Experienced strobist, what could be this light setup ?
-
A
- Thread starter Akzidenz
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
-
For Sale Multiple Signed Photographic Books
- Started by tallenpatterson
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
Forum statistics
MattKing
Moderator
A centred main light, directly above the camera but slightly higher. It is slightly diffused, but only very slightly - there is fairly rapid fall-off.
I see little sign of any secondary fill - there may not be any.
No catch lights and you can't even see any detail in the pupils, so nothing that would add those or that.
There is no sign of any backlight.
This lighting looks great for a face with that sort of character. But you might want to be cautious about using it with someone more "fresh faced".
I see little sign of any secondary fill - there may not be any.
No catch lights and you can't even see any detail in the pupils, so nothing that would add those or that.
There is no sign of any backlight.
This lighting looks great for a face with that sort of character. But you might want to be cautious about using it with someone more "fresh faced".
Yes, sounds good. It's also physically BIG. Something like an octabox several feet across.
There appears to be a reflector screen held more or less horizontally in front of and close to the model; note the light striking the bottom of the chin. This may have been intended to lighten up the deeply set eyes.
The challenge with such a big, frontal light is to get the background to blend into black. I think in this image this was digitally enhanced.
Light source quite close to subject would account for rapid falloff of intensity...if 2' from subject, light falling on any object 4' away is -2EV in illumination intensity.
Lack of catchlights in eyes indicates light source is somewhat high overhead, so that the reflections of the light source cannot be seen in the eyes.
I question the 'big' light source...shadow penumbra is not at all diffuse, the source is not 'soft'...ergo NOT 'big'
There IS a supplemental light 'source' (reflector panel?) that aims upward...note the shadow showing on the subject's shirt at the folds that go across his right clavicle (and left side)!
Lack of catchlights in eyes indicates light source is somewhat high overhead, so that the reflections of the light source cannot be seen in the eyes.
I question the 'big' light source...shadow penumbra is not at all diffuse, the source is not 'soft'...ergo NOT 'big'
There IS a supplemental light 'source' (reflector panel?) that aims upward...note the shadow showing on the subject's shirt at the folds that go across his right clavicle (and left side)!
Last edited:
Go ahead and show us how you do this with a small, non-diffuse light source.
Just wait a few years. You'll get there!
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ve been scratching my head all night about this reply. Now I understand. Apparently my quick wit works bankers hours.
Flat. Looks like an ID photo. Is that what you want, or is it more that the face is interesting?
Last edited:
And I counter the challenge...how do you get shadows in facial creases and ear folds like that, with a big source?
By having two sources, one on each side.
They're rather deep creases - and contrast is undoubtedly enhanced, I suspect with a curve that sags strongly in the shadows while leaving midtones and highlights somewhat flat.
IDK; I'd expect the temples to be more brightly lit.
Pair of sources aids with the directionality of the shadows seen on each side of the face. Just like the upward shadowing in the shirt folds to each side of the body . The directionality of the shadows cast from the sources below the lens position have to come from two sources, positioned down near each hip.
The shadow penumbra (edges) and shadow contrast happen to be determined by size and proximity of the source.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
This thread is a perfect illustration of the value of using modeling lights.
Better than digital tests - because a 5 cm re-adjustment of light position can reveal so much, and so much more intuitively and quickly than shoot and chimp.
Better than digital tests - because a 5 cm re-adjustment of light position can reveal so much, and so much more intuitively and quickly than shoot and chimp.
Especially when using a light modifier (umbrella, soft box) modeling lights are too weak to give an accurate representation of the actual flash.
I recognize this - also, I find that with my strobes, the shape of the modeling light (a bulb) is so different from the flash (a ring) that it makes a very big difference when trying to feather using a regular parabolic reflector. I still do use the modeling lights though.
Amen! Folks who try to do 'lighting' with portable flash units...they accomplish 'subject illumination' but not 'lighting'
It seems you may have only used light sources with a feeble bulb output...100W incandescent, in consumer-grade low cost strobes. I remember my very first studio strobe purchase, over 40 years ago...I rapidly discovered how anemic the modelling light was the first time I tried to shoot on location in someone's living room with sunlight entering the large window. I very quickly sold that and invested in equipment that I still use today.
LED modelling lights now offered are a bit of a joke; they don't even mention what the output brightness is, or they confuse us with Lux and Lumen specs that mean nothing to a still photographer. (OTOH, if the modern photographer has no idea about the significance is for a Guide Number, they have no clue anyway!)
One needs, at bare minimum 150W incandescent to see in any room that is not darkened but has light entering windows. Even better is 250W incandescent brightness found typically in a good professional studio strobe.
Last edited:
You make many assumptions. I use Hensel professional-grade strobes. They use 300W halogen modeling lights. They still won't give a great indication of a strobe firing at 1500WS in a deep parabolic umbrella or soft box.
And what the hell does that mean?
MattKing
Moderator
I think he means that the light output from the modeling lights is too low to use for appropriate exposure.
I rarely used them for that. I used them to guide my position and modification of the output from the flashes.
Admittedly, I used them most with bounce umbrellas.
-
- cliveh
- Deleted
MattKing
Moderator
Not sure why you would be having any issues - it seems to be a normal upload in "png" format.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,487
- Format
- 35mm RF
Sorry matt, I thought I saw a strobe image light, but now I realise it is the portrait.
There would most probably be circular specular highlights in the eyes then.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |