mood_lover

<p>If I want my final exposure setting at f/2.8, and I want my lighting ratio to be 2:1, would my key have to meter at f/2.0 and fill have to meter at f/2.0 as well? My reasoning:<br /> <br />This is a 1:1 power ratio, which is a 2:1 lighting/contrast ratio, and thus f/2.0 + f/2.0 = f/2.8 - is my understanding correct here? <br /> <br />For a 2:1 power ratio, which is a 3:1 lighting ratio, what would the key and fill have to meter separately as? I can't seem to figure the math out. I assume: key f/2.4 + fill f/1.4 = f/2.8?</p>

<p>Yeah you're right. I remember now why this is happening. I have Cinestyle picture profile installed which I had used when shooting a video. That picture style is much flatter than anything the camera has so that's why the jpg preview was so flat, but of course picture styles dont transfer into raw files.<br /> <br />With that said, what is the best way to make sure the jpg I'm seeing on the back of my camera looks identical to the raw ill see on the computer? Is that even possible? I hate seeing one image on the LCD of my camera and then seeing something different in raw, its frustrating. Is there a picture style or setting I could use to get close? Making sure I see contrast accurately is important, is tethering my best option?</p>

<p>Where are you getting Goodliter from? That's not even mentioned in the first post.</p>

<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/XJtrkSV.png[" alt="" /><br /><br />For a second, before the contrast boost kicks in, the files are so flat and I much prefer to start there. I realize this is backwards to what most people want. The contrast boosts and I can't seem to go back to the original flat look, I have to add +100 shadows to get it back. Tone Curve is set to Linear, camera calibration is Process 2012 with Profile Adobe Standard (Camera Neutral doesn't help). Is a truly flat RAW file even possible? Thanks!</p>

<p>Ah wow that makes sense, they even named it the "Softliter" maybe that helps them not index with similar vendors. Thanks for the tip, theyre very clever haha</p>

<p>Adorama 94.95: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/PTSL60.html?adver=new&">http://www.adorama.com/PTSL60.html?adver=new&</a><br /> Amazon 149.95: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Photek-Softliter-Inch-Diffused-Umbrella/dp/B000LX87LK/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1425429259&sr=8-4&keywords=photek+softlighter+ii">http://www.amazon.com/Photek-Softliter-Inch-Diffused-Umbrella/dp/B000LX87LK/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1425429259&sr=8-4&keywords=photek+softlighter+ii</a><br /> <br />Am I missing something here? Also does anyone use the Softlighter here for portraits and have anything to say about it? Thanks!</p>

<p>I have a 48" octa as my key and a 60" octa behind camera for fill. I was wondering if it's possible to get loop lighting and use my fill light to bring up the shadows, but in the eyes only have 1 catchlight instead of two. Does anyone know what kind of setup would allow this? Basically I want it to look like theres only one light involved, while still being able to bring up the shadows (I don't have access to v-flats unfortunately so I have to use fill light). Thanks!<br /><br />Desired lighting examples, except I want my shadows to be much brighter (if you can provide diagrams that would be amazing!):<br /><br /><a href="http://i.imgur.com/zGIcYSB.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/zGIcYSB.jpg</a><br /><a href="http://i.imgur.com/8rMiVIM.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/8rMiVIM.jpg</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>@Tim: the exposures are the same, 1/640, ISO400 = 1/160, ISO100, I just simplified it for the sake of simplifying down to ISO100 - what I was saying is that I want these exposures to be possible with artificial light at F/1.8 which is the challenge.</p> <p>@Craig: thanks for the hope, I like hearing that this look can achieved with a softbox (I've seen many softbox photographers do it). I'll look into some Rosco ND gels!</p>

<p>@Charles: Ive been looking at those, how do you install that if I'm using a 4x6' softbox on my strobe? Also, I've read a bunch of times now that the AB800 at its lowest 1/32 power only allows f/4, but I need my aperture to be much wider than that.</p>

<p>If I cant tape them on the bulb itself how would you recommend I install them? Tape it to the inner baffle?</p>

