I need a Polaroid back or a 195. Man.

No matter what I do, if I use more than 1 light on a subject, I get more than one shadow on her. This is fine when I'm blowing out or separately lighting the background/environment, but when shadows are cast off the model onto anything behind/beside her, it gets really gross.

The reason I'm asking this is because I have an 'important' shoot tomorrow, and I know how I want the lighting, but that if experience is anything my lighting plan will fail. THIS is what I want:

1) she will be on couches, chairs, and maybe a studio bed (D'Orazio-esque); i.e., everything will be slightly or fully horizontal.

2) I want soft lighting throughout

3) I want a strong, spot-like effect on her face

4) I want 1 shadow...uh oh.

5) I plan on doing it this way: my umbrella-ed 60/40 a couple of feet away from her and to the side; and my Slo-Fen-ned 60CT by the ceiling aimed directly down at her

will 5 work given 2, 3 and 4?

I'll be shooting TechPan and Kodak Pro 100...shawn

ps prob'ly ain't gonna get an Octa-thingie or 4800WS head in the next few hours, so is there anyway I can do this with what I have (mentioned above)?

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000

Answers

ps I know 2 and 3 collide, but I expect something interesting...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

...and hopefully without yucki crossed shadows.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

Shawn,

I wouldn't use a soft source as a main if I were after a "spotlight" [fresnel] main-light-look. Given your equipment at hand, I would use a bare head strobe as a main, with the umbrella as fill. Put you main close [because it has a low output], and move your fill away from the model to get the correct ratio. Set it up with a pretty broad ratio, such as 4:1, and you should be off to the races! I'd also look at what you're getting with the fill at a fairly hard angle to the model, like 90* or so.

The crossed shadow problem is corrected by increasing the ratio between your main and fill light[s]. FWIW, Sante D. shoots with huge HMI fresnel, with no fill. But his beam pattern is probably in the neighborhood of 10~15 feet, with no intensity variation throughout the beam. He also uses a KR12 to give it that sunset look [at least for the Victoria's Secret stuff of old]. We lil people have to improvise to get a similar look, and I think this should do it, but obviously on a much smaller scale.

Should a bought a Blad with a 'roid back! Hahahaha, just kidding. Good luck.

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

Put you main close [because it has a low output], and move your fill away from the model to get the correct ratio. Set it up with a pretty broad ratio, such as 4:1, and you should be off to the races! I'd also look at what you're getting with the fill at a fairly hard angle to the model, like 90* or so.

Thanks for the response, Robert; good timing. In "me"-speak, does this mean:

1) put the powerful head with the Slo-Fen diffuser into the umbrella, bounce it backwards (not shoot-thru), at the same plane as the model, and set it to, say, f16

2) take the smaller light, move it in close, and unmodified, at 90deg (direct overhead and angled down on the stand), and set it to f8? (that's 4:1, right?). Thanks again. shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

ps you may be right 'bout the "Blad. Only 'roid I got's a mental haemmoroid.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

Shawn, I don't know the exact look you're after, but for a single shadow, you could make your main light SO DIFFUSE (ie, real large source) that no shadows are apparent; then using a spot on her face will produce the only obvious shadow.

A second option, assuming you use an umbrella for the main, would be to mount your spot projector within the span of the umbrella; ie, a harsh light source within a soft source. Now, the question is how? For the B&W, IF you have a slide projector, you could set it up within the umbrella's coverage and use a cutout (slide) to limit the spot size. Use shutter time to balance light levels with the umbrella flash.

For the color, you COULD rig up up a small flash unit with some lenses into a projector. However, don't consider this for right now unless you already have a good general understanding of how a projector works optically.

FWIW, Norman Enterprises ( http://www.photo-control.com/norman.htm ) has a projection flash head called the Tri-Lite (P/N TL-2000?) that can take up to 2,000 WS power and is focusable with slides. I think it's out of your price range (~$1,000), but it demonstrates the general idea of what you would want to rig up. Norman also has fresnel lensed light heads.

-- Bill C (bcarriel@cpicorp.com), March 18, 2000.

You're just about there. But hows-about we call the lights by their function so as to save on the confusion?

Your main light is [should be!] the light that casts the shadow on your subject, and sets the base exposure for everything else to work around. Your fill light adds light at a lower [hopefully!] level to soften the shadow created by the main, to the extent so as to achieve the desired effect that you want. With me so far?

