# Decent Lighting / Low Cost for Intimate Model Shoot



## JMASTERJ (Jul 29, 2012)

Hi all, noob here and excited to have found a nice place!

Anyways, I have a good eye for photo taking, but I just dont have great equipment.  I am about to get in the business of needing to photo some model for a web portfolio, some model shots, some product shots while they are wearing something, for intimate wear, so the setting will usually be like on a bed in a small room with little or no daylight.  I am thinking of using some satin/nylon sheets/drapes as the bed cover and backdrop, and colors are still up for grabs.

I can invest in any real camera right now... just have a compact (I know please dont kill me, but this is just for the web for now!!! no print or hi-res!)  Lumix 10mp (is there a section here where I can learn more about this camera to maximize my results?).  I of course have a tripod, I will get a better camera as soon as I can afford it, but for my purpose right now, I think lighting is much more important, am I wrong?

Anyways, my questions are:

1) How much difference will the backdrops and bed sheet colors/material (shiny satin vs like cotton, but satin looks so sexy) make in the overall lighting of the subject and complexity for good results?

2) How much should I realistically spend on lighting, that can maybe be upgradeable later?  I am assuming I wont need to buy a different tripod once I get a couple, just better bulbs maybe?  Or reflectors/umbrellas?  I was thinking this is a great deal for me right now on eBay for $50 shipped:

[h=1]3x 45w Photography 33" Umbrella Complete Photo Studio Lighting Kit Vedio Light[/h]
ANY advice would help me out tremendously... and I know I could probably read for the next 2 years on how to photograph models, but any general thoughts for this situation would be great.  Thanks!!!


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 29, 2012)

Sorry to disappoint you, but it takes years or at least months of practice before you can take glamour photos that at least remind you of what you see on the Internet, it's not stuff you improvise. Even if you don't print and even if you keep them low resolution, it takes a lot of practice to get anything good.

Anyway, assuming you're willing to work hard, be patient and are aware of the limitations your camera implies, you can still have your share of fun and learn a lot about lighting even with a Point and Shoot, assuming it has manual controls. If you can't set time, aperture and flash power manually, you can't do anything at all. This is the first thing you need to check.

Next step is to read this: Strobist: Lighting 101

This is considered by many the bible of lighting (at least for beginners). Make sure you read it carefully and understand it well. Whenever you don't understand anything, you MUST pause, google for the stuff that tripped you, practice it with your camera and then continue reading. Aperture, shutter speed, stops (or, equivalently, EVs), white balance, exposure metering, ISOs and stuff like that must become your native language.

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to discourage you, but lighting is fairly technical. Having a good eye will be of great help after you know the basics of the technique, but first comes the hard work.

As small anticipation of what you'll find on the link I gave you, here are some answers:



> 1) How much difference will the backdrops and bed sheet colors/material (shiny satin vs like cotton, but satin looks so sexy) make in the overall lighting of the subject and complexity for good results?


Huge difference. The smaller the room the bigger the difference. Stay away from any color other than white and black, otherwise white balance will become a nightmare



> How much should I realistically spend on lighting, that can maybe be upgradeable later? I am assuming I wont need to buy a different tripod once I get a couple, just better bulbs maybe? Or reflectors/umbrellas? I was thinking this is a great deal for me right now on eBay for $50 shipped:


The kit you mentioned DOES NOT include the flash itself... And 33" is a little small for full body photos. Also, umbrellas are not great for small rooms, the strobist blog will explain you why. EDIT: now I see it does include continuous lights: very very weak, hardly useful at all.

Personally, depending on your needs, I would either hire a photographer or shoot in a room with natural light from a window. You'll get to see the results before you shoot, which is impossible with a flash.

Have fun!


----------



## Designer (Jul 29, 2012)

The lights shown appear to be fluorescent, which can work, but your camera might not be able to automatically balance the color.  Do you have post-processing software?  The "600 watt" rating may be the equivalent rating.  Presumably the "power supply" is an extension cord.  Given all the ambiguity in the ad, and the fact that the writer can't spell "video", I think I would be looking for a different deal.

Yes, lighting is important, but if you can't afford better equipment, use the camera you have, the light you can find, and learn the fundamentals of photography.


