barry_kenstler1

<p>Doug,<br>

I like Charles' suggestions for the lighting. I've used a similar approach for big groups with success. While I generally prefer lighting that has some ratio between the main and fill lights, when it comes to big groups, soft and uniform will make life easiest. Use satin, not silver umbrellas, if possible. The satins give softer shadow edges, and that's good here. Also, don't be tempted to move your lights too far off the camera-group axis. Especially with layered groupings, as you'll have, you want to get the light directed as straight into the faces as is possible. If the lighting comes in from the side, it's more likely that the people in front and to the side can cast shadows on those behind them, and this is especially likely if the posing is pell-mell. <br>

As you mention, you'll probably want to stop the lens down a bit more than for small groups and this will mean that you'll need a bit of flash power. What type of strobes were you planning to use? Of course an appropriate f-stop will be based on your particular camera/lens choice and the depth of field you find acceptable. In any event, I would think an aperture no wider than f8 is probably best.</p>

<p>Well, I thought I was done with this thread and would save my hot air for something else, but...<br>

Yes, Tom, I agree that the best images are often among the first few taken and dragging professionals trough the mud is usually counterproductive. Nevertheless, if I sense that the sitter wants to try again, or has concerns, I try to give them as much time as is practical. This may be a reaction to having worked far too long in retail portraiture where getting them in and out was a priority. When I'm not doing work on site, I'll usually spend more time with the sitter, allowing for a wardrobe change for example, as was the case in the sample image I uploaded. When I do sittings in the office, I move along as Tom does, taking typically less than 12 exposures without previews and then uploading everything for viewing so the sitter can make an image choice while I'm shooting the next. </p>

<p>When I'm shooting for other purposes, such as social networking, book covers, or on-line dating for example, I do take more time with customers and a lot more in some cases. I find that very nervous sitters need time to relax. Much as Tom does, I relax them by making them part of the process. We take a few shots and then critique them together on the computer. We may both go back to shooting with an assignment, so to speak, and we go at it again, and perhaps again. At some point we are working toward a common goal and the initial fear is replaced by a feeling that we'll achieve the desired product, perhaps even bettering initial expectations. For these longer sessions, I find the better images are often produced towards the beginning and the end, with usually the best at or near the end. The process reminds me of cooking meat. You either cook it quickly until just done, or you braise it for a very long time. Anything in between is not worth eating. </p>

<p>Michael,<br>

Thanks for the feedback on the Honl tools. I had my eye on the 1/4" grid, and now I feel confident that it's the way to go. In the end, and particularly because of the technical feedback from Dave, Tom, and yourself, this thread delivered.<br>

Barry</p>

<p>Of course I'm not sure, but a bunch of large scrims, such as 8' X 8' size, placed side by side and lighted from behind could produce such an effect. In the first linked photo, such a contraption would be behind the nearest young lady and would probably require quite a few Watt-seconds of energy to light the large room and balance the window light. It's also possible that some light is being bounced off of the ceiling and back walls. I'm not an architectural photographer, so this is purely guesswork and nothing more.</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

Good to see the near final results. Not bad for someone who came here to be bailed out at the last minute. Just kidding! Since Tom decided to post a few examples, as did you, I thought I'd drop one in as well, especially as I mentioned the gear I use further up in the post. Michael, I shoot as you do, with both short and broad light. I set the main light left or right depending on the facial symmetry and/or nose issues, then proceed with a few frames pointing in both directions. If I have a big group to do, and I've shot over 20 in a day, I usually leave the light on one side unless I'm requested to do otherwise by one of the sitters. Too bad those big jobs are so few and far between for me. Also, when time permits, and if the subject is a marginal candidate for the hairlight, sometimes I'll direct the juice to a kicker light, as Tom did, to provide separation without showcasing the thinning or graying hair. </p>

<p>On another note, how are those Honl accessories? Do they stay put? Have you used both of the grids? Do they really create a fairly defined oval pattern? They sound rather tempting. I've also been looking at the Strobies tools too. Any thoughts if you have the time. <br>

