Does size matter?

[Derrel]

You are 100% correct, close in shoot through umbrella lighting is horrible and looks like garbage:

two shoot throughs, middle of the day in the shade, one camera left for fill at about 2', one camera right for main at about 1'. Looks horrible doesn't it? Yech!

Single shoot through camera left, terrible shot. Note that until her forehead curves away from the light, the fall off is minimal, how could that be?!?!?!

Main shoot through camera right, camera left has one at 1/4 the power of the one on the right just to soften the shadows (inside with no other lights), can't imagine why she was happy with this one.

You talk about a 3 stop fall off from the light side to the dark side, what? Where? ANY light you put on one side of a person and feed it enough power will cause dark shadows. For example:

That is a shot with a 5'x4' 400ws softbox, you know, "real" flash units? That is what happens when you have no fill light on the left and a light source 6' from the subject on the right. Note that the fall off you are referring to is MUCH worse than any of the images above it where the umbrella(s) are MUCH closer, wonder why that is?

All I know is that if I move the shoot through in close I get light like in #1 and I like that. If you think it stinks, fine, I still like it, my customers still like it, the subject liked it, so I am sticking with it no matter how much you think the inverse square law is wrong.

Allan

PS. In #1 and #2 there was 0% ambient spill as there was absolutely nothing behind the umbrellas to bounce off of. Well, I guess in #2 the light could have bounced off the ocean onto the clouds and back again, but since I was not using "real" lights I doubt I had enough power:lmao:

Your quote,my dear flea, "You talk about a 3 stop fall off from the light side to the dark side, what? Where? ANY light you put on one side of a person and feed it enough power will cause dark shadows. For example"


shows that you are totally out of touch with the way light works..."Any light" will leave hard shadows???? "feed it enough power" and it will cause shadows????

You sir are spouting utter NONSENSE....if you position a light very close to a subject, it will cause extremely rapidly fall-off in light intensity over a very SHORT distance...it has absolutely NOTHING to dio with :"feeding it enough power":...

The idea that "feeding it enough power" will cause shadows is ridiculous!!! hilariously ridiculous....the reason the cowgirl is almost blown out on one side and inky dark (4 stops darker, maybe five) on the left hand side is that your main light is too CLOSE to her, and the inverse square law is killing you!!

I do not think you really understand the way the inverse square law works. No,let me re-phrase: you have no idea of what you are talking about!!! Sorry, but it's funny to hear somebody actually think that the reason he is getting huge fall-off from one side of a person to the other side is because he is putting more or less power into the umbrella!!! That's too,too funny....and you're sitting here arguing about simple lighting concepts that you obviously have NO idea about. It does not matter if the watt-seconds is 25 or 1200....the rapid fall-off you are getting has ZERO impact based on watt-seconds, but comes instead from the ludicrous idea of placing an umbrella six INCHES from a human subject!!!!

Little tip for you: go back to the text books and learn why light falls off super-rapidly at close distances, but why it diminished less-rapidly once a light modifier (umbrella,softbox,etc) is moved back a few feet. Get off the web, and go back to your lighting textbook, if you own one, and look up Inverse Square Law and then learn what it actually means.

As for your example photos...they demonstrate very basic, primitive lighting setups...nice "dead eyes" in the girl at the top..the girl with the green makeup...hooo boy, another Model Mayhem guy shooting a chick he thinks is hot, but the lighting is not very good....the cowgirl....horrible...what your sample show me is simple umbrella lighting that is, frankly, not anywhere near "professional" in skill or execution...the Model Mayhem type stuff that's all over the web. Try incorporating an accent light or two, maybe a background light, maybe a grid spot, make it look professional...the lighting schemes you show are frankly, pretty darned pedestrian. I am not impressed, honestly, and I do not say that to hurt your feelings, its just that the lighting looks very shoot-through-ish...

