My experiment succeeded and I'm not happy.
What was I trying to do and why? Well, Clients will sometimes say to me during the planning phase of their portrait shoot that they think they’d like to be outside. My initial response is always to ask how an outdoor background will help tell their story. And then generally we move on to choosing an indoor setting.
But, sometimes there is a good reason to appear to be outside (eg. you are in environmental services or some other outdoors oriented business), so we need to be able to make that happen without necessarily going outside where too many things will be out of our control. Better to perfect the art of simulating outdoor light indoors, one of the holy grails of professional photography. The other requirement for successful imitation outdoor portraits is digital backgrounds, ideally shot specifically for portraits (ie. more and less out of focus for different lens focal lengths), which I have.
Some of these backgrounds were shot on sunny days, some in partial sun, and some on overcast days mostly by accident because the sun disappeared. The overcast ones I never really used because overcast light is not, to me, great for portraits (and you want the lighting on the subject to at least somewhat match the lighting in the background.)
But maybe I was wrong. (I wasn’t.) So after some thought I bought a new light modifier, set it up above camera sort of like the sky, but cheated a bit with the angle to avoid the dreaded “raccoon eyes” effect of straight overcast light (you’ve seen this, when skylight shines straight down causing eye socket shadows that make your eyes look like little caves), photographed myself and did the appropriate post-production. And while I think I achieved my goal of creating overcast light in studio, I’m not really sure I’ll ever want to do it again.
So what’s wrong with this photo? I love this background...that’s why I wanted to figure out a way to use it. But it's not ALL about the background!
First of all, although I ironed my linen shirt it I still had to retouch out a large, stubborn and unsightly wrinkle (annoying, and as you can see not the only one!). It’s also a bit baggy, and not a flattering shape. So, bad choice of wardrobe.
But a bigger problem for me was that I couldn’t smile. Because in this lighting I looked awful smiling. It was just not flattering at all and no I am not going to show you. But I was reminded why I avoid shooting in this kind of light. Unless it is understood and embraced that there will be no smiling, say because the subject is the author of a book on climate change or some similarly dire topic. Of course nobody HAS to smile, but as I often repeat, studies suggest people appear more trustworthy when they are smiling. In order for a business portrait to really serve you best, and do its job it should really do the opposite of warning people that you are not friendly and not interested in connecting. That certainly wouldn’t serve me as someone who works with people. (This post will be the only time I ever use this photo.)
One more thought on the “smiling” thing. While some people are not “smilers” or don’t view themselves as such, I’d encourage anyone having their business photo taken to be open to possibilities. If you feel a smile coming on during your shoot just let it happen. You don’t have to use that frame, but you never know what magic the photographer might capture if you just let yourself shine through unimpeded by self-censorship.
On that note, thanks for reading. I look forward to not using this lighting on you.
