I need more power

[carl_williams1]

Just some of what I do.

[carl_williams1]

Just one more

[ellis_vener_photography]

bigger umbrellas equal smoother light. th pix you posted make a very good case for

shooyting a "raw" format like Canon's .CRW or Nikon's NEF. You process the image

twice once for the shadow values and a second timeto bring out the details in the

high light values. You then combine these two as layers using Adobe Photoshop.

[timberwolf1]

VARIABLE LIGHT COVERAGE HEADS

 

If you were to use a Speedotron Force 10 or a VF202 head on a Blackline pack, you will

have the ability to focus the beam of the light narrow or wide.

 

What is really nice about this is that you don't have to move your lights alittle just to

accommodate a group that gets larger or smaller. Just dial the head to cover the subject.

In this way, you are maximizing the power of your watt seconds. You are "fitting the

coverage" to "suit the subject". Not so a white umbrella. While you can 'focus' a white

umbrella alittle, it will not have the effect of the feature on a Speedotron Force 10 variable

head. You can gain real full f stops of additional light output.

 

How do you use this additional available real power? You can position your flash units at a

far distance from the group. This gives you a more even coverage from left to right of the

group: more distance is good! Of course, with more distance you will get less diffusion.

But you know what, you aren't going to get any real diffusion effect with lights 30 feet

away even if the umbrellas are 3 or 4' in diameter!

 

I think I proved that wedding photographers find themselves routinely 30-40 feet from the

altar steps when they use normal lenses.

 

If you "go for diffusion" you will lose modeling. And if you put two umbrellas near the

group, you could be making "double cross shadows" across the noses of the people in the

center in addition! Instead of one nose shadow, they would have 2! You don't want that!

So, closeness to the subject can cause other problems! Using distance, and having the

power to use distance is great.

 

So, if you have variable heads, you can do things like put the umbrella in one place, like in

the pews, and put your head in another pew 5 feet away, and simply dial in the correct

coverage for the particular distance and size of the umbrella! I mean, you don't have any

room to move the umbrella or the head because they are both constricted by the pews, so

this is the solution!

 

When you put the head 4-6 feet away from the umbrella, you get a softer light. You will

need a stand for the umbrella, and a stand for the head. You then just focus the head to

fit the umbrella.

 

When the head in "in the umbella" the lightout is not as diffuse, as soft as if the light were

6 feet away! With dark skin subjects, you can see the difference.

 

VARIABLE BOUNCE

 

If you are in a white walled church, you could possibly bounce from the ceiling, if it is 20'

or less in height. You could dial in a narrow angle to focus the light. This will give you

another f stop or so of real light output. If the ceiliing is low, like 8', you may want to dial

in a broad coverage so that the light spreads. This will use the ceiling like a softbox! You

would use broad coverage in a home with the bride.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

[timberwolf1]

Given that you are using a 35mm wide lens for 25 foot distances of about a 16 foot left to

right distance, you will definitely have the power to get a f8-f11 from 2 Speedotrons, or

those White Lightenings.

 

If you use more distance for your lights, the people in the front row will not be so light,

and the people in the back will not be so dark. The more distance you use for your lights,

the more that the 3 rows of people will come together to look the same. More distance =

more evenness.

[carl_williams1]

What size umbrella would be the best?

[carl_williams1]

What size umbrellas do I need?

[ellis_vener_photography]

48" to 60". You should look at Photek umbrellas

[ellis_vener_photography]

The general rule of thumb is that you gt the best balance between contrast and

softness of light when the subject is just about the same distance from the

lightsource (in this case the bowl of the umbrella) as the diameter ofthe light source.

with a group photo the size of the subject iis rather large, so maybe placing two 60"

or two 50" diameter umbrellas placed next to each other and to one side ofthe

camera will make for the best looking key light light, and you add fill to lighten the

shadows if you need to. The quality of the fill light can be important as well. but it is

not as important as the quality of the key light. (Key light is photographer's jargon for

"the main and most important light used to make the photograph") Fill can be

anything from a small vivitar 283 to another head bounced into an umbrella. What

you are generally looking for is light that "models" the subject well. "model" is

another piece of jargon: it means the play between highlight and shadow that creates

the illusion of 3-dimiensionality and depth in the photograph.

