Rineke Dijkstra strobes

[lolorent]

Hello,

I'm a 4x5 user and I'd like to be able to mimic (cause I'm just a little copycat ;) ) Rineke Dijkstra's lightning setup she uses for her outdoor portraits.

Let say I'd love to be able to do that :
http://www.jrpac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rineke_dijkstra-hilton_head2.jpg

I'd use a 150/5.6 lens or my 210/5.6 for that. Probably at f16 or f22.
What I'd like to know it's what kind of strobe I need to buy for achieving such a picture. I've read Rineke uses a Lumedyne and we can see that here :
http://www.educatie-groningermuseum.nl/archief/oog_in_oog/images/rineke_dijkstra.jpg

But Lumedyne produces various model and can't guess what is enough?
Would a portable unit as a Metz 60 be sufficient ?

Thanks a lot for your answer and, please, forgive me by bad english.

[Ben Syverson]

To get that look, with the subject lit, and a sunny day in the background darkened, you need to overpower the sun. There are two ways to do that: use a really powerful strobe, or use a very fast sync speed.

For example, in the Dijkstra go-by you posted, let's say it's Sunny 16, and for the sake of argument, she's shooting 100 ISO film, so it's a 1/125 @ f/16 base exposure. Throw in bellows factor and it's f/11.

Okay, now forget the background and imagine the subject in a studio. Do we have a strobe lying around that can do a full body portrait through a small light modifier at f/11? Yeah, just about any strobe can achieve this. I can almost get there with a Nikon SB-26. If you drop the requirement for full-length, this is definitely a job for a speedlight.

All that's left is to dial down the background, which you can do by increasing shutter speed. Since LF shutters frequently go to 1/500, you can very easily drop the background by about two stops.

[lolorent]

Thanks a lot for your answer Ben.
I'm really a newbie in the world of strobes...

Considering I could use 400 ISO film and not 100 (if only Kodak continues to produce Portra...), if my strobe is as far as the camera is from the model (let's say 2,5m in order to have a full lenght portrait) and if a small umbrella absorbs 2 stops, it would require a number guide of 28 at f11 or 55 at f22.
So the Metz 60 should be enough!

Yes my shutters are new copals and they can go up to 1/500.
I'll try the setup when I'll have a bit more free time but things seem clearer now.

Thanks again and congrats for your beautiful 8x10 portraits.

[Sevo]

and if a small umbrella absorbs 2 stops, it would require a number guide of 28 at f11 or 55 at f22.
So the Metz 60 should be enough!


A small umbrella does not absorb 2 stops at full body portrait distance, it's more like four to six. But if you have that Metz at hand, try it first - it probably will fail to get quite that bright or soft a effect, but it will give you some data to base your power estimates on before you set out to rent portable generators...

[lolorent]

Good eve Sevo,
No I haven't got a Metz at hand to give it a try, it was just a plan...
If I consider what you write, whether I forget about f22 and try to be happy at f11 or I try to find a portable unit (Alienbees, Lumedyne, Bowens,...) that could deliver at least 800ws. If I chose the later solution it will be considerably more expensive than a Metz, but LF is never really on the cheap side.

[sully75]

This is probably going to cause a sh1tst0rm of freaking out, but I would definitely suggest you work this out with a DSLR before you attempt it on film. You could burn through a small fortune in color film before you figure this out, with a DSLR you could get some instant feedback.

[sully75]

Quite possibly that picture was taken toward the evening when it might be a little easier to overpower the sun.

[Noah A]

I don't see why using a digital camera to experiment would cause any freaking out, but on the other hand it ain't rocket science. If you can't get it in one or two tries, then it's time to start over and learn the basics.

Looks to me like a portable strobe (probably the Lumedyne shown) off to camera right, and it's about a stop over the ambient exposure. In this case it looks to me like the sun is basically coming from the same direction as the strobe, however it looks like it was a bit cloudy.

I think you're right on with a 150mm lens and f/16 or so. Looks like a bare reflector to me, not an umbrella (which would definitely mean you'd need more power since the umbrella would eat up a few stops).