Lets look at "light modifiers" for a moment. A light modifier is anything that you either stick to the head [bowl/dish reflector, beauty dish, softbox, 60/40 device, whatever] or stick in the lights path [gobo/flag, scrim]. Still hanging in there? Now, whichever method you use to "modify" your light quality, it will have a signature that may or may not support the effect you are after. A good example would be the use of a softbox to light a baby portrait [yuck!]. A softbox placed close to the subject would bring a light quality supportive of the subject, it would yield the baby in a nice, soft pool of light, making the little bugger appear all warm, cute, and cuddly. BUT, if you were to shoot that little rug rat with a 20K movie spot, placed at the same distance to the subject as the softbox was, besides getting a portrait that made Jr. look like David Hamiltons crispy offspring, it may be a little harsh too, but it would definitely yield a totally different "feel" to the resulting image. Kinda get the idea now? Just a little more, softboxes work because they broaden the area of the light, and create a large, diffused source. The closer to the subject that they are placed, the more apparent this soft effect is [to the point that they are placed equal to their long dimension]. Conversely, you could in theory, given a sufficiently powerful system, move a softbox far enough away from your subject to get it to replicate a focusing spot. Know what I mean?

This is a very broad subject, much beyond a single post; its more like a lifelong T&E exercise. One final point, the larger the light source the softer the look [generally] and that means the softer the shadow will be, given the same light is used [close softbox vs. far softbox, close 8 dish vs. far 8 dish, close 60/40 vs. far 60/40].

Technically, what all this is talking about is the edge effect of the demarcation area between the highlights and shadows, which is called the penumbra. A good definition of penumbra can be found in Photographing in the Studio, by Gary Kolb:

Penumbra: The transition area between light and shadow. The smaller the penumbra, the sharper the shadow appears, and the more contrasty is the light.

Still there?

So, not having used a 60/40, but thinking that I know how they work, I ass-u-me that it is a small pocket bounce device that is supposed to "soften" the flash by allowing you to bounce it into the 60/40. Is that correct? If, so you do not want to use it on your main light because it will diffuse the point light effect as compared to the bare head/tube. Now, this is all theoretical to this point, but if you truly want a focused spot effect, then any form of diffusion on your main would soften the penumbra, right? Still breathing? I usually would never advocate shooting a less than flawless model, with less than professional make up, etc. under direct light, but you did ask how to recreate the spot look. It may prove out that the 60/40 main, placed at a distance of say 8 feet would provide the effect youre after. But without the immediate feedback that roids give, it will be a very tedious wait for the film to see what happened. You will have to keep VERY specific notes, and make accurate measured diagrams of the lights relationship to the subject, etc. But again, I would put a naked strobe main above camera level, and may or may not use some sort of diffused fill at a 4:1 ratio [main light =4, fill =1, or main at f16, fill four stops less at f5.6] Oh, and BTW, there is a lot of dispute about lighting ratios, and their exact definition. But how I use them is to express the difference between lights as the example above. It works for me. Finally, the only reason that I would entertain the idea of using a fill would be because your main is probably too weak to keep the whole scene within the films dynamic range, but for a really dramatic look, definitely try one light only shots.

Im sure that I left a bunch of stuff out, but post whats still confusing, and Ill try to explain further. Welcome to the party, pal!

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

Clarification: there is no dispute as to what a lighting ratio is, but how one is expressed. I express the total f-stop difference as the ratio, while other express a one f-stop difference as 2:1, a two f-stop difference as 4:1, etc.

Sorry for the confusion. I need a beer!

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

Well Shawn, I like your style of posting so much, I'm doing it myself. My math is off also, f/16 to f/5.6 is only three stops, so in our example th efill should be at f/4.

Slowly tipping back the second one.....

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

1) shadows are set by main light which sets exposure ("this pic will be an f11 pic"...)

2) The main light should be the one casting the shadow, if only one shadow is prefered. The secondary light (in my case the Metz 60/40, which is a 'twin' flash to go with the 60, at GN40, operating of the same dryfit...) should be used to soften shadows and/or create effects. But I find this a little confusing since my secondary light is a 'bare' flash head...

