help me UNDERSTAND speed lights for portraits, please

[Derrel]

28x28 inches has become my most used softbox size. In a small area 24x24 will work and will not be a novelty. Try to buy one that has a recessed face and a fabric "egg crate" grid accessory. Surely Amazon has some good Made in China boxes with a Bowens S mount speedring and a grid for $100 or less in 24x24.

 

[Derrel]

HERE is exactly the type of unit you want. A huge majority of newer Amazon softboxes have speedlight type rings, but THIS is the type of metal, 3-lug Bowens speedring you want to go into the front of your monolight. For a square box, a $19.95 price is fairly noermal for a speedring in the Bowens fit; fior a rotating ring, one for a rectangular box, the usual price is $29.95. This box comes with the grid and the non-rotating Bowens-type speed ring. AGain, the majority of the black plastic rings shown on Amazon are for **Speedlight*** mounting; the plain aluminium or pot metal ones with just three simple litttle lugs, like the one shown in this ad, that is the type you want to mount to a monolight,directly.

Amazon.com : Godox 31" x 31" 80 x 80cm Studio Flash Softbox with Carrying Bag and Honeycomb Grid for Bowens Mount Flash Godox AD600B AD600BM QT-600IIM QT-400IIM : Camera & Photo

 

[andrewdoeshair]

Thank you! It's been ordered.

 

[andrewdoeshair]

Do you guys think I should keep bumping this thread as I'm checking in to share my progress and seek guidance, or should I start a new one that starts out more on the current topic (I'm not talking about speed lights much anymore)? I don't know which will be more annoying to the other members, I don't want to be a pest.

I stopped and asked myself two days ago why I'm bent on studio lighting and why I can't just use the decent ambient light in the room. I started this thread thinking "I want more professional looking photos" but I've come to some more specific conclusions. Early in the thread I mentioned "I don't know what I should be looking for with studio lighting" meaning that I knew it was supposed to somehow look better or cooler, but I didn't know just what I wanted. What I realize I want now is more detail than I was getting at F2.8 and ISO 800 or F4, ISO 1600 with ambient light. I want strobes so I can shoot at F8 ISO 100. I've gotten a few pics now where I'm like "okay, THAT'S the image quality I expected when I bought this camera" (like this first pic)


The next thing I realized I wanted from lighting was to be able to draw attention to specific details in a haircut. The one above doesn't have a particularly striking silhouette, but the one below has a stronger shape, so I figure I could have used a light behind the head to make the silhouette pop more. I used a light near the front of the hair to emphasize the tall shape, then a light at the back to show the faded out portion near the nape of the haircut. I like the sort of badger effect I got on the side of the head where the slicked back side behind the ear sort of takes a back seat in shadows. It's subtle, but I feel like the important details of the cut are showcased here, instead of just being a picture of a head.


I also THINK that I started recognizing where the light is starting and stopping, being obstructed by hair on the head. I pointed an extra light with a grid at the side of the scalp in the photo below to show more skin in the haircut, but as the hairs near the back of the ear were sticking straight out off the scalp they blocked the gridded light from spreading around the curve to the back of the head (or maybe gridded light doesn't wrap around the head much with or without a forest of dense hair blocking it). So you see a smoother transition from bald to not bald where the hair is less dense and is laying down, and then a blunt harsh transition where the hairs are blocking the light. I wonder if I got a long narrow softbox mounted horizontally to distribute light across the head more evenly if I could fix that issue. Makes me wonder if there exists a modifier that is concaved, to maybe wrap around the outside of a head. It probably wouldn't look very natural though...


