Lighting For Still Life and Portrait Photography

[tgtaylor]

Instead of sitting around watching the boob tube, I could be doing something creative instead so I’m seriously thinking about taking up still life (flowers, etc) and portrait photography with my cameras (35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 view camera).

Having no experience in this area of photography, I’m thinking that a continuous lighting source (besides an open window) would be a better choice than using a strobe? Does that sound correct?

Here are some of the lighting units that I have been looking at:

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/calumet_quattro_fluorescent_light/cf0003

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/calumet_quattro_fluorescent_light_with_10_stand/cf0003k

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/smith_victor_pl12_12_inch_studio_light/sv3860

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/wescott_ulite_three_light_kit/hl5030

Do you think the Calumet Quatro unit would be a better choice that the Smith Victor product? Would a 10’ stand provide sufficient height? I imaging that you could place some diffusing material in front of the bare bulbs on these units to create a soft box effect. The Wescott product is a continuous lighting source that comes with a soft box enclosure but would that limit you to one color of light? Which of the two types would prove to be more versatile?

The price differential between the units is not a deciding factor.

Thanks for your input and -

Happy Holidays,

Thomas

[KMiller68]

I'm sure others on here will join in with more expert information, but here's my take on it, from the standpoint of someone who started off with digital portraiture. (Waits for thrown shoes :o )

I had some continuous lights that I used at first; a pair of 1000 watt hot lights, and did they ever live up to their name. I used them precisely once, during which I discovered a number of things.

1. They do not produce the light output you'd think. I was forced to use a tripod for everything in order to get a reasonably good exposure. I'm sure there were things I could have done to improve even with those lights, but I was not happy with it at that time.

2. They were HOT. I could practically see the subjects melting. Not good.

I switched to a set of White Lightning strobes, with a softbox and reflectors, and Pocket Wizard transmitter/receivers. I was able to unhook from that tripod and move freely within the set area I had built. The results from that second set (same subjects) were absolutely fantastic.

Again, this is from my digital experience. I have yet to venture into large format portraiture, though that is my next project. I will not be hauling out those old lights again.

[cjbroadbent]

Thomas, You won't get many straight answers to that sort of question. But the title will attract some interest.

FWIW (my suggestions hardly ever fit 'common practice'):
Get just one fan-cooled tungsten-halogen lamp.
An umbrella gives you more control and less clutter~ than a soft-box.
A single source is not only better practice but also in better taste*.
Strobe only when you can make a living from it.
If it moves, use a smaller format.

~ Clutter from extra stands for flags and scrims.
* Just balance background and foreground tones to get separation - never add back-light or cheek-skim, ever.

[Frank Petronio]

I agree with Christopher.

I've found Lowel to be a good brand of reasonably-priced, well-made gear (USA made even!), although they do not make a fan cooled Halogen head. They are nice for location work as I do... otherwise, sure old Mole Richardsons would be the bomb.

A pair of heavy gloves helps with adjusting "hot" lights.

I never had anything melt except ice cream.... I even do portraits with hot lights.

Most people think they need strobes. Maybe they do for jumping fashion models and shots of pouring liquids. But I never found the light quality to match between the modeling lamps and the strobe tube, and I don't like working blind, I want to see the light.

[Ken Lee]

Another way to approach this is in reverse: Choose some photos that you admire, and find out how they were lit. Then get the equipment you need.

[cjbroadbent]

Another way to approach this is in reverse: Choose some photos that you admire, and find out how they were lit. Then get the equipment you need.
The woodchopper approach. Best advice.

[jeroldharter]

I have a lot of gear and limited experience. Hot lights are miserable. I bought a kit and the lights were so hot that I could not tolerate leaving them on in the basement. Maybe useful in an unheated garage in the winter for still lifes, but too uncomfortable for use with humans. Just my opinion based on limited experience.

I have been experimenting with strobes for portraiture lately. I agree that it is best to keep it simple at first. I am starting with too much gear and I found out quickly that I need to keep it simple. I suggest one strobe with an umbrella and a soft box plus a reflector of some sort. That is enough to get started. A single strobe is relatively inexpensive used and a monolight (e.g Calumet Travelite 750) is convenient.

Also, you need much more light when doing 4x5 than with 35mm so the strobes win over hot lights.

[Oren Grad]

I'm still at the stage of primitive mucking around when it comes to portrait and still life. But FWIW, I started with a pair of Lowel Tota-lights. Really good for heating up the house in the dead of winter; who's to mind if the subject melts or broils? My advice is to save your pennies for some strobe gear.

