john_murphy1

Does anyone have examples of family portraits of dark-skinned

subjects against studio backdrops (not environmental). I need to

expand my background selection beyond my usual defaults of "brown/tan

for white skin, blue for olive/tanned skin, and gray for everyone

else". Note, when I say family portraits, I mean normal stuff that

normal people would pay money for. Not "art" or black & white stuff.

I wonder what that test might be. Anyway, my Elinchrom diffusion screens feel a lot softer than the Photoflex or Chimera screens...whatever that means.

Sorry, the link to the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=227524&is=REG&addedTroughType=search">Bogen background support</a> was incorrect.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ENl0">Here's a link</a> to a thread on this topic.</p>

In reference to the sturdiness of these things, most of the name-brand portable systems are reasonably sturdy with the exception of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=G7TYMp2fLf!-770332831?O=product.jsp&A=getpage&Q=HelpCenter/ReturnExchange.jsp">Bogen portable system</a> which is very flimsy, and I regret buying it. This is surprising to me, since most of the other Bogen products are the best in their class. The Autopoles are very sturdy (when properly secured), but expensive, since you need to purchase a lot more than just the poles themselves.</p>

For your needs, the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=41824&is=REG&addedTroughType=search">Photek system</a> should be fine.</p>

As far as using ebay, I only would use it for buying used qear if you're in the US, since you can usually get new stuff for about the same price from B&H without the potential hassles of buying from an unknown seller.

Skip's answer is the correct one. Falloff of light intensity is related to the geometry of the source (even if reflected.) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity">Here</a> is a link to a page that gives the general formula.

If such a book exists, I have never seen it. The standard resource on posing is <a href="http://jzportraits.home.att.net/">Joe Zeltsman's tutorial</a>.</p>

As far as the shadow on the background goes, the usual tricks are: raise the lights, increase the subject-to-background distance, or use a background light.

Addressing your actual question: for large format film shots, color shifts seem to be part of the game. I've always attributed it to the film, and done alot of test shots till I know the behavior of the films that I use. I guess filtering would work, but I've never needed to use it for anything under strobes since many of the films available in LF sizes work well with strobe lighting.

I've found that the D-70 tends to make everything look too magenta. That's why I always shoot in RAW and color correct using a gray card PLUS a little shift of the tint towards green.

If you are interested in the math, check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number">this link</a>.</p>

The reason logrithms are used in these calculations is not just to make things more difficult, it actually makes things easier. This is because when you try to plot out a lot of natural phenomena on a graph you find they do not behave linearly, that is, they don't form a nice straight line. (This is sort of like: two plus two doesn't equal four.) Instead they demonstrate exponential behavior, like the way ONE f-stop corresponds to a doubling (TWO) of the amount of light. Logrithms are used to convert these calculations in to the more familiar linear form, thereby making it easier for us to comprehend the rewsults.</p>

Additionally, the squares and square roots show up because you are dealing with the area of the aperture, which is proportional to the square of the radius.</p>

I no longer do the math in my head because my Sekonic meter has a little scale on the bottom of its display that helps me to calculate the relative distance between two readings.

A pediatrician won't be an authority on this topic. An ophthomologist might know offhand, or would be able to research it in order to obtain an answer.

The purpose of this is to demonstrate that a softbox's "softness" varies with the light's distance from the subject. At some point, the softbox stops acting like a softbox and starts acting like a regular reflector.</p>

 

If you've ever taken readings with your lightmeter at progressively longer distances from the softbox then you've no doubt noticed that the light doesn't falloff much when you're up close to the face of the softbox. But as you get further out, suddenly the falloff becomes more rapid, that is, it follows the inverse square law.</p>

 

This is because the softbox acts like an infinite plane source when you're close to it, but it acts like a point source as you get beyond a certain point. An ideal plane source has no light falloff as you move further away from it. A point source of light obeys the inverse square law, that is, the intensity of the light decreases by a factor of four each time you double the distance. How far out you have to go before you start to see this change varies with the geometry of the softbox.</p>

 

The math behind this is probably more than most of us would like to tackle. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity">Here</a> is a link to the applicable formula if you want to attempt it.</p>

 

Suffice to say that if you stay within a distance equal to or less than the diagonal width of the softbox you'll be okay.

