FINALLY got to play in the studio :) (C&C)

divamum

Yes, more SP's, but unfortunately I'm the only model always available on my schedule ... :rofl Excuse the no-makeup, informal look ... this was a case of "grab the time while you're here and you have it" so I had to make do with the way I was!

This was literally just a chance to get in there, play with the gear, and see what I need to figure out in the next two weeks. I've landed a (sort of) gig in that the theater dept wants some shots for the students to use as headshots. I of course jumped at the chance (even if the brief of "Well, they don't need to be anything special - just something good enough to hold them till they can get decent professional ones done" has put my back up, or at least thrown down the gauntlet ).

In any case, having never used the lightmeter, the gear or anything else beyond my own DIY studio setup, I figured I better get a move on.

Talk about "give us the tools and the job is easy"! MAAAANNNN what a difference. What has taken me HOURS to figure out at home was a non-event with the right equipment (that said, I suspect without the experimenting I've already done, this wouldn't have been so easy, so it swings in roundabouts I guess). This was one White Lightning strobe and a large(ish) umbrella (maybe 42" or 48"?) off camera left, quite close, with me positioned about 5'-6' in front of some black seamless. What blows my mind is that I had no active reflector opposite the light - there was a white scrim propped on the wall about 5-6' camera right, but I'd have thought it was too far away to do much. However... the shots suggest otherwise (or is that because the light power was high enough and umbrella large enought to wrap some light?). The shadows are nothing like as hard and dark as the ones I've had to try and mitigate with my speedlight setup. :dunno

In any case, just playing. C&C of course welcomed!!

Scott_Quier

Oh, boy - I get to be the first to respond!!!

For "one light source" portraits - well done!

And, yup, the right tools make all the difference in the world. And I suspect you are correct - there's a learning curve no matter what you have to work with. That time you spent in learning the tools at home has stood you in good stead here though.

As for the reflector - I think what you are seeing is the result of using a larger light source. If I recall correctly, this is huge compared to anything you have previously had access to. The softer shadows are a direct result of the larger light source.

As you can see, you have quite a bit of light spill on the seamless. This is not, necessarily, a bad thing. If you want a gray background - there you have it. If you want a black one, you need to move a bit further from the background and move the lights closer to your model. The Inverse Square Law will then result in the 4 or 5 stop difference between the light on your model and the light incident on your background.

Can't wait to see what you do with another light or two on your subject (one for fill and one for seperation from the background )!!!

As for

Well, they don't need to be anything special - just something good enough to hold them till they can get decent professional ones done.

That was pretty rude! Your SP and other work shows you have the skills necessary to get the job done and with style! Except for the fact that you are using the school studio for the portraits, you could easily command $$$ for the work.

divamum

Thanks Scott!

Scott_Quier wrote:

As for the reflector - I think what you are seeing is the result of using a larger light source. If I recall correctly, this is huge compared to anything you have previously had access to. The softer shadows are a direct result of the larger light source.

Yes, MUCH bigger. My little softbox is only about 8x12". Next time I'm out there, I'm going to use the big softbox. Eventually, I"ll get brave enough to use the octobox - that thing is ENORMOUS!! They have a soft strip-box too, but I have no idea how one uses that yet...

As you can see, you have quite a bit of light spill on the seamless. This is not, necessarily, a bad thing. If you want a gray background - there you have it. If you want a black one, you need to move a bit further from the background and move the lights closer to your model. The Inverse Square Law will then result in the 4 or 5 stop difference between the light on your model and the light incident on your background.

Yeah, I spotted that at the time, but didn't have quite enough time to reset everything (which would have required clearing all the CRAP that people leave lying around. Don't get me started on how I feel about students not putting things away in a communal, open-access workspace.... :bluduh :nono)

Can't wait to see what you do with another light or two on your subject (one for fill and one for seperation from the background )!!!

