Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Books, courses, websites on lighting?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:27 pm    Post subject: Books, courses, websites on lighting? Reply with quote

My recent experiences have showed me that I need to improve my understanding and use of artificial lighting. Available light remaines my preference but to make really outstanding prints some knowledge of studio lighting is essential. Continuous lighting (not flash) is what I am interested about. I wonder if you can recommend books, online courses, web sites that teach about this (what equipment to buy, how to place lights, different lighting schemes to try, etc)


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A good place to start. Look under Taking the Mystery Out Of Lighting.
http://www.montezucker.com/
Another site, very traditional, look under lighting.
http://jzportraits.home.att.net/


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's plenty of books on Amazon about lightning.

The best one is http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240802756. You have to read it, then start again at least 3 times Wink I'm not joking, all the essentials (and more) are there.

For the rest you have to decide which subjects you want to shoot.

Still life? Fashion? Portraiture? Lifestyle? Cars? Events?

Just as an example if you want to shoot fashion you'll need pretty powerful flashes because you need to light a whole figure (sometimes more than 1). It is possible to shoot fashion with continuos light and a lot of high-level pros do it but they can afford to rent cinema HMI lights (buying them is out of question, believe me) and the people to manouvrate them.

For portraiture you need less power because you shoot closer and usually with larger aperture, still flashes are cheaper and more practical than fluorescent lights (people is moving).

For Still life you can goes also with cheap fluorescent lightning since exposure time is not an issue with not moving subjects, still cheap fluorescent lights don't have all the light modifiers monotorch flashes have (snoots, dishes, reflectors, etc) and you can always just use the pilot tungsten lights of flashes if you want to shoot in continuos with digital cameras, just set accordingly the WB.

Lights are just a part of what you'll need, you'll also need panels, flags, backdrops, reflectors, mirrors, etc etc Just get some time to time once you'll get more and more experienced and need arise.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you both!
I have a lot to learn on the subject - not aesthetically, because I know what I want - but I need to learn how to obtain it technically.

I know that flashes are probably the best way but there is something with flash images, that leaves me cold, while I have realized that by mixing natural light and continuous artificial light it is possible to obtain great results that have a clarity of detail not too distant from that obtained by flashes, and at the same time, an "organic" fluid quality of the light that I rarely see in flash lightened images.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good tecnique is what makes artificial light (like flashes) looks like natural light Wink

That's the trick with lightning.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't really understand why you don't like flash, because I disagree with your description of it, but continuous lighting is certainly much cheaper.

Last edited by jjphoto on Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio,
I'm assuming that you have heard of strobist. http://strobist.blogspot.com/ I have found this site to be extremely helpful with lighting.

By the way, OMG what a NICE avatar Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jjphoto wrote:
I don't really understand why you don't like flash, because I disagree with your description of it, but continuous lighting is certainly much cheaper.
I shoot cars for a living and have shot them with tungsten and flash and flash is much easier and faster to use so that's all I use these days.
JJ


hi,
I respect much the work of those professionals who use flashes, but I still find the result of flash lighting not to be of my liking, as it feels too surgical precise for me. Just a matter of taste...


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shad309 wrote:
Orio,
I'm assuming that you have heard of strobist. http://strobist.blogspot.com/ I have found this site to be extremely helpful with lighting.


Thanks Shad, I know the site, it surely looks like a terrific lot of useful info but it's too difficult for me. Sad


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, just be glad you have digital Very Happy you can shoot all day until you get it right. even if you dont', you didn't wast a lot of film & money to find out you messed up Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... when it comes to lighting instruments it isn't a matter of "taste" or "I like, I dislike". It's not the right attitude.

It just a matter to use the right equipment to do the job, usually under the costrain of a budget.

It's the photographer's task to arrange the lights and modify them so to get the results he want.

Sometimes you just need a white reflective panel, another time you could need 3000 watts in flashes. Then you can't afford them and have to think if and how you can get similar results in another way, and sometimes you simply find that you can't.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use two 300ws flashes with 60x100cm softboxes. I have come to the conclusion that this is way more then I need to get the basics down. It's a cheap set (cost me about 300€), with stands, radiotrigger, flashes, softboxes and bag to fit it all. There is also a 150watt modellight that you could acctually use as continues light if you wanted. Its damn bright at maximum power.

