Studio Portrait Photography

[Alpha]

I'd like to think of myself as a "strobist", but I was not being defensive nor self-rightous, rather I was being a little light about the topic, hence the "LOL" in the post. I did find it a little insulting on your part to call me so. The strobist concept is very popular and has grown to an amazingly large subculture internationally for some very valid reasons:

- they advocate using affordable (NOT cheap) light sources
- they advocate a lot of ingenouity and DIY
- they advocate using your head more than your wallet

As an amateur, all these concepts are very attractive to me. I am sure many a high-end pro could learn a thing or two from these edicts as well.

I didn't necessarily mean you in particular. I meant the general attitude of many "stobists," which is that off-camera flashes are just as "good" as studio strobes for studio work, which they aren't. I'll get to why in a minute. But let's talk affordable. And when I say affordable, I mean in context, not absolute numbers. For starters, there's way too much hype over Speedlights. They crank out something in the neighborhood of 80 w/s, which isn't much power, even unmodified. Have you checked the price of Speedlights lately? Watt-second for watt-second I'd argue that they're actually more expensive than most studio strobes. Then factor in your choice of light-stands, modifiers, and triggering devices. They're really not all that cheap. But let's say you wanna go the very cheap route...say Vivitar 285's. Aside from their horrendous recycle times and slightly awkward controls, most digital shooters will also have to factor in voltage adapters. Once you modify you're not getting that much bang for your buck in terms of power output and you've got to buy most of the same things you'd have to for studio strobes, plus some in the way of brackets and other adapters.

As for DIY, I don't really buy it. For starters, most of the "DIY" attitude one will need is common to any arrangement of lights. I mean, let's be honest here, it's not as if you're actually building the strobe. You're just finnicking around with mechanical arrangements, and I should add ones that the industry is constantly making more easy, streamlined, and I'd say less DIY.

I don't buy the argument that a "strobist" setup forces you to use your head more than your wallet. Using your head is about deciding on the right tools for the job. And I'd argue that you're not doing that if you've adopted the mentality that off-camera flashes can handle most any application.

"Ideal" is a relative term and could change drastically with something as minor as location. I am sure than ANY person given enough time and unlimited funds could eventually throw a beam of light on someone's face... lol

But, since you mentioned it... list them, I am sincerely willing to learn (I also want to see the number of reasons you call innumerable :lmao: ), ... because the only two real reasons I can see, are:
A - needing to light an enormous area and/or
B - needing to crank off so many shots in rapid succession in a day, that a battery powered strobe would need battery replacement too often.

Ok. Here are some reasons:
1) Loss of modifiers.
-You basically lose all ability to use reflectors
-Almost no studio modifiers are built with off-camera flash use in mind, which is why they have to be specially adapted.
-Large and double-baffled modifiers overwhelm their power capabilities and become mostly useless.
-Complete loss of specialized modifiers, including but not limited to: adjustable reflectors, parabolic umbrellas, and fresnel spots.
2) Huge power sacrifice.
-No overpowering of the sun on location
-Inability to use large modifiers, especially gridded
-Limited use of scrims
-Inability to light large areas or full-length subjects
-More lights needed to provide the same power or light the same area
3) Loss of configuration possibilities
-More triggers required than pack setups
-Inability to control multiple lights from a central location
4) Batteries
-Inability to use a battery inverter on location
-Constant purchasing of smaller batteries
-Few or no battery pack capabilities
5) Recycling
-Slower recycle time at the same power output
-Recycle time slows as batteries lose power
-No fan cooling (meltdown or burnout risk)
6) Time
-Running around to adjust settings on each flash
-Slower setup time because of extra brackets and adapters needed.

It certainly is not quality of light becuase a 5600K light that comes from a lowly strobe at 100WS is identical to a 5600k light from a 500WS Prophoto monollight dialed down to 100WS.

It certainly is quality of light, and not because of power but because of modifiers, which I've already addressed.

I am saying it is a very serviceable approach to the vast majority of people here who would love to enter the world of portraiture, some even professionally.

It's a serviceable substitute if you don't mind the many limitations that I listed above. For the vast majority of applications, off-camera flashes greatly fall short of studio strobe capabilities, particularly of course, in the studio. Can you still light a subject with them? Yes. But there are many configurations that are simply not possible with them.

I am willing to cede that there may be good reasons (which I hope you will some day share), to use both ends of the spectrum but each has it's place in the studio. Battery and/or AC lighting.

I also have a set of AC strobes. Albeit, not ProPhoto, but I use them in situations where I am at home and stationary. They are more powerful than the SB-800 and SB-600s that I own. However, when I need portability (studios are not just in a photographer's personal studio), those battery powered flashes give me light when the larger and heavier AC powered units cannot (locations where AC power is not easily accessible like a park, beach or outside a subject or client's location), not unless you again, invest in heavy power packs, extra long and thick cables, and have assistance to haul and set them up with you in a reasonable amount of time.

