NEW DynaLite Test Shots showing process

Ok, so I actually plugged in my light to my 20D this time, instead of relying on my 580EX to trigger the strobe (inproperly as I had done it the first time).

I thought I would share my processes and journey through trying to learn all about studio lighting!

These were all shot at 100 ISO, at 1/125, with varying F-Stops.

I had one umbrella positioned 45 degrees, about 5 feet away, and also a light placed to shine on the background.

Ok, so now that I've experimented with 125 shutter speed.. I think I'll go play with 250. (This is much more difficult than just going out to buy a light meter!!!)

Any other newbies out there trying to figure this stuff out too? Please share!
Thanks!!!

http://www.photoartbyj​.com …3%2007%20001_ed​ited-1.jpg

http://www.photoartbyj​.com …3%2007%20005_ed​ited-1.jpg

http://www.photoartbyj​.com …3%2007%20007_ed​ited-1.jpg

http://www.photoartbyj​.com …3%2007%20011_ed​ited-1.jpg

One more thing you need to experiment with is the white balance settings. Either you can do things to get it better in the camera or (far simpler) you can shoot in RAW and make corrections in the post-processing. Changing white balance during the RAW conversion process is ultra-simple.

why not just buy a light meter?

My advice...set the shutter at a speed lower than the rated sync speed but high enough to stop any motion blur that may happen in the scene you are shooting. 1/125 is a fine choice...leave it there. Set the aperture to get the DOF you want. Set your subject about 6 feet away from the backdrop. Then adjust the LIGHTS...not the camera. Use modifiers like umbrellas and panels to diffuse. Dial the power WAY down if you need. That first shot is showing that your lights are way to bright.

Also...you don't need a light meter...use the histogram on the back of the camera. It will show you exactly what you are capturing.

you dont need a light meter, but it makes things easier and faster.

awad wrote in post #2920980
why not just buy a light meter?

What an obvious question Of course I'm going to buy a light meter.. I guess I'm just trying to figure it out on my own without an instrument telling me how to set things, but not telling me why At least this way, I get to see the results and adjust from there.

SkipD wrote in post #2920347
One more thing you need to experiment with is the white balance settings. Either you can do things to get it better in the camera or (far simpler) you can shoot in RAW and make corrections in the post-processing. Changing white balance during the RAW conversion process is ultra-simple.

Yes, I just started shooting in RAW.. I love that!!! It's kind of freaky though, seeing my JPEG shots side by side and they look so completely different from the RAW shots. I don't think I'll ever shoot JPEG again!

redbutt wrote in post #2921294
My advice...set the shutter at a speed lower than the rated sync speed but high enough to stop any motion blur that may happen in the scene you are shooting. 1/125 is a fine choice...leave it there. Set the aperture to get the DOF you want. Set your subject about 6 feet away from the backdrop. Then adjust the LIGHTS...not the camera. Use modifiers like umbrellas and panels to diffuse. Dial the power WAY down if you need. That first shot is showing that your lights are way to bright.

Also...you don't need a light meter...use the histogram on the back of the camera. It will show you exactly what you are capturing.

Good advice.. thanks! I will try that. I hadn't thought of moving the lights, other than the angle. As far as using the histogram, I'm usually dissapointed with what I see on my computer after opening the images vs. what I see in the histogram on the camera.. it can be very deceiving at times!

jmanser wrote in post #2921601
What an obvious question Of course I'm going to buy a light meter.. I guess I'm just trying to figure it out on my own without an instrument telling me how to set things, but not telling me why At least this way, I get to see the results and adjust from there.

haha good luck with that.

Yeah.. I know, well one can dream and imagine

jmanser wrote in post #2921611
As far as using the histogram, I'm usually dissapointed with what I see on my computer after opening the images vs. what I see in the histogram on the camera.. it can be very deceiving at times!

I would have to say if you are being deceived by the histogram, than either your camera is tweaked or you aren't reading it correctly...no offense meant by that in any way. The histogram shows you exactly the relative number of pixels captured at each position. So, you shouldn't be surprised if you shoot someone against a black backdrop to see a big spike, on the far left side. If there is a lot of black in the scene, you might even see a histogram that "appears" under exposed...i.e. a large hump shifted to the left. And with a white backdrop, you would see the inverse. But, as long as you are not clipping the left or right, you aren't losing an data (there is no such thing as clipping off the top of a histogram).

After 30 min of search I finally found a thread from many moons ago when someone posted asking what a "perfect histogram" looked like. I had my opinion (as I usually do :O)...with some samples to illustrate...see if it helps any.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=247179

Great information redbutt... thanks so much! I will have to re-think the way I read my histogram now. No offense taken