Continuous lighting question....

Hi.

My name is Jessica and I'm a newbie here. I found this forum while doing a search for photography forums and I'm hoping someone can help me.

I guess since photography is what I make a living off of, I really ought to learn more about it. A little background on myself, I run a amateur (adult) paysite. It's NOT a "porn" site and it's really tastefully done. Seriously. I bought a new camera last year (Canon Digital Rebel XT) and I found out soon after that it didn't seem to work well with external flash. So I switched to continuous lighting, which I really like better for the WYSIWYG advantage. I shot off a photo set last week using one 500W light reflected through a translucent umbrella. I liked the lighting effect but for some reason alot of the photos were blurred. This is what I don't understand about lighting. If you look at the photos, you can see that there WAS enough lighting, but WHY doesn't the camera see it that way? I am fascinated about the topic of lighting but it also alludes me. I know the camera lens sees light differently than the human eye, but I just don't know how.

So I wondered....does it matter how close the camera is to the light source? I'm sure it probably does and I'm sure the best way to figure this out is to just experiment.

I wish I could just find someone knowledgeable about this stuff and pay them for one on one lessons! I would too! The thing is, I have a ton of photography books and I read them but then I also have a ton of questions afterwards and don't have anyone to ask.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my ramblings and any comments would be appreciated!

Jessica

Since your info is spotty, this is my best guess:

Most likely you just do not have as much light as you had with your flash images. This has caused three things that are likely to make you images look blurred.

This is likely the most important - the low light condition has allowed your shutter to drop to a very low value. This has allowed you to actually shake the camera during the exposure, causing the blur. If you are using the kit lens (18-55mm lens) be sure that you keep your shutter speed to at least 1/30 sec on the wide end (18mm) and to at least 1/90 sec on the long end (55mm). In the middle of the zoom range, use something proportional.

The lack of light has inhibited your camera to be able to focus accurately. As light falls off, so does focus accuracy.

The lack of light has forced you to use a large aperture. This large aperture creates a very shallow depth of field, possibly making part of the frame out of focus.

All of these problems could be reduced by having more light. Also, try working at the higher ISO values. High ISO increases image noise, but a bit more noise should typically be better than blurry images.

If you could post an image with the EXIF data, the help might be more precise and less of a guess on what might be happening.

Enjoy! Lon

My thoughts are pretty much exactly the same as Lon here, which is a bit irritating.

Though it's not designed to be a studio camera, the RebelXT should work well with a hotshoe-mounted flash unit, as long as said flash unit is designed to work with the Canon E-TTL system. With the right adapter it should also work fine with studio strobes. Tell us more about the "external flash" that you have tried.

I did a few portraits with two 500W halogen shop lights, no umbrella, and a silver reflector. Even with the lights only 4 feet from the subject, I managed only a 1/30 shutter speed at f/5.6 and ISO 100. This required a tripod and perfectly still subjects. Those shop lights may seem bright, but they pale in comparison to sunshine or even the built-in flash unit.

Hi Lon!

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you are probably right, there isn't enough light.

I should probably explain some more as well. I don't actually shoot the photos. I set up the lights how I want them, but I have someone snap off the photos for me. He isn't really into photography and I just tell him out I want the photos shot & framed. So I don't know alot about photography and either does he.

For that photo set the shutter was set at 1/8-1/13 sec and aperture f/3.5. The ISO speed was 100 for the photos. Also, he didn't use the tripod the whole time. I have 2 500watt lights that I normally use together (the light is shot through translucent umbrellas) and usually it's okay. But for this set I liked the look of one light from the side and although it looked like enough light to me, it obviously wasn't enough for the camera.

Is it OK to just post a image here along with my post? And is the EXIF data the same data as if I right click on the photo, properties and summary?