Location is another story. I've listed plenty of reasons that real studio strobes are preferable in the studio. But even for location work, there are better alternatives that are still lightweight and don't require you to sacrifice as much in other areas. The three that come to mind in particular are the Norman 400 series, the Q-flash, and the Lumedyne systems. Then there are the battery options from the larger companies. Yes, they're a bit heavier, but not exactly cumbersome.

Personally, I would love to own multiple ProPhoto 2500WS lights and all the matching accessories, but I am a man with champagne tastes on a beer budget. I suspect that the vast majority of photographers, amateur or professional, are as well.

As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I think a lot of people are lulled into thinking that a "strobist" setup is a bargain basement alternative. In reality, it requires you to buy basically all the same equipment as you'd have to with real strobes, and joule for joule they aren't as cheap as people think.

I'll add that there's a big difference between the convenience of a portable setup and actually requiring ultimate portability, which most people don't.

 

[DanPonjican]

I got this book a while back and it was GREAT.

 

[RyanLilly]

I will agree that alpha and jerry have both made some very good arguments, and comparisons, but Studio strobes, and strobist, are different sets of tools, for different situation, although their uses to crossover, and I think that both jerry as Alpha seem to agree, at least somewhat on that point.

The strobist method can be cheap. Example, If you already own a canon/nikon speedlight for on camera flash, a vivitar 285 makes a fine back up. The current version is designed for digital cameras, so no safe-sync device is needed. Now those two speedlights are not a new purchase, they are something you would have anyway. The the cost of a strobist setup is like $150 in crappy stands umbrellas and some gadget infinity triggers or cables.

This is a pretty cheap way to get into off camera flash, but is certainly no replacement for a true studio.

Some speedlight on stands can be indispensable in some non studio oriented location shoots, and studio strobes in a formal setting will allow much more flexibility in the studio.



I Have a huge rolling tool box in my garage, with every think I could ever need, it has wheels and can be taken places, but with a bit of work. I have a very small toolbox in my truck with just the essentials, its light, portable and I can do a lot with the tools inside of it, but sometimes I really wish I had my big tool chest.

 

[Robin]

Is it hard to learn studio portrait photography?

It depends on the level of expectation of your clients. With many bulk photo shoots such as on cruises or school photos, the expectation is not very high. The studio is set up, people come in, pose, shoot, done, next, repeat. Not exactly what I would consider an art form but it makes money.

Many photographers do take portraits to a level of an art form but they are generally photographers who have individual customers who come to them and pay for their own session.

It's not that difficult to learn a basic and traditional lighting set up for portraits, especially if you have good equipment. It's also not that difficult to learn basic posing. But it all depends on the level you want to take it too.

Where/How can I learn?

Books, the internet, workshops, etc.

What equipment / brand names should i buy?

I like Alien Bees, as mentioned by someone else. They are what my photo school used to supply students with rental equipment so they are pretty durable too, they're not going to hand over equipment to hundreds of students if they don't think it won't last more than a few years. I only wish I could get Alien Bee's in the UK.

What range in price does the equipment cost (lights, umbrellas, reflectors etc)?

Lights: http://www.alienbees.com/flash.html
Umbrellas and reflectors won't be expensive compared to the lights. You can check out prices on someplace like B&H.

What lens' are mostly used for studio portrait photography?

Often sharp, prime lens usually between 50-100mm. You could go higher but of course only if you have the room.

Remember that portraits aren't just about equipment and lighting set ups, posing is important too. When I was a teen, at a school dance there was a photographer set up for portraits, my friend got hers back and she looked pregnant. To be fair, she had long legs and a short torso so when he had her turn her hips slightly, her hip looked like her stomach and she looked pregnant. Those are things the photographer should look out for - but typically, in these bulk photo shoots, the photographer doesn't have time to perfect the posing and therefore the level of expectation for these types of photos goes down.

 

[AndrewG]

Lighting equipment is not cheap and studio portraiture is an art. Last year I took a job with a local studio to learn some of this stuff and it was a great experience. I shot school dances, yearbook and elementary schools. The work is seasonal for most so finding a job like this shouldn't be too hard.
The price range for equipment like this can range from $2,000-$20,000 just for the lights and learning how to use them is not self explanatory. Not only that but while I had fun doing this work, it was also pretty repetitive and boring at times. I have also been on a couple Carnival cruises and their photographers really impressed me with their professionalism and excellent work, real pros.
Take a job like I described and see if this is really for you, maybe you'll love it.

