# Single OCF light source picture thread



## Village Idiot

If you got it, post it up. Providing info of light type, positioning, and modifiers kicks ass too.





One 580EX II with shoot through umbrella held by Voice Activated Lightstand (VAL) camera left.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

I'll contribute-

Last night, shoot-through umbrella/pocketwizard/camera right.


----------



## bazooka

Two microwaved cd's, a single tungsten clamp-on shop light in my darkened bathroom.  Not strobe, but you didn't specify so....


----------



## Village Idiot

bazooka said:


> Two microwaved cd's, a single tungsten clamp-on shop light in my darkened bathroom. Not strobe, but you didn't specify so....



OCF = Off camera flash. But, we can let it slide since your hummingbird shot is the tits.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

How long did you nuke the CDs for that effect?


----------



## Derrel

This photo needs to be seen in its "original" size, for the correct color profile to come through, since when seen at reduced size, it defaults to some oddball color profile and the colors look all washed out and pale.

This is a single Speedotron Brown Line M11 light unit fired through a Lastolite brand 40 inch Umbrella Box enclosed umbrella which I positioned to deliver some catchlighting in the eyes and a fairly broad shadow on the off side. There is 'some' hint of fill from a 4x6 foot white reflective LightForm panel on a homemade rolling stand, but the amount of fill-in is very minimal because the reflector is at least five feet away from the subject. The shadowed side of the face maintains nice dimensional clues which were lost when I moved the reflector closer,to approximately three feet off to the side. I didn't like the shots I made later, when the reflector was moved closer, to three feet. The Canon "flash" white balance was used,and it's a good match for this umbrella and uncoated flashtube. This image is exactly As-Shot using baseline Auto RAW convesion in ACR with just USM and re-sizing for the web. In this shot,the umbrella is lighting the paper just a tiny bit; I shot this on the short axis of my garage,and didn't use a backlight: I wish I would have used a light to make the backdrop whiter,or shot with the backdrop farther away from the umbrella for at least a medium gray,or darker, backdrop color in the final image. Here's the URL for this umbrella Lastolite Umbrella Box with 8MM Shaft - 40" LL LU3226 B&H


----------



## bazooka

Village Idiot said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two microwaved cd's, a single tungsten clamp-on shop light in my darkened bathroom. Not strobe, but you didn't specify so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCF = Off camera flash. But, we can let it slide since your hummingbird shot is the tits.
Click to expand...


GAH!!! Thinking fail.  Oh well, it could have been a flash!! 

The cd's only take about 5 seconds to cook the lines in.  Once it 'flashes', it's done.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Derrel said:


> This photo needs to be seen in its "original" size, for the correct color profile to come through, since when seen at reduced size, it defaults to some oddball color profile and the colors look all washed out and pale.
> 
> This is a single Speedotron Brown Line M11 light unit fired through a Lastolite brand 40 inch Umbrella Box enclosed umbrella which I positioned to deliver some catchlighting in the eyes and a fairly broad shadow on the off side. There is 'some' hint of fill from a 4x6 foot white reflective LightForm panel on a homemade rolling stand, but the amount of fill-in is very minimal because the reflector is at least five feet away from the subject. The shadowed side of the face maintains nice dimensional clues which were lost when I moved the reflector closer,to approximately three feet off to the side. I didn't like the shots I made later, when the reflector was moved closer, to three feet. The Canon "flash" white balance was used,and it's a good match for this umbrella and uncoated flashtube. This image is exactly As-Shot using baseline Auto RAW convesion in ACR with just USM and re-sizing for the web. In this shot,the umbrella is lighting the paper just a tiny bit; I shot this on the short axis of my garage,and didn't use a backlight: I wish I would have used a light to make the backdrop whiter,or shot with the backdrop farther away from the umbrella for at least a medium gray,or darker, backdrop color in the final image. Here's the URL for this umbrella Lastolite Umbrella Box with 8MM Shaft - 40" LL LU3226 B&H



^^^^that umbrella may be the answer to my question of how do i get softer light without hassling with putting a softbox together everytime I get somewhere to shoot but still be softer than a bare umbrella? Derrel does the light fall off super-fast like a shoot-through umbrella?  is there anything i need to mount a SB-600 with it, other than  universal adapters i already have that hold a flash and umbrella on a light stand?


----------



## Robin Usagani

Single speedlite, camera left on a monopod held by model's husband.  Bare flash.


----------



## D-B-J

Setup like this:


----------



## D-B-J

Setup like this:


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Nice!