I agree as far as keeping it simple. I've been doing my tinkering with a single light in a softbox. Christopher's various examples are so lovely, though, that on Ken's principle I may yet "unbox" the head and try my hand with an umbrella.

[Ramiro Elena]

Can you really use an umbrella with halogen lamps that aren't fanned? I've got a couple Ianiros. I am afraid they'll melt the fabric.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah just leave a few inches between the umbrella and the bulb.

If hot lights get too hot, just turn them off in between shots.

[Bob Kerner]

I think you should also take into consideration what camera system you'll be using most of the time. For example, if you have nikon 35mm gear, I can't see a reason not to use the nikon creative lighting (marketing term for their SB flashes) system. Small strobes give off a lot less heat, pack up smaller and can be used in a lot of configurations with diffusers, umbrellas soft boxes etc. If you'll be using an eclectic mix of cameras, however, the hard lights are probably more versatile.

Today I set up my workingman's portrait studio to start making holiday cards of my family. My initial build consisted of a Lowel Rifa (tungsten hard light in a soft box) and a Tota light bounced off the ceiling. Nice quality light. I could "see" what I was working with, as Frank mentioned in his post. Hot as hell in a small room after about 20 minutes and not a lot of light for the effort; I was at ISO 640 at like 1/60 f 4-ish.

I ditched the hard lights and switched to nikon flashes. My subjects tolerated the experience better (my wife wastes no time telling me when she's uncomfortable!), it was a helluva lot cooler and I could get the flashes in a little closer without fear of making anyone upset. Only drawback is that you can't see what you get until you make a couple of frames and in my case I don't have big diffusers for the flashes so the light was a little too edgy in some cases.

So give some thought as to what camera system you'll be using this with. To echo others, the Lowel brand is very good and economical for what you get. They make a version of just about everything you linked to and it's pretty easy to get parts and repairs.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I'm not a big fan of hot lights but sometimes it works for example in the cold winter;--)) and I have very old large hot lights so the housing get not so hot anyway! And some small spots with 250 watt for small things works well!
For portraits I prefer studio flash and I use it not to burn the models away! Because many models do get small eyes if they have to look into very strong continous light!

For to learn and look in the beginning is continous light better in my opinion, but if you know what can be done with flash then its gets even better for living things!!!
Thats from a guy which works in show business all my live!

Cheers Armin

[tgtaylor]

Many thanks to all that have posted on this!

I have been studying this since I originally posted. Back then, as evident from the gear links that I posted, I was leaning towards fluorescent reasoning that, since I shoot both B&W and Color (including E6), fluorescent would work for all films and I wouldn't have to use a filter for the E6. However something inside said that the warmer temperature of tungsten was somehow better. After reading the posts and from what I can find online, the consensus seems to be that tungsten is best for film. So now I'm settling on tungsten lighting.

In looking at some of the different lighting units online, I clicked on the online lighting course at PhotoFlex which suggested that the soft-box provides the most efficient lighting and the bigger the soft-box, the better. So I'm now seriously considering the soft-box over the umbrella.

As far as brands, Lowell looks good and their rep will be giving a free lighting class at a local photo dealers store next weekend. PhotoFlex also has excellent gear and is a local mgr having their corporate office here in the bay area. Actually I prefer the Photoflex umbrella as it is not completely translucent as most of the other brands including the Lowells' that I saw. It has a black fabric covering on the outside that presents a lot of light from escaping from the top. However that dark covering actually absorbs the light rather than bouncing it towards your subject, says Photoflex, and they recommend the soft-box as the most efficient of the two.

I'm still studying this.

[swmcl]

Hi,

From my short experience I too started thinking I'd take a photo or two of the kids with a flash ...

It has been a seriously long journey but I'm getting there.

The Nikon SB-24s are about 160WS IIRC. They could be used to raise the exposure up to fog levels on the film. Not much good for any images!

I'm now at the point of 3 1500WS Bowens lights and 2 1000WS Bowens lights. I have numerous reflectors and am in the process of designing backgrounds.

I consider this setup to be the minimum required for head-and-shoulders portraits. I will shoot at f22 but want f32 because of DOF issues. All on 4x5.

If you don't have this much flash you might need to consider necrotic(?) subjects as they'll have to stay still for quite a while - perhaps many seconds to minutes.

