Setting up a portrait studio at home

[patricks]

I had this idea today that I want to do some portrait shots studio-

style, mainly of the family, maybe some friends, basically as a

learning experience to improve my skillset/understanding of

photography.

 

I rather not buy/rent Photoflex softboxes, strobe flashes etc, but

would like to use a simple M6, a 50mm and/or 90mm alt. 35mm lenses

and the tripod I have in my possesion.

 

1) How should I set this up? Lights front left and/or front right?

Some type of light source behind the subject and if so how strong?

 

2) What type of light source should I use? Should I strive to put up

my "home studio" close to a large window for side light or should I

use different type of lamps that one normally find in a home?

 

3) Is it necessary to use e.g. a SF-20 for some type of fill flash?

 

4) Is it best to measure this with an incident meter and then shoot

that value?

 

5) What type of background should/can I use (I guess I can always

buy something affordable at a textile place, I would prefer some

dark grey background, alt. black)

 

6) Film choice - should I use my normal Tri-X or does this event

call for a finer grain b&w film? For example?

 

Thanks in advance.

[matt_m__toronto_]

i would suggest a couple rolls of seamless paper (about $40-50per roll) get a dark, grey and white. buy some stands that will hold them or put some holder in your ceiling that can hold the roll. i'd place this kind of setup opposite the biggest window you can. (leaving enough room to place people and for you to stand of course)

 

this is probably the cheepest way to get nice results. and yes i'd use an ambient meter.

 

since you will be on tripod, you can use whatever film you want depending on amount of light coming through. oh yes, make sure your choice window sees a lot of light during the times that you'd be shooting most. ie. don't chose a window that see's light only till 10am.

 

i'd forget about any fill flash for now if i were you. if you do, use your small flash and aim it at either the ceiling or a large white board for fill light (1-2 stops under)

 

good luck, and remember to have fun

 

m

[christopher.]

To start (if using B&W) I would try some shop lights from Home Depot. You can't Go wrong, they are cheap and versitile. Color film is another story. I just bought some of the shop lights that you can clip to a workbench and clipped them to various cheap plastic tripods. I you want the light softer either change the bulb or tape some white plexiglass squares over the opening. This is the type used as a lens on a florescent ceiling light. For color get the new daylight balanced bulbs called Reveal. I forget who makes them. I used TCN 400 and got some nice still life shell pics for my wife. Not a pro kit by any means but makes a fun, cheap way to experiment. And don't underestimate these lights, you can get some fine pics. Also go to a fabric store for backdrops. I like white non reflective poster board for macro .37/sheet and burlap for larger items. I like available light photography and suck with flash so this was the easist way for me to start learning YMMV.

[erik_l.]

Patrick,

 

I am not sure how much your budget is for this, but if you have a look at eBay, there are literally hundreds of packages for sale that include studio strobes, stands, unbrellas, etc. The only other thing you would need to add is a backdrop of your choice. Many of these kits consist of two of everything, so you are basically set up with a studio in one shot.

 

Be advised that many of the strobes in the lower priced kits are not very powerful, but it is a good way to get into studio lighting for a relatively small amount of money.

 

Erik.

[patricks]

Thanks for all the helpfull answers so far, my point is to do this on a minimal budget and use that one can find around the house just as an experiment. Basically, I'm not sure I want to get into studio photography, but I thought I'd try it out for kicks/as a learning experience.

 

And the next 100 of dollars I'll spend on photography equipment will be for a Scan Dual III so I can share visually as well...

 

Cheers,

[brett_davis1]

and it's tungsten, so you wouldn't have to do a lot of flashmetering. ... No experience with it to report, but it seems like a not-bad kit, and you could use your flash with the umbrella later if you wanted to.

 

http://www.smithvictor.com/products/detail.asp?prodid=111&id=14&pid=1&s1=Lighting+Kits&s2=Photoflood+Kits&nm=KT400+KIT

[tonyk]

Although indoor studio light type of photography is not really my cup of tea (I shoot outdoor weddings on location), I have done it once on a shoestring budget, when I did our own family portrait in front of our Christmas tree.

 

Main Light: Metz 60CT-1 with custom-made bounce card.

Side lights (left and right): Vivitar 285HV with shoe slave adapter on the wide angle setting.

Back light: Vivitar 285HV with Omnibounce diffuser pointed straight up with shoe slave adapter.

 

You will need stands for all of them, and/or a good imagination to somehow place your flashes in the right place (tape, placed on mantle, whatever).

 

You can put all the flashes on Auto at f16, take flash meter readings for confirmation, take test shots with Polaroid and/or digital (if you digital has manual settings), then adjust flashes, and/or camera exposure accordingly.

 

Depending on how much flash you use and how much ambient light is available, you can darken the background or even it out. Careful with flash placement, as they can spotlight certain aspects of the picture (like using one of the 285HV flashes in telephoto mode). These may or maynot show up in Polaroid or even digi test shots (especially when viewed on the camera's little screen).

