Lowel lights for portrait and fashion work?

[j_logan]

Hello All,

 

I'm new to photography and this forum. I have had some background in

filmmaking and video and recebtkt decided to jump to photography as well. I am

interested in portrait and fashion photography; however, I have no training on either

subject.

 

Now the question I pose is this: How good (or bad) are Lowel lights for this type

of photography? I plan to use the DP, Omni and Tota lights diffused through

umbrellas, diffusion paper, etc. to get the softness and lighting effects that I want.

 

Due to my inexperience, I am not sure how this would negatively impact the overal

image quality as far as lighting is concerened. Should I just rent a strobe kit? If

so, which brand and how many lights and wattage would I need to create a very

soft and appealing light? I plan to shoot all female models in a studio setting.

 

Your responses are much appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

J

[brucecahn]

I prefer the Lowell DP light with diffuser rather than flash for portraits. I point it directly at the subject, and put it close as possible, with a 1000 watt bulb. If you are doing portraits for money, the customers will probably complain (customers always complain, including me) about the heat and brightness, so you should use flash. But for dramatic results, the DP is better. I have an omni light too, but rarely use it because it is too specular for a main light. It is good for accent lights. Never used the Tota.

[brooks short]

Anything you can do with hot lights in still photography, you can do with electronic flash.

 

There are modifiers available to create light that is hard (optical spot, bare bulb, parabolic reflector) to directional (many sizes of fresnel spots that take flash heads, grid spots) to soft (umbrellas, softboxes, large silks)

 

You can use strobes with cukes, flags, scrims, half scrims, barndoors, flats, gels, mirrors, anything that works with hot lights.

 

Look for a strobe system with at least 1200ws or 2400ws and modeling lights that are 250 watts or more.

[zfgauthier]

Strobes all the way. I was sick of f/5.6 at 1/30th with a thousand watts of very hot lights. Got a set of speedotron brownlines and couldn't be happier. I know a lot of people say at least "high number of watt-seconds," but honestly I get by with my 200ws power pack absolutely fine. And that's rating my film at 50. I'm usually around f/11 depending on what kind of modifiers I'm using. YMMV of course.

[ronald_moravec1]

Lowell DP are fine. you must use a tripod, but seeing where the shadows are and

bright light for focus are a big plus. My main light goes thru a Calumet diffuser and I

use a second one as a reflector with the optional white fabric. Both are free

standing 4x6 foot and collapse easily for storage.

 

If you point a bare light right at them, you will get complaints. But diffused or

bounced from Lowells heat resistant umbrellas, you get a nice light that will annoy

nobody.

 

My Norman studio strobes have had little use in years.

[j_logan]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Lowel it is until I can upgrade to something else . . . . if that is even necessary . . . :)

[consensus_trance]

My advice is to buy lighting that will last you a lifetime. Don't buy lights thinking that they will just get you started and you'll upgrade later. Make a commitment now.

 

Personally, I love the look of Lowel lights for portraits and fashion. Flash produces a hotspot on the skin of people. Continuous lighting doesn't have this problem. Continuous lighting produces beautiful skin tones.

 

But continuous lighting has it's disadvantages too. It's often a fight to get the proper ratios between key lights and accent lights. Also, continuous lighting can be difficult to use on location and mixing with available lighting.

 

Some of my favorite shooters mix continous with strobes. They use HMI or tungsten lighting for the mainlight on people and then use strobes for all the accent lights. This allows them more control over ratios.

 

Just some thoughts...good luck with whatever you decide. But remember, a lighting purchase is a commitment to a certain style and a "look". Try and do it right the first time cuz it's too expensive to change your mind later.

[brooks short]

".....Flash produces a hotspot on the skin of people. Continuous lighting doesn't have this problem....."

 

A "hot spot" or specular highlight on a subject's skin is the result of the size of the light source and the amount the light is diffused and the make-up or lack thereof on the model.

 

Whether the light is produced by a flash or continuous source has nothing to do with it.

[consensus_trance]

Yosef Karsh would disagree with you...His assistant was is the one that taught me the difference effects that flash and continuous lighting have on skin tones. I call it a "hot spot" because that's what he called it...but maybe the proper term is something else. Nevertheless...the difference exists...and that's why a lot of shooters prefer continuous lighting over strobe for photographing people.

[brooks short]

Consensus,

 

In 1973 I was living in Ottawa and was luck enough to have an interview/portfolio review with Mr. Karsh in his Ottawa studio.

 

He showed me round his studio and we looked at much of his work on display there. As I remember, he didn't use very many diffused light sources. Most of his work was with very directional light sources such as fresnel spots and parabolic reflectors.

 

That was almost 40 years ago and electronic flash was not a very commonly used lighting tool in the studio.

 

When flash was used it was generally used with umbrellas as this was before the softboxes, especially soft-sided portable soft boxes, were available. And most of the umbrellas were under 48" in size and used at a good distance from the subject.

 

Very few flash tubes back then were corrected for UV so they would record a brighter tonal value on black and white film which usually was more sensitive to blue light than color film at the time

 

Karsh was a master at portraiture with a very definitive style. But, styles change over time and most portrait photographers use electronic flash now.

[j_logan]

All of this advice has been very helpful and much appreciated. I plan on renting lights until I can save up enough capital to purchase my own set. From working in film and video I have become pretty familiar with the Arri and Lowel sets and wanted to keep using them if it made sense to do so for still photography. I hear so much about photographers using strobes and Kino-flo (I actually worked on an independent feature that used Kinos exclusively for lighting) that I thought there was come tacit rule against using hot lights in photography.

 

I guess this leads me to ask a few separate questions:

 

1) What are the arguments for using strobe lights over tungsten and vice versa? Is one light source more reliable than the other (provides softer light, etc.)?

 

2) Which is more effective for generating a soft and pleasant looking light, a soft box or an umbrella; or, is it just a matter of personal preference?

 

3) Are there any good books to read on the ins-and-outs of fashion photography lighting similar to the many books written on the subject of cinematography (i.e. Painting with Light, etc.)? I don't mind reading through these manuals to become familiar with the subject during my commute to and from work (2 hrs each way . . . )

 

I entered into the world of photography to become a better filmmaker; but, it seems that it is now developing into yet another addictive hobby . . .

 

:)

[barry_kenstler1]

Sinclair,

 

We clearly have proponents of both continuous and flash sources for studio work. I'm more in the flash camp, but both types have their place and, to some extent, what you choose will depend on how you work and what you photograph.

 

Question #1: ALL Pro-flash reasons

 

Studio Flash duration is relatively short and translates into an effective shutter speed of between 1/125 sec and 1/2000 sec. This duration is short enough to reduce motion blur to negligible for most portrait and many fashion purposes. This allows the photographer to hand-hold the camera and makes photographing active 3-year-old boys possible.

 

Studio flash can deliver a lot of energy in one quick flash. To generate similar energy with continuous lighting, you'll need powerful lights and a relatively long exposure.

 

Studio flash output can usually be adjusted very finely. Many continuous sources require mesh scrims, refocusing, or repositioning to do the same.

 

Studio flash delivers a broad-spectrum, daylight-balanced light. No dichroic filters are required.

 

Continuous sources have advantages too, such as the "what you see is what you get" property, but I'll leave that to the other camp. BTW, I think tungsten Fresnels are great.

 

Question #1B:

 

I think it is fair to say that, due to their electrical and mechanical simplicity, tungsten sources should be the most reliable, but good pro flash can last a few decades without need for service.

 

You can get beautiful, soft light from both flash and continuous light. I don't think there's a clear winner there.

 

Question #2:

 

You can get nice soft light from both umbrellas and softboxes, with the softest light from the biggest modifiers. In fact, for many applications, it is hard to distinguish one from the other, but they do have a slightly different light quality. The softbox can be placed closer to the subject than an umbrella (umbrella shaft protudes), so ultimately it can be made to appear softer for some applications.

 

Question #3: No comment on the book stuff

 

Good luck on your portrait and fashion lighting journey. Your background should make you a natural.

[consensus_trance]

Brooks..that's awesome! What an awesome opportunity to interview Karsh. I wonder if you were in Ottawa at the same time as my old teacher Larry was assisting for him?

 

BTW - Trust me, I'm not strobe bashing. I'm fortunate to have a whole studio filled with Elinchrom.

[brooks short]

Consensus,

 

Could be ! I was in Ottawa for a year. I worked as a photographer for Photo Features Ltd. on Elgin St.

[consensus_trance]

Wow that's trippy LOL ...It's a small world after all.... 6 degrees of separation :-)

[kckong]

Hi, I'm researching B&W portraiture & came into this thread to find out more about Karsh's lighting.

 

Thanks to Brooks sharing his first-hand info, I now know the reasons for the high contrast and hard shadows I saw in

his portraiture. I was looking for samples of B&W portraiture to model my conversions from digital color images and I

had stumbled upon an exhibition of his work on the National Gallery of Australia's website

(http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/KarshShmith/Default.cfm?mystartrow=13&realstartrow=13&MnuID=3)

 

If you follow that link, don't forget to read the Peter Adams essay where Adams talks about Karsh's work in

comparison to Australian Athol Shmith's. It'd be interesting to hear what you think about his comments on both

men's portraits of Sir Laurence Olivier (or would it be better if I start a new thread ?)

 

Thanks again Brooks