|
Tziko posted:I have a question on how to achieve a certain look. Yesterday I was trying to simulate Platon's portrait of Putin, failing pretty horribly. I just happened to do a platon study recently. I only used a single flash into a small 24" silver umbrella placed high and directly in front. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2008/11/inspired-by-platon.html 
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2008 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
baptism of fiber posted:drat, nicely done. I always figured those 'halos' were a separate strobe lighting the background. Judging by the pupils, it must have been pretty dark in the studio, right? This studio was just a wall in my living room. Part of my post process was removing the yellow of the wall paint. If you look at all his portraits, the halo is either a super elaborate cut out, or he does it in post, because it always follows the exact silhouette of the person. Look especially at the one of Bill Clinton sitting. I'm 95% positive he does the halo in post processing. There were a few 50 watt lamps on in the room, but the flash was so bright it killed it completely. Basically the only light contributing was the main flash.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2008 14:11
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Ha! I was right when I said a small softbox above eye level. You used an umbrella but the effect would be nearly identical. I saw a video of Platon's work recently, and it looks like he always uses a single soft ish light above and center. The times he is outside it looks like a soft box because of the distance away he has to be, but for his portraits I think it's a beauty dish.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2008 14:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I follow your blog pretty regularly, and I loved the Platon study. One thing I've had a hard time with though is finding where to buy that really small umbrella you have - any suggestions? amazon.com or from the source directly, https://www.alzodigital.com Seems they are the only ones that make it that small. The next smallest is 27", which seems more common.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2008 13:16
|
|
|
The Fomo posted:I just ordered a B800 today. Hopefully it'll arrive next week along with my replacement camera battery. I took a 2x6cm strip of stiff plastic from a package, bent it in the middle, and taped it to the bottom so that it forms a 90 degree angle, half on the front of the flash, half on the bottom of it. It is clear, so it does not hinder the flash itself, but it serves as a place to slip the gels into and hold firmly in place.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 23:27
|
|
|
Here is why I like shoemount flashes. ATA sized roller. I can take this as carry on, and I can wear a small sling bag with my clothes, roll this, and not have any checked baggage. It's waterproof which makes it really nice in Iceland where I constantly have to worry about wet ground and rain/snow. Contains, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and not shown (on my 40d taking the photo) 50mm 1.8. 2x 580 ex II flashes, batteries in each, plus a spare set for each, and a rapid charger. Grid spot, gels, and cardboard cookies. Skyport trigger and recievers, plus screw lock cables from flashzebra (love the screwlock, means they won't fall out.) Two stands, plus two umbrellas (one was out on loan, but both fit) I carry a small 60cm silver, and a large 110cm silver, or one large silver and one large shoot through, depending. Folded up in the top, is a 1x1.2 meter white on one side, black on the other, and a second that is silver one side, gold on the other. I use these either as backgrounds, or as ground reflectors to bounce. Custom made aluminum umbrella swivels from Germany. These are about 5x smaller than any other commercial product, and work just as well. They only work for shoe mount flashes as they have a shoe mount permanently attached to the top, but that's all I use, and that makes them ligher with less screws. I couldn't fit everything in this kit without these. All of my photography has been done with this kit. I only ever feel like I'm held back with modifiers, never with light power, since I'm using such fast lenses, and I don't mind upping to iso 800 or 1600 when I need to.   
