Great video for starters to advanced students.

Hackbone · December 28, 2010

If you've not heard of Rod Evans please do a google. This guy is an amazing photographer and teacher. He is coming out with a how to video, (they all do at one point or another). But this guy can teach.

Here is the promo link. http://www.evanscreativetraining.com/sculpting.html

NeilL · December 28, 2010

Thanks for this, Charles. Good find! I have some hot lights (fluorescent - Excella Sprint 300), and I feel that I am beginning a bit of a personal journey with studio lighting so your post has come at a good time!

Neil

Qarik · December 29, 2010

just pre-ordered

NeilL · December 29, 2010

Qarik wrote: »

just pre-ordered

Qarik, do you have any plan to use continuous lighting? Do you have any product in mind?

Neil

Qarik · December 29, 2010

no continuous lighting..I suspect all the concepts are the same for flash. From a teaching/learning perspective continous lighting certainly has it's advantages. I am all self taught and I have spent a lot of money on equipment and adverstising haha..might as well spend some money on education

NeilL · December 29, 2010

Qarik wrote: »

I suspect all the concepts are the same for flash.

Certainly.

Thanks.

Neil

Hackbone · December 29, 2010

Think 1930's.......what beautiful lighting with antiquated equipment. It's what's six inches behind the camera that matters.

NeilL · December 29, 2010

Hackbone wrote: »

Think 1930's.......what beautiful lighting with antiquated equipment. It's what's six inches behind the camera that matters.

True. And how thick the wallet!

At over $200 for this tute Rod Evans is a challenge to the wallet, if nothing else!

Neil

aktse · January 3, 2011

I actually took a seminar with him recently when he visited the bay area and honestly, I was hesitant and doubtful walking in into the class; I pondered if I was wasting my evening and my money. I walked in thinking he was slick, was all social media, networking, facebook, etc. with photography being last. I assumed he was more flash than substance....

I walked out the room thinking that he's the real deal. He's a brilliant photographer, great with clients, loves challenges and a very good business man. His passion and vibe is different than that of a Joe McNally, but he knows the craft and can teach it.

From him, I learned that the next class that is one by Hanson Fong -- posing master.

I didn't realize it until afterward, but his lighting gear was delayed by UPS and did not make it in time for the seminar. While he usually uses *many* lights, he was stuck teaching with only two continuous lights and demo'ed various configuration after configuration without really losing a beat.

It was impressive to see him work....

From his seminar....

NeilL · January 3, 2011

Interesting aktse. Continuous certainly has a different feel.

Neil

Qarik · January 3, 2011

aktse wrote: »

I actually took a seminar with him recently when he visited the bay area and honestly, I was hesitant and doubtful walking in into the class; I pondered if I was wasting my evening and my money. I walked in thinking he was slick, was all social media, networking, facebook, etc. with photography being last. I assumed he was more flash than substance....

I walked out the room thinking that he's the real deal. He's a brilliant photographer, great with clients, loves challenges and a very good business man. His passion and vibe is different than that of a Joe McNally, but he knows the craft and can teach it.

From him, I learned that the next class that is one by Hanson Fong -- posing master.

I didn't realize it until afterward, but his lighting gear was delayed by UPS and did not make it in time for the seminar. While he usually uses *many* lights, he was stuck teaching with only two continuous lights and demo'ed various configuration after configuration without really losing a beat.

It was impressive to see him work....

From his seminar....

wonderful image april

aktse · January 3, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

Interesting aktse. Continuous certainly has a different feel.

It can have a different feel since you're not limited to the synch speed of your camera, but Rod describes continuous lighting shooting as shooting the 13th frame, but you constantly get the 13th frame instead of getting lucky on the rare occasion.

However, that feeling in the photo is due to Rod's style and not continuous lighting; he tends towards high fashion, high drama compositions and exposures. I have achieved a similar lighting pattern/mood using strobes as well.

The 13th frame is a film reference. Most people tend to tense up when flashed and in the film days, you're lucky if you get a 13th frame on a roll of film. Usually, the subject knew that the they're done after the 12th frame and facial and body features, etc. tend to relax after that. If you're lucky, you get the 13th frame, and that special unexpected relaxed capture.

