Tips for lighting a LARGE group?

photobug

In a couple of weeks, I'm to shoot a group portrait of about 45 cast members of a play, on an auditorium stage. I've shot numerous studio shots, but never anything bigger than a handful of people, for which my lighting eqpt has been more than adequate. So, I'm wondering if there is anything special I need to do / be aware of, to light up such a LARGE group?

I have at my disposal two Flashpoint 1220A strobes (600 watt-seconds, GN of 252), one Flashpoint 620A strobe (300 watt-seconds, GN of 192), umbrellas for all, and a couple of reflectors. My initial thought is to put the 1220 strobes with umbrellas up high on light stands and at 45-degree angles to either side of the camera in front of the group, and perhaps use the 620 strobe behind them to help provide separation from the background (but not sure how effective that will be, since that would require a wide spread). I can't really get into the auditorium to do any test shots prior to that day.

One of my concerns is that to cover the whole group, the front strobes have to moved out farther away, which of course will make the light both weaker and less soft (neither of which is desired). It may well be "good enough", but not having tried this before, I'm not sure.

Are there any other concerns I *should* have, that I'm missing?

Can anyone provide any other tips on shooting a group like this?

thanks!!

PhotoLasVegas

Any way you can use the stage lighting? Then maybe just use your strobes very lightly as "fill" for the faces?

photobug

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

Any way you can use the stage lighting? Then maybe just use your strobes very lightly as "fill" for the faces?

Yes, I would imagine so. I've shot photos (of plays or dances) under stage lighting before, and I am aware of three problems with it:

• it's uneven -- some spots will be brighter that others -- hence my desire to use strobes for even lighting
• its color temperature is much yellower (~tungsten) than my strobes (~daylight), setting up potential problems due to mixed-color lighting. I suppose I could "gel" the strobes to more closely match the stage lights ... although I'd rather not have to deal with that.
• I have no control over the stage lighting. I can hope that I can arrange for someone to turn it on, but don't (yet) know who has access to stage light controls or how proficient those folks will be at manipulating them. (thanks for the reminder -- I need to ask the play director about this)

PhotoLasVegas

we shot a group of about 70 state court judges, taken in a banquet room at one of the conference centers here... we told them ahead of time this was NOT our forte... and we only had 2 strobes...

With some advice from one of our assistant photogs who is MUCH better at off-camera lighting than we are, we used the 2 strobes in a simple yet effective way...

Basically each strobe was positioned high (like 12' high), about 1/3rd from the left and the other 1/3rd from the right, about 10' behind the camera. The strobe camera-right was "aimed" to the left of the group, and vice-versa - so the light crossed and shot the opposite side. This seemed to give a nice even lighting and no bad hot-spots.

The other option he suggested (and we tried, but it wasn't quite as good)... was to shoot 1 strobe off the ceiling and basically try to light the entire room... then the 2nd strobe basically straight above the camera as "fill". I would think that would NOT work well for your shoot, in an auditorium, though.

photobug

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

we shot a group of about 70 state court judges... and we only had 2 strobes...
...we used the 2 strobes in a simple yet effective way...
Basically each strobe was positioned high (like 12' high), about 1/3rd from the left and the other 1/3rd from the right, about 10' behind the camera. The strobe camera-right was "aimed" to the left of the group, and vice-versa - so the light crossed and shot the opposite side. This seemed to give a nice even lighting and no bad hot-spots.

First, thanks for replying, and it sounds like your experience should be pretty applicable to my upcoming shoot! This "cross" arrangement sounds intriguing (despite advice to the contrary in "Ghostbusters" -- "never cross the streams!").

When you say "1/3 from the left and 1/3 from the right", do you mean inward from the left and right side of the group of subjects? For example, if the group was 21 feet wide, you positioned the strobes at 7 feet in from each side? Then you "toed them in" so that the left strobe lit the right 2/3 of the group and right strobe lit the left 2/3?

