First attempts with lights

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
Here my firsts attempts with lights

I used a 35mm because I’d like to buy a 35mm prime and I’s checking out how it looks like.

I used f4.5 to get a blurry background. ISO was 200 and speed was 1/20 for the green jar an 1/10 for the blue one.

I thought that 3x85W could have light up quite well the subjects but actually I had to use low shutter speed to maintain a low ISO:

For the green jar I think that the base is underexposed and blurry. The jar itself looks quite flat.

With the blue vase I shift the left umbrella to the rear part of the scene to have more backlit. So I had just one light in the front and two in the rear. This vase has the same problem of blurry top and bottom. The neck and the base are quite dark as well.

I really have to study optic to understand how the depth of field is affected when you change Aperture (I have read something about it), focal length, and subject distance…

It looks like that with 35mm at that distance I should have reduce aperture or increase distance and then crop.

It could be a pleasure to receive your feedback
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0194.jpg
    DSC_0194.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 141
  • DSC_0185.jpg
    DSC_0185.jpg
    115.9 KB · Views: 145
  • DSC_0181.jpg
    DSC_0181.jpg
    82.6 KB · Views: 152

WayneF

Senior Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
Thank you very much Wayne!

I was thinking to do a black cardboard (or something like) cone with metal film inside to put around the bulb and to re-direct that light - that now is spreading all around - to the umbrella... I don't know if it's a silly idea or can have any utility.

I didn´t choose a lower shutter speed because I’m keeping in mind that my next models will surely be all my little nephews… So some speed will surelly be requires.

I’m planning to buy some new stuff but I'll tell you honestly that I’m quite into the "We've got no money, so we've got to think." motto.

I was thinking to buy a socket that allows 4 CFL light bulbs and additional CFL lights that, combined with a 35mm prime should help to increase shutter speed but maybe I should consider a flash/speed light flash instead.

I love to shoot pics getting people in a natural situation (I'm thinking about my nephews an children in general) and I feel that a flash is more "invasive".

Anyway it is probably a "must have".

I have no idea about costs and quality though… I’ll investigate and read.

If you can recommend me an entry level one for my D3300 I would really appreciate it.

Best regards
 
Last edited:

cwgrizz

Senior Member
Challenge Team
[MENTION=41442]Federico-Nov[/MENTION] @WayneF has some good reviews of inexpensive flashes that will work for you, I think. The Newer VK750II is one and Yongnuo YN565EX are two that you might want to look at. I am new to flash also and you are doing great for just starting out with lighting. I am nowhere near to that point. Ha! Look at the bottom of Wayne's posts for a link to his articles on flashes.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Thank you very much Wayne!

I was thinking to do a black cardboard (or something like) cone with metal film inside to re-direct that light - that now is spreading all around - to the umbrella... I don't know if it's a silly idea or can have any utility.
I didn´t choose a lower shutter speed because I’m keeping in mind that my next models will surely be all my little nephews… So some speed it will be requires.
I’m planning to buy some new stuff but I'll tell you honestly that I’m quite into the "We've got no money, so we've got to think." motto.
I was thinking to buy a socket that allows 4 CFL light bulbs and additional CFL light but maybe I should consider a flash/speed light flash
I have no idea about costs and quality though… I’ll investigate and read.
If you can recommend me an entry level one for my D3300 I would really appreciate it.
Best regards


Just talking, not doing, but my thought was an aluminum reflector (like from the cheapest clamp-on shop light, maybe 25 cm diameter) could be effective to block most of the spill, and to direct more into the umbrella. However, then its larger diameter blocks the umbrella (to some small degree in the center at small radius). Gain seems much larger than the loss. I normally use flash for still life, but have used these reflectors for one bare bulb for video work (moving pictures, which require continuous light).

The ganged 4 or 5 CFL can work in a softbox, which itself is a reflector to contain the side spill and direct all the light forward. We want 180 degree bulbs in a softbox, to use its reflector as designed. 4 or 5 will be stronger, but it will still NOT be as strong as flash. But to me, multiple CFL just seems a very bad plan in an umbrella. Absolutely nothing at all wrong with umbrellas, they are very effective with speedlights, but these CFL lights become a question.

Speedlights can be inexpensive, like the popular Yongnuo brand for example. Such studio setups (umbrellas or softboxes) are fixed, we set them up and adjust them, and then do not move them for the rest of the session. That means that Manual flash is not only very effective, but also the most useful in fixed studio situations. Manual lights offer the greatest control.

A Youngnu YN560 (maybe model II or III) is a very popular Manual flash model about $60 US. We probably also ought to have one Yongnuo YN565 for hotshoe walk-around bounce TTL use too. Only a little more expense, and it is fully usable with the others in manual mode too.

Flash is a big change. Certainly more useful power and shutter speed, but again, the camera cannot meter studio flash, and we cannot see its lighting effect until we take a test picture. Working procedure becomes very different. But we learn fast.

With multiple flash in the studio, the norm is to use a handheld flash meter, to be able to set each flash units power level to exactly meter to be the effect that we want. The meter will become the expense. We see the result in a test picture, but we quickly learn about what to expect. The meter lets us quickly duplicate last times lighting setup. We quickly learn for example, set the main light power to meter f/8 at the subject. Set the fill light to meter maybe f/5.6 (one stop fill ratio). The background light is typically near same as the main (for colored backgrounds). Hair light starts there, but we adjust by eye for the color of the hair, up to a stop either way for dark or light hair. See for example, 45 degree Portrait Lighting Setup
 
Last edited:

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
Thank you very much CW-grizz and Wayne for the great suggestions!!! It looks like I have a lot of good literature for the weekend.

I just have a question because I don't undestand the meaning of this:

A Youngnu YN560 (maybe model II or III) is a very popular Manual flash model about $60 US. We probably also ought to have one Yongnuo YN565 for hotshoe walk-around bounce TTL use too. Only a little more expense, and it is fully usable with the others in manual mode too.

Do you mean that I should have both or simply that the YN565 is a better option?
Do you think that I could "survive" without a meter?

I really don´t know what a "hotshoe walk-around bounce TTL" is, but probably I'll discover it in the notes you suggest me.
Thank you!
 

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
In this case I just used one 85W umbrella and I had to climb to 3600 ISO with f 5.6 and 1/60 ss
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0156b.jpg
    DSC_0156b.jpg
    88.1 KB · Views: 104

WayneF

Senior Member
I just have a question because I don't understand the meaning of this:

Do you mean that I should have both or simply that the YN565 is a better option?
Do you think that I could "survive" without a meter?

Just meaning, the YN560 flashes are manual flash mode only. The YN565 (slightly more expense) can do the same manual mode, but it also allows automated TTL flash mode, which your camera can do with a hot shoe flash. One flash with this capability seems a very good thing.

You can see this difference with your cameras internal flash, in its Manual vs TTL flash modes. Manual is manual (you must set flash power level for every different situation and change), but TTL is automatic, more like a compact camera flash is automatic flash. The internal flash cannot bounce, and it is very limited in power, ISO 100 maybe 10 feet at f/4, or 4 feet at f/10.

We can use manual flash for most purposes, but then it is our job to set the flash power level for proper exposure of EVERY shot. Tweaking ONE manual flash is easy (but not automatic), by just watching the result on the camera rear LCD, and adjusting flash power to get the picture we want. Two or three tries, and we've got it. (this becomes a very different story with maybe four studio flashes, when a flash meter simplifies greatly).

But TTL flash is metered and automatically set by the camera metering system. This is a big plus for moving targets, camera aimed differently every time, when manual flash could not keep up. We still might have to tweak TTL results slightly, using Flash Compensation on the camera, but one such compensation typically works for about every shot in the room (same ceiling). Automation takes care of the changes if in similar situations.

I really don´t know what a "hotshoe walk-around bounce TTL" is, but probably I'll discover it in the notes you suggest me.

Bounce flash is the Good Stuff

When and if you have a hot shoe flash capable of bounce and TTL, then for a similar picture as the one you just posted, aim the hot shoe flash head up to bounce from the ceiling (assuming standing under a normal white ceiling not much more than about 3 meters high). EDIT: I said 9 thinking feet, but meant 3 meters).

Pull out the white bounce card (for slight forward fill, mostly for catchlights in the eyes). Set TTL flash mode and ISO 400, and maybe f/5 (for bounce, and bounce needs a lot of power). The ceiling becomes a huge umbrella up there, the lighting is very soft and good, and the ceiling more or less illuminates the entire room background. No deer-in-the-headlights direct flash look.

This is a very effective method when you can't or don't want to get the fixed lights out. Also it allows walk-around operation anywhere in the house, to follow the kids around.


In this case I just used one 85W umbrella and I had to climb to 3600 ISO with f 5.6 and 1/60 ss

That is nice, a really good start, and you are not going to have any trouble. But just saying, perhaps ISO 3200 or 1/60 second is not the best usual working number goals? Perhaps much lower ISO and 1/200 second could have advantages.
 
