adamdewilde wrote:
Simon, how would one go about setting up each light at a time, if one happens to be using an Acute2 pack and heads, each time one adds a new head, the power for the lights has to change.

Not exactly true...that's the case if you have two heads on the B-channel or if you have the two channels set to asymmetrical, but not otherwise. If you've only got one head on each channel and it's set to symmetrical then the two channels are essentially independent.

In a conversation about using a pair of background lights, one key and one fill you aren't going to be working from a single Acute2 pack anyway - only three heads supported, right? In that case I'd put the background lights on the B-channel of one pack and separate the key/fill to different channels on another pack. On a single pack I'd put two background lights on the B-channel, as I could keep them at equal spacing and power, then put the key on the A-channel. With the pack set to symmetrical, each channel is getting up to half the pack's power without affecting the other channel.

With a pack set to symmetrical you can also unplug the head(s) from one channel without affecting the other. So you can meter background and foreground separately, or key and fill separately, depending on your situation. Really, the only time I use the Acute packs in asymmetrical mode is when I need to push a ton of power to one head.

c.d.embrey wrote:
Once again, I agree with shatterkiss. Is this art or paint-by-the-numbers


At the stage the OP as at, no it isn't art, its a struggle to get past all the technical bullshit to acquire the skills necessary to be able create art effectively, effortlessly. So lets keep things into the context of original question and don't confuse helping a beginner learn how to control exposure with handcuffs on creativity.

Everyone climbs a learning curve, each at their own speed. Some people just experiment and figure things out themselves eventually: you seldom see those types on forums asking basic technical questions or posting work with basic technical flaws. But when someone does show up at the bottom of the learning curve I've found its better to start with the basics, for no other reason to establish a common understanding of vocabulary and concepts.

Some conventions, like nuking a white background, might be conventional wisdom but really don't make much sense technically or perceptually. Its just a workaround for not being able to light a background evenly which has some pitfalls, as the OP has discovered. In this thread the the root cause of the problem is a lack of understanding whether knocking out the background is necessary and what the downside risks of doing it are. Once the OP knows the cause and effect of over exposed backgrounds and lens flare he can choose to nuke it or not according to wherever his artistic muse takes him. But either way he'll understand how it will affect the appearance of the foreground subjects, and more importantly WHY on a technical and perceptual level - I try to cover all the bases

The technical part of photography and lighting isn't rocket science and can be mastered in a short time if one approaches it systematically with a few lights or a window, a gray card and a white towel: the camera has all the other necessary monitoring tools. Yes, to some anything remotely systematic does looks a lot like "paint by numbers" but that phase passes quickly as each skill is practiced, mastered and absorbed into the sub-conscious realm of "getting it".

Chuck

shatterkiss wrote:
adamdewilde wrote:
Simon, how would one go about setting up each light at a time, if one happens to be using an Acute2 pack and heads, each time one adds a new head, the power for the lights has to change.

Not exactly true...that's the case if you have two heads on the B-channel or if you have the two channels set to asymmetrical, but not otherwise. If you've only got one head on each channel and it's set to symmetrical then the two channels are essentially independent.

In a conversation about using a pair of background lights, one key and one fill you aren't going to be working from a single Acute2 pack anyway - only three heads supported, right? In that case I'd put the background lights on the B-channel of one pack and separate the key/fill to different channels on another pack. On a single pack I'd put two background lights on the B-channel, as I could keep them at equal spacing and power, then put the key on the A-channel. With the pack set to symmetrical, each channel is getting up to half the pack's power without affecting the other channel.

With a pack set to symmetrical you can also unplug the head(s) from one channel without affecting the other. So you can meter background and foreground separately, or key and fill separately, depending on your situation. Really, the only time I use the Acute packs in asymmetrical mode is when I need to push a ton of power to one head.



Sorry to Hijack, I thought he got the answers he needed... Simon I'm still confused, and rarely find myself using my Acute pack the way you do, I generally use 4 lights in my lighting setups including the acuteB, I will pick your brain a bit more on PM if thats alright with you. Let me just reread your post a few more times to see if I can make heads or tails of how you works your pack...

very interesting thread.
Too bad i have lights and light meter and backgrounds, but i don't have models to work with, i had shoot my children many times, even some results i really like but i am sure all of them are just normal and not perfect to many lighting experts here, and in fact i don't know how to use the light meter [i saw many videos and read many articles but seems i still don't know the concept of light meter before i read the full explanation and details], and i even was thinking to get a color checker, but with all that if i can't work many times in studio with someone then i will never learn on lighting and studio tools, in addition, i can't bring those fake models or some still subjects to work on, i feel i want to learn on human rather than those dolls, but in all cases, i will keep reading and watching samples, and wish one day to work with real models.

cgardner wrote:
Mastering the technical stuff in a systematic way is the quickest way to get the technical roadblocks to creative perceptual vision out of the way.

