Analyze this lighting/shooting technique

I posted this in the "Pets" section and barely got any views let alone any replies. Hoping that being in the lighting section might get a more knowlegeable readership.

So, I just read an article about a fashion photographer named Matthew Seed who is using his fashion style with horses. Went to check out his website. I really like what he's doing and would like to break it down to learn from and continue my growth in equine photography. I've mostly been a natural light shooter so this kind of work would be a big departure for me.

I see a single, probably large, artifical light source with a 1-2.5 stop underexposed background. Lens selection seems to be normal to wide with a deep depth of field. Most shots are from low angle; probably at or below the horses belly. What other details am I missing? What kind of lighting is needed for this type of work? I'm guessing it would need to be pretty powerful. Other thoughts?

http://www.horse-photographer.co.uk/ind​ex.html

Bob

If you want any useful analysis, pick a single frame to pick apart. I see a lot of techniques going on here to build a common style.

As gonzo says, you are going to have to deconstruct a number of the images to understand the techniques. A couple of things I noticed; in one facial close up there is a beauty dish reflection in the eye. Several of the images have shadow/highlight transitions that suggest a large directional light source such as a beauty dish or octa/softbox without a front diffusion panel.

The deep focus probably has to do with needing to overcome relatively bright ambient light so that the flash can dominate. Probably most significant is that these all seem to be shot in a controlled situation where lighting can be setup and ratios planned before shooting with the horse.

My suggestion is to select two or three that you especially like, talk to an owner/friend and set up a test shoot. Use a stand-in for the horse until you have the lighting you like. As he points out on the site, taking care that the lights do not spook the horse is probably also an important part of the planning.

The gallery image of the horse's eye will tell you a lot.

Many of the shots are done without really 'large' source...shadow definition of legs is seen on the ground, that cannot be due to a softbox or umbrella. I'd say that a snoot or a grid was employed in many shots, to restrict the cone of light...which one determines the characteristics of the edge of illuminated circle of light.

Ok, so in my own experiences using a speedlight, it takes a lot of light to properly expose a subject 10-15 feet away from the source when stopped down to f/16-22. If I were going to buy a single light to experiment with this technique, how many watts do I need? Are there calculators for determining requirements? Can a beauty dish be removed from a light so a softbox can be installed? Can a rechargeable system provide enough light? Getting the right equipment is my biggest hurdle. That's the unknown for me. I have a barn full of horses and plenty of experience handling them.

Bob

You are going to want to look at monolights. A minimum of 640 watt seconds like the alien bee 1600 or Einstein from PCB. Even that wont let you do it midday, but should suffice for later. www.alienbees.com Things like beauty dishes, softboxes etc. mount on the front of the light. They are easily changed out, but each company has a proprietary (sometimes shared with other companies as well) mount so they are not universal.

Hot Bob wrote in post #14649505
Ok, so in my own experiences using a speedlight, it takes a lot of light to properly expose a subject 10-15 feet away from the source when stopped down to f/16-22. If I were going to buy a single light to experiment with this technique, how many watts do I need?

gonzogolf wrote in post #14649530
You are going to want to look at monolights. A minimum of 640 watt seconds like the alien bee 1600 or Einstein from PCB.

AB1600 is 640 Watt-seconds, Buff claims GN155 with standard reflector at ISO 100. So at 14' it would allow you to shoot at f/11 (155/11=14). If you increase ISO to 200, would allow f/16 at 14'. The problem outdoors is that ISO 200, the Sunny 16 rule of thumb indicates f/16 at 1/200 sec, so the AB1600 is capable of -1EV fill intensity at 14'

The problem with watt-second ratings is that different brands/models are different in efficiency in converting watt-seconds of stored energy into Lumens of light. If you take 4 different brands/models of 1000 Watt-second studio lights, you are likely to get four different f/stops at 10' distance, because of electrical conversion efficiency and because of different reflector angles of coverage, and because of different reflector surface efficiencies!

My own Dynalite M500 (500 w-s) power pack into a Dynalite head with integrated 140 degree coverage (5mm lens on APS-C) reflector head measures f/13 at 10' ISO 100, or GN130. In comparison, the AB1600 (640 w-s) standard reflector covers a circle of 80 degrees (16mm lens on APS-C), or 22' of light at 5' distance with my Dynalite vs. 7' of light at 5' with the AB1600.

If I were going to do shoots similar to those in the gallery, I'd use my Einstein with a VML battery.
The combination, along with appropriate modifier(s), offer significant flexibility and control.

BCB also has a good selection of reflectors and grids, along with foldable soft boxes or octaboxes. They also have grids available to help shape the light.

There are also a lot of other options for high powered lights but the price goes up dramatically.

With the Cyber Commander you have control of the Einstein from camera position which adds significantly to ease of use, especially when dealing with a subject such as a horse.

My advice: Go out there and do it. You'll quickly discover what is and isn't possible to do with your current equipment which will lead you to consider what you might want to change.

You've got the horses, presumably the time and a goal, and most importantly, the desire. No amount of keyboard lighting theory is a good replacement for actually 'doing' imo.

It's a process...

Hot Bob wrote in post #14647952
What other details am I missing? What kind of lighting is needed for this type of work? I'm guessing it would need to be pretty powerful. Other thoughts?

http://www.horse-photographer.co.uk/ind​ex.html

Bob

The photographer used a Profoto Beauty dish with and without grid.. probably the 22" version and a B2 pack with twin head (2400ws).

What about the White Lightning X3200 with a Vagabond mini battery? Will that give me enough power to work in daylight? What would recycle times be like with a battery at full power?

Bob

Seems like they are all taken with low sun, clouds, or inside. Only a few have what could possible be tree shadows from the sun. Could be a tripod mounted camera and composite of more than one image. This photographer has certainly found a way to make money with his camera and computer.

most are shot stopped down to f16-22 and the photographer is using a strobe with a beauty dish (gridded in some of the frames) the horse head shots are just gridded or flagged lights shot at a very norrow apeture to crush the ambient light.

dg

Foodguy wrote in post #14652738
My advice: Go out there and do it. You'll quickly discover what is and isn't possible to do with your current equipment which will lead you to consider what you might want to change.

You've got the horses, presumably the time and a goal, and most importantly, the desire. No amount of keyboard lighting theory is a good replacement for actually 'doing' imo.

It's a process...

Well Foodguy, I think you're right! I need to get out and see what I can do. I ordered a light stand and I'm looking for a flash bracket that I can mount my 550EX with. I'll start with working in the evenings or deep shade and see what happens.

Bob