Ad-hoc Lighting solution - advice/suggestions please!

I'm not a complete beginner in photography, but I am in terms of 'lighting solutions'. I know the theory and which 'lighting tech' is available and (roughly) suitable in which situations. But 95% of my practical 'lighting' experience is limited to 'making the best use of ambient lighting'. Very occasionally using a reflector (without a stand) and an on-camera flash (with diffuser). I try to avoid using a flash whenever possible because I've basically never bothered to learn to use it well :(. So the results have been mixed. My 'strategy' so far has been to take photos using 'ambient light' and adjust the 'exposure', white balance, shadows, highlights, etc. in different parts of a photo in PP as and when necessary.

 

I've been asked to do a couple of (voluntary) photo-shoots in the coming days for a local library-service 'flyer'. Not because of my 'photography expertise'' but because of my voluntary photography work in related 'social services', my involvement in the design of the 'flyer' and my personal connections with all the parties involved. For some reason, they all have faith that - even as an amateur - I'll somehow 'come up with the goods'.

 

But I'm getting nervous! I'm pretty sure that the example photos we've used in 'drafts' of our flyer were taken by much more experienced - probably professional - photographers using mobile off-camera lighting solutions to 'model' the subjects (in 3-D).

 

I'm quite comfortable about all the 'inter-personal' stuff but because these photos may have a 'shelf life' of years (rather than weeks or months), I'd like to get things as right as possible from the start. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions (closed shops) and my temporary residence (on-line delivery), I have to make do with what I currently have.

 

This is what I've come up with so far:

- if I can find perspectives that are OK for 'modelling' in natural light (without any interventions) then I just take the shots and improve in PP as necessary

- if just my reflector improves the 'modelling' then use it

- try turning my on-camera flash towards my reflector to simulate the effect of an off-camera flash (+ softbox)

 

I don' t have a whole lot of time or patience from my subjects (maybe 1 hour max.) to get through multiple shots.

 

So my questions are:

- given my limited experience and resources w.r.t. lighting, does the approach outlined above sound reasonable?

- do you have any additional quick and easy tips?

 

My thanks in advance!

 

PS. I've been wondering for some months whether I - and others - as voluntary, unpaid amateur photographers should 'invest' - at our own cost - in better cameras, lenses and mobile lighting solutions. I'm still mulling this over. In posting this, it occurs to me that other volunteers (rightly) claim reimbursement of expenses for travel, equipment renewal, etc. Photographers generally don't. To be continued!

I would go for either option 1 or option 2 and forget about the on camera flash. These flashes usually aren't very powerful and because of their small size and placement can't be diffused very well. If you are called upon to do this very much I would look into an AC powered flash, sturdy light stand and large umbrella for starters, along with another stand and clamps for mounting a reflector. That would cover a lot of informal/environmental portrait work without spending too much. Ideally, a decent flash meter would speed things up--a new Sekonic 308 runs about $200, and there are usually decent used flash meters from Minolta, Sekonic and others starting at around $100. I use mine for these kinds of shots to be able to set up before the subject arrives so that I can get right to the photography and not have a subject fidgeting while I set up.

Nothing wrong with natural light, provided it's in the right place, quantity and quality and not too contrasty.

 

Contrast can be controlled with fill flash (be subtle, please - like 2.5 to 3 stops below the ambient exposure), or by using a reflector. Flash can also be bounced off a white, or light-coloured wall or ceiling, and a digital camera lets you see the effect straight away.

 

Some 'expert' videos show a reflector being placed directly opposite a side key light - wrong! This results in a dark line down the middle of a portrait-sitter's face. So place the reflector at about 45 degrees opposite the key light direction. Or frontally.

 

Flash: Benefits - absolute control and consistency of exposure and colour.

You can hardly go wrong with a brolly or softbox, or two.

 

I like softbox-brollys. These are softboxes that fold down like an umbrella. Best invention since sliced bread IMO, for extremely portable setups. They do need stands and preferably radio triggers to fire them, but you could get away with a long P-C cable (trip hazard alert!).

 

Here's one of those softbox-brollies in action.

They're not very costly, and nor is a lightweight stand. Basic 'dumb' RF trigger kits don't cost much either.

 

At portrait distances (with brolly about 5 or 6ft from subject) and a decent speedlight, you'll get an aperture of f/5.6 or f/8 at full flash output and with an ISO of 100 - 200.

