Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photo Evaluation
Photo Feedback
First attempts with lights
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 532980" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Looks good to me. It is a very good start. Lighting becomes a very fascinating subject.</p><p></p><p>Re: low shutter speed. That is just how continuous lights are, not very bright compared to sunlight or flash. But when no subject motion is involved as here, slow shutter speed is no issue. Even one second is no issue, and slower will allow stopping down for more depth of field (yours look fine to me now, at least in this smaller copy). </p><p></p><p>But for portraits of humans, who move, a flash can be much brighter (and shutter speed is not a factor of flash exposure), allowing up to 1/200 second shutter speed (up to maximum shutter sync speed). But it is the flash duration that stops motion, typically faster than any shutter speed used.</p><p></p><p>One comment about the top umbrella in your third picture. No fault of yours, but just by looking at it, it is clear that the large CFL bulb is outputting light all over the room, most of it is coming out sideways to the umbrella, not hitting the umbrella at all, not reflected back to the subject. Again, just how it is. </p><p></p><p>But a speedlight flash used there has the reflector to put all of its light into the umbrella, and back, more light and less spill (I use 24 mm flash zoom at umbrella full shaft length). And a regular full size speedlight could accomplish ISO 100, 1/200 second, and maybe f/11 for the same picture (which is at a fairly close distance). You don't need shutter speed for still life, but it sure helps on humans.</p><p></p><p>A big difference is that we can see to adjust the continuous light, and the camera can meter it.. Which is not true of flash, so there are working differences. But generally well worth it.</p><p>But continuous lights are often favored for such still life work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 532980, member: 12496"] Looks good to me. It is a very good start. Lighting becomes a very fascinating subject. Re: low shutter speed. That is just how continuous lights are, not very bright compared to sunlight or flash. But when no subject motion is involved as here, slow shutter speed is no issue. Even one second is no issue, and slower will allow stopping down for more depth of field (yours look fine to me now, at least in this smaller copy). But for portraits of humans, who move, a flash can be much brighter (and shutter speed is not a factor of flash exposure), allowing up to 1/200 second shutter speed (up to maximum shutter sync speed). But it is the flash duration that stops motion, typically faster than any shutter speed used. One comment about the top umbrella in your third picture. No fault of yours, but just by looking at it, it is clear that the large CFL bulb is outputting light all over the room, most of it is coming out sideways to the umbrella, not hitting the umbrella at all, not reflected back to the subject. Again, just how it is. But a speedlight flash used there has the reflector to put all of its light into the umbrella, and back, more light and less spill (I use 24 mm flash zoom at umbrella full shaft length). And a regular full size speedlight could accomplish ISO 100, 1/200 second, and maybe f/11 for the same picture (which is at a fairly close distance). You don't need shutter speed for still life, but it sure helps on humans. A big difference is that we can see to adjust the continuous light, and the camera can meter it.. Which is not true of flash, so there are working differences. But generally well worth it. But continuous lights are often favored for such still life work. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photo Evaluation
Photo Feedback
First attempts with lights
Top