From what I've learned, the bigger the source, and the closer it is to the subject, the softer the light will be (the smother and less contrasty the shadows...). But if I am using a small source as a secondary (fill, effect) light, won't that cause a second shadow which is 'harder' than the one put out by the umbrella-ed main light? This is what seems to happen every time I use 2 lights. BUT:

I have never taken ratios into account. I usually like to have thee secondary light add about one stop to the exposure of the area it is affecting; i.e., if the umbrella is giving f11 on the front of the face itself, and I want to add 1 stop of 'hard' light to the forehead, I set the secondary light so that the total exposure of BOTH lights equals f8...but I always end up with 2 shadows, 1 soft, one hard, and both groos as a result of their duplicity (;-<).

I'll drive you nuts yet.

I think what I need to know is what you have hinted at with ratios: How much of a difference should there be between 2 sources placed in different parts of the composition (different angles) in order for one to be strong enough to overpower the other. THAT'S IT!!! That's the question I need answered: CAN such a setup be had? and if yes, what ratios practically guarantee success (better yet, what number of f-stops should the difference be?)?

thanks very very much, Robert.

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

..."for one to be strong enough to overpower the other'S SHADOWS...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

I think you answered it actually: the main light should be the umbrella, and if I set it at f11, then the secondary bare flash should be at f4, right (and the camera set to f11)? This will either obliterate or soften greatly the main shadow?

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

I don't know if 'theory' is ever going to work for me. I need a Polaroid back...seriously...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

b-r-e-a-t-h-----s-l-o-w-l-y, we're almost there! The 60/40 is a two head [lamp] flash? Okay, larger [60] dedicated as main with a [40] secondary lamp used as fill....... sounds like wedding stuff to me, but it will work, however, a little modified over my initial opinion.

Using your last numbers:

#1) yes, right, do you see the light now...... go towards the light Shawn....

#2) yes, main light is the one casting the shadow, but we get F***'d- up with this two headed flash [more appropriately two tubed, right?]. You can only have one [meaning ONE flash tube/tungsten/HMI or whatever bulb/lamp] serve as the MAIN light source. Even though they are really really close to each other, you are going to get dual shadows, unless you put the entire head into a softbox or umbrella and then both heads will be combined into one source [assuming they are pointed into the device in the same direction]. If you leave the unit as is [at least from my new understanding of what the 60/40 is] you will get two shadows no matter what. Is it possible to turn one of the tubes off [preferable the 40] and get a higher single tube output? Probably not, but all is not lost, read on...

Ratios are your friends, embrace them, know them, and love them. Knowing the different types of modifiers allows you to alter the look, or create a look, for an image, and once you have a firm grasp of how to do it "right", then you can set forth to break the rules. Knowing ratios let you set mood with any kind of lighting equipment. Hang in there!

Given the equipment at hand, use a single, bare tubed flash head as your main. Even if it isn't your strongest output head. Think "sun" here, one blazing single light source. How'd that F***ing umbrella sneak back in there on the main light? I thought we were clear on this, BARE TUBE, OPEN FLASH, NO MODIFIERS. Do you read me mister!

The main will set the next heads output level. If the main is at f/11, you should be able to get NO ancillary shadow at probably f/5.6 [minus 2 stops] for a fill light reading. At no time are we dealing with any other readings [like combined --- jeesh, where did that come from ;O)]. Main=f/11, fill=f/5.6=you'll be close; fill @f/4 would be better [assuming 100iso film].

