above, you see my Photoshop layout, where the colour correction curves are split into the three colour channels: Red, Green, and Blue. On top of that, I then add a completely new set of curves that are my colour grading curves. Again, these consist of the individual Red, Green and Blue channels. This is done so that I only ever modify the red curve in the red channel, the green curve in the green channel and so on. This makes it very easy to turn individual colour channels on and off and see which colour affects which.

For example, I might come back to this image later and feel it's too red. I can then go in and adjust that one channel accordingly, safe in the knowledge that I won't be adding other colour issues in the process.

The Individual Colour Correction Curves

Above shows the colour corrected image and its individual curves that achieved the look. -click to enlarge — Above shows the colour corrected image and its individual curves that achieved the look. *-click to enlarge*

Above, we can see the three curves for each RGB channel. Granted, these curves will vary for each shoot, but I thought they might provide further insight into how I arrived at my final colour-corrected image.

Curves Catchup

If you're unfamiliar with how curves work, then they're broken down like this. The shadow areas can be adjusted by adding and tweaking nodes (those small hollow squares) in the bottom left of the curves window, the midtones can be adjusted in the centre, and the highlights can be manipulated in the top right.

Adding or moving a single node will affect colour and tone across the entire curve unless it is anchored elsewhere. For example, you can see the highlight node being lifted, and it is also lifting the midtones. A smooth curve with as few points as possible will often yield the most natural results.

Pro Tip: Don't forget that you can also shift the black and white points. Here we see that I have lifted the very bottom left node up slightly. This will add green to all the pure black areas of the shot. The same could also be done at the other end in the far top right at the white point too.

The individual Colour Grade Curves

Above we see the addition of our colour grade curves. -click to enlarge — Above we see the addition of our colour grade curves. *-click to enlarge*

In the shot above, we can see that I have added three additional curves, which will sit on top of the other colour correction curves. I mentioned before that I like to try to keep my curves as smooth and clean as possible. This means I try to use as few nodes as possible, and generally this is kept to one node in the shadows, one in the midtones and one in the highlights. Additionally, I will often shift the black and white points, too (these are the nodes in the bottom-left corner [see the green curve above] and the top-right corner node). By keeping the curves smooth like this, you avoid introducing extra colour issues caused by sharp transitions in tone and colour.

Some more colour correction and colour grading examples...

In the shots above, we can see the process again: first the original shot, then the colour-corrected version, and finally the colour-graded version. But you may also have noted that there is only a slight difference between colour correction and colour grade. Let's take a closer look at the curves involved.

Above we can see the three colour correction curves in place and the effect they are having on the shot. -click to enlarge — Above we can see the three colour correction curves in place and the effect they are having on the shot. *-click to enlarge*

With the colour correction curves in place, there isn't anything too surprising at work here, but it is worth noting that I've lifted the black point (bottom-left node) in all colour channels to really get rid of any deep, dark black areas.

Now let's take a closer look at how I graded this image.

Here is the extent of the colour grade curve -Click to enlarge — Here is the extent of the colour grade curve *-Click to enlarge*

In the image above, we can see the extent of my colour grading after colour correction. In fact, there was no further 'colouring' in this image. All I have done is to shift the black point up slightly and to bring the white point down slightly. This is a technique often used in colour grading to reduce overall contrast, aiming to make an image more visually homogeneous or to reduce the visual distractions caused by very bright highlights and very dark shadows.

One more example...

I wanted to share just one more shot, and although very similar to the above shots in terms of its final look, I think it shows just how incredibly powerful curves can be when it comes to colour correction.

If we look at the original shot above, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the image was a 'write-off or re-shoot'. The skin colour looks awful, with a heavy blue-and-magenta cast, but with a bit of clever tweaking, we can restore a very believable skin tone while still retaining some of that cinematic colour in the shadows and highlights.

Above we can see the individual colour curves that make up the colour correction part of this image. -Click to enlarge — Above we can see the individual colour curves that make up the colour correction part of this image. *-Click to enlarge*

Now that we can see the individual curves, we can break down what was done to achieve the colour correction. We can see that reds were removed from the highlights but added to the shadows. We can also see that very little was done in the green channel, but a huge amount of blue was pulled out across the entire image in the blue channel. The resulting shot is colour-corrected, but still retains that coloured cinematic theme in the dark shadow areas as well as the highlights. This is a dramatic technique and one that takes a little practice, but one that will offer up very unique-looking results that rely more on the colour correction than the actual colour grade. Let's look to see what we did for that final step in this image.

Above we can see the simple solution to maintaining consistent looks throughout a series of shots.