<p>@Michael: ND filter after composing and focusing a shot seems really inconvenient, since I have to keep taking it off everytime the model poses. Not a very fluid way to work imo, I'd rather ND the light if thats possible. At wide open apertures I'm interested in strobes well because there doesn't seem to be any continuous lights that are the same price, flexibility, and cool temperature that wont burn the softbox that I know of. Lowering your ISO to get f/2.8 doesn't solve the issue I believe since it's still too much power. And I wasnt happy with the TD6, it was a pain to transport (6 big boxes for each bulb), and the bulbs shatter too easily. $250 to replace them :/</p> <p>About your gods light called ambient comment, if I could bring god into my windowless studio I would but that's not always easy.</p>

<p>@BeBu: polarizing sheets? Are those like ND gels that I wrap around the bulb itself to kill the light a couple stops? Where can I find this? Google isn't helping much.<br /> @Charles: I like that idea of buying a B800 or B1600 and ND geling the bulb. That must be an uncommon practice, would the bulb burn the gel at all, and would it affect white balance a lot? Also do you know where I can get that?<br /> @Brian: Seems like all are pointing to the same idea. Is this what I need to get?<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163141-REG/Rosco_102302102124_E_Colour_210_6_Neutral.html</p>

<p>@Andrew: I'm looking at Rosco's ND gels, how do they work? Do I just tape them over the bulb of the light inside my softbox? If they don't cause strange color casts that might be the answer to my issues!</p>

<p>I've been trying to find the perfect light that can allow me to use an aperture of f/2.8 or even wider in my portraits. I previously used a Spiderlite TD6 "1200W" continuous light but it fell over and all 6 of the bulbs shattered, so I don't think I want to go that route ever again. The only bright side of that light is that it stays cool enough to not burn the softbox. Which is 4x6', so quite large and it has to evenly fill it corner to corner.</p> <p>What I want to recreate: http://41.media.tumblr.com/163ae7573c5aa5d97aeae50bfb1471c4/tumblr_nhz579IfHm1qzawmno1_r3_1280.jpg<br /> 1/160, F/1.8, ISO 100</p> <p>I wish a flash existed that I could use an ND filter with but if it darkens the viewfinder too much then I'm guessing it's not practical. Also can't move the light back since my studio doesn't have to space to and it would also change my light quality. Any ideas on what I'm looking for exists without paying $1000 per light?</p> <p>- I've read a thread where an Alienbee B800 owner said at the lowest power it still spits out too much light for f/2.8 + ISO100.<br /> - The White Lightning X1600 apparently has 1/4 power output mode which can shoot at 1/128 (though I'm still not sure if this is low enough). However, it has a 250W modeling light (I'm wondering if this is enough though I'm not experienced enough to say so).</p>

<p>Hmm great points. If I wanted to use a 4x6' or a 5' octa what would you recommend? Others have told me that a B800 can support large softboxes</p>

<p>Yes you're right. Maybe I can buy a good strobe and just use it's modeling light (I mean, if the B800s one is powerful enough). This way I'll have options!</p>

<p>Thank you all for the helpful responses, I realize my question was totally wrong. Solving for ISO is not the issue since strobes are so powerful I would actually need LOWER than 100 ISO to be able to use f/2.8. If I'm using the lowest flash powers possible, and my meter is still reading as too much light, and if I cant move my lights, is my only option to add diffusion inside my softboxes somehow? Why wouldn't an ND filter on my lens work? I have no idea how you ND a flash unit!</p> <p>I'm thinking about buying a pair of AlienBee B800s (10ws-320ws) and I'm wondering if I would be able to do a 2:1 ratio while still having such a wide aperture of f/2.8. Or perhaps I'm better off using less-powerful continuous light if I want to use shallow dof?</p>

<p>I am trying to take shallow depth-of-field studio portraits with flash, with required settings 1/200 and f/2.8 for example. Both of these settings have to stay this way, so I am wondering if theres a way I can have my light meter tell me what the ISO should be or even what the flash power should be? <br /><br />Im sure this is a complicated question, thanks for help.</p>

