PDA

View Full Version : Continuous Lights & Metering



jurgenestanislao
24-Apr-2020, 11:31
Hi,

I mostly shoot table top still life and use continuous LED lights (Godox etc).

I've seen lots of works, mostly in advertising, where a single sheet (and scene) is exposed multiple times—correct me if wrong but some photographers call it 'pop' photography.

Nonetheless, how to best emulate this with modern continuous lights, asking for tips and/or techniques mostly, as I would like to better control my lighting (and spills) and better sculpt my subjects.

If I may add, turning on all my lights to completely light a scene and take one exposure (which might work in digital photography) tends to come out differently in film especially as some areas might come out too bright etc and burn out. Hence wanting to adapt so-called 'pop' photography or lighting techniques with modern continuous lights (dimmable).

Any help is much appreciated.

Jurgen

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Pieter
24-Apr-2020, 12:45
Photographers use multiple pops because their strobes are not powerful enough to give them the f-stop needed for a given set-up. The equivalent with a continuous source is a longer exposure. assuming you are shooting B&W or the color temperature of your lights does not vary, you should could control hot spots by dimming the lights that are causing them, using flags where necessary.

Drew Wiley
24-Apr-2020, 15:20
Some people prefer flash, some are more comfortable with continuous. Some use both. I never liked flash, so had Arri and Lowell hot lights, but they are, er... hot. I've just recently gotten some decent LED panels, primarily for copystand work. There is also the option of expensive HMI continuous lighting. Why not continuous? Tabletop shooting generally involves a confined area that doesn't need a hydrogen bomb to adequately illuminate.

LabRat
24-Apr-2020, 16:40
Sometimes color interiors would be shot with different color spectra lamps with different filters over lens one at a time on the same sheet, with different lights on and off...

For B/W tabletop, just leaving the camera open longer is the difference between multi pop strobes...

This can also effect overall exposure even if correctly calculated, as some individual exposure conditions cause different extreme effects on film...

Possible, but not recommended for normal shooting...

Steve K

Pieter
24-Apr-2020, 17:58
I do know of one photographer who would light large rooms, hotel lobbies and the like, moving his strobes and lighting section by section on a single sheet of film. Nerve-wracking, to say the least, but the images turned out very well. I'm sure it took him a while to perfect the technique.

jurgenestanislao
26-Apr-2020, 04:50
I do know of one photographer who would light large rooms, hotel lobbies and the like, moving his strobes and lighting section by section on a single sheet of film. Nerve-wracking, to say the least, but the images turned out very well. I'm sure it took him a while to perfect the technique.

Was it Steve Simmons? I read about him doing something like this to light architecture and interior shots in his book.

Pieter
26-Apr-2020, 11:07
Was it Steve Simmons? I read about him doing something like this to light architecture and interior shots in his book.

I was referring to Fred Licht. https://www.fredlicht.com

Drew Wiley
26-Apr-2020, 12:47
"Light painting" was a big fad at one time.

Pieter
26-Apr-2020, 12:58
I believe Portland and later New Mexico photographer Aaron Jones, if he didn't exactly invent light painting, was a master and even sold light painting equipment, call the Hosemaster. It was a big deal in the early 90s.

LabRat
26-Apr-2020, 13:01
"Light painting" was a big fad at one time.
I had once seen a rareish 40's photo book covering commercial photography where one could light a locomotive or very large objects evenly by taking a floodlight in reflector and rotating it almost 360° circles near the surfaces to fill shadows and introduce even highlights overall...

Then there was "hose lighting" in the 90's...

Drew Wiley
26-Apr-2020, 18:24
Everyone who spent a bundle of money on Hosemaster obviously wanted to recoup their investment as quickly as possible, so all kinds of catalog covers and ads suddenly came out light painted. Anything novel that arrives like a bullet train gets passe equally fast; and within six month, I don't think I personally saw another example of that technique published. But filling in with portable light was nothing new, and is easily improvised anyway. It just got overdone.

Pieter
26-Apr-2020, 18:59
Everyone who spent a bundle of money on Hosemaster obviously wanted to recoup their investment as quickly as possible, so all kinds of catalog covers and ads suddenly came out light painted. Anything novel that arrives like a bullet train gets passe equally fast; and within six month, I don't think I personally saw another example of that technique published. But filling in with portable light was nothing new, and is easily improvised anyway. It just got overdone.

The look that made light painting with a Hosemaster (or other such device--there was at least one copy by Calumet, maybe?) was beyond painting with light, painting with different amounts of diffusion over the lens so highlights would get a soft bloom. All this before digital, so skill was required to determine the amount of each exposure/pass with the lighting unit.

Drew Wiley
26-Apr-2020, 19:08
Evidently hundreds of people "acquired" that skill. Yes, I remember those diffuse haloes around painted objects. Novel at first, kitchy soon enough. Cotton candy might be appropriate once a year at a county fair; it would get disgusting eaten every day.