So the actual colour grade for this shot was simply copied and transferred from the previous image. All you have to do is drag the curve from one document to the other.

You don't have to hold shift to make this work, but it's a good habit to get into, as holding shift ensures that any layer you copy and transfer from one document to another stays centralised on the page relative to its source location.

By copying and transferring curves this way, you ensure consistency across files in a series of shots, which is far easier than trying to recreate the same curves in every file.

Points to Remember

I know this has been a long post, but I feel there is a lot to cover on this technique, and in actuality, I've barely scratched the surface. But here's a recap of the most salient points I've spoken about so far.

Colour grade with Intent

Think about the final shot, including the post-pro stage. Colour grading can be done on any image, but do you want to shoot the image in colour and then colour-correct it later? What is your final intention?

Colour Correct First, then Colour Grade

I personally prefer to keep things separated in my file so I can adjust things later. For example, I colour-correct first, then I create a whole new batch of colour-grading curves to apply on top of that. Doing it this way lets me turn off the colour grade layer and check the colour correction later. You'll be surprised how useful this can be.

Do Your Colour Correction/Grading in Separate Curves

I think it makes colouring far easier when you can turn individual colour curves on and off afterwards to see which colour is affecting which. This is only possible by separating your colour curves into Red, Green and Blue.

Keep Your Curves Clean

Try to have as few nodes on your curve as possible. Too many nodes will only introduce odd colours that will be hard to deal with. As a guide, try to have only one node in each highlight, midtone, and shadow area.

Share your Curves

Don't forget that you can copy and paste curves among multiple documents. Simply click and drag them from one layer stack to another.

Closing Comments

The colour grading topics I've discussed here are fairly complex. Not in their execution, as adding a few curves is easy, it's the colour grading with intent that will take time to master. Sure, any image can have colour grading applied to it, and that is hard enough in its own right, but colour correcting heavily coloured imagery first is a little harder to get good at.

Drenching your shots in heavy colour with the intention of colour-correcting them later is a very tricky process, given how hard colour correction can be on skin with colour in midtones, highlights, and shadows. Stick with it, though, as you can produce something very visually unique, and in my mind, this is well worth the extra effort.

Remember that colour grading is a career in its own right, and big film productions will employ colourists for this sole job. It's easy to pick up and play with, but incredibly hard to get good at. Think of it like being able to tune a guitar without a tuner. You might know it's out of tune, but it's far harder to get it in tune unless you've trained your ears. The same applies here with colour: you have to train your eyes to see colour variations until you can correct them accurately and consistently.

Don't get put off by this, though, as the images I colour-corrected in this article are very extreme examples of colour correction. Over time, you will get better at seeing colour, so just stick with it, and you'll see the improvements.

One final point: be sure never to flatten your curves in your document, as you'll always want the ability to adjust colours later on. One day you might love the colours you've added, but you might come back a day later, or even an hour later, and hate them. This is perfectly normal, so don't get frustrated with it. Keep returning to your file to check and tweak things, and over time you'll finally be happy with it.

I was a colour printer in darkrooms 20 years ago, and I've been colour correcting and colour grading throughout my entire photographic career since then.
The images featured in this article still took me a long time to colour-correct and grade.
Colour correction and grading are an art in their own right, and getting good at it simply takes time and patience. But unlike other aspects of life, perseverance in art actually ensures success.

Thanks once again for taking the time to read my articles. I certainly appreciate it, and feel free to share this with anyone you think could benefit from it.

Also, if you're new here, feel free to join our very active community of like-minded lighting nerds (c'mon, admit it, you're one of us :D) on my Facebook page. I'm always discussing lighting ideas and offering feedback on community images over there.

If you'd like to stay up to date on more photography-related tips and techniques, sign up for my mailing list, where I'll send you a monthly roundup of my articles (and signing up gets you a free 10-page studio lighting PDF, too :) ). Thanks again, and I'll see you all in the next one.

If you're interested in further reading on colour toning in general in Photoshop, feel free to check my Colour Toning in Photoshop - Why, When & How

Technique Colour Toning in Photoshop - Why, When & How.jpg

:WARNING: Knowledge is power, and there's a whole lot of power awaiting below :D

If you're interested in any of my work and would like to know more about how I created some of my shots then why not check out my workshops. Here you can find out everything there is to know about Gelled Lighting, Long Exposure Flash Photography and my entire Post-Pro Workflow. Jake Hicks Photography - Workshops

I've also just released a brand new 22 hour complete Gelled Lighting Tutorial video. I go over everything from studio lighting setups with gels to being on location with gels plus I also go through my complete retouching and post pro workflow. For more details and complete breakdown of everything that's include check out my Coloured Gel Portraits Tutorial

I also offer comprehensive coloured gel packs. These collections of gels are what I use day to day to create some of the most highly saturated colours around. If you're looking at getting into gelled lighting or need to get stronger and richer colours in your coloured gel work why not check out my Jake Hicks Photography Gel Packs

6 Light Beauty and Fashion Lighting Setup

I know it's extremly trendy right now to say that 'one light is all you need', and although in certain situations this is true, a of the time extra lights will likely look better, or at the very least make your life easier.