If anyone is interested, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3706460&dopt=Citation">here's the link</a> to the article I mentioned above.

I have attempted to research this on the web before but was unable to come up with a definitive answer. Searching for "photodamage" or "light toxicity" or "photoretinopathy" I find a lot of generic warnings, like <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2081122&dopt=Abstract">this one</a> but few actual studies on this topic. Obviously, brighter light and longer exposure times will increase the likelihood of injury.</p>

A trip to the Library of Science in NYC to check in the multi-volume textbook sets on ophthomology housed there would no doubt provide an answer, but I've never bothered to undertake that venture.<p>

I do recall an article a few years ago on the dangers of the intense operating room lights used in eye surgery and their effect on the retina, that led me to conclude that the duration and intensity of the flashes used in photography are nothing in comparison to operating room lights, and therefore pose minimal risk.</p>

The short attention span of children tends to limit there cumulative exposure to flash anyway. Furthermore, the amount of light striking the retina can be reduced by shooting in a bright enough environment that the pupils are moderately constricted. Thus, I photograph my own children without concern for damaging their eyes.</p>

Continuous (hot) lights are a different story altogether...

If you Google the phrase "focal-plane shutter" you'll find some web pages with better diagrams of this thing.</p>

Since you are obviously serious about learning about photography, I suggest you buy (and READ!) Ansel Adams' 3 books on photography (The Camera, The Negative, and The Print). They really contain almost all you need to know about the basics of photography, despite the commonly voiced objections (they are outdated to some extent, they concentrate on photographing nature more than people, they are only in black and white, etc.)</p>

I have read extensively on the subject of photography, but I would be hard-pressed to try to find another book or article that can compare to these volumes in their scope and clarity of presentation.</p>

For example, try to find an answer to a simple optical question like, "Why do objects appear smaller as you get farther away from them?" Obviously, this is an optical illusion, since objects in the distance are not actually shrunken, they only appear that way. Try to find an answer by asking people, searching the web, etc. Then check out Adams' explanation on pg 48, Fig. 5-5 of "The Camera". I think you'll find his explanation much clearer and more concise than others.

Here's <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Frub&tag=">a link</a> to a comparison I created to demonstrate the effect of softbox distance on light quality.</p>

When purchasing a softbox, keep in mind that the size affects how far you can move the light away from the subject before you start to lose the soft effect. That's why Steve said that you can never get too close with a softbox.

Here is another quality of light comparision for informational

purposes.</p>

This demonstrates the effect of the distance between the main

light and the subject. I used a 3ft wide softbox at three different

positions. Otherwise, the setup was identical for each shot.</p>

You can see that at distances less than the diagonal width of the

softbox, it produces softlight, but as you pull it further away, the

light gets harder and the contrast increases.<div></div>

Check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FgoG">this thread</a>. It may answer your question.

Assuming by "neutral" you mean that the colors are true, then definitely do not use Astia. It is beautiful for portraits, but not neutral in any sense of the word.</p>

The usual answer to this question is Provia. Under strobes it is reasonably neutral, but it sometimes looks a little blue.</p>

By the way, be careful when judging the neutrality of transparency films online. Since they need to be scanned and profiled, there are inaccuracies that can result, rendering comparisons difficult.

We recently had an Indian couple at work get married. Yes, you're right about them being very colorful.</p>

I shoot digital, but I was really impressed with the shots taken by one of the other ladies at work. She used one of the amateur Kodak print films (Gold?) and the colors looked great! Especially the part where the groom came riding in on a horse as all the relatives surrounded him.</p>

The same woman's indoor shots were not as nice. The best I saw of the indoor reception shots were on Fuji film (I think it was NPH400).