[timberwolf1]

Carl,

 

You are going into Baptist churches, correct? They all have white ceilings, correct?

 

You should be simply bouncing your light from the ceiling, and then providing a small fill.

 

As a result, your backgrounds, your subjects will all look 3D, and not have any shine on

their faces. You will see even more detail in dresses, and you will have even less trouble in

selecting where to put the umbrellas.

 

You can test this by simply using your Briteks. That's right, you can slip some 400 filim

into your camera, and go to a church and take a test picture. Simply point your stobes at

a 45 degree angle at the ceiling. That will put you about 25 feet from the altar area.

Perfect for you. You can use all the wide angle lenses you want, no problem from having

uneveness.

 

Your Briteks will work now for you, so long as you have 8' or 10' high ceilings. When you

have a 12' or 16' ceiling, you will be needing more power.

 

FILL CARD

 

The way to do the "slight fill" I have already worked out on my Force 10 Speedotron and

my Norman 200b s. Simply go to TAP Plastics. Ask for white plastic sheets. Only one will

have a mottled side with the other side smooth. Use this. Have them cut a sheet, oh,

11x14 for you. Have them round the edges with a 2" round radius. This will cost you

about $4.

 

Attach these "cards" to the back of your reflector using sticky velcro that you buy at a

hardware store or fabric store. What will happen is, as you point your flash at the ceiling

at an angle, the white card will be approximately vertical. The white card will reflect alittle

light forward to the subjects to illuminate alittle under their eyes. You can also

permanently attach this card, bolt it, to the reflector if you have the Speedotron reflectors.

 

I realize that this card seems big. But because it is large, it will project more power and

efficiency.

 

This is the fastest, and a very high quality way to provide lighting under location

conditions. I worked this out some time ago. The shape of my "cards" actually have the

edges cut alittle at a 45 degree angle so that I can bend the center forward just alittle. In

this way, the card looks alittle like a catcher's mitt and it "catches" some light at the tip

area. You will see what I mean later.

 

Just go get some white plastic somewhere. Test this for yourself.

 

In effect, the strobe is becoming 2 light sources in 1: the ceiling bounce, and the fill ---

all in in!

 

This is a better way to do it than umbrellas for you. You have that white ceiling that you

can take advantage of. Take advantage of it!

[twmeyer]

How about some photos made with these sure-fire lighting schemes? <p>I don't share your aesthetic proclivities Timber, as far as I can tell from the descriptions you post (and the 12 images on your personal page at photo.net). Your specific mandates about lighting will deliver results that have a pronounced visual pathology ... You should post some photos you've made using these techniques to let people see the results of your very specific dictations... t

[timberwolf1]

Carl needs to see what "bounced light" looks for himself. Bounced light WITH alittle fill is

very similar to "butterfly lighting" used by a great number of fashion photographers. This

lighting technique is actually faster to set-up than using an umbrella! In fact, I use it on

my portable camera bracket with a smaller white card all the time. The difference, is that

Carl will have more power, more diffusion, and an even softer fill which he can position

BELOW THE CAMERA. This last feature is very important and great as this light can

illuminate under the chin and eyes. This is very important for women. Bounced light

almost looks unidentifiable as a "studio light". Carl definitely needs to get over to his local

church and investigate the ceiling height, white color, and do a test shot.

 

I think every reader should go to my portfolio page. Perhaps someday I will add more

pictures.

[timberwolf1]

In my portfolio, "Princess Bride Cathleen" was done with this technique. Readers can go to

it. However, I can even make the lighting better, giving more illumination under her eyes

by putting some "fhi018" silver mylar vinyl on the carpet.