A six light beauty and fashion setup. What are some of the pitfalls of 'too many lights'? Click to enlarge — A six light beauty and fashion setup. What are some of the pitfalls of 'too many lights'? *Click to enlarge*

Now before you rush to the comments section to proclaim the purity and simplicity of a black and white headshot being lit by a single light as being the very essence of great photography, I'll just add that I agree. Sometimes, complicated lighting and over-lit portraits can certainly get in the way of a subject but conversely, a more visually interesting shot can also be achieved with the addition of more lights to draw in and engage a viewer.

Timeless Lighting

This setup and shoot was done way back in 2009 and although I don't create imagery like this anymore due to my new found love of gels, I've recently received a few messages asking how it was done after a shared an image from this shoot in last weeks article.

I originally shared the results of this shoot all those years ago but like with any great lightning setup, it doesn't age and this setup is just as relevant now as it was almost a decade ago.

All those years ago I was heavily influenced by the great lighting masters like Jill Greenberg and this setup is very heavily inspired by her 'crying baby' portraits that were so incredibly popular back then. I'll get onto what I believe makes this lighting so visually interesting later on, plus I'll also speak about how I would improve this shoot were I to shoot it again today. But for now, let's take a look at the setup.

Sometimes, one light is all you need but there are times when you want to make your image stand out or if you're trying to make a person or product look their absolute best. In this instance, more lights will certainly help you achieve that but how … — Sometimes, one light is all you need but there are times when you want to make your image stand out or if you're trying to make a person or product look their absolute best. In this instance, more lights will certainly help you achieve that but how much light is too much light? *Click to enlarge*

The Setup

Let's just rip the bandaid off this and say that you'll need a significant about of kit for this one. First and foremost of course is the 6 lights which I appreciate wont be an option for most, but even if you don't get chance to test the lighting itself, you can certainly learn how the lighting setup is built and what lighting objectives I had in mind at the time.

Required Kit

6 Flash Heads
2 Large Grids
2 Small Umbrellas
1 Beauty Dish
1 Ring Flash
2 Black Poly Boards/Flags
Plus a small forest of lightstands and of course a backdrop.
Note: A boom arm is also preferable. At the time I didn't have a boom in the studio for the back beauty dish/hair light so it was simply stood behind the backdrop. A boom would have give a lot more control and is recommended.

Take a look at the diagram below to see how it all comes together.

In the diagram above we can see how the 6 lights are placed. Click to enlarge — In the diagram above we can see how the 6 lights are placed. *Click to enlarge*

In the image above you should be able to see how all the lights come together.

It's worth noting now that this lighting software does not currently contain a ring light, so instead I have placed a beauty dish in front of the camera to signify it. The resulting light in the top right final image will be a little off due to this though.

We have two reflectors up high behind the subject, a beauty dish up high behind the backdrop plus two small umbrellas acting as fills in the foreground and finally a ring flash in front to act as our key.

Gridded Hair Lights

Let's now break this down to see what each light is doing and why.

First off let's look at those back reflectors that are acting as hair lights.

In the diagram above we can see the gridded lights and what they are doing to models skin. Their purpose is to create a rim of light around the edge of the model to maintain a visual separation from model to background. When placing these lights there are things you should be looking for. Firstly, they should be high enough so as to light the tops of the shoulders and as much of the top of the head as possible. They should also be far enough back behind the model so as to not start lighting the tips of the models nose.

Gridded Beauty Dish

This could be argued as not needed but this final third hair light ensures a complete coverage of all of the skin on the model.

In the image above you should see that this third hair light reaches the areas that the other two heads do not. For example on the very top of the head as well as the inside of the models left arm.

When setting this up, it is advised to use a boom if possible. I'd have loved this light almost directly above the models head compared to very much behind her like we see here. Having the light directly above would add a much needed shine to the hair in the crown area of the head. This extra shine adds more depth to a shot and is crucial in doing hair work. As this was not a hair focused shoot we got away with it but the threat of severe lens flare was always an issue as well.

The Fill Lights

Again the addition of these lights might seem minimal but all of these elements add up to a final, complete look.