----------



## Tee (Jul 29, 2012)

Be very careful and mindful of your background if you're going to use a sheet.  Very few people can pull it off as it usually ends up being a distraction to the viewer (wrinkles, cheesy-ness).  Put some distance between your subject and the sheet if you're going that route or you'll end up here.  If money is an issue, consider renting the appropriate gear.  Lastly, check out videos on YouTube- there's a ton of tutorials for basic lighting.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 29, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but it takes years or at least months of practice before you can take glamour photos that at least remind you of what you see on the Internet, it's not stuff you improvise. Even if you don't print and even if you keep them low resolution, it takes a lot of practice to get anything good.
> 
> Anyway, assuming you're willing to work hard, be patient and are aware of the limitations your camera implies, you can still have your share of fun and learn a lot about lighting even with a Point and Shoot, assuming it has manual controls. If you can't set time, aperture and flash power manually, you can't do anything at all. This is the first thing you need to check.
> 
> ...



Those lights are a total waste of time..... constant lights do not have enough output for general photography (unless you spend BIG bucks, or use something really hot like halogen). That is 600 watts per second... and how many 1 second exposures are you going to do?  Say you shoot at 1/100 of a second... now you have 1/100 of 600 watts. Do the math! And for that money this kit has to be junk!

I agree with Zapotex.... even if you buy decent lighting... it will probably take you years to do a decent shot (that looks anywhere near professional)! If it was as easy as you seem to think it is, every one would be doing it! lol!


----------



## Buckster (Jul 29, 2012)

That light kit you linked to will not work for still-shooting people or anything else that moves or breaths or twitches.  It can only be used for video or still life stuff that won't move at all while you make long exposures.

Stay away from the continuous lighting setups (fluorescent bulbs).  At the very least, you need cheap and weak strobes and modifiers.  Even cheap Chinese Ebay strobe kits will work much better than the continuous light kit you linked to.  Search for "2 studio strobe light kit" without the quotes, or "3 studio strobe light kit", but that will be more expensive, and it looks like you're trying to do this on the cheap.

In that same price range, there's also Cowboy Studio stuff: Pro Three Strobe Softbox Flash MonoLight Lighting kits with Barndoor, Reflector and Case which a few people here will freak out over me even recommending, especially a couple of die-hard Cowboy Studio bashers who've never actually used it and have no actual first-hand experience with it, but plenty of noobs such as yourself are just fine with it.  It's not great gear (which you won't find in your price range no matter what) but it works.

You'll still need to learn how to use them though, and that's where Strobist link posted earlier comes in for some basic (and free) understanding.


----------



## KmH (Jul 29, 2012)

&#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; Good advice there. Does your 'compact' camera have a flash hot shoe?

Because you have to be able to sync strobed light to the camera shutter, but you don't have to sync using constant lights. However, constant lights that are bright enough will also make the model hot, which tends to f'up the makeup.

There are very few working models. Modeling is one of the rarest jobs on the planet. There are maybe 1500 full time models in the USA.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 29, 2012)

Buckster said:


> In that same price range, there's also Cowboy Studio stuff: Pro Three Strobe Softbox Flash MonoLight Lighting kits with Barndoor, Reflector and Case which a few people here will freak out over me even recommending, especially a couple of die-hard Cowboy Studio bashers who've never actually used it and have no actual first-hand experience with it, but plenty of noobs such as yourself are just fine with it.  It's not great gear (which you won't find in your price range no matter what) but it works.
> 
> You'll still need to learn how to use them though, and that's where Strobist link posted earlier comes in for some basic (and free) understanding.



Hahah, you can count me in the "hardcore CS bashers" crowd, although I have actually used them a while back. They truly are the very very bottom of the barrel.

That said, for somebody who has zero understanding of lighting technique, they probably won't appreciate the differences between CS and the better options for quite a while. And, as Buckster said, with your budget, there's nothing that will be much better.

Good luck, and keep posting here. There's a ton of good information and (some) helpful people!


----------



## JMASTERJ (Jul 29, 2012)

Wow, what a response, thanks guys!!!  (One thing, I think this site needs a multi-quote button!)

BTW this is the camera I have, not sure if the specs will mean anything but just in case:  Panasonic Lumix

As I said, these are fairly low-res web photos and they are not for Saks or even Macys.  Although I never had much experience with "real" cameras, I have taken tons of photos with point and shoots with decent success.  I am a professional graphics and web designer so editing it afterwards is no problem.  But I understand taking photos of human bodies is different than regular product photos of bikes or chicken wings, but the emphasis is really only on the apparel, not the model's face etc... (think a Victoria Secret image from just stomach to thighs or stomach to neck) but I am willing to learn and do whatever it takes for now because we cannot afford to pay for a pro, which is the reason I am here... if I could afford that this would be all moot, but I have loved photography ever since I took the class in high school taking a still photo with a shoebox and developing in the dark room manually in the smelly stuff.  I do have a great eye, and am also an IT professional, so I am sure I will pick this up fairly quickly, not enough to be a pro Donald Trump wedding photographer, but enough for some decent looking web product photos.