Pieter
26-Apr-2020, 19:25
Evidently hundreds of people "acquired" that skill. Yes, I remember those diffuse haloes around painted objects. Novel at first, kitchy soon enough. Cotton candy might be appropriate once a year at a county fair; it would get disgusting eaten every day.

Kinda like very long exposure moving water.

LabRat
26-Apr-2020, 20:17
Evidently hundreds of people "acquired" that skill. Yes, I remember those diffuse haloes around painted objects. Novel at first, kitchy soon enough. Cotton candy might be appropriate once a year at a county fair; it would get disgusting eaten every day.

Sad part was some in photo schools at the time taught little about much else then except how to use a Hosemaster... Obvious it would trend out, and a good part of their studies went into that...

jurgenestanislao
26-Apr-2020, 23:36
Some people prefer flash, some are more comfortable with continuous. Some use both. I never liked flash, so had Arri and Lowell hot lights, but they are, er... hot. I've just recently gotten some decent LED panels, primarily for copystand work. There is also the option of expensive HMI continuous lighting. Why not continuous? Tabletop shooting generally involves a confined area that doesn't need a hydrogen bomb to adequately illuminate.

Yes, currently using continuous dimmable LED lights. Do you make adjustments on development to properly control highlights? What I notice is that whenever I do have all my lights on, main light, fill lights, etc. there tends to be more reflective light on the scene causing a general blown out feel when I look at the negatives.

gnd2
27-Apr-2020, 09:14
Yes, currently using continuous dimmable LED lights. Do you make adjustments on development to properly control highlights? What I notice is that whenever I do have all my lights on, main light, fill lights, etc. there tends to be more reflective light on the scene causing a general blown out feel when I look at the negatives.

Landscape photographers control contrast of the negative primarily though development since they can't control the light. But using artificial lights on a tabletop setup affords you much more flexibility to control contrast of the scene itself through the positioning of various lights, using modifiers to alter the quality of the light, reflectors and negative fill. You also need to pay attention to the reflective properties of what you're photographing to light it appropriately.

The book Light: Science and Magic is an excellent source to learn how to control your lighting.

jurgenestanislao
27-Apr-2020, 19:13
Landscape photographers control contrast of the negative primarily though development since they can't control the light. But using artificial lights on a tabletop setup affords you much more flexibility to control contrast of the scene itself through the positioning of various lights, using modifiers to alter the quality of the light, reflectors and negative fill. You also need to pay attention to the reflective properties of what you're photographing to light it appropriately.

The book Light: Science and Magic is an excellent source to learn how to control your lighting.

Oh great, I have that en route from Amazon.com.

C. D. Keth
28-Apr-2020, 14:39
Yes, currently using continuous dimmable LED lights. Do you make adjustments on development to properly control highlights? What I notice is that whenever I do have all my lights on, main light, fill lights, etc. there tends to be more reflective light on the scene causing a general blown out feel when I look at the negatives.

I would only develop differently for studio work if I wanted especially to force the film into extra graininess. Otherwise, I just control my light to "fill" the dynamic range of the film when developed N. If you're in a studio setting, there's not much reason to do anything except control the negative by controlling your light. It's reliable, gives you excellent control once you learn how, and you can really accomplish anything your mind thinks up. I think you need to learn better how to control your lighting.

jurgenestanislao
28-Apr-2020, 17:42
I would only develop differently for studio work if I wanted especially to force the film into extra graininess. Otherwise, I just control my light to "fill" the dynamic range of the film when developed N. If you're in a studio setting, there's not much reason to do anything except control the negative by controlling your light. It's reliable, gives you excellent control once you learn how, and you can really accomplish anything your mind thinks up. I think you need to learn better how to control your lighting.Yes I think so too. Thanks!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

LabRat
29-Apr-2020, 10:28
If you are just doing tabletop smaller object photography, using more than one light complicates things greatly... (One light more tends to overpower the other and is harder to get good lighting ratios...)

The basic lighting rule is; Key/Fill/Effect, which one light is dominant that provides and brings out the form of the object (Key), then spots of contrast that are too dark (and can exceed the film's range are balanced (Fill), and if some other lighting modifier is considered, like a light with a color gel, a background with a pattern, accents etc (effect)...

With a single light, you would choose a light angle that brings out the form of the subject well, but since the light is close, you can fill the holes with different reflector cards from hard/bright (foil), white, grey (for slight low level) even black (so reflective areas "see" something dark to reflect)...

I have a lot of pro lighting gear, but will use a cheap reflector clip-on painters light on an inexpensive microphone boom stand with just a LED or CFL bulb (for B/W) as a small set key light, and use reflectors for the rest... Easy and does not overpower the subject... And does not get hot...

