Winter project - learning to take studio portraits (UPDATE Week 2)

[smoke665]

I think the Flashpoint 320M is the best bang-for-buck monolight avaialble today.

Apparently you aren't the only one who thinks highly of the unit. Just went to their site, every one is on back order!!! Assuming this is a temporary situation, what would you recommend to start with on a 3 light setup?

 

[Braineack]

Apparently you aren't the only one who thinks highly of the unit. Just went to their site, every one is on back order!!! Assuming this is a temporary situation, what would you recommend to start with on a 3 light setup?

that thing is always on backorder. why i went with impact... been great for years, except now i have one that can't support a heavy modifier anymore -- starts to slowly tilt down no matter how hard i try to tighten it.

 

[Derrel]

Cookie!?

Yes, cookie, the modern word for the old-school device called a cookaloris.https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=Lkry&p=cookaloris&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top&norw=1

As far as replacement monolights for the Flashpoint 320M...as far as I can tell, these are made offshore by the Mettle company, and Adorama just "orders more as they are needed", hence the back-order status. In actual tests, the 320M puts out MORE flash power than an Alien Bee that costs much more, and which has a higher "faked" model number, something the Bees have been doing for a long time. An Alien Bee "800" is about a Speedotron "250". An Alien bee "1600" is a Speedotron "400". Mettle lights are sold world-wide, under multiple brand names.

I own mostly Speedo equipment, so I can not recommend to others much more than Flashpoint or Alien Bee 400 and 800 for lower cost units; the Einstein 640 is a very nice unit, but costs more than some people want to pay, per-light.

I would rather have more individual lights than more power. Today, 150 Watt-second units are enough for individual people and couples; we have ISO adjustment these days, and Nikon 200 ISO digital SLR is as good as 40 to 64 ISO slide film was when light unit powers became standardized decades ago.

 

[Derrel]

[QUOTE="Braineack] that thing is always on backorder. why i went with impact... been great for years, except now i have one that can't support a heavy modifier anymore -- starts to slowly tilt down no matter how hard i try to tighten it.[/QUOTE]

Does it use replaceable washers in the tightening mechanism? Ones which could be replaced with newer, grittier washers made of thin leather, or a "sandpaper washer"?

 

[Derrel]

Many thanks to @MSnowy for starting this thread!! I too have started moving into this area, and lighting is making me pull my hair out.

APS-C favors shooting from 7 feet back to 10 feet on singles, back to to 25 to 30 feet on larger groups.

Great Information provided. I understood most of what you were saying, but was the above quote a mistake??? Did you mean to say FF, because it seems to contradict what you said earlier in the same paragraph? Otherwise I'm confused?

using an APS-C camera, beware on half-body and 3/4 body shots like this, of getting into that 23 to 38mm focal length range from TOO CLOSE of a shooting range: this is a common issue with APS-C in-studio:

In your comments you advocate moving back 34 feet on a full length shot for an 85mm lens, APS-C. For those of us using a 50 mm prime, and limited floor space, what would you recommend (distance or maximum profile)?

I learned studio photography on 6x7 roll film, and on 35mm 24x36, and shot a ton on half-frame 35mm long-roll magazine cameras, which is almost exactly APS-C. No, APS-C format studio portraiture works best from 7 to 10 feet on singles and couples, with a zoom lens, and 25 feet back, camera horizontal, on groups of up to 25 people. THOSE ARE the 'secret distances' that make the background width its maximum, and make the people look the best, and which keep the background well out of focus, and avoid showing the top or edges of a 12-foot wide backdrop. If you have only 9-foot wide paper, the issue is even worse, and you need longer lenses and need to carefully avoid using too short of a focal length, from too close-up.

The danger with APS-C is shooting from too close a distance, at too short a lens length, and showing the edges of the backround paper or canvas; moving the camera farther away, and using a longer lens length, keeps the angle of view narrower, behind the subject. I do not 'recommend' being 34 feet back with the 85mm lens on APS-C: that is the simple physics to get an 8.5 foot tall framing area; that is literally the requirement of APS-C; with 24x36mm, like MSnowy has in Nikon D3s, he can get the same, exact picture frame height from 20.0 feet.

For a group of 20 people with APS-C, you need to move the camera back to 25 feet or so, flip it wide, and shoot in the 70-75-80mm length to get the group, three rows deep, 1) in-focus at f/13 and 2)the camera far enough away so that the front row is not vastly larger on-film than the back row. If you shoot the same group from "up close" at 32mm lens zoom, the front row will be BIG, the second row smaller, third row pin-headed and 2) the angle of viw will go "off the canvas" even with a 12-foot wide sweep. hence, why APS-C works best from 7-10 feet on singles, and up to 25 feet away on bigger groups.

Each camera format has its own best range of focal lengths for in-studio shots. APS-C uses shorter lens lengths than 24x36, for the same picture angles. The biggest issue is groups of 10 or more, that cover a lot of physical width, which is when you need to mocve the camera BACK, to avoid wide-angle lenses and the way they show the world: wide in view, and with close=big and far=small, and a w_i_d_e angle of view behind the foreground, which is where the people are placed.

 

[tirediron]

Cookie!?

For anyone that's interested, probably the best and most comprehensive lighting terminology glossary on the 'net.

 

[MSnowy]

One of the hardest things with learning in 2016 is the prevalence of HUGE lights...big umbrellas, big soft boxes, big octas and so on; the issue with big lights? They put out a large swath of soft light, and they make it hard to learn exactly where to place the lights. They throw light 'everywhere'. Shoot-thru umbrellas can throw ambient spill; flush-faced softboxes can throw a lot of light off to the sides; 60-inch umbrellas are sooooo big they can barely be used indoors unless you have 13-foot high ceilings.

There's a lot to be said for 16- or 20-inch parabolic reflectors (with diffusion added to the front), or 20- to 22-inch beauty dishes, as a way to really learn the how of lighting. The 16- and 20- parabolic reflectors are "old-school"; the new-school is the beauty dish in 20- or 22-inch sizes most often. The difference is the beauty dish usually has a disc-shaped deflector, while the old-fashioned parabolic does not have the deflector, but allows the flash tube to be seen, hence the common use of a mylar front diffuser.

Basic idea: 1) Main light off to one side, but the fill light placed right by the camera, aimed straight ahead. Or, 2) Main light off to one side, fill light proivided by a reflector placed in front of the subject's nose line. Avoid two lights at 45 degrees to the subject most of the time on people.

Lighting Ratio of about 3:1: Main light at 4.0 feet, or 5.6 feet, or 8 feet, or 11 feet. Fill light unit set to the identical power with identical modifier at one distance greater than the main light distance. Mathematics and f/stops works in strange ways. The second way to get this 3:1 lighting ratio is two lights, one at Full power, other at Half power, at the same distance to the subject.

30- to 32-inch umbrellas can create beautiful light that looks a lot like a beauty dish. Ones that have black backing, and reflect the light, are preferable. Photoflex and Westcott make GOOD umbrellas. 28 x 28 Made in China soft boxes are pretty handy for head and shoulders and low-ceiling rooms. The medium 36" x 48" Photoflex white-interior softbox is a standard size useful for many situations, and has the rectangular advantage. With umbrellas, use the right spill-kill reflector on the light, or you risk letting raw light leak out everywhere, off to the sides and ceiling/floor. Again...an eggcrate grid can be super-useful on a softbox or octabox.

Studio lighting, for people or for products, is an entire field of photography. If you have no people to work on, get some kind of a stand-in. Hell, even a basketball. The biggest issue I see is all the YouTubers who use nothing but one or two kinds of light modifiers, and who really do not understand what light shaping tools are. Grids, flags, reflectors, diffusers,snoots,different types of metallic reflectors, barn doors, cookies, etc..

Day 2

I tried idea #1

 

[tirediron]

Nicely done! The only immediate nit is that his face seems to be picking up quite a bit of the red from the shirt.

 

[Derrel]

The red shirt is very powerful. Might have a litle bit more fill light than is needed on the face and ear; the lighting is rather low-ratio, which keeps skin texture low-ish, which is probably a good thing. It's very subtle, but his body posture is not quite ideal...he'd look better if he were leaning forward from the waist a little bit, so his head would come more forward, and be a bit more prominent. As-shown, the dark area at the bottom, and the long sleeves in the 3:2 aspect ratio make this shot feel a little bit too tall and skinny.

Save it, look at it in two weeks. Then two months. Your opinion and your eye will change over time. If this is a selfie, it's pretty good, since they are so difficult to do and you cannot evaluate everything the way you can when standing behind the camera. I think it is just a little tiny bit over-filled on the face. The bottom of the zippered shirt looks a bit dark, and the chest and face have maybe a little bit more light on them than ideal to force the eye to the man's face.

I see a pretty decent crop-in with 65% of the outside eliminated, a much more close-in look at the man, less shirt.

 

[MSnowy]

Nicely done! The only immediate nit is that his face seems to be picking up quite a bit of the red from the shirt.

Thanks John. Not sure if the red's from the shirt or wind burn, I just got back from looking for Snowy Owls down at the ocean when I took it.

 

[MSnowy]

The red shirt is very powerful. Might have a litle bit more fill light than is needed on the face and ear; the lighting is rather low-ratio, which keeps skin texture low-isa, which is probably a good thing. It's very subtle, but his body posture is not idea...he'd look better if he were leaning forward from the waist a little bit, so his head would come more forward, and be a bit more prominent. As-shown, the dark area at the bottom, and the long sleeves in the 3:2 aspect ratio make this shot feel a little bit too tall and skinny.

Save it, look at it in two weeks. Then two months. Your opinion and your eye will change over time. If this is a selfie, it's pretty good, since they are so difficult to do and you cannot evaluate everything the way you can whens standing behind the camera. I think it is just a little bit over-filled on the face. The bottom of the zippered shirt looks a bit dark, and the chest and face have maybe a little bit more light on them than ideal to force the eye to the man's face.

I see a pretty decent crop-in with 65% of the outside eliminated, a much more close-in look at the man, less shirt.

Thanks. more great info. Ya it's a selfie.

 

[MSnowy]

Week 2 of my project

This one I've posted in another thread but here I've adjusted the reds down some per @tirediron

These are from my "I hate when you ask to me pose for pictures sessions"

22 and still wont follow directions

 

[tirediron]

Nicely done. Nice, appropriate lighting; good solid images. I think #1 is much better with the reds pulled down a bit.

 

[MSnowy]

Nicely done. Nice, appropriate lighting; good solid images. I think #1 is much better with the reds pulled down a bit.

Thanks John I appreciate your help

 

[tirediron]

Nicely done. Nice, appropriate lighting; good solid images. I think #1 is much better with the reds pulled down a bit.

Thanks John I appreciate your help

You should re-shoot that wearing a dark brown fedora or similar hat....