Figuring out my limiting factor

SoulfulRecover · Jan 22, 2014

With tax returns coming in next month I was looking to invest into some equipment but I am not sure which direction to go. I am currently in school for photography and my end goal is to shoot portrait/fashion/glamour.

My current equipment is: Nikon D300, 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8, 18-55mm kit lens, 55-200mm kit lens, Mamiya RZ67, 90mm, 150mm, Alien Bee 800, Battery pack for location shooting, large umbrella, small umbrella, beauty dish, large back drop, black paper, white paper. . .

My initial thoughts were to invest into a dedicated portrait lens such as the Nikkor 135mm f2 DC lens but I think having a single light is more limiting than my lenses. Or I could save some money and get the 85mm 1.8 and invest in a better lens down the line.

So I could get a lens or an additional full light set up (light, light modifier, stand)

Maybe you guys have other recommendations? A nice light meter would be helpful when shooting the Mamiya with strobes too

Derrel · Jan 22, 2014

I would go with more lighting gear instead of the 135 DC lens. A smallish, 24x24 inch eBay soft6box with both a recessed front panel AND an eggcrate grid would be the next light modifier I bought, or maybe the Photec Softlighter II in 46 inch size. Photek SL5000 46" Softlighter, Diffusing Umbrella with Black Cover. SL5000

I own the 135 DC...it's an okay lens, yes, but on APS-C it is very narrow angle in view. I just don't see it as that versatile a lens...I think a good 85mm lens would be more useful in more situations, and also less expensive. Lighting gear on the other hand is useful with ANY lens, and with ANY camera, and therefore I think it leverages a guy's set-upo more so than adding a single,prime lens.

SoulfulRecover · Jan 22, 2014

Thats what I was thinking. Ive heard some good things about the Photek gear as well but havent ever see it in person so I havent jump for it yet. My school has ProPhoto, Ive used Paul C Buff gear and thats about it I think. More than likely this second light would be a hair light. Its not as noticeable in my digital images but on film there seems to be some serious issues with back ground separation with the subject.

Derrel · Jan 22, 2014

The Photek Softlighter is Annie Liebovitz's main lighting modifier, as it is for many other people shooters. You get doubly-diffused light out of these. I use the "other" brand that is basically the same device. Just this week I was reading a pro people shooter's profile on-line, and he was raving about how versatile the Softlighter was for him.

The softlighter or the Lastolite Umbrella Box, or even the cheap Chinese-made knock offs (which I also own) sold by Steve Kaeser Enterprises, all diffuse the light inside the umbrella, and then that diffused,scrambled light is diffused a second time by the front panel, which creates a different type of light than either a softbox, or an umbrella, and it has the advantage of being fast and easy to set up, and there's no need to keep track of a speed ring AND four separate rods.

Steve Kaeser's models are 42 inchers, sold here for $29 each. Steve Kaeser Photographic Lighting

(photo of them: a207918136a37e18d04336_s.jpg)

bratkinson · Jan 23, 2014

Since you indicated you are presently in school for photography with a desire to do portraiture, etc, you should be aware that not only is the market rather saturated, many people these days are satisfied with their cellphone photos, so the market is shrinking.

Take a look at the following thread in the Aspiring Professionals Forum where another 'freshly minted' photographer wants to get into business.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m/350095-new-photographer-looking-advice.html

curtyoungblood · Jan 23, 2014

You seem to realize that the real answer to your question is that you'll desperately need both (and more) if you're gonna make it in this profession, so that's good. Here's how I would make my decision. What year are you in at school? What is easier for you to get from them to use? If lights are more accessible, get a lens. If lenses are more accessible, get lights. I would also consider the quality of what you can get from them. If you can borrow from the full range of Nikon glass, then buying lights may be wise.

SoulfulRecover · Jan 25, 2014

thank you both for the input. My school is all canon unfortunately for those of us using nikon.

sk66 · Jan 25, 2014

I agree with lighting, but I would not buy a modifier less than ~ 36". The main difference between "professional" lighting and the rest is size/power, and it makes a difference.

Derrel · Jan 25, 2014

sk66 said:
I agree with lighting, but I would not buy a modifier less than ~ 36". The main difference between "professional" lighting and the rest is size/power, and it makes a difference.

I totally do not agree with this one, single bit. Modifiers like 7-inch parabolic reflectors, 11 inch parabolic reflectors, 16- and 20- and 22-inch parabolics and beauty dishes, and smaller umbrellas and soft boxes--they ALL have their uses. If all you want is a big wall of soft light, then yes, bigger light sources give soft light at longer distances, but there is a reason that so many types of smaller light modifiers exist.

Shadows and crisp light are not always bad, but the trend today has been toward ever-larger, mushier light modifiers, like 60 inch to seven foot umbrellas, and so on.

The idea that smaller modifiers cannot light large areas is in fact a fallacy. I see it repeated here on TPF all the time, that for some reason a small umbrella "can not light a big area", which is utter B.S.. Take a look at the Photoflex 30" umbrella at around the 2:25 mark of this video, white with black backing (a model I have used for over 10 years).

sk66 · Jan 25, 2014

I was not considering a reflector as a modifier I was thinking strictly umbrella/softbox...but I get the point. And i agree, directional/harder lighting is not "bad," a lack of shadows can also equal a lack of detail/character. And yes, you can do more w/ smaller umbrellas *if* the environment is large enough to absorb all of the spill (very large studio or outdoors). But I'd much rather have only a larger modifier and have to restrict/flag it than only have a small modifier.

