 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Portrait lighting question ...
Thanks everyone for your comments on my first portrait attempt. Since then I popped into my local hardware store and picked up a couple of tripods with twin 500 watt halogens mounted on each - so 2000 watts of light in total. Trying them out I sat the kids on the couch (at "11 O'Clock and 1 O'Clock positions") and setup the lights at "4 O'Clock and 8 O'Clock positions" (about 2.5m away from my subjects) I kept my trusty 420EX switched on for "fill in" purposes. I was a little surprised that inspite of 2000W of light beamed upon my subjects, and camera set at F5.6, 1/15th sec was still required for correct exposure - I was anticipating needing something much faster, so that was my first surprise. 2nd surprise is that each set of lights is projecting a shadow behind their heads onto the wall - can anyone give me a few pointers as to what to do about it? I fired off a few bursts to the point where my 420EX couldn't cycle fast enough which gave me the unintended opportunity to compare the lighting with and without the fill in flash - to my surprise the shots without the fill in flash were considerably darker, and of course had more shadow - so to eliminate the shadow it's occured to me that the fill in flash needs to be strong enough to obliterate the shadow of the halogens, but not sure if I'm on the right track or not. Other possibilities I've thought of are getting some kind of diffuser for the lights - or positioning them more in front of the subjects - or try for the complete opposite and try to bounce it off some reflective walls. Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? > Thanks everyone for your comments on my first portrait attempt. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? As a start, how are your lights positioned? For one thing, it sounds like the light is scattering and possibly hot spotting, too. 2000 watts should be enough, especially if there's other room lighting. Diffusion is nice as it reduces glare in the photo, but it also reduces light transmission. Bursts? Is this a camera or a machine gun? If you've ever checked out a pro portrait set-up, you'll note there's a low level light behind the subject that is pointed at the backdrop. It is closer to the shadows, thus not as strong as the main lights. Try: http://www.dvformat.com/2002/10_oct/tutorials/lighting101fill2.htm > As a start, how are your lights positioned? Other than how I described them in my OP, how do you mean? > For one thing, it sounds like the light is scattering and possibly hot > spotting, too. 2000 watts should be enough, especially if there's other > room lighting. Diffusion is nice as it reduces glare in the photo, but > it also reduces light transmission. I tried a few experiments and I think that a diffuser will make a big difference - I think I'll manufacture a bracket to hold something in front of the halogens > Bursts? Is this a camera or a machine gun? My apologies - what's the correct terminology? > If you've ever checked out a pro portrait set-up, you'll note there's a > low level light behind the subject that is pointed at the backdrop. It > is closer to the shadows, thus not as strong as the main lights. Great idea - I'll have a think as to how I can impliment one > > As a start, how are your lights positioned? > > Other than how I described them in my OP, how do you mean? >From the OP, once I translated the fighter pilot's positioning, they seem OK as to side-side spacing, but what about height and distance apart for the lights. > > For one thing, it sounds like the light is scattering and possibly hot > > spotting, too. 2000 watts should be enough, especially if there's other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > difference - I think I'll manufacture a bracket to hold something in front > of the halogens You will lose an f stop or two, but diffusers are great for portraits. Lose the flash. You probably don't need it, and it screws up your white balance--does your camera give a custom white balance setting? I don't recall if there's an easy way to attach it, but a heat resistant white shoot-through umbrella works nicely. Make sure it is heat resistant. Halogens are murderously hot...something else to consider if you're shooting youngsters. > > Bursts? Is this a camera or a machine gun? > > My apologies - what's the correct terminology? It ain't the terminology, it's the technique. Why fire bursts? Shoot a pic and check it out. Change the light position or intensity slightly, and try again. > > If you've ever checked out a pro portrait set-up, you'll note there's a > > low level light behind the subject that is pointed at the backdrop. It > > is closer to the shadows, thus not as strong as the main lights. > > Great idea - I'll have a think as to how I can impliment one Put a light behind the subject, preferably a light with a color that matches the halogens...one of the floor mount 15 buck halogens? Point it at one edge of the backdrop. Position subject and main lights. Shoot. Check. Reposition the background light to the center. Shoot again. Check. Reposition to the right. Shoot again. Check. Then repeat those settings with slightly different settings of your main lights. Stop when you're most satisfied with the effect, and MAKE NOTE of all settings. Actually, make note of all settings that even come close to providing satisfaction. There is no need for firing bursts. Shoot two or three pics at each light setting, at different apertures, a stop high, on the money, a stop low. See how that works. > Put a light behind the subject, preferably a light with a color that > matches the halogens...one of the floor mount 15 buck halogens? Point [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > light setting, at different apertures, a stop high, on the money, a > stop low. See how that works. I use halogens (2000 or 4000 watts total from 4 lamps depending on what I need) but I only light the background with it. The halogens are behind, and to the left and right of the subject, aimed (through blue filters) at the background. They are only on for 30 seconds to a minute, then they are off, so