I finally decided to call National Camera Exchange and see if there is anyone that they know of who gives one on one lessons. I figure since they give classes on photography, they probably know some local photographers who do such things. Well the guy that works at National Camera Exchange says that he himself has done this before and I explained what my needs are (lighting setups, questions about my camera, etc.) and he said they seem like fairly easy problems to solve. So.....I am going to pay him to explain all of this stuff to me and the person who takes my photos. I have wanted to find someone like this for quite a while! A photographer who I can just sit down with and talk to one on one and have them help me figure out what I'm doing, why the camera doesn't do what I want it to (because *I* don't know how to set it!) and a ton of other things.

I'll be honest, usually I'm too intimidated to post to these types of forums because I feel everyone on here is probably pro or am-pro and my questions would probably come off stupid. So I appreciate the responses!


Jessica

Curtis--

Thanks for your reply. GRRR! I wish I would have know that the Rebel XT wasn't designed to be a studio camera! That would have saved me $1200!

The external flash I had....it was a flash housed in a 2x3 softbox. I bought the adapter that goes on top of the camera so I could use the flash with the camera. And it worked fine in that the flash triggered like it was suppose to, but the images were unpredictable. The first shot would be very bright, the second darker and the 3rd even darker! So I figured the camera just didn't work well with external flash and I switched to continuous lighting instead. I liked the effect of the continuous lights because my hair/eye/skin color looked more accurate. Where as with the external flash, I felt the photos always had a "cool" feel to them. Like a subtle blue cast. At first, I didn't adjust the white balance with the continuous lights because I kinda liked the "warm glow" that was cast on my skin. And for the types of photos I do (lingerie/tasteful nudes), the effect was nice. But then I wanted the colors to be truer to what they were and adjusted the white balance for the tungsten lighting and that's when I noticed it slowed the camera down even more, well I mean the shutter speed. I guess the way around that would be to use gels with the continuous lights (if I can find some that won't catch on fire! lol) or use blue lights or...I don't know.

Jessica

shedsomelight wrote:
Hi Lon!

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you are probably right, there isn't enough light.

I should probably explain some more as well. I don't actually shoot the photos. I set up the lights how I want them, but I have someone snap off the photos for me. He isn't really into photography and I just tell him out I want the photos shot & framed. So I don't know alot about photography and either does he.

For that photo set the shutter was set at 1/8-1/13 sec and aperture f/3.5. The ISO speed was 100 for the photos. Also, he didn't use the tripod the whole time. I have 2 500watt lights that I normally use together (the light is shot through translucent umbrellas) and usually it's okay. But for this set I liked the look of one light from the side and although it looked like enough light to me, it obviously wasn't enough for the camera.

Is it OK to just post a image here along with my post? And is the EXIF data the same data as if I right click on the photo, properties and summary?

I finally decided to call National Camera Exchange and see if there is anyone that they know of who gives one on one lessons. I figure since they give classes on photography, they probably know some local photographers who do such things. Well the guy that works at National Camera Exchange says that he himself has done this before and I explained what my needs are (lighting setups, questions about my camera, etc.) and he said they seem like fairly easy problems to solve. So.....I am going to pay him to explain all of this stuff to me and the person who takes my photos. I have wanted to find someone like this for quite a while! A photographer who I can just sit down with and talk to one on one and have them help me figure out what I'm doing, why the camera doesn't do what I want it to (because *I* don't know how to set it!) and a ton of other things.

I'll be honest, usually I'm too intimidated to post to these types of forums because I feel everyone on here is probably pro or am-pro and my questions would probably come off stupid. So I appreciate the responses!

Jessica

I'm in MN too, and I assume that if you are going to Nat Cam, you are most likely in the twin cities. Have you checked out West Photo? I've been in there a couple times, and they seem really knowledgeable (and with better prices). It is the only local place I've been able to find that you can rent lenses and other equipment. I don't know much about your specific question, but I am kinda intrested in the answers you get because my gf just got an XT and will probably want to do similar shooting situations. Feel free to hit me up on here.

