Sunlight Effect In Studio

[KidA]

What sort of resources/equipment would I need to re-create sunlight artificially?

I know the basics: small/far away enough light source, to cast harsh shadows. But I only have a softbox and umbrella. The closest I can get to small light source, is closing the umbrella a bit, but I still find it doesn't give me what I want. Do I need a snoot? Are barn doors good?

Also, other concerns are how do you control light from hitting the background in a not so big space? When using this effect, do you often have a bounce light, or a softer/closer light source to give the effect of atmospheric bounce?

In the end my goal would be to project various slide films on a 3M reflective screen, and photographing a subject and making it look like it was actually shot outside. Front-screen projection, I think one would call it.

 

[Mr Bill]

But I only have a softbox and umbrella. The closest I can get to small light source, is closing the umbrella a bit, but I still find it doesn't give me what I want.

Hi, try removing the umbrella; use only the bare flashtube for lighting. This is about the smallest you can do, short of a smaller "mask" in front of the flash. You'll lose a great deal of light, measured at the subject. You might do better to try a hot shoe flash masked down to a smaller size.

In the end my goal would be to project various slide films on a 3M reflective screen, and photographing a subject and making it look like it was actually shot outside. Front-screen projection, I think one would call it.

I'm guessing that your ideas are coming from "light weight" online articles? In reality, front projection is much more difficult than you probably imagine (yep, I have a lot of experience with them). First, you MIGHT NOT be able to buy direct from 3M; I'm not sure. You want the material with retro-reflector factor of about 1,000 X (or more). You have to project the slide exactly on-axis with the camera lens; this means through a beam splitter, and since the camera can also see ghost reflections from the beam splitter, you need a very good light trap behind it (opposite the projector). If the projector and camera lenses are not exactly aligned, including distance of the "entrance pupils," you can get "shadow outlines" of the subject. Regarding your worries about keeping spill light off the background, this is not too much of an issue - the retroreflecting characteristic means that this is not much seen.

Your best bet for putting such a system together, for commercial use, is probably, (make sure you're sitting down) to spend 5 or 10 thousand US dollars from an outfit like Virtual Backgrounds.
http://www.virtualbackgroundsphotography.com/

Experimental work or small still life is a different situation.)

Best of luck, let me know any specific questions.

 

[KidA]

I'm guessing that your ideas are coming from "light weight" online articles? In reality, front projection is much more difficult than you probably imagine (yep, I have a lot of experience with them). First, you MIGHT NOT be able to buy direct from 3M; I'm not sure. You want the material with retro-reflector factor of about 1,000 X (or more). You have to project the slide exactly on-axis with the camera lens; this means through a beam splitter, and since the camera can also see ghost reflections from the beam splitter, you need a very good light trap behind it (opposite the projector). If the projector and camera lenses are not exactly aligned, including distance of the "entrance pupils," you can get "shadow outlines" of the subject. Regarding your worries about keeping spill light off the background, this is not too much of an issue - the retroreflecting characteristic means that this is not much seen.

Your best bet for putting such a system together, for commercial use, is probably, (make sure you're sitting down) to spend 5 or 10 thousand US dollars from an outfit like Virtual Backgrounds.
http://www.virtualbackgroundsphotography.com/

Experimental work or small still life is a different situation.)

Thanks for the feedback!

I will be doing this for mostly experimental work. And we'll see, if I can somehow be concise enough to master it, I won't need to spend the huge amounts of money to accomplish this and use it for more 'serious' work. Btw, how does this virtual background thing work? Can it be used with film or is it basically a green screen?

 

[Mr Bill]

Btw, how does this virtual background thing work? Can it be used with film or is it basically a green screen?

Hi. Well, it IS front projection. You mount both your camera and the projector onto the bracket, properly aligned with the beamsplitter. Camera looks through the beamsplitter at both the subject and background screen; projector bounces image off the splitter and on to the background, from which it returns toward the original source. However, a certain proportion of the returned light passes through the beamsplitter to the camera.

Thus, when when you load a slide, you SEE it through the camera viewfinder, and it photographs just like you see it. At the same time, someone standing next to the camera won't see anything except a blank screen.