Now it seems most are in agreement that ebay stuff/constant on light is just a waste, which is fine.  I dont mind spending a little more.  But the strobe may be a problem as someone else said, and my Lumix does NOT have a flash port, only a mini-HDMI and an A/V Digital slot.  So doesnt that mean I cant use strobe or flash?  I know anything worthwhile in real cameras cost upwards from 1k to ludicrous $$$, and I just cant afford that now... I can borrow a friend's but that would not work going forward to take a lot.



ZapoTeX said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but it takes years or at least months of practice before you can take glamour photos...


______________________________________________________________________________________


Designer said:


> The lights shown appear to be fluorescent, which can work, but your camera might not be able to automatically balance the color. Do you have post-processing software? The "600 watt" rating may be the equivalent rating. Presumably the "power supply" is an extension cord. Given all the ambiguity in the ad, and the fact that the writer can't spell "video", I think I would be looking for a different deal.
> 
> Yes, lighting is important, but if you can't afford better equipment, use the camera you have, the light you can find, and learn the fundamentals of photography.



I have noticed on eBay that spelling etc. may seem shady but that doesnt necessarily mean they are selling bad products, but their seller ratings much more important... now if this product wont serve my needs, thats a whole another story... but either way from what I read here, I will not be getting that, but still looking...
______________________________________________________________________________________


Tee said:


> Be very careful and mindful of your background if you're going to use a sheet. Very few people can pull it off as it usually ends up being a distraction to the viewer (wrinkles, cheesy-ness). Put some distance between your subject and the sheet if you're going that route or you'll end up here. If money is an issue, consider renting the appropriate gear. Lastly, check out videos on YouTube- there's a ton of tutorials for basic lighting.



Thanks, and yes Youtube will def be on my to do list, but this is a better, more efficient start here!
______________________________________________________________________________________


Buckster said:


> That light kit you linked to will not work for still-shooting people or anything else that moves or breaths or twitches. It can only be used for video or still life stuff that won't move at all while you make long exposures.
> 
> Stay away from the continuous lighting setups (fluorescent bulbs). At the very least, you need cheap and weak strobes and modifiers. Even cheap Chinese Ebay strobe kits will work much better than the continuous light kit you linked to. Search for "2 studio strobe light kit" without the quotes, or "3 studio strobe light kit", but that will be more expensive, and it looks like you're trying to do this on the cheap.





KmH said:


> &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; Good advice there. Does your 'compact' camera have a flash hot shoe?
> 
> Because you have to be able to sync strobed light to the camera shutter, but you don't have to sync using constant lights. However, constant lights that are bright enough will also make the model hot, which tends to f'up the makeup.
> 
> There are very few working models. Modeling is one of the rarest jobs on the planet. There are maybe 1500 full time models in the USA.



No hot shoe so...... ?
And I am in the entertainment industry and well aware of the business, but that is irrelevant in this case, no one is trying to be a model!  :mrgreen:
______________________________________________________________________________________



jamesbjenkins said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > In that same price range, there's also Cowboy Studio stuff: Pro Three Strobe Softbox Flash MonoLight Lighting kits with Barndoor, Reflector and Case
> ...



Yes this is a great place, and as far as appreciating good lighting, as a graphics designer for over a decade, I do have high standards for images etc... so I will notice differences, but in my case, this is weighing what I "need" + what I can afford right now over being totally anal through every pixel and hue.  I can go to Walmart.com and criticize their photos for something, but then again, they are pulling in billions in revenue.  So until I can make enough to pay for a photographer or by that time buy a real camera and real top end solutions, I need to know if I should:

1. Buy a better constant on light (not strobe)
2. Get the cheapest decent camera I can afford and then get like a $100-$200 2 light strobe kit (will really hurt financially and I dont think I can do this)

OR, and I think I still have this, what about using a film camera?  I still have my old Canon AE-1 Program, and if they still sell film, I can use that, but then I would still have to convert that to digital so maybe that's not worth it either... sigh... that was a nice camera, I loved using it.  

For continuous lights, is it bad still if I get higher powered bulbs, like 100W+ for each?  Or even higher?   Natural light is almost impossible the way the room is setup, and is on the north side window with a brown backdrop, almost no usable light at all.

As for facts that I have learned, I guess I'll stick with maybe at least a satin white bg on the bed and backdrop, keep it simple and less cheesy... yes in this case, simple and professional is much better than trying too hard and looking cheesy.  Thanks guys!


----------



## KmH (Jul 29, 2012)

The site has a multi quote button, in the lower left corner of each post - looks like - *"+*


----------



## JMASTERJ (Jul 29, 2012)

KmH said:


> The site has a multi quote butto,, in the lower left corner of each post - looks like - *"+*



What the heck, I SWEAR that wasn't there before, hmmmmmm.... oh well, next time.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 29, 2012)

> No hot shoe so...... ?


No big deal. Make sure the flash you buy has a servo mode OR buy a hot-shoe optical trigger (one a buck on Ebay). You won't shoot in daylight (because optical triggers suck in daylight) but indoor it works great. Just keep the on-camera flash at minimum power, so that it does not affect your photo (unless you need some fill light).

I suggest you buy this flash:
Midwest Photo Exchange LumoPro LP160 Quad Sync Manual Flash

and this kit:
Amazon.com: Polaroid Pro Studio 8&#39; Air-Cushioned Heavy Duty Light Stand + Polaroid 43" White Translucent Umbrella + Polaroid Shoe Mount Umbrella Adapter: Camera & Photo

If you want to spend a little more on the kit, you'll get more even and controlled lighting if you replace the above link with this:
Amazon.com: Westcott 43" Apollo Orb Speedlite Kit: Camera & Photo

Total is 220 USD in the first case and 310 in the second.

And take my advice, be prepared for A LOT, A HUGE LOT of photographing oranges, melons, reading internet tutorials (especially the one I linked) and watching Youtube videos about glamour photos.

As a geek myself, I can assure you that being an IT guy will help you understand that stuff (I did an Excel sheet with logarithms to understand what an F-stop is and an I wrote code simulating light hitting an object before I really felt comfortable with the definition of hard vs. soft light... but that's another story), but grasping the theory is not everything. I've been reading tutorials for 3 months or so, but every time I convince a friend to pose for me for an hour or so (it happened about three times up to now), I'm EXTREMELY disappointed of the results.

An advice I can give you: pick the LARGEST room you can find. Small rooms suck for learning. You get a ton of light reflected back and forth between the walls and it mixes in the direct light from your umbrella. As my place is not huge and all walls are white, I've tried convincing a friend to pose for me in the night in an uncrowded location, so that there would be no reflection. But guess what... girls are not comfortable giving smiles and sexy looks in deserted places in the middle of the night... Can you blame them? 

Ciao & good luck!


----------



## Buckster (Jul 29, 2012)

On the no hot shoe problem, there's the possibility of using the camera's flash to trigger the slaves built into the off camera lights, though you'll have to be careful about it lighting your set in a bad way. Perhaps the use of a small flag and mirror system could divert the flash to one or both of the off camera flashes, and also away from the scene you're shooting.

A bit of DIY action with something like this: Amazon.com: Seagull SYK-5 Wireless Remote Flash Slave Trigger with Red Eye Reduction: Camera & Photo taped over the camera's flash, then use the PC sync port on it to connect to a wireless remote trigger, like this: Amazon.com: Yongnuo RF-603 C1 2.4GHz Wireless Flash Trigger/Wireless Shutter Release Transceiver Kit for Canon Rebel 300D/350D/400D/450D/500D/550D/1000D Series: Camera & Photo using a cable like this: Amazon.com: ePhoto PC2PC 12-Inch Male to Male Flash PC Sync Cable Cord: Electronics would sync the external flashes without affecting the scene, but you'd want to be careful that covering the flash like that wouldn't cause it to overheat and melt something.

Trying to do this on the cheap, without getting a proper D/SLR to shoot with, is going to be painful, I think.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 29, 2012)

PS: I could not download the manual of your camera... I have no idea whether it has manual settings. That's KEY for what you're trying to do. No manual, no party.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 29, 2012)

Oops... I checked...
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMCZS1.PDF
No manual mode and no way (that I could see) to adjust exposure (aperture and shutter speed) manually. I'm afraid you're out of luck.

I suggest a really old SLR. You can get a Nikon D40 with AF kit lens for less than the flash will cost you. Image quality far superior than the Lumix. No other way that I can see from the manual


----------



## JMASTERJ (Jul 29, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> > No hot shoe so...... ?
> 
> 
> No big deal. Make sure the flash you buy has a servo mode OR buy a hot-shoe optical trigger (one a buck on Ebay). You won't shoot in daylight (because optical triggers suck in daylight) but indoor it works great. Just keep the on-camera flash at minimum power, so that it does not affect your photo (unless you need some fill light).
> ...



Haha wow, nice... you're awesome!  Unfortunately I understand this is basically like learning how to golf, u not gonna go out there and even hit a 200 yard straight drive for at least weeks, maybe months, trust me, I know, LOL, but not that I am disrespecting the photography profession (ugh oh, I know....) but first, I dont have time to go through thousands of shots and improve like that, and maybe I didnt word it properly in my op, but this project of mine is nothing like shooting Giselle for the cover of Vogue or something... one typical shot I think I would have is an underwear shot that frames between the upper stomach to mid-thigh... I will have almost no facial shots, and if I do, I actually dont care how the face turns out because thats not the focus.  I know this may be heresay to some model photographers out here and there, but I am doing this for a specific purpose, and I know I will have to accept "good enough" here more than anything, because frankly, I dont have time to learn or to wait for the project to get under way, so I am screwed either way.  So I will be more than happy to spend tons more time later to learn more about high end pic taking, but for now, I will just need stuff that is good enough for clients/visitors to see the product and I'll have to accept that, just like 15 years ago I had to accept that I will not be breaking 80 in my first year of golf, even though I would not e against it.

And ya, the room thing, again with time as premium, no budget, unfortunately it has to be a basic small bedroom for privacy and control.  Dont worry, when I started making thousands a week, I'll rent a studio to shoot!  But again, I doubt that will actually lead to increased sales!  And this girl will do whatever I tell her to do, so no problem there, haha.



Buckster said:


> On the no hot shoe problem, there's the possibility of using the camera's flash to trigger the slaves built into the off camera lights, though you'll have to be careful about it lighting your set in a bad way. Perhaps the use of a small flag and mirror system could divert the flash to one or both of the off camera flashes, and also away from the scene you're shooting.
> 
> A bit of DIY action with something like this: Amazon.com: Seagull SYK-5 Wireless Remote Flash Slave Trigger with Red Eye Reduction: Camera & Photo taped over the camera's flash, then use the PC sync port on it to connect to a wireless remote trigger, like this: Amazon.com: Yongnuo RF-603 C1 2.4GHz Wireless Flash Trigger/Wireless Shutter Release Transceiver Kit for Canon Rebel 300D/350D/400D/450D/500D/550D/1000D Series: Camera & Photo using a cable like this: Amazon.com: ePhoto PC2PC 12-Inch Male to Male Flash PC Sync Cable Cord: Electronics would sync the external flashes without affecting the scene, but you'd want to be careful that covering the flash like that wouldn't cause it to overheat and melt something.
> 
> Trying to do this on the cheap, without getting a proper D/SLR to shoot with, is going to be painful, I think.



Yes, yes, understood, and again I would love to spend more etc., but not possible... but I do like your suggestions.  Off of this, someone else had suggested on an even lower budget, how about using about 4 (500W) halogen worklights, and shine them through a thin white sheet set up around the shot?  I heard some photo students do this as well.  Cost would be under $50 and I can adjust.  I know this is a totally ghetto set up, but all I care is the shot turns out "good enough."



ZapoTeX said:


> Oops... I checked...
> http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMCZS1.PDF
> No manual mode and no way (that I could see) to adjust exposure (aperture and shutter speed) manually. I'm afraid you're out of luck.
> 
> I suggest a really old SLR. You can get a Nikon D40 with AF kit lens for less than the flash will cost you. Image quality far superior than the Lumix. No other way that I can see from the manual



Ya all it has is some scene modes, white balance settings, and ISO settings, thats it.

Haha talking about THAT, how about my camera that I havent used in years... my lovely Canon AE-1 Program?  I loved that camera... if they still sell film, I have a decent flash for it too.  But the thing is, so I take it with that, then what...  I scan it in?  Then I lose quality through my scanner and waste more time in the process for a possibly slightly better result, if that.  If I could hook that up digitally I'd use it in a heartbeat!!!


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 30, 2012)

Shooting film is an option, but you'll need a decent film scanner (Epson V-something is something I read a lot of times in photography forums, but I have no idea) or a lab that scans (better quality, less investment, but more cost as you shoot photos). And also, as you're learning, you'll burn a lot of film. With digital taking a photo has almost zero cost (I say almost because of electric power and wear and tear of the camera, but nothing compared to film cost).

