# help me UNDERSTAND speed lights for portraits, please



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 2, 2017)

I've been using a speed light both on and off camera for about a year now to take pictures of my haircuts while working in a busy salon (often to make the busy salon disappear in the background of an image, like the first one posted below) and I have a pretty good idea of how to control my results using one speed light, but I recently quit my salon and got a small studio so I can spend more time taking better photos of hair. I also bought two more speed lights and some shoot through umbrellas (the studio is so small that soft boxes or reflective umbrellas eat up the whole room. I hope the shoot through's will work).
The reason I capitalized the word "UNDERSTAND" in the title of this thread is that I've been doing a lot of monkey see, monkey do with the three speed lights, but something isn't clicking for me. I only have absent teachers (youtube and you all) so by the time I'm in my studio fiddling I find myself guessing a lot, and not grasping what my results are "supposed to" look like. I see pro photographers do brief tutorials online and of course they get the shot perfect then say "see, it's that easy." Some days I'll play at like, F11 with the speed lights set to a pretty high power, and I'll get a dark moody feel outside of the subject, and other days I'll shoot around F4 with the speed lights set to a weaker power and just kind of get spotty results with light shadows behind the subject (see second two pics). I feel like everyone looks too shiny- does that mean that my umbrellas are a joke? Are my flashes too far away? Or are they just shiny people, and I need to hire make up to fix them? I don't know how close the lights should be, I don't know where a good starting point is for my camera settings or my flash settings, I don't know what the ideal "three point lighting" result is supposed to look like, and I don't know what to adjust when things just don't look right (three lights pointed at a head, I guess I should try killing one at a time to see what they're each doing? Maybe get some modeling lights? Is that a thing you can do with speed lights? see how lost I am?!)

Do you guys have any recommendations for resources to learn this as simply as possible? I'm happy to hear any thoughts or recommendations at all. Thank you much!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2017)

You are doing pretty well, for speedlight work. The issue is SIMPLE: speedlights have zero modeling lights,so you lose the most-salient benefit of "studio" lighting when you use speedlights instead of conventional studio monolights or flash heads and power supplies.

People look "shiny" because shoot-through umbrellas and speedlights tend to, at times, create a small central hot spot in the overall umbrella size, and that hot central zone causes a fairly specular light on the skin, especially on brows, noses,chins, cheek curves, or any other rounded surface of the face. Light behaves the same all over the world, and the shoot-through unbrella has a definite "look"--and part of that includes the too-shiny, more-specular look you mentioned. NOW--_in B&W, that degree of sheen on the foreheads, cheeks, nose, etc--can look GOOD! B&W and color look best with different liughting most of the time._

Lighting is all about what you WISH to achieve...you've got a prety good handle on things now, but if you want to really progress, you'll stop "Shooting blind"with speedlights, and move to real studio flash gear--which has contantly on modeling lamps, so you can literally SEE what your lights are doing, in 100% REAL TIME!

Honestly, I would buy some used Speedotron pack-and-head gear, and step into a classic American  system that has been refined since the days of Eisenhower.Not kidding. Buy FOUR, identical light units and a used D402 power supply, and learn to light by WYSIWYG, by using identical lights.

Set the pack at half-power, and get to work creating awesome haircut photos. Best part is, on e-Bay a system like this, used, will cost you maybe $275...FOUR lights, and one, 4-outlet, 400-Watt-second power supply.  You do not need variable power all that much...you move the lights a few inches, and there's your 2/10 stop adjustments.

And....get a reflecting umbrella, a few metal reflectors, some 10,20,anmd 30 degree grids, a barn door set, and 5 mylar dfiffusers. Look up the Speedotron web site to see what basic studio lighting control is like.

Right now, you're shooting with three sets of $29 shears...if you get my drift. You need to move up to professional-grade shears. Your are working with a tool set that is limiting you. You want to do "higher end work", but you are lacking multiple REALLY, REALLY helpful tools: modeling lights; different metal reflectors, lacking a 10 and 20 degree honeycomb grid,lacking snap-on mylar diffusers,lacking barn doors for spill control, and so on.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 2, 2017)

Dang, thank you. Here I keep blaming my skill/understanding. I've been told that speed lights are plenty for my tiny (10x10 foot) studio, but I think I will look into some real strobes and some better light modifiers.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Mar 2, 2017)

Derrel FTW!

There is also www.strobist.blogspot.com if you want to learn more about speedlighting. A lot of the info on strobist applies to studio/ monolights as well.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Mar 2, 2017)

Your photos are good, with practice and better modifiers you can do better with the strobes.


----------



## Designer (Mar 2, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> Dang, thank you. Here I keep blaming my skill/understanding. I've been told that speed lights are plenty for my tiny (10x10 foot) studio, but I think I will look into some real strobes and some better light modifiers.


The main advantage I see in Speedlights is their portability.  You probably should not give up entirely on using speedlights because you might want to use them out in the field sometime.  

Since you are doing professional photography, you can expense or depreciate your photography equipment.


----------



## fmw (Mar 2, 2017)

Looks like you are on the right track.  Don't be shy about lighting the background.


----------



## zombiesniper (Mar 2, 2017)

You can pack a lot of studio into a 10X10 space.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 2, 2017)

Strobist: Lighting 101

This should give you plenty to think about and try.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Picture Perfect Lighting by Roberto Valenzuela really helped me. He also has some very well-reviewed Creative Live classes if videos are more your thing.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2017)

It's not thgat speedlights cannot handle a 10x10 foot shooting area; it is that they have feewer dedicated modifiers to shape the light, and ity is harder to mount larger modifiers than it is with monolights or conventional old-school flash heads. On a mono/flash head, you have mounting lugs for metal reflectors of various beam spreads: small reflectors for "spill-kill"on umbrella shafts, 7" for shooting thru scrims or for using grids; something in the 10 to 11.5 inch for a larger refletive bowl, also for grids and to use with barn doors and diffusing sheets; a 16-inch parabolic, a 20-inch parabolic, and a 20- and or a 22-inch  beauty dish.

These reflectors just lock-in to the lugs. Softboxes that use speed rings also just have their speed ring "lock-in" to the lugs. Speedtreon Univeral mount is one: Bowens is another common mount; all mnakers have a prorietary "fit" or "mount". THis makes it very easy to buy accessories that mount easily and quiockly and securely, without the need to make crazy lash-ups to get things connected.

If you want less specularity on the people, less shiny skin, look for a reflecting umbrella, not a shoot-thrugh, one that has a soft, dull white VINYL interior, which gives the most diffused light, or look for something like the Lastolite Umbrella Box, which works VERY nciely with speedlights, and also has a nice light quality. There are a lot of low-cost shoot-throughs where the thin fabric does not diffuse the light very muich, and thgat leads to those hot spots: the hot spot is caused by the hot, centrally-lit "core" of the speedlight hitting mostly the entral part of the shoot-0through fabric; a reflecting unmbrella with a soft, dull-white interior gives a softer, broader light, with less of that central hot-spot.Even smallish, 32-inch refelvting umbrellas are easier to work with than most shoot throughs.

The Strobist site is mostly about speedlighting, and it is good. David Hobby classifies things as speedlights, and then what he calls "big lights", or studio flash system level lighting gear.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 3, 2017)

Thanks for all the advice! Today I bought two off-brand mono lights from a local camera store to experiment. They were like $225 each, but the next step up that the store had were $900 each (next step down was $100 each) so hopefully these are a good value. I made sure they had the bowen mounts, modeling lights that brighten and dim along with the flash power (some source online said this is a good feature to have), optical slave function, and the ability to kill the beeeeeeep (most negative reviews about cheaper lights focused on the fact that the annoying beep couldn't be turned off). These lights are rated at 200w/s (I hope my abbreviation is correct enough there) but I'm imagining since they're still "cheap" that the manufacturer was being hopeful or confident when making that claim, they're probably actually not as powerful as that. Although I did notice immediately with them a lot more power and a faster recycle than my speed lights (I've got a Canon 530ex or whatever model that is, and three yongnuos). I figure with these new lights I can experiment with more serious modifiers than I could with speedlights. I've got 15 days to return the lights, and I have a shoot scheduled for Sunday, so hopefully they'll handle my needs and if not I can get back to the drawing board. I've been shopping around for better modifiers, too, but I don't want to buy them until after I'm sure these lights will work for me.
Side note, while a 10x10 foot studio might be plenty for photo needs, mine is split up to cover hair and makeup needs as well, so it's kind of important for me to be able to stash away my lights while I'm working on hair, then get them all set up in 8 minutes to shoot the hair when it's ready. I usually keep a continuous LED going during a haircut to help me see through the hair to the scalp (See first pic. It's a fun little space). I wish I could set up mono lights and leave them up forever, but they have to come down at the end of every shoot, and when they go up they have to go up quickly. Because of this I haven't been looking at 40" soft boxes or anything with a big boom or sandbag needs. I need small, simple, basic, but effective. I'm even considering screwing a cold shoe into the wall near the ceiling so I can get a hair light up there without an obtrusive stand taking up space in my little room. I might be hoping for too much. I've been happy enough with small simple continuous lights (second pic) or even the ambient light from the built-in lights in the room (third pic) that if this whole lighting attempt fails I can keep on keeping on. I just have to keep trying, I guess.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2017)

Hey, cool! Monolights!Yes, 200 Watt-seconds is ample. Bowens is a great mount to be affiliated with. Recycle time is definitely faster than what speedlights on batteries can provide, AND monolights can typically shoot for more shots than speedlights, which can overheat under rapid prolonged shooting--which is where studio flash units are typically the best choice, since they have cooling by convection or by blower fan.