According to Rod, with continuous lighting, you always get that and he constantly chats with the subject while shooting to the point where the subject doesn't really know when he's shooting and when he isn't.

He knows how to pose a subject and it's something I doubt you can learn from a book. Rod credits Hanson Fong's workshop for the skill which is why I need to take one of his classes. I've worked with another photographer who has been through one of his posing boot camps and I usually stand back and watch him work with my mouth wide open. I want to be that comfortable when posing people.

aktse · January 3, 2011

Qarik wrote: »

wonderful image april

I wish that I can take all the credit for it, but I can't.

I didn't set up the light (two lights with the hair light gridded) and that frame was actually shot from my seat.

Yes, my seat! It was such a standard setup that i didn't even shoot the setup!

Also, my initial exposure setting was completely different than Rod's. I shot a few frames while he was working, chimped a few frames, and thought they were nothing special. He was shooting wirelessly, and my jaw just hit the floor when the SOC frames popped up. They were magnificent. I looked at my friend, and both of us had this stunned looked on our faces.

I've set up and used that lighting pattern before (it's a basic two light setup with grid). Let's just say that I would never have thought to shoot the scene with his exposure settings or move the subject as adeptly. The key wasn't the lights, but knowing where to place the subject to the lights, his interaction with the model and knowing the look that he was going for.

After a few words to the audience, I adjusted and got that frame that I posted.

Hackbone · January 3, 2011

A very interesting experiment is to have a stationary subject. Your softbox is always the same distance from the subject. Stand four feet away from the rear of the softbox and take a flash reading and set your camera to that setting. Take the shot then have your subject walk toward the camera and stop at the middle of the softbox and take the shot, then have your subject walk toward you and stop at the front of the box and stop and take the shot. You will get three distinct shots from the one reading. I have a brief example of that I'll post tomorrow when I get to the studio.

NeilL · January 3, 2011

aktse wrote: »

I wish that I can take all the credit for it, but I can't.

I didn't set up the light (two lights with the hair light gridded) and that frame was actually shot from my seat. Yes, my seat! It was such a standard setup that i didn't even shoot the setup!

Also, my initial exposure setting was completely different than Rod's. I shot a few frames while he was working, chimped a few frames, and thought they were nothing special. He was shooting wirelessly, and my jaw just hit the floor when the SOC frames popped up. They were magnificent. I looked at my friend, and both of us had this stunned looked on our faces.

I've set up and used that lighting pattern before (it's a basic two light setup with grid). Let's just say that I would never have thought to shoot the scene with his exposure settings or move the subject as adeptly. The key wasn't the lights, but knowing where to place the subject to the lights, his interaction with the model and knowing the look that he was going for.

After a few words to the audience, I adjusted and got that frame that I posted.

Absolutely fascinating! Could you document the settings which made the shots jawdropping in RE's hands, please?

Neil

aktse · January 4, 2011

My photography background is one of sports photography, but I knew that if I wanted to continue to grow as a photographer, I need to know how to control and finesse the light. For the past two years, I've been kicking and screaming through my lighting eduction (i'm not kidding here).

Rod added a few tidbits into my lighting knowledge pot.

NeilL wrote: »

Absolutely fascinating! Could you document the settings which made the shots jawdropping in RE's hands, please?

The following are SOC frames that I grabbed to document the seminar from my seat. Note: The model wasn't posing for the audience and I'm only posting to illustrate exposure in relationship to the subject. I never planned on showing these frames to folks and were only for my private notes

However... you asked...

1. the general one light setup, ungrided

2. Depending on how much ambient you want, you get this

3. or this; they're exactly the same light pattern and the only difference is the exposure.

I'm actually at ISO 1600 for these previous two frames. Why am I at ISO 1600? It was really dark and I've been train to exposure for the ambient first, and then add one light, etc. and it was really, really dark. The only light in the room was the projector and the westcott spiderlites.

4. We quickly moved towards the standard two light setup with gird on one box; he would have used more lights if had them, but UPS had them hostage. Note: the exposure on my photos was whatever setting I used on the last frame and there is a second light in the photo....