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2009 14:16
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:what is that, 85 1.8 and 35L? Was using the 50mm 1.8 to take the photos. I find these three give me exactly what I want for photos. I use the 35mm for full bodies with background, the 50 for mid body crops, and the 85 for head shots or busts, or when I need a tiny bit of reach. I'm contemplating adding the sigma 20mm 1.8, as I just sold my sigma 10-20mm, but I'm planning to wait till I have an actual shoot in mind that needs it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
Here are a few of my favorite lit photos. All of these were done with the kit I posted ealier.  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2009 12:18
|
|
|
I want the new Elinchrom Ranger Quadra sooooooo bad. 3 kg, 400 watt/s, built in skyport (which I already own). I can control output from the miniscule trigger on the camera. This will be my new main light once it comes out, and I'll use my hotshoe flashes as rim/fill/whatever. NAM NAM NAM.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
 Quick test using 2 umbrellas as side lights, and a warm reflector front. I don't really like the warm, so next time I'll be using silver. I do like how it is a much softer rim than when I use bare flashes for rim, so I'll be trying this more often, though maybe not dual soft rim at the same power next time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 23:09
|
|
|
brad industry posted:^ That looks nice. If you ever get the chance I really like the way that strip-light softboxes look as rims. Me too. I've got a nice collapsible stripbox I got off ebay for quite cheap. holds my shoe-mount flashes well, and the inner baffle evens out the light a ton. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 23:23
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yay, got my light stands and brackets in. Is there such a thing as a very stable and strong stand that's shorter than 20"? I have the manfrotto nano stands, and they are ace indoors, and outdoors with only a hotshoe, but if I attach an umbrella and weight them, they bend like willow branches. I looked at the Manfrotto stackers, the shortest ones, which are 26", which seems nice. Anyone have those and can they attest to their strength?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 21:06
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Why are you guys so averse to just buying real stands? Then you wouldn't have to carry weights around, they wouldn't bend, and a decent stand is a lot cheaper than having to replace your equipment when it inevitably blows over and breaks something. Because I want to fly with my equipment without paying 200 dollars in over-sized baggage fees. I don't mind buying a real stand, as long as it's under 25" inches or so. I am asking if there is a "real" stand that folds up that small. Seems there are a few Matthews Century stands, but they only go up to about 84cm in height. :-(
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 21:49
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Is this background too subtle? Looks fine on my monitor but I know everyone else has their brightness jacked way up. This was a test so ignore my retarded pose. I can see the fine stripes and it's not blown out, but I also calibrate my monitor. Did a shoot this weekend, and was able to hit 3 different locations in 3 hours, with just me and the model, no assistants. I'm gonna do a proper write up on the shoot itself, but today I had some spare time with just my macbook and I'd been wanting to outline the equipment I use. It's extremely portable and light, I can fly with it as carryon, which is really nice since most of my shoots are just personal fun, and don't have any budget for shipping/insurance/rental. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-lighting-kit.html  And a shot from the shoot: 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
Got around to part 1 of my lighting writeup for this latest shoot. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/01/fiona-evening-part-1.html 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2009 15:32
|
|
|
Kodo Zoku posted:
I can't remember why exactly. I think it's because this case is carryon approved size, but long enough to fit the manfrotto nano light stands. I seem to remember that the largest carryon sized pelican wasn't long enough, but I can't remember for sure. It might have been a price thing too. I do love it. Super durable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2009 04:44
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Hot lights are a waste of money. Not that there aren't situations where they would be useful, but using them as your only light sources will be frustrating and your results will suck. I´ve been photographed under hotlights before, and IT SUCKED BALLS. It was probably a 10 minute shoot, and I was hot/sweaty, and near blind with a headache. From the models perspective, hot lights suck.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2009 19:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:You can do more with one good light than you can with two lovely ones. That, AND, just like a lot of people advise to start with a 50mm and learn how you like to shoot, start with one light till you learn the basics and how you like to shoot. When you have 5 lights, everything looks like a 5 light situation. You get creative with only one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Cross-posting from PAD. Well the angle is unflattering for one. You should be higher up, or have her head angled down. Also it looks like your lighting is 1:1 ratio. I'd drop the bottom light to a 1:2 ratio or even 1:4 for a bit more volume. You can even move the top one a bit to one side, and the bottom a bit to the other side. Right now it's very, very flat, and not in a good way. The shadow above her head from the bottom light is also very distracting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I