lights that could take this amazing pic

[vrphoto]

Hi. I'm looking at fluorescent lights and saw this gorgeous pic on flickr that

was taken with them:

 

 

Any ideas on the kind of setup that could do this? Looks like two lights with at

least one softbox on the one on the right for the catchlight?

 

I wrote the person who posted it but haven't heard back. I've searched on this

site and what I read was negative about fluorescents and basically say you

couldn't take a picture like this because they aren't bright enough. Hmm. Maybe

the new fluorescents are brighter now?

 

Thanks for any comments or ideas!<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Those don't have to be particularly bright lights. With a fast enough lens, you could do that with fairly modest lighting, even just off of a simple reflector. Speaking of fast lenses, that does look wide open (note the well-blurred background). Very shallow depth of field... see how the focus is on the cloth over the mouth? By the time you get to the eyes, the focus is already slipping, and by the time you get to the hair by the ears, it's clearly out.

 

We don't have any EXIF data to go on, here, but that could easily be a lens at f/1.8 or 1.4. With a relatively quite sensor/camera set to ISO 400 or 800, that shot could definitely be achieved with lower-power flourescents. It's more important to think about the nature of the reflector or modifier. And a good tripod.

 

Or, strobes. That could definitely be done - exactly as you see it - using a simple $200 speedlight and a piece of foam core as a reflector.

[garry edwards]

I'm one of the people who is negative about fluorescents, or at least the ones sold for the amateur market (the ones used in TV studios are very different).

 

Fluorescents have improved, but IMO are still a very poor choice for any kind of people photography. Cameras have improved, and it's now possible to crank the ISO up on some cameras without getting impossibly noisy images - whether the results are acceptable or not depends on personal standards. Very fast lenses can also help to make fluorescents usable (just) but not everyone wants to shoot everything wide open.

 

Regardless of the lens and/or camera, power isn't the only issue. Lack of adjustability, lack of a good range of light modifiers and problems with colour are just as important.

[randmcnatt]

We use fluorescents almost exclusively for supplemental lighting and have very good results with them. They're wonderful for portraits, especially children; we use them as artificial north-light windows. We've even started using them to recreate the look of 20s/30s Hollywood production stills. As far as color goes, what matters is the type of bulbs used: the quality of light from a modern 90-or-better-cri fluorescent tube is remarkable good.

 

The lighting here, if really fluorescent, could be as simple and cheap as a 2x4 ceiling troffer standing on end, or could be the more expensive professional fluorescent fixtures that are coming on the market.

 

A better here question would be, what reflectors/modifiers were used, and how. To that end, I see a medium-sized rectangular softbox used close, low and almost 90 degrees to the subject's left, along with a smaller light source about head-high behind and to the subject's right. That second source could be a reflector. Beyond that, there is a photographer with a good understanding of light and in full control of the medium.

[brooks short]

I agree it's more about the light modifiers and their placement than the type of light. You could do a shot like this with fluorescents, hot lights or strobes.

 

Hot lights would be hot and uncomfortable and cause the pupils of the eyes to contract which is not what's happening here.

 

The difference between fluorescents and strobe in this shot would be the amount of light available and the amount of light available does limit or expand your creative options.

 

Fluorescents are very dim compared to most studio flashes and impose limitations, such as having to use a higher ISO, a wider f-stop, and a tripod to deal with lower shutter speeds.

 

A studio strobe produces much more light and allows you to make creative choices of any f-stop, fast or slow shutter speeds for ambient light control if desired, and the freedom to shoot handheld without a tripod.

 

Do you want the heat and contracted pupils, slow shutter speeds, high ISOs, wide f-stops of hot lights.... or .... the slow shutter speeds, high ISOs and only wide f-stops of fluorescents... or....use studio strobes and enjoy the freedom to choose any f-stop, low or high ISOs and a shutter speed that allows you to easily move with your subject as you frame and compose the shot?

 

Your choice.

[digitmstr]

If you know what you are doing you can take that picture (or any like it) with two tungsten bulbs and a diffuser.

 

Ultimately, it's not the light that takes the picture. AN image is the result of a vision which should be one's own. The drive to achieve that image will dictate the type of equipment necessary.

 

You can look at other peoples' work and find it inspiring but, don't think for a minute that it's the equipment doing it. It's the photographer's vision who then, decided on a particular type of tool to create the work as he/she envisioned in the first place.

 

In other words: the vision dictates the tools, not the other way around...

[vrphoto]

Can you tell me if you did this with a speedlight and reflector, would you have the speedlight on the left then and the reflector on the right?

 

Thanks so much for your help. I really like the idea of continuous lighting--as a natural light photog, I'm used to low-ish light for portraits and wide-open lenses. I take pics of children, so flash reload times are going to matter. (I often have to park my finger on the shutter using the burst mode) and I like being able to see the shadows and light with continuous, where it's so different with flash.

 

But I'm very interested to know what you can do with speedlights and if you can do this so simply, then maybe the advantages of flash will make it worth it. So any other thoughts you have on the matter will be appreciated.

[vrphoto]

Sorry I posted that last comment before I had a chance to read the others. Thanks so much for your input...

 

I understand the vision is the photographer's by the way, but one does need to buy equipment and make the best decision doing so that is possible:) So why not find a beautifully done image and find out what the different equipment is that is needed. I appreciate knowing the options. Sounds like the beautiful catchlight is the medium-sized rectangular reflector, so I really am glad to know that and I'm still pondering the lighting to use.

 

I really do like being able to use burst mode with infants and children, so I have to think about that. I might just get the speedlight and a cheap fluorescent to have both.

 

Any other comments welcome!

[edouard.boily]

My guess on the setup would be a vertical softbox at 80 degres from the subject (angle

camera-subject-softbox), about 30 degrees below the eye level, and quite close to the

subject. A second lighter light, also with a light modif too, I'd say maybe an umbrella, slightly

behind the subject, something like 120 degres at the eye level. It looks like a 1/2 light ratio

between the strobes.

I would also bet on a red filter applied on the post processing to B&W.

 

I may also very well be wrong. :-)