Lighting question?

[PhotoWrangler]

Actually, there are many ways to go about this shot Chris. I don't want it to look like a run of the mill group portrait in front of a tree. I can think of many ways to do this shot w/o asking on a forum, BUT I asked for input to see if anyone had any creative ideas that might add to my vision. I would have got this shot with or w/o the help of the forum, but I value the input from the members here. Did you need anything else from me, because I am actually booked through September of next year with weddings and really don't need your approval unless you would like to take one of my last few openings of 2013.

No thanks, I know how to light and shoot my own scenes.

And for clarification, you didn't ask for "creative ideas" that might add to your vision. You asked how to light a group of 5-6 people in front of a Christmas tree for that warm glowing feeling.

And for the record, your number of bookings doesn't designate your lighting knowledge.

 

[MOREGONE]

I would think that one gelled & diffused speedlight on low power (<1/16) would work nicely. Adust so that you can use a slow shutter speed (1/60 - 1/45) to take maximum advantage of ambient and go for it.

When I read gelled, I am thinking of a colored gel. Can you please expand on what this means? Thanks

 

[PhotoWrangler]

When I read gelled, I am thinking of a colored gel. Can you please expand on what this means? Thanks

Colored plastic filters that go over a flash head to change the color or temperature of the light output.

Filters, Diffusers & Gels| B&H Photo Video

 

[BobSaget]

In fairness to the OP, group portraits with a Christmas tree as key light are NOT the norm in my wedding experience.

Norm or not, a paid "professional" shouldn't have to ask such a basic question.

.

I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to stifle each other when getting advice from colleagues; especially when specific. I don't know of too many professions that don't benefit from research and reaching out for advice. I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't hire anyone who had to ask for instructions first.

 

[Derrel]

I did a little testing on this six years ago, trying to figure out how to get decent Christmas tree lighting + portrait lighting in a living room setting. I still have two galleries of basically SOOC images up on the web. You can look at the here and see the EXIF info and the SOOC results. ALL of the lights in these sets are MINI-lights...not big, old-school, thumb-sized bulbs, but mini, incandescent bulbs. TODAY, even brighter mini-LED bulbs are readily available. But again, I did not have LED bulbs, which in my experience seem much brighter than the mini-incandescent bulbs I used!!!
minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com


First try&#8230;learning...at minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Second try, a little bit different effect: minilights gallery 2 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Keep in mind, these were one- and two-person shots...they were the only two people at home...I wanted the lights to appear "glowing", and "diffused", and "colorful".

First off: the lights looked best when exposed at TUNGSTEN WB....they really,really did, so I set the white balance to Tungsten. The mini-lights are weak, and so need to be exposed at a high-ish ISO, like ISO 400. At a wide f/stop like f/2.8, which captures a lot of light, over the slooooooow shutter speed of 1/30 second. Wide f/stop caused large bokeh balls ONLY when soot from FAR BACK, and using a long focal length lens to magnify the size of the lights that were rendered OOF. Think 70-200 zoom lens, wide-open...and on Canon 5D the 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM gives football-shaped, cat's eye bokeh....the Nikkor 70-200 VR (mark I) on an APS-C body gives rounded OOF bokeh balls, due to smaller format, and less mechanical vignetting.

To bring the flash exposure in-line, I used an orange filter, a CTO gelatin taped to the flash. I used the Nikon TN-A1 filter. It did NOT TAKE MUCH flash power to equalize with a slow, wide-aperture, ISO 400 exposure, so the flash was dialed down to like 1/4 power...or maybe even 1/8 power, depending on the flash and the light modifier used. I think if I were to revisit and reprocess the .CR2 or .NEF files from these two tests, I could make them look a lot better, but it's years ago now. I shot the majority on the D2x as I recall, and it is one CRANKY MO-FO on highlight vs shadow exposure...with a newer camera, this would be a lot easier!

 

[texkam]

Are you shooting in raw? Shouldn't have to sweat the WB settings. Can certainly be tweaked in post.

