PDA

View Full Version : Lightning for portraits



fredludv
8-Feb-2009, 03:09
Hi, I want to start to work with studio lightning for portraits. I shoot 4x5" both in b/w and color negs.
I want also to be able to take the studio light with me outdoors, a battery/generator to power supply the strobes/lights.

I have not done any studiowork before but are pretty clear on what I like to do in portraits.

Does anyone have any ideas on buying equippment for this, or any one like to share how you are working with studio lightning together with LF?
What kind of "workflow" you have, do you use ultra modern equippment for this or do you use old fashion bulbs? Do you use hot light? Any solutions are welcome and interesting!

More questions to come...

Any tips on recourses on internet on where to find fore info/read about studio light for LF, or books?

aphexafx
8-Feb-2009, 03:35
fredludv, lightning is dangerous and can kill you. Keep it out of the studio! :)

There are two very important things to DO about learning studio lighting of any denomination (portrait, product, etc.):

1) Read, read, read and learn everything that you can about standard techniques. Take all advice and worry about weeding it out later.

2) Experiment and play with lighting on your own. Ignore everything you've read and work things out for yourself. Get some good examples to target (see books below).

Eventually these seemingly polar opposite techniques will pop together, like when you hit focus in your viewfinder, and more and more things will become clear and stick. There is the importance of understanding basic techniques and formulas, and there is the very important fact that YOU have full creative control over nearly every photon hitting your film (or sensor).

The hot-light vs. strobe issue is really up to you, but I started with a pair of strobes with decent modeling lamps which allowed me to experiment with both. Monolights can be found used for fairly cheap and are easy to work with.

Start with two, or even one head and get a reflector. Make a reflector if you have to. Your local hardware depot is good for this.

I hate to say it on this forum, but a decent digital camera can make learning these things SO MUCH easier and will also save you a ton of money. It will also help prepare you for shooting transparencies, should you ever, which behave more like digital sensors than color-negative film.

There are MANY good books on lighting, and others here can help you with the standard reads, but two books that I have learned so much from are "Still Life and Special Effects Photography" by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz (RotoVision) and "Creative Lighting Techniques for Studio Photographers" by Dave Montizambert (Amherst Media). Note that the first book is not a dialog, but a collection of great work with diagrams, notes, and insights detailing the setups used to produce them. Priceless.

Lastly, if there are local classes that you can take on basic portrait lighting, you can learn much for a relatively small investment.

I am just learning myself – you will learn the most by becoming dedicated and putting yourself in a position to experiment. Personally, I have much to learn, but I'm having a great time doing it and I'll never stop! The reason I am up to see your question at 3:30am my time is because I am playing with photography. :D

Good luck and welcome!

** ADDED ** Note that if you are looking to do portrait work in a studio (as opposed to outdoors) with large format, you will want to get into using strobes, and fairly powerful ones at that...

Tony Lakin
8-Feb-2009, 03:48
Maybe he's gonna photograph Frankensteins monster:D

Archphoto
8-Feb-2009, 04:55
About LF/TC: use the lens to get to image you want, use the back of the camera to focus.

A studio-pod is a great asset.

You can use a digi as a lightmeter, but reminded that you will need a safe-sync to connect the strobes with the digi, otherwise you will fry it.

I have used both the 2 and 3 lamp setup, depending on the person.
At any time I used a softbox without the front (mine has an internal baffle aswell) at the front for general lighting, it adds some crispyness to it that way.

One of the worst things is shadows behind the person, so you will have to deal with that: use an extra strobe to get rid of it, or use a black velvet background.

A third strobe with a snout can be used to get some more detail in dark hair.

What it boils down to: experiment a lot !
Start with 35mm to get an idea how things work, the settings needed for each strobe, the distance to the subject and so on.
Use your wife or kids to experiment with.

Peter

fredludv
8-Feb-2009, 06:39
Ok, sorry about the english, I meant thunder, not lightning.

Thanks for the info, I will definetly look up the books you mentioned, Matt!

Hm, I do not own a digital SLR, and I dont think I will in the nearest time. But I can understand that the learning curve is fast. It could be too fast for me if I tried that. I am quite a slow person..

I understad, when it comes to controlling the light, that it has to be a lot of experimenting to learn this, and analyzing the photograph after the exposure..

I am very tempted to use this in the field. Anyone bringing their studio "on location" with their viewcamera, and if so, what equippment do you use? I see that portable studiolight can be quite expensive, but heard about solutions with car battery and transformers that can be used together with strobes...(?)

How do you take the reading? Flashmetering? Using "modellight"? (if able to)

Walter Calahan
8-Feb-2009, 06:47
Yes, get a flashmeter.

I use Dynalite equipment. Lightweight, portable, and extremely well made. http://www.dynalite.com/pkgs.shtml

You can use pretty much any strobe gear with your LF system.

All depends on what you are after as far as look and feel of your images. Most important is to purchase or built light modifying gear to shape the light you get from your strobes. Rarely is raw strobe light what photographers use.

You will spend a lifetime exploring light.

Points to remember:

Main light is your 'sun.' It gives shape and texture to the image.

Fill light is the 'sky'. It opens shadows.

Then you'll probably need a background light and a 'kicker' of 'hair' light to give the subject separation from the background. A simple 4 light kits is a good place to start.

fredludv
8-Feb-2009, 06:52
Thank you very mouch Walter!

Paul Droluk
8-Feb-2009, 06:59
There is a marvelous series of books... the "Pro Lighting Series", published by Rotovision. Each book (I think there were 10) covers a different topic (Product, Portraits, Erotica etc.). Each book diagrams and explains detailed lighting set-ups, using (superb) photos as your guide. Highly, highly recommended.

Peter De Smidt
8-Feb-2009, 07:02
I have one article on studio lighting at www.peterdesmidt.com/blog, but I wouldn't want to carry that much equipment in the field unless I had a lot of help. With large format you need lot's of light, or you need a subject that can keep very still.

A few years ago, I experimented with 4x5 and 8x10 portraiture using hot lights. I found that BW film lost significant speed using the hot lights, and the bright light tended to make models squint. George Hurrell, and others, did great work with this type of setup, but he had very good models. Now if you're doing nudes with the model not looking at the light, and posed such that they can stay still, then hot lights could be very good. Used Mole Richardson, Ianebeam, Arri, and Lowel lights would work. Be careful with hot lights and light modifiers. It's very easy to start a fire, and occasionally bulbs can explode, and you want to make sure that if that happens that no one is injured.

For studio work, I see that Speedotron 4303s going for around $300 on the auction site, which is a lot of light for very little. Before digital, the studio at which I work, www.imagestudios.com, used these speedos for tons of 4x5 and 8x10 work, including the lighting of huge sets. When shooting was started, I was told that you could hear the electrical wires in the conduits moving from all the current moving through them.

To maximize output, you'd want to use Speedo 106 heads with the 4300 series packs, one per pack to maximize output. You'd also probably want a few regular 102 heads.

These packs are large and very heavy. Never plug heads into a Speedo pack without turning the packs off, and never open up a Speedo pack unless you have a death wish.

On the slow recharge setting, these packs pull about 17 amps per pack. If there are no outlets where we want to shoot, we use generators. Although since we're all digital these days, we rarely take the big speedo's on location.

There are battery packs that you can use. We have one for use with our Dynalite location kits, and we also have Dynalite monolights with jack rabbit battery packs, but unless you're shooting wide open with a Verito lens or similar, these options will not give you enough light.

Peter De Smidt
8-Feb-2009, 07:09
Last week we did a portrait of the CEO of a power company in his office. We were going to use two of the very small Speedotron 805 packs. I plugged one into the 20amp outlet in his office, and when I turned it on, with no heads attached mind you, power went out on 1/2 of that floor, including all of the computers. Mind you, this was at an electric company! Luckily, they had a small fridge and some coffee makers on a separate line. We were able to run some long extension cords from that outlet to get the shot.

cjbroadbent
8-Feb-2009, 07:39
My posts usualy run against accepted practice, but here goes again.

You can do it all with one umbrella just to the side of the camera (traditionally, the left side). And remember: You don't light a sitter. The sitter lights herself.

No back-light/hair-light, no cheek reflections on the off-side - these ugly practices look cheapo and compensate for bad separation of tones behind the sitter.

If your shots look like Penn's you are on the right track.

The single umbrella simulates a window light. It has two easily remediable defects.
1. It gives too much light on the lower near side of the sitter, so fix that by aiming it straight, not downwards.
2. It gives too much light on the near side of the background, so fix that by aiming it straight across the sitter and not towards the background.
These two remedies work when the lamp-head is well inside the edge of the umbrella and when the lamp-head makes no spill.

So there you are with the near side of the sitter lit, aginst a darker background and the far side of the sitter dark and against a lighter background. If you want to be subtle, give the tonal extremes to the sitter and a lesser tonal range to the background.
To make life easier, I paint, and carry around a background which is darker on the left and lighter on the right.

Now for the nice part. Watch the shadow under the nose. Watch the 'butterfly' light on the far cheek. Turn the face into the light. Turn the face away from the light.
How much detail you have in the shadow tends to set the mood and depends on the ambient bounce (read Leonardo DaVinci on penumbra - he sorted that out 500 years ago).

Any flash head that gives you f8 out of the umbrella is good. I shoot 4x5 portraits at f22 with 2,400Ws generator. I could get by with a 500Ws monolight at f8. But a 2,000w Kobold HMI (heavy stuff) only gives me f6.3 for 1 second. If you like shooting wide open and slow, you are going to waste a lot of shots to bad focus and movement.

Frank Petronio
8-Feb-2009, 08:09
Listen to Christopher. At the very least, his advice will save you money and give you distinctive portraits.

