Softbox Debut Image

[Bearface]

Was trialling a new studio lighting kit today; the current Bowens lights and softboxes are getting on a bit now, bless 'em... :rolleyes:

The kit on loan to me comprised an Elinchron RX600 flash head, an Octo 190 softbox (that's 6' 2" in diameter...) and the usual stands and control gubbins. I have to say that in terms of speed and accuracy, the kit left my existing lights for dead, which I suppose is to be expected, as they're about ten years old now.

The Octo (octagonal, believe it or not :)) softbox was a revelation, as with the diffusers fitted it gave of a beautifully even edge to edge light, ideal for portraiture and full-length fashion work. It's a ******** to set up, but once you've hoisted it up and set it, it's consistent and fast, which is all you can ask for. Not really sure I need the 600w versions of the flash-heads however (using just over half the power at a couple of metres easily gave me f11), so I'll probably get two of the 400w models and save myself about £600... :eek: Will probably continue with the 3 Bowens lights / softboxes etc when more than two are needed (not often really), and also for when there are two of us (my girlfriend is also a photographer) in the studio. Luvverly jubberly :D

Anyway, this is one of the shots that came out of the kit test. The model is called Kris and she came to update her portfolio. The setup was simply the large octo softbox to the left of frame and a large silver reflector to the right. Camera was the Canon 5D with the 70-200mm f4L at 80mm. Shot at 1/100th @ f8 / ISO 100. If you feel like commenting feel free, but I was really just sharing the experience in case there are any of you considering a new lighting setup ;)

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/684/029web.jpg

[Tinka]

Hi,
A beautiful portrait of a beautiful subject, How come you get all the best jobs? (Envy Envy)

[Patrick]

Was trialling a new studio lighting kit today; the current Bowens lights and softboxes are getting on a bit now, bless 'em... :rolleyes:

The kit on loan to me comprised an Elinchron RX600 flash head, an Octo 190 softbox (that's 6' 2" in diameter...) and the usual stands and control gubbins. I have to say that in terms of speed and accuracy, the kit left my existing lights for dead, which I suppose is to be expected, as they're about ten years old now.

The Octo (octagonal, believe it or not :)) softbox was a revelation, as with the diffusers fitted it gave of a beautifully even edge to edge light, ideal for portraiture and full-length fashion work. It's a ******** to set up, but once you've hoisted it up and set it, it's consistent and fast, which is all you can ask for. Not really sure I need the 600w versions of the flash-heads however (using just over half the power at a couple of metres easily gave me f11), so I'll probably get two of the 400w models and save myself about £600... :eek: Will probably continue with the 3 Bowens lights / softboxes etc when more than two are needed (not often really), and also for when there are two of us (my girlfriend is also a photographer) in the studio. Luvverly jubberly :D

Anyway, this is one of the shots that came out of the kit test. The model is called Kris and she came to update her portfolio. The setup was simply the large octo softbox to the left of frame and a large silver reflector to the right. Camera was the Canon 5D with the 70-200mm f4L at 80mm. Shot at 1/100th @ f8 / ISO 100. If you feel like commenting feel free, but I was really just sharing the experience in case there are any of you considering a new lighting setup ;)

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/684/029web.jpg

Lovely shot of a lovely girl, nice simple lighting, good hair texture and skin tone, the hand may be a little awkward.
I’m uncomfortable with the bottom third of the picture, the out of focus area with the dark jeans white blouse bottom and the dangling necklace. Can’t help feeling it would be better cropped off, it certainly doesn’t add to the overall picture.

Patrick

[Goatsmilkuk]

Just looking at the shot, got me wondering as I have never taken a portrait shot in a studio of any description, how do you go about setting it all up, how do know where to place the light and what camera and lens settings would you use in a shot like this? Do you use set poses or what ever works on the day?

I keep meaning to have a go at using natural light from a window and reflector, just need to get a friend or family to model for me.

Sorry for all the questions, but I have been looking at your shots and they got me thinking how you go about it.

Cheers

Stu

EDIT: I have just read the comments posted by Patrick, now for me the bottom of the picture works well, I like the depth it adds, the girl wearing the jeans with the necklace also works for me as she looks more normal, not like a typical model who do look a bit plastic at times.

