OCF practice.

[ronlane]

@jcdeboever, since it was just one monolight, then I can pretty much tell you that the one speed light that I use would have had harsher light. While I will admit to being better with bouncing the light out of an umbrella, which is how this was done, I still don't want to go back to a speed light if I don't have to. That was the very first shot with the strobe and to me was a huge improvement over most of my other portraits.

 

[jcdeboever]

@jcdeboever, since it was just one monolight, then I can pretty much tell you that the one speed light that I use would have had harsher light. While I will admit to being better with bouncing the light out of an umbrella, which is how this was done, I still don't want to go back to a speed light if I don't have to. That was the very first shot with the strobe and to me was a huge improvement over most of my other portraits.

Ok. I am looking to improve as you. I was pointing out the eyeballs are druggy looking like mine with a single speedlight and I was under the assumption that monolights will eliminate that. Yours did not and I was curious. Sure, I could spend a couple hundred on the same equipment but why? Yours does it too.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ronlane]

@jcdeboever, since it was just one monolight, then I can pretty much tell you that the one speed light that I use would have had harsher light. While I will admit to being better with bouncing the light out of an umbrella, which is how this was done, I still don't want to go back to a speed light if I don't have to. That was the very first shot with the strobe and to me was a huge improvement over most of my other portraits.

Ok. I am looking to improve as you. I was pointing out the eyeballs are druggy looking like mine with a single speedlight and I was under the assumption that monolights will eliminate that. Yours did not and I was curious. Sure, I could spend a couple hundred on the same equipment but why? Yours does it too.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not sure if I understand your question but since this was literately the first image I took with this light and I had the power turned down to almost the lowest level possible, that could have something to do with it. Obviously, not every light or photographer has this issue. (And I believe that you are talking about the eyes being dilated so much.) If this is the case, the little girl has really dark eyes, so that is contributing to the look.

 

[jcdeboever]

@jcdeboever, since it was just one monolight, then I can pretty much tell you that the one speed light that I use would have had harsher light. While I will admit to being better with bouncing the light out of an umbrella, which is how this was done, I still don't want to go back to a speed light if I don't have to. That was the very first shot with the strobe and to me was a huge improvement over most of my other portraits.

Ok. I am looking to improve as you. I was pointing out the eyeballs are druggy looking like mine with a single speedlight and I was under the assumption that monolights will eliminate that. Yours did not and I was curious. Sure, I could spend a couple hundred on the same equipment but why? Yours does it too.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not sure if I understand your question but since this was literately the first image I took with this light and I had the power turned down to almost the lowest level possible, that could have something to do with it. Obviously, not every light or photographer has this issue. (And I believe that you are talking about the eyes being dilated so much.) If this is the case, the little girl has really dark eyes, so that is contributing to the look.

OK. Yes dilated, could not think of the word at the time. Thanks, I will just keep working with my speed lights until I have a full understanding using them. It doesn't help that time shooting in a poorly lit area either.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

If you want peoples' eyeballs to not be dilated pretty widely, the modeling bulb light that strikes the face needs to be reasonably bright. If the modeling light has a variable brightness control, and the light is turned to a pretty low setting, if the lamp is a lowish output lamp to begin with, by the time the flash level drops to 1/4 power, the modeling light might not be "all that bright".

There are flash units with modeling lights with 250-Watt, 150-Watt, and 100-Watt quartz-halogen bulbs, and ones that use 100-,75-,60-,and even 35-Watt incandescent bulbs, of various actual output levels. Using flash units that have 250-Watt to 100-Watt, quart-halogen modeling lights in them makes focusing EASY, and positive, since the lights are bright. By the time I get to the lights I own that use three x 25-Watt incandescent lamps, focusing is much less sure...the light just is nowhere near as bright. Quartz puts off more light than incandescent in my experience.

There are also fairly bright LED modeling lamp setups, as well as power-saving LED modeling setups.

Sometimes you really WANT a really bright modeling light, and at the opposite extremes sometimes you want a low-powered one for use inside of a snoot, a small softbox, in a confined place, or to accurately represent a low-powered flash in a WYSIWYG type of way.

If you are running off of a battery or inverter, then low-Watt or very efficient LED modeling light systems might have a fairly real advantage.

 

[ronlane]

Okay, finally got back to set my lights back up and play a bit. The lights were at about 45 degree camera right and left at about 6-8 feet away from the subject. I turned the power up on the camera left to be about 1.5 stops higher.

I think this is okay except for the shadow under his chin. Is this due to having the lights too high?

 

[tirediron]

In part; it's also partly due to his chin being slightly too high. "Chin out, chin down" If he'd dropped it just a hair, the light would have given a nice accent line.

 

[Derrel]

Well...there's nothing wrong with a shadow under the chin...in fact, it's actually preferrable for most people work, to have SOME kind of shadowed area below the chin.

I would say that, gnerally, it's best not to put two lights at 45 degrees and then to shoot straight ahead, unless you're copying a wall-mounted painting or tapestry. The two lights here are acting as dual, competing main-lights. Leaving one of the lights (the right hand side one) turned off, would probably have made a nice image. This is very flat...there is basically an almost exact 1:1 light ratio across the width of the face, and the height of the two is not that bad--but it did create that weird, pointy under-chin shadow. The issue is that this lighting has almost no direction...you want some kind of a definite "direction" to your studio light for a portrait like this.