I need to MAKE time to get back in there - I'm not nearly fluent enough with this stuff yet. What would you recommend as my next step - just key light @ 45degrees plus a diagnoal fill (which should have a ratio of about half the key light?) or...? All sugggestions welcomed. I think I can probably get in there 2-3x more before I have to shoot these actors, so I need to plan it out. Like I said, he threw down the gauntlet and these are going to be waaayyyy better than he's expecting if I have anything to do with it!!!

That was pretty rude! Your SP and other work shows you have the skills necessary to get the job done and with style! Except for the fact that you are using the school studio for the portraits, you could easily command $$$ for the work.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I hasten to add it was the theatre guy who said this, not the 'tog (who's a doll, and very encouraging). Ah well, the "client" is always right... I just hope I can produce some images which are enough better than expected that it surprises them

Swartzy

Here's a place to start:



You can lower the power of the bg light as necessary. Move your softbox in for softer light and adjust power setting. For close up head shots I like to stay at f/8.0 sometimes f/10. Otherwise if you are shooting 150mm to 200 mm you'll lose focus from nose to ear....it's all a matter of where you would like the OOF to begin. Using a higher mm in tight will give you a much more appealing look versus using a wider angle.

divamum

Swartzy wrote:

Here's a place to start:

You can lower the power of the bg light as necessary. Move your softbox in for softer light and adjust power setting. For close up head shots I like to stay at f/8.0 sometimes f/10. Otherwise if you are shooting 150mm to 200 mm you'll lose focus from nose to ear....it's all a matter of where you would like the OOF to begin. Using a higher mm in tight will give you a much more appealing look versus using a wider angle.

Thanks Swartzy! Is that bg light to separate subject from BG more, or to lighten the BG? If the latter, presumably this will be more effective on a NON black bg (I find the seamless black looks mucky gray at the best of times, so does one actually light it?).

Those shots were with a 50mm (because it's what I had with me), but I can shoot a bit longer - there's enough space in there to do that (luuuxxxuuuurrryyyyyy!!!).

Thanks for the tips!

Now, if I could just come to terms with how to read all the bells and whistles on the lightmeter... (learning curve, learning curve....)

Nikolai

Swartzy wrote:

Here's a place to start:

while there is nothing wrong with this setup, you can actually skimp on the gobo and use the reflector as one (by positinoing the bg light behind the reflector), thus making it play two roles at once, at least as far as it doesn't matter much where your bg light is coming from...

Swartzy

Nikolai wrote:

while there is nothing wrong with this setup, you can actually skimp on the gobo and use the reflector as one (by positinoing the bg light behind the reflector), thus making it play two roles at once, at least as far as it doesn't matter much where your bg light is coming from...

Yes Nik....very true..but hey...I'm having fun making diagrams in this program....:D:D:D

Hackbone

The definition on the shadow side of the face is that your have the umbrella close. The larger the light source and the closer it is to your subject the softer it is and the more it wraps around you subject. More the reflector in close to open up the shadows as you like.

Nice job for starting.....good luck with the gig.

Nikolai

Swartzy wrote:

Yes Nik....very true..but hey...I'm having fun making diagrams in this program....:D:D:D

+100
I love it too! I think I first saw Scott using it... Great diea and very handy!

WingsOfLovePhoto

Very nice! Good job with the one light definately. The only thing I notice...and it could be because I am on my laptop...the first one's background is a little more blue than black and casting your skin a little blue.. or did you use a gel? And...btw... I am very impressed how well versed you are in the language of photography and lighting.... I wish could express myself that way!

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

I need to MAKE time to get back in there - I'm not nearly fluent enough with this stuff yet. What would you recommend as my next step - just key light @ 45degrees plus a diagnoal fill (which should have a ratio of about half the key light?) or...? All sugggestions welcomed. I think I can probably get in there 2-3x more before I have to shoot these actors, so I need to plan it out. Like I said, he threw down the gauntlet and these are going to be waaayyyy better than he's expecting if I have anything to do with it!!!

