So so disheartened with my studio shots. Cannot seem to eliminate blur. Please help.

Wonderer, listen to Garry. Your basic problem is a longish flash duration, it could be as long as 1/250sec in terms of shutter speed equivalents - not fast enough to freeze fast hand gestures if that's what you want. Do not believe manufacturers' quoted t.5 duration times. Increasing the flash power will reduce the effective flash duration a bit, but will not make the kind of difference you need, only a substantially faster flash head will do that. (Elinchrom BRX-250 is quite nippy, and not too expensive.)

Shutter speed is irrelevant and 1/125sec is fine if the ambient level is low. IR triggers are not everyone's favourite, but if they fire the flash that's all you need. One virtue is they're fast, so you may be able to push the shutter speed up a bit, but it won't make any difference to the blur and with a longer duration flash you may get some slight darkening at the bottom of the frame (not a black band, but undesirable). Stick to 1/125sec.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about a bit of blur on the hands. It looks natural enough to me, even desirable perhaps, so long as faces are sharp. There are quite a few other things I'd be looking to improve first ;)
 
sk66 said:
Ah, yes...
The type of strobe does make a difference... sorry I neglected to note that.
If your strobe is gate thyristor controlled what I said is correct (many modern "high speed" strobes are.. i.e Einsteins. All speedlights)
If your strobes are (the more standard?) capacitor discharge type then what I wrote is actually "backwards"...

The specs for your strobes should give flash duration times at various power levels...
Click to expand...

The vast majority of studio heads are not IGBT controlled like hot-shoe guns. Off the top of my head, in current production I can only think of the (rather good) Lencarta SuperFasts, and new Profoto B1 (looks very good, too); Einsteins are almost non-existent in the UK.

And as for manufacturers' quoted flash durations, most of them are not worth the paper they're printed on and even when accurate they rarely give more than t.5 times at full power only - because it's extremely flattering. Rule of thumb is to multiply t.5 by x2 or x3 to get somewhere near to shutter speed equivalents, and that duration will likely double at lower power outputs. Entry level studio heads are typically in the 1/250-1/500sec region in terms of real-world action-stopping potential.
 
Last edited:
Something is bothering me about the example image...
If the lights are at the same angle/same distance/same power then I should be seeing a 2:1 lighting ratio... You seem to have indicated the lights are set up pretty much identically, but I'm not seeing 2:1...

In fact, it looks very close to 1:1 and balanced with the ambient. Based upon the camera settings and BG distance I would expect harder shadows unless these are larger softboxes very close to her, and I kind of doubt they are (i.e. ~36" w/in ~1ft). It seems to me this must be a quite small and light colored room, and it must be lighting up like a christmas tree when the strobes go off.

I don't know if that would have any significant impact on the issues asked about in this situation. I mean, it does take light longer to go around a room and return and thus increases the ambient exposure and T-.1 time there.... but I have to think that's negligible at these subject speeds. I would imagine you've got a T-.1 time of at least ~ 1/300 and it's not going to move it far I would think. I don't think it would be negligible for high speed photography and there is some point at which it crosses over.

Maybe I'm way off this time and there's nothing "wrong" with the lighting setup... ("wrong" being quite subjective)

Have you ever taken a picture of the room when the strobes go off? That will show you what kind of control you are really having over the lighting.
 
HoppyUK said:
The vast majority of studio heads are not IGBT controlled like hot-shoe guns. Off the top of my head, in current production I can only think of the (rather good) Lencarta SuperFasts, and new Profoto B1 (looks very good, too); Einsteins are almost non-existent in the UK.

And as for manufacturers' quoted flash durations, most of them are not worth the paper they're printed on and even when accurate they rarely give more than t.5 times at full power only - because it's extremely flattering. Rule of thumb is to multiply t.5 by x2 or x3 to get somewhere near to shutter speed equivalents, and that duration will likely double at lower power outputs. Entry level studio heads are typically in the 1/250-1/500sec region in terms of real-world action-stopping potential.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know... Einsteins are more common here (great for the money). Thyristor controlled are getting much more common though, Godox QT's and similar, and the little "portables" like the AD360...
I've always used the 3x factor... but I've never tested to know for sure.
 
sk66 said:
Something is bothering me about the example image...
If the lights are at the same angle/same distance/same power then I should be seeing a 2:1 lighting ratio... You seem to have indicated the lights are set up pretty much identically, but I'm not seeing 2:1...

In fact, it looks very close to 1:1 and balanced with the ambient. Based upon the camera settings and BG distance I would expect harder shadows unless these are larger softboxes very close to her, and I kind of doubt they are (i.e. ~36" w/in ~1ft). It seems to me this must be a quite small and light colored room, and it must be lighting up like a christmas tree when the strobes go off.
Click to expand...

You're using the word 'ambient' when I think you mean 'spill' (flash light reflected and bounced around the room).

I don't know if that would have any significant impact on the issues asked about in this situation.
Click to expand...

Not on the blur.

I mean, it does take light longer to go around a room and return and thus increases the ambient exposure and T-.1 time there.... but I have to think that's negligible at these subject speeds. I would imagine you've got a T-.1 time of at least ~ 1/300 and it's not going to move it far I would think. I don't think it would be negligible for high speed photography and there is some point at which it crosses over.

Maybe I'm way off this time and there's nothing "wrong" with the lighting setup... ("wrong" being quite subjective)

Have you ever taken a picture of the room when the strobes go off? That will show you what kind of control you are really having over the lighting.
Click to expand...

I can't think you mean that. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second.
 
You're using the word 'ambient' when I think you mean 'spill' (flash light reflected and bounced around the room).
Click to expand...
Yes, I do that... I say "ambient" for anything that is not controlled lighting...i.e. spill adds to ambient and thus the "ambient exposure"... That's the way I think, and pretty much the way it works...

I can't think you mean that. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second.
Click to expand...
I did say i thought this was pretty far out there...or I was thinking it...:)

I'll be quiet now...
 
This is getting pretty techie.

Turn all your lights off except one. Stick it on full power*.

If you still get blur then you have a problem that will need new kit to solve. If (as if far more likely) you don't then it's a question of effectively using what you have.

But start with defining the problem rather than arguing about radio delays and t.5 times and other stuff. So many lighting threads dissolve into discussions of kit when the real question is about lighting.

-----
* in the fairly unlikely case that you have IGBT lights then use lowest power not full. To tell the difference without reading loads of techie stuff just try both.
 
JonathanRyan said:
This is getting pretty techie.

Turn all your lights off except one. Stick it on full power*.

If you still get blur then you have a problem that will need new kit to solve. If (as if far more likely) you don't then it's a question of effectively using what you have.

But start with defining the problem rather than arguing about radio delays and t.5 times and other stuff. So many lighting threads dissolve into discussions of kit when the real question is about lighting.

-----
* in the fairly unlikely case that you have IGBT lights then use lowest power not full. To tell the difference without reading loads of techie stuff just try both.
Click to expand...

If the thread is getting techy, that's because the problem is a technical one. The OP is complaining of movement blur, using Interfit heads known to have longish durations even for entry level kit, and is at 2/3rds power. In the absence of significant ambient light, there can only be one answer, and that's too long flash duration. And that won't change much at full power - a bit perhaps, but not much.
 
Last edited:
Your shots are lifeless because your lighting is flat and boring. If you learn about light your shots will become more exciting.
 
CharlotteM said:
Your shots are lifeless because your lighting is flat and boring. If you learn about light your shots will become more exciting.
Click to expand...
Harsh but true,

The quality of the lighting would concern me far more than a little bit of movement blur. And I would also shoot from a lower position.

Unfortunately the lighting arrangement you have used is only 'standard' in the sense that it's the standard misinformation you find in a lot of camera magazines as well as all over the web. There should in fact be one key light with a second light (or reflector) if necessary, and the key light should be wherever it needs to be to show the subject at its best.

Your 'standard lighting setup' is producing an unnatural and flat effect.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Unfortunately the lighting arrangement you have used is only 'standard' in the sense that it's the standard misinformation you find in a lot of camera magazines as well as all over the web. There should in fact be one key light with a second light (or reflector) if necessary, and the key light should be wherever it needs to be to show the subject at its best.
Click to expand...

There's no 'should' about it. There's no 'right' setup with one key light and a second fill. People just need to start understanding how light acts and then being creative with it and doing their own thing. Not following some rule, be that from a magazine or anywhere.
 
Re the flat and lifeless part -
Maybe it would be worth going back to basics with one key light and a reflector to try and make the light more flattering from there before concerning yourself with a 2nd light.

My main subjects when I do shoots are babies/toddlers or kids.
I only use one studio light with a 4 foot octabox and an 82cm reflector.
I always have the octabox as low as I can for kids and rarely do the 45/45 angles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Garry Edwards said:
There should in fact be one key light with a second light (or reflector) if necessary, and the key light should be wherever it needs to be to show the subject at its best.

Your 'standard lighting setup' is producing an unnatural and flat effect.
Click to expand...

CharlotteM said:
There's no 'should' about it. There's no 'right' setup with one key light and a second fill. People just need to start understanding how light acts and then being creative with it and doing their own thing. Not following some rule, be that from a magazine or anywhere.
Click to expand...

And your lighting diagram please for a key light and kicker (strobe or reflector) or indeed any other setup you might suggest please for a 2-3 year old who is randomly running around the studio area (and frequently out of it) is ?
 
meonshore said:
And your lighting diagram please for a key light and kicker (strobe or reflector) or indeed any other setup you might suggest please for a 2-3 year old who is randomly running around the studio area (and frequently out of it) is ?
Click to expand...
It would no doubt involve a lot of squiggles, chasing said toddler around trying to get the best setup.

There's a time and a place to experiment with lighting setups and shooting a very agile and energetic 2 year old isn't one of them.

Big PLM's (60 inch and above) are great for lighting young kids shoots imho
 
Last edited:
meonshore said:
And your lighting diagram please for a key light and kicker (strobe or reflector) or indeed any other setup you might suggest please for a 2-3 year old who is randomly running around the studio area (and frequently out of it) is ?
Click to expand...
There isn't one. Personally I feel that all lighting diagrams are a total waste of time because
1. They encourage people to use a formulae instead of using their head - about as creative as painting by numbers
2. Lighting is 3 dimensional, diagrams are 2 dimensional
3. Lighting diagrams don't show distance or angle because of this
3. There's always more than one way of skinning a cat

Think instead of what is natural and normal. In the real world, most light comes from above and a bit in front - whether that's indoors or outdoors, so a realistic starting point is to have a light fairly high and in front. We know that this will cause shadow areas in the bits that this light can't reach, so we might put a fill light, or fill reflector, low down to put at least some light into the shadow areas.

Even with a 3 year old, running around like crazy, this will work. But the thing that will work even better is to think about it and to experiment.
 
My point Garry as I'm sure you are aware is that when the subject can be anywhere in a 3m x 4m area there is no sophisticated lighting setup as you might put in place for an adult model, business portrait, or even a family group where the little ones are under some control. Your description is still going to give relatively flat light across a broad area.

The reason being that in this specific circumstance it is the most reliable means of getting something from the session when the subject moves around so much. The subject doing something rather than the lighting is more of a determinant for the value of the sale, or the delight of the photographer if they are for personal use.

It is very easy to get pious about lighting, and I have no doubt that in the right environment with the right subject both you and Charlotte could creatively light your subject (as could I and many others on this forum) - but sticking the knife in to someone who is trying to get images of a toddler running around by having a pop about flat lighting doesn't really help - putting a key light and fill won't help motion in the hands in this situation.

If you have an example of a toddler in motion with more creative (but repeatable across multiple sessions - rather than a happy accident) lighting I for one would love to see it.

To the OP - IMVHO and experience you should take on board most of the suggestions in here - you will have to eliminate those who are assuming you are using speedlites. Fixing your exposure issues should reduce your "graininess", brightening the subject (ideally due to the correct lighting) should also lift the overall feel of the image. But in my experience shooting toddlers requires significant patience and an acknowledgement that some/many of them won't be perfectly sharp particularly in the hands and feet because of the limitations of your cameras max sync speed with external lights. FWIW I get the same issue with some children at 1/250, Elinchrom RX600s and Pocketwizard triggers. You throw them away and keep the ones with very little or no motion, you get them when they are knackered, or you get them going things which slow them down, or have them stationary.
 
