Whats the Best way to beat the sun?

again as per the desired effect, using two lights is not going to help him acheive the "look" Get a bigger light.

turbodude wrote in post #5594996
again as per the desired effect, using two lights is not going to help him acheive the "look" Get a bigger light.

Actually, it can indeed help him achieve that look since he wants to 'beat the sun'. If power is the issue, adding more units will indeed increase the power level allowing him to do just that. So yea, using two strobes is a technique used all the time when more power is needed. Once he has the proper power level, he can put those in a softbox, diffusion panel, or whatever to make the light source larger, or modify it as needed. But using two strobes is definitely one way to get the effect he is after if you just don't have the power level needed with one strobe.

The most I've seen was 10 strobe heads packed together behind one diffusion panel to output a whopping f90. You should have heard the 'pop' when the shutter was fired!

What kind of lens gets down to F90?! And why did they need it?!

I somehow don't think you're going to need that much power. Looking over Joe McNally's recent desert shoot, I'm seeing an image shot similar to what you're looking for, against full desert sun, at 1/8000 and f/3.5 (we'll say f/4, for ease of calculations). If we cut that down to your max sync speed of 1/250, it would require an aperture of f/22, with no ND filter. Also, that was at ISO 200, so you could work at ISO 100 and f/16. That's gonna take a lot of juice, but it's a far cry from f/16-18 with a 4-stop ND filter.

I'd say I could probably pull that off with my speedlights, if I used all of them bare and got them all close enough. Hell, it might not even take all of them. I've got some shots in my library lit at f/11 and ISO 200 (working against the Florida sunset) with a single speedlight through a shoot-through umbrella (VERY close to the subject), and not even on full power.

sfaust wrote in post #5595881
Actually, it can indeed help him achieve that look since he wants to 'beat the sun'. If power is the issue, adding more units will indeed increase the power level allowing him to do just that. So yea, using two strobes is a technique used all the time when more power is needed. Once he has the proper power level, he can put those in a softbox, diffusion panel, or whatever to make the light source larger, or modify it as needed. But using two strobes is definitely one way to get the effect he is after if you just don't have the power level needed with one strobe.

The most I've seen was 10 strobe heads packed together behind one diffusion panel to output a whopping f90. You should have heard the 'pop' when the shutter was fired!

with the picture he posted i do not believe they are using a scrim or diffusion panel. unless its super far away.

tim wrote in post #5596034
What kind of lens gets down to F90?! And why did they need it?!

Large format cameras, and the need was depth of field. Even with a smaller 4x5 camera, the DOF is very limited compated to a 35mm camera. f45, f90 was a pretty normal aperture when working with large format cameras. And if the strobe power was limited, we doubled up to get an extra stop, or we would use multiple pops of the strobes with the shutter open in a darkened studio. You gotta do what you gotta do when you need that extra power and big strobes aren't available.

bieber wrote in post #5596124
Looking over Joe McNally's recent desert shoot, I'm seeing an image shot similar to what you're looking for, against full desert sun, at 1/8000 and f/3.5 (we'll say f/4, for ease of calculations).

Wasn't Joe was using 7 speedlights, and with high speed sync for those shots? If so he had an extra 2.5 stops of strobe power over a single speedlight. And if you listen to the video, at one point either Joe or David mentioned that multiple strobes were used because they needed the extra power because of the intense sunlight. Granted, high speed sync does reduce your power, but the principle of adding more strobes to increase power is the same.

Another factor is what aperture the OP photographer is looking to use for creative needs. If the OP wants to use a shallower DOF, which is always my preference, than he may want to shoot at say f8 or 5.6 instead of f16. If thats the case, the use of stronger ND filters are needed to bring the sunlight into that range, and then add more strobe power to overcome the loss of the ND filters.

turbodude wrote in post #5596485
with the picture he posted i do not believe they are using a scrim or diffusion panel. unless its super far away.

I only added that diffusion reference since you stated earlier that you felt it was a beauty dish or feathered softbox that was used. I was only pointing out that using two strobes to increase the power wouldn't prevent diffusion from being used if desired.

sfaust wrote in post #5598424
Wasn't Joe was using 7 speedlights, and with high speed sync for those shots? If so he had an extra 2.5 stops of strobe power over a single speedlight. And if you listen to the video, at one point either Joe or David mentioned that multiple strobes were used because they needed the extra power because of the intense sunlight. Granted, high speed sync does reduce your power, but the principle of adding more strobes to increase power is the same.

Another factor is what aperture the OP photographer is looking to use for creative needs. If the OP wants to use a shallower DOF, which is always my preference, than he may want to shoot at say f8 or 5.6 instead of f16. If thats the case, the use of stronger ND filters are needed to bring the sunlight into that range, and then add more strobe power to overcome the loss of the ND filters.

They were using a lot of Speedlights, but they were also shooting at 1/8000, which sucks a lot of power out of your flashes. Like I said, I've gotten a similar amount of power out of a single strobe on half or quarter power. And if he wants a shallower depth of field, he's not going to need more power. If you're already shooting at say, f/16, 1/250, ISO 100 and a single strobe on full power (if it's a studio strobe, though, you probably won't need full power), and he wants to go to say, f/4 instead, he'd just need to add a five-stop ND filter (which, I believe, is actually the upper range of the Singh Ray Vari-ND, which I really want to pick up sometime) and then change his aperture to f/4. The ND filter and the larger aperture would effectively cancel each other out, and he'd be left with the same strobe power needed.