 

With a lower power setting the same softbox can be used as a nice soft fill light.

 

Don't be afraid of flash! It's your friend.

 

Good luck.

I shoot a lot of small "stuff". My typical lighting is a couple high-CRI CFLs in 12" aluminum reflectors, or sometimes old Smith-Victor heads and stands. I keep a lot of Foamcore board around to use as reflectors, and old gallon milk jugs, cut out, to use for small tents. Pieces of milk Plexiglas also come in handy. The one thing I never have time or space for, but adds a lot, is a back light to highlight edges. An umbrella or soft box would be great, but I don't own a one.

Nothing wrong with natural light, provided it's in the right place, quantity and quality and not too contrasty.

 

Contrast can be controlled with fill flash (be subtle, please - like 2.5 to 3 stops below the ambient exposure), or by using a reflector. Flash can also be bounced off a white, or light-coloured wall or ceiling, and a digital camera lets you see the effect straight away.

 

Some 'expert' videos show a reflector being placed directly opposite a side key light - wrong! This results in a dark line down the middle of a portrait-sitter's face. So place the reflector at about 45 degrees opposite the key light direction. Or frontally.

 

Flash: Benefits - absolute control and consistency of exposure and colour.

You can hardly go wrong with a brolly or softbox, or two.

 

I like softbox-brollys. These are softboxes that fold down like an umbrella. Best invention since sliced bread IMO, for extremely portable setups. They do need stands and preferably radio triggers to fire them, but you could get away with a long P-C cable (trip hazard alert!).

 

Here's one of those softbox-brollies in action.

[ATTACH=full]1377222[/ATTACH]They're not very costly, and nor is a lightweight stand. Basic 'dumb' RF trigger kits don't cost much either.

 

At portrait distances (with brolly about 5 or 6ft from subject) and a decent speedlight, you'll get an aperture of f/5.6 or f/8 at full flash output and with an ISO of 100 - 200.

 

With a lower power setting the same softbox can be used as a nice soft fill light.

 

Don't be afraid of flash! It's your friend.

 

Good luck.

I agree to the value of these softbox umbrellas.

It is amazing how little money you have to part with to get beautiful light with little effort.

I think i paid €15 for a stand, €20 for a softbox, €8 for the flashholder and €15 for a simple generic yet powerful manual flash with optical slave functionality.

With my old digital camera I’d tape a piece of paper on the weak build-in flash to direct the light to the ceiling. That would be sufficient to trigger the slave, yet week enough to be insignificant in the resulting image.

These days I use a cheap radio release, but that’s just because my current digital camera doesn’t have a built in flash.

If you are not bothered by the question: how it is possible to make stuff this cheap and still be respectful to workers rights and the environment? Then, this is a great option for your purpose.

If you are not bothered by the question: how it is possible to make stuff this cheap and still be respectful to workers rights and the environment?

That does bother me, but when you know that big brand camera, technology, sportswear, batteries, etc. are all coming out of the same factories in China, Indonesia and other parts of Asia, and being sold at several times the profit margin; what can you do?

 

Stop consuming so much stuff is one answer, I suppose.

e.g., 6 Portrait Lighting Patterns Every Photographer Should Know.

Butterfly, Rembrandt, Split, Clamshell..... errrr.

OK, you've got me for the other two!

 

Oh, I forgot Loop. It's not my favourite.

Edited February 22, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

If you are not bothered by the question: how it is possible to make stuff this cheap and still be respectful to workers rights and the environment?

"there's one thing shareholders hate more than bad press -- and that's a bad quarterly statement",- quote from "Avatar".

Cheap labor jurisdictions, that's where our developed world getting best returns on investment, and our "democratically" appointed leaders do everything they can, to keep it that way.

Nothing wrong with natural light, provided it's in the right place, quantity and quality and not too contrasty.

 

Long ago and far, far away, my beau idéal photographer was Gordon Converse of the Christian Science Monitor.

 

He almost was to the stage of insisting on natural light. Anyhow, I haven't used artificial lighting a lot. I'm still learning though. I'm no longer so much of a fanatic about natural as I once was, but I have "invested" in many ultrafast lenses over the years

There are myriad posts and tutorials on lighting on-line, and it was a perennial topic in the photography magazines.

 

e.g., 6 Portrait Lighting Patterns Every Photographer Should Know