These fill lights are just small silver umbrellas but small softboxes could have also been used instead. In fact, in hindsight the softer light of softboxes is preferable as these are just to add a very subtle amount of light to the underneath shadow areas like chin and eyebrows etc. To make this work, they need to be very low in power to avoid them casting any additional shadows of their own.

The Ring Light

Like I mentioned before, this lighting software does not support the use of a ring flash so I have substituted it for a beauty dish here to illustrate the lighting. As a result, the final lighting appears a little odd due to its size.

A ring flash is strangely one of the easiest, yet simultaneously the hardest modifier to use. If you're using a ring flash on its own then it excels in its simplicity and all you have to do is expose the shot for that one light. When you start combining it with other lights in a scene it fast becomes a little trickier as the light starts to stack on top of one another which is never recommended. I advise playing with your distance to the subject as well as with your height to the subject. If you're finding it tricky to make work then turn off all the other lights and experiment with variations in exposure to see what's working.

Constructive Criticism

Take a look at the image above to see what I mean by sculpting shape and form through shadow and highlights. Without this, images can look a little flat and ultimately 'over-lit'.

Thankfully, as the years whizz by I feel that I am getting better and better at reading the light and lighting in general. When I shot this nearly a decade ago, I was 'winging-it' a little. Sure I knew the premise of what I wanted but at that time I hadn't developed the ability to read the light like I can now, so with a little more experience under my belt now there are many things about these shots that I cringe about.

The main area that is making me wince in the images is that these shots are 'over-lit'. This means that I feel the light is overlapping in too many areas resulting in a shot that looks a little visually flat and lacking in contrast. If we look at my more recent work you'll notice that I'm striving for a continued variation from highlight to shadow to illustrate shape and form whereas in these shots, that shape and form is being lost into one continuous exposure.

What I'd Do Differently

So what could I have done differently? Well first and foremost I'd have advised a makeup artist of the exact idea to this shoot and explained that the lighting would be very bright. I'd ask if it would be possible to have a subtle shine to the skin rather then the skin being too matte. This skin shine would help the models facial features like cheek bones, chin and nose stand out giving them that extra dimension. With regards to the lighting; firstly I'd do my best to secure a boom. With this I could have gotten that beauty dish more overhead rather than behind the model, this would have in turn added more shape to the models hair and head. Secondly, I would also have spent more time tweaking the exposure of the ringflash in conjunction with the fill lights. At the moment I feel the fill lights are still a touch too strong which is largely why I feel the images are flat and looking over-lit. Lastly I'd also like to adjust my position with the ring flash, in hindsight I think I was too far away from the model which results in this overpowered lighting effect we see here. Had I come a little closer, I'd have had to turn the power of the ring light down a little which in turn would introduce more shadows towards the edges of the model and thereby bringing back that shape and form I was referring too.

Closing Comments

Like I said at the start of this article, there are going to be times when one light will work but if you want to achieve a more flattering portrait or a more engaging shot in general, multiple lights will be the way to go. But how much light is too much light? This all depends on the situation but we need to be careful that too much light doesn't visually flatten out a shot which results in you losing shape and depth in the subject. As a guide, constantly look for significant variances in highlight and shadow, look for multiple transitions in contrast to help add shape and definition to your subject and as soon as you start to lose this is when you've gone too far.

Thanks once again for taking the time to read my articles, I certainly appreciate it and feel free to share this with anybody who you think could benefit from it. I see a growing stigma around at the moment that says 'true photographers only need one light' and it's frankly laughable. There's a time and place for multiple lights and it's usually only those that swear by one light who can't light effectively with more.

Also, If you're new here then feel free to join our very active community of like minded lighting-nerds (c'mon, admit it, you're one of us :D ) on my Facebook page. I'm always discussing lighting ideas and offering feedback on community images over there.

If you'd like to stay up to date on more photography related tips and techniques then sign up to my mailing list where I'll send you a monthly roundup of all my articles (plus signing up gets you a free 10 page studio lighting pdf too :) ). Thanks again and I'll see you all in the next one.

:WARNING: 'Potentially' Game Changing Products Await Below!

Objective & Subjective Lighting - How I Teach Portrait Lighting

Technique Tuesday Facebook Thumbnail objective lighting.jpg

Like many things in life, there's no right or wrong way to learn photographic lighting... but I do believe there are easy ways and hard ways to not only understand it, but more importantly get better at it.

This is a 6 light setup shot but there is still only one 'objective' light, the one that lights the face. The others are all 'subjective' lights because their power is dictated by what looks good for the subject. For example, if the subject had been… — This is a 6 light setup shot but there is still only one 'objective' light, the one that lights the face. The others are all 'subjective' lights because their power is dictated by what looks good for the subject. For example, if the subject had been wearing a black faux fur coat, I would have increased the power of the edge lights, not because I'd be right or wrong but because I personally think it would look better.