Smaller softboxes, like 28 x 28 square with grid can easily be supported on something like an Avenger brand C-stand, with no need for a boom or counterweight.

Try one light from 50 to 72 inches distance, and see what it does. Experiment!

Keep in mind, with a shoot-through, one typically gets 60% of the light going throughk, the other 40% bouncing backward, are refleting off nearby walls or ceilings--which is called "ambient spill". Ambient spill can provide fill light, OR it can make things look very, very flat and dull. In small rooms, it's important to use reflectors that keep the side-ways spill from hitting ceilings or the subjects, so use the spill-kill small reflectors on the monos when using shoot-throughs.

Looking forward to hearing about your lighting adventures!


----------



## dasmith232 (Mar 3, 2017)

It sounds like you'll be able to use these nicely. You're right that power claims are sometimes exaggerated. A common entry-level monolight is 150w/s, with the next level often being 300w/s or 400w/s. So if 200 actually drops a bit, you're still in the 150w/s ballpark. Not tons of power, but enough to get the job done.

Derrel's already covered the other comments nicely. I'll just add a confirmation that yes, the variable (or proportional) modeling light is very nice. I think you'll like it.

One last thing about softboxes, I have a few different brands including Westcott, some other brand I don't remember at this point, and Flashpoint. The thing I wanted to mention about Flashpoint is I really like their softbox design with the zip-up feature. Despite Flashpoint being a "house brand" (which may put some people off) it's actually my favorite one. The "zip-up" versions are in the "PZ" series. Here's a link to one of their demos.






I have no connection or affiliation with Adorama or any other supplier, just providing my experience.

Edit: I put in a link, but it gets shown as an embedded video. This is not my video, and I'm not trying to infringe upon anyone's copyrights... If there's a better way to link this video (admins), please let me know and I'll be happy to do that.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 11, 2017)

I got a 16" beauty dish with a grid and a sock diffuser thingie, and I got a 20" reflector. After fiddling with them and taking like 50 selfies I made a good deal of progress as far as understanding how to control where the shadows will fall (the orange/yellow modeling light is amazing. The tint makes it easy to see where the light is landing on the face, and I imagine a whiter modeling light would be harder to read). With the grid in place I don't get lights splashing all over the backdrop like I had with my speed lights and umbrellas. I think the speed lights are about to collect some dust for a while!

Sorry for the whole life story here, but I leave my tiny studio in the middle nowhere to work in LA one day a month, taking clients for haircuts. Usually when I do that I bring a photographer to shoot them after I do their hair  (I rent a chair at a really hip private salon, and I've found that when clients leave with photos of their new hair it adds a lot to their experience. I think of it like they're buying the full _model experience_ and I treat their hair like I treat models for a shoot. My job is really to make people feel cool, and showing them the shot on my laptop does that a lot better than only handing them a mirror). Yesterday I brought my new toys and shot my own stuff, and I was very happy with the results compared to what I'd been doing with speed lights...

I just screwed up and didn't think about a hair light, so most of my "hair photos" barely show any hair. Should I bring one of my speed lights with a snoot for a hair light, or would another reflector do the trick? Also, my dinky light stand is sketchy under the beauty dish, can anyone recommend a compact (and hopefully fast to set up or tear down) stand with a boom arm? The strobe and beauty dish are on the light side for what a strobe and beauty dish can weigh, I don't think I need something super beefy, especially since I usually shoot with the model seated, and think I could get away with having the stand even a few inches off from the center of the dish... Price isn't really an issue, but space and portability are. I borrowed a C stand last week and could barely open it in my studio (maybe this one was just extra jumbo and maybe they make smaller ones).

Thanks for reading. I wanted to post the progress in case anyone is stuck with my same problems then goes digging for a set of answers. Hopefully I can figure out at least a temporary hair light solution tomorrow (probably a rolled up paper and duct tape snoot on a speed light, until I find a proper solution)


----------



## table1349 (Mar 11, 2017)

Get this and read it.  Light Science and Magic, Fourth Edition: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting: Paul Fuqua, Steven Biver Fil Hunter: 8580001063096: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 11, 2017)

Sweet. Just ordered it. Thank you


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2017)

I really like the portrait of the woman with the colored hair!

A snoot tends to put out a small, concentrated pool of light. Can a reflector work as a hair light? Sometimes, yes, depending on what light is hitting it, and the angle and distance of the reflector to the person. A metallized silver reflector for example, can reflect a lot of light, and if it is angled and held in place correctly, it might make a good hair light, but if the main light doesn't hit the reflector well, it might not work very well. In lighting, everything, and I mean everything, interrelates with everything else, and there are no hard and fast rules, but there are generalities.

Basically this is the generality: snoots are not nearly as versatile as are honeycomb grids which are paired with diffusing material. If the hairlight comes in at a steep angle, it will be "hot" light, so the angles of 11,12,1,2,and 3 o'clcok make the hair light or rim light "hot". Less-steep incoming angles make a hair or rim light less hot, and more diffuse, more subtle. This is why a snoot is not the best tool for lighting hair.

The "best" hair lighting is subtle, and is close to the main light's character, not "hot", not "look, I used a hairlight!" This is where a 10 degree or 20 degree or 35 degree honeycomb grid with a diffuser over the grid, is fantastic. Or, you can use a strip box, or small umbrella, or even a ceiling bounce off a wall, as a subtlle, soft, diffused source of hair lighting. As you have already learned, the light shaping tools for "real" studio flash units, like the grid you now own, make life much easier than making do with speedlights and makeshift light shaping tools.

For hair lighting, I would really,really suggest a honeycomb grid set for the second light, and a barn door set for it, and at least two diffuser attachments for the grid. This will give you fantastic hair lighting, from close distances; this is what grids and diffusers and barndoors are expressly for. The barn door set can also prevent lens flare, and can be used with one door almost closed, the other door wide open, so you can light the backdrop a little tiny bit, yet still control the light that would otherwise flare the lens.

The biggest issue with a speedlight and a DIY snoot is how to get the light to be subtle. It CAN be done, but again, remember the way light becomes specular, and "hot" when the angle it hits *is steep *in relation to the lens axis. Look into drinking straw snoots for speedlights if you want a project. YES, there are some massively heavy and big C-stands. My Avengers have a base that is roughly 30 inches in a circle, about like a regular light stand, so maybe the borrowed one was extra-massive?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2017)

In Los Angeles, and in-stock: Matthews | Hollywood 40in. Double Riser C Stand - Chrome | 756040


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 13, 2017)

Thanks for the reply. Today I built some racks to store my tripods, stands, and folded modifiers against a wall instead of in a pile in the corner, and in the next few days I'll be installing a pair of big heavy duty wall-mounted boom arms that I found on Amazon. They appear to be pretty amazing from the reviews and customer photos. They can support like 15 lbs, extend 5 feet (my studio is 10x10), fold up against a wall when not in use, and swivel almost 180 degrees both vertically and horizontally. I figure if I can get stuff off of the floor and (functionally) against the walls it won't be a headache to have one stand out with a reflector or light. I'm going to see if there is an appropriate thread to which I can contribute with photos of my stand rack.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 13, 2017)

Ah whatever, I'll just side track this thread to show the racks. I'm really happy with them. Saved a lot of floor space. They match my coffee table perfectly (mahogany and walnut)



Here they are after putting them up.


----------



## nickgillespie (Mar 13, 2017)

Ok. I'll admit that I haven't read the whole thread, but I have a few tips. 