 

As you already know, try to place all the flash units as close to the subjects as possible, as these little flashes are not very powerful.

 

Good luck.

 

tk

[fotografz]

Patrick, forget the flash and even forget about the lights.

 

As suggested, set up near a window. place the subject slightly

rotated toward the source of light. Get a big flat white surface to

use as a bounce from the window back into the shadowed side

of the subject. (Surely you can spring for a sheet of foamcore). If

possible use a window facing North. If not possible, ask your

wife if you have some sheer curtains to pin up over the window.

 

For a backdrop, hang an old blanket far enough behind to throw

it out of focus. Put a house lamp on the floor behind the subject

near the backdrop to light it.

 

Sounds like a fun experiment.

[patricks]

Marc, thanks. As always.

 

Yes, it is most certainly an experiment. I don't mean to come of as a "cheapy", but I am rather curious if I can pull this off with expected results rather than to rent/buy lots of stuff I really don't need.

 

Any more thoughts on film selcection anyone?

[ralph_barker]

While I understand your desire to keep expenses to a minimum, Patrick, I would also suggest that doing so won't really give you a taste of "studio photography" - but rather outdoor photography being done inside the house. Normal indoor lighting won't be strong enough to keep exposures reasonably short unless you're using fast film and fast lenses. And, while you can use shop lights and such as a reasonable B&W substitute for professional hot lights, I think you'll find that most of your subjects will think the lights are too bright for their comfort, and will be squinting at you. ;-)

 

Using the minimalist approach, my suggestion would be to find a large, north-facing window and use that as your main light source. Keep your subjects as close to the window as possible to maximize the light level. White foam core from the art supply can be used for reflector fill, and you can glue crumpled-then-flattened aluminum foil to one side for greater reflectance.

 

I second the vote for seamless paper as a background. Thunder gray is perfect. The short rolls will be more convenient in your setup. Fabric backgrounds tend to look very amateurish, unless you buy expensive painted muslins sold for studio portrait use.

 

As to metering, either an incident meter or a spot reflectance meter would be good choices. But, you can also meter off an 18% gray card with your in-camera meter, holding the gray card near your subject's face, and angling it to receive the same light as your subject. A good hand-held meter that does both incident and 1° spot reflected is a good, long-term investment, though.

 

Using this approach, your portraits obviously will have an "existing light" feel, rather than the typical "studio" look. Either is fine, of course, depending on the style you're looking for. It's just that you won't get the studio look without using (or, cleverly approximating) studio lighting equipment.

 

I would suggest you do some testing using the Tri-X that you're familiar with, and see if you like the results. For finer grain, you might try Ilford FP4+ (ISO 125), but that will introduce more challenges exposure-wise.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

1. - Your lights ought to be movable and rearrangable to suit your subject and your portrayal of that subject. For a home studio, medium power monolites are great (cooler running)

 

2. Light source depends on you, but... I prefer flash. Continuous lighting can get very hot very quickly, and also can be distracting to the subject of your portrait. A north window would be ideal (in the northern hemisphere) - BUT - also get yourself a lightform panel large enough to scrim (block) the light from that window when you want to, or also act as a reflector opposite the window from your subject.

 

3. You'll arrange your various flash setups for main, fill, background, hairlight, etc... The SF20 would not be the best choice for fill

 

4. Use an incident flash meter with FLAT disk

 

5. You can use paper background, or...wooo... build a cyc background yourself (its not hard, just time consuming), or use muslins. I cut, sew and paint my own muslins, and have 4 of them. I hang em on a 1-1/4 inch dowel (10 feet long). The setup there is two Matthews stands with Mafer Clamps, each with a swivel U hook to hold the dowel.

FWIW, I prefer muslin to paper, but... paper needs to be used for some things (smooth background). I'd rather use cyc instead of paper, but I dont have the room right now for a cyc wall (I will after a remodeling project).

 

6. Film choice, whatever works.

[jim_clifford]

Patrick there are some excellent suggestions here, especially the advice on natural light window shots... If you just want to experiment simply with 2 lights and 400 B&W film (no cash outlay!!!) I suggest using regular house lamps (standing and/or table whatever is handy). Position the lamps to light your subject as you like and then use an ambient meter to measure the light (try not to have a greater differential than 1/2 to 1 stop between light sources). You will find that you will have to position the lights fairly close to your subject but I have never had a problem with the heat from a 60 watt bulb disturbing anyone (of course I live in Minnesota where a little heat is a good thing). This will give you a good working knowledge of manipulating lights and believe it or not you can get some wonderful results. Pay careful attention to the shadows falling on the face and particularly across the eyes. Take your time. You will probably need a tripod as well, but don't resist handheld if you think you can get a great angle this way. I have attached a photo done with this method. Happy shooting.<div></div>

[mike dixon]

Foamcare, windows, a few light bulbs--that's all the equipment

you <i>need</i> to figure out many of the basics. While not

essential at this point, a good incident meter than can also

measure flash is a valuable and versatile tool. For starting out,

use film that you're already comfortable with--no need

introducing more variables than you have to. As for setting up

lights, I use the tried and true method of move your source and/

or subject until the light looks right . . .

