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

[removed account4]

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!

the guy is being simplistic who cares. he didn't go into figuring out what side was the model's "good side" maybe that's another video because
sometimes its not easy to tell and it does make a difference ...

But is it THEN better to use 2 backlights ?

the guy was just showing off his gear, one was a background light and the other a hair light.
hair lights are usually on a boom, and the background light down low, but that's ok ..
is it really worth expending that much energy going on about the video guy's flaws ?
I could probably write some diatribe about why one would post a link to a IMDB page .. makes absolutely no sense
but what do I know, probably not much ...

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

i think there are 4

 

[CMoore]

I get the guy was just making some quick tips for beginners, like me. I do not think it was meant to be anything definitive.
Its a simple, 20 minute video, about a HUGE Topic, that could easily go for 20 hours.
Not sure why he is getting bashed so hard.
You can pick apart any video, made by anybody.

The guy (as far as i know) is a professional photographer.
http://academy-of-photography.com/www-tudorphotography-com-au-11/

I linked his video because i was unsure how the lights functioned. I did not mean to supply canon fodder for the Nay-Sayers.

 

[trendland]

I get the guy was just making some quick tips for beginners, like me. I do not think it was meant to be anything definitive.
Its a simple, 20 minute video, about a HUGE Topic, that could easily go for 20 hours.
Not sure why he is getting bashed so hard.
You can pick apart any video, made by anybody.

The guy (as far as i know) is a professional photographer.
http://academy-of-photography.com/www-tudorphotography-com-au-11/

I linked his video because i was unsure how the lights functioned. I did not mean to supply canon fodder for the Nay-Sayers.

Excuse me CMoore - there is no critic from me that you linked this YouTube Video!
AND if it IS just to show beginners how to start with a basic set up for potrait lighting it is indeed with much first information.
But the point from my side is the following - don't belive that everything you see there (and get explained from an expert is "well done"!).
You better should hear what the " expert " Trendland is talking about light - OH NO - better not!!!

But (that is my intention) you better HAVE to find out that for your experience to become a good
(or a more superior) photographer it is necessary to recognize : the real expert for your photography have to be yourself!
Therefore (in short) : Theory is fine - but practice works (much often) complete different.
What would help instead of YouTube ? = practice,practice,practice!!

with regards

 

[trendland]

I could probably write some diatribe about why one would post a link to a IMDB page .. makes absolutely no sense
but what do I know, probably not much ...

[/QUOTE]

What IMDB pretty shows (therefore the link) IS THAT THE LADY WHO EXPLAYNED "Quality of Light"
in her YOUTUBE channel "Rocket Jump - Film School" is experienced as Director of Photography
with B-Movies!
But that isn't the main point.
I saw the YouTube meanwhile - the main point for me (I have the strong suggestion after watching her) is the following : She refers (in a quite good manner) about film theory she just learned at film school some time before herself ! But she has not quite recognized what that theory means to work in the business! So she is a further example of some kind of experts wich want to teach others instead of beginning to work to herself.
Notice : Real experts have not the time to start with YouTube ! Real experts will earn much more money in business instead of teaching their profession on a school!
With exeptions - of course!
So we often see experts at the deadend of their carrier!
My approach is quite simple : What will they teach to beginners? How not to work - better not in this way? How not to come to superior results (like herself)? Think about !

with regards

 

[CMoore]

Jesus......never use 100 words when One Million will do.
WTF
I had been wondering about lights...how they work. I had no idea of the dual function that many have...as Matt explained.
So the video in my OP, it had an example of the ONE thing i was curious about. .....I was simply asking about the light function, that was it.
For all i care, the guy could be suggesting using torches with diesel oil to light a portrait.

 

[trendland]

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.

Hey Mainecoonmaniac,
.....aha - I see from what your conclusion comes! Sorry to state : But it is wrong...!
But never mind - that can happen.

The D.O.P. of the YouTube made a typical misstake :
She forget the relation of "ground light" in concern to the light of her lighting unit.
Remember : she demonstrated it with her fingerplay!

Ähh - what ???!