Anyways. I just wanted to bug anyone still checking in here, and think out loud so I can check back to my thoughts later when I'm stuck. I've shared this thread with other barbers and stylists I know, so I guess I'm also sort of rambling for them. I'm shooting a crazy mullet in an hour and I'm already dreaming of how I want to light it

 

[andrewdoeshair]

Also, Derrel, I wish I could buy you tacos. I can't thank you enough for your FREE guidance. Thank you for the time and effort

 

[Derrel]

I think you should just keep bumping this thread: you've already created a valuable thread, one that shows speedlight-to-monolight flash results, equipment discussions, and artistic and technical comments regarding lights,lighting, and results, and reasons for getting into studio lighting. Your most recent post showing the three haircuts and your discussion of the effects from the addition of the gridded light is very useful, to the point I gave it the "Winner" badge! Thanks for the virtual tacos. I like these threads because I like talking about lighting and lighting gear, and I have long been ad advocate of moving from speedlights to studio flash with modeling lights as the **fastest and best** way to improve one's lighting and one's photos.

As you mentioned, you've passed this thread's URL on to others in your field, and that's pretty cool, and is yet another reason to keep this thread alive, as your OWN thread! And for others!

Regarding transitions to shadow: some of this could be the result of how contrasty your images are (the curves and the black point in the Levels field), and also as you have seen with your own eyes, light can be blocked. Instead of adding a different-sized light, I would consider a reflector that can kick-back some of the light into those smaller, shadowed areas. And gridded light does not spread much, especially off at the sides of the light pool; one soulution on the last haircut above would be to pull the light farther back from the head, and re-aim it a tiny bit, and maybe up the flash power a little bit. Keep in mind, the lighting was almost perfect-and only a few inches of adjustment was needed to get the effect you wanted. And also--in that shot, the shadows are VERY black, a slight bit too black in the deepest areas. Same with the middle B&W shot, the "Badger Effect" shot. A fine-looking cut you've done! But just a little bit too dark in that one spot, but the rest? VERY nice!

You have made remarkable progress in just two weeks' time!

 

[Designer]

Is this the line for tacos? I'm sure you've seen the hair-styling magazines so you know the level of photography that will make a difference. One thing about where you are right now is you might need to be reminded of a spot of light right on the hair. Not so hot that it overwhelms the image, but brighter than the neck, for instance.

So the way I see this developing is your 24 x 24 gridded softbox for the key light, either a reflector or a speedlight with a diffuser on it (say 9 x 12 inches or so) at reduced power for fill, but then a second speedlight up high, snooted and pointed at the top/back/side of the hair to really draw attention to the hairstyle.

Might work, might not, but I hope you see what I'm aiming at.

 

[table1349]

 

[andrewdoeshair]

Thanks again and again. I had a very cool model today, as long as he had a cold beer in his hand he would sit and let me fiddle with lights. I'm feeling really confident about what I will be able to do soon, today I felt like I had a more firm grasp on controlling my results. I see just what you mean about the shadows. I find that I personally like losing a lot of information in a dark area, when I bump the "shadows" slider up in light room I feel like the image makes me feel vulnerable, people can see EVERYTHING I did in the haircut. In my mind the dark areas add a little mystery to the model, but I could be a crazy person and it may just look like I don't know what I'm doing. I'll certainly try experimenting with pulling more detail from the darks. I didn't even realize I was defaulting to that until I read your comment. A photographer I look up to has really insanely crisp and dark blacks so I go overboard trying to turn my shadows into a black hole, thinking I'll achieve a similar look. I'm willing to bet the reason his blacks pop so much is that he's lightening the shadows and leaving the blacks to look BLACK in comparison. Anyways, I got my soft box and the reflector with various grids today but haven't even opened them. Here's today's work... I'll update next time I feel stuck or proud. I have three models lined up for Tuesday- fingers will be crossed when I go through the process.

 

[Designer]

I had a very cool model today, ..

