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/prod...t_light/cf0003

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/prod..._stand/cf0003k

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/prod...o_light/sv3860

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/prod...ght_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 )

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.

[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 )

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 .

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...

[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.