<p>Sorry ignore my last question, what I was really wanting to know is how to offset the weight if I put a large softbox on the small alienbee? I often have my lights tilt forward even after I tighten the screw and so I'm not sure what the fix for that is.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response guys, I will be getting that speedring. Do any of you know what the largest softbox I can get for the B800 is? I dont want it falling over or anything, let me know please thank you.</p>

<p>I am considering buying the AB800 light and have this 3x4 softbox: http://www.fjwestcott.com/36-x-48-softbox-silver-interior<br /><br />1) is it too big for the AB800 to support and power evenly from corner to corner?<br />2) this softbox has 4 basic rods, where do I get a speedring to make it compatible with the AB800?<br> http://www.paulcbuff.com/speedrings.php - is it the first one?<br> <br />thanks!</p>

<p>I understand this can be done in post-editing but I'm trying to figure out how to get as close as possible to this effect in-camera with a light meter using the simplest setup possible: http://i.imgur.com/6PTJSgV.jpg</p>

<p>If shutter speed doesn't affect flash exposure than why would too slow a shutter over-expose it? Sorry im confused by your statement.<br> <br />Also, what I meant was, how would I tell the light meter than it cant use a faster shutter speed than 1/250th? Im worried because I feel because the aperture is so wide open, it might try to use a speed like 1/500 or something to compensate.</p>

<p>Thanks all, I have decided to invest in a light meter. I have a question though that I think might stump some of you (hopefully not). What if I wanted to create shallow depth-of-field portraits in a studio WITH strobes (key + fill)? Say I wanted to use f/2.8 and any ISO. Could a light meter help me figure out proper shutter speed (while keeping it under my sync speed of 1/250) and necessary flash power?</p> <p>I am looking at the Sekonic L-358 and while people say its fantastic, I don't know if its possible to set a wide aperture, a max shutter speed (sync speed) and then use the light meter to figure out the other variables (ISO, key power, fill power).</p>

<p>@Michael Mowery: thanks for the help. Will definitely use a fill light and underexpose the highlights, sounds like a great way to compress the contrast range.<br /> <br /> @David Bebbington: every tutorial I find says that the closer the key light, the softer the shadows and smoother the hotspot will be. Not sure why they give this advice, they always move the softbox in as close as possible. Well I did the results didnt come out so smooth. Also, what if I was using a second strobe rather than a reflector, would I still need to move the key light further away? I assume not since I can directly control the ratio through power settings?<br /> <br /> @Bill Jordan: well there may be nothing "wrong" with the photo but the problem is that it's not what I was after, and thats what's wrong about it. It might appear fine on its own, but it wasnt the desired result.<br /> <br />@Rodeo Joe: When you say "you need a broader source further from the subject (less falloff) and lots of reflectors around the place" - I've always heard that the closer the light, the better and more flattering but I'm not sure that was entirely correct? Is there less falloff because when the light is further the light spreads out and can wrap around the shadows more?<br /> <br /> @Dick Arnold: yeah thats what I always thought too, a big softbox, close to face as possible. But everyone else is saying to reduce the contrast I need to back it off. I am trying to be "old-fashioned" about it as well, I want the lighting to look exactly how I need it to before I get on the computer. Do you have light meter recommendations that arent $300?<br /> <br /> @Devon McCarroll: yes I was tethered and still didn't see what the issue was, major rookie mistake. And the histogram is useful but doesnt actually tell you about contrast does it? I guess it somewhat does, if the graph is spread out too much it usually means high contrast right?<br /> <br /> P.S. unfortunately it seems I cant edit my first post anymore, I'd like to remove the photos since apparently im breaking rules here but cant due to to edit lock? sorry mods, perhaps we can hotlink?<br /> <br /> P.P.S if anyone can tell me what equipment to buy so that I can recreate the exact lighting used in the attached images at the bottom of the first post, in a studio settings, that would be awesome!</p> <p>Thank you all I deeply appreciate the help.</p>