Barry</p><div></div>

<p>Roger,<br>

Here is how I would reverse engineer your latest example and what I would use to recreate it. First, it appears that the model is again quite close to the background, certainly less than a meter away, and that the background is likely white seamless paper. This is based on the positions of the background shadows and the light in the shadow side of the face. It is hard to say exactly what kind of lighting units were used, but based on the shadows on the background and the reflections of the lighting in the model's eyes, two sources of moderate size, and probably at a moderate distance were used. Both lighting units are off to camera right. One is lower and somewhat more to the right than the other. That lower one is probably positioned somewhere near chest/abdomen level, and is either somewhat smaller than the other light or is positioned back further than the higher light. These claims are based on the edges of the leftmost shadow of the model, and the size of the lower reflection in the eye. The higher of the two lights is positioned a bit closer to the camera/model axis, and is either slightly bigger and/or slightly closer than the lower light. This light is positioned just above the level of the model's head. This can be determine by the inner shadow on the background that belongs to this light. Additional fill lighting or reflectors were probably not used as there was probably quite a bit of light bouncing back into the shadows from the surrounding white background and adjacent surfaces. <br>

You could duplicate this look with a piece of seamless white paper and two lighting units. I would suggest using flash, but it could be done with continuous lighting as long a the model stayed very still. In my studio, I would select a large beauty dish or my 16 inch reflector with a diffuser for this look and position the lights in 4' to 10' range. You could get a similar look with a silver umbrella. Be aware that the light's position (distance) and size can make a big difference, and a larger source at a distance can look a lot like a smaller one in closer, though there will be somewhat of a qualitative difference. Using lighting units with their regular reflectors, typically 6"-10" in diameter, would give sharper shadow edges and snappier highlights. Using larger satin umbrellas or softboxes would produce more diffuse shadow edges and softer highlight gradation. Your sample image may have had some retouching to the highlight areas of the face to smooth some of the hot spots (specular highlights).<br>

This style of lighting may work for fashion, but some would consider it flawed for standard portraiture, with lights too low, background shadows too visible, ... Works for me though.</p>

<p>I think your assessment of the situation is very reasonable. Except for standing shots with taller subjects, you can make it work. Is a 7 something foot ceiling ideal? No. Can you get shots most parents and seniors will like in most instances? Yes. If you will be using large, soft sources, as most photographers do for this type of work, I would recommend a rectangular softbox as your primary light source. You can use the softbox in the horizontal orientation and get it up higher than round or octagonal sources of similar area. For headshots, floor poses, and many standing poses, your space should be perfectly adequate. </p>

<p>That's my view from having worked in similar, and even smaller spaces. Moody fashion-style shots lighted from high above are out, but most of the bread-and-butter stuff is within reach.</p>

 

<p>Steve,<br>

Sure, you can use the flashes in Auto mode. I'm familiar with the SB-26, so I'll direct my comments to that flash, though the the 24 is quite similar in most ways. I'm not sure which Wein adapter you are referring to. Is it the Safesync hot-shoe model? If it is, you can use a dreaded PC male to PC male cable to the flash. It would probably be best if that flash was on a bracket though, as PC connectors come loose so easily, especially when hand-holding the flash. It is possible that you could use a Nikon coiled remote cord with the Wein, but I've never tried that. That would be a more secure solution, but I'm not sure about issues of shorting pins and the like. Just set the auto aperture on the flash as desired, and then set the Canon to manual or aperture priority with that same aperture. If you want more of a fill flash, you'll have to decrease the auto flash f-stop or increase the camera f-stop relative to that on the flash. If in manual mode, of course keep the shutter speed at the sync speed or slower. If in aperture priority mode, you'll have to make sure the shutter speed stays within range. The camera will not detect the flash and warn that the shutter speed is too high. The SB-26 works quite well in auto mode under most circumstances. The manual mode on the SB-26 is particularly easy to use, as the display gives clear and quite accurate f-stop settings for various distances at each zoom setting. If you are working in a fast-paced, changing environment, I'd stick with Auto. You'll have to set the zoom coverage manually regardless of which route you'll choose. <br>

Good luck, those are good, solid flashes.</p>

<p>Roger,<br>

Ditto on Pete's comments. So, the first image (yours) was shot in the biggest Lastolite cube with some lights on either side around shoulder level or higher, and presumably one or more units lighting from behind to keep the background white, right? Are the lights you are using continuous lights or flash lights? I don't mean to ask more questions than I'm willing to answer, but the answers to those questions will help responders to be more helpful. <br>