 

[Village Idiot]

Shoot-through umbrellas...reflecting umbrellas...metallized reflecting umbrellas....enclosed umbrellas...softboxes...recessed face softboxes...recessed face softboxes with grids...panels....white painted metal reflectors.......softboxes with white interiors....softboxes with metallized interiors....I own all of them...beauty dishes...parabolic reflectors...grids....barn doors...scrims...diffusers, both snap-on and sheet and metal....

I have a huge lighting kit and studio flash AND "Strobist" experience dating back to 1986...I personally think the lighting "look: of shoot-through umbrellas is rather cheezy and "Strobist-like"...cheap shoot-throughs are currently in vogue now, but I have lived through four distinct lighting "Style" periods...each era has been full of newbies who were/are enamored of the most-popular equipment,as espoused by the current opinion leaders.

I could care less what a couple of beginners with a year or two of experience have to say about how wonderful shoot-through umbrellas are and how "great they are"...

Have at it,lighting newbies...use the cheapest, lowest-cost gear you can get. Or, spring for name-brand umbrellas that cost more than $13 off e-Bay...as we all know they are "all great" and "all equal".

Annnnnnnnd, this proves my point.

 

[Village Idiot]

the reason the cowgirl is almost blown out on one side and inky dark (4 stops darker, maybe five) on the left hand side is that your main light is too CLOSE to her, and the inverse square law is killing you!!

If you're going to try and analyze some one's lighting, you'd be best to get it right if you're trying to be condescending about it.

The reason the "cowgirl" is "inky" dark on the right side is because the curve of the body and the positioning of the arm block the light to create shadows. If you look at the right arm, where it's pulled back, you can see the light on the left side of the right arm is no where near as dark as the girl's body in the shadows.

What's creating the huge difference in light there is the positioning of the main light. If it was brought around to the front, the shadows would move. It is brighter on her left, but not something I'd give 5 stops to.

I figured that lighting would be relatively simple to deconstruct.

 

[flea77]

Your quote,my dear flea, "You talk about a 3 stop fall off from the light side to the dark side, what? Where? ANY light you put on one side of a person and feed it enough power will cause dark shadows. For example"


shows that you are totally out of touch with the way light works..."Any light" will leave hard shadows???? "feed it enough power" and it will cause shadows????

You sir are spouting utter NONSENSE....if you position a light very close to a subject, it will cause extremely rapidly fall-off in light intensity over a very SHORT distance...it has absolutely NOTHING to dio with :"feeding it enough power":...

The idea that "feeding it enough power" will cause shadows is ridiculous!!! hilariously ridiculous....the reason the cowgirl is almost blown out on one side and inky dark (4 stops darker, maybe five) on the left hand side is that your main light is too CLOSE to her, and the inverse square law is killing you!!

Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time trying to look like a big shot you might actually understand someone.

Given a specific amount of non-directional light on the front of a subject (in case you can't understand, that means that ALL areas of a subject are equally lit, say in the shade of a tree at noon) the more power you pump into a light at subject right (assuming you expose for that side), the darker the left side of the subject will be. It really is not a hard concept. THAT is why the cowgirl is black on one side, because we pumped up the light on the right so high that the ambient on her left was many stops below the right, and therefor underexposed.

I do not think you really understand the way the inverse square law works. No,let me re-phrase: you have no idea of what you are talking about!!! Sorry, but it's funny to hear somebody actually think that the reason he is getting huge fall-off from one side of a person to the other side is because he is putting more or less power into the umbrella!!! That's too,too funny....and you're sitting here arguing about simple lighting concepts that you obviously have NO idea about. It does not matter if the watt-seconds is 25 or 1200....the rapid fall-off you are getting has ZERO impact based on watt-seconds, but comes instead from the ludicrous idea of placing an umbrella six INCHES from a human subject!!!!

