Portrait of Dale.

Jabfinger · January 30, 2014

Was working on lighting today and Dale was kind enough to sit for me. The background did not go all the way black so I touched it up in post. Not sure if it shows or not. C&C on the shot would be appreciated and advice on the best way to get the background completely black, next to getting it right in the camera. It looked right on the camera screen I didn't notice it until I viewed it on the computer monitor

Gary752 · January 31, 2014

Give this a try. Place subject 7 to 8 feet in front of background. Set ISO to 100, and shutter speed to your flash sync speed (1/200 or 1/250), and your aperture to f 5.6. Now place you flashes about 6ft from subject, in manual, and at 1/8 power. You should have a near perfect exposure of your subject, with a black background. I learned this on Creative Live by Scott Robert Lim.

GaryB

Jabfinger · January 31, 2014

Thanks Gary752. Sounds like a good formula but truthfully my lighting setup is based on CLS at least for the main light. Two lights used here. The main(snooted sb-700 using CLS) shot through two 5x8 scrims(flagged from the background or at least I thought they were) and a hair light(sb-700 manual). CLS seems to work great for me and the background was just a little bit off. I was able to make the background darker by lowering the black level with curves adjustment in post but by doing so I also changed her color a bit and made the shadows on her face a bit darker. Maybe I should be using layers and masking her but probably just need to break down and buy a larger black backdrop

Gary752 · February 2, 2014

The settings I gave earlier should work with CLS. All you will be doing is eliminating ambient light, and exposing your subject by flash only. The light fall off from the flash should not reach the background, thus a black background.

GaryB

divamum · February 2, 2014

I have to say Gary that I'd question putting a flash 6ft away unless the modifier is HUGE - the light will become rather harsh. I tend to use my speedlights - with a 3'x2' softbox - just out of frame, so sometimes less than a foot away from the subject. Running at flash synch speed or above will definitely block ambient, however, and is a great thing to use when you know you want to knock out everything except flashes

On the shot above, I feel like your subject is just too dark. If you pull them further away from the black background, you'll find that light falloff does the trick for you. If not, layers, as you say - sometimes I'll even put a black fill layer over the top to make it "richer" (curves and brightness/contrast will do the job too)

jonh68 · February 2, 2014

I also disagree with having the light that far back unless you have a huge modifier. Your pic is underexposed so you need more light or bring up exposure in post. Either learn how to get the black background in post with layers or get a black background. You don't want to sacrifice IQ of the subject for the sake of the background. If using softboxes you want the light as close as possible as a general rule.

Gary752 · February 2, 2014

divamum wrote: »

I have to say Gary that I'd question putting a flash 6ft away unless the modifier is HUGE - the light will become rather harsh. I tend to use my speedlights - with a 3'x2' softbox - just out of frame, so sometimes less than a foot away from the subject. Running at flash synch speed or above will definitely block ambient, however, and is a great thing to use when you know you want to knock out everything except flashes

On the shot above, I feel like your subject is just too dark. If you pull them further away from the black background, you'll find that light falloff does the trick for you. If not, layers, as you say - sometimes I'll even put a black fill layer over the top to make it "richer" (curves and brightness/contrast will do the job too)

DIVA, remember 6 ft is approximately arm lengths (both arms) away, which will be just out of frame. With the settings I gave, you can place the subject in front of any background, and it will be black. The ISO and shutter speed alone will create a total black frame, and the flash will expose the subject. Check out Scott Robert Lim's site on SmugMug. Most of his photos are shot with a bare flash, and on occasion he might use an umbrella, or use an LED video light. Scott Robert Lim taught a workshop on Creative Live on lighting, which I purchased, and tried it on some products from work, and it worked! Click Here to view the thread where I posted the results of this technique. The main thing to remember is that ISO and shutter speed control ambient light, and apeture controls the flash. If your subject is slightly over exposed, lower the flash power setting, or raise your apeture setting to get the desired effect. Remember, this is for using your flash in manual mode, not TTL. Also, another thing to remember, if you want to place your flash at 3ft instead of 6ft, lower your flash power 2 full stops, or raise your apeture 2 full stops if you are already at the lowest setting. You will get the same results.

GaryB

Gary752 · February 2, 2014

jonh68 wrote: »

I also disagree with having the light that far back unless you have a huge modifier. Your pic is underexposed so you need more light or bring up exposure in post. Either learn how to get the black background in post with layers or get a black background. You don't want to sacrifice IQ of the subject for the sake of the background. If using softboxes you want the light as close as possible as a general rule.

Read my reply to Diva. 6ft is arms length away, which is just out of frame. Also one needs to remember that a light modifier added to a flash robs 1 to 2 stops of light, which requires using a higher power setting. If someone is on a shoot and on their last set of batteries, you will need to conserve power as much as possible. Also, just to let you know, Scott Robert Lim is a WPPA Master Photographer, so I would assume he knows what he is talking about. That was one of the reasons I purchased his Creative Live course, and gave it a try.