I disagree about price; you can buy a couple of studio lights with snoots and barn doors for next to nothing and get great results with a little experimentation in light-positioning. Add a couple of reflectors and you're good to go. Expensive strobes are not necessary for the novice. You'll learn more about exposure and the fall of light and shade that way too.
For a good book on studio lighting techniques I recommend '50 Portrait Lighting Techniques' by John Hart, Amphoto, 1995, ISBN 0-8174-3860-2.
A book I found extremely interesting is 'Portraits' in the Pro Lighting series by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz which covers just about everything you need to know and shows that great results can be achieved with very simple equipment.

 

[Bifurcator]

I can see that more as being an issue with the man holding the camera more than if the lights he is using have batteries in them or are plugged into a wall.

Time to setup or time to change scenarios would obviously be to the benefit of the one not needing to watch out for wires to trip over or to make sure that the AC outlet is close enough... both photographers being of equal experience and intelligence.

In my experience it's not about wires nor the man (considering he's a vet). It has to do with the size, power and control of the lights. With the battery operated ones you have to go around and punch buttons on each device and even then they are limited in terms of power so you might also have to adjust your panels each time. The light sources themselves are much smaller not getting them to hit what you want the way you want it is more fiddly just as a matter of form factor.

I woudl not even dream of placing myself in the same catagory as a professional, but I can with a 3 strobe and 2 studio light setup transition to any of 5 of my favorite and totally different lighting scenarios...

And with proper studio equipment more often than not it's just one strobe. Sometimes more though. A nice studio grade power pack and strobe can easily illuminate from 3 to 5 directions with splitting, bouncing, using gobos, and etc.

now almost without thought and I will know in advance what my settings and end result will be before the first test shot is taken. That just comes from experience and practice. If you took a weekend doing nothing but 3 setups and transitioning back and forth, you too could do it easily. I am sure that the pros have dozens of such setups and not only that, they can compensate for variations based on needs.

Sure, of course a less dynamic routine can be practiced and learned. I agree. And if all you're doing is one kind or a few of the same kinds of shots over and over then either rigging is about the same I suppose.

Download some of Dean Collins's DVDs and have a look. I think you might cream yourself.

http://www.software-cinema.com/prod...f-dean-collins-on-lighting/product_details/78

LOL! Most of the reviews on "The Strobist" about this set say that they can't even keep up with the guy if that tells you anything.

Both are good and interesting ways to light - I'll not argue that. One way is just more professional, dynamic, and robust. Thus preferred for a "professional" environment. Of course the OP did mention a "home business" as being one of the goals so you're more right in this case probably than Alpha and I are giving you credit for.

 

[Alpha]

Glitz and glam is half the business. Let's be real. There are AD's who will demand 8x10 or MF digital when a lesser camera would do. Likewise there are smaller time clients who will be unimpressed with coming over to your house and being photographed with some 285's and a 20D in your garage.

It's not all about the equipment. Great shots can be had with an LX and a 285, or likewise with a G9 and a speedlight.

Will you sing professional with a 1DS MKIII or a P1 back on a Blad and a parabolic reflector on a Profoto or a Broncolor rig? You bet your ass you will. It's one of the reasons I'm considering buying an RZ67II kit instead of a dinged up RB. Fancy equipment, and the element of style will squeeze every last drop of confidence from your clients, even if it doesn't make your shooting and final shots better (though in many cases it should). Of course it's possible to take great photos with unimpressive or unimpressive-looking equipment. But when your rates start going up, as far as clients are concerned sometimes you have to earn the right to shoot with lesser equipment.

 

[pm63]

Glitz and glam is half the business. Let's be real. There are AD's who will demand 8x10 or MF digital when a lesser camera would do. Likewise there are smaller time clients who will be unimpressed with coming over to your house and being photographed with some 285's and a 20D in your garage.

It's not all about the equipment. Great shots can be had with an LX and a 285, or likewise with a G9 and a speedlight.

Will you sing professional with a 1DS MKIII or a P1 back on a Blad and a parabolic reflector on a Profoto or a Broncolor rig? You bet your ass you will. It's one of the reasons I'm considering buying an RZ67II kit instead of a dinged up RB. Fancy equipment, and the element of style will squeeze every last drop of confidence from your clients, even if it doesn't make your shooting and final shots better (though in many cases it should). Of course it's possible to take great photos with unimpressive or unimpressive-looking equipment. But when your rates start going up, as far as clients are concerned sometimes you have to earn the right to shoot with lesser equipment.

I'm a strong believer in the photographer making a great image, and not equipment. If you have a strong portfolio to show to a prospective client, I believe this will make a much bigger impact than showing them you have lots of $$$ to spend on a digital MF rig. Your results and skill will speak for themselves.

 

[usayit]

WOW... simple question turned into a hot thread. I haven't read through everything yet but I'm in a similar boat.