----------



## Village Idiot

2WheelPhoto said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This photo needs to be seen in its "original" size, for the correct color profile to come through, since when seen at reduced size, it defaults to some oddball color profile and the colors look all washed out and pale.
> 
> This is a single Speedotron Brown Line M11 light unit fired through a Lastolite brand 40 inch Umbrella Box enclosed umbrella which I positioned to deliver some catchlighting in the eyes and a fairly broad shadow on the off side. There is 'some' hint of fill from a 4x6 foot white reflective LightForm panel on a homemade rolling stand, but the amount of fill-in is very minimal because the reflector is at least five feet away from the subject. The shadowed side of the face maintains nice dimensional clues which were lost when I moved the reflector closer,to approximately three feet off to the side. I didn't like the shots I made later, when the reflector was moved closer, to three feet. The Canon "flash" white balance was used,and it's a good match for this umbrella and uncoated flashtube. This image is exactly As-Shot using baseline Auto RAW convesion in ACR with just USM and re-sizing for the web. In this shot,the umbrella is lighting the paper just a tiny bit; I shot this on the short axis of my garage,and didn't use a backlight: I wish I would have used a light to make the backdrop whiter,or shot with the backdrop farther away from the umbrella for at least a medium gray,or darker, backdrop color in the final image. Here's the URL for this umbrella Lastolite Umbrella Box with 8MM Shaft - 40" LL LU3226 B&H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^that umbrella may be the answer to my question of how do i get softer light without hassling with putting a softbox together everytime I get somewhere to shoot but still be softer than a bare umbrella? Derrel does the light fall off super-fast like a shoot-through umbrella? is there anything i need to mount a SB-600 with it, other than universal adapters i already have that hold a flash and umbrella on a light stand?
Click to expand...


Fall off isn't a result of the modifier. It's the distance the light source is from the modifier. 

Zack Arias has the best illustrated example of this I've ever seen:
I've moved the blog &#8211;> zackarias.com/blog » White Seamless Tutorial :: Part 3 :: From White To Black.


----------



## bruce282

Schwettylens said:


> Single speedlite, camera left on a monopod held by *model's husband*.  Bare flash.



Don't tell he didn't trust you with his wife Schwettylens. 

Nice shot.

Bruce


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Village Idiot said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This photo needs to be seen in its "original" size, for the correct color profile to come through, since when seen at reduced size, it defaults to some oddball color profile and the colors look all washed out and pale.
> 
> This is a single Speedotron Brown Line M11 light unit fired through a Lastolite brand 40 inch Umbrella Box enclosed umbrella which I positioned to deliver some catchlighting in the eyes and a fairly broad shadow on the off side. There is 'some' hint of fill from a 4x6 foot white reflective LightForm panel on a homemade rolling stand, but the amount of fill-in is very minimal because the reflector is at least five feet away from the subject. The shadowed side of the face maintains nice dimensional clues which were lost when I moved the reflector closer,to approximately three feet off to the side. I didn't like the shots I made later, when the reflector was moved closer, to three feet. The Canon "flash" white balance was used,and it's a good match for this umbrella and uncoated flashtube. This image is exactly As-Shot using baseline Auto RAW convesion in ACR with just USM and re-sizing for the web. In this shot,the umbrella is lighting the paper just a tiny bit; I shot this on the short axis of my garage,and didn't use a backlight: I wish I would have used a light to make the backdrop whiter,or shot with the backdrop farther away from the umbrella for at least a medium gray,or darker, backdrop color in the final image. Here's the URL for this umbrella Lastolite Umbrella Box with 8MM Shaft - 40" LL LU3226 B&H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^that umbrella may be the answer to my question of how do i get softer light without hassling with putting a softbox together everytime I get somewhere to shoot but still be softer than a bare umbrella? Derrel does the light fall off super-fast like a shoot-through umbrella? is there anything i need to mount a SB-600 with it, other than universal adapters i already have that hold a flash and umbrella on a light stand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fall off isn't a result of the modifier. It's the distance the light source is from the modifier.
> 
> Zack Arias has the best illustrated example of this I've ever seen:
> I've moved the blog &#8211;> zackarias.com/blog » White Seamless Tutorial :: Part 3 :: From White To Black.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the information and link, I'll study it.  I'm brand new to OCF and it just seems when i take two umbrellas out, my shoot through and the regular one with the black backing on and same settings same flash, the shoot through is significantly less light for me (unless I about move it against the subject).  I haven't made as far as the studio and advanced studio lighting courses at school yet.


----------



## Derrel

As Village Idiot pointed out, fall-off is more about the distance between the light, and the subject, than it is about the light itself. HOWEVER, comparing different light modifiers, one against the other, and there are differences in how different lights cast their light. If you want a dark, shadowed side, you can pull the light in really close to the subject, and the "bright side" will be pretty bright, and the shadowed side will be quite dark, by comparison with the lightness of the light side of a subject. Using a large and effective reflector on the shadowed side allows the photographer to bounce light back, and into the shadows, to modify the ratio of dark-to-light. The key is using a reflector that is atually A) large enough to DO something and B)using a reflector that is EFFECTIVE.

Shoot-through umbrellas come in different sizes, and different fabrics, and they perform differently with different flash units fitted to them , as well as with "how" they are used. If you take a Nikon Sb 800 and choke it wayyyyyy up on the umbrella shaft and use a 45 inch shoot-through, only the CENTRAL part of the umbrella will be lighted, and the edges will have very,very rapid fall-off. If you back the umbrella off toward the end of the shaft and set the zoom head to 35mm, you can "fill" the umbrella, and get an entirely different effect, which is a broader "swath of light" that exits the umbrella, with a more-even amount of light between the center of the beam and the edges.

Shoot-through umbrellas vary, a LOT; On some, you'll get 45% of the light going through the umbrella, and 55% of the light reflecting backward, where it bounces all over the shooting area. This is not good,or bad, but just the way it is. A black-backed reflecting umbrella will almost always direct a higher amount of light toward the subject than a shoot-through umbrella will. The reflecting umbrella has a higher efficiency,and it sends the light basically, for the most part, in only one direction, and not all over the room.