The second photo could have been done with a very simple setup. You could get a very similar look using a large umbrella or other large soft source,such as an octagonal softbox, placed immediately over or behind the camera. The center of that llight source appears to be above the camera, but not by very much. The background may very well be seamless white paper, with the model less than 2 meters from it. Some residual shadows may have been smoothed in post processing. <br>

For what it's worth, I sort of prefer your photo to the "more professional" one.</p>

<p>Geoff,<br>

The Gossen Luna Pro Digital and the subsequent Digital F ( with Flash measurement ) are switchable between aperture (F) and shutter (T) priority. They are holding their value well on the used market. I saw a Digital non-F at B&H for $150, which is just short of what I paid for mine new. The only complaint I have with the modern Gossen meters is battery life. They eat batteries faster than other meters in my experience. Not many people take the Polaris meters seriously, but I have the original plain flash version and it's been great to me. It's been through hell and back and is still accurate after 15 years of use. Not the best for balancing flash and ambient, and like the Sekonic L308 shutter priority only, but I just love it. Older Minolta meters can be good too if you are considering going the used route. <br>

Barry</p>

<p>Mel,<br>

I have the original Lastolite Trilite system, with the silver/sunlight reflectors. I'd probably choose the silver/white panels if I purchased one today. It's a well-made product that is quite adjustable and does the trick. I was not particularly crazy about the results I achieved with the Trilite, but this could very well have been user error. Frankly, I'm more of a fan of the look I achieve with a single silvered reflector below and a beauty dish or softbox above. The wrap-around light I was getting with the triple reflectors could be a bit too soft for my taste, and the light from the side panels had a tendency to fill shadows around the side of the face, adding a roundness to the face that was not always desirable. Again, I probably didn't play with it enough to get the great results I'm sure others have achieved. I still use one of the three reflector panels attached to a reflector arm for beauty lighting and underside fill. <br>

The original Westcott product was far less adjustable than the Lastolite version. On the other hand, its panels were adjoining and probably provided a more repeatable and, perhaps, specular look. I have no knowledge of their current offering.<br>

Good luck with your glamor photos.</p>

<p>Alex,<br>

Very, very interesting. Thanks for the information.</p>

<p>Geoff,<br>

If you're not going to measure flash and expect to use the meter in reflected mode for the most part, I'd suggest scaling back a little. You might be happier with the smaller Sekonic L308 S meter. The diffuser slides to the side for reflective readings so you don't have the problem of losing or misplacing the hemisphere. If you want the narrower acceptance angle of the Gossen and don't mind purchasing used, look for the original Luna Pro Digital (non-F) version which has a narrow acceptance angle, a captive sliding hemisphere, and is easy to use. I had mine swiped by a homeless fellow and still miss it. <br>

By the way, I prefer the narrower acceptance angles for doing more selective readings in the scene. I like to take my readings of portions of the scene that should reproduce as middle tones. Just pointing the meter straight ahead, particularly if there is a large portion of the sky in view, often leads to underexposure. The acceptance angle is really not that important. You can usually adjust your technique to fit the meter.</p>

<p>Anna,<br>

I agree with Ken about the tilting. Once mounted inside, it's difficult get at the monoblock controls and tilt mechanism if it isn't a model specifically designed for monoblocks. I use the medium-size Apollo designed for monoblocks, and it is quick to set up and easy to transport. I'm not terribly familiar with the JS, but as I remember it is fairly shallow and much better for head and generator type applications. It might not be the best choice for a monoblock, especially a rather long and narrow Bowens unit. I suspect it might only mount well with the light facing into the box, and in that case might work best without an umbrella reflector, which, of course, is a problem when using Bowens. I'm not trying to discourage you, as the JS is a good product that is unquestionably quick to set up, light, and easy to transport. I just think there may be limitations for a Bowens user that merit further consideration.<br>

Yes, at least based on the PLM umbrella I have, the JS will allow you to get in much closer. Paul Buff will produce a newer model with a shorter shaft, and may already have it on the market, but mine has a length similar to that of a standard umbrella.</p>

