flash for LF portraits -- starting to understand

[jss]

i've been trying my hand at LF portraits from time to time. i've been getting better at available light portraits, but there's only so much light you can bring in while people are holding their breath to stay still. maybe i should wall-mount some brackets for people to lean against?

anyways, i've been thinking about upgrading my flash units. i have a small novatron set, 240 Ws pack and two heads. if i pop one head through a umbrella at 5' away and 240 Ws, my meter says f/8. great for miniature format, but for LF, one of my lenses starts at f/10 (carl meyer apo process 12").

so now, thinking about format size, f-stop, and amount of light, it seems to me that i need more light power so i can stop my LF lenses further to increase the DOF.

is that correct thinking? more light -> f/<higher number> -> more depth of field?

as an aside, i'm thinking of selling my novatron set (i love it, still learning with it) to upgrade. alien bee B1600 and maybe an 800? more oomph than what i've got.

in the interest of getting more LF portraits online, i'm attaching an available light portrait i did with the above mentioned lens .. my brother and his beautiful wife.

 

[Monophoto]

Jason -

Your math is bang on. One of the challenges of LF portraiture is that you need an enormous amount of light.

I have been tempted to spring for an Alien Bee strobe - probably the B1600 since my need would be for something to use with LF. But frankly, I prefer the look of available light. For example: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) The lighting in this example was through an east-facing window at camera-right (filtered through that gauze-like drapery material that my wife likes), and with a 4' reflector to camera-left.

Strobes are commonly used in studio/product photography applications, but since the subject doesn't move, it's possible to use the multiple exposure/pop approach to get enough exposure on the film with adequate DOF. But that doesn't work well when shooting people.

BTW - I enjoy reading your blog. Keep it up.

Louie

 

[photobum]

B-1600 to wimpy. What you need is one of those mega watt Speedotrons that sound like a gun going off when you pop em.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

Large format and strobe work together really well. Using tungston you are still dealing with the time exposure element that will reduce sharpness. The strobes will help to freeze the subject. I use multiple heads that range in output from 50 w/s to 2000. The 800 to 1600 w/s do most the work. There are tons of nuances to lighting so it is hard to dial in just one but I find that if you keep you light fairly close to what is being lit you don't need a lot of power. You can then change value range with different types of reflective devices. Umbrellas, boxes or even the reflecters that attach to the head.
Also keeping a fairly short depth of field helps to keep the focus on the subjects rather than blanketly focusing. With LF there is some trust you need to develop however with focus because fairly small movements by the sitter will throw them out of the plane of focus faster. With 4X5 I usually shoot at around 11 to 16 and stop to refocus about every 8 to 10 sheets.

 

[JosBurke]

I found myself in just your situation in moving from 35mm to MF let alone way up in format! I had a set of the original Paul Buff/White Lightning monolights but for the need for retaining/increasing DOF as you go up in format you'll need more power. I currently use the White Lightning X-3200 models and they give me that f/16 or even more (for 8x10 format portraits) I really like as I shoot LF up to 11x14 and I need/want all I can get for that format but thats another story. You'll find you'll need lot's of power for LF and I prefer the sharpness of my favorite LF lenses (my Fuji 420 L is razor sharp at f/16 as it's a Tessar design) at certain apertures. Get the most bang for your buck the first time around!! I'm not suggesting the White lightning units are best but they do offer great reliability and a lot of bang for the buck and I've been well pleased. Bigger is better for film and lighting (esp. for LF) ---among other things!! Needless to say I took the Monolight route but there are other options including hard lights but that'll be tough in portraiture.
I'm sure you'll get some replies here from others that have taken other routes that work well for them!!

 

[Frank Petronio]

FWIW, I usually shoot medium portraits at f/16 on ASA 100 film using a Dynalite 800 watt head through a medium Chimera softbox a few feet away, with a second pack and heads dedicated to light the background. The Dynas have 250 watt modeling lamps which is about the minimum I would want to have for focusing.

Your light quality will usually be better if you position the light as close to the model as possible, just outside the frame. Too often people place their lighting too far away, negating the beautiful modeling that comes from have a large diffuse source next to the subject. That also might give you an extra 2-3 stops...