It's also the quickest way to instill habits based on dogma rather than one's own thought processes. You end up a subscriber to a system, rather than someone who has encountered problems and learned to reason through them; when the system doesn't address a problem or situation, the subscriber is left high and dry while the independent thinker has been taught to improvise. The systematic approach may teach you to answer the "what?" more quickly, but it leaves you scratching your head at the "why?" - it creates a technician, not an artist or craftsman.

It's like those people who spent any amount of time learning penmanship in school (and more importantly, being graded on it): does your handwriting still resemble the model you were taught to follow? Ever wonder what it would look like if you'd been given the chance to develop your own writing style? I just find it so telling that the most creative and exciting photographers working today are folks who aren't technically and formally trained at all - they're creatively trained (often from other disciplines), maybe they assisted other photographers for a time, they're armed with the ability to find creative solutions to mundane problems. Even the most technically-capable assistants tend to learn by doing, watching and thinking, not studying. Whereas some of the most bland and insipid photography around, especially on a site like FM, can come from people who have read and followed every tutorial they can get their hands on and can pixel-peep until the cows come home but can't explain why they approached a photo or its lighting a certain way.

You say that there's a specific and correct way to use a meter (dome facing the camera) because that's what the manuals say. Every working pro I've either been taught by or worked with/for has instead metered individual lights with the dome facing the light, often shading it with their other hand to avoid picking up light from other heads. As part of the process they'll probably also take a central reading facing the camera, but that's just one of an array of readings that essentially gives you a map of the light in the frame. No one reading is your guide to a "proper exposure", they're just the range of light and shadow that inform your decision of how to expose the frame and what your photo will look like. There's no right or wrong, just a series of creative decisions that might or might not serve your intent in crafting the photo.

I'm sure there's a point of view between yours and mine that's healthiest and best for the fledgling photographer. You point out that you're an engineer and technical by trade, whereas I went to art school for things other than photography and the areas in which I'm not self-taught were learned by assisting and working as a photographer. I just worry that in your relentlessly-systematic approach you cover the "Light, Science" but have left out the "Magic". Even the most technical book on photographic lighting that I know of, and the one that I recommend first, remembers to include the magic. I'd love to see the point in your tutorials where you say, "now forget everything I've said, throw this all out the window, go out there and break my rules and develop your own approach to photography." Where you tell people to stop being housepainters and start being Degas or Ferran Adria or Jimi Hendrix.

Damn, this is a good thread. Probably one of the best of the year!

John

shatterkiss wrote:
cgardner wrote:
Mastering the technical stuff in a systematic way is the quickest way to get the technical roadblocks to creative perceptual vision out of the way.

It's also the quickest way to instill habits based on dogma rather than one's own thought processes. You end up a subscriber to a system, rather than someone who has encountered problems and learned to reason through them; when the system doesn't address a problem or situation, the subscriber is left high and dry while the independent thinker has been taught to improvise. The systematic approach may teach you to answer the "what?" more quickly, but it leaves you scratching your head at the "why?" - it creates a technician, not an artist or craftsman.

The question that needs to be answered is it your aspiration to be a photographer for a mall portrait studio or to work in editorial and advertising (or maybe to do top end portraits).

snip

You say that there's a specific and correct way to use a meter (dome facing the camera) because that's what the manuals say. Every working pro I've either been taught by or worked with/for has instead metered individual lights with the dome facing the light, often shading it with their other hand to avoid picking up light from other heads. As part of the process they'll probably also take a central reading facing the camera, but that's just one of an array of readings that essentially gives you a map of the light in the frame. No one reading is your guide to a "proper exposure", they're just the range of light and shadow that inform your decision of how to expose the frame and what your photo will look like. There's no right or wrong, just a series of creative decisions that might or might not serve your intent in crafting the photo.

I appreciate the time all the very experienced people take here to make their points.

Here it is from my perspective. When I prepare for a case I start with the end result. In my instance, that is the closing argument. I then shape my preparation around that end result. That can be cross examination questions I should ask, voire dire matters I need to discuss, direct exam points a I want to bring out. Once I have it all put together I must be prepared to make changes as the dynamics of the trial take shape. And I will violate rules when I think they will accomplish my objective, which is to present a comprehensive, succint and compelling plea to the jury to either acquit my client or convict him of a lesser charge.

So maybe lighting is the same. You start with what you end up with, build your lighting around that and keep the fundamentals in mind as you wotk thru the process, understanding that at times you may have to bend or flex the rules.

John Power wrote:
...cross examination questions I should ask, voire dire matters I need to discuss...

In case you were thinging the same thing I was...

voir dire (vwär dîr) (also voire dire)
n. A preliminary examination of prospective jurors or witnesses under oath to determine their competence or suitability.
Origin: Anglo-Norman, "to speak the truth"

John

Check out this wonderful tutorial sequence! Part 2 covers setting lights and exposure.

http://www.zarias.com/?cat=13