I think every creative discipline evolves, but photography sees more significant jumps in its evolution due to it being so uniquely tied to technology. Every frame we capture is taken with a camera and that camera technology is evolving on a daily basis. Every frame we then have to develop is primarily produced through software and that too evolves on a daily basis. The tools that we use to create our work are constantly changing but I feel that the way we learn some of the techniques associated with these tools do not.

For example take the term 'lighting ratios'. I'm just going to come out and say this but what an utterly redundant term in modern image making. It's a term that only people who want to 'sound clever' use and I've NEVER once heard a professional working photographer use it since the turn of the century. Lighting ratios is simply a term that speaks to the relationship between more than one light, and in my opinion ratios only have value when teaching mindless robots and here's why.

I firmly believe that we should always have a goal when we pick up our camera, and for argument sake let's keep it focused on portraits. When we take a portrait of somebody the goal is to be able to portray them in a certain way. Sure we may want to make them look more beautiful or menacing for example, but to keep it simple we'll say this is a professional portrait and the subject wants to look their best. Most of the time, it's our responsibility to ensure their picture is correctly exposed and that's like saying it's a chefs responsibility is to make sure something is edible. It's a fundamental baseline not a bonus.

Beyond that though, it's up to us as to how we want to craft that shot.

Objective Lighting

Like I said, as a bare minimum to take a portrait, we need to correctly exposure the subjects face. It's this light that I refer to as our 'Objective Light' because it has one goal; to correctly expose the subject and everything else in the shot is open to your interpretation.

In portrait lighting we would refer to this objective light as our key light or our master light that everything else revolves around. It's this key light that I would always setup first, and I would ensure that I am 100% happy with the exposure of this light via a light meter or image review before I move on to setting up additional lights. As a general guide, if you're photographing one subject, there is really only ever one objective light.

The above images show an example of 'objective lighting'. When you have an objective in mind like lighting a person in a portrait there are right and wrong exposures. This objective light must be correctly exposed for you to fulfil your goal of ligh… — The above images show an example of 'objective lighting'. When you have an objective in mind like lighting a person in a portrait there are right and wrong exposures. This objective light must be correctly exposed for you to fulfil your goal of lighting a portrait.

Subjective Lighting

This is where the portrait can get a little more creative because once we have our objective light set up, we can now consider adding additional lighting like fill lights and hair lights for example. It's these additional lights that I refer to as 'Subjective Lights' because their goal is more open to interpretation based on your personal aesthetic.

For example we may want to add a fill light beneath the subject to fill in some of the shadows under the chin. Maybe we want a lot of fill light to create a more beautifying appearance but maybe we only want a tiny amount instead. This is subjective lighting because that creative decision is up to you, there is no right or wrong answer here. Another example might be a hair light placed behind the subject to add a little shine to the hair. Maybe we want that hair light to be quite bright to give us spectral highlights, maybe we want that hair light to be a lot more subtle, that lighting decision is up to you. These are all subjective lights.

In the images above we can see an example of 'subjective lighting'. Here we can see varying powers of light being applied to the fill light below our model. It's important to point out about subjective lighting that there is no incorrect value, havi… — In the images above we can see an example of 'subjective lighting'. Here we can see varying powers of light being applied to the fill light below our model. It's important to point out about subjective lighting that there is no incorrect value, having a lot of fill light is just as acceptable as not much fill light. It's your creative decision on how much light you want in the shot, it is purely subjective.

Here is another set of examples of 'subjective lighting'. In each of these shots we can see varying powers of light being used on our hair lights, none of them are either right or wrong as they are all viable options based on the look you're going f… — Here is another set of examples of 'subjective lighting'. In each of these shots we can see varying powers of light being used on our hair lights, none of them are either right or wrong as they are all viable options based on the look you're going for. This is subjective lighting.

Not all Ratios were created equal

After looking at the examples above you might think that ratios would be a perfect way of explaining the difference in exposure between a fill light and key light or the variation in power from the key light to the hair light. And although you'd be technically correct, ratios overlook one fundamental point, the subject.

If our subject was a little older, maybe we'd want more power on the fill light to fill in and soften some wrinkles. Maybe our subject had a very dark and dense afro hairstyle compared to a platinum blonde subject and as a result the afro hair would need a lot more light to give a similar effect to our blonde. Simply setting up a 2:1 lighting ratio shot will not take any of this into account and so we fall into a trap of laziness where we are not reading the scene in front of us, but most importantly we're not making creative decisions on how we might improve that shot based on the subject.

