Question about Short & Broad Lighting

[Greg Jones]

I have been having trouble getting this right, I need to know if I am setting up my poses and lighting correct. My subjects in this set up are on the larger size so I want to use short lighting. In the diag. I have the subjects positioned so that the large side of the face ( ear showing ) is on the fill side. I am setting my key light at a 45deg. angle. Fill light is set at 1 2/3 under my key.
I am having a little trouble with getting the right amount of key hitting both subjects. If I set my ket to the proper exposure for the subject (left ) closest to the key then my other subject (right) is about a stop or so under because of the distance he is from the the key. If I set my fill to take care of the subject on the right then I loose my whole set up for short lighting.
Is this the correct set up for two subjects or is there a better methold.

Thanks !

225997

Hear is a shot I did with three subjects and I had a hard time getting it correct.
I had the lights set up like the diag. I was able to feather the ley one the female but the boy got most of the key.
Should I have used more of a flat lighitng for this type of pose ?

225998

[Wilt]

1. If you use an umbrella or a softbox, set the unit so that its center is aimed to the FARTHEST person. The nearest person will then be situated in the 'feather' of the light where its intensity is diminished from the center intensity, thereby balancing out the falloff. See the illustration for an example.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/feathering.jpg

2. You can move the light FARTHER AWAY, so that the differential in distance between the nearest person and farthest person is minimized. For example, let us assume the far person is 4' farther from the light than the near person. If the light was at 4' distance from the near person, the far person is 8' away...a -2EV difference in intensity! But if the light was at 5.6' from the near person, the far person is 9.6' away...a -1.5EV difference!

If you combine #1 with #2, you have a greater chance of equalizing the lighting intensity across the groupp

[jrsforums]

I suspect your major problem is that the boy is much closer to both lights than the parents. Both the key and fill lights are much brighter on him.

You will either have to get them closer together or move the lights further away (to lower the distance ratio, therefore lower the drop off).

[Greg Jones]

Wilt - this is a big help but I lost you towards the end. I have been told and under the impression that the closer the light to subject the softer it is. The diag. measure of the soft box is 48" there for I kept it 48" from the female. I did aim the center of the soft box towards the father but the boy caught too much of the light.

jrstforums - This is where your observance is correct in that the boy caught both the intensity of both lights.

Now the part I am not following too well, if you cluld just give me a brief explanation. I will look on li\ne and see if I can figure it out too.
EV ?? I for get what EV stands for. With out know that I am at a lost. Once I understand what it means, how do you get the ratio ? Did you divide 8' by the 4' to get EV2 ?
5'6 - 9'6 = EV 1.5 How did you get this ? What is the EV ratio doing for me?
Hmmm, I need to study
I am going to look on line and see if I can figure it out, if I do I will get back to you.
Thanks again for the help

[Greg Jones]

Also ,if I move the subjects further form the light and keep the same f stop setting
EXAMPLE - Box set at 48" from subject f 8.0
Box set at 60" from subject still f 8.0
Won't the light be more intence at 60" because it is not as soft when it is closer ?
I have a feeling thise is where the EV that I am not understanding is comming in .

[PhotosGuy]

EXAMPLE - Box set at 48" from subject f 8.0
Box set at 60" from subject still f 8.0
Won't the light be more intence at 60" because it is not as soft when it is closer ? Intensity & the quality of the light (softness) are two different things.
Intensity of the same light at different distances is determined by the inverse square law which is pretty simple.
From: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66353

The difference between a light at 2.8 feet & the same light at 4 feet is 1 stop.
Same for 8 feet to 11 feet.
Same for 16 feet to 22 feet.

Do you see where the difference between those numbers come from? They come from the The Rule of Inverse Squares & also correspond with f-stop numbers.
4 to 5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16 to 22 to 32 to 45; there's one stop difference in fall-off between them.

The reason you're getting f/8 is the auto metering. So you have to set the EV, which I never have to mess with because I always shoot on manual. Try it sometime.

[Wilt]

Wilt - this is a big help but I lost you towards the end. I have been told and under the impression that the closer the light to subject the softer it is. The diag. measure of the soft box is 48" there for I kept it 48" from the female. I did aim the center of the soft box towards the father but the boy caught too much of the light.

jrstforums - This is where your observance is correct in that the boy caught both the intensity of both lights.

Now the part I am not following too well, if you cluld just give me a brief explanation. I will look on li\ne and see if I can figure it out too.
EV ?? I for get what EV stands for. With out know that I am at a lost. Once I understand what it means, how do you get the ratio ? Did you divide 8' by the 4' to get EV2 ?
5'6 - 9'6 = EV 1.5 How did you get this ? What is the EV ratio doing for me?