have the camera dead level so no angling effect from the lens...on purpose, because of the nature of the photo (supposed to be that dead on, no creativity allowed shot). She's also supposed to be looking dead ahead. It's not about being creative, it's the fact that no one other than midgets will ever see a person from this angle. It needs to be head height so that the face is recognizable the way 99% of people will see it 99% of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:For radio triggers, you've got three main brands/price tiers to choose from. Skyports belong in the top tier with PocketWizards. Literally the only thing the PW have going for them is the higher market ownership. If you never rent, never share equipment with other pros, and don't have a boner for everything running off AA batteries, Skyports are where it's at. 100% reliable (never ever EVER had one of mine misfire) and much smaller than the PW, especially the one that goes on your camera. And way, way cheaper. Plus if you go with Elinchrom flashes, you can control their power output from your camera trigger. I am going to buy the poo poo out of the new Ranger Quadra the second it drops next month. 3 kg battery/pack with a 250 gram 400 watt head that takes all existing elinchrom modifiers, and a built in skyport in the pack. This means I don't have to bother with any plugs or cables to connect my flash to my trigger AND unlike strobes with built in PW, you can control the power output remotely. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 4, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2009 23:12
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Here's some new Annie Leibovitz celebrity photography: Uff that was depressingly fun looking. I would love to do a shoot like this, with even one person that has that much presence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 19:12
|
|
|
One thing I didn't understand about the shoot. In one of the videos, I think it was the one with Kate Winslet, they had white bounce cards to the left off screen, but then there was a black scrim sitting in front of it. Lots of the white bounce stands still showed, but the scrim was obviously blocking portions of it. Does she really have that much control that she knows she wants some bounce, but not from the very middle? I would have thought if she took the white cards away completely, you'd get no bounce and richer shadows, which is why you normally use a blacks scrim like that as a subtractor. My simple question: Why have a black scrim right in front of white bounce stands? Why not have one, or the other, why both? My only thought is that maybe they started with the white, it filled too much, and then added the scrim to subtract a little, and liked it. So rather than move the bounce stands and possibly get even darker shadows, she kept it like it was. But still it seems a bit odd. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Feb 7, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yes. I have assisted people who do stuff like that and they just have a much more finely tuned sense of light. Interesting. I am actually happier with that answer, than with something more random. Shows there is a LOT of room to grow in regard to lighting things. Her source is fairly plain in terms of just a brolly box and the angle, but looks like there is quite a bit of bounce considerations. Love it. I think I've learned something from every single video I've seen with her in it, no matter how short.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:When you guys are working with strobes (speedlights) how do you know where to place the lights? There isn't really a modeling function on the Nikon series of flashes if you're using CLS to trigger things. (It seems that you can do some half-assed modeling test with each strobe individually by going up to it and hitting the button, but you can't test them all at the same time for more than a second. Why? I don't know, but it's annoying.) There is a strobist post on this, but the gist is that if you can see it from the position of the strobe, the flash will hit it. I come from a 3d modeling background, so spacial relationships are super easy for me to visualize, but I find that works well for me. You will still have to fine tune, but I'm pretty sure even people with modeling lights in their softboxes still adjust afterward for best results.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The best way to understand it is to remember that the flash lasts basically no time at all. So: I pick the aperture that I want for the amount of DOF that I want, get my background to the exposure that I want with shutter/iso, then start with the lighting, but I'm a location photographer always trying to balance flash with existing ambient.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2009 19:23
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't know, maybe having a starting point is good if you don't know how to set up a stand or meter a light but other than that I don't see what good diagrams do. I mean, I always read those PDN articles where they get all nerdy and have a diagram but I always found the article where the photographer talks through their thought process way, way more useful than how many feet away a softbox was or whatever. The why is more important than the how, if that makes sense. What a coincidence, that's exactly what David Hobby does in all his posts in the past year or so. No diagrams, but he talks about his thought process, and just describes general light levels in comparison to ambient. Seriously, you come off as a real hater without knowing what you're talking about. I've read almost every post on the strobist blog, and there are just not very many lighting diagrams. There are tards on the strobist flickr group that obsess about them, but the author of the strobist is not one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2009 11:47