Hair is always a good way of explaining subjective lighting as its variants in texture and colour can fundamentally change the power of lighting you use. Incredibly fine platinum blond hair will clearly require less light to accentuate it than thick… — Hair is always a good way of explaining subjective lighting as its variants in texture and colour can fundamentally change the power of lighting you use. Incredibly fine platinum blond hair will clearly require less light to accentuate it than thick black afro hair. But ultimately that is your choice.

Objective and subjective lighting enables us to consider our goals a little more and to think about what we want to achieve. Yes the objective light has to be correctly exposed but beyond that, we need to make creative decisions with the rest of the lights based on what we want to achieve, not on what we're told is a 'correctly' lit image.

Closing Comments

I know this article may have sounded like I'm bashing on the lighting ratios but I felt it required a harsher tone to get across just how dated certain ways of learning photographic lighting actually are. Yes there are certainly valuable insights to be gleaned from understanding concepts like lighting ratios, but ultimately this is not teaching you how to read light only copy it which is a very dangerous way of learning anything. Being able to look at a scene and understand what you 'want' to achieve and 'why' you want to achieve it is far more useful as you learn how to interpret light in your own way for your own vision.

As photographers we need to be able to adapt to the subjects in front of us and that means we can't be bogged down by what we 'should' do but more by what we think will look best for each and every case. First understand what your 'objective' light is (usually your key light), once you have that correctly exposed it really is up to you as to how you light the rest of the shot.

During this process of adjusting the subjective lights, try to get into the habit of trying drastic adjustments in power. By doing this you may come across a look that you like and that you hadn't thought of, never be afraid to experiment. A little confidence in your own ability can go a long way and with digital images being nearly free, never be afraid to test and play with exposures no matter how wrong you think they might be.

If it looks good, nobody cares what the lighting ratio is.

Thanks as always for checking out my articles, I certainly appreciate your time and feel free to share it with anybody who you think could benefit from this. I feel there are a lot of portrait photographers out there who are lacking confidence because they are in fear of doing something 'wrong' when in reality our ability to make mistakes only enables us to create something new.

:WARNING: You'll never believe how good the 'practically' free content is below!

Comparing the Image Quality - Nikon D850 Vs. Nikon D610

Technique Tuesday Facebook Thumbnail d850 d610.jpg

I treat my camera like I treat a car, it has one core job and that's what I use it for with very little interest or need for the peripheral add-ons and shiny new features that may also be part of that product. A car gets you from point A to B and everything else is fairly superfluous, sure there are often quality-of-life features but when it comes down to it, we buy a car for transport not seat warmers and illuminated mirrors in the sun visor. A camera, like a car, is a tool.

For me a camera has that same tool-like function, and in my work I buy and use a camera for that one goal of simply recording what's in front of me. As a result, I keep my cameras a very long time, and just like my cars I usually only replace them when they break beyond repair. This time was different though, I had my backup Nikon D600 and main D610 body for many, many years and although they didn't break beyond repair, I decided to upgrade to the Nikon D850 largely due to seeing a deal that was simply too good to miss.

The Nikon D850 is one of the newest full frame additions to the Nikon lineup and was released late in 2017.

Was the upgrade worth it?

Was the upgrade from the D610 to the D850 really worth it though? After all, I just said that I'm only looking for a camera to do one thing and that's take pictures. If the D610 took pictures well, did I really need to upgrade?

So to see if it was worth the upgrade I wanted to check the image quality of both cameras to really see for myself if the D850 hype was justified.

Beyond the marketing rat-race that is the megapixel war of 'more is better', I want to look at the actual results of the photos this D850 can take and as such I wont be focusing on all the fancy bells and whistles like touch screens and D-lighting improvements. I really want to get down to the core of photography here and that to me means image 'quality'.

Granted quality is a very personal and subjective topic and it's also something that is all to often unjustly associated with megapixels. The size of the file produced by the 24 megapixel D610 is 6016 x 4016px. This is clearly dwarfed by the monstrous D850's 46 megapixels and 8256 x 5504px file but is that really the deciding factor of quaintly?

Don't get wrong, megapixels plays a role in quality but just like buying a car with a top speed of 202mph and using it on roads limited to 80mph, it's nice to have but rarely ever actually used or more importantly needed. 99% of photographers will never need a file larger than 8 megapixels due to most of our work never ever leaving our screens. I use to use an old crop-frame, 8 megapixel camera for years commercially and those files were cropped into by art directors and blown up to billboard sizes without anybody noticing or complaining. Mega pixels are nice but ultimately rarely required.