The Lastolite Umbrella Box lights MORE like a softbox than a traditional umbrella does, because of the way it works. The flash is aimed into the umbrella, which has soft, solid white fabric inside, almost a plastic-like fabric, covered on the outside by a 100% light-proof black coating, also kind of "plastic-like", not just woven fabric, but a sort of "coated" white fabric and a "coated" black exterior. The light is scrambled inside the umbrella, and then goes through the white nylon front face. This design makes the "distance" around double, or more, than what one would get with a shoot-through. The Umbrella Box takes the scrambled, diffused light from the first bounce, and then diffuses it additionally when the light goes through the front cover: to me, this is called "double-diffusion". It is the same process as adding a diffuser to a light, and then firing it through a scrim--it makes the light even softer. The Lastolite Umbrella Box and the Photek Softlighter that Annie Liebovitz relies upon are almost the same thing in how they scramble the light, and then diffuse it AGAIN, through a front fabric, much the way a softbox fires through an internal diffusing baffle, and then through a front white nylon fabric.

There is a second type of umbrella, which Zack Arias shows in one of his tutorials: it is the kind sometimes called a "brolly box", and is typically nothing more than a shoot-through umbrella with a black backing...it gives an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT type of light because it works very differently. Take a look at Zack's illustrations here, showing a shoot-through umbrella, and a softbox: I've moved the blog > zackarias.com/blog » Shoot Through Umbrella vs. Softbox

One of the most-important differences between 1) a shoot-through umbrella and a softbox, or 2) a Lastolite Umbrella Box or a Photek Softlighter and 3) a softbox is the degree of specularity the lights have. Shoot-through umbrellas are often very brightly lit-up where the flash blast through the umbrella fabric, and they often impart a sickly, disgusting, cheesy look to human foreheads and faces...lots of specular "sheen and shine"...which can make pictures shown really small and on the web or in newspapers look visually "exciting". Lots of punch, and sharp delineation of facial features. Softboxes and the Lastolite and Photek double-diffusion umbrellas have less specularity on human skin, when used for higher-resolution portraiture that is going to be printed, bigger, and seen, bigger than on the web on on newsprint screened at under 120 dots per inch...

To me, the Lastolite Umbrella Box is the perfect umbrella for people...the "quality" of the light is different from either a shoot-through, or a reflecting umbrella. It is a double-diffusion, enclosed, rounded light. The Photek Sotlighter has even more ribs, and is even more-rounded. At "normal" studio distances, the 40 inch Lastolite Umbrella Box delivers a quality of light that I like. it is softer, with less specularity, and lower fall-off, than with a traditional reflecting umbrella. They cost almost $80 a pop. They are not $19 Chinese cheapies...


----------



## Village Idiot

2WheelPhoto said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^that umbrella may be the answer to my question of how do i get softer light without hassling with putting a softbox together everytime I get somewhere to shoot but still be softer than a bare umbrella? Derrel does the light fall off super-fast like a shoot-through umbrella? is there anything i need to mount a SB-600 with it, other than universal adapters i already have that hold a flash and umbrella on a light stand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fall off isn't a result of the modifier. It's the distance the light source is from the modifier.
> 
> Zack Arias has the best illustrated example of this I've ever seen:
> I've moved the blog > zackarias.com/blog » White Seamless Tutorial :: Part 3 :: From White To Black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the information and link, I'll study it. I'm brand new to OCF and it just seems when i take two umbrellas out, my shoot through and the regular one with the black backing on and same settings same flash, the shoot through is significantly less light for me (unless I about move it against the subject). I haven't made as far as the studio and advanced studio lighting courses at school yet.
Click to expand...


You'll lose more light with the shoot through as you're shooting through an object and not bouncing it off of a reflective surface. You'll have to turn the power up to compensate but if you have the shoot through at the same distance as the reflective and have the subject at the same f stop, the fall off should theoretically be the same. The farther you move the light source from the subject, the less falloff there should be, you'll just have to have more power to compensate for it. Like with Zack's photo, if you were shooting a group with one light source and wanted them all as evenly lit as possible, you would pull the light farther away so that the falloff is as close to nil as possible and they're all lit within a stop fo each other. If you moved the light source right up against them, there would be massive falloff.

The difference between the shoot through and the reflective is that the shoot through can be put closer to the subject and is a bigger light source, acting as a softer light. The reflective can't but put as close and as a smaller source, the light will be harder. It'll still be much softer than a bare flash head, but it'll be a bit harder than a shoot through. Hard is not bad though. A lot of photographers from their first experiences gather the notion that hard is bad because they're working with lighting out of their control. Hard is definitely not bad though, it's just not soft and it's a different type of light. Use your imagination and your tools to get the lighting you want.


----------



## Derrel

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> >SNIP> if you were shooting a group with one light source and wanted them all as evenly lit as possible, you would pull the light farther away so that the falloff is as close to nil as possible and they're all lit within a stop of each other. If you moved the light source right up against them, there would be massive falloff.



That statement from Village Idiot summarizes the way the Inverse Square Law applies to photographic lighting. For anybody who wants to learn perhaps the single most-critical aspect of studio lighting, they need to fully understand that statement that V-I just made.


----------



## Robin Usagani

More posting less talking.  I thought this was a thread to post pics?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Schwetty I apologize.  Guys thank you very much for the extremely helpful info and links.