Firstly, move the lights as close to the subjects without getting them in the shot. The further away the lights are the more harsh the light will be (shiny skin) and harsh the shadows will be.

Then for exposure... f4 is fine. But, turn your iso up a bit. If you are at iso 100 vs 800... the lights have to kick out light 3 stops brighter. 

I think that with just those two things you will see a huge difference.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 15, 2017)

I put up some cool boom arms today that saved a TON of room. They're really neat. I can support my Canon SL1 with a 50mm F1.8 lens on it for overhead shots when I do haircut videos. It also holds my beauty dish with no problem. I took this pic 3.5 seconds after I installed them, and I just threw some random light things on there to make sure it would all fit. The LED guy on the arm by the wall would be a go to for my YouTube videos, and the beauty dish is probably going to stay there for a long time. When the arms are closed up they fold against the wall and out of my way. Very happy with the purchase so far.
 

I had a few minutes to drag a neighbor in for some test pictures. I can tell that I'm cooking with fire now, compared to when I had speed lights and amazon's cheapest shoot through umbrellas. I feel like I've got LOTS to learn, but I'm excited to try. I have models lined up all week (well, they think they're just getting haircuts, but they're also going to be my test subjects). I've got a big soft box and a snoot coming from Amazon, as well as the book which was mentioned earlier in this thread. Hopefully it's only up from here!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 15, 2017)

Looks like you did a great job with the boom arms and the racks for the stands! I think this latest haircut image with the woman is dramatic, and I like the way her hair is illuminated in the pool of light, aqnd the way the light on her clothing falls off into darkness. The background lighting pattern is very nice as well, and it makes her stand out well, with that bit of light hitting the wall behind her.

You are indeed cooking with fire now! No longer are you speedlighting; you've got regular studio-type light modifiers and those bring with them a number of things. Like, for example, notice the under-the-nose shadow placement in the shot above: perfect! That's what a modeling light can do for you: you can literally SEE exactly where the light is striking the subject. Good days are ahead for you, I know it.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 15, 2017)

I watched a bunch of tutorials covering grids and gels last night and I just purchased some grids and gels, and nicer flash thingies (the metal hood sort of thing), apparently a dimpled metal surface will produce a better result than the shiny smooth surface that my stock dealies have. I might be going overboard with purchases, for a guy who has almost zero experience with studio lighting so far, but I want to get good at this. I want to be able to cook up dramatic lighting for dramatic haircuts, and classic lighting for classic haircuts. I want my photos to be an extension of the message behind the haircut.

I've hired photographers in the past who have done amazing work but the whole time I'd feel like I wasn't able to accurately tell them what I saw in the haircut that I'd want the pictures to say. Ultimately I was happiest working with one photographer regularly enough to start knowing each other's tastes, and letting him be completely in charge of the photos, but I still want to be able to have a voice through photos like I've been able to have through haircuts.

In my field (instagram hair doers) 99% of the photos look the same, you get barbers with Rebels shooting every haircut at 1.8 because the shallow DOF is new and cool to them (nothing wrong with it, it's just everywhere you look), then you get stylists shooting everyone with a ring light and an iPhone, then using an app to smudge the background. Even when I find someone doing great photos they kind of have their style of shooting, which is the same across their entire portfolio. I want my content to be more versatile and ever-changing than my peers. Something they couldn't copy if they tried. I want my Instagram photos to look like something you'd see in a magazine, not something you'd see on Instagram.

I've grown a decent following on Instagram, one of the biggest for what I do, and along the way I'd see that a handful of us would step up our photography a little bit and then slowly the rest of the scene would follow. Like an echo chamber. Someone pointed a flash light up at the scalp to get more highlights fading into the dark hair at the top of a fade, and then you started seeing shadows above and behind the ear on everyone's haircut photos. I got a few candid shots of clients hanging out after their haircut, then I started seeing that become a bit of a thing, to break up the stream of mug shots. I'm not complaining that everyone's work looks the same, and I'm not saying that people are copying me, but I see it as an opportunity not just to get to do something different, but to have to do something different. Maybe not different to the world of photography, but different to the world of haircut photos on Instagram. I recently started shooting haircuts in a candid manner with a Pentax ME Super and Kodak Tri X (pic below), but while I love the aesthetic it hasn't been a big hit with my crowd. I think they want something with more detail in the hair. Hopefully this venture into lighting will give me the voice behind a camera that I want.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 15, 2017)

It sounds like a situation and industry tailor-made for Instagram and cool lighting set-ups and so on. You've now got some basic stuff. Start learning about studio lighting, and about how light behaves "in general". Really learn and understand the *Inverse Square Law*, which relates to smallp-space lighting and shoots to a very important degree. The Inverse Square Law means that the closer the light is to the subject (or background!) the more-rapidly that light's intensity drops off, and the farther away the light is from the subject, the more-even the light's intensity stays across increasing or decreasing distance. Many people do NOT understand this, even some professional shooters. Working in a 10x10 foot space, this is a critical thing to understand fully. I cannot stress enough that the ISL is critical in such a confinded, discrete shooting area!

Grids keep the light traveling straight forward, and reduce angular deviation. They also cut don on the intensity/brightness of lights to which they are attached. Grids help keep light rays from hitting areas that are outside of the main area being lit, so they can help to prevent stray light from hitting the camera lens, or the background wall, or whatever.Grids for octaboxes and softboxes ofren have 1.5 x1.5 inch or 2 x 2 inch grid size spacing; grids for a 5 or 7 inch or 11 inch or 16 inch metal reflector often have drinking straw-sized holes, up to maybe 3/8th x 3/8th inch holes. A grid is a way to create a subtle bit of lighting, like on a head of hair, from a light only 3,4,5 feet away.

Grids are a specialized tool. Think of them as thinning shears. Adding a diffuser over a grid can change the the light works, to a huge degree.

I would say one thing: lighting depends a lot on the specifics at hand: the room size, the walls, reflectors or not, diffusers or not, and so on. Small changes in placement can make a big difference. *MANY on-line lighting diagrams have things shown wrongly*, for various reasons, so if you saee an on-line diagram and it does not work the way the photos seem to indicate it should, then consider that some thing or some things, plural, were illustrated wrongly. Little things can matter.

There is no doubt in my mind that your lighting efforts WILL give you the voice you want.


----------



## Designer (Mar 15, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> I want my Instagram photos to look like something you'd see in a magazine, not something you'd see on Instagram.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 16, 2017)

Derrel said:


> The Inverse Square Law means that the closer the light is to the subject (or background!) the more-rapidly that light's intensity drops off, and the farther away the light is from the subject, the more-even the light's intensity stays across increasing or decreasing distance.



I need to go wipe bits of my mind off the walls. Is there a "mind blown" emoji?


----------



## Designer (Mar 16, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> I need to go wipe bits of my mind off the walls. Is there a "mind blown" emoji?


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 17, 2017)

A few more quick questions, for anybody still reading this thread (sorry, I don't want to start a new one for every little question I have regarding this ongoing learning process). I haven't bought a good soft box yet because there are so many kinds out there and I'm not sure exactly what to look for. My lights have a Bowens mount but I keep finding extra terms like "bowens S mount." Is that the same thing? What's an S mount? I'm tempted to get something like a 24x24 softbox because my space is so small, but is that going to end up being a novelty item that is too small to do any good? Should I plan on buying two of them, or will one be plenty if I'm also using my beauty dish? And the hardest part of these questions, can the right softboxes be found on Amazon? I came into a big Amazon gift card so I'm hoping I can find the right softbox(es) there, and not Adorama or B&H. 

Thank you!!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 17, 2017)

28x28 inches has become my most used softbox size. In a small area 24x24 will work and will not be a novelty. Try to buy one that has a recessed face and a fabric "egg crate" grid accessory. Surely Amazon has some good Made in China boxes with a Bowens S mount speedring and a grid for $100 or less in 24x24.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 17, 2017)

HERE is exactly the type of unit you want. A huge majority of newer Amazon softboxes have speedlight type rings, but THIS is the type of _metal_, 3-lug Bowens speedring you want to go _into the front of your monolight_. For a square box, a $19.95 price is fairly noermal for a speedring in the Bowens fit; fior a rotating ring, one for a rectangular box, the usual price is $29.95. This box comes with the grid and the non-rotating Bowens-type speed ring. AGain, the majority of the black plastic rings shown on Amazon are for **Speedlight*** mounting; the plain aluminium or pot metal ones with just three simple litttle lugs, like the one shown in this ad, that is the type you want to mount to a monolight,directly.

Amazon.com : Godox 31" x 31" 80 x 80cm Studio Flash Softbox with Carrying Bag and Honeycomb Grid for Bowens Mount Flash Godox AD600B AD600BM QT-600IIM QT-400IIM : Camera & Photo


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 18, 2017)

Thank you! It's been ordered.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 19, 2017)

Do you guys think I should keep bumping this thread as I'm checking in to share my progress and seek guidance, or should I start a new one that starts out more on the current topic (I'm not talking about speed lights much anymore)? I don't know which will be more annoying to the other members, I don't want to be a pest.

I stopped and asked myself two days ago why I'm bent on studio lighting and why I can't just use the decent ambient light in the room. I started this thread thinking "I want more professional looking photos" but I've come to some more specific conclusions. Early in the thread I mentioned "I don't know what I should be looking for with studio lighting" meaning that I knew it was supposed to somehow look better or cooler, but I didn't know just what I wanted. What I realize I want now is more detail than I was getting at F2.8 and ISO 800 or F4, ISO 1600 with ambient light. I want strobes so I can shoot at F8 ISO 100. I've gotten a few pics now where I'm like "okay, THAT'S the image quality I expected when I bought this camera" (like this first pic)

 

The next thing I realized I wanted from lighting was to be able to draw attention to specific details in a haircut. The one above doesn't have a particularly striking silhouette, but the one below has a stronger shape, so I figure I could have used a light behind the head to make the silhouette pop more. I used a light near the front of the hair to emphasize the tall shape, then a light at the back to show the faded out portion near the nape of the haircut. I like the sort of badger effect I got on the side of the head where the slicked back side behind the ear sort of takes a back seat in shadows. It's subtle, but I feel like the important details of the cut are showcased here, instead of just being a picture of a head. 
 

I also THINK that I started recognizing where the light is starting and stopping, being obstructed by hair on the head. I pointed an extra light with a grid at the side of the scalp in the photo below to show more skin in the haircut, but as the hairs near the back of the ear were sticking straight out off the scalp they blocked the gridded light from spreading around the curve to the back of the head (or maybe gridded light doesn't wrap around the head much with or without a forest of dense hair blocking it). So you see a smoother transition from bald to not bald where the hair is less dense and is laying down, and then a blunt harsh transition where the hairs are blocking the light. I wonder if I got a long narrow softbox mounted horizontally to distribute light across the head more evenly if I could fix that issue. Makes me wonder if there exists a modifier that is concaved, to maybe wrap around the outside of a head. It probably wouldn't look very natural though...
 

Anyways. I just wanted to bug anyone still checking in here, and think out loud so I can check back to my thoughts later when I'm stuck. I've shared this thread with other barbers and stylists I know, so I guess I'm also sort of rambling for them. I'm shooting a crazy mullet in an hour and I'm already dreaming of how I want to light it


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 19, 2017)

Also, Derrel, I wish I could buy you tacos. I can't thank you enough for your FREE guidance. Thank you for the time and effort


----------



## Derrel (Mar 19, 2017)

I think you should just keep bumping this thread: you've already created a valuable thread, one that shows speedlight-to-monolight flash results, equipment discussions, and artistic and technical comments regarding lights,lighting, and results, and reasons for getting into studio lighting. Your most recent post showing the three haircuts and your discussion of the effects from the addition of the gridded light is very useful, to the point I gave it the "Winner" badge! Thanks for the virtual tacos. I like these threads because I like talking about lighting and lighting gear, and I have long been ad advocate of moving from speedlights to studio flash with modeling lights as *the* **fastest and best** way to improve one's lighting and one's photos.

As you mentioned, you've passed this thread's URL on to others in your field, and that's pretty cool, and is yet another reason to keep this thread alive, as your OWN thread! And for others!

Regarding transitions to shadow: some of this could be the result of how contrasty your images are (the curves and the black point in the Levels field), and also as you have seen with your own eyes, light _can be blocked_. Instead of adding a different-sized light, I would consider a reflector that can kick-back some of the light into those smaller, shadowed areas. And gridded light does not spread much, especially off at the sides of the light pool; one soulution on the last haircut above would be to pull the light farther back from the head, and re-aim it a tiny bit, and maybe up the flash power a little bit. Keep in  mind, the lighting was almost perfect-and only a few inches of adjustment was needed to get the effect you wanted. And also--in that shot, the shadows are VERY black, a slight bit too black in the deepest areas. Same with the middle B&W shot, the "Badger Effect" shot. A fine-looking cut you've done! But just a little bit too dark in that one spot, but the rest? VERY nice!

You have made remarkable progress in just two weeks' time!


----------



## Designer (Mar 19, 2017)

Is this the line for tacos?  I'm sure you've seen the hair-styling magazines so you know the level of photography that will make a difference.  One thing about where you are right now is you might need to be reminded of a spot of light right on the hair.  Not so hot that it overwhelms the image, but brighter than the neck, for instance.  

So the way I see this developing is your 24 x 24 gridded softbox for the key light, either a reflector or a speedlight with a diffuser on it (say 9 x 12 inches or so) at reduced power for fill, but then a second speedlight up high, snooted and pointed at the top/back/side of the hair to really draw attention to the hairstyle.  

Might work, might not, but I hope you see what I'm aiming at.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 19, 2017)




----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 19, 2017)

Thanks again and again. I had a very cool model today, as long as he had a cold beer in his hand he would sit and let me fiddle with lights. I'm feeling really confident about what I will be able to do soon, today I felt like I had a more firm grasp on controlling my results. I see just what you mean about the shadows. I find that I personally like losing a lot of information in a dark area, when I bump the "shadows" slider up in light room I feel like the image makes me feel vulnerable, people can see EVERYTHING I did in the haircut. In my mind the dark areas add a little mystery to the model, but I could be a crazy person and it may just look like I don't know what I'm doing. I'll certainly try experimenting with pulling more detail from the darks. I didn't even realize I was defaulting to that until I read your comment. A photographer I look up to has really insanely crisp and dark blacks so I go overboard trying to turn my shadows into a black hole, thinking I'll achieve a similar look. I'm willing to bet the reason his blacks pop so much is that he's lightening the shadows and leaving the blacks to look BLACK in comparison. Anyways, I got my soft box and the reflector with various grids today but haven't even opened them. Here's today's work... I'll update next time I feel stuck or proud. I have three models lined up for Tuesday- fingers will be crossed when I go through the process.


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> I had a very cool model today, ..


This is a very nice portrait, but not so much to highlight your hair work.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Mar 20, 2017)

Pretty cool to see the quick progression in this thread. Keep it up


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 20, 2017)

I have a (possibly) dumb question. I've watched several tutorials (both free and paid) and read several blogs and forum threads looking for an answer and I can't seem to dig it up. I figure it's either such a no brainer that nobody talks about it (and maybe I'm thinking about aspects of this process that aren't even an issue) or that I'm not looking for the right terms or verbiage. Maybe I've found my answer and haven't realized it because I don't know all the lingo yet. The question is, does light ACT differently at a higher power? Like, if I pop the flash and get a proper exposure at F18, then I don't move a thing but I readjust settings to get a proper exposure at F4, will the light behave differently? Is the power adjustments on the flash so that I can move it closer and further while still getting the meter reading I want from varying distances, or does that also effect the way the light lands or spreads, or falls off, or whatever? I've tried some very unscientific tests to figure it out, but I don't know enough of what I'm looking at to arrive to a conclusion. I'll get a shot at F11 then the "same" at F4 but realize my camera was 3 degrees off from the first shot or the model tilted their head a little bit differently, so then my "findings" are inconclusive, as I blame the other variables for whatever looks different and can't pinpoint ant change in the characteristic of the lights. I suppose I can use a mannequin head and a tripod to be sure, but that rubber "skin" doesn't behave like real skin. I wouldn't trust my "results."


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2017)

It's not an entirely a dumb question.  Some strobes emit a slightly different COLOR of light at lower power settings.  The color of the light is important in color photography, maybe less so in black and white.  The better strobes have a more consistent color all through the range of power.

Models turning their heads at the wrong moment will affect the way they look, but it has nothing to do with how much light comes out of the flash.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 20, 2017)

It's odd that you ask this: less than a week ago, I wrote one of my "musings about ______" things, and never posted it, but I have to say, I DO believe that sheer power output levels can push many digitial sensors into a level of signal where the exposure is AMPLE, and generous, and the files look very good.

Imagine a room lighted by one, 100-Watt bulb in a single, round white globe-shaped ceiling fixture, as opposed to the same room lighted by a massive 4 x 6 foot overhead, ceiling-mounted, six-tube fluorescent panel.

