Can you girls look at this.......

He goes through demonstrating a different number of lights.
He starts with just one, the soft-box. That is always on, isn't it.?
Where does the flash come from when he demonstrates just the soft-box.?
Thank You

At about the 12:30 mark.

Hi CMoore
The light comes from the soft box .. he has a radio trigger plugged into the hot shoe of his flash
the light comes from his soft boxes later in the video too ... and he has peanut "slaves" plugged into the sync
plugs of all his flash so when one light goes off, they all do ..
the thing ( things ) that are always on are the modeling lights ... ( so you/he can focus )

have fun !
john

Ah...OK.
Thank You
I guess the giant, white defuser of the soft-box just makes it look like the device was turned on all the time.
Thanks Again

CMoore said:

Ah...OK.
Thank You
I guess the giant, white defuser of the soft-box just makes it look like the device was turned on all the time.
Thanks Again

Click to expand...

That would be the modeling light you're seeing.

Sorry, this is all new to me.
Does the soft-box have two modes.?
It acts as a "modeling light" (on all the time) but also is a flash when the shutter fires.?
I cannot tell...at 12:30...where the flash is coming from.
Maybe i should ask that first.
What is flashing at 12:30.....the soft-box, or something else.?
Thank You

CMoore said:

Sorry, this is all new to me.
Does the soft-box have two modes.?

Click to expand...

Most studio flashes have two light sources - one is the flash tube, the other is a continuous source. It's pretty typical for the flash tube to be a circular shape, with the modeling lamp in the center of this.

The controls are separate, except that usually a modeling lamp won't turn on unless the flash is also enabled. (This helps the photographer remember whether they have a given lighthead turned on or off.) But the main purpose of the modeling lamp is considered to be so that the photographer can visually see what will be the effect of changing the position of the lights.

This image is of a monolite flash similar to the ancient ones I use:

The modeling light is the relatively standard looking bulb in the centre - mine look a lot better than that one.
The electronic flash is that almost circular tune that surrounds the bse of the tube.
One points the whole thing into a hole at the back of the softbox. The light itself is aimed at the front of the softbox, where it is diffused before it goes out toward the subject.
The modeling light is a lot less intense than the flash, but if it is switched on it stays on, so you can see how the light illuminates the subject.
The flash is triggered by the flash synch on the camera, just like any other flash is.
If I don't meed a lot of light, and the (tungsten) colour temperature doesn't create a problem, I sometimes photograph using the modeling lights themselves.
In my case I usually use photographic umbrellas rather than a softbox. That is what I learned with, so I tend to stay with them.
Mostly I use them as reflectors, but sometimes I instead use them in shoot-through mode.
By the way, a really good book for understanding lighting is "Light, Science and Magic". I'd get that and study it carefully before I would go on to youtube.

Oh Geez...OK.
It ll makes sense now. I (obviously) had no idea that was how these lights functioned.
I had recently watched a few videos about John French, and then Bailey and Duffy.
A one hour video has no time to get into any kind of technical stuff.
In 1960 a kid is working for an icon of the fashion World, then in 1962 the young guys are contributing to Vouge, with their own London Studios.
Anyway......i have always just been a hack street photographer.
The idea of using lights and a "studio" has always fascinated me, but it has always been completely foreign to my experience with cameras and available light.
I have some space to set up a "studio" so i am just now starting to watch some basic videos.
Thanks For The Help

I have to laugh at your reference to Bailey.
That monolite shown in my post is, like mine, of the same era as David Bailey. And as they are of British manufacture, there is a decent chance he has used either that model or another similar one in the Bowens line.
He also used and promoted Olympus OM cameras and lenses for some of his famous work - if only my using the same camera and the same flash would have made me just as good as David Bailey !
My Bowens Monolites just keep plugging along.
They have a really high trigger voltage, but otherwise work just as well with modern cameras as any other manual flash.