Last edited:

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
Thank you Wayne. I feel like beeing at the university of photography... I'll study your answer carefully and read all info.

Yes... I'd love to work with lower ISO and higher speed (the pic I posted is really noisy).
I'll certainly follow your suggestions!

Thank you again for the long and detailed answers
 

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
I start to miss Computer renderings... you add a spot light here, an ambient light there... just with a click haha
 

Attachments

  • Aphro05.jpg
    Aphro05.jpg
    82.3 KB · Views: 110

cwgrizz

Senior Member
Challenge Team
@federico-nov I have been reading this book that is about simple use of one flash. It might also clarify some ideas for you.
Just One Flash, A practical approach to lighting for digital photography. Author: Rod and Robin Deutchsmann

It is written with wording that even I can understand. Ha!
 

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
Let’s see if I understand it well…

I have now 3x85 W light bulbs.

Let´s say that I add other 6 light bulbs… (USD 60 more or less) it would be a total of 9 light bulbs.
Each 85W CFL light should be comparable with a 350W incandescent light… so let’s consider 350W x 9 = 3150 W x second.

If I shoot with a shutter speed of 1/200 I’ll have to divide 3150W per 200… This means that I’ll count with miserable 15.75 W in that instant.

A speed light flash like Yongnuo will provide for my shoot, I guess, 150 Ws .
More or less 10 times the brightness of 9x85W light bulbs at the same price (USD 70 for 560 IV)

If I use a cheap 300W strobe, I’ll have 20 times more brightness for 90 USD.

Is it correct? Is it really that big the difference between continuous lighting a flashes?

I'm thinking to buy the following:

YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master (USD 70)
Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

Flash Bracket (USD 5.40)
Amazon.com: Flash Bracket Swivel Bracket Umbrella Holder Studio Tilting Bracket for Nikon Canon E430 E580 SB600 SB800 SB900 By Fancierstudio Bracket B: Camera & Photo
This cheap bracket will allow me to use the flash on my umbrellas stands.

YONGNUO YN560-TX Manual Flash Transmitter and Controller for Select Nikon Cameras (USD 42)
Amazon.com: YONGNUO YN560-TX Manual Flash Transmitter and Controller for Select Nikon Cameras: Camera & Photo

This should not be really necessary if I use the flash as servo and the built in flash as master… But it’s cool and not too expensive.

I'd love to add this too:

300W strobe
Cowboystudio GODOX Pro Photography Studio Monolight Strobe Photo Flash SpeedLight 300WS luz tamaño : 300 Watt / s en Flashes de Electrónica de Consumo en AliExpress.com | Alibaba Group
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Let’s see if I understand it well…

I have now 3x85 W light bulbs.

Let´s say that I add other 6 light bulbs… (USD 60 more or less) it would be a total of 9 light bulbs.
Each 85W CFL light should be comparable with a 350W incandescent light… so let’s consider 350W x 9 = 3150 W x second.

If I shoot with a shutter speed of 1/200 I’ll have to divide 3150W per 200… This means that I’ll count with miserable 15.75 W in that instant.

A speed light flash like Yongnuo will provide for my shoot, I guess, 150 Ws .
More or less 10 times the brightness of 9x85W light bulbs at the same price (USD 70 for 560 IV)

If I use a cheap 300W strobe, I’ll have 20 times more brightness for 90 USD.

Is it correct? Is it really that big the difference between continuous lighting a flashes?



The overall energy is computed as watt seconds (like kilowatt hours on our electric bill, just a much larger unit of kilowatts and hours). One watt second is numerically same as one joule of energy, if that helps at all.

This energy aspect is computed like this:

Continuous light... can only be useful to a camera when the shutter is open.

Let's say 85 watts.

If a one second shutter, then 85 watts x 1 second = 85 watt seconds of energy.

If a 1/200 second shutter, then 85 watts x 1/200 second = 0.42 watt seconds


CFL efficiency might be 4x greater than incandescent (of light output).

So let's say 4x85 is 340 watts incandescent.

340 watts x 1 second = 340 watt seconds.

340 watts x 1/200 second = 1.7 watt seconds.

But since fluorescent is about 4x more efficient than incandescent, really, the output of these two are about the same as the CFL. The greater Incandescent watts number merely creates heat instead of light. That's why we say the CFL light is "equivalent" (as 4x incandescent).

A regular size (full powered) speedlight flash is typically about 75 watt seconds. A smaller version maybe 60 watt seconds.