Here is what I wrote a week ago, but decided not to post:

_One of the things the Norman 200B and 400B did "back in the day" was to bring a LOT of flash power to portable, electronic flash. As fmw mentioned, the size of the light source becomes pretty big when a flash is fired off of a reflector the size of a wall, or a ceiling. In most bounce flash scenarios, the size of the light source becomes say 2 feet by 4 feet or 3 by 5 feet, so somewhere between 8 to 15 square feet: in essence, the size of a medium to large softbox, or a big umbrella._

>>SNIPPED section>>>

_There's  big difference between small, low-powered and medium-powered speedlights, and POWERFUL flash units like the old Sunpak (most-powerful handle-mount flash ever made, delivers about the same f/stop as many 400 Watt-second monolights with comparable angular coverage), or the Norman 400, or a Speedotron, Dynalite, or White Lighting studio flash unit; there is "a look" to bounce flash done when a really, really kick-a$$ flash is providing the light. It is part of that quality of the light thing. With a powerful flash burst, bounced light does not come from one, small place, but comes in from more angles, from more surfaces. The difference is like reading a book under a big fluorescent light panel, or reading that same book by the light from a small desk lamp; there's a real difference in the quality of the light."_
***********

MY own personal experience is that YES, the level of the light fired indoors can affect the way the photo looks, and the way it turns out. You can light a room totally UP! with a single 1,200 Watt-second flash fired off a ceiling, and the images look one way; in the same room, if you fire a medium-powered Nikon SB-600 speedlight off the ceiling, the pictures will look different, in several ways.

There is a BIG difference in the pictures you will get in a 16-foot-ceilinged room if you fire a 600 Watt-second Speedotron M11 flash into one ceiling/corner junction, and the pictures you get in the same room, but lighting with a 1/8th as powerful speedlight flash, even if both flash units are aimed in the same corner. That is my experience.


----------



## Scoody (Mar 20, 2017)

I shoot exclusively with speedlights.  Set up 2, 3, 4, 8.. They may not have the options to modify like studio strobes but I get around that with grids and snoots and gels.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 21, 2017)

Derrel said:


> There is a BIG difference in the pictures you will get in a 16-foot-ceilinged room if you fire a 600 Watt-second Speedotron M11 flash into one ceiling/corner junction, and the pictures you get in the same room, but lighting with a 1/8th as powerful speedlight flash, even if both flash units are aimed in the same corner. That is my experience.



The other day, I went to take pictures of my in-law's new brewery --little did I know, the entire space's ceiling was painting matte black.  Two 150w/s monolights at full power, with high ISO and a wider aperture, would still barely provide adequate fill lighting.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 22, 2017)

I'm the luckiest guy in the world, I know some photographers who have to beg people to model but through my job I have really nice models lined up for me. Well, they want haircuts, I want patient test subjects. Today I spent 8 hours photographing a few women (one with tons of experience modeling, who helped me pose the others) and all it cost me was some haircuts. I tried soooo many different things that (I think) I've learned. Everything from narrow pools of light spotlighting the subject from barely outside of the frame, as close as possible to the subject, who was as far as possible from the wall, to a soft box across the room with the model backed up against a white wall. I tried some back lighting and even fiddled with some gels. I basically just employed good old fashioned trial and error, seeing a dark area then trying reflector, speedboat light, then mono light to see what I could get to work. I've got more models lined up the next three days, but I'll try not to bug you guys with the photos unless I have a specific question.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2017)

You did very well with today's photos.i can see the improvement you have made over just the last fortnight.


----------



## Designer (Mar 22, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> .. I'll try not to bug you guys with the photos unless I have a specific question.


Bug away!  Please!  

See how the orange backlight draws the viewer's eye to the hair?  It's ON FIRE!  You can continue to experiment with gelled spots by aiming your snooted and gelled light from the front onto the model's flame-mane haircut.  Sometimes adding an off-beat color is all you need to make your photograph special.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 25, 2017)

I had a chance to shoot another really great model today. My wife styled the model's hair for an upcoming hair competition she's entering, and I was excited to get to shoot some photos for it. Three years ago I hired a photographer to shoot some looks for me so I could enter a similar competition (the entries usually hardly show hair but look more like part of a creative photography competition), and that's what made me go get my first DSLR. I figured if I had a camera I could enter all the competitions and eventually win something, but I've never felt confident enough in my photos to organize a shoot and go through with entering. Since the start of this thread, though, my confidence is up a lot, even though I know I still have a very long way to go. I think I'm going to enter the next one that comes up, it'll be fun to organize and execute even if I don't place.
These aren't the images she's using for the competition, these were extras I pulled from the set and tried to edit to look filmy, since the hairstyle looked kinda retro. The good photos showed a lot more hair and basically only had the skin touched up. I also burned a roll of Kodak Tri X on this session, so in about a week I'll get to see what my tiny two weeks of lighting experience looks like on film.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 25, 2017)

I think I'm going to buy a black backdrop. I keep trying to get a dark background from my white wall and I think I'm losing too much information on my subject because of that. I've read that a gray backdrop can be made to look black or white pretty easily, but since I have a white wall already I figure I have the white abilities of a gray backdrop covered, and that a black backdrop will probably be better at being black than a gray backdrop would. Am I correct in my hopes about such a tool? Could I move these lights back to get less contrast on her and still have a black backdrop look dark enough for what I might have been going for here?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2017)

In a 10x10 shooting area, it would be extremely useful to have a gray and a black backdrop. Due to the inverse square law, it would be most helpful to have some darker backdrop options in such a confined space; the lighting options you have will be greatest when the backdrop is fairly close in original tone to the tone you want to end up with.
      Right now you can create white-to-gray, but it's different when the starting point is darker gray, or black. Gray to black with gradation is lovely.
       Right now you are working with subtracting (preventing) light hitting white in order to make it a darker tone: the distances you have are limiting you.
      The opposite is starting with a black wall, and adding light to the wall to make it lighter. Not keeping light OFF the wall, but ADDING light to the backdrop.
        A gray backdrop is very different than either white OR gray! Due to the short distances you have, you are unable to Key-shift the backdrop tones without affecting the subject lighting. if you had 20 feet behind the subject your options for Key-shifting the white to darker tones would be unlimited.
       Again-- think about whether you want to add or prevent light on the background, and what tone would be easiest to start with: white, dark gray,or totally black.


----------



## Designer (Mar 25, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> Could I move these lights back to get less contrast on her and still have a black backdrop look dark enough for what I might have been going for here?


No.

To make your background go dark, (black) you need to keep light off it, and set your shutter speed fast enough to complete the effect.  Since your camera's sync speed is (probably) 1/250 of a second, you're limited in how fast you can set the shutter speed.

Two ways that I am aware of to keep light off the background is to move it way back (20 feet?) behind your model (which is impractical in the space you have available) or "flag" the lights.  A flag is a piece of opaque material blocking the light from going where you don't want light.  Some studios use "barn doors" which is four flags on hinges that can be pivoted this way and that to tailor the light.  You can also use just one piece of material held with a clamp to block the light from going to the backdrop.  You can probably make something using found materials, such as cardboard or foamcore.

So the answer to your question is no.  You have to "shape" the light with something to prevent it from going beyond your model to the backdrop.  Also, be mindful of room light and light "scatter" coming from your strobes or any other light source in the room.  Ideally, the room will be nearly dark (except for modeling lights) and when you fire the flash(es) no light will light the backdrop.  Then it will be black in the photo.

BTW: those other photo entries; do they have the hair beautifully lighted?  The shot of your wife's model needs a hair light.

Less on her face, more on her hair.  A second spot of light on the opposite side of your key light will define the top/back of the hairstyle.

(edit) here is one DIY speedlight snoot that unfortunately will set you back about $0.50 for a sheet of paper, and about two minutes of your time. 

DIY - Homemade Speedlite "Snoot" - DIY Photography

Disregard how it is used in the example photograph, because that is for a portrait, not a hair shot.  Visualize the snoot aimed at just the hair, not the face.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2017)

QUESTIONS:


			
				andrewdoeshair said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to buy a black backdrop. I keep trying to get a dark background from my white wall and I think I'm losing too much information on my subject because of that. I've read that a gray backdrop can be made to look black or white pretty easily, but since I have a white wall already I figure I have the white abilities of a gray backdrop covered, and that _*a black backdrop will probably be better at being black than a gray backdrop would. Am I correct in my hopes about such a tool?*_ Could I move these lights back to get less contrast on her and still have a black backdrop look dark enough for what I might have been going for here?
> View attachment 137045



Okay, there are two questions in there. First answer: If you had swapped in a solid black velvet fabric for the white wall in this shot, it would have been pitch-black in the upper left corner, and would have had a very slight lightening to a dark,dark gray where the most light hit the fabric. If you had swapped the white wall for a thunder gray background, it would have been very dark,with sublte tone gradation, yet lighter than the black background.