Hey Matt -
I ordered that book you recommended.
It is the 2nd edition form 1997. The newer editions were A Lot More expensive.!
I was able to get this one, in hard cover, for 7 dollars, shipping included.

https://www.amazon.com/Light-Scienc...YPS0KGZVHSP&psc=1&refRID=DTHY12XK2YPS0KGZVHSP

I did not do an "exhaustive" search, but i looked at quite a few other books of this type. Seems like any that got reviews as good as "your" book were very expensive.

The lighting books that were priced more like ...Light/Science/Magic... had reviews that were all over the map.
50% say the book is awesome.......and the other 50% say it is a waste of money.
Probably a case of rank beginners (like me) that learn a lot because they know nothing, and think the book is wonderful.
The other 50% of the readers probably have some knowledge, and they could have learned just as much, for free, by watching Youtube.
Anyway.....thanks for the recommendation. I am sure the book can be a good reference (for me) for many years to come.
Thanks Again

On a side note, Polaroid.
I am just guessing. I could be WAY Wrong, but did Polaroid make A Lot of its profits from Studio Guys.?
Pardon me, but i have just been considering all of this stuff for the first time. It occurs to me that some kind of (not too expensive) Digital SLR would come in handy, just to Judge/Evaluate lighting changes and placement.
But...Circa 1965-1995...did studio photographers use a lot of Polaroids to check "things" before they shot a lot of frames.?
Thank You

CMoore said:

The lighting books that were priced more like ...Light/Science/Magic... had reviews that were all over the map.
50% say the book is awesome.......and the other 50% say it is a waste of money.
Probably a case of rank beginners (like me) that learn a lot because they know nothing, and think the book is wonderful.
The other 50% of the readers probably have some knowledge, and they could have learned just as much, for free, by watching Youtube.

Click to expand...

Light Science & Magic is a very good primer, but it's more about the principles of how light behaves, and how to deal with it on a variety of subject matter than it is about studio flash.

I think that in general people like to learn such things in one of two ways. One is to get specific instructions, such as you might get from a cookbook, or perhaps from a portrait lighting book with a variety of specific lighting diagrams that you can copy. The other way is to have certain principles explained such that you can make your own evaluations and adjustments as you go on. This book is more like the second way.

So someone who just wants some "recipes" that they can use immediately may be disappointed ("I don't want to learn all this technical stuff; I just want to take some portraits...). Whereas someone intending to improve their skills via understanding would probably eat it up.

As a note I watched a portion of the video; near the section you mentioned he displayed a single-light shot of the mannequin head. This was not representative of a typical one-light shot in that the shadow side of the head doesn't get very dark. (For reference, search "avedon portraits" and observe how dark the shadows can go.)

In the video, the guy has a narrow camera room, barely wide enough for the light stands holding the soft boxes, and the walls are light colored. Consequently the room is full of stray light reflection such that it's not possible to get dark shadows. So keep some of this in mind as you view the sample images - the, results would be much different in a larger studio. (As a note, if he wanted darker shadows he could hang a large dark curtain on the wall away from the main light.)

CMoore said:

But...Circa 1965-1995...did studio photographers use a lot of Polaroids to check "things" before they shot a lot of frames.?

Click to expand...

I don't think so with respect to mainstream portrait work. In these situations one would mostly work from preset lighting conditions that were well known. Even for temporary onsite portrait shooting one could work from measurements and specific power settings on the flash pack. A flashmeter would confirm exposure if desired.

Now, if doing non-standard setups, especially where the setup cost is high, then a few polaroids would be a very good insurance policy. But I've never really done that sort of work.

CMoore said:

He goes through demonstrating a different number of lights.
He starts with just one, the soft-box. That is always on, isn't it.?
Where does the flash come from when he demonstrates just the soft-box.?
Thank You

At about the 12:30 mark.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't watch such kind of YouTube videos in general. !
What you can learn there is "how not to do" !

