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
General Photography
Portrait
Portrait advice
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="Dangerspouse" data-source="post: 780393" data-attributes="member: 46690"><p>Thanks so much for all that Cindy, it gave me a lot to thing about and some observances I wasn't aware of.</p><p></p><p>To answer your question(s), in the Rembrandt shots the speedlight was mounted in a shoothrough umbrella, yes. The soft box has a constant light in it (not a speedlight). I suppose it may have had the effect of a simple reflector. I was counting on the inverse square law to knock down all the light on the backdrop, but the physical space of my room did not allow me to quite get the distance I needed, so I had to rely on post to drop the exposure to full black.</p><p></p><p>I adjusted both the distance of the umbrella to my subject, and the dispersal pattern until I got that damned little triangle to appear, lol. The umbrella was about 3 feet to her left, and if I recall I had the light set to f/50 width. I started with f/120 if I recall, but that was too much like a spot-light, and harsh. So I widened it to disperse a bit more. </p><p></p><p>For the clamshell, the overhead soft box was only an inch or two over her head. Now that you've pointed it out to me, I see what you mean about possible over exposure. I think - just my amateur guess here - it may be more to do with the reflector, which she was holding right below her chin, just out of shot. It really did reflect! I appreciate you pointing that out to me, it's certainly going to be something I pay particular attention to going forwards!</p><p></p><p>:encouragement:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dangerspouse, post: 780393, member: 46690"] Thanks so much for all that Cindy, it gave me a lot to thing about and some observances I wasn't aware of. To answer your question(s), in the Rembrandt shots the speedlight was mounted in a shoothrough umbrella, yes. The soft box has a constant light in it (not a speedlight). I suppose it may have had the effect of a simple reflector. I was counting on the inverse square law to knock down all the light on the backdrop, but the physical space of my room did not allow me to quite get the distance I needed, so I had to rely on post to drop the exposure to full black. I adjusted both the distance of the umbrella to my subject, and the dispersal pattern until I got that damned little triangle to appear, lol. The umbrella was about 3 feet to her left, and if I recall I had the light set to f/50 width. I started with f/120 if I recall, but that was too much like a spot-light, and harsh. So I widened it to disperse a bit more. For the clamshell, the overhead soft box was only an inch or two over her head. Now that you've pointed it out to me, I see what you mean about possible over exposure. I think - just my amateur guess here - it may be more to do with the reflector, which she was holding right below her chin, just out of shot. It really did reflect! I appreciate you pointing that out to me, it's certainly going to be something I pay particular attention to going forwards! :encouragement: [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Portrait
Portrait advice
Top