If you could only choose a few things...

fjrabon · Mar 19, 2015

lisameowrie said:
Does the gridded softbox go behind a backdrop?

I want to create studio portraits that are vibrant and pop. I have purchased savage seamless in banana color and plan to purchase more. In that case would I benefit from the types of lights shown in the video you posted?

Derrel said:

a light stand, a recessed face grid-equipped softbox, a 43 inch umbrella, and a single, decent monolight of from 150 Watt-seconds or thereabouts.

The gridded softbox creates a nice pool of light that falls off rather rapidly, to keep backgrounds dark, and subdued. The umbrella creates nice, soft light that spreads over a fairly wide area. You don't need or want a lot of light blasting small animals frame after frame. The stand,modifier, and monolight separates you from all of the natural light photographers, who are, I think, viewed by the public as people who take pictures.

Click to expand...

gridded softbox is a lighting modifier. It goes where you want your light source to be. The effect is that it creates a light that is both directional and soft.

Derrel · Mar 19, 2015

I think studio flash (either monolights, or box-and-cable system models) is easier to work with than continuous lights. I linked to that one Adorama Learning Center video just so you could see how three inexpensive lights and softboxes can be used to light up a shooting area in a "broadly-lighted" way that allows a squirrelly subject that doesn't take directions very well, so that there's a lot of posing flexibility. Flash freezes subject motion, and eliminates camera shake, and it gives a LOT of exposure power, with each flash. Continuous lighting the way Ms Lackey does it is these days, with a D800 or D810 and often times, pretty high ISO levels and wider f/stops than one might use for pets. She has Nikon's best cameras, and their best lenses; for a D800 user, ISO 2,500 at f/2.8 is not a worrisome issue; with a couple of 150 Watt-second monolights, you could shoot at f/8 at ISO 250, and get plenty of depth of field.

Pets and people are different things too...with people, we focus on the EYES, very strongly...with pets, they are usually covered in fur, and so if there is not plenty of depth of field, the animal looks, well, simply out of focus in many poses...that looks bad, in my opinion. Studio flash units that have 150 Watt quartz-halogen modeling lights give plenty of light to see by and to focus by. I have lights that use 250 watt quartz, 150 Watt quartz, 100-Watt quartz, and 3 x 25 Watt incandescent modeling lights. Many other brands are going to use moderate-power bulbs, like 100 Watt incandescent modeling lights. Those are mainly to help see, to focus, and to guide you in placing and adjusting the lights. Flash gives a LOT more "power", for a LOT less money. A lot,lot less. With less heat as well.

I have some ideas on how pet photos would most efficiently be shot using two, or three, studio flashes and some simple modifiers. You do not need the highest-grade lights, but you do need a minimum of a few simple things to do decent studio lighting. Not "a lot", but "some" stuff. A lot of videos show continuous lights because so,so many beginners are afraid of flash, and therefore, the retailers SELL loads of continuous lighting kits like those in the video. My impression is that very frequently, later on, when the buyers get more serious, they end up replacing the continuous lights with flash systems.

KmH · Mar 20, 2015

#1. Join PPA.

#2. Join KelbyOne.

tirediron · Mar 20, 2015

KmH said:
#1. Join PPA.....

Really Keith? Why? I was heavily involved with my local PPOC branch for a couple of years a while, and had my portraiture portfolio, accrediation, etc, etc and thought it was pretty darn cool. Two events put me off; one, which occurred while I was still working on my portfolio was over a workshop. There was a two-level, all weekend workshop with some fairly big-name western Canadian photographers (Yes, there is such a thing!

). One level was basic lighting, I mean basic... single OC speedlight stuff, the other was an advanced (In my opinion intermediate at best) workshop working with a multi-light system, multiple models, etc. When I applied for the second level course I was told I was not eligible because as I was not yet an accredited member, I wasn't a professional, and this would be too advanced. :madass:

The second, and final straw occurred at a weeklong PPOC(BC) symposium I attended. I was at a critique salon where four of the "Big kids" (You know the type, a hundred little pins all over their shirt/hat/whatever) were providing critique on member's images. They came to one image of a young lady in a forest, very dark, and IMO, quite well done for the most part. They loved it and were raving about the great background outstanding use of light, wonderful posing, etc, etc.. After several minutes of this, they paused to breathe and asked if there were any questions. I stuck my mitt in the air and asked when it became compositionally appropriate to have a tree "growing" out of someone's head. It was too; perfectly centered, somewhat unfocused, but sharp enough to look like a barbed unicorn horn. There was a pause for a moment <insert cricket chirps> and then they began to fall all over themselves justifying why in this case it wasn't a bad thing, when it was absolutely clear to me that none of them had noticed it. I gave up.

Now, I'm not saying that professional organizations are bad, not at all, but my experience has been that for the most part what you get for $3-400 a year is the chance to mingle with some great photographers and even more mediocre photographers who think they're great because they have a collection of pins. The only tangible benefit is a reduced rate on insurance, which is offset by membership dues. John and Jane Q. Customer have NO idea of what the PPA is, and could care less. They want to see nice phtographs.

In short, IMO, it's a waste of time, effort and money.

lisameowrie · Mar 20, 2015

So, if I am serious about it should I skip the continuous lights and go right for the flashes?