[Ian]

Hi Tim, now of course I'm being ultra critical here, but I find the left eye (as viewed) has too much reflection in it for my liking. The cuff on (as viewed) the right looks bleached to me and her hair looks a bit dull and lacking in shine?

Now of course these observations may be off-traget, I don't know. Are they important for this type of work?

Ian

[lumix]

Hi Tim, now of course I'm being ultra critical here, but I find the left eye (as viewed) has too much reflection in it for my liking. The cuff on (as viewed) the right looks bleached to me and her hair looks a bit dull and lacking in shine?

Now of course these observations may be off-traget, I don't know. Are they important for this type of work?

Ian
Took the words right out of my mouth. The left eye to me is not very flattering to a pretty girl like her. The hair needs some side lighting.

[Archangel]

Was trialling a new studio lighting kit today; the current Bowens lights and softboxes are getting on a bit now, bless 'em... :rolleyes:

The kit on loan to me comprised an Elinchron RX600 flash head, an Octo 190 softbox (that's 6' 2" in diameter...) and the usual stands and control gubbins. I have to say that in terms of speed and accuracy, the kit left my existing lights for dead, which I suppose is to be expected, as they're about ten years old now.

The Octo (octagonal, believe it or not :)) softbox was a revelation, as with the diffusers fitted it gave of a beautifully even edge to edge light, ideal for portraiture and full-length fashion work. It's a ******** to set up, but once you've hoisted it up and set it, it's consistent and fast, which is all you can ask for. Not really sure I need the 600w versions of the flash-heads however (using just over half the power at a couple of metres easily gave me f11), so I'll probably get two of the 400w models and save myself about £600... :eek: Will probably continue with the 3 Bowens lights / softboxes etc when more than two are needed (not often really), and also for when there are two of us (my girlfriend is also a photographer) in the studio. Luvverly jubberly :D

Anyway, this is one of the shots that came out of the kit test. The model is called Kris and she came to update her portfolio. The setup was simply the large octo softbox to the left of frame and a large silver reflector to the right. Camera was the Canon 5D with the 70-200mm f4L at 80mm. Shot at 1/100th @ f8 / ISO 100. If you feel like commenting feel free, but I was really just sharing the experience in case there are any of you considering a new lighting setup ;)

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/684/029web.jpg

Tim,

The points I wanted to comment have already been covered by previous user postings.
Indeed the mirroring in the eye is something to consider. Though most of the times when people wearing contact lenses (if any at this photo) reflections are created.
It looks to me that you had positioned the camera straight across the girl. Maybe some slight camera angle could solve this, but I don't know how possible that was according to the studio light setup, since different camera angle placement could create more intense mirroring if studio lights were set up to have the camera positioned straight across the model.

I personally prefer the entire girl to be tack sharp (bottom part slightly blurred), but since I know your style from other portrait photos you have done, I know that this was done intentionally since you like some slight blurriness around the portraits.

I like the skin tones, they are very natural. Finally I personally think, that a minor correction of the mirroring in the eyes (there is also some slight mirroring on the right eye too) is all that this photo needs.
AS far as the DOF that is personal preference to each and when it comes to personal preferences all opinions are welcomed and respected too.

If she is not married, I'm willing to divorce :D...just kidding.


Regards

George

[Bearface]

Hi Tim, now of course I'm being ultra critical here, but I find the left eye (as viewed) has too much reflection in it for my liking. The cuff on (as viewed) the right looks bleached to me and her hair looks a bit dull and lacking in shine?

Now of course these observations may be off-traget, I don't know. Are they important for this type of work?

Ian


Hi Ian,

The point of this series of shots was to test the single light and (very) large softbox, and primarily to determine how the light was distributed, so consequently no fill-in (apart from the reflector to the right of frame) and no directional hair light was used in this instance.

What I learned was that the light spread (using this setup) was consistent and even, which will make setting up a full portrait arrangement far easier than it is for me already. Also, as someone who has always used square or rectangular softboxes, I was very pleased with the shape of the catchlights in the model's eyes; they're definitely more "organic" looking and therefore more appropriate.