5. Decent exposure, but nothing amazing

6. I killed too much of the ambient. If you look carefully, you would noticed that the model has moved; she was also asked to change her body angle, but not face angle. The shadows are much more interesting to me... There is less light and more shadow in her chest area which brings your eyes to her face.

7. I'm slightly under-exposed, but BAM! The lighting is starting to look good. The difference? I started using exposure settings closer to Rod's... I pretty much dropped my ISO and increased my shutter speed. The exposure settings were nothing earth shattering, but it was the knowledge that those settings with that light would resulted in a specific look/style/feel. It's decent for SOC, especially since she wasn't posing towards me and I shooting in my chair!

With an exposure bump, skin cleaning and sharpening (four minutes of post work), I obtained my final frame.

8. My image

The key is the relationship between the position of the light to the subject and how the subject is turned towards the light. I learned the entire body needs to be posed, and not just the face. In addition, exposure is critical to set the style/mood of the photos. In all honesty, most of the exposure settings are acceptable in the frames of the model, but the only really interesting ones are the ones in which I semi-killed the ambient with the model facing the light while the body is away from the light.

I hope this helps...

Qarik · January 4, 2011

everytime I see a photo that I like these days..they all seem to include a grid as part of the light. hmmm

NeilL · January 4, 2011

Great stuff aktse, many thanks for the info and the trouble you took.

I have to make an adjustment to my mental routines when reading how you describe the technique of lighting with continuous. With strobe you control ambient with shutter speed - faster less ambient, slower more ambient - aperture controlling the exposure due to the strobe (of course the two are additive on what is lit by both). But since continuous light is as continuous as the ambient your aperture and shutter are not likely to have the same values with continuous as in the strobe setup, am I right? And then ISO has to be thrown in, though I think ISO is likely to be a more constant factor between strobe and continuous, since it is sensitivity to the total of light captured, which is likely very similar at the close of the shutter in both cases, though the aperture and shutter settings to achieve that exposure are likely different, as I have said. Do you know what your camera settings were for the examples above (I note you mention that you began with ISO 1600).

So it seems to me to be quite different rules with continuous, more like shooting without added lights, but with the advantage of being able to shape the light more by varying intensity, spread, direction etc.

Just to check, there was no strobe at all used for these shots, correct?

Neil

NeilL · January 4, 2011

Qarik wrote: »

everytime I see a photo that I like these days..they all seem to include a grid as part of the light. hmmm

The grid is on the key, right?

Neil

aktse · January 4, 2011

Qarik wrote: »

everytime I see a photo that I like these days..they all seem to include a grid as part of the light. hmmm

I personally love grids and usually have a set with me along with a snoot, gaff, trigrip, but that's because I want to control and harness the light whether it's from a strobe, hot light, continuous light, flash light, window, sun, etc. I really think the goal is to have controllable accents.

And you can get really interesting images even without a grid.

Well, I think it's interesting portrait...

Note: she's not a model and is not accustomed to being in front of a camera. She's a friend of mine and came over one day after dinner to help me since I needed to test out a lighting setup for Help-Portrait. I moved furniture in my room, put up a background and grabbed a few snaps. I think it took longer taking apart my dining room than to grab the frames....

camera left, single AB w/octo

A grid is very, very useful, but it's about crafting the appropriate light for the situation and subject.

This lighting pattern and pose worked for the mood that I was trying to create.

aktse · January 4, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

...
But since continuous light is as continuous as the ambient your aperture and shutter are not likely to have the same values with continuous as in the strobe setup, am I right?
...
Do you know what your camera settings were for the examples above (I note you mention that you began with ISO 1600).

So it seems to me to be quite different rules with continuous, more like shooting without added lights, but with the advantage of being able to shape the light more by varying intensity, spread, direction etc.

Just to check, there was no strobe at all used for these shots, correct?

Neil

Light is light and I truly believe it does not matter where it comes from (sun, window, bare lightbulb, flashlight, LED, hot lights, strobes, continuous lights, hot flashes, fireplace, etc). The same physic principals applies and it doesn't matter the lighting source. It's like asking a person what camera they used to take a photo; in the end, the most important part of the equation is the person behind the camera.

