I have been on this forum for a while now, mostly in other sections like "City" and "Nature". I have put in my time helping others in those areas where I have more experience, and now (after lurking in here for a while) I could use some lighting help. I am fascinated with the lighting aspect of photography now, and have been reading a lot here and in books to learn more about what studio and lighting experts know. I do shoot people (especially my kids) at times, and I'm enjoying shooting them more and more lately. Naturally, I want the best results I can get, so I'm trying to learn more.
I have read Chuck's tutorials, or at least most of them. I have the little foam things made for my flashes (and use them). I also have a flash / camera bracket, and 2 Canon flashes so far. I truthfully have almost zero interest in setting up a home studio, but rather would like to be able to have more "portable" lighting modifiers and tools for outdoor use.
My questions are these. I did try to find the answers by searching here. Since I don't visit any other forums, I am asking you. Thank you, in advance, for any help I can get!
1. What is the difference between shooting "through" an umbrella and reflecting off of it? Is there more light one way vs. the other? Softer light?
2. In a nutshell, what is the difference between a less costly strobe like the Alien Bees series, or even "Impact" brand lights, and the much more high end models?
3. Does a soft box require a more powerful light source? And is light through a soft box somehow more useful or flattering than umbrella light?
4. If you were shooting interiors (no people, more like real estate photography), what types of lighting would you suggest?
5. Possibly off topic a little, but I recently did a shoot for an old friend of her daughter, and she has glasses. To avoid reflections, I used a polarizer throughout the whole shoot (all outdoors). Are all polarizers shaded on one side only and not the other? In other words, is there a polarizer that would always be properly aligned no matter if you're shooting portrait or landscape?
1.
White umbrella has the advantage of being really close to the subject but doesn't work as well as reflective umbrella at larger groups because of the fabric eats some of the light.
2.
I would say AB is more of a high end brand with a pricetag that's affordable. The light should be similar. More power for the price.
3.
With a softbox you get more control of the light and because the box itself have a reflective back you should get higher efficiency. Barely used a softbox so I can't write too much about it :P
It's mostly about the source size. Bigger size compared to the subject equals softer light.
4.
Never done this.
5.
Light bounces.. A ball bounces.. If you throw a ball into a wall it bounces back.. So does light..
To prevent reflections, you should place the light so it doesn't bounce/reflect into the camera.
Somewhere in Foggy Bottom is an idea banging at the backs of the eyeballs. It says just tilt the glasses downward a bit so they don't reflect back at you.
All polarizers rotate for a reason. Their polarizing ability changes as they rotate. If you change the orientation of the camera, you have to change the orientation of the filter.
Actually, the light output between your average reversible or silver umbrella in reflective mode compared to shoot-through mode is practically the same. I did a big test with all my modifiers and speedlights a while ago and was rather disappointed to find that, as it shows just how inefficient reflective umbrellas are.
There are lots of good threads where AB vs Profoto has been discussed.
The best thing about using an SB is being able to use a grid. Buy Alienbee's 24x36'' grids for $35 and then buy whatever brand SB you want.
Shooting interiors, you'll use everything from a large diffusion panel to a Chinese lantern, SBs, shoot-throughs, honeycomb grids, bare heads, pencil heads, light socket heads, and two tons of gels.
It does. And I get the comparison between the ball and light. It's a good analogy. The situation I had was being asked to follow 2 young girls around an outdoor play area and catch candids of them when they're not looking. Unfortunately, every time one of the girls saw me, she looked into the camera. This is one of the shots...
I used a 580 on a flash bracket above my 70-200 2.8 to try to get a little distance between myself and the girls, but did also use a CP to cut down on the reflections. Having the fill light at an angle (as far as I can tell) from the subject would have been impossible.
bacilonur wrote:
Actually, the light output between your average reversible or silver umbrella in reflective mode compared to shoot-through mode is practically the same. I did a big test with all my modifiers and speedlights a while ago and was rather disappointed to find that, as it shows just how inefficient reflective umbrellas are.
There are lots of good threads where AB vs Profoto has been discussed.
The best thing about using an SB is being able to use a grid. Buy Alienbee's 24x36'' grids for $35 and then buy whatever brand SB you want.
Shooting interiors, you'll use everything from a large diffusion panel to a Chinese lantern, SBs, shoot-throughs, honeycomb grids, bare heads, pencil heads, light socket heads, and two tons of gels. ...Show more →
Thank you for your response, although I can't say I get all of it. With respect, the majority of your posts are in this forum, so I'm guessing this is something you're very good at. I'm not at your level yet...or even close.
About my umbrella question, let me re-phrase. If I have a basic white umbrella of any given size, and use (for now) a Canon flash, would I want to shoot through the umbrella, or use it with a black backing and reflect off it? Is one way more popular or preferred than the other?
About the "difference in quality" question... It's just a question that others may have too. Impact brand lights may be $150 while others are much higher. What does one have that the other doesn't? If I understood the terms in the B&H catalog, I wouldn't have to ask this I guess.
What is a "SB"?
Thanks again for any help, and I would think there may be others in here trying to learn too. I don't do this for a living, and have never had any studio experience other than going to Sears when I was a kid to have my picture taken. It's something that interests me now (I'm 37) and I'd love to learn more.
As for the polarizer question, I can think of a few instances where it may be nice to have the entire frame in the filter...
Shooting someone with glasses (as above) when not in a staged setup
Buildings with glass and nice skies above
Nice skies over water scenes
Certain automotive photos
Others?
Matt Philbin wrote:
About my umbrella question, let me re-phrase. If I have a basic white umbrella of any given size, and use (for now) a Canon flash, would I want to shoot through the umbrella, or use it with a black backing and reflect off it? Is one way more popular or preferred than the other?
About the "difference in quality" question... It's just a question that others may have too. Impact brand lights may be $150 while others are much higher. What does one have that the other doesn't? If I understood the terms in the B&H catalog, I wouldn't have to ask this I guess.
Shoot through umbrellas splash light every where and give a very soft light.
Standard backed umbrellas are somewhat more directional and allow some feathering.
For a speedlight set up heavy duty stands are not really a necessity.
Here are a few quick specifications that you'll want to keep in mind when comparing low-end and high-end strobes: Recycle speed (min and max power), flash duration, power range, modifiers available for that mount, power consistency, color consistency, operating voltage range, fan cooling, modeling light power, speedring mount strength, light stand mount, and renting/replacement/repair availability and costs.
Much will come down to your budget, how light you want to travel, whether you want a mono or pack & head system, and if there are any modifiers that are only available with a certain brand. Do a search, there was a big thread started by abdul1000 IIRC about a bunch of different brands & models.
Oh, and about the umbrella thing, I'd recommend that you just get a $12 reversible umbrella and try both ways to see which you prefer. There are lots of things about the particular characteristics of modifiers that are extremely subjective and become far less relevant than how well a certain light system or modifier fits with your style of operating.
You said you already have flashes. The best thing you can do is learn how to use them. There's a lot more to it than popping them on the shoe and setting them to TTL. Really. My work was ok before. But after using the two resources below, my work is to a whole new level. On very small jobs, I now take one bounce umbrella, that's it.
I suggest Joe McNally's book, the HotShoe Diaries. There is an excerpt here at Rangefinder Mag. It's a PDF file.
@ Raystack... I have printed out most of the relevant articles on the right column of Neil's site (it's a thick book of papers now) and think it's probably the best thing I have read so far to teach more about using hot shoe flashes. It's great info. Hadn't heard about the book you mentioned, but thank you - I'll look into that too! Thanks again!
Matt Philbin wrote:
1. What is the difference between shooting "through" an umbrella and reflecting off of it? Is there more light one way vs. the other? Softer light?
Shoot-through will be more direct, but at the same time scatter light back all over the place which in a small space will create a fill effect.
Bouncing creates a two-in-one effect with a more intense area of light in the center, due to the flatter shape and location of the light, with more softer, more "feathered" light on the edges of the pattern.
With an umbrella you seldom want to aim the center at the subject. Instead you want to rotate it completely forward or behind the subject (depending on whether you want the background darker or lighter) then bring the softer edge of the light back into the face. That allows you to see how the character of the light changes from edge to center.
Matt Philbin wrote:
2. In a nutshell, what is the difference between a less costly strobe like the Alien Bees series, or even "Impact" brand lights, and the much more high end models?
In a studio strobe the flash tube is the "on" switch. A trigger charge is sent to the wire or band around the tube which ionizes the xenon enough to make it conductive which causes the main charge to flow from the capacitors and create the flash. In a simple studio flash there is no "off". The power level is regulated by how many banks of capacitors are charged and dumped.
The more expensive brands have better control over regulating how the capacitors are charged and some now have feedback loops and switching to make the output more consistent. You will generally get what you pay for in terms of control and accuracy, but the reality is that while having every exposure the same withing .0001% accuracy is desireable, if we just set power to ensure the highlights stay below clipping its possible to correct any minor variations at the RAW stage.
Also some of the high-end brands have some unique modifiers. They are a bit like wine. If you can't tell the difference between a $10 bottle and one costing $80 then its a waste of money buying the good stuff. But if you start with the $10 bottle and develop a more discerning palate, then you'll appreciate the nuances and be able to make a more informed purchasing decision.
Matt Philbin wrote:
3. Does a soft box require a more powerful light source? And is light through a soft box somehow more useful or flattering than umbrella light?
All sources are subject to the same physics. Intensity = total area covered. With an umbrella only 20% of the output of the light may wind up on the subject. The other 80% lights up all the other parts of the room. Softboxes encase the light source and direct all the light forward, so size being equal they will generally be more effcient.
What beginners don't appreciate about lighting is that the illusion of shape is created by contrasting highlight and shadow. So controlling the shadows independently by controlling spill is as important as the highlight pattern. If one starts in their spare room with a pair of umbrellas there will be so much spill bouncing off ceiling and walls the net effect will be omni-directional and flat like an overcast day. That's why I recommend beginners start with a medium SB (24 x 32) as key light and fill over the camera so they can see what the key light and fill do independently to control light.
I note you are using my DIY diffuser designed. They are based on controlling the softness of the light with the ratio of key and fill rather than a single light with a huge modifer which "wraps" the object and provides key and fill at the same time. The difference is being able to independently control the tone of the shadows separate from the placement of the key light.
Matt Philbin wrote:
4. If you were shooting interiors (no people, more like real estate photography), what types of lighting would you suggest?
The root word for ambience is ambient, so the best approach for real estate would be to key off the ambient lighting, then supplement it only to the extent necessary to overcome the recording medium. The challenges are difference in color temp and a range of brightness which exceeds the range of the camera. They can be dealt with using lighting and gels to normalize the scene to fit the sensor, or by shooting RAW and bracketing, then blending together copies of the files balanced for each source. Its too situational for there to be a one-size fits all solution so the best approach is to learn how to do both so you will be able to pick the simplest solution.
Matt Philbin wrote:
5. Possibly off topic a little, but I recently did a shoot for an old friend of her daughter, and she has glasses. To avoid reflections, I used a polarizer throughout the whole shoot (all outdoors). Are all polarizers shaded on one side only and not the other? In other words, is there a polarizer that would always be properly aligned no matter if you're shooting portrait or landscape?
Get the camera and lights above the eye line and reflections can be minimized. If that doesn't do the job lift the frames off the ears a bit to angle the glasses down. If that doesn't work take shots with and without the glasses and use the without shot to add the eyes in using Photoshop (a last resort).
cgardner wrote:
Get the camera and lights above the eye line and reflections can be minimized. If that doesn't do the job lift the frames off the ears a bit to angle the glasses down. If that doesn't work take shots with and without the glasses and use the without shot to add the eyes in using Photoshop (a last resort).
Joe's Blog not as full of hard info as Neil's, but still very much worth the look. One of my favorite articles is here -it's some real insight into magazine shooting approached in a way only Joe can do. He's just so funny.
Chuck...
As always, thank you for being so thorough. It seems like I could take everything I've learned about photography in general over my lifetime, and it's a drop in a bucket compared to the volume of information and (somewhat) required knowledge that's out there regarding lighting. That's probably why it intrigues me right now. Your modifiers are excellent, and they're getting me good results (I think) when I'm using them. It's just a quest to continue learning and improving on my part. Here's the first shot I did with them. I think my kids were sleeping, so the cat had to do!
Joe's Blog not as full of hard info as Neil's, but still very much worth the look. One of my favorite articles is here -it's some real insight into magazine shooting approached in a way only Joe can do. He's just so funny.
Matt Philbin wrote:
Chuck...
As always, thank you for being so thorough. It seems like I could take everything I've learned about photography in general over my lifetime, and it's a drop in a bucket compared to the volume of information and (somewhat) required knowledge that's out there regarding lighting.
"Drop in the bucket" reminds me one of the best anecdotes I ever read about lighting. It was in a cinematography book and it was said that a famous cinematographer (I forget who) "... could light a set better with a bucket of black paint that others could with a dozen lights." That resonated with me because its a reminder that "lighting" in the holistic scene is about combining background, clothing and lighting to try to make what is most important contrast and that the role of shadow control is as important or more important than where the lights are aimed to create highlights. Making a photo more effective its as simple as deciding what is most important to the message and "painting everything else black" by keeping it darker, less colorful, etc. so it contrasts less with the background.
Lighting approached that way is like solving any problem: define a goal, find the best strategy to meet it, then pick the best tools. The biggest problem with beginners is that they tend to throw whatever equipment at a new lighting problem.
Defining a goal is as simple as asking "What is most important?" and "How can I make it contrast the most with the background?" Do that and the best cropping and lighting strategies will be more obvious by looking at the photo and seeing if what is most important IS contrasting the most. When you have a goal, and criteria for success, its easier to be your own worst critic and be able to tell when something is working on a cause and effect level or not. Contrast is a key factor because its what pulls the eye of the viewer around the photo.
In portraits the clothing is the biggest potential contrasting distraction from the face and the best way to neutralize it is to find a background it will blend into. Then its just a matter of picking the lighting strategy which will most effectively contrast the front of the face -- eyes and mouth -- with the background without creating a dark distracting nose shadow and make it look symmetrical and slim.
There are of course millions of possibilities, but finding the most effective ones is easiest to do if you start with the ones known to work in that way: Centered "butterfly" patterns for full face, short lighting for oblique views and profiles. Match clothing and background so they recede and light the face in one of those two ways and odds are good they will wind up being the most flattering. So its logical I think to try them first, then try everything else.
Matt Philbin wrote:
Thanks very much to both above replies!
@ Raystack... I have printed out most of the relevant articles on the right column of Neil's site (it's a thick book of papers now) and think it's probably the best thing I have read so far to teach more about using hot shoe flashes. It's great info. Hadn't heard about the book you mentioned, but thank you - I'll look into that too! Thanks again!
Just grab his new book.... Link (NOT an aff link). I have read his stuff online for a long time but well worth the few bucks as it ties everything together... a great book IMO.
Have a nice weekend!!