Beginner Advice for a newb to portraits/lighting

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I’ve always wanted to have a go with portrait photography (usually shooting landscapes) but haven’t had the confidence to ask anyone to sit for me because I’ve never done it before and don’t want to produce something rubbish - but I can’t practice to gain skill/confidence because that would require asking someone to sit (catch 22). So I thought I’d give self-portraiture a go to try and get some decent results and work out what the heck I’m doing. So.

I’ve got a room with a window producing some nice side-lighting and an on-camera flash (no slave mode so can’t use it off-camera). I wondered what would be a good setup to try. I thought I would have the natural light coming in from the side plus the on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling... I quite like the look of straight-on flash producing highlights on the forehead and nose with under the cheek bones in shadow (butterfly lighting??).

Any advice welcome!!

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I should also say that I’ve got a Nikon D610 with an 85mm 1.8

 

[Garry Edwards]

Almost the same subject came up last week on our zoom meeting https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/interwebby-webinar-session-thingy.710396/
My advice was to practice on still life subjects, pretty well anything that's around the house will do.

There are several advantages to this.
1. The subject keeps still, doesn't get bored and doesn't complain if the results are poor, which they will be for some time. Experimentation is key to learning and it's difficult to experiment with a live subject, who has an expectation of getting decent photos out of the session.
2.. Because a bowl of fruit or similar doesn't move, any difference between different shots is entirely down to the lighting - even slight movements produce very different results.

And getting decent self portraits is a difficult and frustrating business.

As for window light, some people love it and others don't.. The only thing that's actually wrong with it is that it's impossible to control, and you're limited by daylight, weather conditions and direction.. Window light had to be used for the very earliest indoor portrait photography because there was nothing else, but the photographers had banks of windows and they could cover up the ones that weren't wanted for that particular shot. Also, expectations were a lot lower in those days, it must have seemed miraculous just to be able to get a shot of someone sitting in a chair. Things have moved on, and a simple studio lighting setup is so much easier and allows for so much more creativity.

 

[Phil V]

Natural light and a reflector would be my first choice.
leave the flash till you can get it off camera and attach it to a modifier

 

[HoppyUK]

Natural light and a reflector would be my first choice.
leave the flash till you can get it off camera and attach it to a modifier

Agree

Start with window light, then pop your speedlite on a stand with an umbrella adapter and white umbrella - about £50-ish. While speedlites are great and can be pressed into service for all kinds of things, they're often less than ideal. A proper studio head is much better, starting at £100 or so.

If you're struggling for a practise model, I use a manikin head for twenty quid. This one is popular with photographers - looks a bit like Britney Spears with the right wig, and the eyes are semi-realistic

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Training-M...&keywords=manikin+head&qid=1589374299&sr=8-30

 

[AZ6]

The key to good portraiture has very little to do with lighting, other than having sufficient to actually take photos. It's all about the relationship between the photographer and subject. It's about being able to capture someone's 'character' in a photo. To tell a story about them, as an individual, rather than just a likeness of their physical appearance. And the only way to realy achieve this, is to have effective communication with your subject. which of course is far more difficult if you don't know someone, so start with people you do know. Friends and family (bit difficult atm but soon..). Learn how to make someone comfortable in front of the camera; very few people really are. And involve your subject in the process; show them the pics as you take them, maybe. Ask them how THEY want to be seen. And of course flatter them; flattery will get you everywhere. Fact.

Have a look at great portrait photography; look at stuff like the Taylor Wessing and BP portrait awards images. Think about the story YOU want to tell about that person, as well. It is all about communicating that human reaction, interaction, emotion, to the viewer.

You already have the perfect equipment., You don't need to spend any more money. Although if you want to, it's fine. But work on that relationship thing. If you're shy yourself, that won't put your subject at ease. But you know what might really help? Get someone to take YOUR picture; empathise with a subject. Because sitting having your picture taken can be a pretty fraught process. Knowing what makes you comfortable or anxious, can be very important tools. Get to know people.

 

[Brazo]

You should be able to get some radio poppers quite cheaply?

I’ve been taking loads of shots lately of my son and my neighbours (whilst sd) using off camera flash and I’m loving it!