Your flash issues could have been from the flash not having enough time to re-charge between shots. Was it a Canon flash?

Couple more things... Use a tripod as much as possible, and shoot RAW format. You can adjust your white balance after you shoot.

shedsomelight wrote:
Hi Lon!
I'll be honest, usually I'm too intimidated to post to these types of forums because I feel everyone on here is probably pro or am-pro and my questions would probably come off stupid. So I appreciate the responses!
Jessica

Yes, as I suspected, those very slow shutter speeds are the main source of your problems with the continuous lights at 1/8 and 1/13 of a second the camera will shake and the images will be very blurred.

Getting some basic lessons sounds like a very good idea.

There is a grand collection of photographers on this forum, some very experienced, and some with very little experience.

Post your questions. There are very generous humans on this forum. I suggest just posting your questions and don't really worry too much about the fact you are new at this.

When you post try to be as specific as you can with your setup. Include info on all the gear you are using, and state the model numbers. The more detail you provide. The better help you will get.

It sounds like you have a pretty good flash setup. Please post info on exactly what you have, especially info on the actual flash unit. Are you running a cord from your camera to this flash unit?

I suspect working a bit to get the kinks out of you flash technique is your best bet at getting high quality and consistent images. I would just back off on the 500 watt lights. You can get the subtle color tone you want to your photographs in any image editor, after the session is over.

And, the Digital Rebel camera is perfect for what you are doing. It is a very nice camera capable of images with very high fidelity.

Enjoy! Lon

Do be affraid it ask questions. It is how you will learn. If possible post a sample so we can "see" what your saying.

Thanks for the responses!

braduardo--Yup, I'm in the Twin Cities area. I haven't been to West Photo before though. I've been to Pierce Co for backdrops before though. About the flash, it wasn't a Canon flash. I would think that it would have had enough time to recharge in-between because we (my photographer) doesn't shoot off multiple snaps. I like to have a variety in my poses so there is usually a few seconds (usually more) in-between shots. The thing is, before I got my Canon, I used the flash with my old Olympus (digital) and it worked fine. So one week I'm using it with the old camera and it works fine, then I try it with my Canon and the images are bright, darker and even darker?? I bought the 3 strobe light set off of ebay some time ago. I want to say it's JTL or something like that. Let me look...no it's YinYan and it says BY-120E on the back of the flash. It was a 3 flash set, 2 strobes with umbrellas and a flash in a softbox.

I think the fact that I didn't use the tripod had ALOT to do with the blurry images. But the thing is, it's a TOTAL pain in the a$$ trying to get unusual angles and stuff when using the tripod. And yeah, I know it's a catch22. As for adjusting the white balance, well I really try and shoot off the best possible photos that I can without trying to rely too heavily on Photoshop afterwards. I usually shoot the photos in the Large Normal setting. I guess I also don't really understand enough about RAW images....

Curtis---Yeah, I noticed there was no PC terminal and I couldn't believe it. I paid less money for my Olympus about 3-4 years ago and THAT had one! I guess I mainly bought it because I needed a new camera and it got alot of good reviews on dpreview.com.

You know, I don't think I ever *did* set the camera white balance to flash when I did use my external flash with it. In fact, until you mentioned it, I didn't even know that was an option! Doh! :P When I bought my camera, I knew it had alot of options that I didn't have a clue about. But the whole idea was that I would "grow" into them and learn how to use them. As for the make and model of my flash unit. It's probably some generic make, it's Yinyan and it has BY-120E on the back of the flash unit. I don't know if that means anything. I bought it off of ebay about 3 years ago.

Lon-- Thanks for your comments I don't have a cord for the external flash because the "thing" I got from National Camera exchange was a wireless trigger. All it says on it is "Radio Trigger model # RT01T".

I haven't used the flash unit for months because I was fed up with the problems I was having with it. And as I've said before, in all my time of using it, I've never been able to get the true skin/hair/eye colors with it as I have with the continuous lighting.