To answer your question :
ALL kind of photography light (I know) is working with one "basic/ground" light and the second light
is the flashlight.
He used one softbox as a "master" and all others as "slave" but it is on you wich light you decide
to be master ! (There is no diference - the flashes are in miliseconds).

But what is this guy talking about? How to use many flash light?
(the more money you like to spent - the more flashlights you will get?)
The more lighting sources - the better? It is total nonsence!

There here made some basic failures from his recomandation in adition!

Ground conception of portait lighting : He is telling us -"The main light has to come from the left side" - in short : THAT IS WRONG ! (3':12" usualy from the left side)
so here he is starting with wrong recomandation!

Notice : Of course portrait lighting need (usually) two main light sources in front (the angle of these lights is the key of "nice looking portrait lighting b.t.w. but never mind)!

AND : The main light has to come from the side your camera framing has the most space !
Regarding " golden ratio " in addition from this direction of the main light it is definied from where the back light (spot light) has to come!
(the spot has to come out of the oposite side to main light)

Example : You model is framed "left" your main light is coming from the right side and "ONE" back light spot is coming from the left side (no need of 2 backlights)!

That is the rule! But who cares about rules as "experienced" photographer?????

Of course you may frame you model "left" - sometimes it is also nice if you then change this rule!

Example : Model is framed left - main light from the left side BUT notice : you should ever set the ONE backlight at the oposite side of main light : that would mean spotlight is coming from the
right side here!
Fellows it is soo simple why are there allways discussions about light setting ?

What I would discuss instead of this basic lighting is the following :

Does it make real sence ?...!

No it is no "logical" light ! It is artificial light! It is lighting from 2. hand - not the original!


But it was established for portrait photographers AND in studio it is looking much bettter than
without any light!

The real art is to follow natural light ! There you have one main light (the sun)!
Of course (from reflecting natural sun light) you also get a kind of 2. light source!

Have you ever noticed a backlight in natuure? (If sunlight is comming from the front)???

If your will anser : "yes sometimes" - you traveled extraterrestrial (a system with two suns)!

Why a backlight is ALLWAYS recomanded in portrait Studios ? Because from a dark background
the hair is coming real bad !
It is an established compromiss because it make lighting quite "unlogical" !
(with a real "white" background in studio you may need No backlight all!)

But OK a portrait photographer would come into trouble with most clients :

" You have failed - I noticed there is no backlight in use of your studio set up " would be a sentence
of best informed clients then.

But is it THEN better to use 2 backlights ? .....if you remember his studio set up (look his Video)
his background is most "white" (very bright) WITH 2 backlight spots!!!!!
(Where is the 3. backlight ....perhaps from the middle!)

Comming to the middle of the camera axis in front of a portait- what about a top light ?

Hmmm - the more light - the more shadows - that sounds fine ....or not?

A top light is absolute forbidden (just from my point) but an very small "eye light" can be discussed!

So if you have all lighting bought this Video recomanded - and you still have money wich may be invested in studio what will be the next "light units" you buy?!

Friends shot portrait outdoor and learn first something about good lighting - after this return to your
potrait studio set up and W O N D E R A B O U T - but pls. don't watch YouTube Videos again!

with regards

Mr. Bill has it exactly right about "Light, Science and Magic". It is a good book for understanding how light works, and how to evaluate it and use it generally.
IMHO, if you understand those things, the various "studio lighting" resources become much more valuable, because you will be much more likely to understand why they suggest what they do.
He is right about Polaroids as well. I expect much of the studio Polaroid use also involved view cameras and catalogue/product/fashion work, rather than portraiture. A Polaroid makes more sense where something like a wrinkle in fabric or a single unwanted specular highlight might make an 8"x10" transparency unusable for the catalogue presentation it was intended for.

Another element is the distance of the softbox. Just like any light source, the closer the source, the less specular it is. If the softbox were to be moved further back, the shadows will be harder. Also, the room is so small, there's a lot of light bouncing off the walls acting as a fill.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

Another element is the distance of the softbox. Just like any light source, the closer the source, the less specular it is. If the softbox were to be moved further back, the shadows will be harder. Also, the room is so small, there's a lot of light bouncing off the walls acting as a fill.