The second question is trickier to answer. You asked, "Could I move these lights back to get less contrast on her and still have a black backdrop look dark enough for what I might have been going for here?"

First off, you write *these *lights? Let's assume there is just one, main light that lights her. The answer you're looking for is a bit conterintuitive. Moving the main light back, farther from her, would lessen its intensity on her, so you'd have to open up the aperture to get the right exposure on her face, and in doing so, you would ALSO be exposing the background more. If the light were to be placed farther from her *and* the background, the degree and the rate of light fall-off behind her *would be slowe*r, and thus, opening up the f/stop to get her face exposed properly would actually INCREASE the exposure for the background at the same time! Again, the Inverse Square Law means you'd want to bring the lights CLOSER to her, so the rate of fall-off in intensity would be more-rapid, and you would also need to close the f/stop down, say from f/8 to f/13, and that would create a darker background!

Let's be clear: the 10 x 10 foot distance is simply too short a distance to work freely, and to be able to easily and casually make white into black through fall-off based on pure distance to the backdrop. You're kind of trapped in the intermediate distances where there will almost always be "some" light hitting the background, and where even small differences in the key light modifier's type, and its distance, can make a big impact. First off: GRIDS. Grids will increase the rate of fall-off very hugely, so you need to specify what "these lights" actually are, like 31x 31-inch gridded softbox, or 22-inch gridded beauty dish, etc.. Using a gridded key light will keep the light from hitting the backdrop, and will tremendously restrict the distance the light will be visible behind the subject. A gridded softbox or gridded beauty dish as the key light will make a white wall drop-off to gray or black much more rapidly than say, a reflecting umbrella would; the umbrella would tend to light the subject AND also light the background with a "normal rate"of loss of intensity over distance.

Secondly: In post #51, the look you were going for can be arrived at by not allowing much light to hit a white wall, OR by allowing a tiny bit of light to strike jet black, OR by allowing an intermediate amount of light to strike a gray backdrop. In a SMALL studio, it's often easier to work with a dark backdrop and add a background light, or to let some of the un-gridded main or key light's beam to hit the subject and the back wall, using a single light to light both the subject and the background.

I'm not trying to diss your 10x10 foot space, but you're in a VERY tricky position where the subject simply must be fairly close to the back wall, and where the Inverse Square Law is transitioning from RAPID rate of light fall-off behind the subject to only a moderate rate of fall-off behind the subject distance. Moving the light unit CLOSER to the subject makes the light softer, and yet, increases the amount of darkness behind the subject. At close light-to-subject distance, scooting the light just six inches closer can mean an entire f/stop smaller on the lens will be needed to get the right skin exposure, say from f/11 to f/16. Moving the light close to the face, and shifting from f/11 to f/16 will darken the background quite a bit when you are in a 10x10 foot room, with the light 4 feet from the face and six feet to the back wall.

So, what I'm laboriously trying to write out is that 1)in a SMALL shooting and lighting and posing area, it's very challenging to do the full, total gamut of key-shifting by using only a white wall or paper; black paper or fabric,or gray, either tone, will be much easier to darken than white paper. And 2)there is the element of lighting the backdrop by either A)Adding light to it or B)keeping light from hitting it and 3) The Inverse Square Law actually works "backwards" from what most people would assume, as it relates to how bright the background will be based on moving the light father away because 4) the exposure given to the sensor is based on how much light the face gets hit by, and not how much light hits the background wall.

This is tricky to write about.  Mark Wallace at Adorama TV has a nice video that might make the Inverse Square Law and the CHANGE in the rate of light's fall-off over distance make more sense to those who have difficulty understanding why the 10x10 foot shooting area makes key-shifting through fall-off such a tricky predicament. You are working in a VERY challenging distance range to be able to wrangle light at the level you want to be at. You're right on the cut-off of where fall-off moves from a rapid rate, to the moderate rate; you would need 18-20-25 feet to get into the zone where there is no measurable fall-off in intensity over a four-foot run of distance, which is around the distance I think you have behind your haircut subjects and the back wall,meaning the lights themselves are no more than 6 feet from the haircuts. This is a very demanding distance for light-to-subject, and even small changes in distances have a BIG impact on final exposures, and on background tones.

Again, you're in the distance zone where the Inverse Square Law makes foreground and background light level differences VERY significant, and where the rate, and the absolute degree, of light's fall-off in intensity is very high. This is why white, gray, and black backgrounds could be so,so handy to have,depending on what background effect you want to have in the final image.


----------



## Designer (Mar 25, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Moving the main light back, farther from her, ..


I misunderstood his "back" question.  I took it to mean; move the light more toward the backdrop, i.e.; away from the camera position, but actually closer to the model.  If that is what Andrew meant, then o.k., but if not, then I apologize.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2017)

Designer said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Moving the main light back, farther from her, ..
> ...



Yeah, I took very careful pains to write, and to proof-read and to then revise (three times!), my replies because the writing about lighting can be very tricky. This is one of those situations where a common word might mean one of two, different things!

Heck, I did not consider the possibility that by "back" that he meant back toward the subect, and closer to her. In fact, my response was framed with the idea that he meant _moving the main light farther from the subject_, and closer to the camera. The Inverse Square Law is so counter-intuitive to most people that I feel it's best when discussing how to use it that I laboriously write out even simple steps like,"Moving the main light *back, farther from her*," to help clarify the actual camera-room step under discussion.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 25, 2017)

Thanks again for the continued advice! I will paper snoot my speed light! I have a snoot for my strobe on its way. I find myself reaching for a speedlight and a small stand when I can't see enough shape around the dark edge of the model but then I end up ditching it after a few shots because the light looks too shiny compared to the light from my socked or gridded beauty dish. Are those (seemingly silly because they're $4 on Amazon) tiny Velcro-banded micro softbox diffusers of any use to soften that light, or is it more an issue with the size of the light? In the case below, for the highlight along the back contour of her hair I didn't have enough room under her hair to get an umbrella of any kind on the speed light so I just used the little pull out plastic flap, which basically doesn't do anything. 
 

As I was writing this response the second response from Derrel came in. I totally get that moving the light closer to her would darken the background (thanks to your previous replies and to the video you just mentioned) but what I meant was that I was losing light at the back of her head and wanted more of her head to be in the same plane or field or whatever, to keep the light from dropping off so hard at the back of her. I'm assuming I can't get THAT and also a dark studio feel at the same time in my little room, as it is now, but was hoping a darker wall would lend to get me a little closer. I'm ordering one of those paper roll racks with the dangling chains today and also black, gray, and white paper. It makes sense that a white wall becomes harder to vary in such a small working area, I guess I'll have to see what black and gray can do. Also, after I posted those first pics last night I had a "duh" moment and remembered that I could edit out some of the lightened background. I've been so bent on getting everything right in the camera since I started shooting film, I forgot about how heavily I relied on light room and photo shop in the past. I don't plan on being a photo shop junkie, not that I'm opposed to that, but until I can get it right on camera I guess it'll do. 
 

Changing gears for a moment from what's in my studio to what's in my head, can I ask you guys about certain "mental blocks" I keep running into? A recurring theme I've heard in this thread and in other places is that I'm not showing enough hair for a "hair picture" and I totally agree but I keep hitting some internal struggles as I throw more light on the hair. I first try to justify my approach by imagining that I'm selling the sizzle and not the steak ("look at her eyes! Don't you want to dive off of her cheeks and swim in them?! Oh yeah, and she also has cool hair... By the way, I do hair. Want me to do yours?") When I see a picture that is ALL about the hair I feel like it's coming on too strong, I want to have you notice the hair after you notice the eyes or cheeks or long neck and sexy shoulders. I suppose I should force myself to make the hair priority number one, not just because it's probably a requirement in where I'm eventually wanting to be, but because it'll help me get out of my little box. Should I listen to that inner voice that wants to make the hair whisper or shut it up and learn to be comfortable making the hair scream? I'm sure the answer is that I should know how to do both and then keep both approaches around for the right situations. But then I run into mental road block number two.