If I were you, I would use sunlight and your Panasonic at ISO 80 and Portrait mode. It's amazing (and often neglected) what you can do with natural light. You have two options for natural light:

1) PREFERRED OPTION: use a room (even a small room) with a large window as your main light and reflection from the opposite wall as your fill light. As a background, just pick up a large roll of paper at a stationer (like 5 x 5 feet or so) and put it as distant as you can behind the model (the bigger, the more distant you'll be able to put it). Again, white or black would be my pick. Black for models with fair complexions, white for models with darker skin.

2) Or, take the model to the beach (or anywhere outdoor where it is allowed to be half-naked, your garden or a friend's garden might work too) and use one or two of these 5 in 1 things:
Amazon.com: Neewer 110CM 43" 5-in-1 Collapsible Multi-Disc Light Reflector: Camera & Photo
(stay away from the gold though)

Ciao!


----------



## JMASTERJ (Jul 31, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> Shooting film is an option, but you'll need a decent film scanner (Epson V-something is something I read a lot of times in photography forums, but I have no idea) or a lab that scans (better quality, less investment, but more cost as you shoot photos). And also, as you're learning, you'll burn a lot of film.
> 
> If I were you, I would use sunlight and your Panasonic at ISO 80 and Portrait mode. It's amazing (and often neglected) what you can do with natural light. You have two options for natural light:
> 
> ...



Ya haha it seems the film camera is out of the question.. sad day for my AE-1... and it was getting so excited...  :sad anim:

Some shots will be "compromising" in certain poses, and she will not be comfortable in public so... 
The only room I can really use is a small room with double glass sliding doors, which is nice... thats where the positives end.
- Room is painted a dark red with white celiings
- Windows face north
What about:  Use that reflector (much cheaper than I thought!) to reflect sunlight in from the outside into the room, and line up some white sheets around her to reflect more soft light back to her from the window... will that work?  Then use the additional 1000W worklight to add light from behind another white sheet to anywhere that needs it?

And btw, one more... will using a white satin sheet on the bed or over a chair cause too much unwanted light from below, should I go with a beige satin instead?  Or will the added light help?


----------



## JFC (Aug 1, 2012)

cant wait for the result, sounds it could work with the reflection of the sunshine from the reflector, but i will wait for the other which have more experience for this situation to made some input.   Don't forget to inform how is the result Jmaster.  godspeed...


----------



## ZapoTeX (Aug 1, 2012)

1000 W is nothing. I know it sounds like a lot, but it really is nothing.
A cheap speedlight (or flash) outputs 50 Ws of light in a super-short time. In order to freeze the model and have no motion blur at all, you'll need to shoot at 1/200 or so. 1000 W x (1/200)s = 5 Ws, that is a tenth of what a speedlight gives you. You'll need to shoot at 1/20 or 1/40 in order to keep your ISO low. Besides, as you don't have control over your camera settings, it will be even harder. If you go that way, make sure your model is completely still and consider a tripod.

Also, what about light temperature? Your worklight will probably be colder in temperature (more yellowish, less blueish) than sunlight, than as you mix them you'll need to use color correction gels or you'll have weird results.

What I'm saying is: if you already have a worklight, you can experiment with it, but don't buy one on purpose.

Using a reflector to send light into the room sounds doable, but I've never done it, then I can't comment much. However, out of all the available options, that's where I would put my money.

Red walls are a nightmare. I suggest that, at the very least, you hang a white sheet on the wall opposite the glass door. Best would be on all walls.

Concerning light coming from the bed sheet below the model: no worries, it will probably help rather than damage your photos.

Ciao!


----------



## JMASTERJ (Aug 1, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> 1000 W is nothing. I know it sounds like a lot, but it really is nothing.
> A cheap speedlight (or flash) outputs 50 Ws of light in a super-short time. In order to freeze the model and have no motion blur at all, you'll need to shoot at 1/200 or so. 1000 W x (1/200)s = 5 Ws, that is a tenth of what a speedlight gives you. You'll need to shoot at 1/20 or 1/40 in order to keep your ISO low. Besides, as you don't have control over your camera settings, it will be even harder. If you go that way, make sure your model is completely still and consider a tripod.
> 
> Also, what about light temperature? Your worklight will probably be colder in temperature (more yellowish, less blueish) than sunlight, than as you mix them you'll need to use color correction gels or you'll have weird results.
> ...



Ya the only control I have are some white balance settings and ISO Max of 400, 800 or 1600 (who the heck would wanna shot at 1600???  Wouldnt it look like sand just spilled all over the images?)  I see what u mean about the light temps and brightness... I will def use a tripod, but then again I dont have a remote trigger so it will probably move a smidge when I press the shutter since the shutter is pretty deep.