Swartzy gave you a good place to start. The BG light is to ... D'oh ... light the background. This will cause it to seperate from the model a bit better. And, black seamless will work just fine. An exercise you may want to run is to figure out how to turn black seamless white and how to turn white seamless black. When you are ready for two lights on the model, let me know and I'll put up a diagram of a "standard" configuration.

divamum wrote:

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I hasten to add it was the theatre guy who said this, not the 'tog (who's a doll, and very encouraging). Ah well, the "client" is always right... I just hope I can produce some images which are enough better than expected that it surprises them

The client is not "always right." When they are wrong, you have the right to fire them. Life is too short to put with that sort of arbitrary grief. As for the "better than expected" thing - I have no doubts about that - you'll blow his socks off.

Doing decent lighting with just one light is easy. Check this one out...



I swear - just one light. I didn't even use a "proper" reflector - just a white wall to camera right.

divamum

Nikolai wrote:

while there is nothing wrong with this setup, you can actually skimp on the gobo and use the reflector as one (by positinoing the bg light behind the reflector), thus making it play two roles at once, at least as far as it doesn't matter much where your bg light is coming from...

Oooo... excellent - I get that. Obvious, really, once you put it like that!

Swartzy wrote:

Yes Nik....very true..but hey...I'm having fun making diagrams in this program....:D:D:D

HA! Boys and their toys (LOVE that prog. btw - I d'l'd it and sat here and played with it for a little while. Kinda reminds me of the software I used to remodel our kitchen )

Hackbone wrote:

The definition on the shadow side of the face is that your have the umbrella close. The larger the light source and the closer it is to your subject the softer it is and the more it wraps around you subject. More the reflector in close to open up the shadows as you like.

Nice job for starting.....good luck with the gig.

Thanks! It'll be a lot of fun I think. Just need to get my head around my options BEFORE I have somebody standing in front of me. I have no doubt all the SP practice over the winter holiday was what enabled me to do a good job on the shoot of my friend - I kind of knew what would work (at least a little bit) BEFORE I took the shot. Getting there, slowly.....

WingsOfLovePhoto wrote:

Very nice! Good job with the one light definately. The only thing I notice...and it could be because I am on my laptop...the first one's background is a little more blue than black and casting your skin a little blue.. or did you use a gel? And...btw... I am very impressed how well versed you are in the language of photography and lighting.... I wish could express myself that way!

Thanks Sandy! I'm still on an uncalibrated monitor (to be remedied next week - AT LAST!), and I'm sure my curves processing tweaked each slightly differently which would explain the inconsistent colour. The raw files match colourwise very consistently. Oh, and as for the jargon? Clearly I spend too many hours a day reading dgrin.... I don't really know what I'm talking about, of course, but at least I sound like I do

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

Swartzy gave you a good place to start. The BG light is to ... D'oh ... light the background. This will cause it to seperate from the model a bit better. And, black seamless will work just fine. An exercise you may want to run is to figure out how to turn black seamless white and how to turn white seamless black.

Any tutes on that around anywhere? Would make for excellent reading, even if I don't get a chance to try it

When you are ready for two lights on the model, let me know and I'll put up a diagram of a "standard" configuration.

Ah, go on - lemme have it now. If I mull over and get my head around it "in theory", I'll have made sense of it as well as the previous one by the time I'm out there again, so can try them both

I swear - just one light. I didn't even use a "proper" reflector - just a white wall to camera right.

Niiicee.... Is this a Strobist "corner headshot"?

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Any tutes on that around anywhere? Would make for excellent reading, even if I don't get a chance to try it

Not that I'm aware of.

divamum wrote:

Ah, go on - lemme have it now. If I mull over and get my head around it "in theory", I'll have made sense of it as well as the previous one by the time I'm out there again, so can try them both

I'll have a thing or two posted tonight - look for it between 5:00 and 6:00.

divamum wrote:

Niiicee.... Is this a Strobist "corner headshot"?