The bigger the format the greater the flash energy requirements. I'd hate to think what is needed for 8x10!

I have a number of excel worksheets with my measurements on them if you'd like. Things like distance / aperture vs flash power for different reflectors etc. Just PM me.

Rgds,

Steve

[Brian C. Miller]

Instead of sitting around watching the boob tube, I could be doing something creative instead so I’m seriously thinking about taking up still life (flowers, etc) and portrait photography with my cameras (35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 view camera).

For still life, you can just leave the lens open longer, or give multiple flashes. No problem.

For portraits, you will need a bit of "oomph" to get things moving, or else use 400 speed film, and maybe push it. I have Speedotron brown line, and depending on what you want to do, it can definitely deliver some light. I have a D604 and D300. Just for grins, I measured full output from the D604 with a 12" reflector. At 6ft, I got enough light for F45, ISO 100. Beings that f-stops are f-stops, this does fine for 8x10, too.

Where you lose power is when the light goes through modifiers, whether they are boxes or umbrellas, or bouncing the light off of something. When the light is more diffuse, you'll need more power. When the light is farther away, you'll need more power. If you want good DOF, then you'll need more power. How much? Maybe at least 1Kw tungsten light. If you are not using flourescent or flash, that's some decent room heating power there.

About flourescent and tungsten: when the light is balanced, then it is simply balanced. One isn't better than the other, because when they are balanced they are the same.

What you really need to do is do some reading (from books), get something, and experiment.

[cjbroadbent]

... About flourescent and tungsten: when the light is balanced, then it is simply balanced. One isn't better than the other, because when they are balanced they are the same...
The spectral power distribution of 5000K fluorescent lamps drops off in the red and has a spike in green and violet. This defect is exaggerated on colour film, less so on digital, and insignificant on b&w. Shoot raspberries and see.

A compromise for 5000K clean continuous light is HMI - Kobold or Arri - A small unit with ballast fits in a camera case and works nicely with an umbrella.
As always, the movie suppliers have the right stuff.

Remember though that daylight tranny film does not like long exposures (the reason why LF photographers who need f.45 and indirect lighting are obliged to spend $15k or more on strobe).

[cowanw]

If they sell this at the demo, buy it. Not only is it very informative, but funny!
http://www.lowel.com/book.html
Regards
Bill

[Frank Petronio]

I admit, trying to correct scanned daylight color film shot under Tungsten is hard to truly neutralize to be "accurate", whatever that is... It can be done but it often looks a bit odd, but odd color can be a benefit depending on how you look at it. I will often shoot color to take advantage of color-adjusted black & white conversions.

Growing up with strobes and EPN, EPP, etc. everything being too perfect seems bland.

[Bob Kerner]

Holy smokes! The OP asked about a beginner kit and now we're discussing Arri gear and HMI:(

You don't need to turn your house/workspace into a lighthouse to make good portraits, honest. You could assemble a serviceable continuous light Lowel kit for a few hundred bucks if you shop wisely and monitor Craigslist. There are always people dumping their tungsten kits for LED lightpanels and fancier stuff. Then get a book or video on 3pt lighting and start practicing.

If flash is your thing, do the same. "The Hot Shoe Diaries" by Joe McNally and the OneLight Workshop DVD by Zach Arias are good resources that I can recommend. Yes they are about small flashes, but what you want to gain are the principles of light shaping. I just finished the book and it has improved my lighting enormously.

But get something and start practicing. I never used to practice, just brake out the lights, zap the subject and wonder why it looked shoddy. Now I practice and test before sitting the subject down and it has made a world of difference. Experiment. Not everything has to be perfectly exposed or lit.

[vinny]

I haven't seen a lowel brand light since college and hope to never see one again either. If you think they make good gear you haven't seen/used good gear. Their "rifa" lights are okay but the rest is garbage and unsafe.
1k redheads or 2k blondes made by Strand (or the knockoffs on ebay) give pretty good bang for the buck as far as tungsten hot lamps go. Led units are getting cheaper all the time and have very high output for low power consumption. The drawback is that they don't throw light very far.

[Frank Petronio]

Aww just because the bulb exploded into your eye doesn't mean they're all bad!

