# Studio Lights Setup



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Hi Guys,

I have been working on shots in my studio for about the past week and I have noticed that my shots appear to be overexposed.  According to the histogram on the camera and in Lightroom, the exposure is perfect but the photo just seems blown out.  I have been taking pictures of my wife that is pretty fair-skinned and the left side of her face seems to be blown out.  Again, according to histograms the photo is not.

My setup is one flashpoint monolight at camera left and behind the subject pointing to a black background at 1/2 power firing through a diffusing umbrella.  The second monolight is at camera right and to the front left of the subject.  I also have a reflector at camera left to the right/front of the subject and firing through a diffusing umbrella.  

The right side of the subject's face is nicely lit, but again, the left side of the face is almost white because of the harsh light.  Any ideas how I can remedy this?  I am looking for a nice even exposure.  I could probably just put the two lights at camera left and right in front of the subject bouncing of umbrellas and this would remedy it, but then I would think both side of the face would look overexposed.


I'm new to this.  Need help!

Thanks,
Danny


----------



## SrBiscuit (May 12, 2011)

could you offer us a simple diagram with the layout and power setting of each light?

"left side of the face..." now is that camera left or subject left?

i think a diagram might help the solutions roll in


----------



## gsgary (May 12, 2011)

first off why are you firing one at the black background ? There is no way of answering your question without seeing a photo and knowing what the settings are 
you could just turn down the power on the flash on the front right


----------



## SrBiscuit (May 12, 2011)

gsgary said:


> you could just turn down the power on the flash on the front right



i was thinking it was just a question of power too...good call.


----------



## Big Mike (May 12, 2011)

A common mistake (well, not really a mistake, but a trap) that many photographers fall into, when trying to learn lighting...is to just right in with multiple lights.  It's much more complicated than just using one light to get you started.

As we've told you before...there are a few things that affect the flash exposure.  The lens aperture, the ISO, the flash power setting and the distance from the flash to the subject.
So if you are getting overexposure...you just need to change one of those things (without changing the others).  

If you can break it down into these simple terms, with one light...then it should start to make more sense for you.  And after you have a good handle on that, and have experimented with just one light...then you can add in the second light.  And using the same simple terms, work out the exposure for the second light.  You'll then realize that light is additive...and if you light the same thing with two lights, it will be brighter than if lit by either one individually.  But you still use the same things to control the exposure...aperture, ISO, power setting and distance.


----------



## Derrel (May 12, 2011)

Post a photo and we could probably diagnose the issues within a minute or two.

And YES, you could position two lights in umbrellas, one on each side of the subject's face OR two umbrellas, one high, and one low, stacked one on top of another; those types of lighting setups are called side-by-side and over/under, and they give big, bright, dual eye catchlights, and very soft, almost shadowless lighting with a very,very low ratio, often 1:1. Those two methods minimize skin texture and wrinkles, and look pretty good on women in their 40's,50,60's,and older. Over/under lighting is pretty easy to do if you have a sturdy, heavy-duty light stand like a Matthews or Avenger, and then use a clamp to clamp on another flash head and umbrella onto the main column. Because the camera is shot right through the gap between the two lights in both these set-up styles, the lighting is basically very much on-axis, and because the lighting is coming from the same axis as the lens, that makes the shadows, what little there are, fall in an almost invisible way--much the same was as a ring light does!!!

Because the two lights are very close to one another, the overall SIZE of the light is quite large, and that makes the light soft, since it is a big source, and close to a human subject. So, yeah, if you want soft, smooth lighting for a female subject, you CAN use two umbrellas, one on each side of the subject, OR two umbrellas stacked one above the other.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Below is the diagram.  Let me answer a few of the questions first.

@ SrBiscuit - I meant left of the subject.
@ gsgary - I was just trying something different by firing at the background; to see what effect it would have.  I don't have a pic with me at work, but the settings were 1/160, f/9, ISO 100.
@BigMike - without changing the others?  Wouldn't this leave me underexposed?  According to the histograms anyway.

Now, if I lower the power of the lights, wouldn't that have the effect of lowering the exposure causing me to compensate somewhere else like with the aperture or shutter or ISO whereby getting me to the same overexposure?







Thanks for all the responses.