Watt seconds is about electrical energy input. Output depends on efficiency. Flashes have efficiencies of creating light too, flashes being similarly efficient as fluorescent (both are ionized gas, instead of heated incandescent filaments).

For a light bulb, watts is computed as voltage x amps.... which is a rate of power. then muiitplied by seconds for watt seconds of energy.

For flash, watt seconds is computed as 1/2 CV², C is flash capacitor capacitance, farads, and V is the charge voltage of the capacitor (electrical input energy).
A Nikon SB-800 flash is 1400 ufd at 325 volts, or 73.9 watt seconds (there always is a slight tolerance).

Making up numbers, but if we imagine the flash duration was 1/1000 second, then this implies 75,000 watts at 1/1000 second duration. Flashes put out a lot of light.

So the regular size speedlight flash can be 75 watt seconds, capable of full output at any usable shutter speed, like 1/200 second (because the flash is faster than the shutter... the shutter merely needs to be open). Larger studio flash can be of course much larger.

The 85 watt CFL at 1/200 second is maybe 0.4 watt seconds.

This is a pretty large difference, almost defying comparison. :) But because the efficiency is similar, the 85 watt CFL could compete with the flash if the bulb used a 1 second shutter speed (the flash duration is still very fast, regardless of how long the shutter is open). To me, this suggests that 200 85 watt CFL bulbs at 1/200 second could compete with the speedlight. :)


There are major differences in use. We can see continuous light, to set it up as we like. And the camera can meter continuous light. Neither is true of flash, but we learn to use it, it is not hard.
 
Last edited:

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
Here comes a "selfie".
I had to use the usual ridiculous low shutter speed - with 2x85w CFL light bulbs. It's not much but it's what I have!!!

f 5.6 / 1/10s / 400 ISO

the lens was the 18-55 @ 50

It was hard to focus!!! I had to use a switched off light bulb as a dummies haha.

I added some "clarity" via Photoshop because was it's lacking of sharpness and worked the beard because I tragically discovered that is NOT symmetrical at all (thank you "clone stamp").

Today I have ordered the yangnuo 560 speed light flash and a Godox Strobe (the cheapest one)... Looking forwart to have them!!!
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0223-b.jpg
    DSC_0223-b.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 59
Last edited:

WayneF

Senior Member
Smile a little next time. :) I thought it came out pretty good. I think you show a natural feel for it, and you won't have much trouble with it.

But yes, focus is hard for selfies. Your light bulb idea is as good or better as any. To check my lighting setups, I use a wireless remote shutter, which can focus on me if I line up right. Takes a bit of practice, then it works well.

I think it was two separate lights? If so, apply a little lighting ratio, make them different in brightness by a stop or so, to add slight gradient shading, to show shape instead of flat. This of course is an optional choice, but the usual idea is a main light high and wide, like up to 45 degrees higher than nose, and up to 45 degrees off to side of nose. To make shadows, then the fill light lightens them. The fill light more directly frontal, but weaker by about one stop. However, for B&W work of old men :), maybe as much as 2 or 3 or 4 stops less, which causes extreme contrast, which can be interesting. Sort of a dramatic Hollywood technique. But for women or children in color, softer, not much more than 1 stop difference. B&W can handle more contrast than color.

For this ratio without a light meter, you can imagine the distance of the lights from subject as if the numbers were f/stops. Meaning, distances like 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc. Feet or meters doesn't matter, just be consistent. Then equal lights placed at distances "one stop apart" (in this way) will be one stop difference in light intensity. Two "stops" of distance, then two stops of light difference, etc. Saying again slowly, a light at 1 meter and a light at 1.4 meter will be one stop difference in brightness at the subject. A light at 1 meter and a light at 2.8 meters will be three stops difference in intensity. And such intentional difference is petty much the goal of lighting. I stay near 1 or 1.5 stops for color of ladies.

Here is your first lighting reading assignment. :)

short and broad lighting - Google Search

Do notice the ratios used there, it is about the intentional shadow shading on the faces.
 
Last edited:

Federico-Nov

Senior Member
FWIW, see some example pictures (incandescent, CFL, and flash) that I added to this section of this page:

Shutter speed does not affect flash exposure

WOWWW that's great... it really summarizes all this tread...

I have one question...
Comparing the three images it's impressive how the drop shadow produced by the speedlight it is really "hard edged" and dark... As I red in the book "Light science and magic", I undeastand that this happens because the speedlight is a "small high contrast light" just like the sun...

To avoid that and have a smooth shadow, shell we use a big modifier such as an umbrella?
 
Top