Click to expand...

The shadows of a softbox will be harder the more it is moved further back ?
My good - what an experts discussio

.....what an experts discussion here (sorry Mainecoonmainiac it isn't against you personally)
but seriously : "In my whole live I havn't read a single book about lighting"

Once a day (many years ago) I've think about to buy perhaps a book about portrait shooting!
Because suddenly I has to shot portraits (and NO IDEA) how to make! (never done before)!

I decided not to look in a single book like : "Perfect made Portraits in 2weeeks" (issue 1-4)!
And in not any kind of such experts publication (from experts in publishing books but not experts in photography) I guess there are exeptions! But here is the result (in this discussion)!
with regards

MattKing said:

Mr. Bill has it exactly right about "Light, Science and Magic". It is a good book for understanding how light works, and how to evaluate it and use it generally.
IMHO, if you understand those things, the various "studio lighting" resources become much more valuable, because you will be much more likely to understand why they suggest what they do.
He is right about Polaroids as well. I expect much of the studio Polaroid use also involved view cameras and catalogue/product/fashion work, rather than portraiture. A Polaroid makes more sense where something like a wrinkle in fabric or a single unwanted specular highlight might make an 8"x10" transparency unusable for the catalogue presentation it was intended for.

Click to expand...

Not to come in conflicts I will state: " Light,Science and Magic" might be one of that rare examples!
The title sounds good : as I mentioned "I am not able to read books", so I can't say if it is one of
5 good books from the whole readers market!

with regards

Mainecoonmaniac said:

Another element is the distance of the softbox. Just like any light source, the closer the source, the less specular it is. If the softbox were to be moved further back, the shadows will be harder. Also, the room is so small, there's a lot of light bouncing off the walls acting as a fill.

Click to expand...

The intensity of light will come "higher" the closer the light source will come the lighted object
(Portrait model here) the factor is "distance to the quarter!"
The shadows will Not come harder the more distance is between source and object!
The light is not variing from its "softance" from distance (in the best way it becomes more soft from more distance [but this may be caused from reflection as you stated right])
The "gaze" is responcible to "modelate" the light into soft condition Maincoonmaniac!
So what is soft light ? A light with massive reflection (from variing direction)!
with regards

trendland said:

The shadows will Not come harder the more distance is between source and object!

Click to expand...

The inverse square law is always at work with electromagnetic energy. But take a look at this video regarding the hardness (specularity) of light and distance.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

The inverse square law is always at work with electromagnetic energy. But take a look at this video regarding the hardness (specularity) of light and distance.

Click to expand...

.....thanks that's real kind of you but I better should not look such Videos !

with regards

PS : If the lighting is mixed from directed light sources (spotlight) and softer sources (area headlights) some experts need in Addition soft boxes!
Not my way! It is lousy to spent time to light shadows (relight?) from more soft light?
BUT - if you then get away with soft light units (higher the distance) the shadows [from other
units] will come more to be seen! That seams to be the experiment of the lady demonstrating in her
video - but pls. let me not to have to look at the video!

with regards

PS : No Problem - sometimes wrong information let US belive it is in that way!

THEREFORE : HANDS OF FROM YOUTUBE FOLKS

Girls on Photrio! That's a good one! Well maybe we have 1 or 2, but really ......

NO FURTHER COMMENT !

with regards

Oh my. I guess there's only one way to do it. What will you do?
Anyway the only way to learn is to experiment. Who knows you may want to use a whole bunch of different kinds of lights. You may find simple
is good for the results you like OR maybe the hard way is better. There's a lot you can learn with a three light set & some poster board
for a reflector.

I do have a question about the video though.. The young lady used a spot light and said it was a specular light.
I learned that a specular light was a reflection off of a polished or shiny surface.
Did I learn wrong?