The beauty of using digital cameras is that you can view the effect of different lighting setups so readily.</p>

For single-person portraits, I always set up the background light first. It is on the floor behind the subject, about 5 feet from the background. I use diffusion to reduce the visibility of wrinkles, and a grid spot to control the spill of the light. The size of the circle of light needed varies, and this determines how far from the background the light needs to be placed.</p>

Next, I usually set up the main light, never more than 3 feet from the subject, around 30-45 degrees to the camera-left position. Without adding anything else, I then sit in the seat and use the remote to take a shot of myself to check the main light's position. Then I bring in a reflector into the camera-right position and adjust it based on what the test shots look like. An example is posted below.</p>

Based on the portrait you posted a week ago, it looks like you've already got this figured out pretty well.<div></div>

I done lots of sunrises with the old Velvia. I usually used, an EI of 40 and 4 to 5 stops of ND grads to bring the sky in line with water/ground.</p>

Typically, the EV (spotmeter) readings are in the 8 range before the sun appears, which would require a 4, 8, or 16 second exposure depending on your f-stop. But once the sun starts to appear, the sky's reading will jump to 13 and then later 15. Minus 5 stops for the grads, this translates to 1/2 to 2 second exposures for most occasions, which shouldn't present any big problem with reciprocity failure.

I made those comments to which you are referring. Simply put, I was wrong. I just tested the StudioMax 320 unit with a 2'x3' softbox and it is able to support it. Sorry about that.</p>

I think the reasons not to buy the StudioMax go beyond its flimsy construction. For instance, I just metered out a couple dozen flashes from the unit and the readings vary by over a half a stop. Furthermore, as has been displayed in other postings, the unit has a slow recycle time and long discharge time.</p>

While my other Photogenic strobes are fine, the StudioMax has always given me headaches. It wasn't worth any money I might have saved by buying it.

I do this all the time: I meter the approximate spot in space where the main light will strike the face, then I face the meter toward the reflector and take a reading while using my other hand to shield the meter from the main light. (Just make sure your body doesn't block the main light.) As a matter of fact, now that I have the Sekonic 358 don't need to use my hand to block the main light since the lumisphere can be retracted into the meter...</p>

What you'll usually find is that the reflector has to be positioned fairly close to the subject in order to obtain an acceptable contrast ratio.</p>

As far as what to buy next: judging from the photo you posted earlier, you're doing pretty well with your current light kit, so you might as well go for the meter since it makes your life a lot easier (especially when shooting digital media or slide film).</p>

Hope this helps.

Your work is better than a lot of the stuff I see.</p>

I don't think something this good happened by accident, so I assume you have a reason for having such flat lighting on this particular subject. (From a technical standpoint, this is due to the light placed under the subject being turned up pretty high.) Is it the heavy bags under his eyes, or the marks (glasses?) on his face that you're trying to eliminate with the underlighting? </p>

Assuming I was shooting the same subject in the exact same pose, I would switch the fill light to the camera-right position and turn down it's power. I would place the key light on the camera-left position and bring it around a light farther than you have it in this photo. I would increase the contrast ratio but cutting down the fill light's power (or increasing the key and background lights' power if the fill light is already at its minimum.)</p>

Another optional thing I like to do is to try to use scrims/flags to keep some of the light off the arms and hands. Alternately, you can bring them down in Photoshop.</p>

Incidentally, I know you are concentrating on lighting, but I would note that your posing of this subject is excellent.

The <a href="http://www.elinchrom.com/products/specifications/specifications.pdf">Elinchrom brochure</a> has some nice tables in it (under "Rotalux") that shows you the f-stop at 2m(6.6ft) using their 600W/s unit into their various softboxes.</p>

Also, more power is not always better if you're shooting small format digital, as you may run into problems with not being able to turn down your strobes enough to achieve the appropriate aperture.