The whole thing relies on the extreme high-gain retroreflector; it returns the projected image back toward the source so efficiently it is on the order of 1,000 times brighter than a plain white screen.

There are a lot of fine details in getting a system to work right, mainly with the lens alignment and the associated chance of what I like to call a "shadow line." But it's pretty amazing that the systems even work at all, much less how well they work.

 

[KidA]

Hi. Well, it IS front projection. You mount both your camera and the projector onto the bracket, properly aligned with the beamsplitter. Camera looks through the beamsplitter at both the subject and background screen; projector bounces image off the splitter and on to the background, from which it returns toward the original source. However, a certain proportion of the returned light passes through the beamsplitter to the camera.

Thus, when when you load a slide, you SEE it through the camera viewfinder, and it photographs just like you see it. At the same time, someone standing next to the camera won't see anything except a blank screen.

The whole thing relies on the extreme high-gain retroreflector; it returns the projected image back toward the source so efficiently it is on the order of 1,000 times brighter than a plain white screen.

There are a lot of fine details in getting a system to work right, mainly with the lens alignment and the associated chance of what I like to call a "shadow line." But it's pretty amazing that the systems even work at all, much less how well they work.

So is it safe to assume that this system is simply more foolproof than a DIY front projection?

 

[Mr Bill]

So is it safe to assume that this system is simply more foolproof than a DIY front projection?

Hi. Well in both cases exactly the same things need to be done. It's probably better to say, rather than foolproof, that the commercial setup is more of a "turn-key" system.

When I worked with it, we essentially built our own; we modified existing commercial flash gear, built slide holder racks, etc. But we bought our beamsplitters and the nominal 8 x 10 ft backgrounds plus black net fronts, etc., from a commercial supplier. We ran our system in a couple of chain studio locations. We had also built an electronic image-grab system piggybacked onto our film camera (this was predigital) - it's hard to sell pictures if the customer can't see what they look like.

Anyway, the system is what you make it to be. In one way, our system was more foolproof because we didn't allow repositioning or zooming of the slide. But most independent photographers would see that as a limitation. Anyway, there are many fine details to be handled and the commercial system already addresses most of these.

 

[KidA]

So I did some trials yesterday and I got very convincing results (not the front projection, but the sunlight effect), I had two major, and related problems:

1) Being indoors with low, white ceilings, I got a lot of bounce flash on the subject. I have a Bowens Gemini 400 kit. Do you know of any useful attachments I can use to control the angle of light?

2) Because the flash bulb is so big, in order to give the sunlight effect, I had to keep the flash about 12' away from the subject. Even on the highest power, there was not enough light to help out with films in the 25-100 ISO range at the apertures I needed. Sometimes I like to do closeup work and need more depth of field (f/16-f45 if shot on larger formats). So the question is: if I fix problem #1), and I'm able to get closer, will the trade-off between the opening on the flash factotr (be it a snoot, for example) equal the distance factor? Simply put, if I need 12' to get my desired effect with no accessory control over the flash, would my light reading be the same, less, or more, if I was controlling the light with a flash accessory, but say only 6' away, and halving the flash bulb size? Would a snoot help me in terms of power?

Hi. Well in both cases exactly the same things need to be done. It's probably better to say, rather than foolproof, that the commercial setup is more of a "turn-key" system.

When I worked with it, we essentially built our own; we modified existing commercial flash gear, built slide holder racks, etc. But we bought our beamsplitters and the nominal 8 x 10 ft backgrounds plus black net fronts, etc., from a commercial supplier. We ran our system in a couple of chain studio locations. We had also built an electronic image-grab system piggybacked onto our film camera (this was predigital) - it's hard to sell pictures if the customer can't see what they look like.

Anyway, the system is what you make it to be. In one way, our system was more foolproof because we didn't allow repositioning or zooming of the slide. But most independent photographers would see that as a limitation. Anyway, there are many fine details to be handled and the commercial system already addresses most of these.

Understood.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want to control directionality to create a sunlight effect, then get a set of barn doors for your strobe. You can use the barn doors to keep light off your backdrop, and maintain the point light source effect.