GaryB

divamum · February 2, 2014

Not doubting what you're saying, but I do usually have my lights significantly closer than that.... usually 12-24" away from the face; sometimes I have to clone a bit of the modifier out of the corner of the frame because it's so close! 'Course, part of this is because my space is so small, but even when I have more room I do tend to put the light as close to the subject as I can.

jonh68 · February 2, 2014

Gary752 wrote: »

Read my reply to Diva. 6ft is arms length away, which is just out of frame. Also one needs to remember that a light modifier added to a flash robs 1 to 2 stops of light, which requires using a higher power setting. If someone is on a shoot and on their last set of batteries, you will need to conserve power as much as possible. Also, just to let you know, Scott Robert Lim is a WPPA Master Photographer, so I would assume he knows what he is talking about. That was one of the reasons I purchased his Creative Live course, and gave it a try.

GaryB

I did read your reply to Diva and I still stand by my remarks. 6ft isn't arms length, it is a full body. Using a softbox at 6ft would require a huge one to get soft light. At 6ft it becomes harsh, direct light which is nice if someone is going for that look. However, most people are going to be better off being shot in softlight. Its one thing to shoot drill bits and another to shoot portraits.

I'm like Diva, I have my light when using modifiers so close I'm cloning them out of frame sometimes. For closeups they are sometimes within 2ft which is arms length.

If someone is having to compensate for low batteries, then they need to plan better have more batteries.

Gary752 · February 7, 2014

divamum wrote: »

Not doubting what you're saying, but I do usually have my lights significantly closer than that.... usually 12-24" away from the face; sometimes I have to clone a bit of the modifier out of the corner of the frame because it's so close! 'Course, part of this is because my space is so small, but even when I have more room I do tend to put the light as close to the subject as I can.

jonh68 wrote: »

I did read your reply to Diva and I still stand by my remarks. 6ft isn't arms length, it is a full body. Using a softbox at 6ft would require a huge one to get soft light. At 6ft it becomes harsh, direct light which is nice if someone is going for that look. However, most people are going to be better off being shot in softlight. Its one thing to shoot drill bits and another to shoot portraits.

I'm like Diva, I have my light when using modifiers so close I'm cloning them out of frame sometimes. For closeups they are sometimes within 2ft which is arms length.

If someone is having to compensate for low batteries, then they need to plan better have more batteries.

When I say arms length, I'm referring to both arms outstretched. Most flashes are rated at 6ft., like the Nikon SB600, and the Strobie 130's. Most of the newer ones are rated at 7 or 8ft. It is a known fact that by adding a light modifier to a portable flash, you are going to lose 1 to 2 stops of light, depending on the modifier. Because of the inverse square law, the light fall off from a flash at 6ft is going to be almost the same as a flash with a modifier at 3ft, with the same power setting. If you move from 6ft to 3ft without adding a modifier, you would lower your flash power setting by 1 to 2 stops and basically have the same exposure. If you were already at your lowest power setting and needed to go lower, you can raise your aperture 1 to 2 stops to get the proper exposure. Remember, years ago, they didn't have soft boxes, grids, or even umbrellas. Most had a cloth type measuring tape attached to their stobe and just held that out to their subjects face and got the distance they needed for the power setting they used for a proper exposure.

GaryB

jonh68 · February 7, 2014

Gary752 wrote: »

When I say arms length, I'm referring to both arms outstretched. Most flashes are rated at 6ft., like the Nikon SB600, and the Strobie 130's. Most of the newer ones are rated at 7 or 8ft. It is a known fact that by adding a light modifier to a portable flash, you are going to lose 1 to 2 stops of light, depending on the modifier. Because of the inverse square law, the light fall off from a flash at 6ft is going to be almost the same as a flash with a modifier at 3ft, with the same power setting. If you move from 6ft to 3ft without adding a modifier, you would lower your flash power setting by 1 to 2 stops and basically have the same exposure. If you were already at your lowest power setting and needed to go lower, you can raise your aperture 1 to 2 stops to get the proper exposure. Remember, years ago, they didn't have soft boxes, grids, or even umbrellas. Most had a cloth type measuring tape attached to their stobe and just held that out to their subjects face and got the distance they needed for the power setting they used for a proper exposure.

GaryB

We get the technical implications. The practical applications of using softboxes and modifiers is to manipulate the light and soften it. At 6ft, if one is using softboxes, it negates the reasons to use a softbox in the first place unless it is huge.

When using softboxes, the closer you get the better. All we are saying is if you use softboxes for your light, moving it back 6ft is bad advice because it negates the very reason for using a softbox to begin with.

Here's an example. I posted these two shots and some people made the comment they liked the first one over the second one because the second looked flashed. Both pics I used flash. The first one I used a modified flash just inches away from my niece's face, and a second unmodified flash was used camera right to give a highlight over her body. The second shot I used the modified flash but I had pull the modified flash farther back to around 6ft due to the nature of the composition. Nothing changed with the light modification other than moving back.

Qarik · February 10, 2014

Get closer. It's not just the strength of the light...it's the angle of approach. The closer the modified light the larger the less shadows overall. For this kind of shot, some kind of light from just behind her and camera right would've given her hair more separation from the dark background

D'Buggs · February 12, 2014

Inverse Square Law.
Google it.

Gary752 · February 12, 2014

http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/rules-for-perfect-lighting-understanding-the-inverse-square-law--photo-3483 This one makes it easier to understand.

GaryB

Portrait of Dale.

Comments