Soft box light projects...

[callyolson]

<p>I was given a studio lighting kit with 2 - 500 watt soft boxes for christmas and was wondering if people have some suggestions on "projects" that I could do with these to get use to them. I have not used these before, typically I shoot outside and not sure where to start other then putting one on the left and one on the right of the subject.</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions.</p>

[david richhart]

<p>Here is one place that may help you get started with some basic ideas...<br>

<a href="http://www.expertvillage.com/video/118931_soft-box-sizes-single-light.htm">http://www.expertvillage.com/video/118931_soft-box-sizes-single-light.htm</a></p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Take a look at the links to <a href="00RljT"><strong>illustrated tutorials in this thread</strong> </a> . The <a rel="nofollow" href="http://ny.webphotoschool.com/" target="_blank"><strong>NY Web Photo School</strong> "</a> is particularly helpful with basic lighting techniques.</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>Dear Cally, Lucky you, because right here on photo.net there are probably over 30 fantastic projects which you can try in the lighting forum. I can guarantee you'll learn a huge amount by trying them out. This is a little publicised resource which I'm sure you'll love. Mainly thanks to Brooks and Garry. Get yourself over to http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00BjHh for this list of lighting themes!<br>

- Paul</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >Your lights should be great for portraiture. You should practice this art. With two 500 watt soft box lamps you can practice portrait lighting. Best you work with a human model however a mannequin or wig head will work too. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >First practice using a 3:1 lighting ratio. This is called the ‘bread & butter” ratio because most subjects look best with this set-up plus the image will sell better and maybe win at contests. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Place 500 watt soft box lamp high and off to the side to simulate afternoon sun. This lamp is called “key” or “main”. Place on side subject parts hair. Placement is based on subject’s facial features. Long nose – place for short nose shadow. Short noise – place for long nose shadow. Round face – far to side to throw side of face in shadow. Thin face – frontal lighting etc. Carefully measure this lamp-to-subject distance.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Place second 500 watt soft box lamp at camera height close to the camera lens along an imagined line drawn lens to subject. This lamp is called the “fill”. Multiply main-to-subject distance by 1.4. This calculates fill-to-subject distance. We want the “fill” further away. This forces the “fill” to be subordinate and preserves a one light illusion, a classic concept of portrait lighting. OK if the “fill” strays off imaginary line as required avoiding casting unwanted shadows on subject. “Fill” close to camera lens is an important concept. We always “fill” from the camera’s viewpoint. “Fill” misplacement is a common mistake. The 1.4 multiplier establishes the 3:1 ratio provided both lamps are equal in all respects. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now try a 5:1 ratio:</p>

<p >A more contrasry 5:1 ratio is masculine. Multiply fill-to-subject distance by 2. This calculates main-to-subject distance for 5:1.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now try 9:1 ratio.</p>

<p >This is high contrast theatrical. Multiply fill-to-subject distance by 2.8. This calculates a revised main-to-subject distance for 9:1.</p>

<p > </p>Signature line removed per <a href="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/"><b>Community Guidelines for Photo.net</b></a><p>

[callyolson]

<p>Alan, I tried the 3:1 ratio this weekend please let me know what your thoughts are...</p>

[callyolson]

<p>and here is another</p><div></div>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >Good for you, I am delighted – looks good!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You followed my advice and avoided a classic mistake. Photography, as we practice it, reproduces a two dimensional renderings of three dimensional objects. We must induce shadows to give an illusion of depth. Otherwise flat lighting has no life or depth. The 3:1 ratio induces just enough zip. You need to learn 5:1 and 9:1 also.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now I will tell you why the 1.4 multiplier makes a 3:1. Light falls off based on a law known as the law of the inverse square. The value 1.4 is the square root of 2. If you move a lamp further away from the subject using this multiplier, the light on the subject falls of 50% or stated another way 1/f stop. Thus the main supplies 100 units of light on the subject, the fill supplies 50 units. Now the frontal area of the face receives both or 100 + 50 = 150 units on forehead and cheeks etc. However the shadows are cast by a void of light from the main, thus they only receive 50 units of light, this is supplied by the fill. Thus the ratio is 150:50. This ratio is handled just like a fraction meaning it can be reduced by dividing both values by 50. Thus this fraction reduces to 3:1.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Happy New Year</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You are well on your way.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Alan Marcus</p>

<p >alanmaxinemarcus@att.net</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Cally, two suggestions:</p>

<ol>

<li>Lower the ISO setting on your camera. At 800 you're getting a lot of noise. While the grainy noise isn't objectionable the blotchy discoloration will be apparent in prints.</li>

<li>Before attaching photos to your posts please reduce them in file size and dimensions. I've deleted the first oversized photo. This is mostly a courtesy to folks on slower dialup connections.</li>

</ol>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>BTW, I took the liberty of editing the first photo to demonstrate the noise problem and some quick 'n' dirty edits to reduce the noise. But if you lower the ISO and give just a bit more exposure to compensate you won't need to worry about noise reduction.</p><div></div>