the heat wont build up in the area. With up to 4000 watts lighting the background, a right and left side 200 watt second slaves firing through white umbrellas, and the main flash near the camera, I dont have too much problem with shadows, only with heat if I neglect to step on the footswitch that controls the halogens. Total cost for this lighting setup is under $200 (the 200 watt second slaves were about $60 each with the umbrellas) Now this arangement will throw off the color balance of the background, but if the main flash is aimed properly the subject will be properly lit. The only time this has been a problem was when shooting infront of "The Flag".. The ole' Red White and Blue was "magenta, light bkue, and dark blue" but that was fixed by not using the halogens. If you dont use an easily recognizable background (I like soft pastel solid colors) it doesnt matter if they have a color cast, as long as the subject doesnt. I have used Halogen as the ONLY light for a shoot, because I got talked into some indoor shooting when I didn't plan on it.. Shooting raw helped, but I didn't like the results (the customer was happy, I wasnt).  SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > Thanks everyone for your comments on my first portrait attempt. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? Who ever told you to buy work lights for portraits? The colour is off for starters and not easily corrected unless you buy globes with specific Kelvin rating. Your flash is 5500 Kelvin but the work lights will most definitely not be within a compatible range. You'll get shadows of different colours if you try to fill flash with the work lights. I guess it's too late now but simple flash mounted "soft box" with a slave flash behind the subject would do much better. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > Who ever told you to buy work lights for portraits? I think it was my bank manager. > The colour is off for starters and not easily corrected unless you buy > globes with specific Kelvin rating. Your flash is 5500 Kelvin but the work > lights will most definitely not be within a compatible range. You'll get > shadows of different colours if you try to fill flash with the work > lights. I'm sure it's not something a professional photographer would use, but from the experiments I've done so far they're working just great. > I guess it's too late now but simple flash mounted "soft box" with a slave > flash behind the subject would do much better. I'll probably invest in something like a 580EX and some slaves in the next few months. >>Who ever told you to buy work lights for portraits? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm sure it's not something a professional photographer would use, but from > the experiments I've done so far they're working just great. A professional has very expensive studio lights bought in the days when they were essential - because you can't simply adjust the white balace of film, and you need bright lighting shooting film, especially with large format. Digital is far more forgiving. Even if cheap halogens were perfect (which they aren't for a few reasons) pro studio photographers still aren't going to use them because their customers would laugh at them when when they saw them. >>I guess it's too late now but simple flash mounted "soft box" with a slave >>flash behind the subject would do much better. > > I'll probably invest in something like a 580EX and some slaves in the next > few months. Halogens as a sole source of lighting are fine. Shoot raw. Using then _with_ flash is not okay - you will _never_ get the colour balance right. Different parts of the subject will be illuminated to differing degrees with different coloured light - and if you correct the balance to get one part right, the rest will look wrong. Correct colour in the raw image "by eye", or take an exposure with a grey card in the same lighting, and apply the white balance to the other shots with that setting. Really watch colour balance if the subject has a coloured background. It will throw your in-camera auto colour balance way out. Use (at least) one light to illuminate the wall behind the subject to eliminate shadow. Use only one undiffused light to show a highlight in the eyes. Use other lights (if needed) diffused / reflected. This was taken with a few 50 watt halogens. http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/nina.jpg I am staggered that you got 2000 watts of lighting! Yes, you could get another slave flash or two or more, and spend a thousand bucks seeking perfection, when for $20 you should be able to get a pretty acceptable result. > Use only one undiffused light to show a highlight in the eyes. > Use other lights (if needed) diffused / reflected. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thousand bucks seeking perfection, when for $20 you should be able to > get a pretty acceptable result. Personally I'm not into high contrast portraits although the high key of that example is on the extreme edge of contrast with the wall blown out from the back light... It still produces a pleasant result. If you point the light towards the back of the subject, you'll get a halo effect so this example is probably the best way to use an over powerful back light you can't adjust. You can obtain very flat, low contrast lighting from work lights by pointing them up to a white ceiling or bouncing the light from anything white. Instead of diffusing the light, just scatter it. If you have one in closer than the other and use kitchen silver foil to direct the light to the subject, you'll get the subtle shadows which make a portrait a portrait. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> Use only one undiffused light to show a highlight in the eyes. >> Use other lights (if needed) diffused / reflected. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to the subject, you'll get the subtle shadows which make a portrait a > portrait. That was shot with the intention of printing B&W. http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg > That was shot with the intention of printing B&W. > http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg I wasn't being critical of your picture Fredrick. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> That was shot with the intention of printing B&W. >> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg >> > I wasn't being critical of your picture Fredrick. heh, that's okay - you can be if you want... I realise that despite my advice to the OP that colour balance is easy to get right by adjusting a raw file, the example I posted is less than perfect... > Thanks everyone for your comments on my first portrait attempt. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? putting lights on either side of the camera is the prime example of crappy lighting, and yes I know that 90% or more of all studios continue to do so, that's why its called kiddie pix lighting, in the old days it was called mug shot lighting cause that's what police and passport shooters would do. you know, if you bounced that 420 off a side wall you'd probably get a very nice soft light from a large light source, (the whole area of illuminated wall.) instead of the specular direct and hot light (literally and figuratively.) btw, watt second ratings of flash comes from the correlation of a light bulb burning for one full second, a 100 ws flash is equal to a 100 watt bulb for one second. or two bulbs at 1/2 second, 4 bulbs at a 1/4 second, 8 bulbs at 1/8th, 16 100 watt bulbs to get the light of that one shoe flash of yours to shoot at 1/15th of a second. Don't know if the original formula took into account the size and type of reflector if any. There are some interesting things you can do with a specular light source, do a google for joseph zeltsman to find a tutorial about how and why to pose and light where he gives a logical system to decide what to do with a particular face you will photograph. >Thanks everyone for your comments on my first portrait attempt. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? As has been stated by others, you'll need to set the WB for the work lights. Pick up a Kodak (or similar) grey card and balance it. Use this card for setting your exposure also, and I'd suggest shooting in M (manual) mode, once you've established the proper exposure. Loose the on-camera strobe. One problem that you face with it is that the camera's exposure system thinks it will provide most of the light, and, as you found out, if it doesn't recycle fast enough, you get underexposure. Your wattage should give you more than enough light to expose at much higher shutter speed. I've done some shots with diffused 420W single-insturment souce and a white fill card at 1/125, f/5.6 with ISO 200. You have plenty of light. As for the shadows, build a frame and get some Herculene or other drafting media to mount on the frame. Keep it out from the light for two reasons: the farther from the source, the softer it will be, and heat. They are not called "hot lights" for nothing. Raise the lights, so any shadows fall below the subjects, and use a white fill card from below, to fill eye sockets, below the jawline, etc. Lowell also makes diffusion material holders that clamp onto their lamps and hold the media out from it. Unfortunately, you may have to kluge up an attachment, but then Lowell also offers lightstand toppers, that allow much of the Lowell hardware mount when the proper attachments don't exist - caveat, Lowell hardware is expensive, but should be available at a larger photo store, or a cine supply house. One good thing about hot lights is that you can shoot as fast as your camera can work. The bad things are: they are HOT LIGHTS, draw a bunch of power, and will not freeze moving subjects. Also, for more pleasing portraiture, vary the distance of the two lights from your subject(s), so that you get modeling in the relief of the faces. Rely on the inverse-square law for the ratio of your lighting - it'll be close enough. Hunt > Thanks everyone for your comments on my first portrait attempt. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? A cheap and dirty but very effective studio flash with modeling light can be made from a large stainless steel salad bowl and some aluminum strap, a pop riveter and an old bed lamp with an aluminum shade and a throw away tripod. Figure the details out for yourself but basically you cut a hole in the middle of the salad bowl and use the aluminum shade off the bed lamp, cut and bent to sit on the outside of the bowl. Fasten it in place with pop rivets. That's th modeling light part. Use the aluminum strap to make an affair which holds either a dedicated slave or normal flash so it points into the bowl. If it's a slave, excite it with a small, difused filler flash of maybe GN 8. Or use a remote cable to fire it from the camera. Setup a small slave unit on a another cheap "automatic" flash and position it behind your subject's head or facing a wall if that's your call. No problem with off colour lights. All the (3 of them)$10 flash guns will fire out any stray light and a few shots later, you'll see why there is no substitute for high powered light sources. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. <snip> > Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? No, you're on the wrong track completely. You can't do studio work without studio lights or portable flash heads. The cheapest option for you to follow if you are looking for professional results is to get yourself a couple of Vivitar 283 flashguns and some optical slaves for 'em. You can buy Stoffen diffusers for them or make your own softboxes / reflectors using polystyrene boards, white nylon raincoats cut up into squares and tin foil. There's not much difference in the materials used to make a proper softbox, in fact I was quite amazed at just how simple a Bowens softbox I once had was in construction. The most intricate part of it was the bayonet fitting holding it onto the strobe itself. The rest was just the type of material you would find in any haberdashery. > <snip> > > > Am I on the right track here? What am I doing wrong? > > No, you're on the wrong track completely. You can't do studio work without > studio lights or portable flash heads. Snip You're kidding, I hope? What he's doing is less comfortable than flash, but hot lights of one kind or another have been in studio use for a long, long time. Right now, I think I'd as soon shoot myself as use my hotlights--it's about 98 out--but they do still work. I sometimes mix them with studio flash to achieve the results I want or need. All the good advice I've been receiving has been great - some of it is contradictory (actually a lot of it is contradictory!), but I guess that simply reflects the range of things people have come up with that work for them. I've been doing a lot of testing and thanks to the advice I've received I've been able to overcome most of my issues, and learn a lot in the process. For me I've learned ... 