Shutter speed controls ambient. Aperture controls overall exposure, always. And ISO controls sensitivity. Nothing changes...

With continuous lighting, you're not limited by the synch speed, can see exactly where the light is going, and not limited by the recycle time of the strobes (burst away). At the same time, you will not be able to over power the sun (don't even try), can be hot, has a color that you need to compensate for (color compensation is fairly serious because if you're mixing in anything else from any other source, like daylight, you're pooched) and they're much harder to gel (think big softbox sized gel sheets).

In the end, it doesn't matter how the photo was lit and if it was done correctly, you won't know that the light was crafted and created. The only person interested in the lighting patterns would be another photography that likes lighting...

For these shots, they were all lit by the westcott spiderlites. For most of the photos, they could have easily been lit by strobes and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I can link the EXIFs of the shots if you're interested, but they're nothing special; i was taking quick snaps from my seats to use as notes and was surprised to discovered that I had a decent frame in the end.

NeilL wrote: »

The grid is on the key, right?

I'm pretty certain that this is the setup shot and I didn't realize that I took it until I went back and checked the files.

If you look careful, you can dissect the setup.

From the lighting pattern in the setup shot and in the finished shot, it's gridded softbox on the hair/rim light at camera right because it's pointed back into the lens and there is a bare big softbox for the key since that light is feathered across her, facing fairly forward. The light from camera left has a much bigger spread than that of the light on camera right.

I hope you find this useful.

Qarik · January 4, 2011

aktse wrote: »

I personally love grids and usually have a set with me along with a snoot, gaff, trigrip, but that's because I want to control and harness the light whether it's from a strobe, hot light, continuous light, flash light, window, sun, etc. I really think the goal is to have controllable accents.

And you can get really interesting images even without a grid.

Well, I think it's interesting portrait...

Note: she's not a model and is not accustomed to being in front of a camera. She's a friend of mine and came over one day after dinner to help me since I needed to test out a lighting setup for Help-Portrait. I moved furniture in my room, put up a background and grabbed a few snaps. I think it took longer taking apart my dining room than to grab the frames....

camera left, single AB w/octo

A grid is very, very useful, but it's about crafting the appropriate light for the situation and subject.

This lighting pattern and pose worked for the mood that I was trying to create.

*nods* I do a a fair bit of shoot through umbrella stuff. The grids seem to really control fall off and spill..haha..maybe it's just natural progression of lighting complexity that I am getting attracted to.

Hackbone · January 4, 2011

If you don't have grids they are easily made out of black foam board or try using a gobo to block the light off areas you want to effect.

NeilL · January 4, 2011

aktse wrote: »

Light is light and I truly believe it does not matter where it comes from (sun, window, bare lightbulb, flashlight, LED, hot lights, strobes, continuous lights, hot flashes, fireplace, etc). The same physic principals applies and it doesn't matter the lighting source. It's like asking a person what camera they used to take a photo; in the end, the most important part of the equation is the person behind the camera.

Shutter speed controls ambient. Aperture controls overall exposure, always. And ISO controls sensitivity. Nothing changes...

With continuous lighting, you're not limited by the synch speed, can see exactly where the light is going, and not limited by the recycle time of the strobes (burst away). At the same time, you will not be able to over power the sun (don't even try), can be hot, has a color that you need to compensate for (color compensation is fairly serious because if you're mixing in anything else from any other source, like daylight, you're pooched) and they're much harder to gel (think big softbox sized gel sheets).

In the end, it doesn't matter how the photo was lit and if it was done correctly, you won't know that the light was crafted and created. The only person interested in the lighting patterns would be another photography that likes lighting...

For these shots, they were all lit by the westcott spiderlites. For most of the photos, they could have easily been lit by strobes and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I can link the EXIFs of the shots if you're interested, but they're nothing special; i was taking quick snaps from my seats to use as notes and was surprised to discovered that I had a decent frame in the end.

I'm pretty certain that this is the setup shot and I didn't realize that I took it until I went back and checked the files.