Personally, I'd go for something like a Lumedyne, or better yet a Profoto 600b or Elinchrom Ranger. It's nice to have a reserve of extra power should you need to overpower really bright sunlight, or if you need your strobe farther away, or if you decide to shoot with an umbrella, etc.

I use Profoto Compact 600 monolights, sometimes with a DynaLite XP1000 power inverter or a gas generator. A Compact 600 puts out around f/22.5 @ ISO 160 in an umbrella at around 5-6 feet. That works for headshots and 3/4 length, but for full-length I'd have to back the light off and would probably end up around f/16. I'd like to switch to Acute 1200 packs but can't afford to right now. You can never have too much light with large format.

[Frank Petronio]

I'm not a fan of Paul C. Buff junk but these look pretty cool and people are using them to power other brands of AC monolights and strobe packs: http://www.paulcbuff.com/vm120.php

You could find an inexpensive older AC strobe to use. I think Rineke is using a too small silver umbrella with 400 watt/sec Lumedyne but you could match that with any brand of strobe.

For that matter, you could also sync two large Metz strobes, etc.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks for the kind words, lolorent!

The ISO typically won't matter, because like the aperture, it affects the foreground and background equally. But in general, lower ISO gives you more options.

Think of it this way. You have one light that can light the subject to f/11 @ ISO 100.

With ISO 50 film, our subject is lit to f/8, and Sunny 16 tells us 1/250 @ f/8 for the background. So by closing down to 1/500, we darken the background by one stop.

With ISO 100 film, our subject is lit to f/11, Sunny 16 tells us 1/250 @ f/11 for the background. So by closing down to 1/500, we darken the background by one stop. (Our aperture has changed because of the ISO, but the relative light levels are the same, so it's a wash.)

With ISO 400 film, our subject is lit to f/16, Sunny 16 tells us 1/500 @ f/16 for the background. Whoops, if we can't switch to 1/1000, we're stuck. You could close the aperture to f/22 to drop the background by a stop, but then you need twice as much light on the subject.

I agree that a DSLR is extremely helpful in working out these light levels before you expose film. But there are two very big gotchas. First, make sure you subtract bellows compensation from the DSLR's ISO. So if you have a stop of bellows compensation and you're shooting at ISO 100, set your DSLR to ISO 50, and it will give you a correct bellows compensated exposure. Second, keep in mind that DSLRs don't sync as fast as a Copal 0, so there will be things you simply can't test, such as the examples above that utilize a 1/500 shutter. The DSLR can still be helpful in that scenario; you just have to use your imagination and stop math skills a little more.

[Frank Petronio]

In the day we used Polaroid - err Fuji Instant - to really know what's going on. With DSLRs we don't waste as many....

[Jamie123]

From a purely technical standpoint this is quite a simple setup and shouldn't be too hard to replicate. One proper strobe with an umbrella is all you need.

Contrary to what others here suggested I say why not just try the real thing from the get go. The most challenging part about replicating this portrait is finding a beach and a person to photograph. I suppose you've figured that out already so I'll skip to the technical part.
Here's what you need:
- ISO100 film and maybe some Fuji FP100C instant film.
- A light meter that can be used as a flash meter.
- A proper strobe head with a portable generator (let's say at least 1200J) and an umbrella (a softbox or octabox will also do). RENT a good one. I suggest Profoto or Broncolor. Once you've used a good one you can then decide where you want to cut corners when you buy.

Here's what you do:
Go to your location and decide where you want to place your 'model'. Meter the daylight. What you want to do, as has been explained already, is underexpose the background. So if the meter reads 250th @f11 and you want to underxpose one stop you will either have to set the shutterspeed to 500th or the f-stop to 16. Once you have done this, take a polaroid. Is background dark enough for your liking? If yes, good, if not, change your settings accordingly.
Once you have the exposure settings for the background set you will want to set up the strobe with the umbrella. Where exactly you want to set the strobe stand will depend on the light fallof you want. I'd start with a distance of around 2 meters away(maybe closer) from the subject, camera right and not too high up (maybe subject's eye-level).
Now turn on the flash and meter it at the subjects position until the meter reads the f-stop you have your camera set at. Now you're pretty much set. Take another polaroid, this time with the subject in place, and see if you like the quality of light. If you don't, move around the strobe until you do and ajdust the strobe light intensity accordingly.

Anyways, it should be very much doable and if you try to do it right from the start you'll at least have fun with it. It will cost you a bit of money for film and rental but not a fortune. Also, if you take a look at Dijkstra's series you will see that she's not terribly concerned with perfect consistency in lighting between shots (which would be hard anyways with changing sunlight).

PS: The reason I recommend high-end brand strobes is that, at least where I live, the difference in rental costs for a single light doesn't vary that much between the really good ones and the mediocre ones. Maybe $20 variation at most which isn't that big a deal if you only need one light.

[Jamie123]

But there are two very big gotchas. First, make sure you subtract bellows compensation from the DSLR's ISO.

Hmm...is bellows compensation really an issue at body length portrait distances?

[Frank Petronio]

i hope not, I've forgotten to do it for 28 years....

[Ben Syverson]

Not as big a deal with full length portraits, but I still add a stop for good measure...

[Fred L]

Although it works better with stationary subjects/ objects, if you're underpowered, you could always give it multiple pops as needed. If you have a quick recycling head, it *might* work with a live subject if they could keep still. I'd go for more power myself though and probably a box instead of an umbrella, personal pref.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Although it works better with stationary subjects/ objects, if you're underpowered, you could always give it multiple pops as needed. If you have a quick recycling head, it *might* work with a live subject if they could keep still. I'd go for more power myself though and probably a box instead of an umbrella, personal pref.

You get really weird results doing this, especially if you tell them not to change their expression. It seems that people are unable to produce the same expression twice.

[Noah A]

...

Contrary to what others here suggested I say why not just try the real thing from the get go. ...

Yeah, in case I wasn't clear that's what I would do as well. For my studio classes in school we were given sample photos and we had to figure out the light and reproduce it as closely as possible. These were complex multi-strobe setups without digital or polaroid. We had one shot with 4x5 Ektachrome and one chance to get it right, or as close as possible.

This setup is simple. Well the lighting and technique are simple. I think once you get the technique down, which should take all of five minutes, you'll figure out that there is a lot more to these portraits than the technique.

[Fred L]

You get really weird results doing this, especially if you tell them not to change their expression. It seems that people are unable to produce the same expression twice.

Indeed, nothing like weird eyes etc. For table top or studio product work, easy peasy. Hell, one could (light) paint a stationary object in a studio if one wanted to try something different :)

[Roger Vadim]

From a purely technical standpoint this is quite a simple setup and shouldn't be too hard to replicate. One proper strobe with an umbrella is all you need.

Contrary to what others here suggested I say why not just try the real thing from the get go. The most challenging part about replicating this portrait is finding a beach and a person to photograph. I suppose you've figured that out already so I'll skip to the technical part.
Here's what you need:
- ISO100 film and maybe some Fuji FP100C instant film.
- A light meter that can be used as a flash meter.
- A proper strobe head with a portable generator (let's say at least 1200J) and an umbrella (a softbox or octabox will also do). RENT a good one. I suggest Profoto or Broncolor. Once you've used a good one you can then decide where you want to cut corners when you buy.

Here's what you do:
Go to your location and decide where you want to place your 'model'. Meter the daylight. What you want to do, as has been explained already, is underexpose the background. So if the meter reads 250th @f11 and you want to underxpose one stop you will either have to set the shutterspeed to 500th or the f-stop to 16. Once you have done this, take a polaroid. Is background dark enough for your liking? If yes, good, if not, change your settings accordingly.
Once you have the exposure settings for the background set you will want to set up the strobe with the umbrella. Where exactly you want to set the strobe stand will depend on the light fallof you want. I'd start with a distance of around 2 meters away(maybe closer) from the subject, camera right and not too high up (maybe subject's eye-level).
Now turn on the flash and meter it at the subjects position until the meter reads the f-stop you have your camera set at. Now you're pretty much set. Take another polaroid, this time with the subject in place, and see if you like the quality of light. If you don't, move around the strobe until you do and ajdust the strobe light intensity accordingly.

Anyways, it should be very much doable and if you try to do it right from the start you'll at least have fun with it. It will cost you a bit of money for film and rental but not a fortune. Also, if you take a look at Dijkstra's series you will see that she's not terribly concerned with perfect consistency in lighting between shots (which would be hard anyways with changing sunlight).

PS: The reason I recommend high-end brand strobes is that, at least where I live, the difference in rental costs for a single light doesn't vary that much between the really good ones and the mediocre ones. Maybe $20 variation at most which isn't that big a deal if you only need one light.

GREAT! here is somebody who understands his job! It is really nothing overly complicated and done in almost any outdoor fashion/ editorial shooting.
Get out and experiment - it's funm and you learn more than with thinking "should I buy a xx brand..."

enjoy and post the results!
+++

[msk2193]

In Rineke's own words......

How do you set up your lights?

In the beginning I always had really complicated lighting set-ups because I thought: the more lights, the better the picture. Now I work with as few lights as possible.

For me, daylight is the main source of light, and the flash is really only there to lighten the

shadows. I use one Lumedyne flash. It works with batteries so you can use it inside and outside.


copy and pasted from a Popular Photography interview done in 2008.

[Jim Michael]

I think everyone covered the basics pretty well, but a couple of comments. Re the bellows extension compensation, assuming a 66 inch person producing a 4 inch tall image on the film and a 150mm lens, exposure compensation would be less than a quarter stop. Shutters typically are a little slow at the higher speeds so calibrating the shutter would be advisable. Also, consider the umbrella to subject distance from the standpoint of the quality of light - it's pretty soft when the source is close in and gets harder rapidly as it's moved away and the angle subtended by the source from the point of view of the subject decreases.

[lolorent]

The most challenging part about replicating this portrait is finding a beach and a person to photograph.

Thanks a lot everyone for all those answers and the time you took to give advises.
I'll have homework to do now!

Concerning the beach, I live on the Mediterranean coast in south of France so it will be the easier part, for the girl I'll convince one of my friends to play this role but right now temperatures are a bit low for a bikini portrait ;) I wanted to have that look but not to push the copy to such an extend.

Choice of negatives color films is rather reduced (Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160 & 400, Fuji Pro 160NS). I'll probably use Portra 160 that I know better than other ones.
For the lightning setup, Noah and Jamie, you both tell me to go 1200j if I can, so it will be the way to go. I see that all majors producer of lightning equipment (Balcar, Broncolor, Elinchrom,...) produce portable generators that could deliver such a power. Elinchrom Ranger RX is given for 1100j and seems to be a good solution for me but I'll see what I can find secondhand.
Light modifiers don't seem really expensive so a trio softbox, umbrella and a simple reflector are probably a good way to learn.

Thanks also for the advise about polaroids. Thankfully Fuji still produce some cause DSLR is not an option for me.

Thanks again for your kind help, now I have to experiment and to post examples of what I've succeed (or not) to do but it won't be for tomorrow,
Camille

[jayabbas]

Norman 200B's or Norman 400B's and for sunlight zapping power, Comet PMT-1200. Battery powered and built to the hilt for durability in the outdoor arena .

[Struan Gray]

Once caveat when overpowering the sun: with a small flash you are dependent on short shutter speeds to knock down the ambient. Many budget studio flash models have burn times that are too long to play this trick - the total time the flash is emitting light becomes longer than the shutter speed. Unlike hotshoe flashes, the problem only gets worse at reduced flash power.

I only know Elinchrom. This is not a problem with Rangers, but if you're tempted by the budget D-lites, the burn times can be surprisingly long. I have a pair, and like them, but if I were thinking of taking up strobed portraiture with any seriousness I'd save up for something faster.

[Jamie123]

Thanks a lot everyone for all those answers and the time you took to give advises.
I'll have homework to do now!

Concerning the beach, I live on the Mediterranean coast in south of France so it will be the easier part, for the girl I'll convince one of my friends to play this role but right now temperatures are a bit low for a bikini portrait ;) I wanted to have that look but not to push the copy to such an extend.

Choice of negatives color films is rather reduced (Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160 & 400, Fuji Pro 160NS). I'll probably use Portra 160 that I know better than other ones.
For the lightning setup, Noah and Jamie, you both tell me to go 1200j if I can, so it will be the way to go. I see that all majors producer of lightning equipment (Balcar, Broncolor, Elinchrom,...) produce portable generators that could deliver such a power. Elinchrom Ranger RX is given for 1100j and seems to be a good solution for me but I'll see what I can find secondhand.
Light modifiers don't seem really expensive so a trio softbox, umbrella and a simple reflector are probably a good way to learn.

Thanks also for the advise about polaroids. Thankfully Fuji still produce some cause DSLR is not an option for me.

Thanks again for your kind help, now I have to experiment and to post examples of what I've succeed (or not) to do but it won't be for tomorrow,
Camille

The reason both Noah and I recommended at least 1200J is that it's better to have more power than you need (i.e. if you're not sure how much you need). And as I said, unless it's absolutely impossible where you live, I'd start with a rental as far as the light is concerned. You'll want to learn a bit more about using strobes before you buy one. All of them have their pros and cons. Also, beware of buying second hand. Replacement bulbs can be expensive and when you're buying portable packs you never know how much life they have left in them. You can buy a cheap used Broncolor set and end up paying more than a new one costs to have them fixed.

As far as the modifier is concerned I think Frank Petronio's right, it's most likely a very small umbrella. Noah said a bare reflector but I think the shadow contours are too soft for that.

Like others said, this is really simple. From a purely technical 'schoolbook' point of view the lighting isn't very good. The legs are getting too little light while the chest is overexposed (no pun intended) in regards to the light on the face. It's most likely she just set up the light in a one-size-fits-all way, i.e. without making adjustments for the individual people.
What this shows you, of course, is that the technique really doesn't matter much. The less sophisticated the technique, the more it becomes about subject matter. Which brings me to the next point. I strongly recommend you consider talking your friend into doing it with a bikini despite the cold temperatures. Having her stand there, freezing, trying to stand still for the camera - now that's a portrait I want to see! :)

[D-tach]

i hope not, I've forgotten to do it for 28 years....

:) :) :)

[Robert Oliver]

This was shot with a Dynalite Uni400jr at full power (plugged in) with a softbox to camera right...

Underexposed background a little over a stop. ISO was 200. Exposure was 1/500th @ f16.

This was with a DSLR, but the principles for flash fill are the same with a real camera.

http://robertoliver.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v13/p107108344-4.jpg

[sully75]

In Rineke's own words......

How do you set up your lights?

In the beginning I always had really complicated lighting set-ups because I thought: the more lights, the better the picture. Now I work with as few lights as possible.

For me, daylight is the main source of light, and the flash is really only there to lighten the

shadows. I use one Lumedyne flash. It works with batteries so you can use it inside and outside.


copy and pasted from a Popular Photography interview done in 2008.

I don't think daylight is the main light source in the image.

[Robert Oliver]

The reference shot you show is using flash as the main light.... and very close to the camera. I personally think the strobe is too close to the camera and not close enough to the model.

I can't figure out where the sun is... guessing it's a fairly overcast day. Looks like photographer underexposed background by about 1/2 a stop.

You don't need as much power to do this technique on a cloudy day... you could probably get away with a metz strobe into an umbrella for this.

But if you are trying to use flash as a main light source on a sunny day you will need more a lot more power than a handle-mount or shoe mount flash can deliver at normal working distances.

[anglophone1]

Camille
Where are you?
I am [usually] in Antibes and have a Quantum that basically does the same as a lumedyne that you could try .
Having said that I'm away from Saturday for three weeks.............
C

[sully75]

Hello,

I'm a 4x5 user and I'd like to be able to mimic (cause I'm just a little copycat ;) ) Rineke Dijkstra's lightning setup she uses for her outdoor portraits.

Let say I'd love to be able to do that :
http://www.jrpac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rineke_dijkstra-hilton_head2.jpg

I'd use a 150/5.6 lens or my 210/5.6 for that. Probably at f16 or f22.
What I'd like to know it's what kind of strobe I need to buy for achieving such a picture. I've read Rineke uses a Lumedyne and we can see that here :
http://www.educatie-groningermuseum.nl/archief/oog_in_oog/images/rineke_dijkstra.jpg

But Lumedyne produces various model and can't guess what is enough?
Would a portable unit as a Metz 60 be sufficient ?

Thanks a lot for your answer and, please, forgive me by bad english.

Couple of things:
regarding learning with a DSLR, if you wanted to learn how to reproduce only this shot, and do it over and over again, you certainly could learn it on film. Of course you could learn everything on film, but your cycle of feedback would be wicked slow (I know, you could use expensive Fuji stuff of a different format/size then the film you are actually going to use, and then adjust for ISO/film size, but that sounds like a lot of WORK to me).

If you are interested in learning a lot about lighting, and having a cheap way of experimenting, than having practicing this stuff with a DSLR is going to be pretty helpful. Do what you like though.

Regarding this shot, from the shadow on her face and on the sand, it looks like the flash is high to camera right. It appears to me that there is no modifier (softbox/umbrella) on the flash, due to the hard shadow on her chin. I'm never great with telling if there is fill light, but there does not appear to be any, because of the deep shadow on her chin. The camera is really low, perhaps at the level of the camera in the picture of the photographer you linked to.

I think quite possibly this picture was taken around dusk. For the record, this picture would not really show that she has really high powered flashes because if it was at dusk, she could have overpowered the sunset with almost anything.

Not an expert, those are my $.02

[Jamie123]

Couple of things:
regarding learning with a DSLR, if you wanted to learn how to reproduce only this shot, and do it over and over again, you certainly could learn it on film. Of course you could learn everything on film, but your cycle of feedback would be wicked slow (I know, you could use expensive Fuji stuff of a different format/size then the film you are actually going to use, and then adjust for ISO/film size, but that sounds like a lot of WORK to me).

I don't know what you are talking about regarding ISO and film size. You can get Fuji 4x5 film with ISO100 and then use Portra 160 (which I would expose at ISO100 anyways).
There's nothing wrong with using a DSLR but if someone wants to do large format work I think they should do large format work. The cycle of feedback is certainly slower but I'm not quite convinced that the learning process is much slower. Working with film forces you to think more carefully about your lighting choices and if you make mistakes you will remember not to do it again next time. I'm also not sure whether it's much cheaper. Not everyone has a DSLR and my Canon 5DII and lens cost three times as much as my 4x5 kit when I bought it.

[sully75]

I believe the Fuji 4x5 is discontinued, if you believe the rumors. It's also (to me at least, extremely expensive).

I'm not suggesting a 5D. I'm suggesting a Digital Rebel I and a 18-55 and some speedlights. If someone is asking "how do I use strobes" from a very basic level, I'd definitely point them that way. I can see the merits of what you are saying, but personally I think you'd learn a lot more that way.

I also think that, in this case, burning through a lot of pictures would be helpful. To me, that's what a DSLR is good for.

If the OP had a lot of experience using strobes and was asking "I'd like to reproduce this effect, what do you think the setup was" then I think polaroids might be a good way to go. But from personal experience, I would have burned through about $200 worth of polaroid just figuring out how to get a half decent exposure, not to mention light placement, fill, etc.

(As an aside: I've never used strobes with film, so if you want to ignore me based on that, go ahead. I've been thinking about trying it lately, as there is less light to play with this time of year. I have shot a fairly ridiculous amount of digital with flash though, and learned a lot about lighting that way).

Anyway, that's all I got. If instant film were cheaper, I'd be all over it.

[Frank Petronio]

Well in the old days and when I would do it for assignments, I'd shoot a shitload of Polaroids to fine tune the lighting for just about everything. I even had a Polaroid back for my 35mm kit, and bought 54, 52, 669, etc. by the case if I had a catalog or something big.

So going off to do a lit large-format shoot without any proofing tools feels really scary and stupid to me now. Granted I can't get a nice big 4x5 Polaroid but I'm not waiting for 1-2 minutes to see them as the sun is setting either. So I most definitely would use some kind of digital camera with manual controls and a flash sync to get things right, and I'd be looking at that preview image really, really closely. I think that's great, it is better than shooting a dozen Polaroids.

I'm still going to be using the Fuji Instant too if available, just not as many.... And a flash meter, instinct, experience, and everything else at my disposal to get the shot as good as possible.

I like Rineke's portraits, especially her choice of people and expressions, but, as a gross generalization, most fine-art university educated MFA type photographers don't know how light with control or subtly because their seems to be that old cultural divide between the "artists" and the commercial photographers. A lot of commercial photographers can't make a decent B&W image. Stupid cliques....

[Jamie123]

I believe the Fuji 4x5 is discontinued, if you believe the rumors. It's also (to me at least, extremely expensive).

I'm not suggesting a 5D. I'm suggesting a Digital Rebel I and a 18-55 and some speedlights. If someone is asking "how do I use strobes" from a very basic level, I'd definitely point them that way. I can see the merits of what you are saying, but personally I think you'd learn a lot more that way.

I also think that, in this case, burning through a lot of pictures would be helpful. To me, that's what a DSLR is good for.

If the OP had a lot of experience using strobes and was asking "I'd like to reproduce this effect, what do you think the setup was" then I think polaroids might be a good way to go. But from personal experience, I would have burned through about $200 worth of polaroid just figuring out how to get a half decent exposure, not to mention light placement, fill, etc.

(As an aside: I've never used strobes with film, so if you want to ignore me based on that, go ahead. I've been thinking about trying it lately, as there is less light to play with this time of year. I have shot a fairly ridiculous amount of digital with flash though, and learned a lot about lighting that way).

Anyway, that's all I got. If instant film were cheaper, I'd be all over it.

I generally don't believe rumors and even if Fuji 4x5 is going to be discontinued, it's still available now.

I'm not saying using a DSLR as a proof method is a bad idea. I do it myself all the time. It becomes especially useful when you start working with multiple lights as at some point you simply need to do test shots to see how the different lights relate to eachother. However what I'm saying is that if you want to do such a rudimentary lighting set up as Dijkstra is using in this shot, a single pack of Fuji 4x5 should suffice to get it right. As I said before, if you look at her beach portraits you can see that she doesn't really care about consistency between shots. If there's less sunlight from one shot to the other then the background is simply darker. It seems that she just set the strobe up and then kept taking portrait without caring much about the background.

One thing I strongly disagree with is the use of Speedlights to try and mimic the effect of proper strobes. Speedlights are neither simple nor are they cheap. Why would you want to buy a whole bunch of small weak hot-shoe flashes with all sorts of complicated menues and dials for a couple hundred dollars each when you could just spend the same money on a few proper strobes that are controlled in a straightforward way.
And don't say Speedlights are a good way to learn. Figuring out how to work with ETTL or iTTL or whatever it's called and dialing in lighting ratios and groups of flashes etc.etc. is not easier to learn than using a Profoto strobe where you can just turn a knob and dial in your desired flash intensity. This whole 'strobist' speedlight trend got so popular, IMO, simply because amateurs are intimidated by the looks and size of studio strobes and they're too shy to walk into a professional rental place and rent some 'professional' equipment.

One more thing. Another reason for using 4x5 film and proper strobes for this work is that, if you use a DSLR and Speedlights, it will just end up looking like your average cheesy 'flickr strobist group' shot.