 

[Derrel]

Here is another gallery showing the HUGE differences in rendering of the lights between the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM on a full-frame camera, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR on a 1.5x body. As you can see, the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM produced very strong "cat's eye bokeh", which means the OOF points of light were rendered as sort of football-shaped, NON-round shapes. The smaller-sensored Nikon camera, with its corresponding lens, gave ROUNDED circles.

Also, you can see the size of the same minilights on a small coffee-table-sized tree, when shot with focal lengths of 24mm, 35mm, and 200mm, with the 200mm focal length having been used on both FF and on APS-C sensor sizes in the test frames of the Santa Doll. To me, the rendering of the lights looks best when they are BIG!!! I myself think the football-shaped light rendering in the bokeh from the 70-200 Canon on the 5D full-frame looked very unnatural and, well, crappy...but that's just a bias against the cat's eye bokeh shape. I prefer the ROUND look, but others might not care.

Bokeh Test Gallery Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

 

[unpopular]

Derrel - keep in mind that bokeh is affected by the relative distance from the focus point to the background, so working with a 1.5x body may affect how bokeh is rendered at any given magnification.

Bokeh is weird and difficult to really predict how it will behave.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel - this is not a function of the camera, but of relative distance from focus point to background.

Bokeh is weird and difficult to really predict how it will behave.

Umm...sorry, but it can be a function of the camera, and or the lens, or the lens/camera pairing...look at the photos,dude...simply look at THE PHOTOS. "Mechanical vignetting" can be a problem....the size of the mirror box for example...and also, take a look at the way the Canon lens is constructed...pair up that baffled rear lens structure on the Canon L zoom, with the rear element very deeply-recessed and then a FF sized sensor. This issue is ENTIRELY a function of the camera/lens pairing...as the side-by-side photos show. Look also at the other photos, and the single image shot with the 200 VR at f/2.8.



Canon 70-200 at 200mm at f/2.8 on FULL-frame Canon 5D equals "cat's eye bokeh" due to mechanical vignetting. Remember, the lens needs to fill a 43mm-diameter circle on a full-frame sensor...

versus Nikon 70-200 on 1.5x D2x at f/2.8 at 200mm= ROUND bokeh rendering due to smaller format and no clipping of light either from the rear of the lens OR from the mirror chamber.

 

[kathyt]

I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't hire anyone who had to ask for instructions first.

Thank heavens I don't live by your logic. I can't think of anyone who knows everything. And thinking of my other profession, I would have killed alot of people by now if I didn't ask for help in my career up to this point. I am so blessed to be surrounded by people who are willing to share their past experiences with me so I can learn from their mistakes, or even gain from their successes.

 

[JAC526]

Actually, there are many ways to go about this shot Chris. I don't want it to look like a run of the mill group portrait in front of a tree. I can think of many ways to do this shot w/o asking on a forum, BUT I asked for input to see if anyone had any creative ideas that might add to my vision. I would have got this shot with or w/o the help of the forum, but I value the input from the members here. Did you need anything else from me, because I am actually booked through September of next year with weddings and really don't need your approval unless you would like to take one of my last few openings of 2013.

No thanks, I know how to light and shoot my own scenes.

And for clarification, you didn't ask for "creative ideas" that might add to your vision. You asked how to light a group of 5-6 people in front of a Christmas tree for that warm glowing feeling.

And for the record, your number of bookings doesn't designate your lighting knowledge.

Why do you come into a thread and then insult the OP and add virtually nothing but an unnecessary fight?

Next time just leave the thread alone. I mean does no one remember the golden rule?

