Lighting Query

Messages
6,561
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.

I am back again. Hope everyone is well and refreshed for the New Year ahead !

After the help last year when taking the bicycle photos I thought I would post here again. Everyone is so generous with there time and knowledge.

I won this old camera in a raffle at our camera club just before Christmas. Well, won is a stretch it was second to last thing to go !

Loved the look of it and thought I must try and photograph it.

So I have. It took me two attempts to get an image I am happy with.
The first nights attempt was OK as I did get an image. At the time I didn't know why but the photo just didn't feel right.
The night after I tried again and I am much happier.

In the first image I set my strip box over the top as I did with the bicycle images and reflected light back from the front. The box is way bigger than the camera. So I assumed this was my problem the light may have been to soft/large.

Photo number 2
I swapped the stripbox for a 16inch square gridded softbox. Also reflected light from below. The image looked better to me on the lcd so I got a bit clever "I thought" and added a speedlight with a cinefoil ( a tip from here, previous postings) snoot to the rear pointing at the side. I was chuffed to see that it did actually light the side.
I took an image with the view finder down so as not to get a white circle in the glass then pasted this in after.

I am posting here to get confirmation as to my way of thinking. Am I right to think that the harder light source as made the difference. I am now aware that there is no one size fits all for the lighting. For example because the bike lighting worked well enough doesn't mean to say the same light would work here?

Also I noticed the light from the stripbox seem to be have a different colour cast to it than that from the softbox. Used the same wb and same ad200. Is that normal ?

Sorry for the long waffle.

All comments are welcomed.



Gaz


1
Folding-cam.jpg

2
Camera-with-case.jpg
 
A good attempt, and good results with both images. The second one is obviously better in as much as you have not only angled the camera to reveal its depth, you've also specifically lit the bits that need lighting.
The harder lighting from the smaller softbox may or may not be better - that's subjective- but what it has done is to create a harder, more clearly defined shadow under the camera. Again, whether this is good or bad is a subjective view, personally I'm not keen on it.

But with both overhead softboxes, they aren't positioned too well, pointing straight down. You do know how they should be positioned because I happen to know that you have an e-book explaining it :exit:
It should be pointing forward. It wouldn't then have created those over-bright specular reflections on the bellows (it would have lit the ones at the opposite angles, which can't be seen) and you could have then lit the front of the camera separately.

Edit: And a small thing, but maybe slightly less bright on the end of the scaffold board - a bit distracting.

As for the difference in colour temperature, my pure guess is that your Lencarta strip softbox is correct and that your square softbox isn't. This could be due to poor manufacturing or poor materials, or maybe just age, the diffuser may have yellowed over time.
There's a workaround to this, simply spray the inside of the softbox with very pale blue car spray. Be very careful though not to overdue it, it's much easier to put more paint on than to remove too much paint, so start off with just a suspicion of blue on 2 opposite sides of the softbox, then test it, add a bit more, repeat, repeat and repeat as necessary. Or buy a better softbox, or buy replacement diffusers for it, if available.

As I say, good effort - but try again:)
 
Last edited:
I really like your second shot just as it is, Garry is right - you'e got some good depth to this photo, but I actually like those hard shadows under the camera as for me it grounds it on that very interesting wooden stand (which I love). I'm keen to see your next one in the experiment just to compare how changing the lighting improves or changes your shot.
In particular, I think you've arranged it perfectly - the positioning of the camera & box really works well as there is a bit of overlap but they're in harmony, and the implied diagonal is a really strong compositional element which works well.
I don't tend to use lighting very much, but if I'm pleased with something I've done with lights I like to put my set up in to this : http://www.lightingdiagrams.com/Creator. just so I can refer back to it if I need to re-create the image or explain how I achieved it.
Looking forward to your next one! :)
 
Last edited:
A good attempt, and good results with both images
Thanks Garry. Glad you seen the post and replied. You are correct I do have the book many thanks for that. Obviously still need to read and practice much more.
When I had the stripbox on I did tilt it forwards, maybe it was not enough or to far forwards in the first place ?

Re the shadow underneath the camera. At first I too thought it undesirable but on reviewing the one without the shadow it sought of felt odd and as if floating above the plank.

I did darken the plank in post too but maybe not enough. The reflecter I used to light the front also lite the underside of the plank.

