Tungsten lights for portraits

Hi

 

I am looking for some information on shooting Tungsten lights for portraits in black and

white . Any examples would be help full so i can see what kind of effect they have to

normal studio flash .

 

Many Thanks , Marc

Blurrier.

In B&W <i>film</i>, Tungstem lights will have absolutely no effect. If shoting digital, their effect could vary.<br> But if your digital is truly B&W, again tungsten will have <i>no</i> effect.

In BW or Color, Film or Digital, using tungsten lighting for portraits will have several effects that won't be present when using studio flash.

 

These include shallower depth of field, slower shutter speeds, higher ISOs and smaller, contracted pupils in the subjects eyes.

 

Shallow depth of field can cause poor focus. Slower shutter speeds can cause camera/subject movement and image blur unless a tripod is used and the subject holds still. And a higher ISO can cause grain or excessive noise.

 

Most modern bw films are panchromatic or equally sensitive to all colors. Using a yellow light with modern bw films, such as tungsten, is similar to using a yellow filter. Yellow subjects record as a lighter tone and blue subjects a darker tone than they would with a daylight balanced studio flash. It's a subtle efect but real, nontheless.

 

Then there's the heat which tungsten lights make more of than light. Could make the model uncomfortable and more likely to insist on shorter portrait sessions.

 

So there are some very real and different effects when using tungsten light instead of studio flash.

Also, keep in mind that you must downrate B&W film when shooting with tungsten lights. To find your working Exposure Index (EI) for the film you're using you need to divide the ISO by 1.5; for example, Tri-X under tungsten lights needs to be rated at an EI of 266 (ISO 400/1.5=EI 266). Hence, the closest film speed to 266 is 250.

Cosmo is absolutely correct. <p>I have made fine portraits using one Tota-lite. But that was in winter (they are hot) with the camera on a tripod, and a reclining, mature subject. Avoid animated children, hot weather (unless you want sweaty people), slow emulsions, slow lenses and hand holding the camera, <i>if</i> you want sharp images when using tungsten lighting... t

Don't mean to sound contentious, but:<br>Brook said (in part): "<i>So there are some very real and different effects when using tungsten light instead of studio flash.</i><p>Brook's and Cosmo's observations fly in the face of those of us who shot "hot lights" before affordable strobes came along. Both infer (but donﾒt say) "However, you'll need more (stronger) light". <br> True and again, millions of photos were made under ﾓhot lightsﾔ with none of what Brooks or Cosmo have said (and diidn't say.)<p>You'll need to shoot in full manual to obtain the <I>proper exposure</I>, but none of what they say is correct. We're talking B&W, not color. There is no depth of field problem either, especially if you set/select your own aperture, then make a reading (<I>preferably with a hand-held meter</I>) but an <I>accurate</I> in-camera meter will also work.<br> Take in account that DOF is a function of the aperture, not the light.<br>However, if your ambient reading doesnﾒt give you the aperture you want/need, youﾒll have to<br> 1. use stronger lighting or<br> 2. get closer to your subject. Both factors add to (<I>or detract from</I>) the <I>shooting</I> aperture you get.<p>Brooks is correct in that hot lights are ﾓWYSIWYGﾔ: that is: you see the light and how it ﾓwrapsﾔ, instantly see the light fall-off, see the shadows and how they play-etc. (<I> you probably already knew all that</I>).<br>With strobes, you donﾒt <I>know</I> diddly until you look at the preview/print. <p>The comments on slow shutter speeds are nearly correct, though <I>proper</I> shutter speeds are dictated by a number of factors:<br> 1. the aperture you set/select<br>2. whether or not you want to use an ambient exposure and <br>3. the ISO you choose. <p>We old-timers usually used slow (25, 50, 64) ISO film and shot our hot lights at f/5.6 @ 1/30th or 1/60th. <br>You have more options speed-wise today, but Iﾒd like to have a dime for every photo I shot at those slow shutter speeds.