Foamcore fill cards can also do wonders -

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Jason-

strobes do work exceptionally well for LF portraits. Depending on the look you want, more or less power would be needed - shooting wide open or nearly so, just enough to give you proper DOF for a face, doesn't require so much oomph. You are right on the nail with your Novatron not providing enough power, however. Especially if you are using light modifiers like umbrellas or softboxes ( I STRONGLY recommend softboxes for portrait lighting, especially tight head/shoulder shots). The Alien Bees you mentioned are a good choice for an inexpensive but high-powered unit. There are a LOT of different units out there that will get your job done, so search around and find out which ones take the accessories you want, and how expensive those accessories are. This is a portrait shot with a 14" Commercial Ektar, 8x10 Ilford FP4+ rated at 64, processed in PMK Pyro. Exposure- F8 @ 1/50th. I used a large (36x48") softbox and a silver reflector opposite as a fill. This is a Palladium print. I inentionally chose a relatively large aperture (lens maximum is f 6.3) to drop off the DOF just past his ear.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You'll want more light, but for now, bring it in closer--just outside the frame, as Frank suggests, and you'll pick up 1-2 stops and have softer light.

How much you need depends on the format, style, choice of film, and what light modifiers you use. I like selective focus, so even with 8x10" I don't tend to use more than f:22, and with a soft focus lens I might be around f:5.6-8.

 

[Robb Scharetg]

Some thoughts/recommendations

Hi

In reading through a lot of the posts replying to your orginal message I think people are missing some critical points.

1. How much depth of field do you want? In my observation unless you're
shooting an environmental portrait d.o.f. is usually reduced to a minimum. You might want to get a faster lens, much faster. I use a Schnieder 150/2.8 Xenotar for a lot of my work and shoot it usually between 2.8 and f4. The results are stunning. It's an expensive piece of glass granted, but worth every penny.

2. Use a BROAD & SOFT light source. Not a small, underpowered hard source like your currently using. If you were shoot that strobe head into an umbrella and then have it bounce back through a hung up white sheet, or better yet a Mathews 6x6 silk you'll have a beautiful light source. Better yet, get an Elinchrome Octilight. That's really the ticket. Of course then you're talking about big bucks ($800.00 for the bank) plus probably another $2k for a light strong enough to give you up to f8. Sunlight, or open shade
may really be your best friend. Shoot in north light against a solid background: white or black, and see what you get.

3. TRY BEFORE YOU BUY. Before you buy ANY light sources/banks take the time and INVEST the money in renting some equipment, even if you need to have it flown in. In the long run you'll figure out what works, and save a lot of money.

4. Shoot Polaroid, type 665 or 55. That'll give you an immediate read on both your d.o.f. and your contrast range and focus. It's an invaluable tool,
plus you'll have a great neg to print from if you expose things right.

5. Hot lights are nice, so is strobe. I use to use both a LOT for my commercial work. Now I use natural light more. It's wonderful because you can see what you're getting. Fill cards and bounce boards will give you a nice catch light and you can let the available light do the rest.

6. Oh yeah, exposure times. I shoot portraits ALL the time at 1/5, 1/2 and
one second. They're sharp as a tack. Get your subjects comfortable, explain the process of shooting large format, involve them in the details and then focus, hold still, CLICK. Done.

Shoot me a note if you have other questions. Good luck.

Robb Scharetg

 

[jonw]

"If you blast your subjects with enough flash power to shoot at small apertures with large format, you risk illuminating the capillaries beneath the skin, which is very ugly."

Jay, you sure made me laugh with this one.

BTW, you might look at the local photoshops for some really bright lights. I picked up a large box of old studio light bulbs for $10 and I think I will be able to illuminate more than just the capillaries of the victim, I mean model, for portrait work. On the downside, I am not looking forward to receiving my electric bill.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

The idea that strobe penatrates the surface of skin to show capillaries seems physically impossible when you consider it is a high energy shorter wavelength light source. When compared with tungston it will hit a surface and refract before it penetrates. Tungsten would have a better chance if at all just by virtue of its longer wavelength. When you compare the same shot done with tunsgten then strobe side by side the colors for tungsten are more saturated almost like the light can penetrate reflect back radiance.

 

[Jim Noel]

I beg to differ about needing huge quantities of light to make LF portraits.

