A&P my first off camera lit "studio" attempt

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by mikeskillz, Oct 12, 2008.

  1. mikeskillz

    mikeskillz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    the equipment isnt hard to use but jeez posing the model is. it took a lot of practice to develop some terms to tell her exactly how to adjust her body to get what i wanted. pretty challenging.

    softbox on the right (her left), umbrella on the left (her right), light catch light/fill-flash on the camera as well. 5D and 24-70/70-200

    let me know what you think. i appreciate "negative" remarks as well.

    #1
    [​IMG]

    #2
    [​IMG]

    #3
    [​IMG]

    #4
    [​IMG]

    #5
    [​IMG]

    #6
    [​IMG]

    (my roommates came into the garage to see what i was doing)
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Jbrown

    Jbrown OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    44,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas
    Some of them look kinda weird. PP some of her acne/moles out maybe. My shots looks sharper and all I have is a Rebel Xt/ 50 1.8 :dunno: # 4 could use some more light on the left side of her face. Maybe don't use the on-cam flash?


    Pretty good for first attempt.
     
  3. alexromo

    alexromo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    4,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wahiawa
    hahah at the last pic

    hahhaha
     
  4. mikeskillz

    mikeskillz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks for the feedback. weird how?
     
  5. Jbrown

    Jbrown OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    44,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas
    Hmm I guess weird isn't the best word. Like number 1 could be really good, but it's just lacking something. Maybe a tighter crop, or some sharpening.


    Did you build the seamless set yourself? Looks nice :coolugh:
     
  6. alexromo

    alexromo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    4,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wahiawa
    agree: details on seamless
     
  7. mikeskillz

    mikeskillz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    its leftover material from a projector screen i built. sections of it are wrinkled permanently. :hsugh:
     
  8. Jbrown

    Jbrown OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    44,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas
    Still looks good. Wish I had space for a studio.

    Fucking military dorms :mad: :wtc:
     
  9. wizeguy4

    wizeguy4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Allentown, PA
    last shot is the best shot
     
  10. Smeghead

    Smeghead New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klingonlandia
    All the photos are really good but they're all pretty soft.
     
  11. Killyin

    Killyin Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    65,029
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Tell her to do away with the hooker eye makeup.
     
  12. NOR*CAL

    NOR*CAL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,600
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Hella
    For a first timer, well done.

    1. I don't like the neck shadow, otherwise pretty well lit.
    2. Needs more fill camera left
    3. Face still needs to lit better
    4. Needs more light camera left
    5. Nice, needs a bit more dept. You may need to stop down a bit, and increase flash output. This is a good shot, I suggest working around this light setup.
    6. Tell her not to do that on camera, it's not pleasing.
    7. Looks good, I like it.

    My learning curve for seamless is a on a good incline, thanks to OTAP.

    I'd post pics, but I've been having problems with people posting my pics in main.
     
  13. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    The lights are too far away from the subject, giving everything a muddy look.

    The majority of the picture should not be the in the same general brightness range.

    You can tell that you had the light pretty far away, but cranked up to a very high power in order to light the shot.

    This makes the light look harsh where it hits her directly, then fall of VERY quickly, causing her skin tone to look kind of muddy and unflattering...

    If you bring the light a lot closer, and back off of the flash power, you'll get a MUCH more pleasing look.
     
  14. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Thats some really good information.
    So getting the light closer with less power will give better results?
     
  15. NOR*CAL

    NOR*CAL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,600
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Hella
    The larger the light source relative to subject size will determine how harsh/soft your shadows are. The further away your light source, regardless of how large will become specular or harsh.

    Having a large light source up close will result in nice soft shadows.

    Setup a softbox and crank up the power to 1/1 8' away. Now set up that softbox up close and set it 1/4 power, and you'll get very soft shadows, and about the same amount of light falling on the subject. It's NOT always about how much power you can crank out.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2008
  16. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    Yeah. Light falloff multiplies over distance. If the lightsource is 1 ft away, you can only move the light 6 inches or so before you significantly alter the f-stop the light hits at. But at 10ft away, you can move it 2+ feet closer or further and you'd never no the difference.

    So by getting the light closer, you set the F-stop of your light where you want, and the quick fall off gives you some really nice shadows on the rest of the subject.

    Also, getting the light closer increases the 'apparent size' of your light, which makes the light appear softer and gives more wrap around. This really helps to eliminate shiny spots on peoples faces that make them look oily...
     
  17. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Learn something new every day
     
  18. NOR*CAL

    NOR*CAL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,600
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Hella

    Sorry, it's "NOT always about how much power you can crank out", it's about how big you can get your light source. In relation, larger softbox, generally means you need more power.
     
  19. NOR*CAL

    NOR*CAL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,600
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Hella
    This pretty much defines the inverse square law.

    These are F-stops(duh!), but the F-stops also represent feet and light fall off.

    2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22


    If you were to carry a incident light meter and point the meter directly at the light source, and calculate the distance in which it would take for it to lose a stop, you'd be counting back feet in f-stops.

    Once you start to reach 11 feet from the subject distance, it'll take 3' to lose a stop, and another 5 to lose another stop from that. Whereas if you're at 2' it only takes .8 to 2.8 to drop a stop when you're up close.

    Light falls off fast, when the source is up close, but it takes longer to fall off, once you reach about 5.6' away or so. So what this means is, if you're trying to light up a group of people, and don't want some crazy shadows, you'll want to bring the light source at about 11', and crank up the power.

    I hope this makes sense.
     
  20. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    So given the same distance; More power from a larger softbox will yield softer shadows than less power from a smaller softbox?
     
  21. NOR*CAL

    NOR*CAL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,600
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Hella
    Sorry, if I'm confusing you.

    The size of the softbox you use is determined by the subject, and the look you're going for.

    I think I'm throwing you off because I'm mixing in power with size. Basically a 40" soft box needs more power than a 24" softbox to be equally lit. Like how you'd need more power to light up a 40' room to be the same brightness as a 24' room.

    For a 40" softbox to throw out the same amount of power coming out of a 24" softbox, it'll take more power. IE if you use a 580ex and set it to 1/2 power in a 24" softbox, you'll get more light coming out of it, than if you were to put the same 580ex inside a 40" softbox, and set it to 1/2 power. That's what I meant by more power.
     
  22. Jbrown

    Jbrown OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    44,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas
    Yeah I saw one last night, but I couldn't remember who took it. I was lookign thru all the threads, but I'm guessing you deleted it.
     
  23. mikeskillz

    mikeskillz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks for all the input. im going to try it again with another subject in the near future.
     
  24. Sympathy

    Sympathy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,010
    Likes Received:
    79
    I couldn't resist

    [​IMG]

    :mamoru:
     
  25. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Rawr. I see now. I misread what you had said :hs:
     

Share This Page