Good reading all the reasons it could be

I've had this problem with Children moving their hands about and been blurred, after some time trying to work out what it was it came down IMHO to, Lights only being on half power and fairly rapid shooting, the lights while firing, had not fully recharged, more a puff of light than a freezing flash

H
 
Last edited:
Shooting toddlers does indeed require patience and luck as well as care and skill.
The point I'm trying to make is that having 'natural' looking lighting, principally from above, is a pretty safe bet.
Because of the movement of the subject, the lights need to be pretty distant, far further away than for a typical adult model, but this works to advantage because it means that the distant lights produce a harder lighting effect, and the perfect complexions of young children benefit from this.

And, having distant lights also means that the effect of the inverse square law is reduced, which means that exposure will be fairly consistent almost regardless of subject position.
 
meonshore said:
And your lighting diagram please for a key light and kicker (strobe or reflector) or indeed any other setup you might suggest please for a 2-3 year old who is randomly running around the studio area (and frequently out of it) is ?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I'd shoot them outside personally. But then I would prefer a lifestyle portrait of an energetic kid being energetic, rather than a shot of them on a lifeless white background.
 
CharlotteM said:
I wouldn't. I'd shoot them outside personally. But then I would prefer a lifestyle portrait of an energetic kid being energetic, rather than a shot of them on a lifeless white background.
Click to expand...

Have you looked out of the window recently Charlotte ? Because where I am it is dark, pouring hard and blowing a gale - and on or of it has been much of the week and will be for most of the next.

I am aware that you are (a) a student at the moment and (b) predominately a writer with some photography to fill in the gaps and (c) pretty opinionated about what is good photography

But really have you any real concept of running a social photography business (outside of the marketing fluff put out by interviewed rockstar photographers) ? ... location portrait sessions are wonderful. I love them for the variety of backdrops, the natural interaction and the experience that the client gets from it which is so much richer than a studio session which can often turn in higher sales.

BUT.

- You are severely limited by the weather
- You are severely limited in the late autumn and winter months by available light
- You can't put through reliable volume in the same way you can a studio

If anyone is doing portraits as a FT business then particularly in the busy and very profitable run up to Christmas - studio/indoors portraiture is a must. It might not be to your taste but for many photographers who run a successful social photography business it brings in the money. You might find them lifeless but the parents of those children would argue differently.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
If the thread is getting techy, that's because the problem is a technical one. The OP is complaining of movement blur, using Interfit heads known to have longish durations even for entry level kit, and is at 2/3rds power. In the absence of significant ambient light, there can only be one answer, and that's too long flash duration. And that won't change much at full power - a bit perhaps, but not much.
Click to expand...

With slower heads like these, and plenty of power for the situation, there is the option of going for tail-sync and SS's above x-sync. That would probably require different triggers or an optical slave trick. But you never know, the IR triggers might work. A different/better head would make more sense than buying $300 triggers just for this situation IMO...

But there's still the ability of moving the lights back and running them harder, which hasn't been tried yet and should help some. And none of this helps the focus issue which is really more important.
 
But even at 1/160 your 'exposure' is the length of the flash duration,
Click to expand...
Phill is correct 100% correct so it can be deduced that the ambient lighting in the room being using as a studio is having more of an effect on lighting your subject than the flash units you are using, hence the motion blur.

Turn off all lights in your studio except the modelling lights on the flash units try the shoot again and see how that turns out.

high end cameras tend to have faster possible sync speeds than cheaper ones
Total b****x.. A higher flash sync speed allows the effective use of flash in brighter ambient lighting conditions for example to use fill in flash in very bright sunshine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Phil Young said:
Looks to me like your speed is too slow and her hand moved faster than your shutter could freeze... I wouldn't shoot kids slower than 1/250th
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with anything! Flash controls your shutter speed when using them and unless there is lots of ambient light it has no effect on the blurring at all!

