p.2 #1 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
jzucker wrote:
we shoot anywhere with studio flash using a battery pack. Depends on what you're doing I guess but the best results will come from a big softbox and not a small flash with a lens in front of it.
Agree. If my interest is in a natural-looking light, merging it with available light, I would need something either broad itself or powerful enough to modify. Reflector, maybe, but more often flash. I also shoot anywhere with a studio flash and battery pack.
At this point, LED lighting is both small and weak--okay for niche, stylistic purposes, but not something I can use as a general light source.
p.2 #2 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
jzucker wrote:
we shoot anywhere with studio flash using a battery pack. Depends on what you're doing I guess but the best results will come from a big softbox and not a small flash with a lens in front of it.
Outdoors it depends a lot on how the natural light is utilized.
Viewed a components in a lighting "recipe" a source can be key, accent, fill, and background. Key and accent both to the same thing, create highlights and modeling over the fill source. The convention became calling the modeling the front side facing the camera the "key" and a highlighting source from the side or back "accent".
Sunlight is collimated and can be key or accent. Sunlight doesn't work well as key light for portraits because with portraits you typically want the key light in the eyes. Sunlight in the eyes doesn't work too well, so the more common practice is to make the sun the accent / hair light by putting it behind and letting the skylight illuminate the front side.
When looking critically at a face in open shade or backlight (in the shade of the head) you'll see modeling. In fact the angle of the skylight is so steep most if the day you'll find the brow is shading and making the eye sockets darker than the cheeks. The difference is subtle and varies because the ratio between the downward vectors and sideways "wrapping" vectors is usually about 1/2 f/stop difference. So open shade outdoors models 3D shape if you find the dominant direction and orient a face to it not very well.
So when when shooting with sun at the back and face looking up into the sky a small source actually works quite well because the problem is that the light is too flat and the smaller source applied at the same angle as the "key component of the diffuse skylight will increase the lighting ratio and create bettter gradients because unlike the natural light the flash will fall off faster.
If the skylight is modeling the flash at 45° and the flash is also at 45° downward relative to the face the parts illuminated by the "fill" component of the skylight don't change. So when you add flash over the top of the skylight highlights and adjust exposure the net effect is that the shadows get darker: the lighting ratio increases and no longer looks abnormally flat. The stronger the flash "key" the greater the ratio.
In backlight what dictates the "key" flash power is creating a perceptually correct balance with the sunny rim lit side of skin and clothing. If "Sunny 16" exposure keeps detail on the sunlit parts of a wedding gown then you'd need a combined meter reading of ambient + flash key light of around f/13 - f/11 on the shaded side for the balance to look normal. Before flash is added the reading will be around f/5.6 on the shaded side — a 3 stop difference. So measured in stops you need a key flash to add 2 to 2-1.2 stops of light TO THE HIGHLIGHTS. But remember the flash off axis isn't hitting the shadows so because the overall exposure is set to Sunny 16 to keep the sunny side below clipping they are still as dark as before the flash was added.
What to do if the highlights on the shadow side are in balance but the shadows are too dark? Add a second fill flash. Where to add it? Near the camear axis so it will fill EVERYTHING THE CAMERA SEES. How much fill flash to add? At least enough so the camera set for Sunny 16 can record detail in the folds of the grooms black suit and his shoe laces.
It seems to defy conventional wisdom for using flash today to start with fill and expose for the shadows first its but the simplest way to get perfect exposure outdoors with a digital camera in backlight:
1) Expose per the clipping warning with shutter and aperture to keep sunny highlights from clippning in the white dress. e.g.; 1/200 @ F/11
2) Turn on just the fill, placed centered around nose level and raise it's power until detail is seen in the folds of the black suit and shoelaces.
At that point the camera is recording a full range of tonal detail, but the lighting on the front side is flat. So next....
3) Turn on the key light which as been placed at the same angle the skylight was modeling the face. Slowly increase its power creating highlights over the fill until the tone of the highlights on the "shaded" side of the white dress look "right" relative to the sunny parts. What I do is raise the key light until I see clipping in the front, then back down 2/3 stops. That puts the shady whites (Zone 8) 1/3 below the sunny whites (Zone 9). The only thing clipping will be specular (Zone 10) highlight reflections in things like metal eyeglass frames.