Danny


----------



## Derrel (May 12, 2011)

Well, the one obvious problem is that the reflector in that location,and at the angle shown, is NOT going to reflect much, if any, of the main light onto the shadowed side of a person. The reflector would need to be placed closer to her, and the back,background edge of the reflector would need to be moved from its current 10:00 o'clock orientation to a more 12:00 o'clock angle, and inserted in line between roughly her, and where the background umbrella is firing. If this diagram is accurate (? is it?), your MAIN light is hitting her, but the reflector is not "seeing" the main light, and is NOT providing much fill-in light. To better gauge it, stand behind the reflector, and look at the main light...do you literally, visually "SEE" the main body, the main mass, the main "swath" emanating from the main light??? You need to...and so a slight re-positioning of the main light and the reflector might be in order.


----------



## tirediron (May 12, 2011)

Lose the background light, it's not doing anything useful, and move the reflector so that it is more like about 90 deg subject right (camera left).  A lot has to do with the light to subject / subject to camera distances as well.  As Mike and Derrel mentioned, start small; some amazing shots have been taken with a single light.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Well, the one obvious problem is that the reflector in that location,and at the angle shown, is NOT going to reflect much, if any, of the main light onto the shadowed side of a person. The reflector would need to be placed closer to her, and the back,background edge of the reflector would need to be moved from its current 10:00 o'clock orientation to a more 12:00 o'clock angle, and inserted in line between roughly her, and where the background umbrella is firing. If this diagram is accurate (? is it?), your MAIN light is hitting her, but the reflector is not "seeing" the main light, and is NOT providing much fill-in light. To better gauge it, stand behind the reflector, and look at the main light...do you literally, visually "SEE" the main body, the main mass, the main "swath" emanating from the main light??? You need to...and so a slight re-positioning of the main light and the reflector might be in order.


 
It is accurate.  I think I understand what you mean.  So angle the reflector perpendicular to the background so the light on the camera's right can be reflected to the subject who should be closer to reflector?  I'll try this.

Danny


----------



## CCericola (May 12, 2011)

If you use an accurate light meter you will not have these issues.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Lose the background light, it's not doing anything useful, and move the reflector so that it is more like about 90 deg subject right (camera left).  A lot has to do with the light to subject / subject to camera distances as well.  As Mike and Derrel mentioned, start small; some amazing shots have been taken with a single light.


 
I'll change things around tonight.  Thanks!


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

dandaluzphotography said:


> Now, if I lower the power of the lights, wouldn't that have the effect of lowering the exposure causing me to compensate somewhere else like with the aperture or shutter or ISO whereby getting me to the same overexposure?


 
What about this question I had from my last post?


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

CCericola said:


> If you use an accurate light meter you will not have these issues.


 
That's coming soon!


----------



## tirediron (May 12, 2011)

CCericola said:


> If you use an accurate *FLASH* meter you will not have these issues.



Quoted and edited for clarification.  Not all light meters will work for flash exposure.


----------



## Big Mike (May 12, 2011)

> I have been working on shots in my studio for about the past week and I have noticed that my shots appear to be overexposed. According to the histogram on the camera and in Lightroom, the exposure is perfect but the photo just seems blown out. I have been taking pictures of my wife that is pretty fair-skinned and the left side of her face seems to be blown out. Again, according to histograms the photo is not.


If you have parts of your image that are blowing out...then you are over exposing.  That is why I recommended reducing the exposure.  

If you like the exposure that you have (say, on her face) but are still getting parts that are blown out...then you need to diagnose where the blown out parts are being lit from, and change something.  It might be something like your background umbrella is sending light back to your subject...or maybe it's bouncing off of the wall or ceiling.  It's important for you to consider all of the light sources that may be affecting your scene....and that includes the light that is bouncing off of surfaces in the room.  

Like we mentioned above, starting with one light can really help you to visualize where the light is going.  Besides adding light to your subject with a reflector, remember that you can subtract light from your subject by blocking light.  You can use just about anything to block light, we call them flags or Gobos (Go Between).  Black objects work well because they won't reflect much light back into your scene.  

Lastly, you say that parts of your image are starting to blow out...but that the histogram looks fine.  That makes me wonder what you consider a good histogram to be...maybe you could upload a sample image, along with the histogram.


----------



## gsgary (May 12, 2011)

this is what you get with light on your black backdrop' it looks crap unless it is perfectly flat or nicely ruffled







And no light on the background 





Don't worry about the histogram when shooting in the studio because if you are shooting high key it will be well over to the right  and if shooting low key it will be well to the left, these above if you looked at the histogram it will be to the left but that does not mean it is bad


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Thanks for the example. I'm still gonna do my homework tonight!!!

Danny


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Ok...

So here is my latest attempt.  