And holy hell are you trying to overcomplicate it with front projection - get a screen for rear projection, then get a right-angle mirror for your slide projector so you can put the projector off to the side instead of projecting directly.

 

[gone]

Sunlight and harsh lighting do not necessarily go together. If you wish to have a natural light look, shoot in natural light. That's how I would do it. There are so many types of available natural light it's amazing, but my preference is for early morning or late evening. I cannot imagine any sort of flash or spot lighting, or artificial lighting of any kind actually, giving you what natural light gives. It's magic.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sunlight and harsh lighting do not necessarily go together. If you wish to have a natural light look, shoot in natural light. That's how I would do it. There are so many types of available natural light it's amazing, but my preference is for early morning or late evening. I cannot imagine any sort of flash or spot lighting, or artificial lighting of any kind actually, giving you what natural light gives. It's magic.

Actually, with a good, large fresnel, you can get very close to the light quality of sunlight. A good fresnel with barn doors would get him very close to what he's looking for in terms of lighting setup. It won't be cheap, but it won't be $15K for a beam splitter and front projector either.

 

[Mr Bill]

Actually, with a good, large fresnel, you can get very close to the light quality of sunlight. A good fresnel with barn doors would get him very close to what he's looking for in terms of lighting setup. It won't be cheap, but it won't be $15K for a beam splitter and front projector either.

I don't bring much actual experience with "Fresnel" lights, but I'm pretty sure that such a spotlight CAN mimic the shadow "hardness" of direct sunlight. But it's gonna depend on the light source being (relatively) small enough. For example there are some Fresnel attachments made for flash heads that can't do this because the flashtube is too large.

But the part about a front projector is completely irrelevant to this - the projection system only supplies the background.

@TheFlyingCamera, regarding front projection, where are you getting your $15K price from? I don't see pricing on their website; did you perhaps call them for a quote? All I see on their website, in a faq, is, " Prices for a basic system start at about $4000 and go as high as $9000……"

I should point out that I don't have any irons in this fire, just some experience. Actually, quite a lot; I did most of the system design and our test studios ran probably about 20,000 portrait sessions - anything that would fit in front of a ~10x10 ft screen. We initially considered REAR projection, but threw that idea out the window right away - it was not even remotely sensible in our configuration.

 

[KidA]

I'm no experienced photographer, but I do pay attention to light. And even my original post is a bit vague. There are MANY types of natural light. The thing that changes the effect of sunlight is everything else. The bounce light, and the possibilities are endless. Open sky, sunny/cloudy sky, is there direct light or bounce light on your background? your subject? You can just imagine the possibilities! The main concern I had with this post was to mimic the direct light, as close as possible to sunlight and best ways to control/adjust bounce light in studios.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't bring much actual experience with "Fresnel" lights, but I'm pretty sure that such a spotlight CAN mimic the shadow "hardness" of direct sunlight. But it's gonna depend on the light source being (relatively) small enough. For example there are some Fresnel attachments made for flash heads that can't do this because the flashtube is too large.

But the part about a front projector is completely irrelevant to this - the projection system only supplies the background.

@TheFlyingCamera, regarding front projection, where are you getting your $15K price from? I don't see pricing on their website; did you perhaps call them for a quote? All I see on their website, in a faq, is, " Prices for a basic system start at about $4000 and go as high as $9000……"

I should point out that I don't have any irons in this fire, just some experience. Actually, quite a lot; I did most of the system design and our test studios ran probably about 20,000 portrait sessions - anything that would fit in front of a ~10x10 ft screen. We initially considered REAR projection, but threw that idea out the window right away - it was not even remotely sensible in our configuration.

I was mentioning the $15K price based on someone else's quoting of that price earlier in this thread.

My point about rear projection vs front projection is that unless you have your front projection set up properly, you'll be projecting onto your subject as well as the background. While you want your subject to appear to be in Paris, you don't want Paris to appear to be in your subject. That problem is eliminated with rear projection.

 

[Mr Bill]

I was mentioning the $15K price based on someone else's quoting of that price earlier in this thread.

Hi, just for the record, no such price was mentioned in this thread. I originally said 5 or 10 thousand US dollars, but let me be clear - this was simply a wild guess; I supplied an example website to allow further research for the interested parties.