[Bob Kerner]

I haven't seen a lowel brand light since college and hope to never see one again either. If you think they make good gear you haven't seen/used good gear. Their "rifa" lights are okay but the rest is garbage and unsafe.
1k redheads or 2k blondes made by Strand (or the knockoffs on ebay) give pretty good bang for the buck as far as tungsten hot lamps go. Led units are getting cheaper all the time and have very high output for low power consumption. The drawback is that they don't throw light very far.

"Good" is relative. If one is just starting out and has a limited budget or experience level then I think spending $2500 on an Arri kit might be misplaced. If this is just a hobby, then spending $100 on a Lowel to dip one's toe in the waters is a fine starting point. Sure, some of their stuff is not as durable as other brands. I think the stands suck and have replaced them. But their are many people who use that brand day in, day out without major issues.

I have an Arri coffin kit at work. Head and shoulders above Lowel. Glad my employer spent the money on it and not me. At the end of the day, a 600w light is a 600w light. What one does with it and how one takes care of it is what makes the difference, not the brand label, methinks.

[vinny]

Hell, at least $10 shop lights have protective glass!
Much of the arri gear (especially large hmi pars) aren't fun to work with either. I use to like them but now having worked with them every day over the past 5 months, I'll take those French Ltm's any day. They spend more time being fixed than turned on. Arri kits are okay but have too many plastic parts that always wear out. Arri should stick to cameras.

A 600w light with a well designed reflector puts out much more light than a lowel. A light with real barn doors is easier to control and won't melt your gels because they collapse while you're busy shooting.

[Brian C. Miller]

The spectral power distribution of 5000K fluorescent lamps drops off in the red and has a spike in green and violet. This defect is exaggerated on colour film, less so on digital, and insignificant on b&w. Shoot raspberries and see.

I've been planning on seeing what the new 85W CF daylight bulbs used by JTL, Smith Victor, Alzo, and a few others, will do. I tried a few years ago with "balanced" bulbs, and I gave up real quick and went back to 64T, or a tungsten filter, or flash. Or just plain daylight. :)

tgtaylor wants to do this on the cheap.

Since the 85W CF bulbs are $20 each, why not buy one, get a trouble light reflector holder, aluminum foil, and a white milk jug. Clamp the reflector light to something, then cut up the jug and place it over the bulb. Use aluminum foil and duct tape to fasten it together. Measure the light, and have some fun.

[tgtaylor]

Photoflex held their annual warehouse sale in Watsonville this morning and I think I scored! I spent a total of $137 and came away with a complete medium soft-box, 3 1000W incandescent bulbs, 1 StarLite light source and connector, 2 8+ foot stands, 2umbrellas - 1 shoot-thru and the other with opaque backing (they didn't have any of the convertibles when I arrived)- and a TransPac MiltiKit Case to hold it all. Also included in that total was a large On Camera Litedome.

Since Tungsten balanced film is no longer available, would you recommend a color balancing filter be placed on the camera or (if available) as a gel in front of the soft-box?

Also, since I am now in the market for backdrops, I started a new thread on that topic and would again highly appreciate your input.

Thanks again and Happy Holidays,

Thomas

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, by all means use a filter for color film. You'll need either an 80A or 80B filter (Tiffen filter link (http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=filters&itemnum=5280A)).

[toolbox]

This was an interesting read... I'm relatively new to LF photography, but I've been shooting everything else for years. I've got a pretty good selection of lighting gear, and I'm looking forward to shooting some LF portraits with it. Haven't used hot lights since I worked in television about 10 years ago. I'm curious how many LF shooters out there are using them (or other constant lighting)... I'd also be curious what kind of exposure settings you guys are getting with them (at say ISO100). Flash has a lot of advantages, and I'm just curious if there's a tendency for LF shooters to use constant lighting for any particular reason...

[cdholden]

The bigger the format the greater the flash energy requirements. I'd hate to think what is needed for 8x10!



Why is this?
I understand how DOF changes as one changes formats, but I would think that lighting would be constant, regardless of format.
I'm looking for an inexpensive lighting setup, so any light one can shed (pun intended!) would be greatly appreciated.

Chris

[zcary]

Im definately not an expert in still lifes, but I want to share my thoughts on cheap light.

I got a Tristar "Magic Square daylight kit", it was like 150$ including tripod and softbox.
The bulb consumes 85W, but is equivalent to about 500W (4800 lumen).
So it does not get very hot and still give a decent amount of light.

Wouldnt use it for portraits or any living things though.

[toolbox]

Why is this?
I understand how DOF changes as one changes formats, but I would think that lighting would be constant, regardless of format.
I'm looking for an inexpensive lighting setup, so any light one can shed (pun intended!) would be greatly appreciated.

