PDA

View Full Version : Question about lighting for small cameras


Booshanky
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 11:12
I work in a hair surgeons office where we routinely take pictures of patients, but the rooms that we take the pictures in have HORRIBLE lighting in them. Just a couple of overhead flourescent lights above that don't even fill the whole room.

We take the pictures to document progression in hair growth so the pictures need to be fairly detailed, but we're having a hard time getting good photos. When I first started working here I made the suggestion that he get a digital rebel and a 430ex and try bouncing the flash off the celing to get decent shots, but for some reason the pictures turn out really bad most of the time and I think it's because of the way the room is set up. The celing is really low and I think the flash is getting dispersed by the overhead plastic covers on the flourscent lights. And on top of that, the room is painted this tan color so I think it screws up the white balance.

I think the biggest problem though is that it's the 65 year old doctor who is taking the photos. Since he knows virtually nothing about photography I've got to find a way for him to take good pictures where he has to nothing but press a shutter button. And to add to the problem, he doesn't take the pictures from one angle, he takes pictures from the top, the side, and then he likes to get really close up to get detailed shots of the hairs.

I was thinking about getting some strobes, but he uses multiple cameras (a digital rebel and an elph) and unless i'm mistaken there's no way to make them flash without a sync cord leaving the elph useless. So the only other option would be to get some continuous flourescent lighting. But either way, it seems like any lighting would be a problem because when he takes the really close up pictures he'd probably get in the way of any light he was taking the pictures with.


I guess my question is this. What sort of lighting would you use in my situation, how would you set it up, and if you know of any good kits you can think of, let me know that as well.

Thanks a bunch.

Curtis N
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 11:21
Bouncing won't work if the photographer fails to think about where the light is going. Have you tried just setting it up for direct flash?

A good option I think would be one of the flashes designed for macro work. Put one of those on the Rebel, M, 1/200, f/11, ISO 100, E-TTL flash. Throw his elph in the garbage when he's not looking.

Also, one of the mini-softboxes that attach to the flash head might work good, too.

Booshanky
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 11:45
Bouncing won't work if the photographer fails to think about where the light is going. Have you tried just setting it up for direct flash?

A good option I think would be one of the flashes designed for macro work. Put one of those on the Rebel, M, 1/200, f/11, ISO 100, E-TTL flash. Throw his elph in the garbage when he's not looking.

Also, one of the mini-softboxes that attach to the flash head might work good, too.

We've tried direct flash, but the problem is that it tends to blow out the skin and we end up missing a lot of the finer hairs that we need to see.

And here's another little problem. I think he wants to make the elph his primary camera. He just likes the fact that you can see what you're taking a picture of on the viewfinder I guess. That's why I'm considering lighting that's off the camera.

Curtis N
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 13:25
If you're getting blowouts at close range with direct flash from the 430EX, it could be that your aperture is just too wide for the flash unit's minimum output at that distance. What aperture/ISO are you using? I know macro shooters use direct flash quite a bit, so there has to be a solution. A diffuser like the Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce might also cut the output enough to make things work.

The Elph, I predict, will soon devolop a fatal error. Someone will accidently drop it or spill something on it. Can't you see that happening? ;)

If he's using flash with the Elph then no amount of additional continuous light will overcome what the flash is doing at that range.

FlashZebra
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 14:33
The most common setup for this sort of thing is a DSLR, a macro lens, and a ring light flash.

These are commonly used by dentists, cosmetic surgeons, and others to document before and after remedial medical procedures.

While this might seem like a big expense for an individual, the cost is small potatoes for something with a medical application.

The ring flash is the key. You get images that document the situation, without shadows, and without complicated setups (no fuss).

Enjoy! Lon

SkipD
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 14:56
I was thinking of a ring flash too. A ring flash actually goes around the lens itself and provides an essentially shadowless lighting.

The close-in source of lighting would probably call for a fairly small aperture, giving you the best depth of field that you could get.

A true macro lens would probably be an advantage so that the close focussing is not taxing the ability of a conventional lens.

FlashZebra
13th of September 2006 (Wed), 15:29
What you need is often marketed as a "dental kit" (camera, macro lens, and ring flash). Call B&H, say "dental kit" and they will set you up with someting just right.

They are even marketed this way on Ebay, see:

http://search.ebay.com/Canon-dental_W0QQfrppZ50QQfsopZ1QQmaxrecordsreturnedZ300

Enjoy! Lon