<p>I agree that Jeff and Robert have a point about managing public image, particularly Jeff's point concerning search rank. It's true, a stupid post on Photo.net is stupid indeed. Where I differ with Jeff and Robert is on the interpretation of Michael's questions. I don't see his questions as a sure sign of a foundering newbie, but as someone who'd like to hear other photographers' pros and cons on each of three setups. Each of the proposed setups could produce perfectly acceptable headshots. I was expecting comments on the virtues of monolights and their modeling lights, or detractors of the same complaining about bulk and weight, for example. How about controlling the speedlights via E-TTL vs. manual? What works best for you and why? I think these are perfectly reasonable questions that deserve perfectly reasonable responses.</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

Sounds like a very workable plan to me. I admire your enthusiasm. I'd be happy to have half of it. I agree, learning to get similar looks from different sources, and different looks from the same source, can charge you up, not to mention make you a better photographer. In my experience, shortly after you've concluded you're an expert with nothing more to learn, life is likely to present evidence to the contrary. </p>

<p>Happy Lighting,<br>

Barry</p>

<p>Michael,<br /> I agree, there is nothing wrong with asking peoples' opinions, no matter how basic the subject or how experienced the photographer. Sometimes there's a little gem in a response that can change how you think or work.</p>

<p>All three of your options have merit, though I'd be inclined to suggest the studio flashes simply because that's what I'm most comfortable with. A hybrid solution with some speedlights in manual mode is another possibility and one I've used. Studio lights might project a more "professional" appearance, but that is debatable considering how many pros are now using speedlights for such assignments. If you'd like to use one of the studio flashes as a hair light, and another to light the background, I'd suggest you forgo the fill light and substitute a reflector. I've found that I get perfectly good results by substituting a large white fill reflector opposite the main light for the separate fill light. In fact, it's hard for me to tell the difference between the shots I've done in my studio using a fill light and those shot on location with a large piece of white Foamcore in its place. The difference shows up primarily in the background, as it will be slightly darker. I just drag along a shade lighter gray seamless paper roll when using the reflector. Of course, I'm comfortable with this setup and know approximately how to place my reflector to get the equivalent ratio. With the strobe modeling lights you have the visual confirmation too, so you can usually see how that reflector fill is working on the face.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, for corporate-style headshots I usually bring along a three light setup: main light (umbrella/softbox), hair light w/barn doors, background light w/barn doors. The ladies often appreciate the hair lighting; the bald guys generally don't. I close the barn doors on the hair light for the folks with thinning hair. I may use diffusers or colored gels on the hair and background lights depending on the desired look.</p>

<p>Oh, yes, I think using a light diffuser, as suggested, is worth considering. I used to use the Tiffen Soft FX and black mesh diffusion filters when I shot film, but stopped when I switched to digital. That's something I should reconsider. I've been spending a little too much time retouching my female clients. <br /> Good luck on that shoot.</p>

<p>Megan,<br>

I think that, on average, photographers in the pre-digital days probably shot less and prepared more than many digital-era shooters. The economic and feedback differences required it. Film cost and the associated processing costs certainly provided incentive to shoot more selectively with film. The lack of immediate feedback, Polaroids aside, made accurate metering and a careful checking of the subject and scene all the more important. That doesn't mean everyone was more selective or careful. There were sloppy shooters in the good ol days too, and labs groaned when they brought in their 10 rolls of underexposed crap that they'd have pull decent prints from. <br>

I'm sure some guys think they can get their portrait shot in one exposure, and maybe they can in many instances. I've shot plenty of film and am very happy that I can overshoot with digital. Yes, sometimes my first shot is damned good, but my 15th might just be awesome.</p>

<p>Jewell,<br>

I agree in general with the observations here, and think you can create great portraits with just about any focal length of lens. Even very wide angles of views, such as you might get with a 17mm or shorter lens, are useful for dynamic environmental portraits. That said, if you are planning to do a lot of tight headshots, I would strongly suggest at least one lens with a 70mm or greater focal length. If you get in real tight with a 50mm lens, portions of the face closest to the lens can look disproportionately large. Subjects with a big nose, for example, may not be fond of such renditions.</p>

<p>Angelica,<br>

I'm inclined to agree with Joel, with one big caveat: make sure you make it clear that each "model" will be receiving exactly the same images as the MUA. Manage their expectations from the start concerning the customizing or retouching of their images so that there will be no hard feelings at the end. After all, any of those friends could be a future client. <br>