Ok another on a lighter note - my girlfriend tiling my house.  I couldn't help but sneak a pic of her as she had the shop light cam left in the front yard.


----------



## jake337

Single sb600 very high-camera(almost above head) right at 45 deg and aimed towards the ground at about 45 deg.  I tried to feather the light as it was aimed towards his legs.


----------



## Village Idiot

Schwettylens said:


> More posting less talking. I thought this was a thread to post pics?



I started the thread and if people want to learn, then that's awesome. If you don't like it, go start your own thread elsewhere.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Ok here's one I will really appreciate C & C help with. My grandson is 2 hours old in this photo I took using a shoot through umbrella/Vivitar/PW being held by my son in law in the hospital room.  The shadow behind his head I believe shows the direction of the flash and the cam position. I took a lot of shots at different cam and flash angles but this one seems to be the best of that bunch.

Babies aren't my thing but according to my daughter I'll be visiting GA a lot more often and shooting a lot more pics of him in the near future so any tips are appreciated


----------



## Village Idiot

Light source is too close. The kid is like what, about a foot long? Notice the sheets at the right are blown while the same color sheet at the right is turning gray? That's fall off from having the light source too close, as was explained in the previous post. Pull your lightsource back a bit.

He's another post from Zack Arias about lighting a white seamless back drop. This goes into detail about using a white background as white, gray, or inbetween. This can be achieved by the exposure level of the light on the seamless vs. your main subject and uses fall off to accomplish it. It's important because it illustrates how certain colors are affected by light intensity. This goes along with the multi strobe photo you took where your dark jacket was under exposed and your lighter jeans were properly exposed by the same light.

I've moved the blog &#8211;> zackarias.com/blog » White Seamless Tutorial :: Part 3 :: From White To Black.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Thanks!


----------



## Village Idiot

These are my friends, Jon and Ashley. Ashley helps out with modeling for the DC/Baltimore/NoVa Strobist shoots from time to time and volunteered to help us for a mini test run of a photo scavenger hunt we're putting together in DC. Jon ended up tagging along and he loocked board, so I figured I'd use in in a shot. This is with one 580EX II with shoot through umbrella held by a VAL on the above landing to the left of the camera. It was pretty sunny out so we found this nice shaded landing at the entrance to the Regal Cinemas next to the Verizon center. I was going for as much of a natural balance between the ambient and the flash as possible without giving it the look of being obviously lit.


----------



## analog.universe

Tomato sauce shot for my recipe blog.

This was a LumoPro LP160, zoomed to 105mm at 1/64 power.  I snooted it with a piece of cardboard  and used a mason jar lid ring to form a perfect circle at the opening.   Flash  was about a half meter left and half meter above the jar, 45 degree downward tilt.   Black fabric hanging about 2 ft behind the table. 1/250,ISO100.   Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon @f/3.5.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

analog.universe said:


> Tomato sauce shot for my recipe blog.
> 
> This was a LumoPro LP160, zoomed to 105mm at 1/64 power.  I snooted it with a piece of cardboard  and used a mason jar lid ring to form a perfect circle at the opening.   Flash  was about a half meter left and half meter above the jar, 45 degree downward tilt.   Black fabric hanging about 2 ft behind the table. 1/250,ISO100.   Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon @f/3.5.



Nice, makes me want the recipe!


----------



## Heitz

Schwettylens said:


> Single speedlite, camera left on a monopod held by model's husband.  Bare flash.



I WISH there was a bare flash!


----------



## kundalini

SB800 set behind the camera and to the back of the mailbox, reverse fired. This was using Nikon CLS (no triggers yet), so I fashioned a piece of aluminum foil on the built-in flash to bounce the pre-flash backwards.












SB800 bungeed to the ribs of a refelective umbrella.


----------



## ghache

one flash head in a Large 3X4 gridded softbox camera left right beside model and a bare flash camera right with barndoors behind a large 22 inch grid pointed directly at model at around 45 degree.


----------



## analog.universe

2WheelPhoto said:


> Nice, makes me want the recipe!



Epic Tomato Sauce &#8211; Vegan Vermonter  :thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot

ghache said:


> one flash head in a Large 3X4 gridded softbox camera left right beside model and a bare flash camera right with barndoors behind a large 22 inch grid pointed directly at model at around 45 degree.



Good photo, wrong thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...multiple-ocf-light-source-picture-thread.html


----------



## ghache

oohh snap, i though i was in the multiple. wtf.


----------



## ghache

there ya go,

1 vivitar 285hv at 1/4 or 1/2 in a 24X24 softbox camere right close to model.


----------



## willis_927

If this is a single flash camera right, how did you manage to get the hair light on the top left of the model head / body? Or does there just happen to be a beam of natural light comming in..?



ghache said:


> there ya go,
> 
> 1 vivitar 285hv at 1/4 or 1/2 in a 24X24 softbox camere right close to model.


----------



## ghache

willis_927 said:


> If this is a single flash camera right, how did you manage to get the hair light on the top left of the model head / body? Or does there just happen to be a beam of natural light comming in..?
> 
> 
> 
> ghache said:
> 
> 
> 
> there ya go,
> 
> 1 vivitar 285hv at 1/4 or 1/2 in a 24X24 softbox camere right close to model.
Click to expand...