I'm just afraid I am not ready to deal with flashes off of my camera yet and the transceiver. I was just under the impression that flashes w/ stands, transceivers and soft boxes can get pretty expensive and I'm afraid I won't be able to operate it all.

Derrel said:
I think studio flash (either monolights, or box-and-cable system models) is easier to work with than continuous lights. I linked to that one Adorama Learning Center video just so you could see how three inexpensive lights and softboxes can be used to light up a shooting area in a "broadly-lighted" way that allows a squirrelly subject that doesn't take directions very well, so that there's a lot of posing flexibility. Flash freezes subject motion, and eliminates camera shake, and it gives a LOT of exposure power, with each flash. Continuous lighting the way Ms Lackey does it is these days, with a D800 or D810 and often times, pretty high ISO levels and wider f/stops than one might use for pets. She has Nikon's best cameras, and their best lenses; for a D800 user, ISO 2,500 at f/2.8 is not a worrisome issue; with a couple of 150 Watt-second monolights, you could shoot at f/8 at ISO 250, and get plenty of depth of field.

Pets and people are different things too...with people, we focus on the EYES, very strongly...with pets, they are usually covered in fur, and so if there is not plenty of depth of field, the animal looks, well, simply out of focus in many poses...that looks bad, in my opinion. Studio flash units that have 150 Watt quartz-halogen modeling lights give plenty of light to see by and to focus by. I have lights that use 250 watt quartz, 150 Watt quartz, 100-Watt quartz, and 3 x 25 Watt incandescent modeling lights. Many other brands are going to use moderate-power bulbs, like 100 Watt incandescent modeling lights. Those are mainly to help see, to focus, and to guide you in placing and adjusting the lights. Flash gives a LOT more "power", for a LOT less money. A lot,lot less. With less heat as well.

I have some ideas on how pet photos would most efficiently be shot using two, or three, studio flashes and some simple modifiers. You do not need the highest-grade lights, but you do need a minimum of a few simple things to do decent studio lighting. Not "a lot", but "some" stuff. A lot of videos show continuous lights because so,so many beginners are afraid of flash, and therefore, the retailers SELL loads of continuous lighting kits like those in the video. My impression is that very frequently, later on, when the buyers get more serious, they end up replacing the continuous lights with flash systems.

Designer · Mar 20, 2015

lisameowrie said:
So, if I am serious about it should I skip the continuous lights and go right for the flashes?

I'm just afraid I am not ready to deal with flashes off of my camera yet and the transceiver. I was just under the impression that flashes w/ stands, transceivers and soft boxes can get pretty expensive and I'm afraid I won't be able to operate it all.

Yes, flash. You will get up to speed with strobes as quickly as you could learn the continuous lights.

Some mono lights are expensive, but some are affordable. Get one to start with, and then a second, and eventually a third, etc. Have a look at Adorama for studio strobes, stands, and modifiers. The folks there are very helpful so call them.

Another place for excellent customer service is Paul C. Buff.

If you cannot swing the cost of RF transceivers just now, get a cable, which will not break the bank.

Derrel · Mar 20, 2015

There's no need for any transceiver or transmitter/receiver triggering. The old standby, the PC connecting cord from camera to flash is still the simplest way to trigger a studio flash. I recommend the Adorama Flashpoint 320M to beginners...the price is fair for what you get. $99 for the monolight itself; flash +simple stand + umbrella or flash+stand + softbox kits are like $159.

Triggering a single monolight with an umbrella is EASY. With a PC cord, there is nothing to it. Most triggers will work great, with no issues. The problems associated with off-camera flash are almost always from people trying to use "smart" TTL-controlled flash units with cheap, made in China units that may, or may not, actually be compatible with "smart" speedlights. Studio monolights are dumb, low-tech flashes, so remote triggering is dead-easy. With the PC connecting cord, it's as simple as plugging the cord into the flash, and then connecting the cord to the camera's PC outlet. If the camera does not have a PC outlet, then a small connecting block like the Nikon AS-15 is slid into the camera's hotshoe, and a PC outlet is then created.

I would say yes, avoid continuous lights. Flash is easy to work with. If you can work a smart phone, you can work a monolight + umbrella + light stand. It's reallllly NOT that difficult.

Designer · Mar 20, 2015

ps; I bought my Pocket Wizards used from a TPF-er here on the For Sale forum. I bought a mono light for only $49.95 from Adorama. Over the past few years I have acquired three light stands, 5 umbrellas, a speedlight and one mono light. I have also purchased and made other pieces of equipment.

tirediron · Mar 20, 2015

While I agree that a sync cord is cheap and easy, radio triggers aren't terribly expensive, and when you're shooting manual flash, theirs nothing more difficult to their operation than 'plug in, switch on'. Really, that's it! You can buy transceiver sets for <$50, and if you're shooting multiple lights, you can actually usually get away with one and use the built in optical/flash sync of the other monolights to trigger themselves. If it's speedlights, optical triggers for them can be had for <$10/each.

My main issue with PC cords is that I find them annoying; I move around in the studio. A LOT! I hate dragging that stupid cable around, tripping over... etc, etc, etc. For a compartivley modest outlay, you have a neater, safer shooting environment.

waday · Mar 20, 2015

I'm not trying to push Yongnuo, but their set of triggers/receivers is ~$30. Yeah, Yongnuo may not be the best option out there, but they work good enough for someone learning on a budget (like me).