I use a couple of hot lights and often shoot ISO 400 film at f/5.6 and 1/60th second. It works well enough for me but my pictures are mediocre, out of focus crap ;-)

I think for learning (which never stops) hot lights and a digital camera are the best. Too many people get strobes and never really learn to see the light, they just point the strobes and hope they get acceptable - but never ideal - results.

fredludv
8-Feb-2009, 08:58
This is very interesting, reading how you work and your opinions! Many thanks. Feel free to post some photographs aswell and maby a little info with that on how you lit it...
Kind regards / Fredrik

fredludv
8-Feb-2009, 09:00
Hey Frank, in my eyes they are indeed very interesting and ... exiting. Not often to see in portraits.

otzi
8-Feb-2009, 09:10
There are two ways of seeing. Start in a well lit space and add shadow or in a dim place and reduce shadow with reflectors or power. Its shade and shadow that gives you the modeling so often touted. Before you light up your life practice seeing, when no one is looking shut one eye to cancel the parallax thing. Gradually squint to reduce aperture using the lashes to slowly cut out more light till eventually the seen image is B+Wish. See how the shadows rather than light start taking a greater influence in the image composition. Experienced photogs do this unconsciously in scene evaluation.

You will see pictures in magazines of location shoots with lights, reflectors and enough cables to wire a city. There are two main reasons, 1– some one else is paying and 2– some one else is carrying all this stuff. Impression is at times more important than the doing.

There is great satisfaction in creating a pleasant portrait with one light source or reflector. Study old art where simplicity of shadow reduction is evidenced. It's handy to have some one on a swivel stool move around as you watch the effect, often only requiring a slight movement.

Peter De Smidt
8-Feb-2009, 09:48
Oops. In my earlier post I talked about Speedotron 4303 packs. That should've been 4803 packs. Sorry. Haven't had coffee yet.

Ben Syverson
8-Feb-2009, 11:46
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Strobist (http://www.strobist.com/) yet... It's mostly about using small hotshoe speedlights, but all the ideas are applicable to larger lights as well. Besides, I've taken plenty of LF shots lit with just one Nikon SB-26... It doesn't give you a lot of options when it comes to your f/stop, but it does work...

Bjorn Nilsson
8-Feb-2009, 15:14
Lots of good advice, but reading Christophers advice is probably the best advice yet. I.e. start with learning one light.
By the way, take a moment to look at Christophers pictures. Very nice studio work indeed.

//Björn

cowanw
8-Feb-2009, 16:40
Hey Frank, in my eyes they are indeed very interesting and ... exiting. Not often to see in portraits.

I don't find them exiting. I want to stay and look at them.;)
Regards
Bill

fredludv
10-Feb-2009, 14:07
Thanks all for the advices.

Christopher, I read your post a few times now and realize that your advice are exactly what I needed. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.

rvhalejr
12-Feb-2009, 17:38
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Strobist yet... It's mostly about using small hotshoe speedlights, but all the ideas are applicable to larger lights as well. Besides, I've taken plenty of LF shots lit with just one Nikon SB-26... It doesn't give you a lot of options when it comes to your f/stop, but it does work...

I use the DSLR with SB-28DX as a master flash to trigger the SB-26 array. Then (if I like what I see) move up to MF or 4x5. During magic time (1-2 hours before sunset) at the beach I've used one SB-26 as a fill (with filters on flash and lens) and DSLR to dial it in. Then stuck the stobe and 4x5 (with same filters) and shot portrait film (with a touch of diffusion, not blur).

Re: CFL's and Daylight balanced film making me blue
...largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=421130

If I've got the time or doing work indoors white umbrella's as diffusers and or light boxes as modeling lights works good. I've gone overboard with networked strobes and continuous lighting at which point everything can begin to look flat, less is better than to much lighting for portraits.

I've tested a 2000w inverter hooked up the old ford explorer with about 300 feet of cable. I think thats probably the limit without a dedicated generator. CFLs and Color balance can be very challenging, low weight, low heat but lots of tinkering and tools.

Ben Syverson
12-Feb-2009, 20:29
Totally. The DSLR is the new Polaroid. If you know how to read an RGB histogram, it actually tells you more than a Polaroid ever did.

John NYC
29-Jan-2011, 15:17
My posts usualy run against accepted practice, but here goes again.

You can do it all with one umbrella just to the side of the camera (traditionally, the left side). And remember: You don't light a sitter. The sitter lights herself.

No back-light/hair-light, no cheek reflections on the off-side - these ugly practices look cheapo and compensate for bad separation of tones behind the sitter.

If your shots look like Penn's you are on the right track.

The single umbrella simulates a window light. It has two easily remediable defects.
1. It gives too much light on the lower near side of the sitter, so fix that by aiming it straight, not downwards.
2. It gives too much light on the near side of the background, so fix that by aiming it straight across the sitter and not towards the background.
These two remedies work when the lamp-head is well inside the edge of the umbrella and when the lamp-head makes no spill.

So there you are with the near side of the sitter lit, aginst a darker background and the far side of the sitter dark and against a lighter background. If you want to be subtle, give the tonal extremes to the sitter and a lesser tonal range to the background.
To make life easier, I paint, and carry around a background which is darker on the left and lighter on the right.

Now for the nice part. Watch the shadow under the nose. Watch the 'butterfly' light on the far cheek. Turn the face into the light. Turn the face away from the light.
How much detail you have in the shadow tends to set the mood and depends on the ambient bounce (read Leonardo DaVinci on penumbra - he sorted that out 500 years ago).