You are right. A beam of light was coming in but you dont see them in the picture. The ceiling of that warehouse is about 20-30 feet high. If you look closely in the background, you can see the stairs going on a second level plaform at the back. There is 3X6 (approx) windows all around that place. The windows beam were hitting the floor all along the other wall but you dont see anything because of the angle i took the shot. 

I balanced my flash and exposure to use the available light and this is IMO the only way you can manage to shoot with a sigle flash without getting flat looking pictures.


here another shot from the same shoot. noticed how the hair light is warmer? gotta love sun light


----------



## willis_927

Ohh ok. I figured it looked warmer than the light from a flash but I seen no other signs of a natural light source.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

This thread is great. Lighting and advanced lighting are my next two classes at the university, and I hope afterwards I'm able to turn on my flashes and pocketwizards and at least be halfway where you guys are.

The classes are being conducted at George Salmon's studio in Tampa instead of at school. George Salmon is the instructor and known and respected around here for his photography for 40 years, and he specializes in advertising and commerical accounts today.

Many say school is useless for photography, but I haven't taken this opportunity for granted.  I don't plan to give up my techie career for photo's at my old age, but as a hobby this thing is a blast.


----------



## dots

Quality thread! :thumbup:


----------



## 12sndsgood

definatly not to allot of yours guys level. but im working on it.
 sb900 no modifiers on left (obviously)




sunfireoct2011_17 by Sndsgood, on Flickr


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Nice, I was hoping some car/motorcycle pics would appear.


----------



## kundalini

Sorry for all the selfies, but that's all that was available when starting off with lighting.


One bare SB600.  (I want to recreate this look with multiple lights at some point for better separation and definition.)










SB800 in a reflective umbrella.









Bare SB600 aimed at wall.








SB800 in a Lastolite 24x24" EZYbox






.


----------



## jake337

2WheelPhoto said:


> This thread is great. Lighting and advanced lighting are my next two classes at the university, and I hope afterwards I'm able to turn on my flashes and pocketwizards and at least be halfway where you guys are.
> 
> The classes are being conducted at George Salmon's studio in Tampa instead of at school. George Salmon is the instructor and known and respected around here for his photography for 40 years, and he specializes in advertising and commerical accounts today.
> 
> Many say school is useless for photography, but I haven't taken this opportunity for granted. I don't plan to give up my techie career for photo's at my old age, but as a hobby this thing is a blast.



Those who say school is useless are obviously idiot savants.....


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

One bare vivitar 285 camera left


----------



## willis_927

Bare Flash Camera Left






Single flash camera right about 4' high, just outside the frame





Camera Right 





Camera left.. bare flash as the wind destroyed my unbrella just prior to this LOL


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

bump


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

1 strobe cam right and Margaret


----------



## camz

Can't beileve I missed this thread.

Triggered the flash manually with the PW inside the tent.   Flash at 128th power, f-stop: 2.8 , shutter 30 sec, focused at infinity


----------



## KmH

A single speedlight (SB-600, manual mode, 1/64 power, blue gel) facing the camera from behind several sheets of sketching paper and converted to B&W.






The original;


----------



## jwbryson1

With respect to the light bounced inside a black backed reflective umbrella, how far should a 45" umbrella be from 2 subjects (people)?  What about shoot through umbrellas?

What height should the umbrellas be---eye level?  Slightly overhead?  

Thanks.


----------



## Village Idiot

jwbryson1 said:


> With respect to the light bounced inside a black backed reflective umbrella, how far should a 45" umbrella be from 2 subjects (people)?  What about shoot through umbrellas?
> 
> What height should the umbrellas be---eye level?  Slightly overhead?
> 
> Thanks.



As far as height, a higher light generally mimics an actual light.

As far as distance, it totally depends on what you want. The closer the light (no matter what source) the more fall off you'll receive vs if it's farther away.


----------



## jwbryson1

Village Idiot said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to the light bounced inside a black backed reflective umbrella, how far should a 45" umbrella be from 2 subjects (people)?  What about shoot through umbrellas?
> 
> What height should the umbrellas be---eye level?  Slightly overhead?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as height, a higher light generally mimics an actual light.
> 
> As far as distance, it totally depends on what you want. The closer the light (no matter what source) the more fall off you'll receive vs if it's farther away.
Click to expand...


This weekend I'm going to take some photos of my wife and new baby with my new umbrella.  Never used one before.  I read that if the light is too high it can cause "raccoon eyes" on the subjects.  I will need to experiment with this and see what results.  :thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot

jwbryson1 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to the light bounced inside a black backed reflective umbrella, how far should a 45" umbrella be from 2 subjects (people)?  What about shoot through umbrellas?
> 
> What height should the umbrellas be---eye level?  Slightly overhead?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as height, a higher light generally mimics an actual light.
> 
> As far as distance, it totally depends on what you want. The closer the light (no matter what source) the more fall off you'll receive vs if it's farther away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend I'm going to take some photos of my wife and new baby with my new umbrella.  Never used one before.  I read that if the light is too high it can cause "raccoon eyes" on the subjects.  I will need to experiment with this and see what results.  :thumbup:
Click to expand...


It you bounce is off a ceiling, then yes you'll get that effect. Generally though your light is going to be shining down at an angle and it's direction will be from the front, so unless you're shooting with a bare strobes, the softness from the modifiers will fix the eye baggage.


