Ring light / beauty light for portraits?

[darinwc]

I've been experimenting with portraits of late.

I have a 2 light setup with flashes on radio slaves. But i think I need some direct lighting.

I'm a bit bewildered by all the options.. LEDs, macro rings, pop-up donughts, etc.

Can someone recommend a good (inexpensive) option to be used in portraits?


THX

 

[cliveh]

Ring flash with tracing paper taped over it.

 

[gone]

I only shoot in available light, so all I know is that a big northerly facing window will give you very nice results.

 

[Jim Jones]

Momus is right. What the Dutch artist Vermeer knew about lighting portraits 350 years ago is far superior to what studio equipment makers seem to understand today.

 

[removedacct3]

I am tempted to build one like this. Overkill? Perhaps, but it looks like a cool project to do.

 

[CropDusterMan]

What kind of lights are you currently using? Are they little Nikons/Canons or are we talking about
dynalites? A little info would help. Lighting a subject properly is entirely about placement and
modifying the light, not just setting up a bunch of them.

 

[benjiboy]

Darin I suggest if you want to learn how to use flash studio lighting for portraiture and how flash modifiers effect the subject you buy yourself a flash meter, and a good book on the subject from Amazon study it and practice, you aren't going to do it on internet forums however well intentioned the answers to your question.

 

[CropDusterMan]

Momus is right. What the Dutch artist Vermeer knew about lighting portraits 350 years ago is far superior to what studio equipment makers seem to understand today.

Jim, with all due respect, this comment is a little off. It has nothing to do with what "Studio Equipment makers" are making today...it is entirely about how todays photographers are using it. Any meathead with half a brain can throw up a softbox or Octabank and call themselves a "studio photographer". Profoto and Broncolor for instance, make the highest quality and some of the most well designed equipment. In the hands of a well trained professional, the possibilities of creating amazing artwork (without photoshop) are endless. I have worked as an assistant to several of the finest portrait photographers during my years in New York (in the film days), and I can tell you, they know how to light.

Many photographers who do not know how to light with strobes will regularly tout their ability to light subjects with natural light, and then poo-poo those who use strobe. Don't get me wrong, I do love a naturally lit photograph...generally, those who actually know how to light are also great at natural light.

 

[Dan Quan]

I've been experimenting with portraits of late.

I have a 2 light setup with flashes on radio slaves. But i think I need some direct lighting.

I'm a bit bewildered by all the options.. LEDs, macro rings, pop-up donughts, etc.

Can someone recommend a good (inexpensive) option to be used in portraits?


THX

I am unclear on what you mean by "direct lighting"? Hard light really brings out skin texture, which is a good thing if you want skin texture. But wrinkles and pimples and moles and upper lip hair and etc are all texture many people prefer smoothed.
A big soft light from a silk can look very nice, like from the T-bar image below.
As for the home made ringlight, the reflections of all the bulbs distract and bug me. I have never used a ringlight but have always liked the look when done well; however, I definitely prefer a solid, even, circular reflection.

[URL=http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/CameraZOOM-20140102151844092_zpsz7m8ccvq.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Jim Jones]

Jim, with all due respect, this comment is a little off. It has nothing to do with what "Studio Equipment makers" are making today...it is entirely about how todays photographers are using it. Any meathead with half a brain can throw up a softbox or Octabank and call themselves a "studio photographer". Profoto and Broncolor for instance, make the highest quality and some of the most well designed equipment. In the hands of a well trained professional, the possibilities of creating amazing artwork (without photoshop) are endless. I have worked as an assistant to several of the finest portrait photographers during my years in New York (in the film days), and I can tell you, they know how to light.

Many photographers who do not know how to light with strobes will regularly tout their ability to light subjects with natural light, and then poo-poo those who use strobe. Don't get me wrong, I do love a naturally lit photograph...generally, those who actually know how to light are also great at natural light.

I agree that many of today's masters do fine work. However, some overinvest in equipment and seem compelled to use too much of it where a little works best. When technique overwhelms the subject, it has gone too far.