Offhand, it sounds like the center would then end up lit brighter than the sides, since it is closer to both strobes than the sides are (and is lit by both strobes). But I may be misunderstanding something about the setup.

I assume in this case that you went for an even (1:1) lighting ratio (both strobes set to the same power level)?

I was a little surprised that you were able to put the lights a whole 10' behind the camera ... but perhaps I just need to finish visualizing the setup. What focal length lens (and what size sensor) were you shooting with, if you recall? How wide would you guess the group was, and at what approx distance did you position the camera? (That should be enough for me to make a working drawing)

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

The other option he suggested (and we tried, but it wasn't quite as good)... was to shoot 1 strobe off the ceiling and basically try to light the entire room... then the 2nd strobe basically straight above the camera as "fill". I would think that would NOT work well for your shoot, in an auditorium, though.

No, the ceiling is so high (and far from bright white!) that any bounce would no doubt result in fairly dim light. Diffuse, yes! But dim :-).

PhotoLasVegas

photobug wrote: »

When you say "1/3 from the left and 1/3 from the right", do you mean inward from the left and right side of the group of subjects? For example, if the group was 21 feet wide, you positioned the strobes at 7 feet in from each side? Then you "toed them in" so that the left strobe lit the right 2/3 of the group and right strobe lit the left 2/3?

I assume in this case that you went for an even (1:1) lighting ratio (both strobes set to the same power level)?

.

yes on all cases.

I also thought that the center would be too bright, but for whatever reason, that wasn't the case. Was fairly even light and also some slight shadows to create some depth.

We shot with a 40d and it was a HUGE room so there was plenty of room for the strobes behind.

I don't recall specifically the distance from the group (from recollection, maybe 35 feet away?), but the group was very "wide" since they only wanted to go 2-rows deep (and who's to argue with a bunch of state court judges?). We used our Tamron 17-50 and while the photo is stored in archives I can't get to the exif data - but I think it was probably shot in the 25mm range.


As I mentioned before, we aren't the strongest at off-camera flash use, and we don't typically shoot large groups, so I'm sure someone else's opinion would be better (if someone says we're wrong, I'd agree with them! ).

Oh and BTW we do regularly shoot groups of 20-100 people at wedding receptions using only the 580exII flash on a bracket on the camera... and they come out pretty nice. Of course the expectations of that shot lighting-wise are much lower than what is probably expected from you on yours

photobug

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

I also thought that the center would be too bright, but for whatever reason, that wasn't the case. Was fairly even light and also some slight shadows to create some depth.

OK then, I'll give it a shot (both literally & figuratively). You can't argue with success :-).

We shot with a 40d ... used our Tamron 17-50 ... probably shot in the 25mm range.

So, moderately wide-angle (on a 40D). I'd prefer to shoot at a longer focal length to keep the perspective a little more natural, but good to know that wider is do-able if necessary. I could easily shoot from between the light stands or a little farther back and still not have them in the photo.

I don't recall specifically the distance from the group (from recollection, maybe 35 feet away?)

Wow, you got some great coverage from your strobes, if they were 10 feet behind the camera, therefore 40 to 50 feet from the subjects. (That distance also helps explain the lack of hot spots)

Oh BTW, what light modifiers were you using on the strobes -- umbrellas, dishes, ?

but the group was very "wide" since they only wanted to go 2-rows deep (and who's to argue with a bunch of state court judges?).

I hear you. I'm shooting much younger subjects, so it will be easier for me herd those cats into a tighter group than you could herd those cats .

You probably didn't have any kind of risers to work with for a back row and wouldn't have much luck getting a row of judges to pose on bent knees in front .

we do regularly shoot groups of 20-100 people at wedding receptions using only the 580exII flash on a bracket on the camera... and they come out pretty nice. Of course the expectations of that shot lighting-wise are much lower than what is probably expected from you on yours

I don't know about that -- brides can be very particular about their wedding photos! I just have to please 2 drama directors and a bunch of parents of 3rd-8th grade actors! ...But mainly, I want to be proud that I turned out quality work.