If you look careful, you can dissect the setup.

From the lighting pattern in the setup shot and in the finished shot, it's gridded softbox on the hair/rim light at camera right because it's pointed back into the lens and there is a bare big softbox for the key since that light is feathered across her, facing fairly forward. The light from camera left has a much bigger spread than that of the light on camera right.

I hope you find this useful.

Yes, great discussion, aktse, thanks again!

I guess the amount of light caught by the subject also depends on the size and power of the light. To me there seems to be very little spread of the key given its apparent intensity on the subject.

I look forward to doing some experimenting with a couple of small continuous lights I have.

Neil

Hackbone · January 4, 2011

All points that all need to remember and empliment. Don't forget how the light is diffused, how close or far it is to the subject and where the subject is standing in relationship to the beam of light, near the front portion, in the middle portion or in the back portion.

NeilL · January 5, 2011

This shot I posted recently elsewhere, and I'd like to show it here in relation to the use of continuous lights. It must be about as far away as you could get from the chiaroscuro-on-model's-face genre, which for all its beauty at times seems to me to draw attention to itself, rather than make a picture of a person, the model remaining what she is rather than who. I've recently remarked in other places that a trend in my preference for people lighting is becoming that it be fundamental to the success of the image (not just there because it is necessary) but invisible in that it is not the element in the image we pay most attention to. In the case of quite a lot of studiofied portraits the biggest takehome is the lighting, the subject is there as kind of a screen on which to show the light - you could swap subjects in and out randomly, the picture wouldn't change.

I don't have any real style developed yet in response to the misgivings I express above, but in discussing this image of mine I would remark on some distinctions. First that the model is male, but you will answer he isn't a model! And that's my point, it's not a model but a person. But had I used the chiaroscuro technique he would have become a model! Yes?

Second, the lighting in it cannot be distinguished from the subject, you don't see the lighting separately, yet you cannot imagine this image lit differently.

I don't mean to say that the lighting is perfect, but just that it is fundamental to the image yet "invisible". So I hope it illustrates my point. This image is lit with a flash on the backdrop, two continuous lights on either side of the subject's head, and a ringlight as fill on a stand off-camera almost directly in front of the subject. I would like to experiment more along these lines, I can think of improvements. I would be very happy for anyone to tear it apart, very grateful for having to look at it through different eyes, and to get suggestions from different minds.

Neil

NeilL · January 5, 2011

aktse wrote: »

Shutter speed controls ambient. Aperture controls overall exposure, always.

But consider this, if you use strobe and a long shutter speed you can increase the ratio of ambient to flash, but if you use continuous and a long shutter speed (same aperture) the ratio does not change.

Am I crazy?!

Neil

reyvee61 · January 5, 2011

Wow, very promising I must say...thanks for the link.

adbsgicom · January 5, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

But consider this, if you use strobe and a long shutter speed you can increase the ratio of ambient to flash, but if you use continuous and a long shutter speed (same aperture) the ratio does not change.

Am I crazy?!

Neil

No you are not crazy. Continuous becomes part of ambient (more controlled than the sun, but still ambient in terms of the light control equation). Strobe is very fast, and therefore not controlled by shutter speed (X-sync issues aside).

Hackbone · January 5, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

But consider this, if you use strobe and a long shutter speed you can increase the ratio of ambient to flash, but if you use continuous and a long shutter speed (same aperture) the ratio does not change.

Am I crazy?!

Neil

Maybe the word ratio is confusing but I'm not sure what you mean after the "but if you use continuous......."

I can be very slow at times.

adbsgicom · January 5, 2011

Hackbone wrote: »

Maybe the word ratio is confusing but I'm not sure what you mean after the "but if you use continuous......."

I can be very slow at times.

I took it to mean, if I'm shooting flash, and I change my shutter from 1/60 to 1/125, I drop a stop of ambient, but don't affect the flash, thus changing the ratio of ambient to flash. However with continuous lights, they are just part of ambient and thus also controlled by shutter speed, thus the ratio of light from the continuous light softbox versus any other ambient (such as window light) remains constant regardless of shutter speed.

Great video for starters to advanced students.

Comments