This is a very nice portrait, but not so much to highlight your hair work.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

Pretty cool to see the quick progression in this thread. Keep it up

 

[andrewdoeshair]

I have a (possibly) dumb question. I've watched several tutorials (both free and paid) and read several blogs and forum threads looking for an answer and I can't seem to dig it up. I figure it's either such a no brainer that nobody talks about it (and maybe I'm thinking about aspects of this process that aren't even an issue) or that I'm not looking for the right terms or verbiage. Maybe I've found my answer and haven't realized it because I don't know all the lingo yet. The question is, does light ACT differently at a higher power? Like, if I pop the flash and get a proper exposure at F18, then I don't move a thing but I readjust settings to get a proper exposure at F4, will the light behave differently? Is the power adjustments on the flash so that I can move it closer and further while still getting the meter reading I want from varying distances, or does that also effect the way the light lands or spreads, or falls off, or whatever? I've tried some very unscientific tests to figure it out, but I don't know enough of what I'm looking at to arrive to a conclusion. I'll get a shot at F11 then the "same" at F4 but realize my camera was 3 degrees off from the first shot or the model tilted their head a little bit differently, so then my "findings" are inconclusive, as I blame the other variables for whatever looks different and can't pinpoint ant change in the characteristic of the lights. I suppose I can use a mannequin head and a tripod to be sure, but that rubber "skin" doesn't behave like real skin. I wouldn't trust my "results."

 

[Designer]

It's not an entirely a dumb question. Some strobes emit a slightly different COLOR of light at lower power settings. The color of the light is important in color photography, maybe less so in black and white. The better strobes have a more consistent color all through the range of power.

Models turning their heads at the wrong moment will affect the way they look, but it has nothing to do with how much light comes out of the flash.

 

[Derrel]

It's odd that you ask this: less than a week ago, I wrote one of my "musings about ______" things, and never posted it, but I have to say, I DO believe that sheer power output levels can push many digitial sensors into a level of signal where the exposure is AMPLE, and generous, and the files look very good.

Imagine a room lighted by one, 100-Watt bulb in a single, round white globe-shaped ceiling fixture, as opposed to the same room lighted by a massive 4 x 6 foot overhead, ceiling-mounted, six-tube fluorescent panel.

Here is what I wrote a week ago, but decided not to post:

One of the things the Norman 200B and 400B did "back in the day" was to bring a LOT of flash power to portable, electronic flash. As fmw mentioned, the size of the light source becomes pretty big when a flash is fired off of a reflector the size of a wall, or a ceiling. In most bounce flash scenarios, the size of the light source becomes say 2 feet by 4 feet or 3 by 5 feet, so somewhere between 8 to 15 square feet: in essence, the size of a medium to large softbox, or a big umbrella.

>>SNIPPED section>>>

There's big difference between small, low-powered and medium-powered speedlights, and POWERFUL flash units like the old Sunpak (most-powerful handle-mount flash ever made, delivers about the same f/stop as many 400 Watt-second monolights with comparable angular coverage), or the Norman 400, or a Speedotron, Dynalite, or White Lighting studio flash unit; there is "a look" to bounce flash done when a really, really kick-a$$ flash is providing the light. It is part of that quality of the light thing. With a powerful flash burst, bounced light does not come from one, small place, but comes in from more angles, from more surfaces. The difference is like reading a book under a big fluorescent light panel, or reading that same book by the light from a small desk lamp; there's a real difference in the quality of the light."
***********

MY own personal experience is that YES, the level of the light fired indoors can affect the way the photo looks, and the way it turns out. You can light a room totally UP! with a single 1,200 Watt-second flash fired off a ceiling, and the images look one way; in the same room, if you fire a medium-powered Nikon SB-600 speedlight off the ceiling, the pictures will look different, in several ways.

There is a BIG difference in the pictures you will get in a 16-foot-ceilinged room if you fire a 600 Watt-second Speedotron M11 flash into one ceiling/corner junction, and the pictures you get in the same room, but lighting with a 1/8th as powerful speedlight flash, even if both flash units are aimed in the same corner. That is my experience.

 

[Scoody]

I shoot exclusively with speedlights. Set up 2, 3, 4, 8.. They may not have the options to modify like studio strobes but I get around that with grids and snoots and gels.