The exposure of the shirt is actually spot-on, something which is illustrated by the print I made of this shot last night. It does however look slightly hot on-screen, although strong highlights seem to feature increasingly in this type of work these days, so it's no big deal, at least not for me :D

The catchlights in the eyes are fine, and if you look through fashion magazines etc you'll see that photographers are less obsessive about the size and quantity than they used to be, particularly in the fashion world. As to whether individuals like these large octagonal ones or not............well that's entirely subjective and I'm not going to argue with anyone who has a preference for less intrusive, smaller ones ;)

George, with regard to catchlights........they add a dimension to the eyes and are pretty much part and parcel of studio photography. Even when using ambient or natural light, you'll usually get something of the scene and the light-source reflected in the eyes themselves. To me though, and most photographers, they aren't generally seen as something to avoid. Hope that helps?

The model's hair was something we didn't spend too much time on, as she arrived at 3pm and needed to be away at 5pm.........we simply tidied up her make-up and essentially stuck with this basic setup for the duration of the session. In posting this shot here, rather than in the critique forum, I was really highlighting the capability of the single light source rather than showcasing the image as something to behold, so yes........with some extra lighting and improved styling, it could certainly be improved... :D

Lumix, George and anyone else...........thanks for your comments. Please view this as a response to you guys too :)

[Goatsmilkuk]

Tinka and me like it :)

[Bearface]

Tinka and me like it :)

Well I do too, although had this been a "proper" shoot, the lighting would've been more dynamic and we would've styled the model's hair to a greater extent. As portraits go however, it's not bad at all......but thanks for the vote of confidence ;)

[lumix]

Tim as I'm out of touch with modern equipment can I ask, would the catch lights have been this big, if you upped the power but moved the softbox further away? We never had softboxes in my day so I'm keen to know if my thinking is on the right lines.

[Patrick]

Hi Ian,

The point of this series of shots was to test the single light and (very) large softbox, and primarily to determine how the light was distributed, so consequently no fill-in (apart from the reflector to the right of frame) and no directional hair light was used in this instance.

What I learned was that the light spread (using this setup) was consistent and even, which will make setting up a full portrait arrangement far easier than it is for me already. Also, as someone who has always used square or rectangular softboxes, I was very pleased with the shape of the catchlights in the model's eyes; they're definitely more "organic" looking and therefore more appropriate.

The exposure of the shirt is actually spot-on, something which is illustrated by the print I made of this shot last night. It does however look slightly hot on-screen, although strong highlights seem to feature increasingly in this type of work these days, so it's no big deal, at least not for me :D

The catchlights in the eyes are fine, and if you look through fashion magazines etc you'll see that photographers are less obsessive about the size and quantity than they used to be, particularly in the fashion world. As to whether individuals like these large octagonal ones or not............well that's entirely subjective and I'm not going to argue with anyone who has a preference for less intrusive, smaller ones ;)

The model's hair was something we didn't spend too much time on, as she arrived at 3pm and needed to be away at 5pm.........we simply tidied up her make-up and essentially stuck with this basic setup for the duration of the session. In posting this shot here, rather than in the critique forum, I was really highlighting the capability of the single light source rather than showcasing the image as something to behold, so yes........with some extra lighting and improved styling, it could certainly be improved... :D

Lumix, George and anyone else...........thanks for your comments. Please view this as a response to you guys too :)

Hope you don’t mind but that bottom third did get to me so I have cropped it .
I liked the eyes and didn’t feel much was wrong with the hair either. But in response to the other comment (again forgive me) I have darkened the eyes and brightened the hair.

Patrick

[Goatsmilkuk]

Hope you don’t mind but that bottom third did get to me so I have cropped it .
I liked the eyes and didn’t feel much was wrong with the hair either. But in response to the other comment (again forgive me) I have darkened the eyes and brightened the hair.

Patrick


I think it looks a bit cramped with the bottom cropped of, almost as if the model is too big for the frame, plus I do prefer those catch lights in the eyes, gives a boost to the shot for me.

But then it would be a boring old world if we all liked the same.

Stu

[Bearface]

Tim as I'm out of touch with modern equipment can I ask, would the catch lights have been this big, if you upped the power but moved the softbox further away? We never had softboxes in my day so I'm keen to know if my thinking is on the right lines.

