So, I guess, at a minimum, to get a nice, simple look--not overly dramatic--I would need two sources of light. That wouldn't be so bad. I would prefer just one source, but this isn't so bad. Hey, I've been shooting with available light (that's right, not even a flash), so this is a major improvement.
Start with one light source. You can do a lot with it. Only add more light if you can't solve the issue with the single light. If you need lighter shadows, add a fill card or reflector, which can be any light and neutral colored object, such as foam core, styrofoam, fabric.....
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
It's hard to say. Think a person's living room. I can't afford the luxury of a studio, but that may happen from time to time, though not very often.
That sounds good.Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
I'll keep this in mind. I would like to try this method. Do they sell these type of screens so that they can be folded and carried around?Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
I thought flash didn't compare to studio-type lighting systems. Are you telling me I have a real treasure on top of my DSLR?Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
Thanks.
That's the one!
I found this quote this morning:
From: http://guessthelighting.com/post/100...d-sanders-thisTimothy has made a career out of simple, single light source portraiture. The key light is a giant Elinchrom Octabank at f32 (powered by two Profoto 2400 packs and one bi-tube) five feet to the right of camera. For a little fill, an assistant holds a reflector just below Jenna’s waist, angled toward her face. Since it is not lit, the white background has gone grey.
On camera flash can be useful for fill flash, or for getting a fast candid shot in abysmal light, but it usually looks nasty if it's the main light. You can probably take the flash off of your camera and move it to one side. You may need a flash cable to fire it, although some flashed can be used wirelessly. You can bounce it off of a wall or into an umbrella to make it softer. See: http://strobist.blogspot.com/ It probably won't give you enough light, when used as a soft source, for large format.
Studio-style lighting systems come in both flash and continuous varieties.
If you click on the link to my blog at the bottom of this post, the first picture you see, the one of my daughter and her cello, was taken in my living room with one studio flash bounced off a light colored wall and ceiling. That created a big effective light source, which gave pretty soft light, and the other light walls of the room provided the fill. On some of them I had my wife hold a white fill card, but I can't remember if she did so in that picture. The background was dark gray seamless. I added the background and floor in Photoshop.
You will need:
A monolight with a standard reflector.
A light modifier, such as an umbrella. If you like the Paul Buff Umbrellas, then you should probably get one of the compatible flashes.
A light stand. I have these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ned_Stand.html which I like.
A cord that attaches from your camera to the light. (You can also use wireless triggers, such as Pocket Wizards, but these are expensive. I don't have experience with the cheap ones.)
A flash light meter.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
So, what's the difference? I saw the references to flash and continuous on the Calumet site and they both seemed the same to me? I couldn't see the difference.
Bookmarks