Chris

Flash exposures are instantaneous, so you can't drag the shutter to increase the exposure... Flash exposures are controlled at the camera by the aperture, but also by the distance between the flash and the subject (it gets more powerful as it gets closer and vice versa), and by the power of the flash at the head. The smaller the aperture you have to shoot at, the more power you need obviously...and at f45 you're going to need a ton of it (or have the lights right on top of the subject). Even relatively small flashes can make a lot of power up close, but the light will fall off sharply (this can be good or bad depending on what look you're going for). If you're using hot lights, you can just leave the shutter open as long as you want if the subject is static (or willing to sit very still ;) ). If you're using a combination of flash and natural light, you're really making 2 exposures at once, and getting it balanced is kind of a trick.

Flash does have some advantages over hot lights though... Leaf shutters can theoretically sync with a flash at any speed, so you can shoot with high shutter speeds and let the flash freeze your subject to prevent motion blur. You don't have to cook your subjects with a lot of heat, and they might appreciate that :D . There's also an almost unlimited number of modifiers available for the different flash systems. Power is also infinitely variable on most monolights, but you might be stuck with 3-5 stops of adjustments on pack/head systems.

Best way to decide what equipment you need is to understand how light works...you can get by with a fairly cheap kit if you understand how to use the tools (like everything else in photography I suppose...)

[William McEwen]

Frank and Bob, thanks for defending the lowly hot lights. I, too, use them for portraits and like them. They work well.

I don't shoot still life, but I believe they would work well for still life, since you create a lasting light environment and can really see what is happening.

For anyone interested, a good rule of thumb is never point a hot light directly at your subject. The light is much nicer when it is diffused to some degree. The diffusing material that you clip to the barn doors is OK, but I've always had much better results by bouncing them against white surfaces.

[Brian K]

I'm sure others on here will join in with more expert information, but here's my take on it, from the standpoint of someone who started off with digital portraiture. (Waits for thrown shoes :o )

I had some continuous lights that I used at first; a pair of 1000 watt hot lights, and did they ever live up to their name. I used them precisely once, during which I discovered a number of things.

1. They do not produce the light output you'd think. I was forced to use a tripod for everything in order to get a reasonably good exposure. I'm sure there were things I could have done to improve even with those lights, but I was not happy with it at that time.

2. They were HOT. I could practically see the subjects melting. Not good.

I switched to a set of White Lightning strobes, with a softbox and reflectors, and Pocket Wizard transmitter/receivers. I was able to unhook from that tripod and move freely within the set area I had built. The results from that second set (same subjects) were absolutely fantastic.

Again, this is from my digital experience. I have yet to venture into large format portraiture, though that is my next project. I will not be hauling out those old lights again.



What's important is that you first learn to see light. Still life and good portrait are all about lighting, especially still life. I would start out with something as simple as a hardware store clamp reflector light and various diffusers and reflective materials to get a basic understanding of light and how it's affected by diffusion, reflection and the distance to subject and light modifier (diffuser or reflector). And if you think that you can't light something well with such a simple set up you're fooling your self.

So I would suggest that you start very simple and get some understanding of light and how to modify it. Use a digital camera so that you don't waste too much money, and then when you start getting results that you are happy with, and have decided to make a real commitment, then consider continuous lights for still life, or strobe for still life and portrait.

And as to the comment that CJ made about using only one light, it's not fully accurate. If you are a poor lighting technician then go with one main light and a fill card because novice photographers don't usually have the ability to blend multiple light sources cleanly. But for experienced still life shooters, and experts at lighting, there is no limit as to how many light sources and reflectors you can use, but you better know what you're doing.

[toolbox]

What's important is that you first learn to see light. Still life and good portrait are all about lighting, especially still life. I would start out with something as simple as a hardware store clamp reflector light and various diffusers and reflective materials to get a basic understanding of light and how it's affected by diffusion, reflection and the distance to subject and light modifier (diffuser or reflector). And if you think that you can't light something well with such a simple set up you're fooling your self.

So I would suggest that you start very simple and get some understanding of light and how to modify it. Use a digital camera so that you don't waste too much money, and then when you start getting results that you are happy with, and have decided to make a real commitment, then consider continuous lights for still life, or strobe for still life and portrait.

And as to the comment that CJ made about using only one light, it's not fully accurate. If you are a poor lighting technician then go with one main light and a fill card because novice photographers don't usually have the ability to blend multiple light sources cleanly. But for experienced still life shooters, and experts at lighting, there is no limit as to how many light sources and reflectors you can use, but you better know what you're doing.

This ^.
There's a book called Light, Science, Magic that I always see recommended for people getting started in lighting...it's supposed to be very good at explaining how light behaves. If you're serious about lighting, it might be a good place to start. There's also a bunch of DVDs out there that are pretty good...the old Dean Collins series is excellent....they look pretty dated with the big '80s hair and the Hasselblads, but the information is timeless. He does do some work the LF cameras too. Dean was a master at lighting...he could make one light look like five. Photography really lost something when he passed away...
The One Light Workshop DVD is pretty good, as are the Strobist series...the latter two are probably a good place to start if you know nothing about lighting at all, although both are geared toward the digital crowd.

Light is light...photons don't care what their source is, they all behave the same. There are differences in temperature, intensity, duration, etc, but light will always behave the same--doesn't matter if it's coming from the sun, a xenon flash tube, or a candle. If someone told me I needed to make some portraits and only had a $3 budget, I'd go to a craft store and get a big piece of white foam core and grab a table lamp at home... I think you'd be surprised at the results. That said, that wouldn't exactly be my first choice for equipment :D .

I second the recommendation above to start with one light, particularly if you're using a flash. I would also really recommend doing some homework...you can learn a lot just by experimenting, but you're really just throwing darts blindfolded unless you understand the concepts that are at work when you make changes to your lighting...

[Philip Anderson]

If you are doing still life, you can pick up good strobes very inexpensively. an earlier writer mentioned that hot lights don't provide as much stop as you might think. I have a good example. I typically work as a cinematographer and shoot photography as a hobby and to experiment with composition and light between projects. Recently, I was hired to shoot some product stills for a client who I shot a commercial for. They were borrowing a production studio space so did not have strobes on hand. at 320 ASA and f8 on my digital (I know :( ) I required a 10K tungsten Frensel (through 216 diffusion), a 5K tungsten fresnel through 216, A 6k Softlight, and and an additional 2 650w fresnels to light the product (a piece of exercise equipment). My shutter speed was still 1/15 of a second. The wattage was 22,500 Watts of power or roughly 188 amps If I had the strobes I have now I could have done it all with 40amps and a shutter speed of 1/60th if not faster.

[toolbox]

If I had the strobes I have now I could have done it all with 40amps and a shutter speed of 1/60th if not faster.

If you're only using flash, you can just set the camera to it's max sync speed...usually around 1/200th on a DSLR. Some will sync as high as 1/250th (and no, I'm not counting CCD chipped cameras that sync at any speed ;) ). Shutter speed has no effect on flash exposures as long as you're within the sync limits of the shutter...

[jan labij]

I guess I subscribe to the simpler the better school here. That said, I do still lifes using two photofloods {250 watt} in hardware store reflecters. I set them at 3 feet on one side of camera, 6 feet on the other and meter the reflected light off the subject and reset lights, in same ratio, until I can use f16 @1/25. I use blue lights for ortho film and white for pan.

[Brian Ellis]

If you're only using flash, you can just set the camera to it's max sync speed...usually around 1/200th on a DSLR. Some will sync as high as 1/250th (and no, I'm not counting CCD chipped cameras that sync at any speed ;) ). Shutter speed has no effect on flash exposures as long as you're within the sync limits of the shutter...

While the shutter speed has no effect on the flash exposure it has a huge effect on exposure for the ambient light. I don't think that setting the shutter at the max synch speed is a good idea unless there's no ambient light (i.e. the photograph is being made in darkness except for the flash).

[toolbox]

While the shutter speed has no effect on the flash exposure it has a huge effect on exposure for the ambient light. I don't think that setting the shutter at the max synch speed is a good idea unless there's no ambient light (i.e. the photograph is being made in darkness except for the flash).

That's why I said "if you're only using flash" ;) . The poster was talking about shooting in a studio, and if you're using controlled lighting in that situation you might as well set it at your max sync speed to keep any unwanted ambient light out of the image... A lot of studio work happens at f8-f16 and at max sync speed you can even keep some regular room lights on if you want to without having them affect your exposure.

If you're shooting mixed lighting sources (ie. outside lighting a subject with flash), then absolutely yes...use the shutter to control the ambient light.