Full range of tone, perfect exposure both technically and perceptually done in less than a minute without a meter. Made possible by the instant playback and clipping warning, things we didn't have in the film era. It seems radical today because exposure is highlight centric and fill is an after thought, but its really the foundation any lighting ratio is built on because the fill is everywhere, including under the highlights.
If you try that outdoors starting with just direct flash sources, and then gradually add larger modifiers you'll see what effect the fill and modifiers have. Outdoors where there's so much ambient light from all directions to the point it's too flat on the skylit side facing the camera there's no need for big "wrapping" sources in the shadows.
But if you look at the highlights created with the flash when added — which to some degree will be specular reflections of the sources — you'll find as the sources get bigger and bigger the highlights will look smoother and softer but relative to the size of the sky the sources will not change the look of the shadows as much. You can control how soft the overall look is by adjusting the amount of fill flash to the point where not only detail is seen in the shadows but they start to be rendered gray not black.
I came to understand that cause and effect myself because I used direct flash for 30+ years and asked the question "Why does flash look fake?". What are the clues you see in a photo that tell you the lighting is not natural? Shadows or lack of them, but also its the character and position of the highlights. More that anything it's specular hot spots on the middle of the cheeks bouncing straight back into the camera that scream "FAKE".
If the angle of the source falls much below 45° vertically the natural shadows clues are lost and the highlights also move down on the face and don't look "natural" for reasons it's hard to define until you realize the problem is the angle of the light being "unnaturally" low, per what we normally see. The reason flash brackets improve the appearance of direct flash lighting is by moving the highlights up to where they are normally seen. Curiously even if they are still specular they don't seem unnatural because we see natural sunlight create specular reflections on faces all the time. It's the the specularity that is the problem making flash look fake as much as it is where on the face those specular highlights wind up.
Are not specular highlights better? Yes certainly. But the best prevention is simply getting rid of the oily skin causing the reflections. A few years ago friends came to visit after a long hot day of sightseeing. I had my speed lights and 8" dish shaped DIY reflectors on the camera and shot the boy, then later set up the studio lights and shot the girl and some group shots.
What surprised me a bit and was puzzling at first was that the larger source on the studio lights was creating more specular reflections on the skin than the dinky ones used on the boy making the lighting seem harder in the holistic sense of highlight and shadow contrast clues. The reason for the difference? The boy washed his face and removed the sweat and oil, the girl not wanting to mess up her make-up didn't. The take away lesson for me? Skin texture trumps modifier size.
I shot over 300 head shots for a church directory with two speedlights that were one minute wonders where I grabbed people as they arrived, showed them to stand and shift their weight, stepped back and shot, usually only one shot per person unless they blinked. Same lighting set-up, varying degrees of specular reflections depending on whether not the skin was dry or oily, naturally or due to skin products.
Bigger modifiers are better because they will make the highlights more like those created by the diffuse skylight, but if the skin is oily there will still be hot spots. What is the ideal size modifer outdoors? One which is big enough to reduce the hot spots but small enough to be managable in the wind.
I shoot most speedlight candid shots without modifers due to power constraints. I get specular hot spots on the faces but deal with them in PP so they usually aren't a problem. For casual portraits I'll add my DIY diffusers to cut the specularity a bit. They aren't big enough to affect the look of the shadows. If I did more serious outdoor portraits for paying customers I'd use studio lights with inverters specifically so I could use bigger SBs and get smoother, softer highlights.
p.2 #4 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
I work in the LED biz and I think I should chime in.
High CRI can be good depending on how the LED manufacturer/packager is achieving the high CRI number. Honestly, CRI is a lousy standard for LEDs. Kelvin temp, lumen output and x/y coordinates is the most important. Efficacy is important as well depending on purpose.
One important thing to worry about with LEDs are light striations. Depending on the LED layout, you may run across multiple shadows at different angles.
LEDs have an enormous potential, but everyone always buys some garbage off ebay, then declares "LEDs are no good..."
Me personally, LEDs are for fill. Unless you want to set up multiple 2' x 2' LED panels, you may want to wait another year or so.
p.2 #6 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
What do you guys think of the affordable Fotodiox LEDs??
They seem and appear to be a little better quality than the ebay/chinese ones (although I am sure they're made in China too; but hey, at least they're shipped domestically).