 

[JAC526]

I did a little testing on this six years ago, trying to figure out how to get decent Christmas tree lighting + portrait lighting in a living room setting. I still have two galleries of basically SOOC images up on the web. You can look at the here and see the EXIF info and the SOOC results. ALL of the lights in these sets are MINI-lights...not big, old-school, thumb-sized bulbs, but mini, incandescent bulbs. TODAY, even brighter mini-LED bulbs are readily available. But again, I did not have LED bulbs, which in my experience seem much brighter than the mini-incandescent bulbs I used!!!
minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com


First try&#8230;learning...at minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Second try, a little bit different effect: minilights gallery 2 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Keep in mind, these were one- and two-person shots...they were the only two people at home...I wanted the lights to appear "glowing", and "diffused", and "colorful".

First off: the lights looked best when exposed at TUNGSTEN WB....they really,really did, so I set the white balance to Tungsten. The mini-lights are weak, and so need to be exposed at a high-ish ISO, like ISO 400. At a wide f/stop like f/2.8, which captures a lot of light, over the slooooooow shutter speed of 1/30 second. Wide f/stop caused large bokeh balls ONLY when soot from FAR BACK, and using a long focal length lens to magnify the size of the lights that were rendered OOF. Think 70-200 zoom lens, wide-open...and on Canon 5D the 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM gives football-shaped, cat's eye bokeh....the Nikkor 70-200 VR (mark I) on an APS-C body gives rounded OOF bokeh balls, due to smaller format, and less mechanical vignetting.

To bring the flash exposure in-line, I used an orange filter, a CTO gelatin taped to the flash. I used the Nikon TN-A1 filter. It did NOT TAKE MUCH flash power to equalize with a slow, wide-aperture, ISO 400 exposure, so the flash was dialed down to like 1/4 power...or maybe even 1/8 power, depending on the flash and the light modifier used. I think if I were to revisit and reprocess the .CR2 or .NEF files from these two tests, I could make them look a lot better, but it's years ago now. I shot the majority on the D2x as I recall, and it is one CRANKY MO-FO on highlight vs shadow exposure...with a newer camera, this would be a lot easier!

This is basically what I was thinking of in my original post. Derrel you are the man.

 

[JAC526]

I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't hire anyone who had to ask for instructions first.

Thank heavens I don't live by your logic. I can't think of anyone who knows everything. And thinking of my other profession, I would have killed alot of people by now if I didn't ask for help in my career up to this point. I am so blessed to be surrounded by people who are willing to share their past experiences with me so I can learn from their mistakes, or even gain from their successes.

I think real pro's are the first people who would say they don't know everything and it is very common for them to reach out and ask for help.

I'm a tax accountant. I deal with retirement plans. If someone came to me with a question about some other tax related law.....say depreciation recapture I would have to go ask someone or spend some time doing the research. I don't think photography is any different. If you don't have firsthand experience with something it just makes sense to ask people who do.

 

[kathyt]

Here is another gallery showing the HUGE differences in rendering of the lights between the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM on a full-frame camera, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR on a 1.5x body. As you can see, the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM produced very strong "cat's eye bokeh", which means the OOF points of light were rendered as sort of football-shaped, NON-round shapes. The smaller-sensored Nikon camera, with its corresponding lens, gave ROUNDED circles.

Also, you can see the size of the same minilights on a small coffee-table-sized tree, when shot with focal lengths of 24mm, 35mm, and 200mm, with the 200mm focal length having been used on both FF and on APS-C sensor sizes in the test frames of the Santa Doll. To me, the rendering of the lights looks best when they are BIG!!! I myself think the football-shaped light rendering in the bokeh from the 70-200 Canon on the 5D full-frame looked very unnatural and, well, crappy...but that's just a bias against the cat's eye bokeh shape. I prefer the ROUND look, but others might not care.

Bokeh Test Gallery Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

I agree that the round look so much better than the football shape. I was playing last night with my Christmas tree, I will post my experiment on Monday when my double wedding weekend is over, but it was interesting. I found to get the lights to actually twinkle, like a star, my settings were like f/32, 10 seconds, and iso 1600. So, I might actually do a couple different versions of the tree and see which one I like the best. I will just shoot the family the way I normally would and then put the two together. Thank you all.