Any flash head that gives you f8 out of the umbrella is good. I shoot 4x5 portraits at f22 with 2,400Ws generator. I could get by with a 500Ws monolight at f8. But a 2,000w Kobold HMI (heavy stuff) only gives me f6.3 for 1 second. If you like shooting wide open and slow, you are going to waste a lot of shots to bad focus and movement.

Mr. Broadbent,

Thanks for this fabulous post. Just what I was looking for as I scour the LFPF for info on lighting portraits.

Mr. Broadbent and others reading,

I want to start shooting portraits with my 8x10 (have previously only done outdoor). I've bought a little setup to use with my existing digital camera and flashgun to practice for working up to 8x10. I'd rather have all the basic techniques down with that first, and it was cheap to get that setup as I had a lot of the gear already.

In the meantime, I am forward looking for a single flash head that would give me enough light to do the umbrella shoot through approach you are talking about, preferably more than just head and shoulders. I'm not sure I could do full body with an umbrella? Anyway, I'd rather buy nice gear at the start, which is why I am planning now so I can see what the budget will need to be. I was looking at the Elinchrom 1200ws flash unit. Is that enough power for f/22, ISO 100 8x10?

I want to go flash and not continuous lighting for a number of reasons, and using my digital setup, I believe I can get through the technique learning curve fairly easily (and definitely inexpensively) without it.

Frank Petronio
29-Jan-2011, 16:09
Not to speak for Christopher, but some photographers will use very large umbrellas, like 80", for full-length portraiture. Or flats of white foamcore or simply white walls. Or diffusion material strung over a large frame. Or....

A 1200 watt-sec Elinchrom strobe should be in the f/22 @ ISO100 range, give or take a stop, for a head and shoulders portrait with the umbrellas a couple of feet away.

If you want to fill an 80" umbrellas for full-length portraits at f/22 @ ISO100 then you will need several times the output of a 1200 w-s strobe.

cjbroadbent
29-Jan-2011, 16:39
Hello John, Yes you can do full-length portraits with a single umbrella. I will be a bit further off and therefor a relatively smaller and harder source and a 1200ws flash will probable drop below f16 with ISO100.
You could relieve the hardness with a white wall or sheet behind you (never to the side). Like Frank says, There's no harm in getting a biggish umbrella in the first place. I had Elinca - a very sound investment.
Single umbrella shot (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_OR3U2BmIDuk/SxfCQi0_vTI/AAAAAAAACiU/y8YrookGbFo/s800/776.jpg), no fill.

John NYC
29-Jan-2011, 17:37
Frank and Chris,

Great info. Thank you both. I have some time to mull this over while I practice with the little digital mock-up setup.

Chris... LOVE this... http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats#5433973155541767058

ki6mf
30-Jan-2011, 06:46
Some Portable gear recommendations. If you are going to set up lights manual power setting is what probably will be required. The strobist community and Midwest Photo (mpex.com) came up with the LumoPro LP160 Manual Flash. Its light out put is similar to the Nikon SB 800 and the Cannon 500 series of lenses. I have two of them along with a Nikon SB 800. These speedlights are inexpensive compared to the brand names.

Also I would get a Flash Meter of some kind so you measure and adjust the light out levels for the light coming from various directions.

A technique tip. For Black and White film measure and set up lights and then go one stop (if your at 1/60 f8 go to 1/60 f5.6) to make your skin lighter. For darker skin go the other way to slightly darken the skin. This changes the skin tones, helps eliminate wrinkles. You can use a single studio strobe with battery pack and speed lights for all of your fill. Or you could go totally portable and if you have large umbrellas use more than one speedlight for the main light along with single speedlights for the fill lights. This is a low cost option compared to studio lights.


Finally the next generation in lighting are LED Light panels. You can get 500 LED light panels for slightly more than the Lumopro. 1000 LED are out there too. Fixed lighting lets you check the quantity, quality, direction etc of light without heat. Their light output requires them to be used in close and the biggest plus is you can see the quality of light as you set up for the shot!

I would look at the tutorials on the strobist.com web site too.

Bob Kerner
30-Jan-2011, 07:33
John,

It seems as if you and I are on similar pathways. I have a thread open on the topic down in Style and Technique. I hope your mileage varies better than mine, but I've not had a lot of success with small flashes in LF. Just not enough power when shooting through an umbrella, AFAICT using a flash meter. I just got the negatives back from my latest attempt and I'll see if the results are better than what I predict them to be.

From what I've gleaned here and over at the Strobist Flickr forum, "previewing" with a DSLR is the way to go while learning, rather than burn film. My reading keeps bringing me back to two strobe options: A White Lightning 3200ws light or a used Dynalite/Speedotron rig.

Good luck and please keep us posted so we can learn from your journey.

ki6mf
30-Jan-2011, 07:46
John,

It seems as if you and I are on similar pathways. I have a thread open on the topic down in Style and Technique. I hope your mileage varies better than mine, but I've not had a lot of success with small flashes in LF. Just not enough power when shooting through an umbrella, AFAICT using a flash meter. I just got the negatives back from my latest attempt and I'll see if the results are better than what I predict them to be.