Well since that reflector is so cheap, I may get 2 of those and get as much sunlight in as possible, but in S. FL in the summer, it rains so much that may really complicate things... anyways.....

Oh yea, I was never planning on exposing the red walls, I was going to use a white sheet to cover the far side from the window, and then the 1-2 reflectors from the outside through the sliding doors, and maybe another sheet next to/behind the camera while shining the halogens through to the the front of the shot to balance out the sides... I during noon that wont do much, but if its a bit cloudy or I need something more, it cant hurt right?  Having it be like 5000K wont hurt my photo too bad I dont think.

So beige or white doesnt matter?  Then I'll do some research of some of the good sites and see what they use... it seems there is no standard there, even within like a VS site, so I'll just stay away from the high saturation colors and get whatever is cheapest and "sexiest".

Continued thanks!!!


----------



## JMASTERJ (Aug 3, 2012)

Ok, a couple of things have changed... I am not locked to get that halogen light anymore, so I am off that hook... which means, that + halogen color temp + hi temps + additional white screen for it + not be enuff light compared to sunlight being reflected in + my sucky P&S, + everything else u guys said + I may be able to afford a DSLR sooner than I thought thanks to a new job I was just hired for... but I wont be starting for a bit, and this project needs to actually start BEFORE I start the other job, so for now, I am going to BestBuy, getting the best camera I can for my project, and then later trade it in for something I really wanna keep and can afford.


So I think now this is what I need:


&#8226; 2-3 of those reflectors from Amazon to bring in daylight and cover part of my red wall opposite the window to shine back to the model
&#8226; A few non-satin white sheets to use as a backdrop and base, and maybe cover the rest of the red wall... I guess I can always add light pink/cream etc. later for variety...
&#8226; 
&#8226; 1 (maybe 2 if I wanna shoot on a rainy day?) strobe flashes (used with DSLR hotshoe)  If so which one(s)... I would still like best value and just good enough again for my purpose, dont need hi-mid or top of the line
&#8226; FYI, I have a flash from my old AE-1, lol... its the Sakar 22A, Guide No. 30 (ASA25) 60 (ASA100m)... is this good enough for my main camera flash + 1-2 strobes?
&#8226; and.....  drum roll...... a DSLR.... I am just gonna go to the local worstbuy and pick one up, price doesnt really matter right now since its going on credit card and I will trade it in later... so now u know what I need it for, please help me choose one... I think for now I will just get one with the lens, too much of a pain to get separate lens and deal with that, esp since this will already be such a huge improvement from where I was right... so I guess we pick the one with best combo of body+lens (and for the sake of debate with others here or elsewhere, please succinctly state why u like that one best for me and my project... I just pray everyone agrees on 1!):


From BB:
&#8226; ($4300) Canon - EOS 5D Mark III 22.3-Megapixel Digital SLR Camera with EF 24-105mm Lens - Black
&#8226; ($2700) Canon - Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1-Megapixel DSLR Camera with EF 24-105mm Lens - Black
&#8226; ($1800) Canon - EOS 7D 18.0-Megapixel DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Lens - Black
&#8226; ($1700) Canon - EOS 7D 18.0-Megapixel DSLR Camera with 28-135mm Lens Kit - Black
&#8226; ($1700) Canon EOS 60D 18.0MP DSLR Camera Kit, Battery, 16GB Memory Card & 70-300mm Lens


Hopefully one of these will be good enough and I'll go from there.  Sorry for all the other crap, but I am sure most of u r letting out a sigh of relief!  Thanks so much for all your help!


----------



## ZapoTeX (Aug 3, 2012)

> price doesnt really matter right now since its going on credit card and I will trade it in later...


Sorry, I'm not comfortable with your strategy. The money-back guarantee is supposed to be used if you're not satisfied with your stuff, not as a free rental method.

If everybody did that kind of free-riding, camera makers would have to raise their prices to absorb shipment, refurbishment and loss on sales of stuff that is not new anymore.

And, to be honest, the fact that you want to buy and return a high end camera rather than an entry-level one, just because you know you won't pay and regardless of the fact that for the first few weeks or months you won't be able to use any of those monsters to its full potential, is quite irritating.

Sorry that I was direct, but that is what I think.

What about renting your equipment? For a hundred bucks, you can use a mid-level DSLR for a week or so. It's a cheap, effective and honest solution.