So if I'm not looking at image quality from a megapixel perspective, how will I be judging 'quality' between these two cameras. I'll be looking at colour depth, tone separation, noise, latitude and anything at all that may influence the visual look and feel of a shot in my field of work, which is primarily artificially lit fashion and portraiture. If any of those factors are interesting to you as a digital photographer (that's a trick question by the way, they're fundamentally crucial to you) then let's get on with the test.

For my test I had to put stats aside and simply test it for myself and the following images and opinions are the results of those image tests. I've include all the images in a larger size on separate page too so you can make your own opinions too. They can be found here if you want to take a look.

If you're interested in the finer details of the D850 I highly recommend checking out these resources as they really know more than I'll ever want to know about the more technical aspects of the camera.

Nikon God, Ken Rockwell D850 Review

All around nice and safe review written by suspected androids DPReview D850 Review

The Nikon D610 and its predecessor the D600 served me well for many, many years but it was time to test out its much bigger brother. The D610 was originally released in mid 2014.

The Test

Okay so if you're still here, let's get started with some horrendously unscientific image quality tests and some utterly biased personal opinions.

I set up two tests; the first was a scene of colour that contained varying surfaces, textures and brightnesses and the second was purely a greyscale scene. The colour one was to observe colour depth and how the separation of colour was maintained across various surfaces and the greyscale one was to check highlight and shadow detail as well as moire issues and general exposure latitude.

Each of the scenes was shot on both the Nikon D610 and the Nikon D850 one after another and they were swopped on and off a tripod to maintain as close a match as I could plus they both used the exact same basic 28-105 f4 Nikon lens.

Both cameras were set to shoot their largest raw and if you're not familiar with the image quality on both of these cameras then here's the figures:

Nikon D610

Full-frame CMOS sensor
Effective pixels - 24 megapixels
Max resolution - 6016 x 4016

Nikon D850

Full-Frame BSI-CMOS Sensor
Effective pixels - 46 megapixels
Max resolution - 8256 x 5504

Okay so obviously this is not a fair fight whatsoever and it's no spoiler to say that we're expecting the D850 to outperform the D610 with ease, but the point of the test was to see by how much. Was it worth the upgrade when I was more than happy with D610 originally?

The Image Tests

There are an awful lot of hi-res images that go with this test and it took me an hour just to upload them. To avoid boring most of you I've put the final shots in a separate page so as to not cripple your computer under the weight of them, if you're interested in viewing the actual files then by all means check them out via this separate page here. I was pulling my hair out trying to upload them, so hopefully at least one person will find them useful. For the rest of us, let's look at the tests I performed, the settings and lighting I experimented with and then finally some side by side comparisons of the results.

The colour setup looked like this. The lighting I ended up going with was fairly flat but it was a mix of flash and ambient via the coloured LEDs that can be seen in shot too.

The greyscale setup was very similar and all that really changed was the scene and the coloured LEDs were turned to white.

The Shot Settings

There were six shots taken on each of the two cameras and of each of the two scenes.

The 6 shot settings were as follows:

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash
1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash
1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops
1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops
1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash
1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash (this is technically a little overexposed but I really wanted to check the Lo. 1 without altering the other parameters too much)

D610 Colour & Greyscale Setups - No post pro changes applied.

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D850 Colour & Greyscale Setups - No post pro changes applied.

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

Below are some tight crops of varying elements of the two scenes from each of the two cameras. If you're viewing this on your computer browser then I've aligned the galleries so that the D610 and the D850 images sit side by side, making it far easier for you to compare the respective shots from each of the models.

D610

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D850

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D610

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D850

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D610

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D850

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D610

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

D850

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - With Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - No Flash

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash overpowered by three stops

1/8th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 200 - Flash underpowered by three stops

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 3200 - With Flash

1/125th Sec - f5.6 - ISO 30 (Lo.1) - With Flash

The Results

Camera Cataracts

So granted that's an awful lot of images and I feel they speak for themselves but I'll share my opinions below for those of you that are interested.

Let's just deal with the elephant in the room right away here. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the same image from both cameras, the D610 is on the left and the D850 is on the right. Frankly, I was utterly stunned, there's no other word for it and I triple checked the file data and file numbers as I was convinced these two shots were not taken under the same lighting conditions and with the same settings.

Below: The image on the left is from the D610 and the image on the right is from the D850

You need no technical acumen to be able to see the difference between these two files. The D610 looks like its been photographed through cataracts and if you're unsure of what cataracts are, let's take a look at the medical definition of them.

"A cataract is a clouding of the lens in the eye which leads to a decrease in vision. Symptoms may include faded colors, blurry vision, halos around light, trouble with bright lights, and trouble seeing at night."

