On-Camera Lighting Setup for Nikon

[manaheim]

jcolman got me thinking about my lighting situation with my single SB600. I've not been entirely happy with the diffusion of light off of this when taking interior shots, but don't have the option to cart around a bigger more complex lighting setup. I'm pretty much stuck with one on-camera flash.

So, the question is, what should I do?

I see these LightSphere things... they look interesting. I looked around for on-camera softboxes and I didn't see anything too compelling, but to be honest, I'm not sure what is best.

I'm looking to get as even and pleasant light as possible with a single on-camera strobe. I'm open to any suggestions.

And yes, I did search first.

Thanks!

 

[JerryPH]

Blech... lightspheres are no better than on camera flash... wait, it *is* on camera flash! uke-rig:

Rather than waste $75+ for photographic tupperware, if you want to limit yourself and use ONLY 1 strobe, get yourself a quality camera bracket. At least you reduce Red Eye about 75-80%... but you STILL have the limitation of being stuck with FLAT lighting.

Only way around that, my friend, is to get brave and carry an extra lightstand(s) and strobe(s).

 

[kundalini]

With the SB600's ability to rotate and tilt the flash head, if indoors, you should be able to find a surface to bounce off.... or additionally get a bounce card/reflector to get the bounced light to diffuse even more onto your subject.

From what I've read, the lightshperes are really just power vampires and make the light bounce everywhere rather than giving you control to direct the light. However, some people are impressed with them.

With camera in one hand, I have also taken the flash off the hotshoe and handheld it with the other, to get a direction of light that couldn't be acheived otherwise.

Just my 2¢.

 

[JerryPH]

With camera in one hand, I have also taken the flash off the hotshoe and handheld it with the other, to get a direction of light that couldn't be acheived otherwise.

Did that too several times. The results were surprisingly acceptable! I guess it all comes down to doing what ever it takes to get that flash off-axis from the camera's lens.

 

[jcolman]

Glad I got you thinking! Here's a couple of things you can do to improve your lighting. First, as the others have said, bounce your flash. Anytime the light is coming straight on from your camera, you're going to end up with flat light. You can bounce light off of any white surface. The larger the surface, the softer the light. By bouncing the light you add depth to the image.

However, there are times when you may want a direct, very soft light. I've purchased a couple of "professional" light modifiers and used them with sucess, however, none of them are really any better that what you can make yourself. Here's a couple of shots of a homemade "beauty dish" I made for about $10.

Bare flash on camera

With beauty dish

with beauty dish

As you can see, the dish softens and diffuses the light, almost like window light.

Other modifiers I've used with sucess are 8" x 10" white foam wrapped around the flash head.

However, eventually you're going to want to get your lights off camera. The most practical way for you to do this is to invest in a couple of cheaper speedlights ( I use 2-Sunpak 383 lights) and some remote triggers. I favor pocket wizards for a number of reasons but there are cheaper alternatives.

Having the ability to place your lights where you want them and fire them remotely will elevate the quality of your shots from the "good" to "great".

I also own some studio lights that I will use on location from time to time but I rarely take them outside. When I do thought, the results can be incredible.

A shot of the lights used in the above shot.

However, small speedlights and an oncamera flash (with diffusion) can also produce some excellent shots

But I still favor the look of totally off camera flash.

 

[Garbz]

I challenge your $75 lightsphere against my .50c one:

All that is needed is to make the light source bigger, and to spill more light on the surrounding (roof is a good start). You most definitely do not need to pay for a ludicrously overpriced piece of plastic to achieve great results.

 

[JerryPH]

I challenge your $75 lightsphere against my .50c one:

... and you will WIN! Funny that a 50 cent piece of paper can out-perform a $75 piece of photographic tupperware! :lmao:

 

[manaheim]

I'll have to horse around a bit with some DIY stuff... I wonder what kind of looks I'll get when on a shoot, though... :|

 

[JerryPH]

I'll have to horse around a bit with some DIY stuff... I wonder what kind of looks I'll get when on a shoot, though... :|

- From those that are knowledgeable, smiles.
- From those that are clueless, laughs.

But what do you care in either case, its all about the results, right?

 

[jlykins]

- From those that are knowledgeable, smiles.
- From those that are clueless, laughs.

But what do you care in either case, its all about the results, right?

Yes and no. I mean I understand that it's all about the results, but if you don't inspire confidence in your customers, it can hurt sales and or potential customers...

 

[JerryPH]

Yes and no. I mean I understand that it's all about the results, but if you don't inspire confidence in your customers, it can hurt sales and or potential customers...

If it really means that much to you what others think... you could take the time to educate them.

I personally think doing so is a waste of time. A portfolio speaks louder than words and in the end, clients should not care WHAT you use, as long as the results are to their expectations or better.

Take a look at that recent thread about street photography... the man is an ass, rude, inconsiderate... yet most people love his photography. Why would the use of a better bounce card cause more negative sentiments than that to the point that I would fail as a professional photographer, just because of what this looks like on top of my flash? Personally I think slapping tupperware looks and functions in a more detrimental manner.

 

[jlykins]

If it really means that much to you what others think... you could take the time to educate them.

I personally think doing so is a waste of time. A portfolio speaks louder than words and in the end, clients should not care WHAT you use, as long as the results are to their expectations or better.

Take a look at that recent thread about street photography... the man is an ass, rude, inconsiderate... yet most people love his photography. Why would the use of a better bounce card cause more negative sentiments than that to the point that I would fail as a professional photographer, just because of what this looks like on top of my flash? Personally I think slapping tupperware looks and functions in a more detrimental manner.

I was just playing devils advocate. It furthers the conversation :mrgreen:

 

[JerryPH]

Cool, I see where you are coming from.

 

[manaheim]

You do get people examining you when you're on-site doing what I'm doing... often times these people aren't your customers, but rather the customers of your customers. If they make some negative or positive judgement about you, it does get back to my customers and it does have an impact.

Mind you, this is just in one part of the photography work that I do, but it also happens to be the most lucrative part.

All this means is I just need to be very careful when I do something out of the ordinary. Not that I can't, just that I have to be mindful.

 

[JerryPH]

It's not like you are going around wearing a big red clown's nose while you're shooting (you AREN'T, are you? ).

The advantages of a larger bounce card are easily explained from a technical standpoint, and if they are not at that level of comprehension, it is easy to show 2 pictures to those clients... one with and one without to better let them see the differences.

I agree that pros need to walk on eggshells now and then, if for nothing more than their own financial benefit.