Settings were 1/200, f/8, 35mm, ISO 100

Definitely looks better than the last one.  I've also attached a diagram of the setup.  Thoughts?






Histogram:






Diagram of the setup:






You guys probably know about this, but I found a pretty cool website that lets you create exportable studio diagrams.  Check it out.  Creator / Home - Online Lighting Diagram Creator - Tools for photographers

Danny


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> > Lastly, you say that parts of your image are starting to blow out...but that the histogram looks fine.  That makes me wonder what you consider a good histogram to be...maybe you could upload a sample image, along with the histogram.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Derrel (May 12, 2011)

Well, that's side-by-side umbrella lighting: soft lighting with almost no shadowing, big double catchlights in the eyes. She has a lovely, very symmetrical face, which is great for photography. I honestly think it would have looked better to have used one umbrella to light her, and just used a reflector for a little bit of fill on the off-side. her skin is still very smooth and un-wrinkled, and so, I think you ought to save this lighting setup for another 30 years or so, for her.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 12, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I honestly think it would have looked better to have used one umbrella to light her, and just used a reflector for a little bit of fill on the off-side.


 
Thanks!  I'll try that setup tomorrow and upload the result.

Danny


----------



## Propsguy (May 12, 2011)

Well your shutter speed is static in studio... there's no advantage to changing your shutter speed because for one thing, you need to work within the limits of your flash sync speed, and for another, the duration of the flash is determining the time element of your exposure.

Your ISO should also be static in studio.... keep it low... that's the end of that discussion.

For your exposure, choose the exposure that gives you the depth of field that suits your shot, and adjust your lighting to suit.

In other words, no... don't adjust your lighting and then adjust your camera to suit.  Set your camera to give you the desired capture, and light to suit.

best of of luck....


----------



## joealcantar (May 13, 2011)

dandaluzphotography said:


> CCericola said:
> 
> 
> > If you use an accurate light meter you will not have these issues.
> ...


-
2nd this.
-
Another option is to turn on your blinking highlights when you are viewing your pics on the camera it may help point out the blown highlights regardless of the histogram. 
-
Shoot well, Joe
-
Someone mentioned a single light on her , that would be cool.  Reflector for fill (get brave and get it close to her.  Tell her to turn a little more so it is not a straight on shot.  you want to have and angle on the face.  (Never broad light a broad) well that is the way a master explained broad lighting on women.  You can try the second light as a hair light, (very low power) to give it a different look. 
-


----------



## Big Mike (May 13, 2011)

Well, it looks like you have the exposure figured out (for that shot anyway).  But like Derrel said...that is very flat lighting.  That may be good for documenting that you have a wife...but it's not very artistic.  

So next time, turn off one of the lights and just use one.  That will allow you to create a lit side and a shadow side of your subject.  The position of the light and the position/angle/pose of the model will determine how & where the lit side transitions into the shadow side.  This is where you can learn and use portrait lighting patterns.  
Using only one light, your shadow side will likely be very dark, which usually makes for a very moody type shot.  Once you have the lighting pattern you want, use the 2nd light (or a reflector) for fill.  Traditionally, the fill light was placed very close to the camera position, rather that opposite the main light.


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 13, 2011)

tirediron said:


> CCericola said:
> 
> 
> > If you use an accurate *FLASH* meter you will not have these issues.
> ...


 
Not needed though. While there are some advantages to using light meters, and some people definitely prefer to work that way, they most certainly not needed to get a good exposure. Shooting film is one story, but now we have screens on the back of our cameras that are reasonably accurate, and more importantly, histograms that are completely accurate. 

So I hate to say it, but unless you camera and Lightroom are broken exactly the same way, then you don't know how to read of histogram. The only time clipped highlights can be hard to see on a histogram is when they represent a small portion of the photo, and therefore are a very small piece of the histo, like if a person who was small in a photo had a blown out face, it wouldn't represent much of the histo. Bt since your shooting portrait, I would assum that the face is the majority of the photo, in which case, if it's blown out, then qit should be a big chunk of the histogram jammed up against the right wall. Do you understand how to read histogram data? Anything touching either wall is gone. No data. The right side is highlights, the left side is shadows. Just because all the data is opn the histogram, doesn't mean it's not blown out, in terms of way to bright. Theres still information, but it can still be too bright. If you're shooting a portrait, and the hist is all over the right side, its probably too bright, unles you're shooting high key on purpose. 

Between you back screen preview and the histogram, there's no reason why something should ever look different than you thought it would.


----------



## gsgary (May 13, 2011)

This is a crap photo of my partner  i was shooting dogs and in between waiting for more customers i told here to pose (she hates her photo being taken)
but it gives you an idea of what a hair light looks like even if it is a bit strong


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 13, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> Well, it looks like you have the exposure figured out (for that shot anyway).  But like Derrel said...that is very flat lighting.  That may be good for documenting that you have a wife...but it's not very artistic.
> 
> So next time, turn off one of the lights and just use one.  That will allow you to create a lit side and a shadow side of your subject.  The position of the light and the position/angle/pose of the model will determine how & where the lit side transitions into the shadow side.  This is where you can learn and use portrait lighting patterns.
> Using only one light, your shadow side will likely be very dark, which usually makes for a very moody type shot.  Once you have the lighting pattern you want, use the 2nd light (or a reflector) for fill.  Traditionally, the fill light was placed very close to the camera position, rather that opposite the main light.



Thanks for the reply.  I'll be trying that tonight.  

Danny


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 13, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Well, that's side-by-side umbrella lighting: soft lighting with almost no shadowing, big double catchlights in the eyes. She has a lovely, very symmetrical face, which is great for photography. I honestly think it would have looked better to have used one umbrella to light her, and just used a reflector for a little bit of fill on the off-side. her skin is still very smooth and un-wrinkled, and so, I think you ought to save this lighting setup for another 30 years or so, for her.


 
Agreed! If you want something to look interesting, don't light all of it.

My vote would go for what Derrel said, and then use the other light as a rim/hair light to give her some separation from the black void. Right now it has about as much depth as a postage stamp. A little separation light to make her pop off the background would give a long way.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 13, 2011)

gsgary said:


> This is a crap photo of my partner  i was shooting dogs and in between waiting for more customers i told here to pose (she hates her photo being taken)
> but it gives you an idea of what a hair light looks like even if it is a bit strong


 
I've seen examples of a snoot being used with a hair light.  Is this generally a good method?  You mentioned the hair light is a bit strong.  My idea of a hair light is very faint light just to bring out highlights.  Is this thinking correct?

Danny


----------



## dandaluzphotography (May 13, 2011)

GeneralBenson said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's side-by-side umbrella lighting: soft lighting with almost no shadowing, big double catchlights in the eyes. She has a lovely, very symmetrical face, which is great for photography. I honestly think it would have looked better to have used one umbrella to light her, and just used a reflector for a little bit of fill on the off-side. her skin is still very smooth and un-wrinkled, and so, I think you ought to save this lighting setup for another 30 years or so, for her.
> ...



This separation light would be aimed at her.  Right?  I haven't thought of a hair light providing separation.  I've always heard of a background light providing that.  My original shot had the light point to the background (there's a diagram of the setup earlier in the thread) and gsgary pointed out how bad it might look if the background wasn't perfectly flat.

Danny


----------



## gsgary (May 13, 2011)

dandaluzphotography said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > This is a crap photo of my partner  i was shooting dogs and in between waiting for more customers i told here to pose (she hates her photo being taken)
> ...


 
In that shot the light coming from behind is from a 7" reflector with a honeycomb fitted to keep the light where i want it and to stop lens flare, if the lights had been set up for my partner i would have used a snoot


----------



## Big Mike (May 13, 2011)

Separation can come from lighting either the subject (hair) or the background.  As long as you light one (or both) of them so that they don't blend together...then you have separation.  

You typically don't want your hair light to be too much brighter or darker than your main light.  The hair color and background color will likely dictate your choices here.  

I don't like to put hard labels on things...but I usually think of a hair light as a light that is more above the subject and an accent light (or kicker) as a light that is hitting the subject from behind.  Either one can give separation, but a hair light also helps to light the top of the subject, if your main or fill lights aren't getting much light up there.  

Photographers will differ on this point...but one instructor of mine, suggested that the hair light should always been on the same side of the subject as the main light.  Will gsgary's example above, the hair/accent light is opposite the main (right & left).  This is OK, but it really gives the shot a very 'studio-ish' feel because that pattern of lighting would rarely occur naturally.  But if you can have the hair light on the same side as the main light, it just feels more like natural light.  Of course, it can be harder to get that separation when lighting the hair from that side.

One important factor is that you don't want your hair light to light too much (or any) of the face.  In the example above, note that the hair lights is not hitting her nose at all, which is the right way to do it.  If it was hitting the nose, it would have been too far around and would have to be moved back.


----------