This pretty much describes exactly what is going on with this D610 file. Halos around lights, faded colours and blurry. The D850 in comparison is clean, sharp and shows utterly incredible definition between very contrasting colours resulting in a stunning level of saturation and clarity. I can go on but the D610 is producing nothing short of a very muddied and cloudy image compared to what feels like a bright sunny day from the D850. It was these two images alone that closed the book on the 'was it worth the upgrade' discussion. Even if you don't read any more of this article, I feel you already have more than enough information to make the necessary decision.

Colour Clumping

In the images below, both shots were purposefully underexposed via not firing the flash. In Lightroom the images were brightened by three stops each to compensate and simply exported with no further adjustments.

Below: The image on the left is from the D610 and the image on the right is from the D850

This test really looks at colour latitude and it goes a long way in showing how underexposed colour are rendered out in the files. For example, your subject may be correctly exposed but the background behind may be purposefully underexposed, and this test will show how colours are captured in the shadow areas of a shot.

Take a closer look and you'll see the colours maintain their contrast far more in the D850 file (the right hand image) after they've been corrected. And even in the colours that weren't too underexposed to begin with, like the turquoise bottle at the top of frame, look at how the D610 (left hand shot) clumps colours together to the point that the text is now unreadable. This is how colour banding forms and there's far more colour definition in the D850.

Moire

One other thing that I'd heard talk of was the moire effect being far less noticeable on the D850. Moire is that odd optical illusion that happens when photographing tight patterns like fabric. The shots below are unprocessed crops of two correctly exposed files

Below: The image on the left is from the D610 and the image on the right is from the D850

In fairness to the D610, I can see very little difference between the two files where moire is concerned. Look at the crumpled white fabric at the top of this frame to see for yourself. Again, it's also worth noting the contrast halos appearing here again even though there is no colour involved. Look at where the grey paper meets the black paper and in the D610 file you'll see that frustrating cloudy effect once again. D610 file on the left, D850 on the right.

Exposure Latitude

Lastly, let's look at the exposure latitude and in the images below I've purposefully overexposed a shot by three stops and then reduced the exposure in Lightroom by three stops to compensate. This is a crude but effective method of forcing extremes in exposure in a single file to see how lights and darks perform when being badly lit. The images were exported with no further adjustments.

Below: The image on the left is from the D610 and the image on the right is from the D850

In fairness again there's very little difference in these two shots. The D610 shot is on the left and the D850 shot is on the right. The only noticeable difference is a slight increase in colour in the D610 due to the aggressive exposure compensation. This is very common and we're used to seeing it in high ISO images but it can be forced in tests like these too. Even with three stops of compensation, the D850 has very little, if any colour increase whatsoever in the pixels. The blacks and whites on the left and right are incredibly clean and the contrast is maintained which can be seen in the white fabric in the top left.

Closing Comments

In all honestly I can go on and on discussing the image quality differences at varying ISO's, why I'll never take my D850 off ISO Lo.1 and more, but as you expected, the D850 excels in all of them when compared to a camera from a few years ago. So was the upgrade worth it? Yes, and although I was initially very sceptical of the new D850 thanks in part to Nikons obscure and frankly very poor marketing methods of selling the 'quality of life' features over actual image quality! Thankfully this test has proven itself beyond my wildest expectations to be a significant upgrade for what really matters for photographers, image quality and not the damn tilting touch screen or improvements to the 'picture modes'!

The biggest factor by far is that cataract/haloing effect and the subsequent issues it produces. With all light seemingly bleeding and bouncing around on that old chip of the D610, it leads to a lack of contrast, a lack of saturation and of course and very significant lack of sharpness. Truth be told, I was aware of this effect happening in my images on my D600 and D610, but I always blamed the lenses and never the camera. I now know better and although I can't say if this problem was fixed in the D800 and D810 it's certainly fixed now in the D850.

I'd love to discuss these images further and although this article was supposed to be a quick camera test article, the results threw me way off and I had to investigate further, resulting in this monster article. If you're interested then I urge you to compare some of the other shots I've provided here too. Notably, look at how the two cameras perform at ISO 3200 and also look at how the D850 performs at ISO 200 compared to ISO 30 (Lo. 1). That quality at Lo.1 is nothing short of incredible which is counter to what I hear people saying about always trying to shoot at the native ISO for the best quality.

If you have any questions or points to add, I'd love to hear them in the comments below. Also if something doesn't make sense, I apologise but let me know and I'll explain it further or correct something if need be.

:WARNING: Let me save you some money, don't buy a D850, check out these cool, utterly unrelated alternative purchases instead.