Lighting Recommendation for Large format figure studies

[evangelos_koutsavdis]

Hi:

 

I am interested in hearing what would you recommend as a lighting

solution for figure studies with a Large Format (LF) camera. Right

now, I am using the Smith-Victor flood lights (cheap, 500W total) but

unless I push my film to 800 (HP5+) I cannot get any decent shutter

speeds (with pushing film, I get 1/30 at f/16 with the lights about

4ft away, it realy gets hot). I would like to be able to use a 100ISO

film (say neopan acros) with similar speeds if faster. Does anybody

have any experience with it? What about strobe lights? What would

you recommend on that? Money is an issue as always.

Thanks in advance

[richard_cochran]

If you want to go from ISO 800 to ISO 100, without changing

shutter speed or aperture, you need 8 times as much light.

If you stick with continuous lights, that means 8 times as

much heat, nevermind the problems with getting 8 times

the wattage from a standard household electrical circuit.

It's not very practical.

<p>

It's time to get a strobe or two. A 500 W-s monolight will

give you roughly 30 times as much light in one pop as a

500W photoflood puts out in 1/30 second. And since it only produces

light when you need it (while the shutter is open), it keeps

the studio much cooler, and doesn't put a strain on the electric

wiring. Furthermore, it gives you an effective exposure time

of somewhere around 1/500 or so, much faster than the 1/30 you're

using now.

<p>

See <a href="http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/flash/hotorstrobe.html">

http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/flash/hotorstrobe.html</a> for more

discussion of the relative merits of flash over continous lighting.

[twmeyer]

Ed Weston made plenty of figure studies with an 8x10 camera without manufactured light. Perhaps you might reconsider your approach to the subject? Like give up "action" shots that require faster shutter speeds, or try images that incorporate movement (blur)... t<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

One of many advantages to studio flash is that most incorporate what are usually called "modeling lights" which are essentially just hot lights that let you preview how the final shot with flash will look.

 

Some folks find themselves using only these modeling lights for some shots. A typical 500 w/s studio flash will have something like a 250 watt quartz halogen modeling lamp. Good enough for some work - still lifes with most films or photographing people with fast films.

 

If you're lucky there's a store within driving distance that either rents studio flash or studio space complete with flash, backdrops, etc. One session may give you enough experience to decide whether it's worthwhile buying your own equipment.

 

I haven't used studio lights since photography school but needed to rent a pair of monolights this week on very short notice. I was surprised at how much I'd remembered. The shots turned out very well, tho' it wasn't particularly demanding stuff - just straightforward publicity stills for a stage play. Most were full-on with no gobos, snoots, etc., and no need to worry about adjusting the lights to suit an individual's facial structure. That's the tricky bit to using lights well.

 

In my area I can rent a pair of studio monolights for $50 a day or a complete studio setup - including three lights and backdrop - starting at $100 a day, depending on space size and other special needs. Considering the cost of purchasing good studio lighting that's a pretty reasonable way to help determine whether you want to make the investment.

 

After having used makeshift lighting setups of battery powered flash triggered by optical slaves, garage clamp-on lights with floodlamps, etc., I'm about ready to get some real studio lighting.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

"A 500 W-s monolight will give you roughly 30 times as much light in one pop as a 500W photoflood puts out in 1/30 second".

 

No it does not. This is erroneous. The amount of electrical energy consumed may be the same; the amount of light produced may not be. This is a wrong comparison and the writer of this statement needs to review his facts before disseminating such wrong ideas.

 

You cannot compare the light output of a flash with the light output of a continuous light source just by looking at their power ratings. You cannot even compare two continuous luminaires just by looking at their power ratings. Try comparing the light output of a 2KW HMI Fresnel with a 2KW Tungsten-Halogen Fresnel, for starters.

 

There is no argument about this.

[steve_levine]

If money is an issue,you might try shooting out doors?Buying enough watt seconds of flash to achieve LF apertures(F22),will cost several thousand $$$'s.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Start with daylight, either coming through windows or doors, or by going outdoors. Direct

sun, in the shade, diffused by clouds or sheer curtains, bounced off of a wall or a white

sheet.

 

if you aren't already comfortable with flash, you are making what you want to do much,

much more difficult as you'll have to wrestle with the technical aspects of dealing with the

lights as well as working with your model.

 

A decent guide to how to light for different effects is "Matters of Light and Depth" by Ross

Lowell.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>A 500 W-s monolight will give you roughly 30 times as much light in one pop as a

500W photoflood puts out in 1/30 second".<P>

 

No it does not. This is erroneous. The amount of electrical energy consumed may be the

same; the amount of light produced may not be. This is a wrong comparison and the

writer of this statement needs to review his facts before disseminating such wrong

ideas.</I><P> Mr Shiver is basically right about mere watt (or watt-second) rating being a

measure of brightness. The only way you can directly compare efficiencies of different

light sources would be to use the same fixtures. Much depends on the reflector or light

modifier being used and in

the case of the flash, how efficiently the equipment being used converts the potential

energy stored in the capacitors (watt-seconds or joules) into usable light.<P> However

test after test after has proven that electronic flash does a much more efficient job of

converting electricity

into usable (for the sake of photographic purposes) light. In general from least efficient to

most efficient lights are standard tungsten "household" bulbs, next is Quartz-Halogen,

next is fluorescent, next is HMI, next is daylight (midday) and the most efficient is

electronic flash. And not all electronic flash systems are equal in efficiency.<P>If money is

an issue, use daylight.