Just for clarifacation i'm replying to inform you guys/gals what I did and why (in my head) it felt right at the time. I am really happy to get the crit and aim to try out the respnses to the best of my abilities.

The above two photos were edited.

I have just taken some more photos as the set up is still there. These are sooc no edit at all, pure raws files.

I really like your second shot just as it is
Thanks Maria. Great feedback. Appreciate the time taken to reply. Thanks for the link too. I have taken some fuzzy phone shots this time to help folk reply.
The composition element is much harder than one would have thought so it's great that it feels right to someone viewing the image.

Gaz
 
1

IMG-7911-Overhead-tilted-forwards-softbox-small-snooted-speedlig.jpg

Small gridded softbox tilted forwards. White card to front just under planks. Speedlight to left rear snooted.

2
As above with addition of white card to right.
IMG-7913-as-17911-white-card-fill-front-right.jpg

3
As above but card in frame closer.
IMG-7914-as-7931.jpg

4
As above but added a speedlight to front side camer left shot through a 5/1 diffuser as Garry mentioned adding light to front.
5
IMG-7927-as-7922-swapped-softbox-for-stripbox.jpg

As above only I swapped out the softbox for the stripbox.

6
Set up at start.

IMG-20190105-113020660.jpg

2
Set up later on. I hand held a circular diffuser where the pink clothes peg is for speedlight to fire through plus had the white card in the other hand to the right of the subject.

IMG-20190105-120607137.jpg


I hope someone can tell me which is the right way to go here at this point i'm loosing sight of what is good or bad in the photos.

Gaz
 
Thanks Garry. Glad you seen the post and replied. You are correct I do have the book many thanks for that. Obviously still need to read and practice much more.
When I had the stripbox on I did tilt it forwards, maybe it was not enough or to far forwards in the first place ?
It will be one or other of those. The idea is to light the back and the top only, so the light source needs to be behind as well as above and must be angled forward. Obviously the light that lights the back of the subject isn't seen, which is good.
I'm a big headed, arrogant bugger who likes to be critical of your efforts but it's obvious how that softbox was positioned. The shadow of the product on the wood gives it away, so do the specular reflections on the bellows. The softbox should be lighting the angles of the bellows that we can't see. This still applies to your new photos, except for photo 5.

Some other points:
1. Your stepback photos show why the colour is wrong with your softbox, now that I can see what it is.
2. Lose the honeycomb grid. It isn't an effective one but you will still get a better result without it. Assuming that you have a good lens hood in place you won't have a problem with lens flare.
3. Too much power from that overhead softbox, turn it down maybe 1 - 1 1/2 stops.That's just a guess but it will be somewhere near.


Re the shadow underneath the camera. At first I too thought it undesirable but on reviewing the one without the shadow it sought of felt odd and as if floating above the plank.

The shadow (like all shadows) is a product of size and distance. Use a smaller light source and/or move it further away and the shadow becomes both smaller and more clearly defined. If you like it small and sharply defined then that's fine.
 
Last edited:
I like the first one TBH (with case). Shadows looks fine to me, though the specular reflections on the side and bellows are too bright. Given that they don't look blown, they could be easily adjusted with the local brush in Lightroom with just the highlights pulled down.

The wooden plank suits it I think, though perhaps a nice bit of walnut or something would be even better. Maybe you have a nice chopping board? Professional product photographers always have a props cupboard stuffed with things like that they've collected over the years. Selection of props and background etc can literally make or break the shot.

You're aware that the effect a softbox gives is relative to its size in relation to the subject, and distance? You've come from a large subject (bicycle) to something pretty small and although the lighting principles are the same, the scale needs to be adjusted accordingly. Looks like you've got it about right here though (y)
 
Last edited:
I'm a big headed, arrogant bugger who likes to be critical of your efforts but it's obvious how that softbox was positioned
:) Ha ha. You know your stuff and thats whats great. Where else would I recieve this sort of advice. I would never be able to achieve these results without such advice. It can be frustrating, when I just can't see these minor adjustments and what they acheive yet they stand out so well to you guys.
I think I have got some usable photos of this camera but would like to take a few more and upload here mainly just with the softbox above, without grid and turned down in power just so you can confirm what it should actually be lighting.
If thats ok.
Just to confirm why is the colour cast there ?
though the specular reflections on the side and bellows are too bright.
Thanks Richard. Will sort that.
Maybe you have a nice chopping board?
Unfortunatly not but am very envious of all the backgrounds you see online. All mine are from skips (Plasterer) so often save trash before they go.
Looks like you've got it about right here though
Thanks thats good to know.

Gaz
 
:) Ha ha. You know your stuff and thats whats great. Where else would I recieve this sort of advice. I would never be able to achieve these results without such advice. It can be frustrating, when I just can't see these minor adjustments and what they acheive yet they stand out so well to you guys.
I think I have got some usable photos of this camera but would like to take a few more and upload here mainly just with the softbox above, without grid and turned down in power just so you can confirm what it should actually be lighting.
If thats ok.
Just to confirm why is the colour cast there ?
Gaz
The colour cast is almost certainly caused either by yellowing of the softbox diffuser, or because the diffuser wasn't white in the first place. See my earlier reply
As for the difference in colour temperature, my pure guess is that your Lencarta strip softbox is correct and that your square softbox isn't. This could be due to poor manufacturing or poor materials, or maybe just age, the diffuser may have yellowed over time.
There's a workaround to this, simply spray the inside of the softbox with very pale blue car spray. Be very careful though not to overdue it, it's much easier to put more paint on than to remove too much paint, so start off with just a suspicion of blue on 2 opposite sides of the softbox, then test it, add a bit more, repeat, repeat and repeat as necessary. Or buy a better softbox, or buy replacement diffusers for it, if available.

As I say, good effort - but try again:)
Its the same with everything that needs some level of knowledge and skill. Dramatic improvements come easily and quickly but we then reach a plateau and the learning graph flattens out. It then takes a lot of experience and very careful work to achieve small improvements.
As an example of this, I decided back in June to try something new, and I chose to play pool, which I had never learned to do. I set myself a target of 14 months (the birthday after next) to become good enough to be invited to join the pub pool team. This was a pretty crazy thing for a 72 year old to try, but with a lot of help from a friend who mentored me, I joined the pool team just 10 weeks after starting my challenge. I'm the worst player in the team but at least I made the team and I assumed that I would continue to improve. There has been SOME improvement since then but I've hit the plateau and improvement is very slow - it's frustrating but it's a good example of the difficulties that we all face when we try hard to improve. Your lighting is now at a totally different level to where it was just a few months ago, just stick at it and you'll get there.

The great thing about this type of subject is that you have time to think, time to read my e-book and time to make small adjustments and you can always stop for a cuppa. It's much harder to learn when you're photographing people.
 
I still prefer your earlier shots, the light falls off quite quickly behind the subject and the light in on the boards doesn’t overwhelm the subject (which I think they do in your later efforts)
Re colour cast - perhaps I’m too accepting of what’s put in front of me, or maybe being subjective about what you produce is something you struggle with (I do!) but to me, I don’t notice it, if I did, in this situation I don’t think it’s a problem as the earlier image is really well composed, the balance of how the light falls on the main subject works really well, and the shot as a whole is very pleasing.

It’s sometimes really hard not to “overthink “ things - something I’m always guilty of.
 
As an example of this,
Thats a great explanation of the matter at hand. Resonates well.
I will stick at it and when I come across subjects that give me the urge to photograph them i'll give it another whirl.
Thanks for helping out with this.

Gaz

"Good luck with the pool"
 
I still prefer your earlier shots, the light falls off quite quickly behind the subject and the light in on the boards doesn’t overwhelm the subject (which I think they do in your later efforts)
Re colour cast - perhaps I’m too accepting of what’s put in front of me, or maybe being subjective about what you produce is something you struggle with (I do!) but to me, I don’t notice it, if I did, in this situation I don’t think it’s a problem as the earlier image is really well composed, the balance of how the light falls on the main subject works really well, and the shot as a whole is very pleasing.

It’s sometimes really hard not to “overthink “ things - something I’m always guilty of.
Morning Maria

Thanks for the feedback it really helps to hear what others think and feel about the photos. Of the last photos I took I am going to edit number 4 which had light from the front/side added. Just to see the differance. It does look quite bright towards the first one and the shadow under the camera is much less apparent.

Thanks again.

Gaz
 
Last couple of photos (Honest). Took the set up down now.

I left the stripbox up so just took this one image with that alone and the power reduced a stop. Really was a massive drop in what was illuminated.
I think it maybe needed to be a bit further back ?

IMG-7937.jpg


I also edited number 4 as I thought that was ok and on a par with my first effort. Not sure which is better.


Folding-camera-2.jpg



Gaz
 
In terms of overall lighting my preference is for the very first image. The highlights are there but mostly translucent, the falloff to the BG is more gradual/smooth, and the effect on the board is softer.
From there I feel like you went right to making life hard for yourself by adding additional subjects/angles and not really "building" the lighting in steps.

For example, start with the stripbox only image in your last post... it looks pretty good... maybe 1/2 stop under on the highlights, so maybe move it a touch closer (would reduce the size of the pool of light), or maybe move it back and bump the power a bit (would also increase the size of the pool of light and hardness), or maybe just bump the power to increase the contrast... try all three and see which you like best if uncertain as to what you want.
Next, decide what needs addressed most... obviously frontal fill. How can you address this most easily/effectively? My first choice would be bounce fill... but it would have to be too close/large I think. So probably another softbox or the speedlight/5-in-1. Add that light, evaluate/adjust until happy and then decide what needs added most. That will probably be sidelight/separation... and a small/hard source is good for that and will bring out texture as well. Then keep going from there... one item/problem at a time.

As you work from "general/overall" lighting (overhead/fill) towards specific details (side light/texture/etc) you will also tend to work more towards smaller/harder/more focused lighting options, mostly out of necessity. When/if you get to the point where you can't light/fix a specific area w/o negatively impacting everything else you have built up, then it's probably time to consider compositing (fixing that area separately).

I would also suggest removing the case while building up the lighting in order to simplify things... Once you get to the point of taking the "final camera image" you can add the case and see if the lighting is also suitable for it or how the case can be placed so that the lighting is (more) suitable. If you find something you like but there is a detail that is off, then you are back to finding a way to resolve that one issue... or doing it all over again for just the case and compositing those images together.

It takes a lot of experience to see a mixed/multi light setup and know what is going on/what to change... that comes from having gone through the buildup/teardown process one thing at a time many times over. And even then it's a "best guess" type of situation (unless the subjects/goals are very repetitive). That's one of the reasons why "simple" is often best...

FWIW, I think your last image in this thread is also good, but IMO it is a bit "bright/stark" for the antique/vintage feel I would want... I think I know how I would adjust it, but I also think you are probably better off going through the buildup process and deciding for yourself what you want along the way.
 
I’m with Steven on this... first attempt still the best!

Ps just looked at your Flickr - some really lovely images, especially the still life work and the dogs :)
 
Last couple of photos (Honest). Took the set up down now.

I left the stripbox up so just took this one image with that alone and the power reduced a stop. Really was a massive drop in what was illuminated.
I think it maybe needed to be a bit further back ?

IMG-7937.jpg
Maybe it could do with being slightly further back and angled a little more sharply forward, but it's pretty close to where I think it needs to be.
As for the exposure, I suggested a reduction of 1 - 1 1/2 stops, you've done a 1 stop reduction and it needs to be at least that much but possibly 1 1/2 stops might be too much, I'm not sure.
Yes, of course there is a massive reduction in what is illuminated but what we must always do here - and to misquote Teresa May, always means always - we position the key light first and we position it for the effect that we want it to have, totally disregarding any other lighting effects that we may want the finished shot to have.

What this key light is doing is defining the shape of the subject, lighting the hand strap, the bit under the hand strap, one elevation of the bellows (still a bit too much), lighting the reflex viewfinder (and even shining light through it) and picking up the edges of various other bits. And it's doing the same with the camera case.
This is what a key light is supposed to do, it's the light that does most of the work, and it's the light that makes the subject interesting. What we always need to do with lighting is to create the required effect with the key light and then use other lights - when and if necessary - to mitigate any problems caused by the key light.

As Steven says, any other lights that are then found to be needed are added one at a time, so that their individual effect can be seen and adjusted to taste. As all light is additive it becomes important to ensure that each additional light is specific to the required area and that it doesn't spill onto other areas that have already been lit.
Next, decide what needs addressed most... obviously frontal fill. How can you address this most easily/effectively? My first choice would be bounce fill... but it would have to be too close/large I think. So probably another softbox or the speedlight/5-in-1. Add that light, evaluate/adjust until happy and then decide what needs added most. That will probably be sidelight/separation... and a small/hard source is good for that and will bring out texture as well. Then keep going from there... one item/problem at a time.

I would approach this the opposite way round. frontal fill should be added last, after and not before any effect lights, the clue is in the name "fill" - Like Heinieken, if reaches the part that other lights can't reach, so light the parts that other lights can reach first, you then know how bright the fill needs to be or, more accurately, how little brightness is actually needed.

Fill here could be anything but my last choice would be bounce fill, my best guess is that a white or even a silver card is all that's needed but of course that does depend on how much forward light is reaching the reflector.
 
It takes a lot of experience to see a mixed/multi light setup and know what is going on/what to change... that comes from having gone through the buildup/teardown process one thing at a time many times over. And even then it's a "best guess" type of situation (unless the subjects/goals are very repetitive). That's one of the reasons why "simple" is often best...
Hi Stephen.
Many thanks for that very informative reply. I must admit one light and a reflector seems to get me good image. I seem to use that when ever I play with my lights. As time as gone by I am starting to try and add more, to light the finer details. Like you say my limited experiance is an inderance as I often don't know what should be lite and to what degree.
You gave me some great info there.
Thanks
I’m with Steven on this... first attempt still the best!

Ps just looked at your Flickr - some really lovely images, especially the still life work and the dogs :)
Yes I think I agree. The first does look more vintage/somber in mood.
Thanks for taking a look at my Flickr and your kind words.
I do like taking the dog photographs.

we position the key light first and we position it for the effect that we want it to have, totally disregarding any other lighting effects that we may want the finished shot to have.
Morning Garry.
I get confused with the term "key Light" as in my head that means lighting most of the scene yet looking at the above photo it looks like it's lighting very little. Your explanation is helping with that though.
Thanks again.


Gaz
 
I would approach this the opposite way round. frontal fill should be added last, after and not before any effect lights, the clue is in the name "fill" - Like Heinieken, if reaches the part that other lights can't reach, so light the parts that other lights can reach first, you then know how bright the fill needs to be or, more accurately, how little brightness is actually needed.
I can see your point... But I think the sequence I described is a little more logical/simple. I.e. if after fill you have a good image you are done with only two lights.
Fill here could be anything but my last choice would be bounce fill, my best guess is that a white or even a silver card is all that's needed but of course that does depend on how much forward light is reaching the reflector.
Why last if a bounce card "is all that's needed"?
I do think it would need to be too large/close and would interfere w/ the camera angle, but if not...
 
I get confused with the term "key Light" as in my head that means lighting most of the scene yet looking at the above photo it looks like it's lighting very little. Your explanation is helping with that though.
The key light sets the overall mood and direction... the others add to it with less influence/strength.
 
I can see your point... But I think the sequence I described is a little more logical/simple. I.e. if after fill you have a good image you are done with only two lights./
This will sometimes apply but not here because it's obvious that other lights from other positions are needed to light specific parts of the subject, for example the side of the bellows, therefore a fill light has ro be the final addition - if it's there too early in the process it will partly mask the contribution of the effect lights - the name of the game is to build up the lighting one light at a time, and in a logical sequence.

Why last if a bounce card "is all that's needed"?
I do think it would need to be too large/close and would interfere w/ the camera angle, but if not.../
Whatever works, it really doesn't matter what the source is as long as it's in the right place and has the right effect.
 
Last edited:
Re post above... Sorry but I'm struggling with formatting the quotes, hope it makes sense. I'm at the farm, no computer.
 
if it's there too early in the process it will partly mask the contribution of the effect lights
Or if too strong it will mask the need for/benefit of the effect lights... I get that.
- the name of the game is to build up the lighting one light at a time, and in a logical sequence.
Yes, but it's still all additive/cumulative... it doesn't matter what sequence you place the numbers in adding them up, just where they fall in the scene.

I see your point and I think it is valid; I just don't think it is more valid and it's perhaps a bit advanced for learning IMO (it's not how I learned).
I.e. because it is a dark subject on a dark BG it is fairly obvious it is going to require a side/separation light to you and I, but probably not to everyone.
 
The key light sets the overall mood and direction... the others add to it with less influence/strength.
Thanks Stephen.
On a side note I posted in the creative section the images from this thread also a few more as I had been given some old cameras earlier in the year. I only took images of those as I had the set up ready from doing the folding camera here.
Off memory the others were taken with just the overhead and bounce card to the front.




Gaz
 
Last edited:
Back
Top