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't like him, don't take it personally. He's an unemployed journalist with crappy work, a weird obsession with battery powered flashes, annoying nerd readers, and a really lovely writing style. He's the Ken Rockwell of lighting. I don't read it that often e so maybe it's changed, but I remember it being almost all about diagrams/technical/ratios/etc. and short on everything else. If it works for you, great. I'm not taking it personally. I defend the site, because it's worth reading, especially if you're new to lighting. You constantly ragging on it might give people the impression that it's not worth looking at. He's hardly comparable to Ken Rockwell, because he gets stuff right. Do you have a problem with Joe McNally? He uses battery powered strobes a lot, and he's had several covers on National Geographic, as well as loads of other nationally recognized photoshoots many of which only used battery powered flashes. If you don't like it, fine, but don't take it personally when I rebut your assertions that it's not worth looking at. Not everyone can afford the time and money to go get a photography degree just to learn how to use lights, and there is not any other single source of lighting how-to that's half as comprehensive on the internet (for free).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I've said this before: I use battery powered flashes. I shot a cover using some 580's. I don't care what lighting poo poo people use. Actually I learned lighting from reading the strobist and THEN going out and doing. You have to have some idea of what it (lights) can do and what kind of look it gives you before you'd want to drop the cash on it. We get it, you don't like it. Drop the commenting on it. No matter what you say or feel, it's a great site for people interested in getting to know about using lighting. If you know of a superior site, by all means, share. But just suggesting that people buy several hundred dollars of lights and then "trying it out" with no idea of how to even start, is horrible advice. You're looking at lighting in hindsight, already knowing how to use it. From someone who doesn't know anything whatsoever about using a light source off of the camera, it's a great site, regardless of your feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
Lol forgot which megathread I was in, and typed this all out for number 2 of the last question in the post processing thread. Rather than let it go to waste, I'll just leave it here: 2. I went from never using any lights at all, Christmas 2 years ago, to feeling fairly comfortable lighting for any type of image that I want, and it came from practice, practice practice. Try out everything. Ever light modifier and setting you have, every type of shadows, try out classic portrait lighting, try out retarded things that might not work. Always push further. That's why it's so nice to own your lights, and to start out with something cheap. Put it this way, whatever camera you have now, you probably started off with something cheaper before you knew you were serious about photography. Unless money is no issue, or you know for sure that lighting is for you. Grab a vivitar 285 or equivalent, a stand, a pc-sync cable, an umbrella swivel, and a silver umbrella. It shouldn't set you back more than 200 dollars, and you can try out almost any 1 light solution with that. I saw battery powered because it lets you try out outdoor settings while still learning, without a 100 meter cable or a generator. I now have 2 types of shoots. Farting around at home, where I use myself or my husband for the model. These are never portfolio worthy, but they get me more comfortable with my gear, and show me what works and what doesn't, in a no pressure environment, so I have new tools at my fingertips for real shoots. I do 2-3x more of these than my "real" shoots. "Real" shoots are produced. I have a vision in mind, ask someone to show up to pose, with specific outfits and/or makeup. I've already got an idea of the lighting in mind, I've scouted the location and mostly know angles, composition, which lens, and what type of lighting I want to use. The best part about knowing tons of workable lighting solutions, is that after you get your money shot that you did heavy previs for, if you have more time before you have to leave, you can start trying for extra bonus photos by trying out a ton of other stuff, and you dont' have to think too hard about it. On my last shoot it worked out like that. I had my shot in the bag, but I let the model suggest some, and I got 2-3 more that I really liked using her suggestions, and some "canned" lighting I knew would work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2009 05:57
|
|
|
Nihiliste posted:AB's aren't really a pain to move until you add lightstands, cords, modifiers and a Vagabond battery. You're telling me. I've assisted for a guy using monoblocs plus batteries, and it was a pain even with 2 people helping. I lurve me my waterproof rolling case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2009 08:56
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:What flash swivels are those (the little silver ones)? Super customized hand made german ones, actually. I just emailed the guy asking if he can make me another, because I love these so much, I can see myself needing a backup 20 years in the future and this guy being dead or something. I'll let you know what he says, but he also has some others that might work for you. His store: http://www.fotomagazin-24.eu/shop7en/start.htm The case is the Hardigg Storm case im2500 http://www.stormcase.com/StormCaseSizes/StormiM2500.htm I have it with the pick/pluck foam, but I hate that. It's too tight so it pulls out when I remove the gear. I'm trying to find a german retailer so I can buy the padded foam dividers instead. Briefcase storage is exactly 20 million times more convenient than bag storage. Open the case, and every single item is available, no digging, no opening any other zippers or velcro. Just open the lid and remove/replace item needed, done.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2009 08:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Myeah the downside is that you can't carry hardcases while you shoot. It's the reason we carry bags in the first place. But you can roll them? Even with a bag, I never actively wore it while shooting, it always got placed on the ground somewhere (in the mud). Any shoot where you've got lighting equipment, you're not gonna have a bag slung over your shoulder while you're directing a subject. You'll have your kit somewhere off to the side.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2009 10:23