Very good! Yes it is.

Scott_Quier

As promised, here's a quick setup that will get you decent loop lighting, with a bit of short lighting thrown in. If you move the key light and the model's orientation to that key light around, you will get different effects.

Also, note that the key light is quite high. The intent is to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 degrees off the floor.

The fill light fills shadows as seen from the position of the camera.

The light behind the model can be set at whatever you like. The higher it's set, the closer to white will be the circle on the seamless (which is assumed to be black). The grid on this light is to restrict the size of the circle and to control the spill.

Of course, all light measurements are done from the position of the model. This setup will give you a good 2:1 lighting ratio (a difference of 1 stop will result in the key light being twice as bright as the fill).

Swartzy

Well....I thought it best to share my favorite, fail proof method Who needs shadows? rofl Sorry...I just HAD to do it.

Nikolai

Swartzy wrote:

Well....I thought it best to share my favorite, fail proof method Who needs shadows? rofl Sorry...I just HAD to do it.

jeffreaux2

Swartzy wrote:

Well....I thought it best to share my favorite, fail proof method Who needs shadows? rofl Sorry...I just HAD to do it.

Looks like one of those stand up tanning beds....

divamum

Scott - THANKS!

Swartzy - :haha:lol You know, I bet you could market that as combined studio shoot and tanning session.....

divamum

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Looks like one of those stand up tanning beds....

BWAAAAAHHHHAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

Jeff, look at the time stamps on our posts - we were writing at exactly the same time!!! That's hilarious!!

Nikolai

Reminded me of one of FotoDojo comics...

Elaine

Zack Arias has written about changing the color of the seamless.

divamum wrote:

Any tutes on that around anywhere? Would make for excellent reading, even if I don't get a chance to try it

divamum

Today's discovery #1 Newbies should assume extra time will be needed when setting up lights
Today's discovery #2 1 hr 20 minutes is not long enough to rig, shoot, and de-rig without feeling rushed
Today's discovery #3 Communal equipment often doesn't work - CHECK IT ALL BEFORE RIGGING

And today's burning question: when you're using a multiple light set up, which aperture reading (ie from which light) do you use to set your camera, or do you take an average? I'm assuming you set it to the key but just in case I'm guessing wrong.....

Yours in learning-the-hard-way frustration,
Divamum (who learned a lot today about hardwiring 3 lights into the remote, but didn't get any pictures good enough to share :cry )

divamum

Elaine wrote:

Zack Arias has written about changing the color of the seamless.

Oooo... Elaine, thank you! That is wonderfully interesting and very VERY helpful... and I seriously need to understand it now :giggle

Then again, at the moment I'll probably be happy if I can just figure out how to read the lightmeter correctly and get the $&!P#!Y@ plugs and cables to work properly (there was a broken strobe, but I didn't figure that out until I'd already got set up and started shooting, hence the frustration. Good thing it was only a practice shoot!). And that's before I even get to trying to work out what power to set the strobes on....

Can I go back to one speedlight and a reflector, please?! (J/k - I'm loving the chance to work in the studio, but I am still floundering with a LOT of information to learn before I can use this gear to its full capabilities!)

sweet caroline

I'm having so much fun hearing about your adventures in the studio! And, yes, I'm jealous. Just having some space to work in would be amazing. You'll be comfortable with all that studio gear in no time. Can't wait to see more pictures.

Caroline
P.S. I tried posting my collage again, so check back in that thread

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

And today's burning question: when you're using a multiple light set up, which aperture reading (ie from which light) do you use to set your camera, or do you take an average? I'm assuming you set it to the key but just in case I'm guessing wrong.....