From what I've gleaned here and over at the Strobist Flickr forum, "previewing" with a DSLR is the way to go while learning, rather than burn film. My reading keeps bringing me back to two strobe options: A White Lightning 3200ws light or a used Dynalite/Speedotron rig.

Good luck and please keep us posted so we can learn from your journey.

My two cents worth is the need for a flash meter becomes more and more important for this type of work. Whether its B&W or Color with film you may be able to sleep better waiting for the film to come back from the lab, or in your darkroom, if you measure the light prior to the exposure. While I was figuring this out I learned, by blowing my exposures, that you also need to log everything in an exposure record. And dare I say this, shooting digital is easier in terms of checking what your results are. If you don't like the results, you can change and not worry about what the outcome is.

That said I still shoot film and will now go and wash my mouth out with soap.

Frank Petronio
30-Jan-2011, 08:40
A continuous light source is so much easier to learn with... it could even be a window.

I think most photographers only think in terms of strobes. It's hard to see light quality with strobe unless you shoot Polaroids of every move, like we did back in the old studio days when it was cheap and clients/your parents would pay for it.

You'd be a lot better off with a cheap old Nikon D70 and a Tungsten light to start with.

All this plastic fantastic Joe McNally - Strobist BS is fine... if you're Joe McNally and that Strobist guy making $$$ off the seminars. But you can bet they didn't learn how to light using a shoe mount flash themselves.

Bob Kerner
30-Jan-2011, 08:55
A continuous light source is so much easier to learn with... it could even be a window.

I think most photographers only think in terms of strobes. It's hard to see light quality with strobe unless you shoot Polaroids of every move, like we did back in the old studio days when it was cheap and clients/your parents would pay for it.

You'd be a lot better off with a cheap old Nikon D70 and a Tungsten light to start with.

All this plastic fantastic Joe McNally - Strobist BS is fine... if you're Joe McNally and that Strobist guy making $$$ off the seminars. But you can bet they didn't learn how to light using a shoe mount flash themselves.

I'm afraid you're right again! Damn, is there something in the water up there that conveys wisdom?

In one of the threads here, someone said, "strobe if the client is paying; otherwise, continuous lighting." I'd say that I'm slightly above average with my Nikon speedlights with the advantage of chimping on the camera's LCD. The LCD allows me to see what the heck is going on. Continuous light is a lot easier to learn by because you can for the most part skip a lot of the chimping; it's right in front of your eyes.

I'm one of those who thinks hot lights are "old fashioned" compared to using a fancy strobe unit, but for LF the amount of power you need out of a strobe can make it expensive pretty quickly unless you find good used gear.

I'm currently mesmerized by Dan Winters' portraits. His book, Pictorial Photographs, is worth every penny. Someone on the strobist forum emailed him to ask how he lit Tom Hanks and he actually replied. He said (shocker) that it wasn't about the gear, it's about the light. Sometimes he rolls into town for a shoot and sends his crew to Home Depot to buy some halogens, clamps, aluminum reflectors (painted flat white to make into a beauty dish) and he uses that. And a can of paint to add color to a wall for the background. He spends as much time removing and controlling the light as adding it. Relatively free compared to a full Profoto rig that he has in his studio. But the results are indistinguishable.

At then end of the day it's about practice. Trial, error, note taking and repetition.

Frank Petronio
30-Jan-2011, 09:21
Dan Winters is a photographer's photographer.

I think Christopher Broadbent here is one too.

This guy is good too: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/11/20/frank-w-ockenfels-3-interview/

John NYC
30-Jan-2011, 10:09
John,

It seems as if you and I are on similar pathways. I have a thread open on the topic down in Style and Technique. I hope your mileage varies better than mine, but I've not had a lot of success with small flashes in LF. Just not enough power when shooting through an umbrella, AFAICT using a flash meter. I just got the negatives back from my latest attempt and I'll see if the results are better than what I predict them to be.

From what I've gleaned here and over at the Strobist Flickr forum, "previewing" with a DSLR is the way to go while learning, rather than burn film. My reading keeps bringing me back to two strobe options: A White Lightning 3200ws light or a used Dynalite/Speedotron rig.

Good luck and please keep us posted so we can learn from your journey.

Yes, I am not planning on using my small flash with LF at all. As I mentioned above, I am going to spend my team learning all the techniques on digital, then switch to LF with the proper amount of light gear.

I was not aware that White Lightening had a single 3200ws model. I will have to look that one up. Thanks for the heads up!

John NYC
30-Jan-2011, 10:14
Some Portable gear recommendations. If you are going to set up lights manual power setting is what probably will be required. The strobist community and Midwest Photo (mpex.com) came up with the LumoPro LP160 Manual Flash. Its light out put is similar to the Nikon SB 800 and the Cannon 500 series of lenses. I have two of them along with a Nikon SB 800. These speedlights are inexpensive compared to the brand names.

Also I would get a Flash Meter of some kind so you measure and adjust the light out levels for the light coming from various directions.

A technique tip. For Black and White film measure and set up lights and then go one stop (if your at 1/60 f8 go to 1/60 f5.6) to make your skin lighter. For darker skin go the other way to slightly darken the skin. This changes the skin tones, helps eliminate wrinkles. You can use a single studio strobe with battery pack and speed lights for all of your fill. Or you could go totally portable and if you have large umbrellas use more than one speedlight for the main light along with single speedlights for the fill lights. This is a low cost option compared to studio lights.