[abufletcher]

Patrick, I'll add my 2 cents here as well. Several years back I also experimented with "studiio photography" and made myself some cheap and dirty lighting accessories. For example, I made a 6 foot tall "soft box" out of PVC tubing and some white nylon with elastic on the corners. To get a more powerful "studio flash" I taped together my Sunpak 555 handle mount and my Vivitar 285 with a slave. I also tried using multiple pops of the flash to light still lifes (my description of this was eventually published in Petersen's Photographic).

 

But what I really wanted to say is that the main advantage of playing around with studio lighting for about half a year, is that I learned to recognize "studio quality" light out in the reak world. Later that year I ended up shooting a story on the Keris daggers of Indonesia using nothing more than some black velvet and batik backgrounds (picked up in a local market) and the light from a doorway (shot from above). By the third day of this assignment, I was finding myself in people's homes photographing their private Keris collections (one gold and jewel encrusted Keris was worth over $20,000). If I do say so myself, the results were indistinquishable from what I might have achieved with professional (and costly) studio lighting equipment.

[ray_moth]

I've had mixed results taking interior portraits using available daylight from a window. I love the nature of the light but I often underestimate its directionality and end up with too much contrast. Fill-in flash can certainly help but a reflector, such as white paper or even a sheet of newspaper, seems to be the most reliable way to provide more even illumination.

 

When there's insufficient available natural light, I use bounce flash from a white ceiling. My Metz flashgun has a "secondary reflector" that provides a small amount of direct fill-in light in bounce-mode, to avoid shadows under the nose, chin and eyebrows (the dreaded "raccoon eyes syndrome"). If I'm careful, my results seem just as good as I'd expect from a much more complex lighting set-up.

[al_kaplan1]

With a tilt head flash like the venerable Vivitar 283 I always keep a rubber band around the the head with a few business cards tucked under it. It's a handy place to grab one in a hurry but if you pull one about half way out it kicks out enough light, when in the bounce position, to throw a bit fill into the shadows and put a nice catch light in the eyes.

[tom h.]

If you're shooting black and white, I'd recommend 400 speed

film and a red 25 filter, it gives nice skin tones (in artificial or

natural light). That's a cracking shot Jim, BTW.

 

Tom

[patricks]

Thanks a lot guys. I cannot wait to get out of here today and try out your suggestions/invent my own this weekend. Since it is going to rain in the DC area ALL weekend, I think this will be a good project!

[david_myers2]

Let me offer a few more ideas. One, to really experience studio lighting, I would suggest you take a course from someone such as Tom Wolfe at Glen Echo Park. Tom is a master of lighting and he can show you how to keep it simple. I think the class goes for 6-8 weeks and costs less than $200. Here is the url for the glen echo workshops:

 

http://www.nps.gov/glec/classes.htm

 

I would also suggest that you consider not working with a tripod. Instead, for the first few rolls of film, get some delta 3200 (rate it about 1600) and shoot away. Get comfortable with the process. An additional benefit is that it will make it easier for the model, you can move more quickly and look for nice compositions. Moving a tripod around is a bear and you will more than likely end up with something very formal looking. Another suggestion, try some large still lifes first to get a feel for the way light plays on the subject. Experiment with the foam core board to see how it fills in the shadows.

 

Finally, there is a website of a portrait photographer who works mostly with available light - he is in Canada. I can' think of his name right now--anyone else know who I mean--wonderful work. Starts with an H! Old age is setting in.

 

David

[bas1]

Patrick, a lot questions and lot of different answers as was to be expected. Here is my 2 cents worth. I've seen the sort of picture that you want to achieve (baby softly lit against black background).

 

Here is how I would do it if you really want the black background.

 

You need to be able to measure contrast between ambient and flash. I had a SB28 remotely connected to my Hasselblad with a PC cord. Flash was mounted on a tripod but you could also tape it to a chair or whatever. The flash was direct away from my subject onto piece of foamcore which was directed to my subjects face. This was to create a bigger lightspot. Bigger light spots create softer light and the bigger it is relative to your subject the softer it is (so closer makes softer as well). In my case the subject was only 30inches away from the foamcore and the foamcore was right next to the subject (90degrees) Opposite the subject I had an other piece of foamcore to bounce light back into the shadow side of the face (I only had one flash). Now by setting the lights and shutterspeed I could set it so that the face was well lit and the background didn't receive any light at all, I'm lucky that I have a big living room. So the background went completely black without using a black backdrop.

 

Doing the same on a M would require a small aparature to ensure your not picking up any ambient in order to make the background go black. I also don't think you can avoid dropping any light onto the person holding the baby since they are so close but with dodging and burning you can achieve a lot. I think that this particular shot you referred to was digitally enhanced to make the background go black.

 

Good luck.

Bas