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I shoot live performances, not assignements, so my bag with whatever kit I have with me stays on my shoulder. But then you don't really need a case worth of stuff, do you? I was implying someone who needs stands/umbrellas/gear for a "real" shoot. If you're doing event or photojournalism, it doesn't really apply, and yes, bags are much more useful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2009 10:48
|
|
|
Quick question, most likely for Brad. I want a light source to use for male portraits. My goal is to keep jet black shadows, contrasty light for showing off the skull structure, and rake lighting for skin texture. However I do want it soft enough to be flattering (I'm specifically only going to shoot attractive models, so I don't want light that hides or disguises) without harsh hotspots. My plan was for the Chimera XXS small softbox (30x40cm) with the 20 degree fabric grid, and then use it very close, and above the face, much like a beauty dish. I have space concerns, or I would use a beauty dish with grids, but that's not an option. I am asking my local photography store if I can try out this option on a model in the store before purchasing to make sure this is the route for me, but I was wondering if I could get some input from the message board as well. Anyone have this softbox/grid combo that can provide some example images or input?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
If you have skyports, you can attach like this: (now they are attached the same way to 580ex IIs) As for portable power, wait for the Elinchrom Ranger Quadra. It is THE portable pack. Not out for another month, but I'm first on the list at my local shop. 3 kg (6.6 lbs) battery/powerpack, and 250 gram (1/2 pound) head. 400 watts (real watts, not AB fake watts, so it's more powerful than the AB800) and with an adaptor can fit all Elinchrom stuff. It's more than ABs, but less than profoto. Plus you can control the power by radio with the elinchrom skyport system. And it has a built in modeling light that is daylight balanced that can run for 2 hours on one charge. And it's 2:1 Assymetrical. brad industry posted:Softbox with a grid is what you want, yeah. The grid just makes it more directional and shortens the spread, it's still soft. I don't know if those Chimera's have a second baffle on the inside but you can use that to soften it even more. Also larger light source = softer so XXS may not be the way to go. First thing I'm going to do when I get my Elinchrom flash is do a comparison with the 580ex II and the Quadra. I'm assuming with an inner baffle it will be reasonably similar, but with way more power in the Elinchrom. I'll post when I do. As for size, I realize larger softbox = softer, that's specifically why I want a small one, so that it's soft -ish, but not enough to obliterate masculine features like wrinkles, pores, and cheek bones. XXS might be too small for the look I'm going for, but I know I don't want a giant octobox, that's for sure. I hope to test them (softboxes) today or tomorrow in the store and I'll report back. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Apr 24, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2009 14:42
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Know what this thread needs more of? Shots and explanations of how you got them. I'll start. NIce photo, she has a great face. My one crit is that your hair light is bright enough that it flattens the photo. I would really like to see it 1-2 stops lower so there is more 3-dimensionality to her hair/head.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2009 13:36
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Apparently the range is kinda poo poo compared to the previous gen, at least that's what came of it last time someone asked. Depends on which flashes you have. If you have the 430ex, or either 580ex, forget about them. If you have nikon flashes, or lower end Canon flashes, they might be what you're after.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 10:20
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:What do you mean by this, keeping in mind that I want to trigger Plus IIs on AC-strobes, rather than other hotshoe flashes. Those flash models have a lot of RF signal bleed and screw up the range. Outdoors with line of site you get 30meters max, and some users had to routinely get closer for the triggers to re "see" each other, then walk back. With those 3 flash models, they sound as finicky as the Ebay triggers. If you just want the smaller on camera trigger, sounds like it's as rock solid as the originals, in just a smaller package.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Oh hey that I didn't know. So it works peachy with Nikons? What's the range like? Well the Nikon version will, but I don't know if it's dropped yet or not. However it's possible it will have similar problems with their high end models, not sure. Tsar, maybe try to rent one? All the problems I've read are pinned to the new receivers, and the interference from the actual flashes keeping the antennae from getting the signal. The new transmitter seems to be fine. I haven't heard any problems with it. If you just want a smaller on camera trigger (which is a good idea since the IIs are obscene) then it's probably what you want.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2009 08:39
|
|