Finally the next generation in lighting are LED Light panels. You can get 500 LED light panels for slightly more than the Lumopro. 1000 LED are out there too. Fixed lighting lets you check the quantity, quality, direction etc of light without heat. Their light output requires them to be used in close and the biggest plus is you can see the quality of light as you set up for the shot!

I would look at the tutorials on the strobist.com web site too.

Thanks Wally. Lots of good info here. Will have to read up on the LED things for the future.

For now, I already have my equipment for the digital setup. I had the expensive pieces already, including my Canon DSLR, 580 EX II flash, Sekonic 758Dr meter. What I added to get a little rig going was a pc cable/adapter to trigger the flash (from the camera and the meter), a stand with configurable clamp, a single 46" shoot through umbrella, a white/silver 42" reflector.

When I move to LF to do this, I will switch out the light, stand (get a heavier one) and modifer, but use the same techniques. That's the plan anyway.

John NYC
30-Jan-2011, 10:18
A continuous light source is so much easier to learn with... it could even be a window.

I think most photographers only think in terms of strobes. It's hard to see light quality with strobe unless you shoot Polaroids of every move, like we did back in the old studio days when it was cheap and clients/your parents would pay for it.

You'd be a lot better off with a cheap old Nikon D70 and a Tungsten light to start with.

All this plastic fantastic Joe McNally - Strobist BS is fine... if you're Joe McNally and that Strobist guy making $$$ off the seminars. But you can bet they didn't learn how to light using a shoe mount flash themselves.

Want to go with Strobes for many reasons. They will be more versatile for me in the long run, and if I learn everything in continuous light, I will then have another learning curve with strobes anyway. Since I can take endless shots for "nothing" with DSLR, I'm not worried about cost. See my DSLR setup in the post above. I do not plan on shooting any LF stuff until I have my technique down.

John NYC
30-Jan-2011, 10:59
I'm one of those who thinks hot lights are "old fashioned" compared to using a fancy strobe unit, but for LF the amount of power you need out of a strobe can make it expensive pretty quickly unless you find good used gear.

I'm currently mesmerized by Dan Winters' portraits. His book, Pictorial Photographs, is worth every penny. Someone on the strobist forum emailed him to ask how he lit Tom Hanks and he actually replied. He said (shocker) that it wasn't about the gear, it's about the light. Sometimes he rolls into town for a shoot and sends his crew to Home Depot to buy some halogens, clamps, aluminum reflectors (painted flat white to make into a beauty dish) and he uses that. And a can of paint to add color to a wall for the background. He spends as much time removing and controlling the light as adding it. Relatively free compared to a full Profoto rig that he has in his studio. But the results are indistinguishable.

At then end of the day it's about practice. Trial, error, note taking and repetition.

When I looked at what it would take to get a cool-running light powerful enough for LF, it wasn't any better than a powerful strobe, cost wise. If you eventually want to add one to three more lights, then you are talking about a pretty enormous amount of power and heat if you went non-cool. And the costs would go up there as well, not to mention the size and difficulty with the amount of equipment.

As for my particular circumstances, I am going to be working in places with 100 year old electrical systems. I'm not willing to blow out people's fuses, etc. I want to run on batteries to make sure I am as low footprint as possible. I also don't want a fire hazard, which continuous lights can definitely be. I will be on location, not in a studio, and in very small spaces. Because I do not have a car, I need to carry everything in a backpack and a big roller bag, and this means the eventual LF setup, too!

To me it make sense to combine the learning curves together (lighting and lighting with strobes). But if for some reason I can't hack it, I can always buy a small tungsten light as Frank suggests for my DSLR practice setup. But because of circumstances I have, I can never see myself using continuous light for LF.

Bob Kerner
30-Jan-2011, 11:09
When I looked at what it would take to get a cool-running light powerful enough for LF, it wasn't any better than a powerful strobe, cost wise. Once you want to one to three more lights, then you are talking about a pretty enormous amount of power and heat if you went non-cool. And the costs would go up there as well, not to mention the size and difficulty with the amount of equipment.

As for my particular circumstances, I am going to be working in places with 100 year old electrical systems. I'm not willing to blow out people's fuses, etc. I want to run on batteries to make sure I am as low footprint as possible. I also don't want a fire hazard, which continuous lights can definitely be. I will be on location, not in a studio, and in very small spaces. Because I do not have a car, I need to carry everything in a backpack and a big roller bag, and this means the eventual LF setup, too!

To me it make sense to combine the learning curves together (lighting and lighting with strobes). But if for some reason I can't hack it, I can always buy a small tungsten light as Frank suggests for my DSLR practice setup. But because of circumstances I have, I can never see myself using continuous light for LF.

Understood. I'm not a fan (no pun intended) of the heat that my tungstens put out. And when working with people that don't understand the heat, it can be a real risk when they go to move the lights, not realizing the burn hazard.