I am sorry, but it is you who has no idea. The inverse square law says that every time you double the distance from the subject with a given light source, you square the amount of light to maintain the same luminance. For example, if you have a light source at 6" and take that to 12", you now need FOUR times the light to maintain the same exposure. Not a difficult concept, but one you seem to say does not work. Might I remind you that when I clearly showed you the math involved with the inverse square law and an umbrella at 2.5', YOU are the one who discounted it. Only like the law when it suits you?

Little tip for you: go back to the text books and learn why light falls off super-rapidly at close distances, but why it diminished less-rapidly once a light modifier (umbrella,softbox,etc) is moved back a few feet. Get off the web, and go back to your lighting textbook, if you own one, and look up Inverse Square Law and then learn what it actually means.

Thank you, I have the books, although when those books, my practical experience, others in the field, and my customer all tell me one thing and you say something completely different, guess which I will believe? You are the one saying the inverse square law applies and rips things apart when I get the umbrella at 6", but does not apply when comparing power required between 6" and 2.5'. So what, is it now called the inverse square SUGGESTION?

As for your example photos...they demonstrate very basic, primitive lighting setups...nice "dead eyes" in the girl at the top..the girl with the green makeup...hooo boy, another Model Mayhem guy shooting a chick he thinks is hot, but the lighting is not very good....the cowgirl....horrible...what your sample show me is simple umbrella lighting that is, frankly, not anywhere near "professional" in skill or execution...the Model Mayhem type stuff that's all over the web. Try incorporating an accent light or two, maybe a background light, maybe a grid spot, make it look professional...the lighting schemes you show are frankly, pretty darned pedestrian. I am not impressed, honestly, and I do not say that to hurt your feelings, its just that the lighting looks very shoot-through-ish...

First off, I am sorry the only thing you take away from my example photos is how "hot" the women are. Perhaps if you got your libido in check we might have a more meaningful discussion. The photos I posted were examples of different lighting scenarios that I was discussing, not meant for you to drool over.

Maybe the lighting does look shoot-through-ish, and if that is bad, and this is good (from your website):

http://i.pbase.com/g6/65/45565/2/87420966.BqL9yQLg.jpg (I wont link it here because I think that is against the rules).

I think I will take bad any day of the week. Did she like the fact that she looks like she needs a shave on the left side? How about the fact that your lighting makes her look like she has blotchy skin? (maybe she does, but the lighting doesnt help). Since we are discussing the lighting I will ignore the fact it looks slightly OOF or maybe just generally blurry.

All the "real" lighting equipment doesn't seem to be helping you too much. The examples I saw on your website are very much what I see at all the mall photography chains, put enough lights at enough angles and something will work! I don't say that to hurt your feelings, take a look at JC Penny's photo section, look at the portraits on the wall, tell me they don't look exactly like a bunch on your website. Yours seem just too "tried and true", try being a little edgy, use a little less light, a little more contrast, a little less "predictable" (or at least to me, boring). See how it works for you.

Allan

 

[flea77]

I have to say, I did some experimenting with my 43" shoot through umbrella and distance from the subject. For whatever reason as I moved the umbrella closer to the subject the light did get a lot softer and wrapped around the subject a lot more. Closer to the subject = further from the ceiling. This was indoors, could be related to the bounce of the flash off the back of the umbrella and the ceiling. But as I moved it further away the shadows were more sharp and I'm inclined to think this has to do with the relative size of the umbrella with respect to the subject.

That couldn't possibly be correct, you must be blind :lmao: You are violating the inverse square suggestion

Glad it is working out for you, enjoy!

Allan

 

[inTempus]

You newbs really are annoying.

 

[mrmacedonian]

Inverse Square suggestion.. i like it!

What shall you tackle next, the Gravity suggestion may-haps?

...make sure the building is tall enough -- the higher you get the weaker gravity is!

 

[Village Idiot]

Derrel: Strobist: On Assignment: Caleb Jones

One shoot through and one ring light make for some amazing photographs.