Yours in learning-the-hard-way frustration,
Divamum (who learned a lot today about hardwiring 3 lights into the remote, but didn't get any pictures good enough to share :cry )

I'll tell you how I do it. I don't know if it's right or not, but it works very well for me .....

1. First set up the lights, one at a time, and dial them in to the power you want using the light meter from the position of the model to get the reading. I point the bulb of the lightmeter back towards camera position under the assumption that we are interested in knowing how much light the camera sees hitting the subject. Doing them one at a time ensures that the desired lighting ratio is established.
2. Now, turn on all the lights. Pop them once to make sure that they are all working and allow them to recycle to make sure they are up to full power.
3. Next, standing in the position of your model and with the light meter beside your face and on the "camera side" of your face ... take another reading. Set your camera to this reading. This is likely to be about 1/2 stop higher than your brightest light - that's OK, see then next step.
4. Now, put your first model in place and take a test shot - look at the histogram. If all is good, you should have a nice bell-shape curve peaking near the center. Since I like to expose to the right, I then open the aperture that 1/2 stop to move the curve up a bit (of course, I'll bring it back down in post ). Take another shot and view the histogram. You should be golden.

P.S. - You're not learning the hard way. You have a whole community of other photographers simply amazed at the progress you've made in recent months and cheering you on the whole way.:ivar (that last one 'cause we all love you so!)

divamum

Scott, after what has been possibly the worst week of my LIFE (lots of non-photographic stuff hit the fan), that warm fuzzy post was... well.... very warm and fuzzy. Thank you!!!!

Scott_Quier wrote:

1. next, standing in the position of your model and with the light meter beside your face and on the "camera side" of your face ... take another reading. Set your camera to this reading. This is likely to be about 1/2 stop higher than your brightest light - that's OK, see then next step.

Well big fat DUH. I can't believe that didn't occur to me. There I was taking three separate readings from each light and thinking, "Well... now what?!" Sometimes my ability to miss the obvious is pretty breathtaking rofl

I just need to give myself lots and LOTS of easy, unpressured time for setting up at the moment or I get flustered. It's new, I have no experience to draw on,I still don't know where everything is kept so I have to look for things, the studio cupboards are disorganised because so many people use the stuff and it doesn't always get put back properly, ... You get the idea. VERY glad to find this out now instead of when somebody's standing in front of me! I was really rushed yesterday (a student cancelled giving me an unexpected 90 minutes free, so I decided to try and nip in for a little while, GROSSLY underestimating how long it would take to set up the three lights and remote system), I'd forgotten my tripod AND remote so had to borrow the former (much nicer than mine, so no hardship there and use the self-timer on the camera which slowed things down, and I just didn't have time to be methodical and think things through in order, piece by piece. A good lesson for me when the only person I was inconveniencing was myself, so it's all good.

One final "techie" question: how do I know on what power to set the lights themselves? These were the 1600's (which I gather are pretty nuclear?). Does the lightmeter tell me or is that something you just figure out, or is there a rule of thumb, or...? And, for that matter, which wattage strobe is recommended for what purpose(s)?

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

One final "techie" question: how do I know on what power to set the lights themselves? These were the 1600's (which I gather are pretty nuclear?). Does the lightmeter tell me or is that something you just figure out, or is there a rule of thumb, or...? And, for that matter, which wattage strobe is recommended for what purpose(s)?

Final question?? - I doubt it

First, decide what aperture you want to shoot at. Then set your key light to that. There's some sort of power adjuster on the back of the flash. Take a light reading. Is it right? No, adjust the power and do it again. Repeat as needed.

Move on to the next light. Decide what lighting ratio you need/want between the key and this one. Dial it in.

Next light.

Turn them all on and take the reading.

Etc....

As for what aperture you want to shoot at - which is, I think the basic question you are asking .... well, assuming you want to blur the background a bit, the more more room you have between you background and your model, the smaller the aperture you can use. Remember, the sweet spot on most lenses is somewhere between f/5.6 and f/9 or f/11 - usually pretty close to f/8.