By the time I have everything adequately lit to where it's like "yep, that's hair, on a head" I feel like I'm looking at something fake. I decided a few weeks ago after looking through a bunch of photos in books that I don't like three point lighting. Not because it's apparently a standard method, but because it never happens in real life. I don't believe it. When ever do you feel your heart skip a beat as you spot a strange and appealing woman across a room where she has an open window (at golden hour) 45 degrees from her face, a large reflective surface 45 degrees from the other side of her face, and a narrow spotlight hitting the top of her head? If that happens and you gasp it's probably because you're in awe that she accidentally found the exact spot in that room that resembled a man-made lighting scenario! The images that I see and love and want to be able to create clearly use studio lighting, but in a way that they don't look like TOO much of a made up story. I imagine that it is possible to have everything well lit but also without looking like an overly curated and staged scene, but I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that's kind of the ultimate goal of studio photography. Like if I was in a guitar forum saying "yeah, I just started recording my first album, does anyone know how I can really connect with listeners in a meaningful way and maybe sell a million copies?" Should I keep aiming for what feels somewhat believable to my inexperienced eyes, or break out of that mindset and explore the spleandorous world of lighting that never happens in real life? Again I'm sure the answer is try both.

Mental block three is reds and pinks in skin. How much do you guys get hung up on that in editing? Everyone usually looks too red or pink to me, so I mess with the reds and pinks so much that I forget what a human looks like and even after resetting it all back to zero I don't feel like I'm looking at anything real. If it bugs me enough I give up and go B&W (that's why half my shots aren't finished in color). Is it all in my own brain, something anyone else wouldn't worry about? Is a red nose or cheeks something to be corrected or a useful part of the story? 90% of the time I'm not happy with my "corrections" so I either leave it as is and think "if the camera saw it that way, it must be accurate for them" or I take out all the colors. I don't know if that's more an inquiry about proper/not proper, or if I'm just trying to figure out if I'm weird for spending half of my time editing worrying about pink skin. 

Last thing. Off of mental blocks, back to technical inquiries. This could be googled, but since I have you reading already... If I wanted to throw light on my wall or back drop, what's the best way to do that? Option one I guess is to move my lights fursther from her and move her closer to the wall, but then I have shadows on the wall (which may or may not be a good thing, probably a case by case thing depending on whether I want her to look like she's in real life or like she's in limbo). Is that a big softbox job (how do I hide that thing if it is?) or a two speed lights job? 

Very sorry for the LENGTHY and needy post. I meant to write a quick thank you but then all this came out. I really, sincerely appreciate the time any of you have put into even reading this.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2017)

This is Beyond The Basics, so your post and the replies are legitimately lengthy and verbose at times. No prob!  In order a few replies. You are right to try to get most the lighting basics and fundamentals as correct in-camera as you can. If the back or far side of the hair needs a light, use a light or reflector to get some light there, but keep in mind that in Lightroom, you can Dodge highlights a bit to make them brighter, a wee bit more emphatic. And I do think the speedlight's little "flap" does actually do something. So can a business card, or plastic spoon, a 3x5 inch index card, or a StoFen diffuser, or the 14mm wide-angle lens, and YES, the tiny softboxes and the Rogue Flashbender, etc. all can subtly change a speedlight's size and specularity of light/quality of light.

Light rays cannot bend around a big beehive of hair; unless the modifier's rays can "see" the subject, the light is blocked by the hair or body, so...grip arms and 12" x 12" foam core reflectors held by clamps are in your future, maybe. Or other reflectors can be used, or second lights.

There's a fine line between showing the hair mostly, or creating a striking fashion-y type portrait of the subject. In these, she's a gorgeous woman with a retro-inspired yet modern, hip hair style. *She looks fantastic*. Great cheeks,chin,lips,eyes, face, hair, clothes. Your warm-toned, "filmy" looks are fabulous. Are you selling hair snipping and styling, or are you trying to create a glamorous, idealized look? I think the latter, in order to create that, "Damn-- I wanna' look like HER!" feeling in potential customers for your services. Hair style look books that are sterile but which show the hair stylist/barber's work are one thing: I think these are more of _advertising images_, images to create a desire in the part of the customer to, "look like that!"

RE: studio lighting and 3-point or Key-Fill-Background Lighting. It has been around a long time, and people know the look. Yes, it has a degree of artifice, yet it shows shape and dimension. Using just one, single key light and no fill lighting unit, but subtle reflector fill, can reduce the degree of artifice. Adding accent lights, hair lights, etc.. makes a shot look more artificial, yet some people like that "glamorous lighting". Consider too, turning the subject's face or averting their eyes: that shifts focus onto the hair, as you did above in the photos #50-1 and #57-1. Shot #57-2 is a nice portrait of a pretty woman with a great hairstyle. All three, together, show the hair styling *and *the person, in a complete way.

Small lights, at a steep angle coming toward the hair from behind, become "hotter", or more shiny; more specular, to use the proper word. Odd behavior, but angles of 8,9,10,3,4 make the hair light look normal: steeper angle of incoming incidence like 11,12,1,2,3 o'clock make the hairlight "hotter". "*Glancing light does not look right*." Adding diffusing material, like milk jug or window screening, or grid + diffuser makes the hair lights look less specular, and more "organic", and adds that lovely sheen, that broader, more-soft,* great hair look. *Hair lights that are larger, rather than smaller, cast a broader, more gentle, more-diffused sheen on the hair. Strip boxes are common for this; speedlights need to be made bigger than the front panel, or they cast a slightly-too-crisp light than calls attention to itself by being different than the rest of the light.

RE: color, color toning, B&W. I no longer care about color accuracy: that is dead,dead,dead, along with leisure suits and 500 cubic inch V-8 engines and white loafers. We're in the Instagram era now, and these are images for modern-age people. Forget about slavish adherence to color fidelity. I am sick of perfect, neutral,accurate color. Color fidelity is a 1970's ideal that has lived out its usefulness in some fields. I do not want to see 1970's color in 2017 hairstyle imagery, unless it is showing hair coloring services.

RE: how to apply light to a backdrop. On paper, be aware that a straight-in angle to the wall gives the least reflection, and shows the least amount of wrinkles, dips,warps, and texture once the paper gets old. How far the light is from the wall, and at what beam angle, determines how it hits, and how far it spreads over the paper. A 7-inch reflector on a monolight, from 1 foot to 6 feet from the background, and aimed anyway you like, is common. Use a grid, or no grid, or barn doors, and light the backdrop for 'effect desired'. You can light a backdrop a million ways; did you see the Strobist way of blasting light through drinking glasses lined up and filled with water or colored liquids? You can fire a light high and downward in a slanted way across the backdrop, or light it with a gradient from bright to dark,etc.. No one way. Modifiers? Umbrella, softbox,strip box, speedlight, 7-inch reflector, bare-tube flash, whatever, just depends. It's hard to hide a softbox behind a person, but smaller lights are easy to carefully obscure.


----------



## Designer (Mar 25, 2017)

andrewdoeshair said:


> 1. .. I end up ditching it after a few shots because the light looks too shiny compared to the light from my socked or gridded beauty dish.
> 
> 2. .. I was losing light at the back of her head and wanted more of her head to be in the same plane or field or whatever, to keep the light from dropping off so hard at the back of her. I'm assuming I can't get THAT and also a dark studio feel at the same time in my little room, ..
> 
> ...


1. You can soften light from any light by using some kind of diffuser.  If the diffuser is large relative to the subject, the the light will "wrap" more, making the light appear softer.  Those small speedlight diffusers that are only about 12 inches wide are not really wide enough to soften much light.  They're better than nothing, though, so use whatever you can. 

2. Yes, you can.  Use a "flag".  Anything that is opaque and large enough to block light from your backdrop.

3. The style that you choose to create is entirely up to you.  I assumed that you wanted to showcase the hair because you had mentioned it.  If you would rather make it a portrait, then that is your call, but you still need a hair light to separate your model's hair from blending into the background.

4. A "balanced" lighting scheme is good for an employee identification photo or a high-school graduation photo, or a child's birthday photo, but you can do wonders with an "unbalanced" lighting scheme, even using only one light.  The choice is yours.

5. First of all, make sure you have done everything correctly as far as setting your white balance, shooting something in the shot without color (a gray card, or a white styrofoam plate, or similar), get your computer display calibrated, and keep the lighting in your computer room (office) consistent for each editing project.  Then, if you still see red or magenta, add a little bit of cyan to the image to counteract the reds.  Doesn't take much to make a difference. 