Here's the link to the light I mentioned in my original reply:
http://www.white-lightning.com/x3200.html

The instruction manual is on the website to give you a sense of how it works. One thing that I do like about the big-boy monolights is that they have modeling lights, which the smaller speedlights don't really have. Best I can tell, the White Lightnings are self contained and don't require a separate pack, unless you need portable power. Their portable battery gets good reviews.

John NYC
30-Jan-2011, 11:18
Here's the link to the light I mentioned in my original reply:
http://www.white-lightning.com/x3200.html


Ah, that is not 3200ws as I thought from the name, but rather 1320ws.

Just in case you are interested, last week I asked Paul C. Buff on his forum about the Einstein (max 640ws) and my eventual LF use case:

http://www.paulcbuff-techforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1153

Bob Kerner
30-Jan-2011, 11:47
Ah, that is not 3200ws as I thought from the name, but rather 1320ws.

Just in case you are interested, last week I asked Paul C. Buff on his forum about the Einstein (max 640ws) and my eventual LF use case:

http://www.paulcbuff-techforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1153

Sorry about that. I made an assumption based on the model number. Nonetheless, that is the model that keeps coming up as a good choice for LF applications.

John NYC
30-Jan-2011, 12:10
Sorry about that. I made an assumption based on the model number. Nonetheless, that is the model that keeps coming up as a good choice for LF applications.

Yes, that looks like a much cheaper option than a (new at least) Elinchrom with similar specs I was looking at. Thanks for pointing it out. I must have passed over it on the website.

I got a little enamored with the Einstein whatchamado-everything functionality. But in the end, I am a manual dude, and it doesn't really matter to me to have those features.

The 3200 is priced pretty nicely!... not much more than what a Canon 580 EX II costs!

cjbroadbent
31-Jan-2011, 03:15
Y.... But in the end, I am a manual dude ...
I'm with you there!

All that's needed is on/off flash, on/off pilot, on/off sync. And the buttons must be distinguishable in the dark.

All that mode crap is worse than useless - it makes you make mistakes.
Whoever manages to shoot on anything but full power anyway?

I was with Elinca right from metal paper condensers in 1966 but lost them in 1980 because they followed Broncolor into the multi-button, multi-mode, memory madness.

I've even spoken to Elinca engineers - they insist on multi-modes because they get paid to 'improve' stuff, the marketing people insist on multi-features because the fat market is at entry-level. People starting out in the business tend to worry about features and potential (look at the 100-item DSLR menus).

Old hacks like, me who work in a darkened studio and take lunch breaks between set-up and shoot, just want on/off because we have so often mistaken level, sync and memory buttons. That's why I use LF and a Leica.

Where's the utility-model Flash? Balcar and Profoto were clean for a few years until they succumbed to featuritis like the rest. Engineers and salesmen don't take real photographs.

Frank Petronio
31-Jan-2011, 05:04
In the States you can still buy plenty of relatively inexpensive industrial domestic Speedtron, Norman, and Dynalite strobes that are simple. As long as you use a UV-coated flash tubes (all of the same kind) for your color photos, light is light and a thirty-year old Dynalite produces just as good a light as the latest model. Of the three brands, only Dynalite won't blow your hand off if you pull a head's cord while it is on and charged. (I wish my exes used Normans.)

However... they can get bulky. But it would be hard to beat the two packs/four heads I got for $300.

Don't get too hung up on manufacturer's ratings. I've had 800-watt Dynalites come within half-a-stop of 2400-watt Speedotrons in the same set up, the design of the reflector and flash tube also come into play. In fact the reflector and flash tube are a large part of ProFoto's success.

John if you insist on small, here is how to do it right: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/01/studio-in-a-box.html (but you might better rewire your building, haha). Poor guy spent several grand and still made the most boring picture ever.

As for learning with one brand or kind of light and not wanting to learn another... well, light is light and if changing the gear destroys your technique, then I'll say you didn't learn much, did you?

Bob, right, big-boy strobes have modeling lamps. The pro ones have 250-watt modeling lamps, the cheap ones have 100-watt modeling lamps. If you are using a box camera with the ground glass, you'll appreciate the brightest modeling lamps possible. Even if they get warm just like a darn hot light, which they are.

As for the Paul C. Buff lights, they keep improving but they just look... tacky. Ugh. But people swear by them, even if they look like doofus lights.

And as for the fancy digital controls and all that... well if you had a portrait studio with everything in a fixed position I guess it would be nice to grab the remote control and dial a light down a stop for the fat bald guys or brighten things up for the swarthies, but otherwise it seems like you'd be using it instead of getting off your butt and moving the light into the proper position, ie you'd get lazy. Or never use the features anyway.

John NYC
31-Jan-2011, 16:28
As for learning with one brand or kind of light and not wanting to learn another... well, light is light and if changing the gear destroys your technique, then I'll say you didn't learn much, did you?


What I meant was the mental visualization of your final picture when using a flash is a further step from having the light exactly there and always on, but it doesn't seem like a huge one that can't be added into the initial learning curve. Keep in mind I have been using a flash on camera (with "modifiers") for years.

Maybe I am going to be wrong about this, but getting the basic techniques down with a single strobe and an umbrella when I have a DSLR to learn with doesn't seem insurmountable to me. It is the taking of a creative picture that is the harder thing, as you allude to.