I read many times, that their light quality are as good as more expensive LEDs, like Litepanels, etc.
p.2 #7 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Regarding Fotodiox LED
Pros: colormix. This is a great way to achieve good CRI. But don't fool yourself, high CRI will not be there if you have only cool or warm white LEDs but a mix of the two achieves high CRI ratings.
Cons: I'm not a fan of T1-3/4 style LEDs (the typical round top through hole LEDs). They only have roughly 60-90° beam spread so it will be nothing like a good flash. SMD LEDs would be WAY better, but will cost a lot more. For $250, I'd expect SMD LEDs.
Lastly, since no LED brand (Nichia, CREE, etc) is mentioned, I have no choice but to assume these are just cheap Chinese LEDs. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd expect this to be closer to about $89 rather than $250
p.2 #8 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Thanks pc4400 ...Have recommendations for a good portable/compact and decently affordable LED lgiths with those better kinds of SMD LEDs? (similar to size and power as lets say the fotodiox 312as)?
p.2 #9 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
Thanks pc4400 ...Have recommendations for a good portable/compact and decently affordable LED lgiths with those better kinds of SMD LEDs? (similar to size and power as lets say the fotodiox 312as)?
Unfortunately I see nothing currently on the market that can be of good use. I work with prototypes and I can clearly say that there is an LED solution but it's incredibly expensive which is why it's not on the market. The LED lighting market is a tricky one; you can get quality LEDs but never in a useful package.
See link below; it's a Chinese manufacturer (one of thousands)
You would need 18 of these LED boards to make one 2' x 4' panel, this would cost $990 just for the LED modules, not including aluminum heatsink/housing, softbox material and driver(s) and mounting hardware. And this is for no name brand LEDs! If you had two of these 2' x 4' panels you would have a useful LED lighting solution.
p.2 #10 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
So I assume these "SMD" LED's are the best kind for photography? ...why hasn't anyone made portable LED lights, in similar size and style as today's/current light, with these SMD's yet?
I am sure they would fit and work in those small portable plastic casings that we see everywhere (like the ebay/chinese/fotodiox/YongNuo/CN, 96, 98, 144, 160, 200, 208, 312, 500, 1000 sizes).
Hopefully we'll see these SMD LED's being used in the above sizes more in the future and at affordable prices. Maybe china/ebay will start making them
edit:
I see these SMD panels are all over ebay, and for pretty cheap... why doesn't someone make them in a nice, fitted, ready-to-use, portable casing for video/photo-use already? ...should be that difficult to produce.
p.2 #11 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
edit:
I see these SMD panels are all over ebay, and for pretty cheap... why doesn't someone make them in a nice, fitted, ready-to-use, portable casing for video/photo-use already? ...should be that difficult to produce.
Being in the biz, I can say that by the time it is developed, tested, UL/ETL listed ($$$) and marketed... the LEDs efficacy, efficiency, color quality and price would have changed drastically, leaving the investor holding thousands of LEDs that are near worthless.
Since an LED photo studio light panel is a nitch the Chinese manufactures ignore it. Until someone here takes commits financial suicide in developing it, China has nothing to rip off and make cheaper.
p.2 #12 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
pc4400 wrote:
Being in the biz, I can say that by the time it is developed, tested, UL/ETL listed ($$$) and marketed... the LEDs efficacy, efficiency, color quality and price would have changed drastically, leaving the investor holding thousands of LEDs that are near worthless.
Since an LED photo studio light panel is a nitch the Chinese manufactures ignore it. Until someone here takes commits financial suicide in developing it, China has nothing to rip off and make cheaper.
So you're saying don't expect photographic LED panels to be mainstream until the technology is fully mature in the overall marketplace?
p.2 #13 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Can you list all the reasons why SMD LEDs are better than the more common, round, regular LED's used in today's current market (ie: litepanels, fotodiox, chinese, ebay, cn, yongnuo, etc., etc) Besides the already stated wider angle of light?
I am reading/researching them, and they seem to be used for more industrial and auto lighting (interiors, tail/headlights) and home interior lighting; and those said applications are more geared towards just/only lighting up certain areas/things... and really don't require specific and accurate colors/temps like in photography, no? Also, the SMD specs never state CRI, sometimes are kinda high/cold in temp and don't state lum, tungsten watt equivalents or light output.