Now it is a little more complicate! Listen :

So she is right in theory - but this would imply that your lighting set is in total darkness AND that
your lighting comes from ONE single source.
(like she did from her experiment "the fingerplay")

If you do not belive you may try out yourself from own experiment :
What you will need is a " normal " room (as usual) with no total darkness condition and a lighting
unit.
A normal unit pls. (dont come up with a 10kw unit from a distance of 4meters)

So - if you have a normal "ground light" in a room and a unit of 1kw, 1/2 kW as max. you. should
regard what will happen with your shadow (typically a "nose" shadow that is quite good like she did)
when you next "higher" the distance of your lighting unit!

(remember the inverse squere law).

with regards

PS : To light a scene with "hart" light you N E V E R would use a big squered lighting unit from
a max. distance (she explained the theory)!
PPS : The lighting Departement would "murder" such Director of Photography after one week
of film work. Perhaps a B-Movie lighting crew would do the job earlier - I can't say!
PPPS : The producer would not call the police in case of such muder - he would swear :
"It was an accident!" !

 

[trendland]

Jesus......never use 100 words when One Million will do.
WTF
I had been wondering about lights...how they work. I had no idea of the dual function that many have...as Matt explained.
So the video in my OP, it had an example of the ONE thing i was curious about. .....I was simply asking about the light function, that was it.
For all i care, the guy could be suggesting using torches with diesel oil to light a portrait.

Yes - that may be the RISC if you ask a simple question at Photrio!

! sorry !

with regards

 

[BradS]

Jesus......never use 100 words when One Million will do.
WTF
I had been wondering about lights...how they work. I had no idea of the dual function that many have...as Matt explained.
So the video in my OP, it had an example of the ONE thing i was curious about. .....I was simply asking about the light function, that was it.
For all i care, the guy could be suggesting using torches with diesel oil to light a portrait.

Yeah, Geeezuzz key-ricest !!!
WTF is right.
For what it's worth, your original question was quite reasonable and natural.
and the ensuing discussion about books and approaches to teaching was insightful.
I don't understand why the shit storm happened.

 

[trendland]

Yeah, Geeezuzz key-ricest !!!
WTF is right.
I don't understand why the shit storm happened.

What you, exactly in this moment, are trying to start with this post BradS - right?
(with your inappropriate language I remember from you)

with no compliments Brad

 

[CMoore]

Yeah, Geeezuzz key-ricest !!!
WTF is right.
For what it's worth, your original question was quite reasonable and natural.
and the ensuing discussion about books and approaches to teaching was insightful.
I don't understand why the shit storm happened.

Perhaps i should have been more clear.?
I was not a student of the photographer or his video.
In the future, because i am a "rank beginner"......maybe i should reiterate that.
"I have a specific question...and this video Just Happens to show-case an example of my confusion."
The linked video might be The Best or The Worst video about lighting that has ever been made. .

 

[BradS]

Perhaps i should have been more clear.?
I was not a student of the photographer or his video.
In the future, because i am a "rank beginner"......maybe i should reiterate that.
"I have a specific question...and this video Just Happens to show-case an example of my confusion."
The linked video might be The Best or The Worst video about lighting that has ever been made. .

I think you did just fine. I completely understood what you were asking and did not even watch the video...

 

[trendland]

Perhaps i should have been more clear.?
I was not a student of the photographer or his video.
In the future, because i am a "rank beginner"......maybe i should reiterate that.
"I have a specific question...and this video Just Happens to show-case an example of my confusion."
The linked video might be The Best or The Worst video about lighting that has ever been made. .

CMoore - pls. have in mind that many people who are interested watch your thread!
May be your question is 100% answered long before but within further issues habe come up!
So for you it may be quite clear - but to others it may be an approach from your origin intention
wich may be from further interest to others - to often case (just from my point).
But sorry AGAIN ......never mind in details

with regards

PS : But friends what I realy don't like are off topic posts wich are just to express the current
emotional state of the person who feel from reading a threat without real interest to the theme!

 

[CMoore]

I think you did just fine. I completely understood what you were asking and did not even watch the video...

Well then, building on my "success" here.....let me ask another question.
I have been doing some reading on Adorama, and Youtube, but i have access to you guys, so it makes sense to ask. Some of you Are/Were professional photographers, or amateurs with years of experience.
For a beginner, for basic studio stuff...from models to products...does it make sense to use Strobes over Continuous lighting.?
I imagine 30 years ago, there would be A Lot of heat generated by continuous lighting, but maybe today's lights run a lot cooler.
Anyway......is there any "rule of thumb" or general wisdom when choosing Strobe Vs Continuous.?
I realize there might be virtues to both, and that both might work,but........if you were starting out, which would you choose.?
Perhaps there is a need for both.?
Thank You

 

[CMoore]

CMoore - pls. have in mind that many people who are interested watch your thread!
May be your question is 100% answered long before but within further issues habe come up!
So for you it may be quite clear - but to others it may be an approach from your origin intention
wich may be from further interest to others - to often case (just from my point).
But sorry AGAIN ......never mind in details

with regards

PS : But friends what I realy don't like are off topic posts wich are just to express the current
emotional state of the person who feel from reading a threat without real interest to the theme!

True enough.
Perhaps i overreacted.

 

[trendland]

Well then, building on my "success" here.....let me ask another question.
I have been doing some reading on Adorama, and Youtube, but i have access to you guys, so it makes sense to ask. Some of you Are/Were professional photographers, or amateurs with years of experience.
For a beginner, for basic studio stuff...from models to products...does it make sense to use Strobes over Continuous lighting.?
I imagine 30 years ago, there would be A Lot of heat generated by continuous lighting, but maybe today's lights run a lot cooler.
Anyway......is there any "rule of thumb" or general wisdom when choosing Strobe Vs Continuous.?
I realize there might be virtues to both, and that both might work,but........if you were starting out, which would you choose.?
Perhaps there is a need for both.?
Thank You

Hmmm I would say one should find a theme in photography never done before!
That is a lifetime long task - because most things have happened!
BUT - theoretically - if strobes would never been used before AND you are the guy who state :
Why not to use - you would be a real pioneer....!

Not realy sure if I understand you correct " strobe " is flash light ? No it is such disco light
we all remember from the 70th?

OK - but how would be the approach with burning Diesel you mentioned ? Seriously I remember a cathedral lighted for filmworks with hundreds (perhaps 1000) candlelights!
Without other lights! It was a real cheap lighting!

with regards

 

[Pieter12]

Strobes were pretty much the go-to source for years for still photography. The downside is that even with modeling lights, you need to make a test shot to be sure of the end result unless it is a stock set-up that you use a lot. Yesterday, that would mean you'd need to use a flashmeter and a test Polaroid shot, today it could be a digital camera with manual controls to mimic the exposure/ISO of your film set-up (if film is what your final is). A flashmeter is still handy, though, especially to gauge lighting ratios. LED's are nice for continuous light, but are more difficult to modify--umbrellas, soft-boxes, beauty dishes don't suit them as well. However, being able to see the lighting as you move it around is a great learning experience. Strobes are still stronger and you can bounce them and soften them without loosing too much light. You might want to look into using speedlights, just be aware they don't have modeling lights to help preview the lighting. Check out https://strobist.blogspot.com

 

[trendland]

Aha continious lighting - yes that is what I realy feel confortable it may change in the future!
(For what you need a fleshlight when the daylight from the windows in a pros. studio alowe to shot
at 2,8/4 without any lighting at ISO 800 digital????)

For "continious" results ! (what is when rain or clouds are comming).

For continious light you had to pay more in the past with neon light! (If you want to avoid heating)
But today Led light allowes to be most flexible from low power!
But for Video most LED is not be "loved" from many - I can't say. There might be differences
in "Quality of Light" from cheap chinese Led's! So Led isn't = Led.
But this special concern should have to do also with LED frequency and Led "dimming"!
No impact to photograpers light from my point and cheaper and cheaper from week to week!

with regards

 

[trendland]

If you are equiped with nothing today in concern of light and you will spent a bit more money :

The skypanel s30 series is the cheapest entry today but warning - for video/filmworks many
"hate" such light quality - I can't feel???...

with regards

PS : With lower budget you can buy all kind of Led light- no RISC any more!

