Ring light / beauty light for portraits?
-
A
- Thread starter darinwc
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Mamiya 7 - 210mm lens + finder
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-SW 75mm 1:4.5 Lens in Copal 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
For Sale Schneider Kreuznach Makro Symmar HM 5.6/120 in Copal No. 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
Want to Buy Graflex RB 4x5 (Auto or Tele) with longer bellows extension
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
It would be hard to give you a particular name Tony, but if you look at a particular photographer who is in the mainstream, someone who is in demand and constantly pushing forward....for instance Annie Leibovitz.
Look at the progression of lighting style in her work over the years. As she grows older, her work becomes more refined...the image on the left, is very lit, and there is a considerable underexposure of the ambient. Now, there is a definite fairytale theme in the left image, but it is one I'm using as an example. The image of
DiCaprio on the right is a much more modern look these days...almost natural looking. Ultimately, whether you like her work or not, she sets much of the tone and trend in fashion and portrait photography. Obviously, these are digital images, and retouched, but I'm trying to illustrate the change in styles and not looking dated. So much of the look begins with how the photographer is going to record ambient light, and it's ratio to key light...going more than a 1/2 stop under on ambient vs key is a dated look.
Look at the progression of lighting style in her work over the years. As she grows older, her work becomes more refined...the image on the left, is very lit, and there is a considerable underexposure of the ambient. Now, there is a definite fairytale theme in the left image, but it is one I'm using as an example. The image of
DiCaprio on the right is a much more modern look these days...almost natural looking. Ultimately, whether you like her work or not, she sets much of the tone and trend in fashion and portrait photography. Obviously, these are digital images, and retouched, but I'm trying to illustrate the change in styles and not looking dated. So much of the look begins with how the photographer is going to record ambient light, and it's ratio to key light...going more than a 1/2 stop under on ambient vs key is a dated look.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Most of her work is done by committee and a crew of 10.
The first image is stobe (large soft box) outdoors which she uses and has done for years and continues to do. The other one is probably available light, where she searched out the direction of light and had him turn his face into it. This was probably done due to the location.
Last edited by a moderator:
a beauty dish is a good option but not cheap
A beauty dish is a pretty unnecessary light. It's essentially a parabolic reflector with a light defractor (beam splitter) inside and a softbox type diffuser in front.
I have a Mola and rarely use it.
A soft box is far cheaper, more versatile, easier to transport and gives essentially the same light.
Last edited by a moderator:
And your point is? Do you think she just shows up and clicks the shutter? That is laughable.
She is deeply involved in the lighting of her subjects. I have many close friends I've worked with over the years who were Annie's full time assistants....including Andrew Eccles and Martin Schoeller who I assisted for four years...they all say the same thing. She has the vision, and the understanding.
She sees the light and makes the changes. She decides on the look of the images, both in technical lighting aspects and content of the photo itself. Anyone who has worked on sets such as these (the guy typing here) understands that big shoots with high profile people require a lot of people to make it happen. Assistants, make-up artists, clothing stylists, hair...so making the comment about her "10 assistants" is laughable. One of the things with her, is that when the rest of the folks on set are on page two, shes's already on page ten.
Annie is about a lot more than "throwing up a softbox"....and the shot of DiCaprio is lit....and you are missing the point of my earlier post about currency of style.
Last edited by a moderator:
seems there are more than a 1001 ways to skin this particular cat.
The essentials to know are.
The bigger the surface area of the light source relative to the subject, the softer the shadows/edges become. Therefore knowing this you can play with light source area size either by changing its distance from the subject or by changing its physical size and keeping it same distance.
Just putting a diffuser on speedlight only has a small effect in that regard because the size hasn't changed.
Using a massive ring light will do it but will introduce a really crap catchlight in the eyes (not cool at all). So a large umbrella with flash well back from it will do it. Or a large softbox, or a large window without direct sunlight coming in through it. They will all give nicely diffused light (soft edges) if that is what you want.
But you may not want really well diffused light.
I would suggest all you really for need for cheap starter setup is one light source which is adjustable in size (using umbrella or softbox ) and a couple of reflectors to adjust the lighting ratio to the other side of the subject from the light source. And then play around with your setup and lighting ratios until you understand what works works and why. And note down the lighting ratios so you can setup quicker next time.
Then when you've got a handle on that you can experiment with second and third lights if you want something different from a naturalistic look.
The essentials to know are.
The bigger the surface area of the light source relative to the subject, the softer the shadows/edges become. Therefore knowing this you can play with light source area size either by changing its distance from the subject or by changing its physical size and keeping it same distance.
Just putting a diffuser on speedlight only has a small effect in that regard because the size hasn't changed.
Using a massive ring light will do it but will introduce a really crap catchlight in the eyes (not cool at all). So a large umbrella with flash well back from it will do it. Or a large softbox, or a large window without direct sunlight coming in through it. They will all give nicely diffused light (soft edges) if that is what you want.
But you may not want really well diffused light.
I would suggest all you really for need for cheap starter setup is one light source which is adjustable in size (using umbrella or softbox ) and a couple of reflectors to adjust the lighting ratio to the other side of the subject from the light source. And then play around with your setup and lighting ratios until you understand what works works and why. And note down the lighting ratios so you can setup quicker next time.
Then when you've got a handle on that you can experiment with second and third lights if you want something different from a naturalistic look.
Sorry these all split up but I was on the phone and multitasking. Which is always a mistake.