My bad, you're absolutely correct. I factored the shutter speed into the equation with the ND's when I shouldn't have, and I know better

sfaust wrote in post #5598424
Large format cameras, and the need was depth of field. Even with a smaller 4x5 camera, the DOF is very limited compated to a 35mm camera. f45, f90 was a pretty normal aperture when working with large format cameras. And if the strobe power was limited, we doubled up to get an extra stop, or we would use multiple pops of the strobes with the shutter open in a darkened studio. You gotta do what you gotta do when you need that extra power and big strobes aren't available.

Wasn't Joe was using 7 speedlights, and with high speed sync for those shots? If so he had an extra 2.5 stops of strobe power over a single speedlight. And if you listen to the video, at one point either Joe or David mentioned that multiple strobes were used because they needed the extra power because of the intense sunlight. Granted, high speed sync does reduce your power, but the principle of adding more strobes to increase power is the same.

Another factor is what aperture the OP photographer is looking to use for creative needs. If the OP wants to use a shallower DOF, which is always my preference, than he may want to shoot at say f8 or 5.6 instead of f16. If thats the case, the use of stronger ND filters are needed to bring the sunlight into that range, and then add more strobe power to overcome the loss of the ND filters.

I only added that diffusion reference since you stated earlier that you felt it was a beauty dish or feathered softbox that was used. I was only pointing out that using two strobes to increase the power wouldn't prevent diffusion from being used if desired.

Did you see the desired look he wanted? thats not a diffusion panel. or a scrim. He cant use 2 strobes in a configuration to achieve that look he posted.

turbodude wrote in post #5599240
thats not a diffusion panel. or a scrim.

I'm surprised you would state this since you yourself said that it could have been shot with a feathered softbox. A diffusion panel is nothing more than a softbox without the enclosure. If it can be done with a softbox, it can be done with a diffusion panel, scrim, or bedsheet for that matter.

But I wont argue how that shot was done, because neither of us can answer it with any certainty. We would spin our wheel arguing a point neither of us have the answer to. We just aren't privy to that information.

turbodude wrote in post #5599240
He cant use 2 strobes in a configuration to achieve that look he posted.

Why not? Physics and experienced large format photographers would argue with you till the cows come home. Anything you can create with a single light, you can create with two, as long as you are not photographing the actual light source in the image.

Two light sources immediately next to each other can have the same properties as a single light source. If close enough together, or far enough from the subject, you will get one harsh shadow just as you would from direct sunlight. In essence, it is a single light source.

So if you can recreate a single light source from two lights, then why can't you use it to light a subject just as you would with one light?

Also based in physics, a light behind a diffusion panel is capable of producing hard shadows, soft shadows, or anything in-between depending on the source to diffusion distance, and the diffusion to the subject distance. Basic lighting 101. There is nothing in that example shot that couldn't' be created with a diffusion panel or softbox if desired.

So unless we throw physics aside and reinvent how lighting has been working since the big bang, I can't agree with your assessment that it couldn't be accomplished with two lights.

While this thread has gone a little off track... in relation to the original question...

What is the problem?

A single AB1600 will produce these results if you want them to...
You can get f22 with a large softbox (i don't have a medium one, so don't know how much more you would get) and shoot at 1/250th and that will pretty much turn day into night.

Put the model in front of the sun and blamo! You have a setting like the image you are trying to get...

I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

f16 with a 4-stop ND will make the sky almost completely black... which isn't the case in the pic you post.

Rob

Yes, it has gotten kind of confusing. Once it was determined he actually had enough power already in the first few posts, it kind of went in multiple directions from there

Turbodude, I apologize as I may have mislead you. When discussing two strobes to increase the power level, I was referring back to Curtis since he was busy calculating what the OP would need if he in fact did want to shoot at f16 with ND filters regardless. The direction I went was entirely appropriate in response to that. But upon looking back I can see that MPowered mentioned putting the light on different sides of the model when using 2 strobes, and I completely missed that reference even though PacAce directly elaborated on it. I just read his response, saw he quoted my pst, agree with it, but didn't notice he also quoted MPowered's post as well. I can understand why you argued, while probably scratching your head with a quizzical expression at the same time

While putting two strobe side by side to increase power would help with overpowering the sun, putting one on each side of the model wouldn't. I can see where we went off kilter because I missed that reference in MPowered's post, and for that I apologize for dragging you down the wrong road.

the best way to beat the sun is shade!

Shooter-boy wrote in post #5603159
f16 with a 4-stop ND will make the sky almost completely black... which isn't the case in the pic you post.

This is what I'm having trouble with. I did some experimenting over the weekend, shooting the blue sky on a sunny day at 1/250 shutter and various apertures. At f/32 there was barely any color at all, and f/45 rendered a black image (I used a 2x teleconverter to stop down that far).

I suppose if you're trying to simulate darkness during the day, this is what you need to do. But it seems easier to just shoot at night.

Curtis N wrote in post #5604660
This is what I'm having trouble with. I did some experimenting over the weekend, shooting the blue sky on a sunny day at 1/250 shutter and various apertures. At f/32 there was barely any color at all, and f/45 rendered a black image (I used a 2x teleconverter to stop down that far).

I suppose if you're trying to simulate darkness during the day, this is what you need to do. But it seems easier to just shoot at night.

Yea, but you don't have the cool flare of the sun - which is the exact look I'm going for.

Heres a better representation of the sky using the same configuration.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO