Help...so I don't look like an idiot. Softboxes

[megan_rose]

<p>I just got into photography about 6 months ago. However, ALL of it has been natural light aside from using a Lightscoop at a birthday party. So, I really have NO clue about studio lighting. I am lost!</p>

<p>I have a LOT of customers with newborns lately, and it is now too cold to do the photos outside.</p>

<p>But, as I said, I am CLUELESS as to all of the different lighting options and contraptions are and how they work.</p>

<p>I am looking to get a setup like this today... http://amyrobertsonphotography.com/blog/?p=1180</p>

<p>I called the local Showcase camera and asked about softboxes, and the lady asked me what type of light I have...I guess I am an idiot, but I thought the softbox was the light?</p>

<p>I feel really stupid...if anyone could direct me as to what to purchase today other than the softbox that would be great. All I have is the regular flash on the camera. I will be getting the softbox today and need to know what else I need to have that setup. I have lots of windows in my home, but unfortunately placing baby next to a window is not sufficient enough as we have trees around.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I've used a variety of strobes and softboxes and recently purchased a set of strobes. What you want to start out with is the light.... either a continuous light source or a strobe. The softbox is a "light modifier" that attaches to the light usually by way of a ring (purchased separately).<br>

Most softboxes are designed to be used with a strobe and not a continuous light.... most go with a strobe.<br>

Makers of strobes and softboxes are companies like Paul Bluff (alien bees) Profoto and Elinchrome to name a few. <br>

You can trigger the strobe with either a cord connected to the camera or a wireless trigger.... another decision.<br>

There are many choices... many setups that will work.. and many ways to spend money. One strobe, softbox, lightstand, can easily hit 1000 dollars. <br>

Check out the alien bees website. the setup shown on the blog is probably a Paul C. Bluff alien bee with a softbox... a decent product that is less costly than many of the top names...<br>

Richard</p>

 

[megan_rose]

<p>Thanks, Richard. I see that the Paul C. Bluff softbox I would want is roughly $150...how much are the strobes and stand, do you know? I'm trying to price this out to see if it is worth doing.</p>

<p>Is there anything else I can use as a sort of makeshift setup instead? I purchased some work lights and ripstop nylon the other day for the same purpose, but it wasn't working out at all...though I read good reviews on the setup.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>I purchased some work lights and ripstop nylon the other day for the same purpose, but it wasn't working out at all...though I read good reviews on the setup.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would suggest before spending too much money that you spend money on an education. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but merely owning a set of tools (whatever those tools may be) doesn't qualify anyone for any particular line of work. IE, I can buy some wrenches but that doesn't make me a mechanic. You need to learn about lighting (and you really aren't going to do that via an internet forum) so that you know what you need in order to accomplish the shot you are looking for. One example: why aren't the lights and ripstop nylon you bought working for you? Simply throwing money at an issue based on our suggestions is going to get pretty expensive. And the solutions may already be expensive enough. Dean Collins, a lighting <em>master</em> frequently used large white panels (not sure if it was ripstop nylon). The difference is, he <em>knew</em> how to use them. The book Light: the Science and Magic is a good place to start. KelbyTraining.com has several lighting tutorials. There might even be local classes you can take. But I would be worried about an education more than getting whatever the latest recommendation is.</p>

[gdw]

<p>Probably the most convenient set up would be a studio monolight with a softbox to fit (usually involves buying an adapter called a speedring ring for your specific light), a light stand and a connecting cable for your camera. Your local camera store should have something to show you. All on line vendors will have what you need. Here is a link to Alien Bees, usually well thought of and relatively inexpensve monolights <a href="http://www.paulcbuff.com/">http://www.paulcbuff.com/</a>. Later you can add more lights and other types of modifiers (a softbox is a light modifier), and possibly even a boom arm. For babies get a medium sized softbox, just don't go with the small ones. Bee's has a 24x36 which would be the smallest I would consider but they have a 32x40 for only ten dollars more. A softbox is used to do as it suggests for softening the light. The larger your light is in respect to the subject matter (baby) the softer the light will be--the better it will wrap the light around the subject matter. As you learned, you have to purchase a softbox that is compatible with the light that you are using.</p>

[megan_rose]

<p>@ John Deerfield...you are right! I definitely need to invest in learning more about studio lighting, etc. I'm not trying to skip that very important step (which should be step 1!), but I was sort of thrown into photography 6 months ago and guess I never anticipated this would be something I would be doing. I hate to toot my own horn, but I think I'm pretty good for such a beginner with natural light photography, and I get lots of client referrals and average about 5 shoots per week. I am always reading about ways to improve and perfect my technique with my outdoor shoots, but indoor photography and the different lighting is a new thing to me. I really wanted to get this particular setup to practice on a friend's newborn and hopefully read some tutorials or books over the next week or so to try to learn as much as I can. I appreciate the books and things you listed...I will check those out.</p>

<p>The reason the work lights weren't working for me was mainly lack of instructions on how to assemble them. It was just a picture, so I couldn't even get everything together! I was unable to position the lights on the stand, and I think I should have purchased more than one set. The recommendation I saw in an article was 3 sets of 2 1000 watt work lights, but that was for video, so I didn't think I would need 3 sets. Perhaps 2, though. I was just so frustrated with trying to assemble them that I took the set back.</p>

<p>@Gary...thanks for your recommendation! I had read not to go with the smallest softbox and was planning on the 32x40....I will check out the studio monolight. THANK YOU! :)</p>

[brooks short]

<p>Hot, continuous lights such as your work lights are not the way to go for lighting people much less infants. They're hot and uncomfortable, can harm an infants eyes and are dangerous because they can start a fire if they come into contact with combustables such as the ripstop nylon you are using or a carpet when they fall.</p>

<p>You have to use electronic flash for these infant shoots. The cheapest yet still usable lighting is Paul Buff monolights, either Alien Bees, Einsteins or White Lightning. You'll need a couple or more monolights, several light stands, background stands, and soft boxes.</p>

[megan_rose]

<p>Thanks, Brooks. I agree...I felt very uncomfortable with the idea of using the work lights after I got them half set up. It didn't seem safe, and they WERE very hot, and I was afraid to use them, so that is part of the reason as to why I returned them. I am honestly wondering why they were recommended by a professional photographer as a decent substitute.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>I am honestly wondering why they were recommended by a professional photographer as a decent substitute.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Substitute for what? I am not saying I would recommend continuous lights for portrait photography, but that's me. What works for me may not work for someone else. Many photographers prefer continuous lights because WYSIWYG. Even a 250-watt modeling light gets pretty dim in a softbox. And many less expensive strobes us a 100-watt light (next to useless in a softbox IMHO). I know one photographer who has access to the best of Larson softboxes, but when doing babies she usually bounces two lights of a near white wall. Don't have a near white wall... get some white ripstop nylon!!!!!! Again, the point is to understand lighting. If you are good at natural lighting, ask yourself why? What is it about that light that you are good with? How do you find your light? How do you control your contrast in natural light (because it is usually easier to control contrast in a studio environment!) and so on. Large softox, small softbox, strip light, grids, walls, beauty dishes, and on and on, all have there place in the world. But not all of them are necessarily what <em>you</em> need.</p>

[megan_rose]

<p>Thanks, John. What I meant was a substitute for a softbox.</p>

<p>All of this is a lot to take in, so I think I'm going to take your advice and learn about the lighting and techniques first before I jump in and buy equipment. With that said, I still think I'll be getting a rectangular softbox or 2.</p>

<p>I purchased a Lightscoop a few months ago. Since there are some trees blocking the large windows on the front of my home that the light shines brightest, it's just not sufficient enough. I tried using the Lightscoop in conjunction with the windows open...I just changed some settings so that the Lightscoop would work with the natural light coming in vs. the flash being the sole source.</p>

<p>My son wouldn't really stop and pose, but I had him where I anticipate having my friend's newborn today...what do you think of the LIGHT in this photo? I did tweak a bit in PS...but not much...</p>

<p>Since everything I do is natural light, I'm just not sure how I feel about this shot. Of course it will be different once I have my backdrop set up with the baby today, but just wondering what you think of the actual exposure, etc.</p>

<p>I guess I have just learned what works best for me as far as natural light. I prefer to shoot in the mornings because it is easier for me to obtain good and even exposure then.</p>

<p>I'd love to get into studio stuff, but prior to the weather changing, I didn't really feel the need to learn about it because I didn't anticipate doing it. I basically took pix of a friend once and suddenly had a business going. That's the short of it. <img src="http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303857_10150321324296594_660221593_7816164_1918275065_n.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640" /></p>

[Mifar]

<p>I couldn't agree more with John. Learning is always a worthwhile investment. A camera mounted speedlight may also be a good investment, more powerful and versatile than a lightscoop on a pop up flash; yet cheaper, lighter, more portable, and less powerful than studio lights. I recently followed this route and have learned a lot about lighting. You might also want to check out strobist for off camera flash stuff.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>+1 for the strobist blog!</p>

<p>I feel compelled to comment on the setup you linked to. I see a newborn infant, tied in a sling, hanging from a stick, with a HUGE soft-box on a nearby light stand that seems not to be secured in any way (e.g. sandbagged). I tell you, I just want to reach out and GRAB that softbox to keep it from falling over and clobbering the infant hanging from the flimsy stick. I hope you'll have more safeguards with your setup!</p>

<p>Probably the easiest lighting you can put together is a couple of shoe-mount flashes on lighting stands with these umbrella brackets...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/298709-REG/Impact_3117_Umbrella_Bracket.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/298709-REG/Impact_3117_Umbrella_Bracket.html</a></p>

<p>... and shoot-through, white umbrellas...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362385-REG/Impact_S3233_White_Translucent_Umbrella_33.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362385-REG/Impact_S3233_White_Translucent_Umbrella_33.html</a></p>

<p>Trigger them with some Yongnuo RF-602 radio slaves, found on eBay. (Links to eBay are not allowed, but you can look up auction # 260854464520 as an example.)</p>

<p>You would point the flash into the umbrella and point the umbrella at the infant. You can get very close this way. It's not a fancy setup, but your investment will be very small, and this would give you some experience with off-shoe lighting.</p>

<p> </p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I also agree on the education route. However, a setup that does not cost too much is the softbox from Lastolite called Ezybox, which uses your ordinary speedlite. You can get this in a set with the softbox and tripod. Add a long cable to connect the flash to the hotshoe of the camera, and you are ready to go.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>For a small system, I use my speedlights (SB800 and/or SB900). To soften the light, you can bounce off an umbrella, you can shoot thru the umbrella or you can bounce the light off a nearby wall as long as the wall has a neutral color. When I bounce, I use the 'black foamy thing' to flag the direct light. Or you get a portable softbox. Lots of them exist.<br>

Are you going to set up a studio, or a small room in your home or shoot on location. This will be important to how you think about your lighting set up. <br>

For my portrait work (I strongly prefer location based work), I use my SB800,SB900 and am contemplating an Einstein E640 because these are small portable systems that I can move around. I also carry a tripod and a series of stands.<br>

Finally, just because you have to move inside because of temperature, you don't need strobes. Just find a few fantastic windows and continue to use natural light. </p>

 

[wmervine]

<p>As mentioned before a good place to start learning would be strobist.com by doing his modules. And most of the info is equally applicable to using bigger studio lights or monolights as they are called. A camera mount strobe and shoot through umbrella are a fairly cheap starting point. Don't know what camera you use but getting a good strobe from the same manufacturer is not a bad idea. You can do alot with on camera flash as well if you understand the principles. Neil van Niekerk has some good articles on doing this. "http://neilvn.com/tangents/"<br>

Understand the basics and you can do alot with very little. Have done alot of portraiture with simply 1 strobe and a reflector.</p>

[mike_godwin1]

<p>Pick up a copy of "Light: Science and Magic". Great book.<br>

If you want to start with a one light setup, I suggest the "The Beginner Bee" setup from Alien Bees:<br>

<a href="http://www.paulcbuff.com/pkg-beginnerbee.php">The Beginner Bee</a><br>

You can build on this. I have 5 lights now but I use 3 mostly.<br>

You can pickup cheaper softboxes on Amazon that have the speed rings that fit Alien Bees lights. I have 2. A small one and a large one. I use umbrellas on the rest but sometimes use a cereal box as a snoot for a hair light. Here's what my setup looks like:<br>

<a href=" lights</a><br>

Enjoy!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>Since everything I do is natural light, I'm just not sure how I feel about this shot. Of course it will be different once I have my backdrop set up with the baby today, but just wondering what you think of the actual exposure, etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if you are unsure about a shot, you can't begin to "fix" anything. Before talking about the shot, I want to take one step back, you talk about shooting with natural light as a reason for not learning lighting. I believe this is a huge mistake many "natural" light shooters make. I often find it more difficult to shoot with natural light than in a more controlled environment. Natural light or strobes, as a photographer you need to <em>learn lighting.</em> You have gotten advice for umbrellas, softboxes, ripstop nylon (!) and more. Here's the thing: the larger the light relative source in relationship to your subject, the softer the light. Period. Difference between an umbrella and a softbox is that a sofbox tends to be "softer" (less specularity) with more directional control over the lighting while an umbrella sprays light everywhere. Shooting children, directional control might not be as relevant. Again, this is why one of the photographer's I know simply uses two lights bounced into a white wall: huge light source. Consistent. And pretty much ready to shoot at a moments notice. If a baby crawls away from what your umbrella or softbox is lighting... oops. But again, that is how someone else does it and maybe not how you want to do it. Problem is, you don't know how you want to do it because you don't know how to light it. To that end, you have had advice to get a shoe mount flash or an actual strobe. I know small flashes are all the rage right now, but they don't hold a candle to an actual monolight. Even bounced. Bounce both into a wall and see which one you prefer. As a natural light shooter, you will prefer the strobe. No matter how you modify it, a shoe mount flash will always seem to be a "smaller" light than a strobe.</p>

<p>As to your image, when evaluating a portrait the first thing I usually look at is the eyes. And, like you, the eyes are simply OK in this shot. It's not bad by any means. But I am not jumping up and down with excitement. In terms of lighting, you are using your pop up to control contrast. Chances are, you didn't know that. Or rather that you may have known that the window light by itself wasn't creating the lighting effect that you wanted. The window light by itself had too much contrast. You needed something to control that contrast and what you have is a pop up flash. I think you would like the shot better has a large reflector been used. Besides that, I think if you turn the subject a bit more into the light we will get some nicer lighting and better catchlights in the eyes. If the eyes are alive, the portrait it alive. Finally, you need to be thinking in terms of consistency: can you repeat the shot over and over for a variety of clients. For this "test" shot, the really shallow DoF is OK, but that is tough to <em>always</em> do with a restless target. I would want to be sure my lighting could support a narrower aperture if needed. Finally, I wouldn't cut off anyone's head. Again, I know that is all the rage and works well in marketing materials and what not, but given a choice, most clients will want to see the top of the head. And the beauty of it is that you can always crop and image and cut off the top of the head. Try cloning the top of the head back on. Anyway, that is my .05¢ worth of free advice.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>John, more power does not make a light "bigger." And there's nothing specular about the light from a white umbrella. Of course you are correct that umbrellas spill more light than softboxes. However, a shoot-through umbrella gives you more control than light bounced off a wall. Your point?</p>

<p>As you've aptly pointed out, there are many ways to do lighting. Many don't involve monolights and softboxes.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Sarah, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me? I never said more power makes a light source "bigger" (although it is certainly going to help)? I did say that a shoe mount flash, even when modified the same way a monolight is modified, will still be <em>smaller </em>than a monolight. Don't believe me, bounce a shoe mount flash off a wall and a monolight off the same wall. Take a picture of both as the light strikes the wall. Hopefully there is <em>something</em> specular about an umbrella! When lighting, you have your specularity, your diffused value, and your shadows no matter what your light source/modifier is. A softbox typically offers less specularity as the light is first bounce off the back of the softbox, then strikes a diffusion panel, and then out the front. A shoot through umbrella will have the most specularity as the light hits the umbrella first without the benefit of any other diffusion. I never really said that a shoot through umbrella offered less control than simply bouncing off a wall, but in truth, it would really be dependent on the shooting situation. Using a shoot through means that some ratio of light is being bounced <em>away</em> from the subject. If your shoot through is right next to a white wall, this means that light is now bouncing off the wall influencing your lighting pattern. Presumably one is using a shoot through umbrella to establish a lighting pattern (otherwise you could bounce off the white wall!). In either case, shoot through or bounced of wall, the photographer still needs to control the contrast. I used the bouncing off white walls in my example because that is how a friend photographs babies and children. The photographer does it this way to allow freedom in shooting: the subject does NOT have to say in the narrow area lit by a softbox or umbrella, the subject is allowed more freedom and the lighting is more consistent across a larger area. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As you've aptly pointed out, there are many ways to do lighting. Many don't involve monolights and softboxes.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. But one will only know what one needs when they <em>know</em> lighting. Which has <em>always</em> been my point. What was yours in trying to prove me incorrect?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree, I guess, that light can be specular when reflected off of a silvered umbrella, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Dunno...</p>

<p>A friend and I put together a lighting workshop. He has a monolight setup, and I have a small flash setup. Both yielded very similar results, except that his monolights were more powerful than my small flashes. The apparent size of the light sources was approximately the same when similar modifiers were used. We both use umbrellas and softboxes, and both have about the same appearance, except different amounts of power... What can I say?</p>

<p>There are advantages to small flash photography, most notably the portability. That's why I've put together the outfit I have. My point is that I reject your notion that small flashes don't hold a candle to a real monolight (or however you put it). Perhaps a monolight setup is better for the OP, but to make a blanket statement that monolights rule is perhaps a bit short-sighted. I've managed very well without them.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree, I guess, that light can be specular when reflected off of a silvered umbrella, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Dunno...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am saying that a single light source, your key light, has three "values": your highlights or specularity, your diffused value or true tonality, and your shadows. Regardless of the light source. But you don't have to take my word for it:</p>

<p>http://www.poweroflighting.com/videos.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A friend and I put together a lighting workshop. He has a monolight setup, and I have a small flash setup. Both yielded very similar results, except that his monolights were more powerful than my small flashes. The apparent size of the light sources was approximately the same when similar modifiers were used. We both use umbrellas and softboxes, and both have about the same appearance, except different amounts of power... What can I say?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That similar is not the same. Which you did and that is all I am saying. There <em>are </em>differences. Again, fire a speedlight into a wall and fire a strobe, which one gives you a larger light source?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are advantages to small flash photography, most notably the portability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say the main advantage might be TTL and speed. In terms of portability, it all depends on how one shoots. As example, I use a Turbo battery on my shoe mount flashes or a mini Vagabond on an Alien Bee. Not a whole lot of size difference. But again, to each there own and I have never said otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point is that I reject your notion that small flashes don't hold a candle to a real monolight (or however you put it)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reject away. But in terms of <em>lighting</em>, it's true. You have far more modifiers available to you with a monolight. Just the simple parabolic reflector produces a better quality of light than a speedlight. This is one of the reasons many photographers like using something like a Quantum QFlash over a speedlight: there is a difference. You may reject the idea that there is a difference but that doesn't mean there isn't one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but to make a blanket statement that monolights rule is perhaps a bit short-sighted. I've managed very well without them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wonderful. I never said a photographer couldn't manage without a monolight. Personally, I think it is a bit short sighted not to admit the differences. Which again all leads back to my original point: learn lighting. Learn why you are making the choices you are making. For you, you desire a small form factor for portability. Great. Fabulous. Whatever works for you. But to then say that you can get the same results out of a speedlight that you can out of a monolight is simply incorrect. Similar, maybe. And even then in very narrow sense. Meaning that I am not going to light an 86" PLM with a shoe mount flash. I mean sure, you <em>could, </em>but it isn't going to really do you any good.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Many of the more recent pictures in my location portrait folder and on my website (www.e2photo.net) are produced by SB800 or SB900 (sometimes a couple of them) mostly commonly bounced, but at other times shot thru an umbrella or with natural lighting (both inside and outside).<br>

I use large mono lights in my studio on a regular basis.<br>

When shooting location based portrait photographer, in most of my applications, the smaller speed lights work just fine, but as some said before, it is important to remember that the larger the light source, the closer it is to the subject, the softer the light. Except for dramatic purpose, I never use even my smaller lights pointed directly at the subject.<br>

There are only two situations where I think the bigger lights clearly have an advantage. The most important is when one is attempting to override a lot of back lighting from the sun or other bright light source and/or you need a lot of light for some specific reason.<br>

I would also second the suggestion of Neil's sight as well as the strobist site.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>John, I use my small flashes with shoot-through white umbrellas, opaque quite umbrellas, silvered umbrellas, softboxes of various sizes (from a few inches to 3x5 ft), snoots, grids, barn doors, and so forth. What sorts of modifiers do you feel I'm not benefitting from here? If you think I'm simply pointing a flash at the subject, you're mistaken. </p>

<p>It's true some of my gear is home-brew, but lots of photographers construct their own gear. I feel it's a proud tradition in photography. Here's an example of how I mount a small flash to a softbox (rather than mount a softbox to a monolight):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/vivitar285mods.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/vivitar285mods.htm</a></p>

<p>Also in the article you'll see how I power and trigger my flashes. I've since built much better control modules and have built a tandem-flash ring mount for my 3' x 5' softbox, but those aren't shown. I've also direct-wired my power, bypassing the battery compartments, which I find works much better.</p>

<p>I fully admit that this setup makes relatively less sense in a studio environment, and even the 3x5 softbox concept might be better implemented with a monolight, because, let's face it, this isn't the sort of thing one generally sets up on location. However, there's a whole lot that my small gaggle of Vivitars can do. I never find myself wanting for light.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Steven, believe it or not, I've set up day-for-night scenes using small, where the subject was normally illuminated by "lantern light" (a modified, CTO-gelled Sunpak flash with optical slave, built into an old railroad lantern -- in need of a globe that I haven't found), main and fill shoot-through umbrellas (3 Vivitars), and a touch of gelled rim lighting (a snooted Vivitar). The working distance of my flashes was only about 4 ft, and I could have expanded that distance with bigger monolights. However, I thought it was pretty cool that I could pull it off. Here's my "oil" lantern by "moonlight", hanging from a light stand. The foreground is shaded from the sunlight and lit with my shoot-through umbrellas, and the background is in very bright, direct sunlight. ;-)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/sunpaklantern.jpg" alt="" /><br>

(Try making THIS with a monolight!)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Correction: I apparently illuminated the lantern with direct, unmodified flash in this image. But still... pretty cool, eh?</p>