A ring light is a pretty unattractive looking light that some fashion types buy for something different. The catch light is quite ugly and the light is generally not very flattering.
If you have an arsenal of hot lights, parabolics, soft boxes and every other light known to man then a ring light is the next perfect choice.
Until then, maybe forget it.
A ring light is a pretty unattractive looking light that some fashion types buy for something different. The catch light is quite ugly and the light is generally not very flattering.
If you have an arsenal of hot lights, parabolics, soft boxes and every other light known to man then a ring light is the next perfect choice.
Until then, maybe forget it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Annie pissing off the Queen by telling her she looks too "Dressy" when that is the whole point of the commission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meTECfGfoMI
I'm glad you're such a fan.
You're right the Dicaprio is shot with a softbox probably because this one is.
Back to the original question about lights to buy.
Attachments
I'm sure she didn't mean to tick of the Queen, perhaps she was looking for something less formal from her (it was rather funny though, the Queens reaction)...dang, there sure are a bunch of Annie haters here. 
I wouldn't call myself a "fan",
just someone who has benefitted from learning from her on a multitude of aspects.
I wouldn't call myself a "fan", just someone who has benefitted from learning from her on a multitude of aspects.
I'm sure she didn't mean to tick of the Queen, perhaps she was looking for something less formal from her (it was rather funny though, the Queens reaction)...dang, there sure are a bunch of Annie haters here.
just someone who has benefitted from learning from her on a multitude of aspects.
My statements were rather curt because I was doing too many things at once and not writing with any nuance.
I'm not an Annie hater per se and do respect her work---sort of.
My problem with celebrity shooters is the "if you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people" thing. And they often get far too many accolades for mediocrity because the people who see the picture are "pre-enamoured" due to the subject matter and celebrity worship. As I've written before my criteria for any famous person picture is, if you replaced the subject with an unknown, would it still be a great picture. Usually not.
I do have a problem respecting work that is channeled through too many committees of art directors, publicists and a host of hanger ons and "assistants". It just seems to lose the "artist" concept to me.
But working in LA for 7 years in the 90s I do know how the Hollywood machine works.
You never see that on an Annie set...she pretty much gets her way and doesn't care what anyone thinks. Yikes. It can be quite terrifying. I was traveling with a photographer who had once worked as her long-time assistant and we saw her at JFK, I said "Hey, isn't that your old lady"?....I turned around and he was gone, having high tailed it outta there! LOL.
Yes...back to the original post I hijacked. Sorry. When it comes to purchasing gear, I really like to rent first, and experiment. My advice is to study lighting you like the look of, analyze it,
and look for the components you'll need to do that type of look. Then, put together a kit accordingly. The stuff is so darned costly, and you always take a hit when re-selling it.
Last edited by a moderator:
That really does point to buying the highest quality gear, with the most versatility, one can find or afford.
I tell anyone starting out (that wants to primarily use strobes) - look for some basic Speedotron, Norman, Elinchrom, etc. gear. A pack and two heads. Hell, I started with Novatron 1000 pack (actually decent and lasted for years I'd stuff two novatron heads into a softbox on each side of a speedotron for 4x5 jewelry shots - one less pop!). You just really don't want to hang a softbox on a novatron head...
The used market is pretty saturated with Speedo 1201A packs (one for $175 on eBay today) and 820 packs - I bet mine is 35 years old. Norman has similar stuff. A couple 7" reflectors, some ripstop yardage and stands, and you can light a crazy amount of stuff. throw in an 11" or 16" reflector and grid, or a beauty dish and grid, and your available looks increase exponentially. Keep an eye on eBay and Craig's List for used softboxes (I even have some cheap knockoff boxes which have been great for the $$) and so on.
And buy good stands - they'll last through a decade of lighting upgrades.
I agree...those old Speedo's are great...I used 2401 packs for years (I called them "Widow Makers" for the loud arc bang if you didn't discharge, then shut the pack down before pulling the head). I had a 2401sx go south at the Garden (Madison) about 15 years ago...sounded like a gun going off as sparks shot from it. I love DynaLites...a simple 1000W pack and a few heads and extensions and yer good to go....cheap too.
agreed and the cheapest soft boxes are umbrellas.I actually prefer them over soft boxes;easier and faster to put up ,take down and transport.
the look is almost identical to soft boxes!
agreed and the cheapest soft boxes are umbrellas.I actually prefer them over soft boxes;easier and faster to put up ,take down and transport.
I like 'em for ease of setup - I don't find them identical for many uses though… tabletop, jewelry or reflective stuff, gimme a softbox… large sets where I want total control, ditto. Medium setups where I want control of shadows, same. Really hard to do much more than very soft light with fairly open shadows (though that's a look that's often appropriate). Softboxes are great when you need to up the drama. Good products for control freaks! And man, I'm in love with the 48" strip lights with grids… yum.
I do like them for lower budget location work though.
Agreed.
It is far easier to feather the light with a softbox, which is probably why they were invented. For ease of use and transport there are hybrid types that are really just umbrellas reversed with an enclosed back.
I think the expression you are looking for is "catch lights". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catchment
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,513
- Format
- 35mm RF
You are correct.
The farther you get from any light source, the more "contrasty" it gets (IE, soft light gets harder). Set up a small softbox and shoot something right next to it. Then shoot something 15' from it. It becomes a pretty hard light. The size of a diffuse light source, subject size, and distance between the two is all relative when it comes to softness/hardness of light.
That's right Mr Carter, I discovered it by experience in the studio with my umbrellas about 20 years ago.
| 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:  |