The likely cause is long flash durations. Try at full power as this is where studio flash heads tends to have their highest duration. Other than this you will have ambient affecting the shot and causing blur.

Focus using single point focus and go from there.
 
Last edited:
meonshore said:
Have you looked out of the window recently Charlotte ? Because where I am it is dark, pouring hard and blowing a gale - and on or of it has been much of the week and will be for most of the next.

I am aware that you are (a) a student at the moment and (b) predominately a writer with some photography to fill in the gaps and (c) pretty opinionated about what is good photography

But really have you any real concept of running a social photography business (outside of the marketing fluff put out by interviewed rockstar photographers) ? ... location portrait sessions are wonderful. I love them for the variety of backdrops, the natural interaction and the experience that the client gets from it which is so much richer than a studio session which can often turn in higher sales.
Click to expand...

I don't, but I do have friends running lifestyle photography business'. And according to their Facebook updates they were still out shooting families (with pets in tow) last week in the parks, the forests, on the sea fronts.

Different markets, different kinds of people. I grew up on a farm, I wouldn't mind shooting in this weather personally.

And on the other hand I have friends who shoot beautiful indoor studio portraiture of children as part of their business. And I'll tell you, a white background with flat lighting just wouldn't cut it with them or their clients. There are always other possibilities and there are (almost) always better ways to do things.

The point was that the OP said (and I quote) "They are also just so flat and lifeless." They are flat and lifeless because of the light and the background. There is no other explanation. If the OP wants to cure the flat and lifeless aspect as well as the motion issue then he needs to attack both parts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CharlotteM said:
I don't, but I do have friends running lifestyle photography business'. And according to their Facebook updates they were still out shooting families (with pets in tow) last week in the parks, the forests, on the sea fronts.

Different markets, different kinds of people. I grew up on a farm, I wouldn't mind shooting in this weather personally.

And on the other hand I have friends who shoot beautiful indoor studio portraiture of children as part of their business. And I'll tell you, a white background with flat lighting just wouldn't cut it with them or their clients. There are always other possibilities and there are (almost) always better ways to do things.

The point was that the OP said (and I quote) "They are also just so flat and lifeless." They are flat and lifeless because of the light and the background. There is no other explanation. If the OP wants to cure the flat and lifeless aspect as well as the motion issue then he needs to attack both parts.
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse! He asked a technical question not an opinion on his technique! The OP can't stop a hand from blurring so until he figures this he can't move on once he does I am sure his lighting will improve. Beautiful lighting doesn't come on day one of using lights!
 
Back on track and to help to OP understand, I took these shots last night posted in this thread
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/fairy-lights-in-a-kids-portrait.522491/

These were taken at 1/4 sec, f2.8 to pick up the lighting from the fairy lights with the flash firing to freeze the action. This should help explain that its the flash duration, not your shutter speed, which affects the shot. Admittedly the kids weren't waving their hands about too fast but these were done with a Lencarta Smartflash 200 which froze the action just fine - despite being on 1/16 power.
 
ding76uk said:
This has nothing to do with anything! Flash controls your shutter speed when using them and unless there is lots of ambient light it has no effect on the blurring at all!

The likely cause is long flash durations. Try at full power as this is where studio flash heads tends to have their highest duration. Other than this you will have ambient affecting the shot and causing blur.

Focus using single point focus and go from there.
Click to expand...
So you're telling me that 1/30th for example is fine to freeze anything as long as the flash duration is short? ...so...why do we high speed sync and that for if the shutter speed has nothing do with stopping blur?!
 
Phil Young said:
So you're telling me that 1/30th for example is fine to freeze anything as long as the flash duration is short? ...so...why do we high speed sync and that for if the shutter speed has nothing do with stopping blur?!
Click to expand...
surely you can't "high speed sync" studio flash? only strobes (flashguns) or am i missing something here?
 
CharlotteM said:
I don't, but I do have friends running lifestyle photography business'. And according to their Facebook updates they were still out shooting families (with pets in tow) last week in the parks, the forests, on the sea fronts.
Click to expand...