Hmmm, I need to study
I am going to look on line and see if I can figure it out, if I do I will get back to you.
Thanks again for the help

Yes, the close the light the larger the apparent size, so the softer it is. But in this circumstance, where you are trying to address the falloff of intensity, you need to compromise a bit in order to take advantage of the relative distances when the light is farther away. Furthermore, you can move a large softbox a farther distance and still keeps its relative size big, without a big decrease in its apparent size (compared to what happens with a small source).

'EV' is simply a term to represent properly 'exposure value' or one unit intensity (2x) of light, or 'one f/stop' is another term. I prefer 'EV' because it implies that you can change 1EV with a change of ISO or shutter speed or aperture, whereas the term 'f/stop' might be misinterpreted to only mean an aperture change!

One trick most do not know, is that for studio light placement, you can interpret actual distances as if they were f/stops, to determine the change in distance which is required to achieve a 1EV change in light intensity due to distance falloff! That is how the starting 4' distance and the ending 8' distance was converted into a -2EV difference in intensity...f/4, f/5.6, f/8.

[Greg Jones]

Photosguy and WIlt, I just wanted to let you know I am not ignoring you. Yesterday I had issues with both of my vehicles and I spent the day working on both of them along with a doctors appointment I had.
I am just now getting around to reading and I have spent the past 1 1/2 reading curtis's thread and Photosguys. I am understanding it and still having a hard time with the numbers but it is slowly sinking in. The square root figuring is now what is confusing me but that isn't hard to do.
Wilt , I have trouble with remembering abbreviations like EV all I could think of was Evaluative, thanks for explaining. It is all mind boggling but I am going to stay with it until I get it.
Photosguy, I am shooting manual. I only used auto for the first week I got my first camera 5 years ago. The f 8 is what I set my key to using a Sekonic meter. I am only part time photography because I have a full time job 6 days a week but I am trying to learn the proper way. I only started with digital and not at all familiar with alot of terms going back to film. I know alot is the same but I just don't have the terminology so I have to learn that along with all functions and beside that I am thick headed. :D
Thanks again for all your help, I am off today and have to get some things done then I will be back to this a little later on.

[Unity Gain]

Dude...you're stressing over nothing :) The picture looks great.

There are pretty much two ways you can balance the light better...One is to move it farther from the subjects like was previously stated. But, this wil also have the effect of making the light harder. You could also use a 1/2 stop scrim and put it on a small stand with a griphead between your mainlight and the subject that is a little overexposed. Sometimes a simple black matteboard cutout placed on a stand will do the trick.

A dot scrim similar to this might work
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/32887-REG/Matthews_219076_Dot_6_.html

If you're interested in scrims and flags do some searches for Matthews products. But geez...your shot looks just fine on it's own. Good job!... especially for somebody that has another full-time career. I'm impressed.

[Greg Jones]

Dude...you're stressing over nothing :) The picture looks great.

There are pretty much two ways you can balance the light better...One is to move it farther from the subjects like was previously stated. But, this wil also have the effect of making the light harder. You could also use a 1/2 stop scrim and put it on a small stand with a griphead between your mainlight and the subject that is a little overexposed. Sometimes a simple black matteboard cutout placed on a stand will do the trick.

A dot scrim similar to this might work
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/32887-REG/Matthews_219076_Dot_6_.html

If you're interested in scrims and flags do some searches for Matthews products. But geez...your shot looks just fine on it's own. Good job!... especially for somebody that has another full-time career. I'm impressed.

Thanks for the scrim idea, I just keep thinking I am doing something wrong on my part. I am going to research it like you said after I get done here.
Oh and thanks for the compliment , I don't get too many only what I am doing wrong but that is ok it makes me want to do better. I am a bit of a perfectionist so I am never happy, always trying to improve.

[René Damkot]

Some good suggestions.

Also: I'ld move the fill to the same side as the key, or at least over the camera. Not on the opposite (broad) side. You an use a reflector there. (all IMHO off course)

Link 1 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=386863&highlight=key+fill+same+side&page=2)
Link2 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=268516&highlight=key+fill+same+side&page=2)

[Greg Jones]

Some good suggestions.

