Portable studio equipment

soeren said:
? How? Why?
All I see is knowing light, how it and modifiers behave + some creativity can get you very far with very little. We dont need every modifier in the catalogue to make great light. Still being fairly new to lighting om often overwhelmed by all these dishes, boxes and singles you can get for your flash but Ive already learned most Will do the same things and differences in looks are mostly only visible to the absolute connoiseur.
Click to expand...


Do you truly believe that tosh?
 
boyfalldown said:
Do you truly believe that tosh?
Click to expand...
I certainly believe that many of the unique features the new stuff has are products of the imagination of marketing people rather than results of physics and ingineering. A current buzzwords like parabolic springs to mind.
 
boyfalldown said:
Even with just 2 lightstands, a background and a couple of umbrellas, with a couple of speed lights or small studio head will start to add up weight wise. And the set up will seriously limit you. It’s hardly a sensible solution
Click to expand...
BTW you didnt ansver my question. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
Oh, to bad. I was hoping for some aditional knowledge, a different perspective on the matter and maybe even the holy grail.
Click to expand...

Might be better to start by asking about those modifiers rather than state they only matter to the connoisseur then?
 
soeren said:
? How? Why?
All I see is knowing light, how it and modifiers behave + some creativity can get you very far with very little. We dont need every modifier in the catalogue to make great light. Still being fairly new to lighting om often overwhelmed by all these dishes, boxes and singles you can get for your flash but Ive already learned most Will do the same things and differences in looks are mostly only visible to the absolute connoiseur.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that, up to a point.
The simple fact of the matter is that size and distance are two of three factors that make the difference to lighting, so, for example, it's hard to see any benefit of a softbox over a beauty dish (of the same size) when they are placed a long way from the subject. In fact, move any light modifier, regardless of size, far enough away and it may as well be a totally unmodified light, for all the good it does.
Basically, hard light is a small light, or another type of light a long way from the subject and a soft light is a large light, or a another type of light close to the subject. And size is relative, not absolute - for example, if you're lighting something the size of an orange then one of those tiny (and otherwise pretty useless) softboxes that are designed to be on camera can produce soft lighting, but an extra large softbox used to light a group of 50 people cannot possibly produce soft lighting...

The other significant factor is the way that the power of light reduces over distance, in other words the Inverse Square Law. In practical terms, this doesn't fully apply to large light modifiers, but it applies well enough to be very important. And yet, I constantly come across people who don't place their lights where they need to be for best effect, instead they place them in some convenient place where they don't get in the way.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I would agree with that, up to a point.
The simple fact of the matter is that size and distance are two of three factors that make the difference to lighting, so, for example, it's hard to see any benefit of a softbox over a beauty dish (of the same size) when they are placed a long way from the subject. In fact, move any light modifier, regardless of size, far enough away and it may as well be a totally unmodified light, for all the good it does.
Basically, hard light is a small light, or another type of light a long way from the subject and a soft light is a large light, or a another type of light close to the subject. And size is relative, not absolute - for example, if you're lighting something the size of an orange then one of those tiny (and otherwise pretty useless) softboxes that are designed to be on camera can produce soft lighting, but an extra large softbox used to light a group of 50 people cannot possibly produce soft lighting...

The other significant factor is the way that the power of light reduces over distance, in other words the Inverse Square Law. In practical terms, this doesn't fully apply to large light modifiers, but it applies well enough to be very important. And yet, I constantly come across people who don't place their lights where they need to be for best effect, instead they place them in some convenient place where they don't get in the way.
Click to expand...
And the shape of the light sources, rectangular, square or circular matters less apart from when you see it's reflection e.g. in eyes. Ofcource falloff in a straight line may reveal the light shaper but then again a gobo can be the cause of such.
 
Re the weight of the kit.
The tripod bag shown with two stands and a small selection of modifiers including 2 reflective umbrellas and diffuser for the one + misc, around 5,5kg
Guru with camera kit, AD360 + reflector, grid kit and 2 TT685 is 8,5kg
In total Up to 14kg ± 1kg
Not ultra lightweight but also not restrictively heavy for most normally healthy persons.
What could be interesting is what kind of modifiers are considered absolutely lists to maximise versatility
 
Garry Edwards said:
I would agree with that, up to a point.
The simple fact of the matter is that size and distance are two of three factors that make the difference to lighting, so, for example, it's hard to see any benefit of a softbox over a beauty dish (of the same size) when they are placed a long way from the subject. In fact, move any light modifier, regardless of size, far enough away and it may as well be a totally unmodified light, for all the good it does.
Basically, hard light is a small light, or another type of light a long way from the subject and a soft light is a large light, or a another type of light close to the subject. And size is relative, not absolute - for example, if you're lighting something the size of an orange then one of those tiny (and otherwise pretty useless) softboxes that are designed to be on camera can produce soft lighting, but an extra large softbox used to light a group of 50 people cannot possibly produce soft lighting...

The other significant factor is the way that the power of light reduces over distance, in other words the Inverse Square Law. In practical terms, this doesn't fully apply to large light modifiers, but it applies well enough to be very important. And yet, I constantly come across people who don't place their lights where they need to be for best effect, instead they place them in some convenient place where they don't get in the way.
Click to expand...
Just stumpled upon this article. Pretty much what you said :)

https://fstoppers.com/editorial/do-...e-distinct-qualities-light-i-dont-think-80650
 
soeren said:
Just stumpled upon this article. Pretty much what you said :)

https://fstoppers.com/editorial/do-...e-distinct-qualities-light-i-dont-think-80650
Click to expand...
That's because it's right:)
What that article doesn't point out though is that what really matters is light placement...

Some people may feel that I don't value new technology, that isn't true, but what I value more is knowledge.

My eldest son has had a bad car accident - no injuries, but very bad for the car, and the reason why there were no injuries is that the technology in his top of the range Tesla saw the lorry coming at him, checked all the cameras, braked hard and steered his car, and did this at incredible speed. The funny thing is that an eye witness complimented him on his incredible reaction time when in fact the car did everything, far faster than any human could have done. It not only made quick decisions but also made the right decisions - now that's the kind of technology that is really useful, and our clever flashes and clever remote controls serve only to make photography easier, not better.

Another example is that I had a fairly minor accident a couple of months ago, my wellie boots slipped on some stone steps on our farm, I went down hard, with my back striking an edge, and I broke a few ribs. It was raining, and after a while I was wet through and very cold but the only technology I had, my mobile phone, had no signal. I knew that it might be a very long time before anyone noticed that I was missing, maybe too long, so I managed to get up and get myself indoors eventually. That prompted me to investigate other technology, and we now have 2 way radios on the farm, they work brilliantly with a range of at least 3.5 miles in all weather conditions, and they are the nearest thing possible to a complete emergency solution - and yet they only cost a measly £25 each! OK, they don't have all of the features that the most expensive ones do, and they aren't waterproof, but if someone ever has an accident in the future (which is very possible with animals) then they will provide the best possible chance of survival. There's no need, for this purpose, in spending 10 times as much for something that may or may not have a slight edge, just as there is no need, for most photographers, to spend 10 times as much on equipment, in the faint hope that it will, in some way, be slightly better.

In my view, much of the "must have" new technology in photography is mainly smoke and mirrors - nice to have, and it allows people to rationalise spending large amounts of money, but there's a massive difference between justifying expenditure and rationalising it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top