shatterkiss wrote:
Sorry, but you're off on both counts! It's not paper at all, it's a painted cyc wall, and it's white - Inverse Square is your friend, white can be grey if you want it to be.
It's the same studio and cyc wall as my other posts in this thread, if that's any help.
cool, do you have the model 5-6' away from the background? From the look of it the BD wasn't gridded, is that correct?
Three AB800's at use; one at f/8 for the subject. Two set up next to the backdrop at f/11-ish to blow the paper nuclear. I had the subject 12 feet (not inches like the stupid picture says) from the background. These were just visual mock-ups for the design company.
shatterkiss wrote:
Here's one from me from this week.
Monday I had what might have been my worst shoot ever (even trumping a few weeks ago when a Profoto Acute2 pack blew up 10 shots into a shoot!) with the worst makeup artist I've ever worked with. All of my regular folks were booked or unavailable, so I ended up working with someone for the first time - big mistake. It was absolutely painful and mortifying and required multiple phone calls and meetings to apologize to the agency bookers who repped the models in question. I kicked the makeup artist off the shoot and walked her out of the studio mid-afternoon, scrapping half the day's planned setups and leaving one model totally unshot. So, to make up for it (no pun intended), I brought her back on Wednesday to work with one of my regular makeup artists. ...Show more →
Was the MUA really THAT BAD I heard she made 1 model cry..
Shatter,
on the triptych/3 panel of the first girl with shades/green kini top, did you shoot those with a wider lens?
There's something about those images besides the great light that I'm digging.
Usually I would never use anything shorter than an 85mm on FF if I was shooting head & shoulders but if my guess on the focal length is correct it just goes to show how effective it can be to break rules sometimes.
Beautiful shots, Sid! I really dug both the lighting and post treatment when I saw them hit your Flickr stream this week.
And to everyone posting, don't forget to tell us a little story to go with your images! Let us know not only how you achieved the shots, but WHY you approached the situation a certain way and what context you were working in.
abdul10000 wrote:
cool, do you have the model 5-6' away from the background? From the look of it the BD wasn't gridded, is that correct?
She was probably 8'+ away from the background, I'd guess. Our cyc is around 16' deep, from edge to curve, and my kneejerk approach is to stick people towards the middle of it. There's also a ripple and crack in the floor there, so it makes that mark easier to find. And correct, no grid on the dish: I don't own one, though it's been on my to-do list.
brucemuir wrote:
Shatter,
on the triptych/3 panel of the first girl with shades/green kini top, did you shoot those with a wider lens?
There's something about those images besides the great light that I'm digging.
Usually I would never use anything shorter than an 85mm on FF if I was shooting head & shoulders but if my guess on the focal length is correct it just goes to show how effective it can be to break rules sometimes.
Thanks, Bruce! On a crop body, the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 is my default lens, and I tend to shoot that on the medium-to-long end...I am using longer lenses more lately, but that's still my first stop and what gets used most often. I frequently like to be a little bit wide and close, plus that lens is just a tremendous performer. I just went back and checked the metadata on those images of Donna and they were indeed shot with that lens, most of them in the 40-50mm range at a 1.6 crop.
I suspect that what you're seeing is the effect of having her lean forward into a clamshell lighting pattern with the camera fairly close: it both creates a little bit of depth distortion and has pronounced enough light falloff that those relative distances are exaggerated.
I really like placing light sources pretty close to my subject, especially when they're diffused: rather than being flat and even, I think it produces really lush highlights and shadows and emphasizes the apparent depth in an image. You just have to keep those relative distances in mind unless you want someone turning a couple of inches away from a softbox to suddenly mean a loss of a stop of exposure.
Hey Sid you have some great work!! In the picture above what stand and boom arm are you using on the AB800? Are you happy with this combo and would you recommend this setup. I have an AB800 with a medium softbox that i would like to use out in locations and wanted to purchase something like this. I know a C stand with an arm is heavly recommend around here but I just wanted to hear your thoughts.
shatterkiss wrote:
I really like placing light sources pretty close to my subject, especially when they're diffused: rather than being flat and even, I think it produces really lush highlights and shadows and emphasizes the apparent depth in an image. You just have to keep those relative distances in mind unless you want someone turning a couple of inches away from a softbox to suddenly mean a loss of a stop of exposure.
very true, soft light is low contrast light by nature so using a larger softbox at a greater distance fills in the shadows and further reduces contrast. Using a smaller softbox much closer against a darker background produces breath taking light. I am planning to buy a smaller 16"x24" softbox plus grid to get as close as possible to the subject in tight head shots.
lalo164 wrote:
Hey Sid you have some great work!! In the picture above what stand and boom arm are you using on the AB800? Are you happy with this combo and would you recommend this setup. I have an AB800 with a medium softbox that i would like to use out in locations and wanted to purchase something like this. I know a C stand with an arm is heavly recommend around here but I just wanted to hear your thoughts.