----------



## bazooka

Simply look at the subject from where the light is and you'll be able to see everything that the light can see.  If you can see the eyes, then the light will hit the eyes.  Vice versa.


----------



## camz

Softbox 24 in single OCF camera right


----------



## camz

Bare flash 580 ex on a monopod camera left.


----------



## camz

Great thread VI. I'm not much of an OCF guy so I had to dig into the archives...pardon the multiple posts. Here's another one..snooted to the groom camera right 580 EX.


----------



## Tee

SB-600 camera left through 12inch softbox triggered via Nikon CLS ISO 640, f/6.3 @ 1/160





Same lighting set up but more over my shoulder IS0 200, f/5.6 @ 1/160


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

1 speedlight cam right


----------



## matthewm

16" light box sb900, full power 1/250s f11


----------



## Village Idiot

This is from my trip to DC. On 580EX II with shoot through camera left held by VAL.





Started really trying to pin down a color correction and skin smoothing technique. This one didn't need much color correcting as it was shot in the shade with a flash and everything was already mostly the right color.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

This thread delivers


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Bump- rockin' a Vivitar 285 cam at the park trying to let some ambient in


----------



## Village Idiot

Looks like the focus is on her boob and not her face.

You can use a narrower aperture for a wider DOF, which will encompass the subject an still allow a background to be blurred if there's enough separation and then compensate with ISO so that ambient remains exposed correctly and you don't have to use too slow of a shutter speed that may introduce blur from hand held shake due to the ambient portion of the exposure.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Thanks VI. 

I had the ISO cranked to 1000 for 1/60th shutter, maybe I'll try it a little higher. or something else is going on, I'm not used to the D700 maybe my focus points aren't set right since you pointed out focus on the boobs, thought I had it set for 9 points single point focus and nailed her eye but i'm going back to check the cam.


----------



## Derrel

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> Looks like the focus is on her boob and not her face.



Her eyes and face are in focus well enough for the image at small size like this. You're probably just zeroing in on her boob. Maybe it's the sequins on her flimsy top that are drawing your eye. If her boob were out of focus, it would look really bad. In this kind of situation the best thing to do is to try to shoot at an f/stop that will provide enough depth of field to get the costume into focus, along with the face. Looks like the flash is just a tiny bit too high to get a catchlight in that eye on the right-hand side.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Thanks, I noticed the flash was too high after i imported them into lightroom.  One day I'll learn. I destroyed this pic with the "too high" flash for example, blatant shadows in her eyes:


----------



## Village Idiot

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the focus is on her boob and not her face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her eyes and face are in focus well enough for the image at small size like this. You're probably just zeroing in on her boob. Maybe it's the sequins on her flimsy top that are drawing your eye. If her boob were out of focus, it would look really bad. In this kind of situation the best thing to do is to try to shoot at an f/stop that will provide enough depth of field to get the costume into focus, along with the face. Looks like the flash is just a tiny bit too high to get a catchlight in that eye on the right-hand side.
Click to expand...


The eyes are visibly out of focus. It doesn't matter what size an image is, it looks bad when facial features are out of focus and a forward part of the person isn't.


----------



## gsgary

one of my ceramics, beauty dish with grid camera right and low


----------



## Geaux

1 - SB600 on boom in DIY Beauty dish 2 foot directly above/front of subject. Fired with Nikon CLS






SB-600 camera right, above model in 14" DIY Beauty Dish


----------



## Derrel

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> The eyes are visibly out of focus. It doesn't matter what size an image is, it looks bad when facial features are out of focus and a forward part of the person isn't.



Sorry, but your inexperience is showing again Village Idiot. First off, the focus is decent: I just took the image into Photoshop and in a few seconds, applied a simple Sharpen filter to the low-rez web shot he posted: the zits on her forehead, as well as the pores on her forehead,as well as individual eyebrow hairs start to come into clear view. The "focus" is not off, it is acceptable.

And second, yes, it matters HUGELY what size an image is viewed at; if focus is slightly "off", it often does not even show at web sizes, but it sure as heck does at 11x14. Depth of field is evaluated at what is known as "appropriate viewing distance"....but of course, you probably have zero idea about that technical stuff like depth of field and CoC and viewing size and distance. If an image is OOF, one can easily,easily hide that by shrinking it down to web size. Duh....