6. Use a separate light (or two) positioned behind your model, and aimed at the backdrop.  Don't allow these lights to contribute to the light on the model.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2017)

^^ Wonderfully condensed writing! And as to the advice, "Then, if you still see red or magenta, add a little bit of cyan to the image to counteract the reds. Doesn't take much to make a difference."

This mirrors exactly what a friend told me! He spent 17 years working in color-toning and image prep for The Oregonian newspaper. He told me one of *the secrets* in skin-tone color-toning was just exactly that! "Add a little bit of cyan, and most people will like it better!" he said.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 25, 2017)

Sorry, I should have been more clear about my specific intentions from the beginning. My overall intentions are to create striking images of cool people who's hair I just happened to have done, whether or not (but mostly not) the hair is the main focus of the image. I want people to want to be as cool as the people in the pictures, and I want to avoid a picture that only says "I cut hair. Look at this haircut I just did"

I'm headed to the airport at the moment, but there I'll have plenty of time to thoroughly read your last few responses. Thanks again and again.


----------



## Designer (Mar 25, 2017)

Oh, well that clears that up.  You still need a hair light.  Dark hair against a dark background tends to "blend in" and people still need to see the extent of the hair, even though they are not shopping for a haircut.  Even light hair against a light background will benefit.  Just watch the shiny reflections that might show up.

The same effect should be done with a model wearing a dark garment against a dark background.  People need to see where the model stops and the background starts.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 25, 2017)

much appreciated, Designer. I'm going to spend more time thinking about the hair light next time I trap a model in the studio. On the past few shoots I was so focused on getting the beauty dish and reflector right that I just pointed a general 7" reflector somewhere near the hair and called it good. 

A package just arrived as I was about to leave for the airport, and it couldn't have had better contents. Perfect way to spend a flight


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Mar 26, 2017)

That book has been amazing so far. No updates on studio progress, as I'm out of town, but I've started paying a lot more attention to lighting as I'm walking around on this trip. This morning my wife was doing her makeup by an open window and I was like "there it is!"
Shot on iPhone, edited with instagram.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Apr 1, 2017)

I just got one of those backdrop racks with the dangly chains on the end, and I got some black paper and gray paper, but I've read that the faux velvet stuff is better than paper. Should I get some of that? I should have the backdrop racks installed Sunday, then I have a few models lined up for Tuesday to give it a test run.

Can anyone recommend a good light meter? My research has turned up everything from $20 light meters being amazing to $300 light meters being a rip off. I don't need anything fancy, I'm sure, I just want to get a better understanding of exactly how much light I'm flicking around. 

Thank you


----------



## Derrel (Apr 1, 2017)

These days, Sekonic is a fine name in meters. They have some good YouTube videos. I guess their 358?


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Apr 2, 2017)

Light meter in transit. Thank you!

I just finished installing my backdrops. I got gray and black paper by Savage, from Amazon. In person the gray and black look realllly similar in color, but I'm sure I'll be able to get a lot of use out of both. I spent about 3 minutes doing some test shots on my brother, who helped hold the ladder so I didn't die installing the backdrop racks. The black paper is instantly better than trying to black out a white wall in such a small space. Then, for fun and to see if I could, I lit the black backdrop to make it (almost) white. Thanks to that book I finally knew to hit the backdrop from outside the family of angles that would produce a direct reflection, and I kept the light source pretty far so that the exposure across the backdrop would be even. I used to stick a speed light behind the model's head on a little stand and get an over exposed circle around the head, fading quickly and unevenly to dark edges. Like a poor quality vignetting effect. The same backdrop lighting scenario on the white wall produced a flawless "cleaner than real life" white, like he was floating in limbo or something. I'm really excited to put these things into practice. I have two models coming in on Tuesday, and I can't wait to play with the lighting and backdrops. Oh yeah, one of my wall-mounted boom arms stripped a bolt and wouldn't lock, so I took it home to replace the bolt and I ended up snapping the flange that locks it in place. I took a star off of my Amazon review when I went to order a new one. Heads up if anyone buys one (interfit brand). Be careful tightening or loosening the bolts.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Apr 6, 2017)

Today I set up a tripod and a mannequin head in my studio and took about 100 photos with varying settings, back drops, and light/reflector/model locations. I got out my tape measure and light meter to write down how much light I lose in a foot, or three feet, behind my fake head. I also tried various (but still very few, in the grand scheme of things) lighting scenarios.
 
 
 

I've found that I really like my beauty dish and reflector set up like a clam shell, then my second strobe used as either a hair light with black backdrop or as a backdrop light on the white wall, but I keep getting an issue with a dark side (see first photo of girl with short hair). I started using a speed light set to slave to get rid of the dark side, but the highlights are really specular compared to what the BD creates (see second photo of girl with short hair). Today I bought another trigger so I could put my speedlight inside a big soft box since the slave feature doesn't work with it in there, and as I was practicing with my dummy head I tried hitting it with the speed light alone, a shoot through umbrella, and also in said softbox.
 
 

All of this to say, I know from what I've learned of hair that there is no substitute for experience. I'm trying to gain that experience with lighting any chance I get (model or mannequin) while I record and study my results enough that I can start to pre plan them. When I do a haircut I know where I'm going to end up before I even take out a comb (I'm wrong 1% of the time). Usually during the haircut I'll know right where I want to put my camera to get the righ shot (I'm still wrong about half the time). I want to be able to calculate lighting before I take out my camera, and maybe even before I finish the haircut. For now I do a lot of guess and check, which is embarrassing and stressful when I have a live model. I'm sure it won't happen tomorrow, or even within a month, but that's my small goal for now. I want to get that experience and eventually confidence.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 6, 2017)

A great post! You have learned so much. Congrats on the backgrounds! You now are using the Inverse Square Law with understanding.


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Apr 11, 2017)

I recently bought Peter Hurley's tutorial about posing people for head shots, and it's been pretty helpful. 3 years ago thinking about ISO, aperture, and shutter speed felt like rocket science, and now it's automatic. Last month thinking about lighting felt like rocket science, and while it's nowhere near easy or automatic yet, I've been able to systematically place one light at a time and get good enough results (hopefully I can get to amazing results someday). Now posing a model is a big and scary task, especially trying to think about it, be fun and personable with the model, and still think about lighting and camera settings all at once. Portrait photographers are amazing, I look up to you guys so much.

Here at the beginning of today's session Chloe was stiff and uncomfortable
 

Then I got her to laugh a little
 

Finally I felt like I got her to loosen up and have fun with the camera. As you can see, I was also changing lighting and backdrops along the way, just trying to experiment as much as I could in the short window that she'd put up with me.
 

I just wanted to check in with some progress. I still need about a metric crap load more practice, but the ideas and answers you all have given me in this thread have been a total game changer for me and I wanted to share where it's taken me so far.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 12, 2017)

This has been a fascinating and productive thread. You've clearly learned a lot over the past few weeks. I know this thread started off with speedlights in the title, but this has evolved into so much more than just speedlights. Your posts and photos and your willingness to buy actual studio-type AC-powered flash units and modifiers have turned this into one of the better Beyond The Basics threads that TPF has had in a long time. It's been enjoyable to be part of this. Your practice sessions and all the work you've spent on learning and refining your lighting set-ups have really payed off! Kudos to you, Andrew!


----------



## andrewdoeshair (Apr 26, 2017)

I visited the salon in LA again but I brought very minimal photo gear this time. Last time I went out there I brought one of my strobes with a 16" beauty dish and a big round reflector, but I failed to think about lighting the hair so I got face-only shots of my haircuts all day. This time I used a single speed light on camera, a bounce card made from a note card, and a backdrop made from a haircutting cape. The other stylists there thought I was a photography wizard! I wanted to share this little bit because since the start of this thread I've gained a lot more understanding of lighting, and with this recent visit to LA I was able to really see the benefit. I feel like I was able to get better photos with less equipment this time (makes ya feel like a champ). The light bouncing off the ceiling lit the hair well enough, and the light bouncing off the card lit the face well enough. Those Peter Hurley videos from F Stoppers have been pretty helpful as far as posing my models. I'm still mostly lost when I do that, but it's been easier to notice things like neck wrinkles, soft jaw lines, and mismatches eye sizes since he broke these things down so systematically. 

This is Heather, I did her hair in LA then got a few photos (using the on camera speed light and the haircutting cape backdrop). After I was happy enough with the lighting at F7 or so I lowered the flash power and got some at F2.8, which I haven't done in a long time. I got so hooked on the way my Sigma 50mm art lens looked at tighter apertures that I forgot how nice a little blur can be. These are both right off the camera and (especially the second one) could use some white balance correction.


----------