Also: I'ld move the fill to the same side as the key, or at least over the camera. Not on the opposite (broad) side. You an use a reflector there. (all IMHO off course)

Link 1 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=386863&highlight=key+fill+same+side&page=2)
Link2 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=268516&highlight=key+fill+same+side&page=2)

I am limited with height. I have my small studio in my basement and the height between the subjects and camera is restricted by a boxed in duct work. I know the proper place for fill is behind camera and above shooting over the camera but impossible in my case. I could move to the same side as key but I was afraid that I would loose the fill on the right and loose some of the key as well. Hey but I can be all wrong on this, won't hurt to try it.
One problem is I have white walls and I think I am getting bounce from the fill. I had black walls but I wasn't happy with the cast but that might have been a different problems with white balance. I have learned much more since I have cahnged to white so now I am thinking of painting 18% gray to cut down on cast, just a thought. I jsut drapped a black drop on the wall to right of fill to see if that helps. I need more control over the light. The normal 1 to 2 stops uner key for fill doesn't see to get it. My broad side (fill) is getting too much light even at 2 stops under key.
Well that is a whole different problem.

[Greg Jones]

just seen your link posted , checking them out

thanks

BTW, Reflector - don't have ! One thing I have going to get for along time. hwo do you feel about the 5 in 1 for around 25.00 ? It is a 60" and has white ,black ,gold,silver and translucent.
Have I been missing out by not using a reflector?
So many things I need and want and so little money.

[Unity Gain]

If you have an arts supply store close to you...they might sell 4x8 foot sheets of white foamcore. These make excellent reflectors panels.

You know how a sheet of paper can be folded in the middle and then it will stand up on it's own as sort of like 2 sides of a triangle? You can do the same thing with 2 large 4x8 sheets of foamcore. You can put two of them right next to each other and tape them securely together along the 8 foot sides that touch. Then, then they will stand up on their own without a stand.

This will give you a huge white reflector panel that is perfect for filling portraits of single people or small groups. Also, you can stand a head up in the center of it...aim the head directly at the panels....and then bounce the light onto people. This works great for large strip softbox type of effects.

Hope that makes sense...it's kind of hard to explain in writing...but it's really easy and cheap to do and lots of pro studios use the large foamcore panels in this manner.

[Greg Jones]

Sounds like a good idea but I lost you with standing a head in the center. I am picturing a light stand with foam core on each side ( in the center) but I don't think that is what you mean because I can't see how that would work. I cna't picture the head in the middle. You do mean light head ,correct ?
I am not sure how much that would cost but then I don't have the translucent one for a scrim. Am I thinking right ?

Bad drawing ,sorry

[René Damkot]

Good tip about the foamcore!

Head in the center: I think that would be the head bouncing "into" the panels.

So your drawing (without the stand) would be the top view, the light wuld bounce into the panels from the underside of the drawing...

Sorta like the "Bookend bounce" as described on Shootsmarter.com (http://www.shootsmarter.com/content/view/22/)

The 5 in one is nice as well.

IMO there is a bit of difference between the different brands of foldable reflectors: The 'suspension ring' has a different 'feeling' betwen the brands. For instance A Photoflex litedisc folds out more level then another brand (sorry, don't remember the name...)

[Greg Jones]

See I told you I was thick headed LOL. Head in center meaning subjects head positioned on the center of the panel so you get an even balance of light.
I am sure there are differences in disc according to price but I have never seen one and don't know what to expect. Ma by better to stick with name brand like Photoflex.
I like the idea of the foam core, money is tight right now and that would get me started so I can get in a little practice.

[René Damkot]

As long as you are not on location a lot, foamcore works nice. All photographers I work for use it in the studio...

[Unity Gain]

Good tip about the foamcore!

Head in the center: I think that would be the head bouncing "into" the panels.

So your drawing (without the stand) would be the top view, the light wuld bounce into the panels from the underside of the drawing...

Sorta like the "Bookend bounce" as described on Shootsmarter.com (http://www.shootsmarter.com/content/view/22/)



Yep that's what I was talking about...Kind of like a book-end or open book



The 5 in one is nice as well.

IMO there is a bit of difference between the different brands of foldable reflectors: The 'suspension ring' has a different 'feeling' betwen the brands. For instance A Photoflex litedisc folds out more level then another brand (sorry, don't remember the name...)

My westcott reflectors have kinda "janky" suspension rings...That might be the brand you're thinking of :) I've recently ordered a scrim jim set from B&H so hopefully that'll solve my problem.

The funny thing is...I worked in an advertising studio for 2 years and we used foamcore panels all the time. We never used fancy reflectors and stuff. My boss had a bunch of cutouts of black and white panels in every different size. HIs day rate was $4500, so it just goes to show that we don't need a whole lot of fancy stuff to take good pictures.

[René Damkot]

Lastolite I think it was :)