I don't know if this helps any, but here is an example of what I was talking about:

http://www.mistressjes​sica.net/ladyinred3.jp​g

The photo wasn't as clear as I'd like it to be (and that wasn't even one of the blurrier ones!) but I did like the lighting effect. And I could NEVER get the highlights in my hair to show up with flash, it always looked like one dark clump! So, I like the WYSIWYG aspect of continuous lighting, but I also realize that my images haven't been as sharp as when I used my external flash.

BTW-- I have another question. Do people rely heavily on photo editing programs for post processing? I've always tried to get the lighting/color right when I shoot the photos, so I don't have to mess about too much in Photoshop afterwards. Because having to edit 50-70 photos per photoset is no fun! :P

Again, thanks for all of you comments!

Jessica

PS-- Lon, is this the photo info you were talking about? I did a screen cap of it because I *think* that's what you were referring to....

http://www.mistressjes​sica.net/photoinfo.jpg

Jessica

Yep, that's the info. If you use 'save as' instead of 'save for web' in Photoshop it stays embedded in the image. Now it's gone...
Continuous lighting will be fine, if you use a higher ISO. For web images, I think you won't see too much noise up to ISO 800. That will get you a much faster shutterspeed (1/125 instead of 1/15)
About the flash: If it worked fine with the Oly, it should work just as well with the Canon, provided you get the settings right (ISO and Aperture). You should use 'M' on the camera when using studio flash. You also need to get a hotshoe to PC adapter, cause using the 'onboard' flash to trigger the studio flashes won't work.

shedsomelight wrote:
PS-- Lon, is this the photo info you were talking about? I did a screen cap of it because I *think* that's what you were referring to....

http://www.mistressjes​sica.net/photoinfo.jpg

Jessica

Jessica,

Yes, this image tells me what I need to know.

First, as I mentioned before the human taking the images needs some training. If you are going to model, you will have your own things to be concerned with. Trying to model and also direct the photographer is a daunting task. This overall assessment is after photographing hundreds of glamour type sessions over many years.

But, here is my best shot at coaching you to get good images.

Do to your (and your photographer’s) lack of photographic experience; I think that your best shot at high quality images is by using electronic flash. I know that you have struggled with the flash, but you are also struggling with the continuous lights. The flash will just give you more light. With more light, you just have a bit more room to make minor mistakes and still be ok with the images. So, if you just work with the flash a bit, I think it will pay off with better images. With the continuous light you are really near the edge of your ability to get an image, this means that everything must be just so, or problems occur. Think of it like this, with your continuous light setup, it is like trying to back up a 6-foot wide car into a garage that has a 6 foot and 1 inch wide door opening. It can be done but there is no room for error. With the flash, it is like trying to back the same 6-foot wide car into a garage with a 12 foot wide door opening. So, what is possible, but very hard, with the continuous lights light, will be much easier with the flash (after you get a good use mode down with the flash).

From looking at your image and the EXIF data you sent. Here is my best guess at how you should set things up. The EXIF data indicates that you must use a second 500-Watt light just to barely have enough light.

For the continuous lighting (remember, the flash is a much better way to go)

1. Set the camera mode dial to Tv (this is aperture priority)
   
2. Set the color balance to “tungsten” (I am guessing your continuous light is filament based, not florescent based).
   
3. Set the shutter speed to 1/75 of a second (this will get you a fast enough shutter speed for any zoom position you choose on the 18-55mm kit lens, so you will not shake the camera and get blur). A tripod would also be a good idea. But, this shutter speed is just on the edge of hand holding, so you might get by without the tripod.
   
4. Set the ISO setting (so called “film speed”) to 800. This high ISO setting will introduce some image noise, but with the marginal light you have little choice.
   