[Frank Petronio]

It need not be expensive Profoto gear, as nice as it is. You can buy older Speedotron, Dynalite, Calumet, Bowens, etc. outfits for low hundreds of dollars. The penalty is mostly weight.

The newer Profotos and Broncolors are great for consistency of color, fast flash duration, recycling, ability to use the lastest, greatest light modifiers... all important when you're shooting lots and lots of frames with DSLRs... but for a simple umbrella or softbox set-up where you're shooting slowly with big film... well, light is light so why break the bank with $5000 worth of gear when $500 will do the exact same thing?

The Strobist stuff isn't that bad, David Hobby sets most of his stuff on manual and suggests these cheaper Chinese dumb strobes slaved to one smart strobe.... I think it is that guy paid by Nikon to do lighting workshops that hawks the iTTL system that is on drugs.... How they have a team of engineers dreaming up these convoluted features and 20-step menus is more a testament to the fkd-up Japanese corporate culture and loopy marketing than anything else.

[Jamie123]

It need not be expensive Profoto gear, as nice as it is. You can buy older Speedotron, Dynalite, Calumet, Bowens, etc. outfits for low hundreds of dollars. The penalty is mostly weight.

The newer Profotos and Broncolors are great for consistency of color, fast flash duration, recycling, ability to use the lastest, greatest light modifiers... all important when you're shooting lots and lots of frames with DSLRs... but for a simple umbrella or softbox set-up where you're shooting slowly with big film... well, light is light so why break the bank with $5000 worth of gear when $500 will do the exact same thing?

You're right, of course, it needn't be expensive Profotos or Broncolors when it comes to buying lights. What I'm saying is that if you're new to using strobes you can rent a very good one for a day and not break the bank. In theory you could also try renting a cheap one but rental places tend to carry the name brands.

[Frank Petronio]

Well I bought two 800-watt Dynalites and four fan-cooled heads for $300 on Craigslist so I'm jaded ;-p

[Jamie123]

The Strobist stuff isn't that bad, David Hobby sets most of his stuff on manual and suggests these cheaper Chinese dumb strobes slaved to one smart strobe.... I think it is that guy paid by Nikon to do lighting workshops that hawks the iTTL system that is on drugs.... How they have a team of engineers dreaming up these convoluted features and 20-step menus is more a testament to the fkd-up Japanese corporate culture and loopy marketing than anything else.

Forgot to add my response to this. I'm not trying to knock David Hobby or people trying to get the best out of small strobes. If you already have the small flashes you might aswell experiment with them.
However, I know a guy who got it into his head to become a professional photographer after the owner of the hotel chain he worked for as a chef asked him to take some photos of the rooms for their website. Fair enough, nothing wrong with that. They were happy with his work so they paid him a monthly salary for half a year to travel around the (small) country and take photos of rooms at all their locations.
Now, of course, coming from a purely amateur background (i.e. never having seen a professional at work) he decided to stick with what he knew so he just added to his arsenal of Canon Speedlites. So now he has over $1500 worth of Canon flashes to light small rooms with ETTL whereas a couple of proper strobes or even hot lights would be all he needs. But he's never used a light meter in his life so he wouldn't know what to do with them.

As for the divide between art and commercial photographers in regard to lighting, I don't think it's really true that they don't know how to control light subtly, it's just that most of the time they don't want to, otherwise they would be adapting the commercial aesthetic.
Look at photographer Taryn Simon, for example. She's certainly proficient at lighting and has worked commercially before being successful as an artist. Yet the more her work evolves the less she seems to be concerned about amazing light.

[lolorent]

Camille
Where are you?
I am [usually] in Antibes and have a Quantum that basically does the same as a lumedyne that you could try .
Having said that I'm away from Saturday for three weeks.............
C

Hello Clive,
Thanks a lot for your proposal!
In fact as a student I'm right now in Paris but all my LF equipment is left in my parents' house near Montpellier. And I only use it when I have some holidays...
If I can find some time to take a trip on the "Cote d'Azur" I won't forget to send you a mail.
Once again, thank to all of you. This forum is really precious.
I'll try to follow all those advices and to post results.
Camille