Wattage - Within reason, more is better. But, usually, strobes only have a 5-stop range of adjustment. If one were working in a small space, a 1600 might not be able to dial down low enough to make the photographer happy. Aside from that, a good light meter makes the question kinda moot. You dial in what you need and start shooting.

Matt S

Scott's approach works well, but there is another way that can help with understanding and setting the other lights. Work backwards (yes stole the idea from strobist). Set your desired aperture for the shoot, now set the background light and dial it in where you want it (light or dark or right in the middle it's up to you). Next add the hair/kicker light, adjust it as needed for effect. Same for fill light (if your not using a reflector for this). Finally set the main and adjust it to your working aperture.

the reason for working this way is that it is easier to see the effect of each of the lights if you don't have the main effecting the shot. It allows you to really see what each of the other lights are doing since your working up from black instead of down from the proper exposure. I hope that makes some sense.

Another way is to set each light on it's own, same procedure just turn off each light after you set it. Turn them all on when ready and shoot.

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

Final question?? - I doubt it

BUSTED!!! (researchaholic... MOI?! )

As for what aperture you want to shoot at - which is, I think the basic question you are asking .... well, assuming you want to blur the background a bit, the more more room you have between you background and your model, the smaller the aperture you can use. Remember, the sweet spot on most lenses is somewhere between f/5.6 and f/9 or f/11 - usually pretty close to f/8.

Wattage - Within reason, more is better. But, usually, strobes only have a 5-stop range of adjustment. If one were working in a small space, a 1600 might not be able to dial down low enough to make the photographer happy. Aside from that, a good light meter makes the question kinda moot. You dial in what you need and start shooting.

Actually, I was thinking more of the actual power setting for the strobe, adjusted via the strobe's controls - half, full etc etc. Aperturewise I've been using 5.6-11 since the bg is clean and I don't "need" the extra light opening up would grant me (and since I was doing SP's and having trouble focusing, I just focused on a bag at f11 and then switched off the AF - the tighter ap meant it was close enough for my purposes; I'd probably open up a bit more if I was behind the camera, just because I like the look it can give more). No, it's determining how high to set the actual strobes themselves before starting the process, and from what you say there's a wee bit of trial and error involved in that (at least until I develop my own "rules of thumb" for particular situations) so I guess I've been on the right track without knowing it....

And yes, I am learning to LOVE the light meter. Stand there, press the button and it tells me exact what to do. Me likey I can see that will now be added to my neverending Shopping List ...

divamum

Matt S wrote:

Scott's approach works well, but there is another way that can help with understanding and setting the other lights. Work backwards (yes stole the idea from strobist). Set your desired aperture for the shoot,

This is how I've been doing it - I'm still such a novice with the meter (we were shown how to use it and given some basics, but ACTUALLY doing it is a whole different ball 'o wax, as I'm discovering!).

now set the background light and dial it in where you want it (light or dark or right in the middle it's up to you). Next add the hair/kicker light, adjust it as needed for effect. Same for fill light (if your not using a reflector for this). Finally set the main and adjust it to your working aperture.

the reason for working this way is that it is easier to see the effect of each of the lights if you don't have the main effecting the shot. It allows you to really see what each of the other lights are doing since your working up from black instead of down from the proper exposure. I hope that makes some sense.

Another way is to set each light on it's own, same procedure just turn off each light after you set it. Turn them all on when ready and shoot.

Ok, this is encouraging because that's kinda sorta what I was doing, I just made the mistake of setting up the WHOLE rig without testing each individual lantern (which is why I didn't clue in that one of them wasn't working properly until I'd already run out of time to do anything about it). I know now that I should set up each lamp COMPLETELY and test it before adding the next one. Pretty obvious, really, so the moral of the story is: Do. Not. Try. To. Rush. Once I know how to do it, THEN I can cut corners for speed

Thanks!