Moving the light further away (it was already over six feet from the model) and turning up the power would've been possible, but control over the light-fall would've been reduced and this would've changed the effect of the lighting overall. That said, I don't have an issue with the catchlights, so consequently I wasn't looking for ways to reduce them during the shoot :D

[Bearface]

Hope you don’t mind but that bottom third did get to me so I have cropped it .
I liked the eyes and didn’t feel much was wrong with the hair either. But in response to the other comment (again forgive me) I have darkened the eyes and brightened the hair.

Patrick

Patrick, I'm always happy for people to adjust / experiment with any of my shots posted here. I appreciate the feedback, even if I don't always agree with the suggestions made ;)

During the shoot, I actually made crops in-camera similar to this, but I felt that including the upper legs and the beads (despite them being incidental) gave the shot more context and depth, which (for me) the closer crop fails to achieve. Without the lower third of the original, one sees far less of the model and her positioning, which somehow makes the shot less intimate, despite the fact that technically, we're brought closer to her in your version :D

Nevertheless, I appreciate your time and input; thanks very much ;)

[Archangel]

George, with regard to catchlights........they add a dimension to the eyes and are pretty much part and parcel of studio photography. Even when using ambient or natural light, you'll usually get something of the scene and the light-source reflected in the eyes themselves.

Tim,

Absolutely true in regards to the catchlights, ambient and natural light.


To me though, and most photographers, they aren't generally seen as something to avoid. Hope that helps?


Here we slightly disagree Tim.

It depends on what is the effect of the light reflection on the eyes.
In the specific photo the reflection has caused half of the eye core (if this is the correct word for the dark round part inside the eye, surrounded by the blue part) to be visible and the other half to be blown out by the light reflection.
For this specific side effect of this specific lighting reflection, it is something to avoid at least in my opinion.

What most photographers do, given the limited time of model availability, equipment and facilities (not all photographs of models are taken under personal private studios on ideal situations, but also on stage or behind stages, or other out of personal/private studio facilities) and given that the photos will be on magazines and not in photo exhibitions, is not something that should be always define a rule or a proper strategy/technique.


Regards

George

[Bearface]

Here we slightly disagree Tim.

It depends on what is the effect of the light reflection on the eyes.
In the specific photo the reflection has caused half of the eye core to be visible and the other half to be blown out by the light reflection.
For this specific side effect of this specific lighting reflection, it is something to avoid at least in my opinion.

The iris hasn't been "blown out" by the light reflection, as the attached crop demonstrates. It's just a reflection, albeit one that some people are uncomfortable with. What makes it acceptable or unacceptable is purely subjective, and not subject to measurement or technical criticism.

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/682/029print.jpg

What most photographers do, given the limited time of model availability, equipment and facilities (not all photographs of models are taken under personal private studios on ideal situations, but also on stage or behind stages, or other out of personal/private studio facilities) and given that the photos will be on magazines and not in photo exhibitions, is not something that should be always define a rule or a proper strategy/technique.

No single rule or set of rules can be applied to the multitude of contexts and situations we work in. In fact, in the fields I work in, the rules and trends change almost constantly, which means that nothing is ever right (or wrong) for any period of time. What's appropriate for an exhibition may be totally wrong for a magazine (and vice versa), but if a shot is considered and it has a legitimate place in the context of it's purpose, I'd argue that it can never be wrong...:D

[Patrick]

The iris hasn't been "blown out" by the light reflection, as the attached crop demonstrates. It's just a reflection, albeit one that some people are uncomfortable with. What makes it acceptable or unacceptable is purely subjective, and not subject to measurement or technical criticism.

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/682/029print.jpg



No single rule or set of rules can be applied to the multitude of contexts and situations we work in. In fact, in the fields I work in, the rules and trends change almost constantly, which means that nothing is ever right (or wrong) for any period of time. What's appropriate for an exhibition may be totally wrong for a magazine (and vice versa), but if a shot is considered and it has a legitimate place in the context of it's purpose, I'd argue that it can never be wrong...:D

I total agree with Bearface on this, catch lights in the eyes are essential, they give a portrait that lift, without a portrait is lacklustre. In fact I have said this before on the forum, they eyes are the most important part of a portrait, I have also said “the eyes are the widow to the soul”

Patrick