I'm more than able to spend a few thousand on a "studio" kit but I'm a firm believer of spending reasonably (or else you just go into bad debt like almost everyone in my country... perhaps our "must have best" attitude is what is wrong with us today.. but thats another discussion). Sometimes, getting the absolute best just to "start" learning is a recipe for frustration. I see no problem with picking up a small kit on a budget to learn and moving on from there. At that point, you'll be advanced enough to know the limitations and purchase accordingly.

For me.. i did my research.. set a low budget (after all I'm not an experienced strobist) and ended up with this kit discussed in this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131896

Perhaps, I'll advance as a studio photographer/strobist to the point that I will put up the thousands it requires to get a full high end studio. If so, then the $230 I spent will have served its purpose as a valuable learning tool. If NOT, then I just saved myself few thousand bucks. It is a win-win situation. (Often dumping your wallet is not a win-win).

Yeh people might look at me strange using such a budget kit on my Leica and 1d-MII but screw them.... I'm in for the enjoyment of learning.



btw.. I did consider AC home strobes but I didn't like the non-portability aspect. Afterall, I haven't dedicated a sizable room to a studio yet... no beginner would.

 

[usayit]

Honestly, I could care less about David Hobby's results and the defensive, self-righteous attitude of the "strobist" crop. Let me be clear, once again. The "strobist" setup is not ideal for studio work, for innumerable reasons, and very good ones at that. ....

Alpha... with all due respect... I feel through your response that you have advanced far enough in studio photography that you lost sight with "the beginner". Much like those brilliant research college scientists that work such great magic in a lab but can't teach nearly as well as their teacher's assistants.

You may be absolutely correct (what do I know) but you can't deny that a basic strobist setup can be a valuable learning tool. No one here is saying that the same kit is suited for professional use.


btw.. the author of the "strobist" blog even admits that he now uses a full set of professional strobes for his work. His "strobist" kit was assembled when he was a broke college student and still follows him today. Pretty much the same idea with being reasonable.

 

[DeadEye]

I recently put together my first studio light setup on the cheep or well cheep for what I was after. I wanted a very short flash duration with plenty of power and fast recycle as the subject was 30 feet away so I went with a speedo black line setup. Got it all off ebay except for the beauty dish one piece at a time. I have watched just about every piece of speedotron stuff on ebay these past 6 or 8 weeks. Best bang for the buck is the brown line stuff . I watched a brown line kit go for under 500.00 this week and it had everything a home setup could want. Pack , stands. 4 lights , softbox. Umbrellas. Cords even carry bags. If you watch and wait there are real good deals for brown line.

 

[Alpha]

Alpha... with all due respect... I feel through your response that you have advanced far enough in studio photography that you lost sight with "the beginner". Much like those brilliant research college scientists that work such great magic in a lab but can't teach nearly as well as their teacher's assistants.

You may be absolutely correct (what do I know) but you can't deny that a basic strobist setup can be a valuable learning tool. No one here is saying that the same kit is suited for professional use.


btw.. the author of the "strobist" blog even admits that he now uses a full set of professional strobes for his work. His "strobist" kit was assembled when he was a broke college student and still follows him today. Pretty much the same idea with being reasonable.

I must say it would be rather difficult for me to lose sight of cheaper portable flashes given the fact that I use them routinely. I was simply making a case for studio strobes in the studio, and against the idea that small off-camera flashes are equally capable in the studio.

What gets my goat is when "stobists" run around the internet claiming that nobody really needs studio equipment in any setting. Even concessions that studio strobes have their place are often made with the back-handed caveat that "but you really don't need that." Well, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the time you do. And even when you don't, off-camera flashes are a much bigger hassle.

 

[Alpha]

I recently put together my first studio light setup on the cheep or well cheep for what I was after. I wanted a very short flash duration with plenty of power and fast recycle as the subject was 30 feet away so I went with a speedo black line setup. Got it all off ebay except for the beauty dish one piece at a time. I have watched just about every piece of speedotron stuff on ebay these past 6 or 8 weeks. Best bang for the buck is the brown line stuff . I watched a brown line kit go for under 500.00 this week and it had everything a home setup could want. Pack , stands. 4 lights , softbox. Umbrellas. Cords even carry bags. If you watch and wait there are real good deals for brown line.

I'm switching to black line myself.

 

[usayit]

I must say it would be rather difficult...

No arguments from me.. but I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that small dedicated flashes were replacement for strobes in studio. I think what put Jerry on the defensive was that "defensive and self-righteous" could easily describe your responses.

 

[Alpha]

No arguments from me.. but I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that small dedicated flashes were replacement for strobes in studio. I think what put Jerry on the defensive was that "defensive and self-righteous" could easily describe your responses.

It's hard for me to agree when the phrase "studio portrait photography" pops up repeatedly in the OP and people start responding with strobist suggestions. Though I will admit that my first post was partly preemptive.