I sure appreciate the comments/suggestions.

R. Scott

I have been in your shoes! A few years ago I began volunteering to shoot plays at our local high school, and the cast picture sometimes involves around 45+ kids, just like this one (more play pictures here):




My lighting is almost exactly as PLV has described. Two Alien Bees B800's on 12 foot heavy duty lightstands (sandbagged for safety) with 60 inch umbrellas, both on full power. I stand between them, and they are probably 7-9 feet to my side. I will sometimes use three AB's - two to one side and one to the other - to get some modeling, but that just means more to stuff take down, and I'm usually under a crunch to clear the stage right after the shot. I do not cross my lights, but I do aim them slightly high to even out the lighting. If you don't do that, you may find that folks toward the front are more exposed than those in the back.

This is one of the few occasions where I drag out the flash meter, and I use it to be sure lighting is fairly even across the field before the kids are brought in. Things are too chaotic to try to adjust lighting once the kids are there.

As you note, perspective is something to consider, and I have thought about shooting from the theater and using a 70-200mm to flatten the view. However, doing that would mean losing my ability to effectively communicate with 45+ very restless teens, so I have chosen to remain on stage and shoot with a 17-55mm (the above shot is at 22mm). I have started bringing a step ladder so I'm not shooting from the floor, which helps with converging lines when shooting wide angle.

Another thing that you have to watch for is DOF. I suggest shooting at f/8, and you'll probably need to crank up the ISO to get there.

Lastly . . . be sure to post photos when you're done!

PhotoLasVegas

yes, please post!

Funny, my strobes are Alien Bees B800's also... and IIRC they were almost full power - and also used umbrellas - but they were 4'

I think brides vs. judges is just that we manage the bride's expectations... we offer an upgrade to use the 2 strobes at the reception (which most brides decide against)... so when they want to do a big group shot, we just tell them it will be "decent" but not great. We keep their expectations low What we usually hear is "Wow, that's a great shot especially considering it only took you about 2 minutes to shoot it". A group shot like yours, they will expect you to be there setting up way ahead of time, adjusting lights before they ever "pose", and then will expect more.

photobug

yes, please post [photos]!

Sure -- that's the least I can do, in return for your advice .

The shoot in on May 13, so I hope to post a sample back by the 20th.
[actually posted on the 14th :-) ... see my first posting on that date]

Thanks, guys!


p.s. Scott, you're right that one needs to be cautious about lighting those "in the rear" evenly with those "in the front". Raising the lights higher, and not tilting them down so much will help (but not entirely cure it). Tilting up (closer to level, "pointing" more toward the upper/rear rows) in theory would feather the light on those in the foreground a bit. And as you said, using a flash meter before all the actors are present should be able to make the lighting as even as it's going to get. (although they may be rehearsing on stage while I'm setting up, which could be interesting!)

If the rear is lit slightly dimmer than the front, as long as it's not off by more than a stop or so, I can even up the exposure in ACR and Photoshop afterwards -- but I would much rather get the lighting as close to ideal as I can when the image is captured.

ian408

I like PhotoLasVegas' suggestions for using a two flash setup. This would definitely be made easier if you're able to get ambient light from the stage lighting.

Best of luck to you!

JohnBiggs

You can light anything evenly if you pull the lights farther back. I suggest 16 feet or more for this. I have been thinking of writing a program that calculates proper placement(distances) of lights for an arbitrary size subject to cover the subject evenly. However I don't know the demand for a tool like this.

photobug

JohnBiggs wrote: »

You can light anything evenly if you pull the lights farther back. I suggest 16 feet or more for this.

Certainly!

In this case, in practice I'm limited by the distance to the front edge of the stage, which is where I expect to have to set up the lights. If I move the lights any farther back, I'd need really tall lightstands (auditorium floor is 4'-5' lower than the stage floor) and I might start struggling with diminished light (the inverse-square law working against me).