Steve K

Pieter
29-Apr-2020, 10:34
Hi,

I mostly shoot table top still life and use continuous LED lights (Godox etc).

I've seen lots of works, mostly in advertising, where a single sheet (and scene) is exposed multiple times—correct me if wrong but some photographers call it 'pop' photography.

Nonetheless, how to best emulate this with modern continuous lights, asking for tips and/or techniques mostly, as I would like to better control my lighting (and spills) and better sculpt my subjects.

If I may add, turning on all my lights to completely light a scene and take one exposure (which might work in digital photography) tends to come out differently in film especially as some areas might come out too bright etc and burn out. Hence wanting to adapt so-called 'pop' photography or lighting techniques with modern continuous lights (dimmable).

Any help is much appreciated.

Jurgen

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Back to the original request, it would help if you post a sample of the technique you are trying to emulate...there is no reason you shouldn't be able to do the same with continuous light if you are shooting table-top.

jurgenestanislao
29-Apr-2020, 11:08
If you are just doing tabletop smaller object photography, using more than one light complicates things greatly... (One light more tends to overpower the other and is harder to get good lighting ratios...)

The basic lighting rule is; Key/Fill/Effect, which one light is dominant that provides and brings out the form of the object (Key), then spots of contrast that are too dark (and can exceed the film's range are balanced (Fill), and if some other lighting modifier is considered, like a light with a color gel, a background with a pattern, accents etc (effect)...

With a single light, you would choose a light angle that brings out the form of the subject well, but since the light is close, you can fill the holes with different reflector cards from hard/bright (foil), white, grey (for slight low level) even black (so reflective areas "see" something dark to reflect)...

I have a lot of pro lighting gear, but will use a cheap reflector clip-on painters light on an inexpensive microphone boom stand with just a LED or CFL bulb (for B/W) as a small set key light, and use reflectors for the rest... Easy and does not overpower the subject... And does not get hot...

Steve KThanks, and would definitely come out natural. Still getting a hang of being more intentional with lighting so I'm experimenting—this is all with a goal of printing platinotypes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

C. D. Keth
1-May-2020, 15:26
If you are just doing tabletop smaller object photography, using more than one light complicates things greatly... (One light more tends to overpower the other and is harder to get good lighting ratios...)

The basic lighting rule is; Key/Fill/Effect, which one light is dominant that provides and brings out the form of the object (Key), then spots of contrast that are too dark (and can exceed the film's range are balanced (Fill), and if some other lighting modifier is considered, like a light with a color gel, a background with a pattern, accents etc (effect)...

With a single light, you would choose a light angle that brings out the form of the subject well, but since the light is close, you can fill the holes with different reflector cards from hard/bright (foil), white, grey (for slight low level) even black (so reflective areas "see" something dark to reflect)...

I have a lot of pro lighting gear, but will use a cheap reflector clip-on painters light on an inexpensive microphone boom stand with just a LED or CFL bulb (for B/W) as a small set key light, and use reflectors for the rest... Easy and does not overpower the subject... And does not get hot...

Steve K

The most useful tools for tabletop work are usually the homemade ones. I have a whole toolbox of that stuff. My go to method for tabletop is to light with full sized units through 4x silks top make a base of big, soft light and to start with my "set" boxed off with 4-by-floppy flags. Then I shift those to allow the light I want to get in. It's already softened if I want that so I just have to remove smaller pieces to shape it more pleasantly. I have a whole bunch of tiny flags that look like oversized dodging tools. Then there are a bunch of little pieces of mirrors on armature wire to reflect. You can make softer reflectors, but not as soft as white paper, by coating bits of mirror with scotch tape. You can apply tissue paper to wire to make tiny diffusing tools. Just check the reflections in shiny objects to be sure you're not showing obvious grip heads and things like that.

Get creative and then keep the solutions. They'll come in handy at some point.

brighamr
21-Jun-2020, 00:23
Hi Juergen

look up “secrets of stilllife photography” by gary perweiler for detailed information on multiple exposures on 1 sheet of film
back before digital stills photographers were regularly doing such extreme things as moving a single sheet of film between cameras for different exposures
this needed lots of gear but did mean that you could test each element separately then assemble the image in one sheet when you had worked everything out
it still took a lot of trial and error
at the time i was working in Moving image commercials and films
we did a similar thing using computerised robots to move the camera called motion control
we would open the camera and mark a start position on the film
then do the first exposure
then wind the film back open the camera and precisely line the mark up again ready for the next exposure
quite how we ever achieved perfect registration i will never know but we did but because of the effort
we generally tried to light and meter perfectly
we used a little probe attachment and a 1degree spotmeter to work out exposure

i would look up film lighting techniques. it is possible to light very well but takes lots of practice
look around you at things that look good to you then workout where the light is coming from
and try to replicate it

ultimately if it looks good to your eye you should be able to photograph it

good luck

robin