1. To use 1600 ISO - some say I should use 100 (and everything in between), but 1600 gives me the faster shutter speed when shooting multiple bursts so I don't get blurring due to the movement - and the graininess it introduces for some reason looks quite nice. 2. I shoot at F5.6 - because the DOF looks OK and it's as wide as my crappy lens goes anyway! 3. I use partial metering so that it does the best job of getting the lighting right for the bit that counts 4. I set the focus to 1 shot and one focus point which I stick over an eye before I shoot. 5. I'm using my good old halogens (2000 to 3000 watts worth) - I've received all sorts of advice regarding these but at the end of the day they work just great so long at I use my brain and work around their limitations (like not putting them 2 feet away from the subject and leaving them there for an hour!) 6. Some have suggested that I shouldn't need to shoot bursts - but I've found that if I ask my kids to smile then take a shot I always end up with a gawky forced-smile kind of look - however if I make them laugh then shoot a burst I end up with 3 or 4 with slightly differing, but great smiles. The only thing I'm not happy with at the moment is my issues with shadows - from what testing I've done I think I need to create some form of diffuser - I'm thinking of hanging a couple of white sheets either side of my subjects then put the halogens on the other side - that'll be tonights test. I've tried indirect lighting, but it doesn't make the face stand out enough - I've tried the fill flash, but it's giving me an issue with colour temperatures (as predicted by a few here). I've tried another halogen in front, but it's putting shadows under the eyes. I think I need a "human sized light box"! (by the way - I've looked at many examples of "creative lighting", but it's not something I personally like the look of - I'm aiming for simply well lit + even scenes, with no shadows at this stage - I'll leave the creativity until I get a bit more adventurous. I'm not trying to look like a professional photographer - only trying to take professional looking photos (or as close as I can get on a realistic budget) - so for me it's not an issue to have sheets over stands and DeWalt coloured work light stands instead of the cool looking pro gear with all the fancy knobs and switches on the back. Other than that it's coming along nicely - thanks the the input and help of everyone here - and for that I'm most grateful. Cheers, CC >so for me it's not an issue to have sheets over stands and >DeWalt coloured work light stands instead of the cool > looking pro gear Go for it, CC! Don't be put off by the doubters. It is perfectly possible (just hot and difficult!) to use worklighting for this, and you now have enough tips to get you on the right track.. Diffusion is the key, and those sheets (thin worn out white cotton are best, or ripstop nylon if you want to go upmarket) are one way. Bouncing them off a white (or close to-) wall should work OK as well. Another good diffusion material is drafting film (as used by architects and designers, often available in wide rolls from larger stationery/office suppliers). Just keep the 'diffusers' far enough away from your hot lights to avoid needing the fire brigade.. And, yes, lose the flash. Unless you want to further experiment with using yellow gels or cellophane on the flash to try to balance the color to the halogens.. (not recommended, but it can be done!) - if you go down this path, I would also suggest manual flash settings to get more precise control over the results, and maybe another diffuser for it too!). Just one final suggestion - when setting up, you may want to shoot/view in B&W mode (if available/convenient) to avoid distraction - I find that it lets me concentrate strictly on the lighting effects/shadows. However, once you are happy with your setup, even if you *want* B&W images always shoot the *real* stuff in colour, so you can use channel mixing later... :) Thanks for the positive pick-me-up! I bought a set of new white sheets tonight (hey - nothing but the best in my "studio") - bent them over double, and setup the halogens behind them. I was a bit concerned that even with them doubled over I could still see each halogen bulb, but they seemed to work OK - although I did put the background about 1 metre behind the subject with a variable-intensity backlight which probably helped. When I tried the indirect lighting approach (by blasting the halogens off my cream coloured lounge walls) I got very even and soft lighting on the face of my subject - the problem was, there just wasn't enough of it to make the face "come alive" - I thought of changing the exposure, but thought diffusers were a better path to experiment down. I shot a few bursts tonight, and for the first time I've got the results I can work with in photoshop. I'm still shooting at ISO 1600 so that I can fire a burst of shots with the kids laughing and not get any blurring due to movement, but the funny thing is I've got the camera set to 55mm about 1.5 metres away from the subject - with the background another metre away - and yet the face and the background are still in perfect focus @ F5.6 - so hopefully when I get a decent lens I'll be able to open up a couple of stops and drop the ISO down a couple and get a bit less grain. Thanks for the "drafting paper" tip - I've got several architect clients, so I'll be sure to pay them a visit "real soon". Cheers, CC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.