Also, the farther away the light source is, the harder the light gets. That probably isn't a huge issue in this case.

In lighting, it seems that we're constantly dealing with tradeoffs -- light output vs. quality of light vs. cost vs. portability vs. ...

I have been thinking of writing a program that calculates proper placement(distances) of lights for an arbitrary size subject to cover the subject evenly. However I don't know the demand for a tool like this.

It might be handy to have ... sounds like an iPhone/iPodTouch/iPad App to me (although I don't personally have any of those devices, just Macs!).

JohnBiggs

photobug wrote: »

Certainly!

In this case, in practice I'm limited by the distance to the front edge of the stage, which is where I expect to have to set up the lights.

So how far back can you get? What is the depth you are planning on? For 3 rows of ppl I would expect 2.5 feet.

photobug

JohnBiggs wrote: »

So how far back can you get? What is the depth you are planning on? For 3 rows of ppl I would expect 2.5 feet.

I don't yet know; a lot of this will have to be figured out "on the spot" when I arrive (because I can't take time off work beforehand to see the set they've built). The stage itself is at least 25'-30' deep-- but they will have a set in place and the 45 actors will be shot standing in front of (or in the midst of) the set. I don't know if I can simply arrange "rows" (which would be easiest for me) or if the Director is going to want them arranged in some other manner on the set itself.

My best guess is that I'll be able to place the strobes/umbrellas ~10' in front of the front-most actors. I'll want to place the lights fairly high, and as far from the actors as possible, to minimize light fall-off from the front-most to rear-most actors. (that could be partially compensated for in Photoshop afterwards, but I'd prefer to minimize post-production work)

JohnBiggs

Just working the numbers it looks like you will have 5 feet behind before the light falls a full stop. Raising the lightstand from 6 feet to 10 feet will effectively give you about a foot more distance. The distance between the lights is not something that could be told ahead of time because you will be making concessions for a potentially difficult lighting situation. However if your goal is to get as wide of a even coverage as possible across the stage with the first subject at 10 feet your distance between lights should be 15 feet.

photobug

JohnBiggs wrote: »

Just working the numbers it looks like you will have 5 feet behind before the light falls a full stop. Raising the lightstand from 6 feet to 10 feet will effectively give you about a foot more distance. The distance between the lights is not something that could be told ahead of time because you will be making concessions for a potentially difficult lighting situation. However if your goal is to get as wide of a even coverage as possible across the stage with the first subject at 10 feet your distance between lights should be 15 feet.

Thanks, John! I'll plan to do just that, then.

I could also place *3* strobes across the front, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, the 3rd one is not identical to the other two; it has a lower guide number so that might be tricky to balance (and might also be overkill). If 3 were used, I'd put the 620A in the middle, assuming slight overlaps from the 1220A's on the outside. ...But safest is probably to just use the two 1220A's, toed in to "cross", since that's been proven to work by PLV.

photobug

Example shot
Thanks for all your suggestions! As promised, below is an example shot.

I shot using PhotoLasVegas' "crossed strobes" technique (with umbrellas). I had both strobes on full power, raised about 10' high. Measured with a light meter, there was only 1/3-stop light falloff at the sides, which is pretty even lighting for a group this size. I think I was able to shoot at f/10 (which provided the needed depth-of-field), shutter 1/200, ISO 200 (lowest ISO on my camera). I was missing weight bags for the light stands, so to steady them I relied on the "MacGyver method" and taped the legs down to the floor with duct tape.

It turns out that the "set" was very simple for this play, just some background boards, which didn't take up much space in the back. The lighting worked out fine.

In retrospect, do I wish I had noticed that the background boards were off-center and had moved them to center? You bet! But because of the big rush on-site for them to get the photos shot quickly, that element didn't fully "register" in my brain at the time. (I could manage the "move" in Photoshop, but that would be a lot of work; the improvement just wouldn't be worth the effort.)

