Lighting For Still Life and Portrait Photography

[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 )

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...

[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.