 

[MattKing]

Strobes still tend to be a lot more powerful than any continuous lighting that would be practical.
They also are better at minimizing problems with subject movement - think children!

 

[CMoore]

Strobes still tend to be a lot more powerful than any continuous lighting that would be practical.
They also are better at minimizing problems with subject movement - think children!

Yeah.
I read a few things.
For Video/Movies you obviously have no choice.
But for studio work......i have heard many models comment on the heat, and the fact that it becomes uncomfortable to have bright lights remain On You for for 5-10-15 minutes..... like they want to put on a pair of sunglasses.
It seems like Strobe, with the incorporated modeling light, is the way to go for most "studio work".

 

[M Carter]

Man, what a crazy thread...

Regardless of Trendland's comments, in the US "strobe" can mean a camera flash, a monolight, a pack and head system.

Strobes are the most affordable way to get a lot of light; to shoot at ISO 100, you'll need some very bright continuous lights. Even used tungsten lights would be pretty expensive, and their power consumption and heat is an issue.

I do commercial stills and commercial video; my video kit is now all LED lights; I've spent about $2k on my setup (so far), but that's to get great quality daylight and the ability to shoot interviews with diffusion or softboxes around 400 ISO at F2.8 - F4. (The diffusion's a killer). Some of my LEDs are also battery powered, with v-mount batteries being another really big expense.

Modern monolights (a strobe that has the flash tube and modeling light and controls and power all in one lighting unit, vs. a light with a cable that attaches to a big power pack) have gotten really affordable, with dimming control, built-in slaves and wireless receivers, even TTL and remote control of output, depending on how much you spend. A monolight beats a speedlight (a flash designed for a hot shoe) primarily for stand-mounting and aiming the light, and for attaching accessories like softboxes or grids, they have modeling lights and usually a lot more power available.

You can certainly mix all-of-the-above; I love mixing tungsten lights with flash (I put a full CTO gel on the strobes) and shoot B&W or tungsten film, or set my DSLR to Tungsten.

Ektacrome 320T, tungsten + flash, pushed like hell:

DSLR, Tungsten + flash:

 

[CMoore]

Thanks for your input, and photos.

 

[CMoore]

LED.....just curios, not ready to buy anything yet. With strobes i am used to seeing numbers like 300-1000 watts.
That LED/Daylight is 60 watts. Is that more indicative of the power that the LED consumes than how much light it puts out compared to a Traditional Studio Light.?

I just watched a DIY video where the guy took a 2x3 Styrofoam ice-chest, drilled a hole in the bottom, and turned it into a pretty convincing softbox.

 

[MattKing]

The "Watts" figure does not give a reliable indication of output - just input. With respect to output, its only practical use is if you are trying to compare models within a particular manufacturer's range.

 

[Pieter12]

LED.....just curios, not ready to buy anything yet. With strobes i am used to seeing numbers like 300-1000 watts.
That LED/Daylight is 60 watts. Is that more indicative of the power that the LED consumes than how much light it puts out compared to a Traditional Studio Light.?

I just watched a DIY video where the guy took a 2x3 Styrofoam ice-chest, drilled a hole in the bottom, and turned it into a pretty convincing softbox.

Neither number is a measurement of light output, per se. Tungsten lamps (not LEDs) consume a good amount of watts just producing heat, not light.

Strobes are rated in Joules or Ws (watt-seconds). The output of a strobe is pretty much instantaneous, meaning the shutter speed has little effect on the exposure beyond synching with the strobe--meaning the shutter is needs to be fully open when the strobe fires. Using a slower shutter speed with a strobe allows more of the ambient light to affect the exposure, creating interesting lighting effects.

Even Lumens are not a reliable way to compare continuous and strobe sources, since the exposure time is a much greater factor with continuous light.