 

[CropDusterMan]

I agree that many of today's masters do fine work. However, some overinvest in equipment and seem compelled to use too much of it where a little works best. When technique overwhelms the subject, it has gone too far.

Well said Jim...I agree with you completely. Interesting thing is this...since getting out of portrait photography
as a full time profession, and moving almost exclusively into natural landscapes for my own enjoyment (almost exclusively BW film)...I have never felt more free...back when I was shooting in NY, I had a lot of gear for multiple set-ups for each subject, often I'd only have them for 15 minutes and usually in a crap location with crap natural light options. It took some of the fun out of it... AC cords, packs, heads...case after case.

 

[MattKing]

Darin I suggest if you want to learn how to use flash studio lighting for portraiture and how flash modifiers effect the subject you buy yourself a flash meter, and a good book on the subject from Amazon study it and practice, you aren't going to do it on internet forums however well intentioned the answers to your question.

"Light, Science and Magic" would be a good book to start with.

 

[Arklatexian]

I agree that many of today's masters do fine work. However, some overinvest in equipment and seem compelled to use too much of it where a little works best. When technique overwhelms the subject, it has gone too far.

I guess some might say Karsh may have overinvested in equipment but I certainly don't think his technique overwhelmed his subjects. Not the pictures that I have seen, anyhow. (from books) It depends upon the photographer in each case.....Regards!

 

[benjiboy]

"Light, Science and Magic" would be a good book to start with.

I have this book Matt and I agree.

 

[M Carter]

Momus is right. What the Dutch artist Vermeer knew about lighting portraits 350 years ago is far superior to what studio equipment makers seem to understand today.

If only I wanted all my shots to look like Vermeers… but I've been really happy with Speedotron, Photoflex, etc...

Anyway. A ring light is a specific look. As is a big beauty dish, as is a dish with a grid. If that's the look you want, go for it.

"Direct light" or "hard light" - it can be really pretty on a model with great skin and a good makeup artist involved. I love taking a 16" speedo reflector, putting a grid in it, and sticking a circle of mylar diffusion in the gel frame, point it right at the face with some big fill here & there. Pretty hard, but on a great face, it's killer.

That's film, and not retouched at all, and look at those hard shadows… the diffuse look is just the BG light blooming out:

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been experimenting with portraits of late.

I have a 2 light setup with flashes on radio slaves. But i think I need some direct lighting.

I'm a bit bewildered by all the options.. LEDs, macro rings, pop-up donughts, etc.

Can someone recommend a good (inexpensive) option to be used in portraits?


THX

a large window and a good book such as George Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
Take a look at The Graslon Prodigy Dome Diffuser Device.
I use it with my Minolta 360PX Flash, and Sunpak 611.

http://graslon.com/product/prodigy-2/?attribute_lens=flat

~ Ron
.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another vote for "Light: Science and Magic". This should be the required text for all Studio Lighting 101 classes. It will give you the fundamentals of pretty much every kind of lighting you'll want to do. But for getting started with artificial light, when in doubt, softbox. As close to the subject as you can get it without it intruding into the frame. And don't make the mistake of thinking you need a gazillion watt-seconds. The only reason I have a pair of 2400 W/S packs is that I need that kind of output for when I shoot 14x17 and have two stops of bellows extension to compensate for. There are a ton of good monolight options in the 400-500 W/S range that will make it easy for you to get a hang of studio lighting.

 

[M Carter]

a large window and a good book such as George Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits

What if one likes to shoot at night? Or wants lots of control, mood, etc?

I agree there's nothing quite as pretty as window light... when you want window light!

Wondering about all the negative comments for someone who wants to try something more like studio lighting. It's something I really love, and there was a time I knew nothing about doing it.

