Experienced strobist, what could be this light setup ?

[wiltw]

And what the hell does that mean?

What I meant by that...

1. You adjust 'lighting' to better flatter the subject, in terms of position of the light and its relative intensity.
2. Without a modelling light, you 'illuminate' (cast more light) on the subject, without critial refinement of light source position, unless you waste yours and your subject's time with [shoot and chimp] multiple times, experimenting with position and intensity and finally settling on 'good enough'

Your comment about lack of modelling light intensity seemed very indicative of using

• some of the budget strobe sets that have inadequate strength modelling light bulb (and which very often do not permit substitution of a higher wattage bulb due to overheating issues.
• or that you had tried LED-based lighting equipment with LED modelling lamps similarly outfitted with somewhat low intensity.

I would not expect anyone to have run into source positioning issues with 300W modelling lights, I have never read of such an issue even with 250W.
Now if you were saying that 300W is insufficient to SHOOT, I'd understand compared to photoflood bulbs of old which were 500W strength

 

[Pieter12]

Those are your definitions, not something anyone else would understand as such.

Experience allows me to set up lighting without using modeling lights. A test exposure or two lets me refine it. It's not rocket science. Even for complex lighting, once one has experimented a bit it does not take much to replicate it. But I try to keep things simple for the most part, when possible using a single light and a reflector card.

The modeling light on a strobe placed outside a window with a bit of diffusion won't do much good.

 

[mollyc]

i honestly think this is natural light similar to garage light (although probably not actually in a garage).

 

[Pieter12]

i honestly think this is natural light similar to garage light (although probably not actually in a garage).

What is 'garage light"?

 

[mollyc]

What is 'garage light"?

putting the subject just inside the shade line of an open garage door. the inverse square law throws the background to black and the subject is evenly illuminated by flat light.

 

[wiltw]

Those are your definitions, not something anyone else would understand as such.

Experience allows me to set up lighting without using modeling lights. A test exposure or two lets me refine it. It's not rocket science. Even for complex lighting, once one has experimented a bit it does not take much to replicate it. But I try to keep things simple for the most part, when possible using a single light and a reflector card.

The modeling light on a strobe placed outside a window with a bit of diffusion won't do much good.

Portraiture lighting books talk about precise placement of shadows in order to create the 'Rembrandt lighting'...which is part of my distinction of 'lighting' from 'illumination'. Turnng on a room light increases 'illumination' without 'lighting a subject'. Not my 'definition' simply differences used in the English language for 'illuminate', vs. a architectural photographer lighting a room or portraitiest placing a source for a portraiture subject, both of which are not merely 'illumination'.

Yes, experience matters a lot, but beginners to 'lighting' do not have any/much experience to draw upon, and learning with a modelling light (or even a simple desk lamp with conventional bulb) helps to accelerate the learning process because they can instantly SEE what moving the light does to flatter (or make hideous) the subject, before getting fancy with light modifiers on sources. Get a beginner to reproduce Rembrandt light is easier with modelling lights (or any constant source)...it is painful to watch the learning with only portable flash.

 

[Pieter12]

putting the subject just inside the shade line of an open garage door. the inverse square law throws the background to black and the subject is evenly illuminated by flat light.

OK. Unless all you have is a roll-up door!