Brian Ellis
31-Jan-2011, 17:40
Ok, sorry about the english, I meant thunder, not lightning.

Thanks for the info, I will definetly look up the books you mentioned, Matt!

Hm, I do not own a digital SLR, and I dont think I will in the nearest time. But I can understand that the learning curve is fast. It could be too fast for me if I tried that. I am quite a slow person..

I understad, when it comes to controlling the light, that it has to be a lot of experimenting to learn this, and analyzing the photograph after the exposure..

I am very tempted to use this in the field. Anyone bringing their studio "on location" with their viewcamera, and if so, what equippment do you use? I see that portable studiolight can be quite expensive, but heard about solutions with car battery and transformers that can be used together with strobes...(?)

How do you take the reading? Flashmetering? Using "modellight"? (if able to)

Flash meters are a thing of the past. Use a digital camera for metering and instant feedback, not to mention saving the cost of film. Go buy a digital camera since you don't have one. You'll recoup the cost quickly compared to trying to learn with film. You don't need anything super-expensive since you won't be using the pictures, you'll just be using the screen to check the metering and the lighting in much the same way Polaroids were used in the old days.

Bob Kerner
31-Jan-2011, 19:28
What I meant was the mental visualization of your final picture when using a flash is a further step from having the light exactly there and always on, but it doesn't seem like a huge one that can't be added into the initial learning curve. Keep in mind I have been using a flash on camera (with "modifiers") for years.

Maybe I am going to be wrong about this, but getting the basic techniques down with a single strobe and an umbrella when I have a DSLR to learn with doesn't seem insurmountable to me. It is the taking of a creative picture that is the harder thing, as you allude to.

I did a little experiment this evening just to see what a small flash is capable of. I took two Nikon Sb800 lights and rigged them up behind a 60inch shoot through umbrella. Both on manual, full power triggered by a flash meter (not a thing of the past!). Subject to umbrella distance was 40 inches. At 1/60 sec, ISO 160 I was able to get f.11 with both flashes firing (one triggered by sync cord, the other as an optical slave). Maybe the batteries in one unit were a little old, so maybe there's another stop to be had.

I also set up a 500w tungsten softbox. Same distance. ISO 160, 1/60 at f5. Of course start subtracting stops when adding daylight correction gels!

So if you already have a couple of flashes, it's perfectly reasonable to start experimenting with them to see what you get. Use what you have until you have a reason/need something more.

theBDT
31-Jan-2011, 21:17
I would be careful about going too far in one direction if your ultimate goal is something else. Yes indeed, digital is wonderful for learning the basics of light. You'll feel free to experiment in ways you just won't in film; that $.50-$2.00/sheet of film+processing really comes to the fore of your mind after the 50th exposure.

Having said that, if your aim is to learn large format portraiture, then as soon as you feel reasonably comfortable with lighting move over to using the LF camera. I took some classes at the local community college to improve my studio work; the straight "intro to studio" class was perfectly matched to my dSLR. I soon found, however, in the Advanced LF class (which lets you pick your subject; I picked portraiture), that while the rules of light and exposure are identical, LF portraiture is a whole different beast for other reasons. To wit:

* Tones and subtle detail are more apparent in LF; often you have to light faces more carefully to fully exploit the advantages of the LF media.

* The psychological factor, your rapport with the sitter, is VASTLY different, especially if you worked as I did with the dSLR: approaching the sitter quickly and at different angles, constantly reframing, and chatting and putting them at ease. You simply can't be as nimble nor as personable with a LF camera. You have to learn different techniques to build a working relationship with the sitter. Hints: spend some time with them taking no pictures; do a 'dry run' or two; leave yourself faintly lit at least, so you aren't some sinister creature looming behind intimidating equipment.

* All LF studio work requires more planning; your "spontaneous" phase in creation can still occur, but you must pamper it and be ready for it moreso than with a dSLR. Furthermore, as with LF landscape work, you'll find yourself working slower and producing more "keepers".

Speaking of those classes I took at the local JC, a great instructor there (who occasionally frequents this board, Jim Noel) recommended Fred Archer's book on portraiture ("Fred Archer on Portraiture"). I've read it a couple of times, and have found it to be one of those books that inspires and instructs every time you pick it up. Also, it gives you a great feel for the basics of lighting people. Finally, while its precepts can apply to any camera, the author wrote the book with the view camera in mind, so if you WANT to learn lighting via LF it's a great resource.

John NYC
31-Jan-2011, 21:27
theBDT:

Thanks very much! All very good info to consider, especially those working condition differences. I know what you mean because just experimenting with the working distances of various 35mm lenses results in a different experience with your portrait subject. When I shot with my Nikon 85mm on a DSLR (EFL 127.5mm) I could stand pretty far away and the connection was often lost. I much prefer now working with EFL of 50mm or 80mm on DSLRs.



Having said that, if your aim is to learn large format portraiture, then as soon as you feel reasonably comfortable with lighting move over to using the LF camera.

That is definitely the plan. Except, even when I feel comfortable enough to try with my LF rig, I will also continue to do portraiture on DSLR and MF with the smaller rig.