Of course Facebook is the definitive truth when it comes to people accurately portraying how busy they are :cool:. They might well be shooting still - but 8-10 sessions a day, 6 days a week ? Your friends might shoot 1-2 sessions a week, and they might pull £1-3k per session but there is a model of photography in this country that services a different market, not one I'm in but it doesn't make it less valid, and that doesn't work with a location model at this time of year.

Different markets, different kinds of people. I grew up on a farm, I wouldn't mind shooting in this weather personally.
Click to expand...

You might not have an issue shooting - but can you find clients that want the windswept and dripping look to give as Christmas presents ?

And on the other hand I have friends who shoot beautiful indoor studio portraiture of children as part of their business. And I'll tell you, a white background with flat lighting just wouldn't cut it with them or their clients. There are always other possibilities and there are (almost) always better ways to do things.
Click to expand...

NO - THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THINGS.

You cannot take your preferences and pre-justices and make them law as far as people running photographic businesses or determining their styles - so much for a balanced journalistic viewpoint. Lisa Visser does beautifully lit children's portrait sessions, as does Simon John - but I haven't seen her shooting toddlers on a frequent basis in that style. White background might not be the be all and end all - and it may not be the high-end clients preferred style - but it sure as hell was 10 years ago - Venture was considered a high end studio and it hooked all the big spending clients. Now not so much but every style goes through a peak and gets replaced on it's way down to a commodity style which is what white background is now. Don't forget Wall-mart style cloudy backdrops were once the bees-knees.

The point was that the OP said (and I quote) "They are also just so flat and lifeless." They are flat and lifeless because of the light and the background. There is no other explanation. If the OP wants to cure the flat and lifeless aspect as well as the motion issue then he needs to attack both parts.
Click to expand...

There are other explanations - exposure and expression. I can point to lots of vibrant images of toddlers broadly lit on a white background - heck I could even point to some of my own.

Now it is worth noting that I haven't shot a white background toddlers portrait for over 3 years now. I now shoot all my toddlers on coloured or patterned backdrops in the studio, or on location. It personally isn't to my taste anymore, and I refer work to someone who does shoot it, but again I'm not a high volume studio. I did shoot it though for about 6 years - improved my lighting and retouching significantly across that time as well as the way in which I managed the session and interacted with the kids. I recognise the issue because I have had to deal with it - exposure, expression and then lighting.
 
Phil Young said:
So you're telling me that 1/30th for example is fine to freeze anything as long as the flash duration is short? ...so...why do we high speed sync and that for if the shutter speed has nothing do with stopping blur?!
Click to expand...
Basically, the function of the shutter when using flash indoors is just to be open when the flash fires, full stop.
The longer the shutter is open, the greater the effect of any ambient light (daylight, room lighting etc) so, in very bright ambient lighting conditions, a 30th sec shutter speed may cause problems with light pollution, and that light pollution may also cause some image blur - whether from camera shake, subject movement or both - but the freezing action comes from the flash, not from the shutter speed. Because of the risk of light pollution, we typically shoot at 1/125th sec, which is fast enough to negate the effect of any room lighting and slow enough to ensure that the shutter will be fully open.

High speed synch (in its various forms can be used with both hotshoe flashguns and with studio flash. Its primary role is to reduce the effect of the ambient light, for example when shooting outdoors in bright light. It is of no relevance whatever for normal studio photography.

The OP asked a simple technical question and has got the answer, which is that the flash duration is too long to freeze this kind of movement. As this is an internet forum it's inevitable that he also got some wrong answers, but his problem has been solved.
 
Phil Young said:
It's actually since I said if he better triggers he could sync faster (not HSS) and would evade any blur.
Click to expand...
rubbish you don't need faster sync speed to get faster flash exposure the fast flash stops the action not the shutter speed. as gary has explained above.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
So if one were to want something with a fast flash duration, what kind of speed would one look for?
Click to expand...
If a fast flash duration is important, then you should look for an IGBT system, there's not a lot of choice, but the heads the OP is using should be capable of ordinary sync speeds with few shots like the one in the OP.

Indeed of the shots we saw, there's only one 'spoilt' by movement, and if movement had been the only thing wrong, it'd be a keeper. There's more concern re lighting and exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top