One thing I have noticed over the past few weeks is that a LOT OF PHOTOS people are posting here on TPF are looking quite sub-par in terms of an overall softness of the image; something seems to be going on here at TPF. I myself posted an example image to this very thread, and it looked really "soft", all-over...and it is an image that I posted here once before in the "bokeh thread", and it looked SHARP in that thread and was shot with my 200mm f/2 VR-Nikkor, which is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. It looked so soft in this single-flash thread that I pulled the post and the photo down immediately. The photo in this thread, for example: with more sharpening applies, shows that the FOCUS is quite good at the eyes and face, but as-posted it seemed somewhat soft. But not out of focus.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The eyes are visibly out of focus. It doesn't matter what size an image is, it looks bad when facial features are out of focus and a forward part of the person isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your inexperience is showing again Village Idiot. First off, the focus is decent: I just took the image into Photoshop and in a few seconds, applied a simple Sharpen filter to the low-rez web shot he posted: the zits on her forehead, as well as the pores on her forehead,as well as individual eyebrow hairs start to come into clear view. The "focus" is not off, it is acceptable.
> 
> And second, yes, it matters HUGELY what size an image is viewed at; if focus is slightly "off", it often does not even show at web sizes, but it sure as heck does at 11x14. Depth of field is evaluated at what is known as "appropriate viewing distance"....but of course, you probably have zero idea about that technical stuff like depth of field and CoC and viewing size and distance. If an image is OOF, one can easily,easily hide that by shrinking it down to web size. Duh....
> 
> One thing I have noticed over the past few weeks is that a LOT OF PHOTOS people are posting here on TPF are looking quite sub-par in terms of an overall softness of the image; something seems to be going on here at TPF. I myself posted an example image to this very thread, and it looked really "soft", all-over...and it is an image that I posted here once before in the "bokeh thread", and it looked SHARP in that thread and was shot with my 200mm f/2 VR-Nikkor, which is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. It looked so soft in this single-flash thread that I pulled the post and the photo down immediately. The photo in this thread, for example: with more sharpening applies, shows that the FOCUS is quite good at the eyes and face, but as-posted it seemed somewhat soft. But not out of focus.
Click to expand...



This website makes photos look softer than they are


----------



## Village Idiot

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The eyes are visibly out of focus. It doesn't matter what size an image is, it looks bad when facial features are out of focus and a forward part of the person isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your inexperience is showing again Village Idiot. First off, the focus is decent: I just took the image into Photoshop and in a few seconds, applied a simple Sharpen filter to the low-rez web shot he posted: the zits on her forehead, as well as the pores on her forehead,as well as individual eyebrow hairs start to come into clear view. The "focus" is not off, it is acceptable.
> 
> And second, yes, it matters HUGELY what size an image is viewed at; if focus is slightly "off", it often does not even show at web sizes, but it sure as heck does at 11x14. Depth of field is evaluated at what is known as "appropriate viewing distance"....but of course, you probably have zero idea about that technical stuff like depth of field and CoC and viewing size and distance. If an image is OOF, one can easily,easily hide that by shrinking it down to web size. Duh....
> 
> One thing I have noticed over the past few weeks is that a LOT OF PHOTOS people are posting here on TPF are looking quite sub-par in terms of an overall softness of the image; something seems to be going on here at TPF. I myself posted an example image to this very thread, and it looked really "soft", all-over...and it is an image that I posted here once before in the "bokeh thread", and it looked SHARP in that thread and was shot with my 200mm f/2 VR-Nikkor, which is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. It looked so soft in this single-flash thread that I pulled the post and the photo down immediately. The photo in this thread, for example: with more sharpening applies, shows that the FOCUS is quite good at the eyes and face, but as-posted it seemed somewhat soft. But not out of focus.
Click to expand...


Bottom line it's OOF. If you sharpen it and get skin flaws, then they're skin flaws that may have shown for a correct focus and that would have to have been edited anyways. If it's your _opinion_ that this OOF photo is OK, then more power to you. If you like soft images, that's fine. If that image is something you would feel satisfied delivering to a client, then that's your choice. I just wouldn't personally be happy with an image that I posted that looked like the camera/lens combo had front focusing issues.


----------



## Village Idiot

gsgary said:


> This website makes photos look softer than they are



They're also hosted via Photobucket which generally has a negative effect on photos.


----------



## Village Idiot

2WheelPhoto said:


> Thanks VI.
> 
> I had the ISO cranked to 1000 for 1/60th shutter, maybe I'll try it a little higher. or something else is going on, I'm not used to the D700 maybe my focus points aren't set right since you pointed out focus on the boobs, thought I had it set for 9 points single point focus and nailed her eye but i'm going back to check the cam.



What aperture? I'm guessing f/2.8? And 1000 ISO is nothing on that camera. I can confidently squeeze 4000 ISO out of my 5D MKII without having to use NR in post. You should be able to do the same if you want to.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Village Idiot said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks VI.
> 
> I had the ISO cranked to 1000 for 1/60th shutter, maybe I'll try it a little higher. or something else is going on, I'm not used to the D700 maybe my focus points aren't set right since you pointed out focus on the boobs, thought I had it set for 9 points single point focus and nailed her eye but i'm going back to check the cam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What aperture? I'm guessing f/2.8? And 1000 ISO is nothing on that camera. I can confidently squeeze 4000 ISO out of my 5D MKII without having to use NR in post. You should be able to do the same if you want to.
Click to expand...


aperture = f5, 24-70 lens set to 70mm


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Its really not a big deal, and I appreciate the critique guys


----------



## gsgary

Here's some i took at the weekend, 1 snoot on a 600watt head


----------



## gsgary

One more


----------



## Vtec44

My son, a 36x36" soft box, 1 YN560.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Riley is a few hours old. 

f/16, 1/125th, shoot through umbrella (being held by a little gal).


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

another bump


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

^^^^wait that pic is too over-composed....here's one shot for the "rules Natzi's".....lets let her and the water fall off the face of the earth!


----------



## unpopular

2WheelPhoto said:


> ^^^^wait that pic is too over-composed....here's one shot for the "rules Natzi's".....lets let her and the water fall off the face of the earth!