Thanks for looking
Leo
Heya Leo!
Don't forget to have lots of ghetto cardboard to use as cutters/gobos.
The boom I have setup in my studio is the Alien Bee boom/stand combo. I remember it being pretty affordable, and this AB800 that I have set up never moves - I use it for my studio head shots and corporate head shooting work. It remains pretty much in the same spot constantly, and I've never had it shift or anything. I don't know if I'd want to bring that whole mess outside - too much stuff to screw around with. I'm actually thinking of finding some kind of "meaty" gooseneck arm that I can screw right into my ceiling and have the AB and the softbox hang down. Since its always in the same position, this would free up the floor completely. But the gooseneck would be stiff enough that it wouldn't swing about.
When I'm shooting outside with strobes I've usually got the heaviest light stand I can find with me and my ever lovely better half Sara is usually holding that, just to be extra safe. If I were going to do lots of shooting outside with my AB's (I've transitioned to speedlights for most of my location shooting) I'd try to invest in some kind of c-stand setup.
Nice work. I really love those old wood floors in your place. Lends a great atmosphere to your studio. Keep up the good work.
And wow, have Senior Sessions changed. Way back when, I had my Senior photo taken at a department store chain. They supplied the sport coat and tie. It's nice to see things have improved.
Thats Fresh wrote:
thats alot of lights for that type of end shot.
Yeah, way over-complicated for the end result. There's no separation for example of subject from background in terms of rim accents, despite the light hovering over the back of the subject.
abdul10000 wrote:
very true, soft light is low contrast light by nature so using a larger softbox at a greater distance fills in the shadows and further reduces contrast. Using a smaller softbox much closer against a darker background produces breath taking light. I am planning to buy a smaller 16"x24" softbox plus grid to get as close as possible to the subject in tight head shots.
I don't agree with this. The larger and closer your light is to the subject, the more soft it will be. The further a lightsource is from your subject, the light becomes more harsh and contrasty.
The "softness" of a source is largely a function of its relative size compared to the subject. That relationship can mean it's a smaller source that's really, really close or a larger source that's a little bit further back. Like, a 3' softbox that's 3' from the subject will create softer light on them than a 6' softbox that's 10' away.
Now, regarding the contrast, soft doesn't necessarily mean low-contrast. A diffuse source that's really close to your subject will produce smooth and gradual shadow transitions, but it will also produce deeper and richer shadows than the same source further away. That's going to be less a function of "softness" and more of the Inverse Square Law demonstrating more pronounced falloff and having less opportunity to see light-scatter and wrap having an effect on your image.
For instance, these two images used exactly the same light setup (one head in a 5' octa) and cyc wall, but one had the source maybe 8' from the subject and the other had the source just out of the frame. I tend to think that the "softer" image also has deeper blacks, which to me gives a sense of richer contrast. It's worth noting that the color image has actually had the blacks lifted a bit in post!
The "softness" of a source is largely a function of its relative size compared to the subject. That relationship can mean it's a smaller source that's really, really close or a larger source that's a little bit further back. Like, a 3' softbox that's 3' from the subject will create softer light on them than a 6' softbox that's 10' away.
Hmmm, I've never really quite broken it down like that. I tend to follow what Sid says, but you make a convincing point. For me, the distance issue usually comes down to the type of modifier that is on the light. A light at 10' distance with a 7" reflector providers a different effect that the same light at 10' with a large softbox.
As always, terrific shots Simon. Doesn't hurt when you have a beautiful subject that the camera loves. Keep up the good work.
Deezie wrote:
For me, the distance issue usually comes down to the type of modifier that is on the light. A light at 10' distance with a 7" reflector providers a different effect that the same light at 10' with a large softbox.
This is still true, but only holds true assuming a constant light-to-subject distance. As soon as you throw variable distance into the equation things like the inverse-square law come into play, as Simon said.
There's also the direction of each individual "ray" to consider. A parabolic umbrella, for example, emits every single photon parallel to its axis (ideally, and kind of like how the sun's rays are parallel), whereas a white umbrella will reflect light in all kinds of directions from each point on the fabric. This means that similar-sized silver and white parabolic umbrellas will have very different effects on the shadows - silver will fill them in less, giving a harder, more contrasty look, while white will have rays actually converging on each point, softening the shadows.
A silver non-parabolic umbrella will do even less to fill in shadows as most rays will actually be reflected away from the umbrellas axis.
It's not paper at all, it's a painted cyc wall, and it's white - Inverse Square is your friend, white can be grey if you want it to be.
And correct, no grid on the dish: I don't own one, though it's been on my to-do list.