...just curious and want to know all the Pros that SMD's have over the regular, normal, common, round LEDs....
p.2 #14 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
Can you list all the reasons why SMD LEDs are better than the more common, round, regular LED's used in today's current market (ie: litepanels, fotodiox, chinese, ebay, cn, yongnuo, etc., etc) Besides the already stated wider angle of light?
I am reading/researching them, and they seem to be used for more industrial and auto lighting (interiors, tail/headlights) and home interior lighting; and those said applications are more geared towards just/only lighting up certain areas/things... and really don't require specific and accurate colors/temps like in photography, no? Also, the SMD specs never state CRI, sometimes are kinda high/cold in temp and don't state lum, tungsten watt equivalents or light output.
...just curious and want to know all the Pros that SMD's have over the regular, normal, common, round LEDs.......Show more →
SMD LEDs (Surface Mount Device/Diode) mount directly to the PC board surface (usually aluminum) which is a requirement for anything putting out enough light to generate heat (roughly 250 lumens per foot and above). The older style through-hole LEDs have no heat transference to the PC board and therefore are typically mounted on fiber board. These LEDs do not develop enough light or heat to require an aluminum PC board which is meant for heat dissipation. In a nut shell, through-hole T1-3/4 style LEDs are for decorative uses and are not meant to provide any performance oriented lighting. You may see them being used in some performance/task lighting products, but only cheapo products.
SMD LED manufacturers provide lots of useful engineering information but not always CRI data. CRI data is obtained when the LED packager (person building/selling the fixture) get the finished product tested.
Here are some useful SMD LED specs from CREE
p.2 #15 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
I am reading/researching them, and they seem to be used for more industrial and auto lighting (interiors, tail/headlights) and home interior lighting; and those said applications are more geared towards just/only lighting up certain areas/things... and really don't require specific and accurate colors/temps like in photography, no?
I don't know about home lighting but anything used in external automotive lighting is highly regulated regarding color temp and brightness.
p.2 #16 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Micky Bill wrote:
I don't know about home lighting but anything used in external automotive lighting is highly regulated regarding color temp and brightness.
Unless it's automotive aftermarket, then it's no holds barred.
p.2 #17 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Aside from the chinese and ebay cheapy LED lighting... how come the more "better" and supposedly higher in quality photo/video LED lighting USA manufacturers, like Litepanels, use the round through-hole LED's and not the SMD's?
Their lights seem to be very nice quality, professional, with prices to match, yet they only use the round t1-3/4 LEDs and not the SMD. If anything, I would think Litepanels would use nicer SMD LEDs. Maybe in the near future perhaps?
p.2 #18 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
Aside from the chinese and ebay cheapy LED lighting... how come the more "better" and supposedly higher in quality photo/video LED lighting USA manufacturers, like Litepanels, use the round through-hole LED's and not the SMD's?
Their lights seem to be very nice quality, professional, with prices to match, yet they only use the round t1-3/4 LEDs and not the SMD. If anything, I would think Litepanels would use nicer SMD LEDs. Maybe in the near future perhaps?
Not real familiar with Litepanels but looking at their specs I'm getting roughly 3.6 lumens per LED compared to 9.7 lumens per SMD LED (driven conservatively). At roughly estimating 500 lumens per panel you would need to light up a small 3x3x3 photo box. The panels look nice but obviously MANY are required for a video shoot
p.2 #19 · Continuous LED Video lighting for STILL photography???
Do you think Litepanels will start using SMD's in the future? They seem like a company that want to produce high-quality stuff. They even tried petitioning a law to try to ban imports of chinese/ebay LED lighting; I guess to not rob sales from their products. Maybe because they care about making the best products too? If, yes, then maybe they will/should want to make better SMD LEDs to differentiate themselves from ebay/chinese knockoffs and have a reason to buy theirs instead.
pc4400 - Have you ever tried writing Litepanels, or other usa led lighting companies/manufacturers, to request for them to start making LED panels that use SMDs instead? If someone has the most knowledge about the SMDs, it sounds like it would be you ...I am sure they would hear you out and all the great reasons and advantages you know about SMDs.
Besides the already stated wider angle of light? 
...I am sure they would hear you out and all the great reasons and advantages you know about SMDs.