5. Set the MAIN light on your “best side” at 45 degrees from the line from the camera to the subject. Set this MAIN light no more than 6 feet from the subject. Set the other light, the FILL, at 45 degrees from the line from the camera to the subject on the other side. In addition, set the FILL light about 2 feet father from the subject than the MAIN light. Raise the center of the lights a foot or so above the attention center (eyes) of your subject. Aim the lights at the subject. Remember to change the height of the lights if you sit down, or stand up.

1. Set the camera mode to manual.
   
2. Set the color balance to “daylight” (the “flash” setting would also work, but I have found in most cases “daylight” a bit better)
   
3. Make sure all of the room lights are either off, or that you have only a bare minimum of light coming into your studio area (other than the modeling lights on the flash units).
   
4. Set the shutter speed to 1/200 second. You will not need a tripod with electronic flash and low ambient light.
   
5. Set the ISO (so called “film speed”) to 200
   
6. Set the aperture to F/8* (see note below)
   
7. Set the flash heads to full power. Wait at least 10 seconds between exposures.
   
8. Set the MAIN light with the softbox on your “best side” at 45 degrees from the line from the camera to the subject. Set this MAIN light no more than 6 feet from the subject. Set the other light with an umbrella, the FILL, at 45 degrees from the line from the camera to the subject on the other side. In addition, set the FILL light about 3 feet farther from the subject than the MAIN light. Raise the center of the lights a foot or so above the attention center (eyes) of your subject. Aim the lights at the subject. Remember to change the height of the flash heads if you sit down, or stand up.

Lon--

I wanted to thank you for your advice and answer to my post. After I read your post, I grabbed my camera and sat down and shot of some sample photos. I haven't worked in the "creative zones" of my camera at all, just the "basic zones" (automatic).

About the photographer getting training, well, he doesn't really have an interest in photography, it's me. I just need someone to take my photos and he's someone that I know well and trust and it just works out. I pose myself, make up a list of cool ideas/angles for shots, set up the lighting, plan where the photos will be taken and chose my outfit. He just holds the camera and presses the button.

I can understand why you think that it's best that I go with flash instead, and I have used it in the past. But overall, I'm alot more pleased with the photos taken with continuous lighting then I am with flash. I also am reading some books about glamour photography and how it's important to "see" the light and shadows and I just find that hard to do with flash. Which has also been said in some of the books I've read, that continuous lighting is better for beginners to start with.

Now, for what you said about the settings on my camera when I'm using continuous lighting set-ups....well the first thing I noticed is that my camera (Digital Rebel XT) has to be set to the Tv setting in order for me to change the shutter speed. And yes, the lighting I use is tungsten, not fluorescent. The biggest thing I think I got from your post was how changing the ISO made such a big difference! I just snapped off some random photos and changed it from 100-800 and I was surprised how much difference that makes. Remember I'm use to using the camera in automatic mode! Although someone said that it makes the photos grainy, I've found that that isn't really a problem when the photo is reduced to 1000x667 pixels. Well not, that much of a problem. Which is the size I use for my photos. I just did a photo set yesterday and was generally really pleased with the way the photos turned out. Of course this time I had 2 lights on me instead (which is what I normally use for every photo set), so I had 1000w of light instead of just 500. The camera was set for Shutter priority (in order to change the shutter speed), ISO-800, 1/250th sec and the F-stop varied. I can post a sample if anyone is interested. The photos were shot without a tripod and I *didn't* have problems with blurriness this time.

As for the "warm glow", I find I get that naturally with tungsten lighting if I don't change white balance on the camera on tungsten lighting. And I have to say, for lingerie and nude photos, it does really give a pleasing effect on the skin.

I use the batching option in Photoshop for resizing photos and have done for years. It saves me so much time. I usually correct the levels on each photo by hand though.

I know that good photography is not accomplished over night and I'm not expecting it to happen like that. I just needed some things about my camera explained to me and whether you know it or not, your post was very helpful to me and I know understand my camera a little more. So, thank you!

Jessica