I once watched Dean Collins, the dean of lighting, make a beautiful portrait with a 4X5 camera and a 5 watt bulb to prove that it is not quantity, but quality which makes a good portrait.

Rarely is an ultra-sharp image desired for a portrait. FInd a good old, fast portrait lens, or just one which tends toward softness and use it with good, not blasted, lighting.

 

[Charles Webb]

Jim,
I have been pointing out and saying the same thing for years, but so far have found few listeners! some thirty years ago in a prominant Denver Studio we used Photogenics 200 wt Mazda for hot light, and Photogenic Flashmaster's set up for 50 wt seconds on four lights and made glorious 8x10 negatives. I guess the customers as well as our selves didn't know any better.
Charlie..................

 

[Thomassauerwein]

I'm not saying it does not happen, but to blame it on the strobes might be pre-mature. Out of all people the people I've shot it has happened on 2 occasions. One recently, She was very pregnant her skin had stretched to a thin translucent quality so since we were shooting B/W we filtered and the problem disappeared. The second was a you girl who suffered from cocain addiction. I was unable to solve that problem so I embellished it to add to the story/concept.
My point is I think with a few people may be susceptible but the norm with strobes the light dissipates before it penetrates.

 

[bobfowler]

Jim,
I have been pointing out and saying the same thing for years, but so far have found few listeners! some thirty years ago in a prominant Denver Studio we used Photogenics 200 wt Mazda for hot light, and Photogenic Flashmaster's set up for 50 wt seconds on four lights and made glorious 8x10 negatives. I guess the customers as well as our selves didn't know any better.
Charlie..................

I couldn't agree more. I get beautiful results with Photogenic S-200 packs and also with the White Lightning "paint cans". Sure, a 4800ws pack gives a big pop, but bigger isn't always better...

 

[removed account4]

i tend to use the modeling lights from my strobes - filtered through softboxes to soften the light and cut down the output power a bit ... no pop at all --- tri-x at 200, 4 seconds at f3.8 ... works better than a ton of light ..
ludwig mies van der rohe suggested "less is more" when he was talking about architecture, imho - it applies to portraits too.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, it all depends on what one wants. I like to shoot 8x10 studio portraits with a 600mm lens at F32. This gives me some depth of field, which is important if the subject moves a bit. With my Photogenic monolights (1250s I think), I had to purposely make reflectors/diffusors to get enough light, and I need to put the light fairly close to the subject.

 

[George Losse]

I agree with Peter, "it all depends on what one wants." Once you know the type of photograph you want to make then there are paths to making that type of image.

I never liked the soft focus look for portraits or figure work, so I choose to throw a lot of light at my subjects. I usually use two white lighting ultras, but have used up to four. I am normally shooting at f32-f45 with films set for 200-300asa.

I never had a problem with capillaries popping through the skin. One model once, had a lot of veins showing on her body, but friends who also shot her with hot lights showed the same skin condition in their prints.

I like to work in 8x10 with either a 300 Nikon-W or a 480 Nikon-M. They are both in Copal shutters that sync with the flash without any issues. I use the 480 and a 24in RD Altar for my 8x20 work. The RD has a bi-post connection for the flash and it has been known to act up on me. So I do not use it as often as the 480.

The position of the lights is almost as important as their power. I regularly keep them just out of camera view, as close to the model as possible. Just be ready to move the lights and check the light often with a meter. I almost always try to use some form of light modifier to soften the light, umbrellas, soft boxes, and such. Maybe that's where the issue with the flash and veins comes from, is that a direct flash without any bounce?

 

[bobfowler]

<snip>The position of the lights is almost as important as their power. I regularly keep them just out of camera view, as close to the model as possible. Just be ready to move the lights and check the light often with a meter. I almost always try to use some form of light modifier to soften the light, umbrellas, soft boxes, and such. Maybe that's where the issue with the flash and veins comes from, is that a direct flash without any bounce?

I use a fresnel spot flash head (Photogenic) and never have seen veins...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I haven't seen veins associated with powerful strobe units either. I suspect it's a film related issue, maybe from using a film with some extended red sensitivity. I've heard of that effect happening with IR film.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Good pornographers use body makeup and face powder to hide those veins. They really show up with older women's breasts and legs. Try using younger models.