 

[HoppyUK]

The key to good portraiture has very little to do with lighting, other than having sufficient to actually take photos. It's all about the relationship between the photographer and subject. It's about being able to capture someone's 'character' in a photo. To tell a story about them, as an individual, rather than just a likeness of their physical appearance. And the only way to realy achieve this, is to have effective communication with your subject. which of course is far more difficult if you don't know someone, so start with people you do know. Friends and family (bit difficult atm but soon..). Learn how to make someone comfortable in front of the camera; very few people really are. And involve your subject in the process; show them the pics as you take them, maybe. Ask them how THEY want to be seen. And of course flatter them; flattery will get you everywhere. Fact.

Have a look at great portrait photography; look at stuff like the Taylor Wessing and BP portrait awards images. Think about the story YOU want to tell about that person, as well. It is all about communicating that human reaction, interaction, emotion, to the viewer.

You already have the perfect equipment., You don't need to spend any more money. Although if you want to, it's fine. But work on that relationship thing. If you're shy yourself, that won't put your subject at ease. But you know what might really help? Get someone to take YOUR picture; empathise with a subject. Because sitting having your picture taken can be a pretty fraught process. Knowing what makes you comfortable or anxious, can be very important tools. Get to know people.

That's so true. It's too easy to fall into the gear trap and forget what it's all really about.

The Taylor Wessing awards are notoriously controversial, probably deliberately so, and sometimes excellent work gets lost in the furore over yet another image of some hapless child holding a chicken.

To the OP - But there can be few arguments over Jane Bown's portraits. Working for The Observer, she photographed everyone from The Queen to The Beatles and was well known for using only natural light. That is not to say she didn't understand lighting, far from it, but I think she regarded it as both a PITA (which it certainly can be) and something that got inbetween the camera and her subject. Just put her name into google images and judge for yourself

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

So I ended up using the window light and on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling. There were a few without the flash that had a more dramatic split lighting that I will process next. I changed the colour of the backdrop and have it texture in post the wall colour is a dull off-green that didn't really work with the shirt colour. It's also come out much softer here - but I think that pretty normal! I cut half of my hands off which I think might be a faux pas...

Any comments welcome.

 

[AZ6]

Excellent. The subject looks very nervous.

Seriously; there's nothing at all wrong with that. Nothing at all. So; now you have the lighting sussed, all you need are more subjects. Not the easiest thing at this time.

Only criticism I'd have, is that I'd praps use a larger aperture to eliminate the background texture. That's all. Play around with more self portraits, pull some funny faces, try out different 'emotions'. Get into the role of the 'model'. Have some fun!

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Excellent. The subject looks very nervous.

Seriously; there's nothing at all wrong with that. Nothing at all. So; now you have the lighting sussed, all you need are more subjects. Not the easiest thing at this time.

Only criticism I'd have, is that I'd praps use a larger aperture to eliminate the background texture. That's all. Play around with more self portraits, pull some funny faces, try out different 'emotions'. Get into the role of the 'model'. Have some fun!

Thanks! My expressions seemed to be either worried or angry! This one was f/4 - I was worried about going any wider as it was a bit of a pain focusing without the subject in frame! I started out at 5.6 but went to f/4 as the flash was on full-power and shutter speed was around 1/30 - 1/50... not sure how slow you can go. I wasn’t moving and the camera was on a tripod but I don’t know how much micro-movements would cause blur at 1/30. Excited to play around with off camera flash. I’m looking at a Nikon SB600 but also there are some interesting, if complicated third party flashes...

 

[AZ6]

Praps move the subject position further from the background. Splitting hairs though!

1/30is probably fine if using a tripod and a bit of flash. Just keep quite still. As for a new flash; I have a SB700 which I've found to be excellent, so reliable and ample power for most applications. I think the SB600 is very similar. Lots of positive words for Godox flashes on here; they do seem very good value. My only concern with 3rd party flashguns is about consistency and reliability; admittedly this is based on my experience with a couple of 3rd party 'guns, so some may be better than others. My SB700 is spot on, every single time. It's never let me down. I would like to try a Godox V1 though, and they aren't hideously expensive like Nikon 'guns. but also consider proper studio flashes, if portability isn't important. More power for similar money. And even cheaper non-dedicated 'guns can work really well, if you know how to use manual flash control. I foolishly sold an old SB27 for daft money on Ebay, recently. That could easily have been used as a 'studio' flash. Doh. :banghead:

 

[Phil V]

You’ve lost all of the window light there, mixing light sources is more than twice as difficult as just using the window light.

if you’re having to go down to 1/30 you really need to raise your ISO. A noisy shot beats a blurred shot every time.

 

[Ed Sutton]

To the OP - But there can be few arguments over Jane Bown's portraits. Working for The Observer, she photographed everyone from The Queen to The Beatles and was well known for using only natural light.

She also used an Anglepoise lamp.

Jane turned up – with two bags and an angle-poise lamp. What, I asked, was in the extra bag? Shopping, she replied slowly and carefully, as if talking to an idiot. And the lamp? "Oh that. It's the light, you know. It's terrible in winter."

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/oct/18/jane-bown-photographer-retrospective-exposures

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

You’ve lost all of the window light there, mixing light sources is more than twice as difficult as just using the window light.

In that case I think I'll try and get hold of a half-decent flash and play with off-camera flash and limit external light.

if you’re having to go down to 1/30 you really need to raise your ISO. A noisy shot beats a blurred shot every time.

That shot was f/4, 1/50 ISO 100. I probably should have gone with ISO 400 and 1/125 and stopped down to f/5.6.

 

[Brazo]

So I ended up using the window light and on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling. There were a few without the flash that had a more dramatic split lighting that I will process next. I changed the colour of the backdrop and have it texture in post the wall colour is a dull off-green that didn't really work with the shirt colour. It's also come out much softer here - but I think that pretty normal! I cut half of my hands off which I think might be a faux pas...

Any comments welcome.

View attachment 278918

It’s very even lighting, which of course can be lovely but can you see how flat your face looks without directional light to sculpt it, if even a bit? I’d perhaps drop the flash power and allow the window light to be the key and perhaps the flash as a fill in. Do you have a reflector? If so position the reflector and angle the on camera flash toward the reflector which in turn will bounce onto you thus acting completely as off camera flash even though it’s on camera!!!

 

[Brazo]

On another point I read a great quote the other day which was I had eight minutes to get the shot, I could have fiddled with my lights for eight minutes or shot for eight minutes. I did the latter!

 

[Phil V]

In that case I think I'll try and get hold of a half-decent flash and play with off-camera flash and limit external light.


That shot was f/4, 1/50 ISO 100. I probably should have gone with ISO 400 and 1/125 and stopped down to f/5.6.

I don’t understand why you can’t use the window light and a reflector, it’s WYSIWYG and it’s free. For info on paid shoots I’ve used pillowcases, shirts (sometimes with people wearing them) towels and whatever is handy as a makeshift reflector.

why would you shoot at 1/50 and 100 ISO?

You appear to be trampling straight past simple and getting yourself in a pickle as a consequence.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I don’t understand why you can’t use the window light

why would you shoot at 1/50 and 100 ISO?

Because I’ve never shot portraits before and I don’t have a clue what I’m doing! I’m a landscape photographer - usually I stick the camera on a tripod, ISO 100 and who cares what the shutter speed is.

I thought I could get more variation and explore different lighting patterns with flash as opposed to natural light. Play with harder light to get more dramatic looks?

 

[Brazo]

I think @Phil V makes a good point. As much as I love playing with off camera flash it pains me to concede my favourite portraits are taken in natural lighting, perhaps try and walk before you can run.
I’m still crawling btw!

 

[Phil V]

Because I’ve never shot portraits before and I don’t have a clue what I’m doing! I’m a landscape photographer - usually I stick the camera on a tripod, ISO 100 and who cares what the shutter speed is.

I thought I could get more variation and explore different lighting patterns with flash as opposed to natural light. Play with harder light to get more dramatic looks?

If you’re used to shooting landscapes I’ll assume you’re used to shooting with natural light. Used to seeing the light and shadow and choosing the shot lit from the position of the sun.
That’s a transferable skill. And window light is an easy option.

if you’ve never used flash, then you’re jumping into a whole world you have no experience of and you’ve let necessity overrule your gut.

you want to get to a dramatic hard light source but because you can’t take the flash off camera you’ve just bounced it and got the opposite of what you wanted.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

you want to get to a dramatic hard light source but because you can’t take the flash off camera you’ve just bounced it and got the opposite of what you wanted.

I didn’t say I was going for hard light for these images - I understand that if you’ve got on-camera flash and you bounce it off a ceiling it’ll soften it so I knew that’s what I’d get here. My point was that I’d like to maybe invest in an inexpensive flash with a slave mode so I can start to experiment with different lighting e.g. harder light.

I appreciate your advice and will continue to play with natural light until I feel I’ve exhausted all possibilities that I have in my situation.

 

[Garry Edwards]

The key to good portraiture has very little to do with lighting, other than having sufficient to actually take photos.

I disagree with this statement 100%. That's an absolute beginner belief. It's all about having the right light in the right place.

It's all about the relationship between the photographer and subject. It's about being able to capture someone's 'character' in a photo. To tell a story about them, as an individual, rather than just a likeness of their physical appearance. And the only way to realy achieve this, is to have effective communication with your subject. which of course is far more difficult if you don't know someone, so start with people you do know. Friends and family (bit difficult atm but soon..). Learn how to make someone comfortable in front of the camera; very few people really are. And involve your subject in the process; show them the pics as you take them, maybe. Ask them how THEY want to be seen. And of course flatter them; flattery will get you everywhere. Fact.

Have a look at great portrait photography; look at stuff like the Taylor Wessing and BP portrait awards images. Think about the story YOU want to tell about that person, as well. It is all about communicating that human reaction, interaction, emotion, to the viewer.

You already have the perfect equipment., You don't need to spend any more money. Although if you want to, it's fine. But work on that relationship thing. If you're shy yourself, that won't put your subject at ease. But you know what might really help? Get someone to take YOUR picture; empathise with a subject. Because sitting having your picture taken can be a pretty fraught process. Knowing what makes you comfortable or anxious, can be very important tools. Get to know people.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but although it's certainly true that there are some incredibly gifted photographers who can produce outstanding work using only what whatever light is available, they are utilising their creativity and their lifetime of skill and experience to do that. The best of us, in every field, can achieve a great deal with very little, but the rest of us can't, and the OP is a complete beginner.

Agree

Start with window light, then pop your speedlite on a stand with an umbrella adapter and white umbrella - about £50-ish. While speedlites are great and can be pressed into service for all kinds of things, they're often less than ideal. A proper studio head is much better, starting at £100 or so.

If you're struggling for a practise model, I use a manikin head for twenty quid. This one is popular with photographers - looks a bit like Britney Spears with the right wig, and the eyes are semi-realistic

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Training-M...&keywords=manikin+head&qid=1589374299&sr=8-30

That does look very decent for the money, but the plastic skin of a mannequin head reflects very differently from the real skin of a real person, so has a very limited value IMO as a training aid. A bowl of fruit, or a found object, is far more useful and different skills can be honed with different subjects.

So I ended up using the window light and on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling. There were a few without the flash that had a more dramatic split lighting that I will process next. I changed the colour of the backdrop and have it texture in post the wall colour is a dull off-green that didn't really work with the shirt colour. It's also come out much softer here - but I think that pretty normal! I cut half of my hands off which I think might be a faux pas...

Any comments welcome.

View attachment 278918

I won't comment on the photo, but my advice here is to forget about all post processing for now, and concentrate, as far as possible, on getting the shot right in camera.

 

[AZ6]

I disagree with this statement 100%. That's an absolute beginner belief

I think it's perhaps because you didn't understand it fully. Obviously you need the 'right' light. But what I meant was, this can be found or achieved without recourse to loads of expensive gear.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but although it's certainly true that there are some incredibly gifted photographers who can produce outstanding work using only what whatever light is available, they are utilising their creativity and their lifetime of skill and experience to do that. The best of us, in every field, can achieve a great deal with very little, but the rest of us can't

Then that's down to individual talent, not equipment.

the OP is a complete beginner.

So? Doesn't mean he's not talented. He can clearly take a decent photo, he obviously knows what he's doing, technically. This is about going beyond that, to not only be able to take technically good pictures, but to take great photographs. You can get a good portrait done at any high st photo place; they'll have a tried and tested set of lights and reflectors eye, sit down, smile, bosh. Done. If that's all you ever want to achieve, then fine, just go and do a course on such, get the right gear, and you're set.

Well, it's up to the OP I spose. Do you want to take technically (even that notion is somewhat subjective anyway)perfect shots? Or do you want to take great portraits?

 

[Faldrax]

Obviously you need the 'right' light. But what I meant was, this can be found or achieved without recourse to loads of expensive gear.

I think it's more likely that you are failing to understand what @Garry Edwards is saying.

Yes, you can 'find' great light, and there are some very talented photographers who can look at a subject, and the location they are in, and achieve a great portrait in situations were most of us would fail.

They do so due to years of practice and experience - as well as a natural ability.

But for a beginner, using studio lights - where we can decide where the light falls, how hard / soft it is, etc. is an easier way to learn than simply waiting for the time when the 'right' light comes through the window.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Well, it's up to the OP I spose. Do you want to take technically (even that notion is somewhat subjective anyway)perfect shots? Or do you want to take great portraits?

You aren't familiar with this section, are you?

 

[AZ6]

I think it's more likely that you are failing to understand what @Garry Edwards is saying.

No I understood him perfectly.

But for a beginner, using studio lights - where we can decide where the light falls, how hard / soft it is, etc. is an easier way to learn than simply waiting for the time when the 'right' light comes through the window.

I totally get this. But again; you don't need fancy kit. As mentioned regarding Jane Brown; a simple lamp can serve perfectly, if used properly. When I was learning photography as a student, I just used whatever light I had available, whether it was daylight through a window, a small table lamp, a flashgun or flouroescent stip lights. It's about getting a good picture with what you HAVE. That's my point. And so many great portraits haven't needed loads of fancy lighting gear.

But for a beginner, using studio lights - where we can decide where the light falls, how hard / soft it is, etc. is an easier way to learn than simply waiting for the time when the 'right' light comes through the window.

If you want to only do studio type stuff, yes. Photography isn't limited to a studio.

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>

That does look very decent for the money, but the plastic skin of a mannequin head reflects very differently from the real skin of a real person, so has a very limited value IMO as a training aid. A bowl of fruit, or a found object, is far more useful and different skills can be honed with different subjects.

<snip>

No, that manikin is nothing like a real model. She's way better - the only model I've ever used who is always available, can sit perfectly still for hours, doesn't talk or eat anything, and lives in a box.

Skin texture is more like matt make-up than bare skin, kinda going out make-up, but it's certainly more skin-like than the average bowl of fruit. She's perfect for comparing different modifiers and portrait lighting set-ups. Less good for building any kind of photographer-sitter rapport with. I've tried.

 

[Garry Edwards]

No, that manikin is nothing like a real model. She's way better - the only model I've ever used who is always available, can sit perfectly still for hours, doesn't talk or eat anything, and lives in a box.

Skin texture is more like matt make-up than bare skin, kinda going out make-up, but it's certainly more skin-like than the average bowl of fruit. She's perfect for comparing different modifiers and portrait lighting set-ups. Less good for building any kind of photographer-sitter rapport with. I've tried.

Yes, good for comparing modifiers, I've got one myself, I call her Louisa because she's nothing like someone that I know well with the same name, but I'm not going to make a sexist comment about her

My point though about using other found subjects is that they all have different angles, reflective qualities and so on, so are more versatile than a mannequin head and a more useful training aid.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I won't comment on the photo, but my advice here is to forget about all post processing for now, and concentrate, as far as possible, on getting the shot right in camera.

You're probably right about this.

 

[AZ6]

Tom; if you do get a SB600/700, then you can use the D610's built in flash as a 'commander' for the flashgun, which can be used completely independently off camera. The camera's flash, in commander mode, can fire but only to trigger the off camera flash,and not affect the final image. This is a fantastic feature, I've found. It's called the Nikon Creative Lighting System, or CLS.

Here's a good basic tutorial:

https://photographylife.com/beginners-guide-to-nikon-creative-lighting-system

I think some other 3rd party flashguns can also work with this system, but you'd need to check. I know that the couple I tried sort of worked, but not very reliably. Maybe other brands/newer kit is better in this regard. But basically, it means you could have a multiple flash set up, completely wirelessly. Another, cheaper option would be to buy a couple of very basic 'slave' units, which trigger the flash without any sort of ttl control. so a lot more experimenting to get the right results. I think some wireless systems are now so cheap that you wouldn't bother though, unless your budget is really tight.

 

[Faldrax]

...If you want to only do studio type stuff, yes. Photography isn't limited to a studio.

The way light falling on the subject affects the image applies wherever you are taking the photograph - the advantage of a 'studio' type environment for learning is that the light is controllable - so you can see how changing the light changes the image, rather than being on location and having to work with whatever light nature (or if indoors, the building) provides.

What you learn in a studio can then be applied outside the studio, when you have less control.

 

[HoppyUK]

Tom; if you do get a SB600/700, then you can use the D610's built in flash as a 'commander' for the flashgun, which can be used completely independently off camera. The camera's flash, in commander mode, can fire but only to trigger the off camera flash,and not affect the final image. This is a fantastic feature, I've found. It's called the Nikon Creative Lighting System, or CLS.

Here's a good basic tutorial:

https://photographylife.com/beginners-guide-to-nikon-creative-lighting-system

I think some other 3rd party flashguns can also work with this system, but you'd need to check. I know that the couple I tried sort of worked, but not very reliably. Maybe other brands/newer kit is better in this regard. But basically, it means you could have a multiple flash set up, completely wirelessly. Another, cheaper option would be to buy a couple of very basic 'slave' units, which trigger the flash without any sort of ttl control. so a lot more experimenting to get the right results. I think some wireless systems are now so cheap that you wouldn't bother though, unless your budget is really tight.

A word of caution - just think ahead when you buy into any flash system. All of those from the camera manufacturers are a bit of a dead-end street and if you have any ambitions beyond speedlites then you'll soon get stuck. There is some compatibility with third-party brands, eg Yongnuo, but that is limited, too. And note that all triggering from a built-in pop-up flash is light-code only, not radio-code, and is much less reliable and versatile.

It's all a bit of a minefield, but after you've untangled all the confusion you more or less end up at one place these days - Godox. They offer a vast range of high spec and high performance products at affordable prices. In the interests of completeness, Profoto is another (at a price) and Elinchrom/Phottix should also be mentioned, but that's it. No surprise then that Godox has pretty much swept away all competition.

 

[AZ6]

What you learn in a studio....

Is more or less useless when you are outside of one, in my experience. I spent hours in studios as a student, did all the various lighting techniques, got thoroughly bored. It just all seemed counterproductive to actually taking photos. I spose I'm an artist more than I am a technician. But I get the point re 'controlling' light. You get consistency, reliability, and repeatable results. Tbh the only time those techniques have come in handy in more recent years, is when I've done our passport photos.

A word of caution - just think ahead when you buy into any flash system. All of those from the camera manufacturers are a bit of a dead-end street and if you have any ambitions beyond speedlites then you'll soon get stuck. There is some compatibility with third-party brands, eg Yongnuo, but that is limited, too. And note that all triggering from a built-in pop-up flash is light-code only, not radio-code, and is much less reliable and versatile.

Yes; the CLS works very well in smaller spaces, but you're right that radio devices are better in larger environments, or when line of sight isn't possible. I praps should have mentioned that. But for say head and shoulder shots in a small 'studio', I've found the Nikon CLS to be really excellent. But then; for a beginner, I'd really recommend using manual flash only, and learning exactly what is happening, rather than relying on computer algorithms to do the job. Just as good results can be had with simple old manual only flashguns, a couple of slave triggers, and using guide numbers and that. The beauty of digital is that it's easy to see what you're getting, instantly. so you can tweak things accordingly.

 

[Phil V]

I remember the Nikon CLS system being the best option of any manufacturer, eventually Canon caught up, but the shared limitations were a bit frustrating.
Then people started using Pocket Wizards for better connectivity, great but it lost TTL and cost a fortune.
Along came the Chinese and radio triggers got cheap. So PW came up with TTL triggers, slightly clumsy and expensive, but the best available.

Then along came the Chinese again and gave us better spec wireless triggers*.

Canon then copied the Chinese tech to produce their own radio flash system. Eventually Nikon created a radio system, not even backward compatible for their own cameras. In any other industry that’d be embarrassing.

*Back to the Chinese; Godox produce an entire family of products that work together seamlessly, their cheapest speedlight will work with their most sophisticated mains or portable flash heads.

As Richard says above, if you think you might want to grow into a system, start with something with growing room.

But back to the OP; I still think he’s more to learn about window light before he picks up any flash gear.

 

[AZ6]

Canon then copied the Chinese tech to produce their own radio flash system. Eventually Nikon created a radio system, not even backward compatible for their own cameras. In any other industry that’d be embarrassing.

Apple?

*Back to the Chinese; Godox produce an entire family of products that work together seamlessly, their cheapest speedlight will work with their most sophisticated mains or portable flash heads.

Very interesting. I keep being drawn to Godox...

But back to the OP; I still think he’s more to learn about window light before he picks up any flash gear.

Totally. 100%. With just window light alone, there's infinite possibilities.

 

[HoppyUK]

Apple?

Haha yes, but unfortunately for Nikon, they're not in Apple's position.

Very interesting. I keep being drawn to Godox...

What Godox has achieved in such a short time is nothing short of astonishing. And I am a grateful recipient. But the fact that they have now swept away all meaningful competition, with no sign of that changing any time soon, may yet come back to bite us.

Totally. 100%. With just window light alone, there's infinite possibilities.

Infinite possibilities? Only if you have an infinite number of windows, in a variety of sizes, facing in all directions. When it works, window light is great for sure, but in practise the trick is really to find the best of a quite a limited range of options in any given situation.

A lot of people find flash intimidating, and it's certainly on a very different level of commitment in all sorts of ways, but now I've done that, I'd be intimidated to go on any kind of shoot without a flash option.

 

[Garry Edwards]

What Godox has achieved in such a short time is nothing short of astonishing. And I am a grateful recipient. But the fact that they have now swept away all meaningful competition, with no sign of that changing any time soon, may yet come back to bite us.

And sadly, it certainly will.

 

[AZ6]

Haha yes, but unfortunately for Nikon, they're not in Apple's position

I must admit, I don't understand why they've made a system that cannot be used with older cams, as surely this reduces the number of potential sales? Whereas Canon's simply use the existing hot shoe. Plus, it's loads more expensive than any other similar products. I've never understood this with some manufacturers; sure, I get that Nikon lenses are generally better quality than say Sigma or Tamron etc, but with stuff like flash systems, there's no reason for their own products to cost so much more.

Infinite possibilities? Only if you have an infinite number of windows, in a variety of sizes, facing in all directions.

Just one window still gives infinite lighting possibilities. It's knowing how to exploit that light. That's the trick.

A lot of people find flash intimidating

Which is why, for a beginner at least, it's better to concentrate on learning to use available light, rather than adding further complications. But aside from all that; I refer back to my original point, which is that the best way of learning to take good PORTRAITS, is to interact with PEOPLE. Admittedly, not the easiest thing right now. But in better times, it would be good for the OP to just practice photographing people, rather than concentrating just on lighting set ups. Get used to being able to engage with a subject/s, learn what makes people comfortable. Learn how to capture someone's character, or 'soul'. Then, play around with lighting as much as you want. If you can take a good portrait, you can take a good portrait, regardless of lighting.

 

[Faldrax]

Is more or less useless when you are outside of one, in my experience. I spent hours in studios as a student, did all the various lighting techniques, got thoroughly bored. It just all seemed counterproductive to actually taking photos. I spose I'm an artist more than I am a technician. But I get the point re 'controlling' light. You get consistency, reliability, and repeatable results. Tbh the only time those techniques have come in handy in more recent years, is when I've done our passport photos.

Different people learn in different ways - for me, the more I can simplify things the easier it is to understand them - and once I understand the basics, I can then build on that understanding to handle more complex problems.
It sounds like you spent your studio time going through different setups 'mechanically' - Lights in position X and Y for technique A, lights in V and W for Technique B, etc. rather than exploring the possibilities - Start with Key high to camera right, now lower the light, see how the image changes changes, now try adjusting the position of the light, etc.
If so, I'm not surprised you became bored.

I'm very much still learning studio lighting - other commitments mean I get to spend far less time experimenting and learning than I'd like (which is a positive in some ways, as I'm still in work full time during the current crisis, and a wife, two teenage daughters and a dog mean there's never a shortage of things to soak up my 'free' time), but there's far more variations of images possible given an hour in a studio than an hour outside, because I can create the light for the image I envision, rather than having to work within the constraints of the light I've got.

I'm not saying only shoot in the studio - some of my favorite shots were taken outside, when the light was right (EG Soft light on a Winters day, light reflected off golden sands to a child's face) - but you have to take the shot that works with the light that's there, and sometimes that means waiting for another day.