Shooting the Boss at work

[stephentaylor]

Hi,
I have been asked to take some 'boardroom' photographs of one of the senior directors in our company (a household name) for a company newsletter. I plan to take them in the boardroom, which has a lot of window light.

I haven't done this before, can anyone give me any tips on my method please? Basically I have a manual Pentax S3 with 50mm and 135mm (too long?) lenses and Minolta Dynax 500si with built in flash. I think I would prefer to avoid flash but how would I get the correct lighting, like you see in the company brochure or annual report? Do I need a table top studio lighting set up? Would a single off-camera flash work? Should I rely on existing light? I know that indoor lighting has a tungsten effect...

I was also thinking of having him stand leaning back against the window, kind of informally, but would I get window reflection or shadow?

Tks!!
Steve

[Lounge Lizard]

Try a few different types of shot and see what works best when you see the results.

Window light will be good as long as there is enough but use a reflector to fill in the shadows. Maybe your company has a white projector screen that you can set up as a reflector on the side opposite the window. I like making use of reflections in polished board room tables so shooting down the length of the table is one thing you should try.

By all means supplement the light with flash but unless you have the equipment of are sufficiently experienced with flash, I'd suggest using the flash as a fill light only and even then, try to bounce it off the ceiling (assuming that it is white and not too high). This will avoid unwanted reflections or 'hot-spots'. Use a lens hood.

Check the backdrop. Avoid flip charts and TVs. Wood panelled walls and paintings suitably out of focus are nice and maybe a shot two with the company logo or other company feature in the background. Do shots of the director with (formal) and without (less formal) jacket on.

Use a professional portrait film rather than standard colour film as it has less contrast and does a better job with skin tones. If the light is good, you might get away with ISO 160 but I suspect that you will need ISO 400 and won't be too much of a problem because I guess that the image will be quite small in the newsletter. Get a pro lab to process the film and produce prints and pass all the costs for film and D&P to your company as expenses. I assume that this is being done in compnay time so they won't pay you extra for that.

As for other ideas, I can't offer much thought as I would need to see the room to see what I could do with it and your subject.

[Zou]

The stereotypical 'boss' shot involves taking a low angle and looking up (so it looks like he's looking down, and powerful) but that may not always be appropriate.

It may be worthwhile taking a digital compact too, just for 'test' shots. Take a few and ask which he likes, and then get those shots on film.

[stephentaylor]

OK thanks to both for your help. I'm going to take the shots you suggested, I'm also going to have a go with fill-in flash and also try some off-camera too, bouncing the light. I'm sure life will be easier if it's a bright day outside and there's more ambient light, enough to avoid flash.

I'll let you know how I get on (hopefully keep my job!).

Steve

[Brian]

Yes you can get away with bright sunshine if you are using a north facing window, otherwise you want an overcast day. You can use a reflector....if you must, personally never used one apart from holding a bit of paper on the odd occasion to impress the model that I knew what I was doing.

My boss, Leica Digilux2 at 50mm and 100ASA handheld, no other lighting. No post processing apart from re-size.

[beejaybee]

Wish my boss was as smart as yours!

[stephentaylor]

Thanks Brian,
So if you knew what you were doing with a reflector, where would you hold it? For example, on the picture you put (very nice by the way), where would you put the reflector if you chose to us one?

Tks
Steve

[Gordon_McGeachie]

You put the reflector on the other side to bounce light back onto the subject to fill in what would normally turn out to be shadows/the dark side.

[spinno]

..sorry misunderstood the meaning of the title...
Was going to suggest .44 Magnum, most powerful hand gun in the world

[Brian]

The .44 Magnum is no where near the most powerful, try a Smith and Wesson 500, and there are others. Annie pre Dunblane had a .44 with an 8 3/8" barrel, it was a pussy.

Gordon has given you the gen re a reflector. But get the exposure right and for the sort of tonal range you should be after the reflector is no more than an incumberance ( blimey, haven't used that word for a long while) Just imagine a tighter crop around the lady.

[stephentaylor]

OK well I tried a few test shots at lunchtime, but as i'm using film I'll get the results tomorrow. The light was poor so I had to revert to flash and also overhead light. Problem with the latter is that I wasn't using tungsten balanced film. I like the shots you showed but I think I'm going to need a much more light.

Steve

[Brian]

I think I'm going to need a much more light.

A tripod would be more controllable.

[stephentaylor]

Thanks. One final question. I took a reflective light reading and an incident light reading by the window. The incident light reading, as I expected, was around 1.5 stops lower (ie less light) than the reflective reading. I expected this, because the reflective reading takes in light from all of the window and area around? Am I correct in thinking that if my subject was standing by the window and I used the reflective reading to take the shot, then my subjects' face would be underexposed? Steve

[Rhys_Hardwick]

That all depends on what area the reflective meter covers. If a bright window falls into the area the meter covers, it will suggest a darker exposure.

An incident reading, taken putting the meter near the face pointing at the camera, will give you a reading of the light falling on the face, therefore giving you a 'correct' exposure.

I say 'correct', as you may want the face to be brighter or darker than this.

Top Tip: Bracket. Then pick the one you like the best later.

[stephentaylor]

Well I said I'd let you know how I got on. It was fine, there was enough natural light with just one set of overhead spots on. The company is going to use my results. At one point we had the Nobo flipchart on the boardroom table acting as a reflector.

One observation though. Brians shots are as sharp as a needle. Mine were grainy, almost like not exposed enough? Would that be a lack of ambient light? I used 400 & 800 film. I am certain it's not film grain, more to do with exposure or tungsten lighting. Any ideas? Tks

[Rhys_Hardwick]

You will have to expect some film grain with ISO 400 and 800. Why don't you post some pics (and poss full res crops) so we can see.

And, Congratulations. Well done on getting them published.

[stephentaylor]

Thanks Rhys. But how do I paste an image in to my message like Brian has above?

Tks
Steve

[Rhys_Hardwick]

When you send a reply, click on the 'Image' link under the text box, and type in the ULR of the image. You guessed it, it has to be online first, and then you link to it. Check out

How to post images

for more information.

HTH

[stephentaylor]

Hi. Think I've got it. How is this? Do you see how for example how the window surround is not sharply defined? I was using F4 I think or F2.8 but even though I still think the whole thing is just not SHARP..?



Tks
Steve

[Rhys_Hardwick]

Hmm, to me, it looks as if the plane of focus is at the eyes, the nearest eye, in fact. That is good! At such a small aperture, the DoF is only going to be 30cm, at most, and so you will have a blurred window. In my opinion, the more blurred and indistinct the background, the better.

The caveat being, of course, is when the background adds to the photo, in which cases you may want it sharp also. If so, stop down to around f/8 or more.

Forgive me if I am preaching to the converted, but if you want more info on aperture and DoF, and the basics on photography itself, get a good book or have a look on the internet. Also, look up a depth of field table for your lens (try here).

Hope that has helped.