Ed, first of all, I'm only talking about black & white film here---I've said nothing about color (what I said does NOT apply to color). Second, I am not implying that you need more light; you inferred incorrectly. The fact is that there is a "Tungsten Factor" for properly exposing black & white film under tungsten light---<I>i.e.</I>, Daylight ISO divided by 1.5 = Tungsten EI. Even Kodak recognizes that differences exist between exposing film to daylight and exposing it to tungsten. For example, for any given filter (with the exception of green and the polarizer, for reasons I can't explain) there's a difference in the filter factor for shooting under daylight and for shooting under tungsten. You can see those differences here for both daylight and tungsten <I>See</I>, "Tech Pub F-4017" (scroll down until you come to the heading "Filter Corrections"):

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jhtml?id=0.1.22.14.23.16.14&lc=en#expose.

Ed, perhaps you are old enough to remember when every box of Tri-X came with a data sheet that clearly showed Tri-X should be rated at 200 when exposed under tungsten light. This certainly is a difference one must anticipate with tungsten light that does not apply to full spectrum light, from any source. <p>All the considerations you name that aren't to be considered, just prove the point that photographing living people with strobe is different than photographing people with <i>any</i> continuous light source. <p>There <i>is</i> a depth of field "problem" if your subjects are moving, and you want to stop that movement (although that isn't necessary, in my opinion). <p>And I cannot imagine how getting closer to your subjects will affect your aperture, except to make depth of field even smaller at any aperture... it certainly doesn't change the exposure, unless you get so close that bellows factor comes into play. It certainly doesn't make the light brighter. Did you mean move <i>the light</i> closer?<p>The problem with fixing all those <i>not problems</i> by increasing the power of your lights is that the temperature can be uncomfortable (that's why I suggested Winter work).<p>None of this implies that portraits <i>cannot</i> be made by tungsten lighting, and certainly this is known by Brooks and Cosmo. They also know that there are considerations particular to those type of lights, just as there are considerations particular to strobe, HMI, and florescent lights... t <p>and what did you mean by "<i>whether or not you want to use an ambient exposure</i>"... ambient as opposed to what? What other type of light would there be, beside "ambient" when photographing by tungsten light? Are you supposing some daylight source would be available? I don't understand how that possibility might apply into this discussion, except to complicate it unnecessarily...

I have done a fair amount of portrait shooting with hot lights and some with strobes. I can tell you that if you are using hot lights you will be using slower shutter speeds which will blur photos and result in a lot of ruined shots from blinking and small movements. Some people work very well with hot lights and can freeze on cue. Others never get it.

 

My advice is to save up and buy strobes. They allow me to take pictures of my son, which would not have worked with my old hot lights. Children only hold still when they are asleep.

In addition to all the obvious differences in effects between tungsten and flash lighting that have already been mentioned, here's another one.

 

Using bright continuos ighting will cause the subject's pupils to contract. Put a 1000 watt totalight into an umbrella and compare the brightness to a 250 watt modelling lamp in a flash head.

 

This effect could be a positive or a negative depending on your preference but it is certainly a diference between continuous and flash lighting.

Another aspect of hot lights that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the quality of the light itself (independent of the film type used). Shooting a Lowel Omni or DP light through a simple softbox produces a beautifully soft light that is hard to match with a strobes. Mind you, it can be done, but it requires much more expensive modifiers.</p>

Having said that, I never use my hot lights anymore because of all of the inconveniences listed in the above postings.

Hell, what would I know? I've only been in the business since 1956, shooting in studios under hot lights until the mid-eighties, most of that time shooting B&W (<I>into the mid-sixties.</i>)<br> Maybe what you "younguns'" do is different than in the good old days: BS!<p><I>The properties of light and how it behaves has not changed</I>, the specs for rating <i>one specific film at ISO 200 notwithstanding</i>. <p>And all my ﾓhot lightsﾔ are HMI (<I>changed over in 1999-2000</I>), so heat is <I>not</I> a factor.<br>

Ed,

 

You must be a bit older than me, I didn't start using tungsten lighting until about 1960.

 

I can't remember when I changed to flash, it was once studio flash became affordable and was good enough to replace tungsten. Things have certainly moved on since then and although I still have a couple of HMI lights (used very rarely) I certainly wouldn't want to go back to last centurys' technology, any more than I would want to go back to driving the cars I drove in the 1960s - thanks very much but I'll stick with modern safety and comfort standards!

 

As for your reference to HMI, yes it does have some advantages but I get the feeling that most of the people who are trying to decide whether to go for hot lights or flash aren't planning on the kind of financial investment needed for HMI