A primer on lighting (newbie)

[macandal]

Greenfield Sanders uses a single light source but it's a monstrous octobank. I love the look he gets though.

jmooney, is that the umbrella-looking one I see at 1:30? Right next to his camera, facing the subject?

I would love to be able to use just one light. Fewer choices would allow me more time to get it right.

[macandal]

That helps.

In your case there were probably two lights, a main light in either a beauty dish, umbrella, or a soft box with a roundish mask to camera, [and] also probably a light on the background. It doesn't look like there was much, if any, fill, although the tell-tales signs could have been edited out of her eyes.

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.

[macandal]

Have a look at Irving Penn's portraits. Aim for that simple north window light look.

Thanks for that suggestion. I like it. I didn't know about him. Does he only shoot in B&W?



I like what you suggest, although, it sounds a bit more complicated. But I definitely want to try that. Thanks.

[Peter De Smidt]

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.....

[macandal]

[...] It was a fairly simple arrangement.

Wow, Brian, sounds a bit complicated to me. But maybe it just sounds that way. Must be more simple in practice. Thanks.

[macandal]

How big of a space are you going to photograph in?

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.

Umbrellas are light, compact, they set up quickly, they're round-ish (nice catchlights), and they can be moved quickly. You can get deeper or parabolic ones that minimize light spill, such as a Paul Buff. See: http://www.white-lightning.com/plm.html If you're going to be photographing in a bunch of different locations, umbrellas are really nice.

That sounds good.

Brian's right, though, that if you have a fairly big space, and you aren't going to take the panels on location, V-flats are a good way to light the whole figure, as well as groups of people.

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?

Personally, I think flash is the best way to go, as you get a lot of light, the flash freezes motion, and it's generally easier on the subject.

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?

Thanks.

[jmooney]

jmooney, is that the umbrella-looking one I see at 1:30? Right next to his camera, facing the subject?

I would love to be able to use just one light. Fewer choices would allow me more time to get it right.

That's the one!

I found this quote this morning:

Timothy 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.

From: http://guessthelighting.com/post/100...d-sanders-this

[macandal]

See: http://www.white-lightning.com/plm.html If you're going to be photographing in a bunch of different locations, umbrellas are really nice.

I thought these would be more expensive. As in the thousands of dollars. What would you get out of what's on this link? They can perhaps be found cheaper used.

I'm thinking there must be beginner lighting kits, right? Do you know of any? Thanks.

[Peter 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?

Thanks.

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.

[macandal]

Studio-style lighting systems come in both flash and continuous varieties.

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.