I do see your point that it is probably the MUA's responsibility to compensate the models, as she too stands to gain from the event, but I think it is also reasonable to expect that each friend would want a photographic keepsake of the event. It is likely that the ladies will have little immediate use for their new makeup, while you and the MUA will be gaining potentially valuable marketing materials from their participation. Someone owes them something.</p>

<p>Dennis,<br>

I used the Tri-Lite in this image too, but here the Tri-Lite was actually turned around, attached to a gobo arm on my light stand and used as a set of reflective barn doors for my 24" square softbox. That combination produced a controllable source with a nice pop. I wouldn't recommend this as a general approach, but it worked. <br>

Barry</p><div></div>

<p>Dennis,<br>

I have used an earlier Lastolite version of this contraption, which was known in the US at the time of my purchase as the Tri-Lite. I was not quite getting the look I wanted with it, so it was mothballed after two sessions; I returned to using independent reflectors. I suspect that the device is far more capable than I believed and am planning to bring it out of retirement now. I had used my Tri-Lite with a large, soft source, and found the resulting light too soft, even using the silver panels. The side panels filled in the the shadows under the cheeks and around the sides of the face, decreasing definition and potentially adding a sense of roundness and weight to the face. Looking back at the few images I have made with it, I believe a harder source placed higher up would have greatly improved the look. So, I'm not really an advocate for this device, but I also think some of my ambivalence is due to failures on the part of the operator, and not the product. The image shown in this post was made with a medium-size Photek Soflighter and the Tri-lite, the bottom panel of which can be seen in the lower portion of the frame. The Soflighter was placed directly over the camera, and the Tri-lite placed symmetrically on axis. This photo received not retouching or special adjustments. A hairlight was also used.</p><div></div>

<p>Nina,<br>

There have been many generations of Novatron packs and features/operation can vary slightly between generations, and even between models within a generation. The yellow flashing indicator you are referring to is probably the neon flash-ready indicator. It will generally go out immediately after the pack is fired and come on again within a few seconds when the pack is recharged. The light will remain in its flashing mode until, once again, the pack is discharged. On some models, this light will go off shortly after powering the unit down. On other models, there is apparently no bleed-down circuitry for the capacitors, and the neon light will remain flashing for quite some time after the pack is switched off or unplugged. If your strobes fire properly, there is probably no problem with your pack. Enjoy your Novatron equipment. It can bring you many years of good service.</p>

<p>Osnat,<br>

You may not be happy with your picture, but I thought the lighting was pretty good. I've seen much poorer lighting, with stronger shadows in images from well-known portrait studios. <br>

Here are a few things that can reduce the shadows:</p>

<ul>

<li>Place the fill light (the one that will be somewhat less powerful) either directly behind the camera or right next to it on the side opposite your main (stronger) light. This way the shadow from the fill light will fall directly behind the subject where it will be less visible, even when the camera is raised.</li>

<li>If you have the room and money, use larger light modifiers. The shadow edges will be noticeably softer and graduated. A very larger umbrella is rather inexpensive and works great for this kind of picture. </li>

<li>If you have the a lot of room and are using large modifiers, you can move your lights and camera back somewhat. While this will harden the shadow edges a bit, it will also reduce the difference in light intensity between the subject and the background, making the background relatively lighter. </li>

<li>If the walls and ceiling behind your camera are white or relatively neutral in tone, and your strobes are quite powerful, you can bounce the fill light off of wall and/or ceiling behind the camera to create a very indistinct fill source that is almost shadowless. </li>

</ul>

<p>As you say, you can also light the background with more lights. Using one light can be tricky and may require a boom to get the light over the subject and pointed back at the background. It is quite difficult to get an even splash of light across your background with just one light, especially if you are working in a tight space. White backgrounds are often lighted from both sides, using two or more strobes. Getting an even white background that feathers seamlessly into the subject area is not easy. You generally need extra space behind the subject so that you can feather the background light towards the subject space without actually lighting the subject with it. If you don't need an absolutely white background, I'd try the other remedies before getting an additional strobe.</p>

<p>Just popping in again to say this has been an enlightening thread and I'm glad Alex posed his question so provocatively. Kent, that's a cool picture, but it's not nearly as cool as SD, which has been wickedly cold this week. How the hell do you SD folks stand it?</p>