----------



## JMASTERJ (Aug 5, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> > price doesnt really matter right now since its going on credit card and I will trade it in later...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not comfortable with your strategy. The money-back guarantee is supposed to be used if you're not satisfied with your stuff, not as a free rental method.



Ok ok, I do owe u an apology... I didnt mean to sound like that but I just wanted to get this done, and yes, I guess my goals were misplaced, so I have changed them.  My project remains the same but how about this:

All this talk about photography is really starting to make me wanna do this "properly" (= more agreeable to you guys) and own my first camera regardless of anything else... and yes even tho my financial/business situation may be changing (reason for the "price doesnt mater stuff" etc... thats all I'll say for now), I think u guys have really made a valid point now that I thought about it more.

Upon another suggestion, I did some research on the T2i, and that it is a really awesome camera, the external mic will really be useful, and the video stuff is REALLY useful as well, esp the 60 fps for my occasional golf swing analysis... except for the slow burst speed, it seems almost too perfect. AND the freakin Canon software, totally forgot about that, AWESOME (what remote trigger, LOL). It seems on eBay I see some bodies only having been sold for about $300, so if I can trust the seller I'll use that as my target mark.


Now as much as that 70-200 lens sounds tempting, I'll probably skimp on that... maybe I'll get that later at some point. For now, I see a ton of the 50mm f1.8 lens sold for under $40 also on eBay in the last few of months, can that be right, seems too cheap? And there was one for $300, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II +EF-S 55-250mm IS Lens #L523, so....... I'm a bit confused about the suggested lens spec and different types. You guys know what my main project is, but I dont mind paying a little more so I can have a lens that can take a decent wide variety of photos and take decent videos, esp of the golf swing. The zooms r nice but I fear that will raise the price again too much that I dont need so I guess I'll buy a separate zoom lens later when I think I'll need it.


And since I have never bought photo equipment on eBay or the like before, is there a "fail safe question" u can ask the seller to see if he is a legit seller who didnt abuse his equipment? For example, if I were buying a golf club or a tennis racquet or other electronics, I would ask certain questions like why r u selling it, what level r u, etc., and then follow up his answers with some more questions to see if he is telling the truth. This is never a fail safe per se, but it will weed out the idiots who think they can get good dollar for some item that has a slight defect.

But thanks for your patience with me, trust me, its never my intentions to insult any of u guys with my stupid proposals, but I am dead serious on this project and my enthusiasm for photography ever since I was in school.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Aug 5, 2012)

Hi!

I'm not familiar with the Canon System, but in general, if you're committed to learning, I would recommend a camera with two control wheels (aperture and shutter speed), and second LCD screen (to look at the settings without digging into the menus).

The cheapest Canon with these features is the 60D. You can save a lot of money with a 50D (you might still find a new one), same category of camera, just older sensor (not so great high ISO performance, but if you shoot with flashes or in the sunlight, that does not concern you).

These two cameras WILL BE ABLE to control flashes remotely, as long as they are Canon flashes (Cheap triggers, whether radio or even cheaper optical slave triggers, and Lumopro flashes might do the same thing for less money though).

The cheapest Nikon with those features is the D7000, but you can still find D90s new. I would suggest: hold a D90 and 50D in your hands, spin both wheels, see what they feel like.

Ciao!


----------



## JMASTERJ (Aug 5, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> Hi!
> 
> I'm not familiar with the Canon System, but in general, if you're committed to learning, I would recommend a camera with two control wheels (aperture and shutter speed), and second LCD screen (to look at the settings without digging into the menus).
> 
> ...



Thanks... it seems the 50D doesnt have a movie mode (really?) and the external mic thing is a real bonus, and I may be shooting a ton indoors in medium light, so the high ISO clarity might be important.. as far as the external flashes, I can use the hotshoe adapters to set off other strobes I thought, bec some earlier were telling me to do exactly that?  And it seems like the 50D is more expensive than the T2i...  I have always used Canons for most products, just one of those things, so unless they really suck, I'll prob stick with them, no offense to your advice!  And as long as someone doesnt tell me the T2i is horrible for what u r trying to do and stick with the P&S instead, I just need to get something and get started... whats that about spend 20% researching and 80% doing?  I think I am WAYYYYYY over my quota already!!!

But I am ordering those reflectors for sure to get as much daylight as possible, and then maybe 1-2 strobes that can be triggered with the hotshoe with a couple of white sheets and see where it goes... I'm sure it'll still be way better than anything I could do right now with basically nothing.


----------