Uh, lets see, what else, oh ya, as to your metering technique. I know you are pointing the diffusion dome of your flash meter AT THE LIGHT SOURCE, right!?! You need to be very careful when you measure your lights, to make sure that you are only reading the intended individual light, not COMBINED measurements. If your main light reads f/11, that's all you care about, you set everything from that, including your camera. Your fill light should be placed at such an angle so as not to compete with the main lights side [if you will] of the contribution to illuminating the model. Okay so far? For a model reclining on a couch, place your main light at 6 feet off the floor, camera right, 4 feet away from her and pointed at her [?] head, it should be pointed downwards at a 45* angle. Your fill should be to camera left, at about 4 feet off the floor, and say 45* pointing in from 8 feet away. No fill light will spill over onto the main light side of her face. The main light is a bare tubed flash head [we want a focused, spot look] and the fill is a broad beamed, soft raking light, so we will use an umbrella set two to three stops under the base exposure [main light reading]. Now, set the cameras exposure to accomplish what you want. I shoot tranys almost exclusively, so if I want a REALLY dramatic look, Ill set the camera to the main lights base reading. By opening up the aperture, I am letting in more light, and increasing the reach and effect of my light. I will get a larger penumbra with larger apertures. Whoa! Where did that come from?!? Yup, its true, and you can use it to good effect too. If I want to shoot a really dramatically lit shot, Ill get out all of my grid- spot attachments, crank all of the power pucks up to full-tilt, and shoot at the smallest aperture I can. There is very little bleed over between the different spots of light when you do this. The edge effect is very sharp [small penumbra]. BUT, on the flip side of this is you. Your equipment is too puny to allow you to shoot at f/16. At the wider apertures that you will be shooting at [f/5.6 or f/8] you will have to be very diligent in controlling your spill [use gobos], but no matter what, the penumbra will be larger than when shooting at f/16 with a similar head.

Sorry to keep brining up new things, but to fully grasp the entire theory of lighting is beyond a couple of paragraphs. I think that we are working through multiple problems here, but hopefully getting closer to what you want to get. I would suggest checking out the Pro- Lighting series by RotoVision. They are really fairly well done books, and are up to date. BTW, a couple of my pics will be in two new volumes coming out any day now, so I have a vested interest in there use!

This sucks trying to type what would be immediately explained with two or three pics. Arg! Let me know, and keep me posted.

As a final method of illustrating what to do. Given my equipment, I would set up a grid spotted main light, with fill from an Octabank. I'd probably through in another grid spot as a hair light for separation, but would largely rely on the Polaroids for final tweaking. You have to get roid capable ASAP.

Bet you're having fun now!! I can smell the smoke from here!!

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

OK it's sinking in, but there is a problem still (of course...hopefully the last one): the 60/40 is a SEPARATE, individual head. I have two flash heads, 1 is GN60, the other is GN40; they both operate of the same battery, that's all, different stands. Everything else you're saying is starting to sink in, though, Robert, I promise...

...li'l shawnie (feels like public school... and I just ain't gettin' the long division)...b-r-e-a-t-h-e indeed...

ps what publication/date/IBSEN...no that's the Wild Duck/ISBEN/etc?

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid polaroid ...and fast.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

Cool [or is that "word" now], were close. Since the 60/40 is two heads, set the 60 as main, the 40 as fill. An umbrella should suck enough juice out of the 40 to account for a couple of stops, so it wont have to be so far away. Given a third light, use it to illuminate the background or as a hair/rim/edge light. On second thought, keep it simple, youre not allowed to use more than two lights for the next 6 months!

You have the concept down, but get gummed up when different numbers are plugged in. It's all about establishing a base reading, and then setting up each additional item from that. You need to know what you are after [hard light, spot look, or soft and romantic--weeeee] then use the appropriate items to create your vision. The higher the lighting ratio, the more dramatic the lighting effect. The farther the light is from the subject, the smaller the penumbra, and the larger the source the softer the look. F-stops and shutter speeds both effect exposure, but in their own ways. You have to know what everything does [or at least be big enough that clients are afraid to challenge your use of the now-notorious 60/40 lighting system for a Vogue cover shoot]

Being a photographer is about being able to decipher the vast combination of variables to achieve the look you are after. You need to build a real world database of experimental "when I do this, I get this" images. A good way to do that is with Polaroids because the results are immediate.

It can be said 100 different way's, and until you can come up with three different ways of obtaining the same end result you do not know your subject thoroughly. You're doing REALLY well for a "new guy", and you have my best wishes for success.

The two titles I will be in are: Provocative Shots and B/W Shots. They said it was due out in early March, but I still haven't received my comp'd copies yet, so who knows. The series [I think it's up to 16 or so volumes] is quite informative and forth coming.

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

Robert, you're amazing. Thanks. I'll look both up. They're not part of the "Pro Lighting" series, are they?--just kidding, though I have several of those books and what you said was as good or better, and much clearer given the particularity of my circumstances which you addressed directly...thanks again Robert.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

jeesh, i got so caught up in the specs i missed the Pro Lighting bit you wrote of. They are the best technique books I've ever read, even though I still find them (and all books on lighting) difficult to translate when shooting for real. Congrats...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

b-r-e-a-t-h---s-l-o-w-l-y..