PhotoLasVegas

Very even lighting and no shadows on adjacent kid's faces! Whoot! Any way you can show a little higher res version? This one looks very pixelated, etc. and it's hard to see if there's any "depth", etc.

The only other thing that worries me is the "crop room" on the sides... most will want 8x10 or 11x14 of this shot and I hope there's enough room for that crop!

Overall looks like nice work, though!

photobug

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

Very even lighting and no shadows on adjacent kid's faces!

Actually, it wasn't perfect -- there was *one* face in shadow -- the boy just to the right of the girl in the green cape, toward the left side. I recovered that by brightening his face with a masked adjustment layer in PS. Given the size of the group, I didn't feel too bad about having to touch up *one* face. At least it was *showing* :-).

Any way you can show a little higher res version?

I have uploaded a higher-res copy (in posting above). It's near DGrin's file-size limit, though, so I can't go much higher here.

If you notice what appears to be slight over-sharpening on-screen (which is probably not visible at this size, but maybe someone with golden eyes might notice), that's because the image has already been sharpened for large prints (which requires more aggressive sharpening than on-screen display).

Speaking of sharpening, let me put in a quick plug for the most useful photo book I've ever read: Real World Image Sharpening, by Bruce Frazier. Actually, I read the 2006 edition of this book, took many notes, and created Photoshop Actions based on it. It wasn't until I applied the 3-pass sharpening techniques described in this book that my images finally appeared as sharp in print as I thought they should. (now I want to get the new 2009 "2nd Edition".)

The only other thing that worries me is the "crop room" on the sides... most will want 8x10 or 11x14 of this shot and I hope there's enough room for that crop!

Right you are -- the original is 18mp at 2:3 aspect ratio, but the image I posted above has already been cropped to 8x10 aspect ratio, which is an near to square as a printed image is gonna get. 8x10's at full resolution (probably more like 14mp after cropping). The image posted here is only about 1.6mp.

adbsgicom

You need to link the image and not attach it. Then you can have images that are much larger and of higher quality. Or just post a link to the image on smugmug, flickr or whereever you might have it hosted.

photobug

adbsgicom wrote: »

You need to link the image and not attach it. Then you can have images that are much larger and of higher quality. Or just post a link to the image on smugmug, flickr or whereever you might have it hosted.

Thanks for pointing that out; it's good info for DGrin'ners who may not yet know of that option.

In fact, the photos of this event (including dozens of actor's "head shots") are being posted on my SmugMug site -- however, they are password-protected because they involve images of children. I don't make full-res versions available for viewed/free downloading even there, because prints are being sold (with profits being donated to the play production).

ian408

Ya did good!

adbsgicom

photobug wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out; it's good info for DGrin'ners who may not yet know of that option.

In fact, the photos of this event (including dozens of actor's "head shots") are being posted on my SmugMug site -- however, they are password-protected because they involve images of children. I don't make full-res versions available for viewed/free downloading even there, because prints are being sold (with profits being donated to the play production).

Gotcha. I mis-parsed your id box, and misread your # of posts. I do like the final result!

ziggy53

I think it's a wonderful image, especially considering the time and help constraints you worked under. Good job. clap

photobug

ziggy53 wrote: »

I think it's a wonderful image, especially considering the time and help constraints you worked under. Good job. clap

Thanks, Ziggy! (can you see me blushing?)

"Help" constraints? What "help"?
Actually, the play Director was very helpful in herding the cats, er, I mean, arranging the actors, for the photos. She of course knew who all the characters were (I placed the lead characters toward the middle) and she knew everyone by name (much better than me saying "heh you in the brown dress, turn to the left a bit..." ).

I had to set up the strobes early before rehearsal, then let them rehearse uninterrupted for a while. Then I only had 45 mins total to do the actual shoot. I was figuratively and literally sweating up on that stage! (even though this was a volunteer gig at my kids' school)