 

[benjiboy]

a large window and a good book such as George Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits

George Hurrel's portraits were highly stylized using multiple lights and lighting modifiers https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...eorge+hurrel&gs_l=img.1.6.0l10.2561.8804.0.15

 

[benjiboy]

Rigflashes for portraiture are something to be avoided because although they do give a soft even light and some fashion photographers use them they have the effect on the catch-lights in the sitters eyes of making them looking like a cat's. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...ash+portraits&gs_l=img.12...2324.12237.0.1452
I like the Garry Fong Lightsphere as a portable flash modifier for portraits either on the camera or on a stand triggered by a radio trigger https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=g...sch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=teBEVeHJJYzmat-

 

[blansky]

If you want to learn lighting the best way, in my opinion, is buy one light with a modeling light (Photogenic perhaps) with a softbox and make a reflector for the shadow side out of a stand and a piece of white foamcore. In case you don't know, a modeling light is a light that has a strobe as well as a constant light which shows the lighting patten. Not the same as a flash that is on a camera, which doesn't have the modeling light.

Then learn how to use it. Broad light, short light, split light, study Rembrandt lighting, learn why you use certain lighting patterns for different circumstances.

Most people buy multiple lights and confuse the hell out of themselves.

In nature, in north window light used by painters, there is only one light and reflected light.

If you don't understand one light, one reflector, you probably will never progress to understand multiple lights.

Every portrait begins with one light.

In my studio I have 8 lights. Most of the time I use one light and one reflector. And even when I use more, I always START the session with one light and one reflector, and then build the lighting from there.

Baby steps.

The other thing you need to define is the definitions of people photography. Some people lump any picture of a person as being a portrait. Some one mentioned Hurrell and his work. Hurrell's famous work is not really portraits any more than a Revlon ad in a magazine is a portrait.

If you don't get the definitions right you can't ask the right questions. Hurrell shot Hollywood glamor pictures. Revlon ads are beauty shots usually done by fashion photographers. These disciplines of photography are not portraits pe se. They used different tools and had different motivations. They rely heavily on makeup to make them work and they rely heavily on extensive retouching.

Portrait work like what Karsh did had little in common with this.

The other thing you have to understand is lighting equipment and light modifiers. Hurrell used hot lights. Very different "quality of light" than umbrellas or softboxes. Fashion often uses large umbrellas placed back so the model can move and "move the clothes". This is far different that portrait photographers who work in close, create lighting patterns on the face from the placement of the lights.

To define what you are trying to achieve you need to see what niche or discipline you wish to pursue.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been experimenting with portraits of late.

I have a 2 light setup with flashes on radio slaves. But i think I need some direct lighting.

I'm a bit bewildered by all the options.. LEDs, macro rings, pop-up donughts, etc.

Can someone recommend a good (inexpensive) option to be used in portraits?


THX

a beauty dish is a good option but not cheap

 

[CropDusterMan]

I agree there's nothing quite as pretty as window light... when you want window light!
Wondering about all the negative comments for someone who wants to try something more like studio lighting.

I agree. Often, the ones who go on and on about the virtues of "window Light" are the ones who don't
actually know how to light with strobe.

The comment a few posts above in regards to ring flash is not accurate. What nobody here has brought into the conversation is the understanding of ratios in lighting. A ring flash is simply another light, and it's intensity in relation to the other lights on set is what will turn it from a 1980's glam light, to a simple source of fill light. I have used ring flash as a tertiary fill source in portraits before, and you'd never know it.

I do agree with many of you, that in learning lighting, one needs to take a gradual approach, one light, then two etc...but when a person comes on here looking to learn strobe, we don't need more talk about the virtues of big windows. LOL

 

[CropDusterMan]

One of the things to keep in mind too is that if you want your images to not look dated, you really need
to pay attention to how things are being lit today. Everyone loves the "key flash" underexposed ambient when
the first start getting into strobe work...for example, look at some of Annie Leibovitz's work in the 1980's...especially
the stuff she shot at El Mirage dry lake in CA....it looked cool at the time, but if you shot that look now, it would
look ridiculous. Todays lighting looks much more stripped down, partially due to digital (you can use a lot less power in lighting with dig today vs film) but also due to the evolution of the look of flash photography...even stuff shot around 2005 looks terribly dated.