[twmeyer]

This one?... t<div></div>

[timberwolf1]

This is her. Notice the gentle shadows under her arms and in her dress near the carpet.

Notice also that there are no shadows projected on the walls, too.

[twmeyer]

yes, I note the almost complete lack of any shadows at all... quite remarkable... t<div></div>

[timberwolf1]

Nice colors. What are you doing that she needs to cover herself up? Does she detect that

you are "alittle too high" in your camera angle? I think she likes you Tom.

[_________1]

Thanks for the illustrations, Tom. The difference is, to put it mildly, startling.

[timberwolf1]

I will note here that the background, being a translucent glass, will wipe out the expected

shadow that would be seen to the right of the picture. I don't expect that a stairwell would

have ceilings to bounce from anyway, so he did the right thing here. But the two pictures

are not comparable because of the very different situations.

 

Did you sneak up on her at a wedding while she was "adjusting herself" ?

[twmeyer]

"sneak up" with a 45" softbox?. I've certainly been accused of being "too high" before, but not on the job. <p>This is only one of several frames made on the stairs in this small church, in others she is less animated. But I like the gesture, it brings to mind the phrase "blushing bride". What is concealed is often more tantalizing than what is revealed... t

[timberwolf1]

Tom's useage of a 45" softbox is his personal phal___c I can't spell it....symbol. You can

see that the ladies enjoy him. When they see his 45' symbol moving towards them, they

race to the stairs where he catches them in his spider web of diffused softbox shadows.

[kevinconnery]

While I have to admit there are very few visible 'shadows' in the

'Princess' image, that's not necessarly good--there's no shaping

or dimensionality to the subject, and the background i competing

with the subject--the line along the top of her head along is a

compositional issue.<p>

More telling from a lighting perspective, however, is that the two

shadows that are present are covering the eyesockets, giving

her the traditional 'raccoon eyes' common to shooting in sunlight

around mid-day.<p>

How this relates to the content of the advice in general is up to

the reader; how it relates to the specific technique

recommended is very direct. If you <i>want</i> this kind of result,

follow that advice.<p>

I prefer lighting that shapes rather than merely illuminates,

myeself.

[twmeyer]

bingo... t

[_________1]

Ditto, t.

[timberwolf1]

The Princess photo above has to be qualified:

 

The Bride is wearing dark eye shadow in the style of a French model. I call it "smokey".

The photo is scanned from a print, and the low resolution cannot reveal details in her eyes

on the internet as well as seeing the final print.

 

The issue of fill is valid. However, I used 2 white card sources of fill, and 2 sources of

bounce with one hairlight/kicker for a total of 5 light sources. And, due to the tight time

requirements, I had about 120 seconds to complete the photo since she was ready to walk

out the door for the ceremony.

 

In forward lights, I will cast shadows on the nearby fireplace mantel, and the shadows will

be upward like Batman shadows.

 

I did not want to wash out detail in her dress. I wanted a 3D look.

 

Therefore, bounce light worked well here. by bouncing light in 2 different parts of the

ceiling, I generated a nice gentle shadow on her arms and lower dress to show three

dimensions. All that is left is to add more reflector power under her chin. And this

requires time to get the angle correct when you aren't using modeling lights, as was the

case here.

 

I shot high in order to minimize the mantel problem. However, the mantel is a low object

and cannot be moved. Nor can I shrink the subject. And the room is only so big. And you

know how weddings go.

 

For Carl, in order to light some more under her eyes/chin, you can use a longer distance

to the group picture. This will lower your bounce light in terms of the ceiling angle to the

subject. The farther you are, the better. Therefore, in this picture, a 10' distance will

produce more problems of dark eyes than a church's 25 feet distance.

 

By placing fhi018 on the floor, silver vinyl mylar, you can create quasi-butterfly lighting by

reflecting the ceiling bounce from the floor under the eyes/chin of the subject. I

purchased several yards for useage.