My point about rear projection vs front projection is that unless you have your front projection set up properly, you'll be projecting onto your subject as well as the background. While you want your subject to appear to be in Paris, you don't want Paris to appear to be in your subject. That problem is eliminated with rear projection.

These comments reveal that you DO NOT have any actual experience with front projection, and that you misunderstand how it works. Other readers should keep this in mind when they read your recommendations.

In fact, a front projection system DOES project onto the subject as well as the background. But the subject projection has virtually NO significance. As I have mentioned a couple of times the key is in the high-gain retroreflecting background, with a gain factor of about 1,000 times or higher. Or said differently, the part of the scene projected onto the subject appears at least 1,000 times weaker than the background. This difference is on the order of 10 f-stops and simply cannot be seen on a normal subject.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi, just for the record, no such price was mentioned in this thread. I originally said 5 or 10 thousand US dollars, but let me be clear - this was simply a wild guess; I supplied an example website to allow further research for the interested parties.



These comments reveal that you DO NOT have any actual experience with front projection, and that you misunderstand how it works. Other readers should keep this in mind when they read your recommendations.

In fact, a front projection system DOES project onto the subject as well as the background. But the subject projection has virtually NO significance. As I have mentioned a couple of times the key is in the high-gain retroreflecting background, with a gain factor of about 1,000 times or higher. Or said differently, the part of the scene projected onto the subject appears at least 1,000 times weaker than the background. This difference is on the order of 10 f-stops and simply cannot be seen on a normal subject.

Dude, chill out. It's not that important. My point is that regardless of whether it's $5K or $15K, it's absurdly expensive. IF you have the space to do rear projection, it costs you the slides you're projecting plus a projector screen, as Kodak Carousels are just about being given away today.

 

[KidA]

Dude, chill out. It's not that important.

Not to take sides but I, along with Mr Bill, (and hopefully everyone) simply want to give/get proper information. I strongly disagree that it's not that important. My post is valid and I came here for help, not to get more confused.

However, your comment is a good reminder that we should all investigate things for ourselves, which is rather unfortunate. We should all willingly help one another, and be honest; especially for us analog users (even more so for the younger crowd that are new to this) who have a much harder time getting proper info on such less popular technologies.

 

[cliveh]

If you want to achieve a sunlight effect, why not use sunlight? No artificial lighting will give you that effect.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Not to take sides but I, along with Mr Bill, (and hopefully everyone) simply want to give/get proper information. I strongly disagree that it's not that important. My post is valid and I came here for help, not to get more confused.

However, your comment is a good reminder that we should all investigate things for ourselves, which is rather unfortunate. We should all willingly help one another, and be honest; especially for us analog users (even more so for the younger crowd that are new to this) who have a much harder time getting proper info on such less popular technologies.

Let me clarify - it's not important enough that the price difference between $5K, $10K or $15K in any way impacts the value of the suggestion to you for a solution to your problem. You didn't indicate you were looking to do this commercially - if you are, then spending thousands of dollars to solve this problem is legitimate. But if you're not, then the recommendation is overkill. Where are you seeing in any of my responses that your question isn't valid? I disagreed with MrBil's suggestion on a cost basis, and on a technical basis. He has addressed the technical merits of his suggestion, and he's right- I have not used a beam splitter for front projection, so I have not seen how it works. My concern was that in recommending an extremely expensive solution to your problem right out of the gate, he would be putting you off the entire idea. I know that if I posed a question and the first answer I got was "you need to spend $X thousand dollars..." I'd probably just walk away from the idea.

 

[KidA]

Let me clarify - it's not important enough that the price difference between $5K, $10K or $15K in any way impacts the value of the suggestion to you for a solution to your problem

I was talking about the misinformation on the technical side of using front projection, about the slide projected onto your subject.

As for the difference between $5K and $15K, that's quite a difference! I'm sure many of us would spend $5k on a camera... I'm sure the $15K price point is far less attainable for most.

Anyways, it's Friday morning. Let's all be happy :]

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I use grid spots, 15 degree, with 8 " reflector on my Einstein.

You can always buy a cheap electronic flash with small face. that will mimic point. Snoot for better control.