And she has dark protrusions from either side of her head. The shame! The Horror!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

unpopular said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^wait that pic is too over-composed....here's one shot for the "rules Natzi's".....lets let her and the water fall off the face of the earth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And she has dark protrusions from either side of her head. The shame! The Horror!
Click to expand...


----------



## Spoe

Solo SB-80DX through a socked 22" beauty dish above and camera right. 




SAF_4806 by Spoe70, on Flickr


----------



## gsgary

Nothing special just a quick shot for a friend for his website, beauty dish camera right, and one of my surf shots on the wall


----------



## gsgary

Been stuck in the house last few days due to weather and bad cold so got my lights out for a play


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

grrrrrrr.....   lets bump this wonderful thread that excludes the "natural light photographers"


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

One light camera right


----------



## travisPIETSCH

alien bees ab1600 shot through 47" octabox high above camera



Patrick by  Travis Pietsch, on  Flickr

alien bees ab1600 shot through 47" octabox high above camera left
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tpietsch/6740574445/


Erik by Travis Pietsch, on Flickr


alien bees ab1600 shot through 47" octabox high above camera 



Lightspeed  Rescue by Travis  Pietsch, on Flickr


----------



## 2WheelPhoto




----------



## 2WheelPhoto




----------



## 2WheelPhoto




----------



## 2WheelPhoto

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump.

No this is not a reflection, but a silhouette of one glass on top of another implying it heh


----------



## willis_927

1 - 





2-


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

^^^^^nice~


----------



## hahaOHmichael

Canon 430exII with 8x9" softbox camera right




cooking by ma|photography, on Flickr


----------



## Mach0

hahaOHmichael said:
			
		

> Canon 430exII with 8x9" softbox camera right
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahaohmichael/6858016722/
> cooking by ma|photography, on Flickr




Hahahaha funny shirt


----------



## socal82

hahaOHmichael said:
			
		

> Canon 430exII with 8x9" softbox camera right
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahaohmichael/6858016722/
> cooking by ma|photography, on Flickr




I have a 430 ex II what wireless receiver are you using?


----------



## hahaOHmichael

socal82 said:


> hahaOHmichael said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon 430exII with 8x9" softbox camera right
> 
> 
> cooking by ma|photography, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 430 ex II what wireless receiver are you using?
Click to expand...



Just a cactus v2s trigger and receiver. The build quality is horrendous but they get the job done.


----------



## Spoe

My new favorite modifier... Single AB800 with backed 64" white PLM set up behind me.




SAP_5358-Edit by Spoe70, on Flickr


----------



## Bo4key

Spoe said:


> My new favorite modifier... Single AB800 with backed 64" white PLM set up behind me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAP_5358-Edit by Spoe70, on Flickr



Really dig the Arnold T....along with everything else


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

buuuuuuump


----------



## pgriz

Single 580EXII full power, bouncing into white 28" umbrella, 45 degrees camera right, 45 degrees up.  Single foam core reflector on left.  f/16 for DOF.

Part of my lighting practice.  Subject gone 10 min. after shoot.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Nice!


----------



## boomer

Love all of the examples! As I said in the other thread, I am really looking to start improving on my strobist skills. Here are a few shots a did a few months back for a good friend who is very big into restoring motorcycles. Here are a few of them that I took using my SB-600 bare flash.




His RZ500 is just awesome! I use to have a 1984 RZ350 Kenny Roberts edition. Gotta love 2-strokes!



1985 Yamaha RZ 500 by Jim Boomer Photography, on Flickr




DSC_9442 by Jim Boomer Photography, on Flickr




DSC_9397 by Jim Boomer Photography, on Flickr


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

My assistant


----------



## Village Idiot

This was done with a 580EXII and a shoot through. That's about all I remember.


----------



## Mike_E

F 6.3 with a Metz 45 CL4, hand held (with wireless trigger) set to 1/4 power.  Old school I know but it works pretty well.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto




----------



## 2WheelPhoto

top~


----------



## camz

Bare flash camera right full power:






Flash camera left softbox 1/2 power:


----------



## Vtec44

2 flashes, 1/4 power, shoot through umbrella, camera right...


----------



## pickle788

Photo of my daughter Mollie and her CRF50 
single 430exii off to the left shot though my reflector remote triggered from my canon 60d


----------



## rexbobcat

Do hotlights count? Heh....
1 hotlight behind a white sheet


----------



## Vtec44




----------



## j_mejia17

^She's gorgeous. What's your flash set up? Also what was done in post process to give the picture that "retro" look?

Edit: just figured out from the shadows that you had the flash camera left. Lol


----------



## Mach0

j_mejia17 said:
			
		

> ^She's gorgeous. What's your flash set up? Also what was done in post process to give the picture that "retro" look?
> 
> Edit: just figured out from the shadows that you had the flash camera left. Lol



I say that whenever he posts a pic of her. Lol


----------



## Vtec44

j_mejia17 said:


> ^She's gorgeous. What's your flash set up? Also what was done in post process to give the picture that "retro" look?
> 
> Edit: just figured out from the shadows that you had the flash camera left. Lol



Yeah, medium size soft box on camera left to give strong shadows.  As far as post process, a bunch of layers, curve adjustments, skin softening, and desaturation.


----------



## willis_927

- 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Bare flash camera left


-





Flash camera left 






Camera left again






I think you can all see where the flash is in this one lol


----------