Way past #s two, three and four, feet on desk, game about to come on, pushing back #5...... Ahhhhhhhhhh the patient will survive.....

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 18, 2000.

Sean's questions are always so much fun :)!

Ok robert gave you one great way of doing it here's another 2, it assumes a couple things:

Assumptions: You have a window You have a bed YOu can find, steal, or borrow a nice CLEAN white translucent fabric

Now take the fabric drape it over the window in some fashion and bam you have a great full flowing soft light which is damn hard to match with studio lighting. This takes care of #1 and #2

Now for the rest #3 is a pain because you don't say what kinda spot you want, do you want her to look flashed? Do you just want the focus of strong light on her face? Lets assume you just want her face to be bright and well lit without a stage light type flash on her face. Now you can do this pretty easily with a bright silver reflector on her face. Now you can buy a nice fold up type reflector or just setup a cardboard with aluminum foil stapled to it, either works.

#4 is easier because a shadow will be natural from her body away from the light source (a duh statement but it's reality) Now if you want another shadow you can achieve it by placing the flash opposite to where you want the shadow to run to. The size and shape of the shadow depends on the type of light, type of subject, and position of the light.

#5 You can do this with just about any type of lighting if you plan the shoot for the right time of day (something that is left out of a lot of photoshoot plans)

#6 If you want soft light make sure you slam the light off a surface direct flash without a good LARGE diffuser is going to be harder than it needs to be.

_____________________________________

Method 2

Get a large box Octa (the big octa is about 74 inches wide) or Giant Chimera suspend it off a boom over her and the bed, the closer to her the better for a softer light.

Now take a gridded spot and focus on her face

YOu can measure the ratio with a flashmeter or use a polaroid (GET ONE NOW)

_________________________________________ Not for Tomorrow: Now after you mess with all this get a 85 or a Half 85 set of gels and play with that. If you don't know what an 85 does, get a book on filters this ones a gem.

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), March 19, 2000.

I have previously mentioned http://www.willcrockett.com/ as an excellent resource for portrait lighting. Have a look. Read the pocket guide (ask for a printed version and I hope he has fixed the duplicated pages). Then you'll start to worry about colour temperature :-). Lights are "easy" (especially in a traditional portrait setup).

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 19, 2000.

Shawn how did the shoot go?

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), March 19, 2000.

It went really well. I actually came back to this post once while she was preparing (computers relax my nerves). The leaf shutter I just started using also worked like a charm during the big-window with blinds background/EF subject shots (the ambient backgrounds are sharp...yippie!)...I'll post when I can.

Thanks so much...

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

I have a question for this most interesting thread:

The wise Robert Anderson wrote: ". If your main light reads f/11, that's all you care about, you set everything from that, including your camera. "

This contradicts my experience. When I set my meter to the main light, I get blocked up blacks -- I only shoot black and white. Following Phil Davis' advice in a recent issue of Photo Techniques. I've been basing my exposures on the shadow (or fill, if you will) value of my meter. Then, as long as the main is two stops stronger, all is well, and I develop normally. If it's less than two stops, I add a little time to the development, and so forth.

I would think your method would cause a lot of empty shadows.... I only set to the main light if I want this look.

Any comments?

Bryant

-- bryant urstadt (bryantu@mindspring.com), March 20, 2000.

I don't think he meant set it to f11, but simply use f11 as the base of whatever you normally do afterwards...sorry in a hurry. shawn

-- shawn gibson (shawn.gibson@utoronto.ca), March 20, 2000.

I meant Robert of course, and of course, I say of course I could be wrong...

shawn

-- shawn gibson (shawn.gibson@utoronto.ca), March 20, 2000.

You are correct sir! It is just another way of working, but when using ratios to set auxillary lights to, it's easier for my pea brain to work off of one f-stop, then adjust from there.

Sorry if my numerouse posts weave in and out of context/linear logic, but we were trying to get Shawn over-the-hump as they say.

Lets see some pics me boy.....

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 20, 2000.

they's a cumin as of April 1st, when i'll get's a whole wack scanned at BGM (Imagin', of course..., in Taran'a)...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.