IMO, lighting isn't about adding light, it's about controlling light; and most will run into large problems by trying to use too small of a modifier/ too great a distance.
At a distance, there's really not much point to a modifier at all. It's akin to putting a diffuser on a pop-up...

We don't have to agree, this is JMO. FWIW, I do own a 24" soft box. I made that mistake when I thought I'd go "strobist." It's about useless...

SoulfulRecover · Jan 25, 2014

found a possible lens idea for the future: Fotodiox Pro Lens Mount Adapter with Focusing Barrel, for Mamiya RZ67 lens to Nikon F-Mount DSLR Cameras

or even pick up a canon to nikon mount to use the lenses available through my school

12sndsgood · Jan 25, 2014

I would likely go with lighting in your situation. at least add another light to your arsenal.

I started out with a single buff ab400 and the large softbox 30x42 I believe and I would love to add a smaller softbox when money allows. big is nice but its also not always needed and going with something smaller and easier to work with when I need it would make the job a lot easier.

SoulfulRecover · Jan 25, 2014

Small/medium is a pretty good idea for right now since I'm stuck in an apartment and space is very limited plus I also have a rather large ~72" umbrella already. this summer when our lease is up, we will be moving into a larger unit that has quite a bit more space which will be nice.

Derrel · Jan 25, 2014

Opinions differ on what kind of modifiers look best, when, and where. Lighting is a big, broad field, but I've just seen over the last decade this increasing fascination with ever-larger, ever-more-expensive, gigantic light modifiers being hailed as being simply 'the answer'. I've grown tired of that big, wall of light, soft-transition look that ginormous modifiers create.

I personally think that lighting moves in cycles...in the 1930's and 1940's we saw a lot of crisp, hard-shadowed work...the 1960's and 1970's saw a lot of diffused, umbrella work, the 1990's were about the HoseMaster light painting craze, then we had the ring light craze, and the beauty dish craze, and right now we are in the midst of the "gigantic parabolic" modifier craze.

As far as a 24-inch softbox being "useless"--it might very well seem that way with a speedlight inside of it, but it becomes a different thing with 100, or 200, or 400 or 800 Watt-seconds of light pumped through it with a 150- to 250-Watt modeling light. If the box has a recessed front AND a removeable grid, it becomes even more useful. In small spaces, softboxes with recessed fronts and with grids become much more-valuable than when there is a lot of space to work in. Control becomes much more of a key factor in small spaces, and in smaller spaces, there is less need for big lights to get soft light, simply because the distances involved are already very short.

A flush-face softbox has a LOT more spread of light than one that has a three-inch recessed front face; add the grid, and the control factor goes way up,yet again.

sk66 · Jan 26, 2014

I own speed lights (2x SBr200, 2x Sb600, 1x SB 800, 1x AD360), constant lights (2x Novatron 500w), and I'm down to a single mono bloc (1x 750ws). (I don't have a proper studio any more).

IMO, pushing more power thru a small modifier just makes it a harsher POS. Control ends at the front of the modifier...it doesn't matter if that's the front edge of a grid, a 3" lip, a flat face, or a 12" barn door. A 3" lip is negligible in light control...it affects the transition edge slightly, but not notably more than changing distance/power. It doesn't really affect "spill" much at all. "Spill" and the transition edge character/placement are not really the same thing even though most of us (myself included) will use the term for describing it. A grid controls "spill" and so does distance/power.

Can a small modifier be used for something? Yeah, it's "ok" for an accent light (rim/hair), for use as something like a snooted/doored light, or lighting a BG. But, also IMO, it's not usually "right" for any of those jobs either.

FWIW, I used to use the 24" (cheetah Qbox) on a boom for outdoor/event use... Now I usually use just a diffusion dome in front of a large flashbender. I find the quality of light from them to be about the same... the flash bender/dome is easier to use/transport (except in stronger wind) but I'm sure it's more wasteful of power. Actually, the quality of light is possibly even better from my AD360 w/ just it's 5" reflector and diffuser (maybe even w/o the diffuser)... but the damn thing isn't TTL. The point is, w/ distance the benefit of modification degrades VERY rapidly.

A 24" square softbox is less than 1/2 the size of a 36" square soft box and it has to be used more than 2x as close for the same effect... as a "soft box" that's just too small/close. A "general guideline" is a softbox should be used from a distance approx. equal to the diagonal/diameter as a starting point if you want it to "be" a "soft box" . And you will often need to move it even closer. That's because distance affects both how much is in shadow/darkness and the hardness of the shadow edge. These things change opposite of each other. If you want more in shadow you move the light closer. If you want "dramatic" lighting you move the light source closer. Moving a light source further away makes it harder and flatter. I would estimate that once you're beyond much over 3x then additional distance has little effect on the quality/character of the light because the light source is already "small." The only thing you're really affecting is the falloff for the overall scene (unless your subject is huge).

If you really want to see the difference size/distance has; try photographing something round and highly reflective... something like a motorcycle helmet, round vase, etc. The effects/characteristics/principles/etc are the same as for lighting a face but the less reflective characteristic of skin tends to mask/hide a lot of it.

You can always cut down/restrict a larger modifier, you can't make a small modifier larger. I've got no "problem" with the strobist approach, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same type of control/finesse that a "proper" studio setup has. A lot of the lighting information on the web is based around a "strobist" type of approach which is based on small modifiers used at longer (too long) distances... That's fine, but it's only 1/2 of the story...