I don't think it looks too unnatural either. It all depends on how you do it really and your skills, that grows fast if you use the lights. I recommend getting a mannequin (life size doll) for practicing though. It takes alot of time and models that can stand you running around setting lights for 45 minutes before a shot, are rare. Wink

Some images I have done using the cheap set, i am a beginner though, so be gentle Wink.















I think the flashes are versatile enough to make you able to do whatever light you want. However, if you go for strobes, make sure that you can LOWER the power enough. Mine got 64 steps. Which is good, because in my limited space (7x4x2.2m) i have found that I have more trouble to get low enough then high enough. Wink I rarely go over minimum power.

Another thing to remember is that continuos lights, do get hot, I can feel it even with 150w model light, even though the flashes got fans. And continous lights eat power. Alot of power.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice shots Zewrak, especially the 2 and 5. What I like is that you managed to make the lights look natural.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe Alessandro I can use this to explain some of my views.
I like much Zewrak pictures, but their light does not look natural to me. I would personally define it maybe "theatrical". Which is also cool, but different.
In fact I rarely saw natural light come from two sources with equal or almost equal strenght, as it happens (curiously) exactly in the two photos that you liked better, #2 and #5.
In nature, I would see that happen -maybe- in a closed room with two opposite windows, in the summer at noon, when the sun in the sky is near the apical point (zenith or nadir, I can't remember the correct name)
So I would define it as a very rare, extreme situation.
In all other natural situation, the natural light would come stronger on one side and weaker on the other - except for overcast sky, in which case light would not be directional.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For constant lighting I’ve always used Arri when doing video. Arri makes a real nice light and it’s a fine German company. I own two 1-K’s, 1-650k, and 1-300k fresnel light.
I also own a Lowel kit for kickers.
Once one understands 3-point lighting [keys, fills, and rims] it all becomes intuitive but I always find these Arri sights informative. http://www.videotexsystems.com/files/arri_lighting_handbook_english.pdf

Oh yea, you also need a light meter, but you probably already have.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A G Photography wrote:
The best one is http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240802756. You have to read it, then start again at least 3 times Wink I'm not joking, all the essentials (and more) are there.

I have that one. Really a great book. And 3 times is a minimum, indeed! Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Maybe Alessandro I can use this to explain some of my views.
I like much Zewrak pictures, but their light does not look natural to me. I would personally define it maybe "theatrical". Which is also cool, but different.
In fact I rarely saw natural light come from two sources with equal or almost equal strenght, as it happens (curiously) exactly in the two photos that you liked better, #2 and #5.
In nature, I would see that happen -maybe- in a closed room with two opposite windows, in the summer at noon, when the sun in the sky is near the apical point (zenith or nadir, I can't remember the correct name)
So I would define it as a very rare, extreme situation.
In all other natural situation, the natural light would come stronger on one side and weaker on the other - except for overcast sky, in which case light would not be directional.


It's always a matter of taste, but indeed the situations where natural light is really enough interesting to make the shot are rare, this is why we use artificial lightning, to make shots interesting at our will.
A portrait taken in an overcast day is plain and boring, just wait for a strong directional light at dusk and you already have something better, put a white wall on the other side of the subject and you usually have a 2 to 1 lightning ratio similar to zewrak's shot #5 (which is more a 2 to 1.5).


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio, it surely doesn't matter if it is continuous lighting or flash, you can have one, two or three or more light sources and get identical results with either. I think that perhaps the only thing that is different between flash and continuous is that flash freezes the instant exactly, whereas instant could be used with motion blur to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps that is what you like.

Natural lighting is more fixed, usually with a single source at a fixed angle with or without natural softbox (clouds). Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is good, it can be horrible - as a billion amateur backlit portraits will show, not to mention a lot of my street shots with harsh Middle Eastern sunshine casting black shadows from white buildings. If you get good at artificial lighting (which I wish I was) you can mimic natural light exactly.

I'm sure the many photographers here who are much better than I am will correct me if there are any mistakes in that.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If interested here's a 1938 guide to lighting