Using worklights for portraits

[Ham]

if you’ve already got speedlights,

Ah yes. That would be nice. Flash-wise, I have a pre-TTL CT-45, 1x4/3 and 1 m4/3 flash units (ie, a rag-tag bunch) that would need slaves to function and other paraphernalia., and then an investment in time to acclimatise.

Style-wise, in adult portraiture I would use light to augment and develop mood, character, beauty, but children's portraits seem to me best when the lighting is unobtrusive. Sufficient shadow to bring out expression, but not over emphasised. Background should either be almost absent or context driven. The portrait is to capture a fleeting moment in the child's life that you can look back on. That's why I'm not unhappy with what these do. (but yes, that stain MUST GO! )

There's not much ambient light, the two lights are doing around 90% of what's happening.

And, what I was calling out wasn't a considered view that I was wasting my time by not following The One True Way, a valid opinion you've been kind enough to explain, discussion like that allows me to consider how far your reasoning applies to my circumstance and to learn and understand the factors involved. Instead it was a meaningless emoticon based on the mistaken assumption that I wasn't taking advice proffered. If cost was immaterial I would certainly be following your advice, but as with most things there is a progression. Even were I to lash out on the best kit, I would not immediately become a star studio photographer. If there's one constant that amuses me no matter what the field, it is that belief that simply by buying the right equipment you can become an instant photographer, barista, competition cyclist, whatever. Or for that matter, that a week's practice is in any way a substitute for a lifetime of training. Both of those trends are very common in our current society.
@ Gary Edwards, yes it is Lighting Magic I have, thank you for your words.

 

[Faldrax]

...

The main thing that you (and untold numbers of other people) need to understand is that good lighting is about creating the right lighting effects for the shot in hand. Many (most?) people seem to think that it's about having sufficient quantity of light to produce correct exposure, and the opposite is true.

...

Garry is one of the experts here, with years of experience, so you should certainly listen to what he says, it's invariably great advice.

Just to elaborate on what Garry has said in this paragraph, as it might sound like it contradicts what he said earlier.

While you do need sufficient quantity of light for the correct exposure, that is very much the basic starting point - and once you have that what you need is the ability to control the light - direction, hardness/softness, power, etc. and that is where modern Studio style lights (either mains or battery) with the wide range of modifiers you can fit to them, are so much superior to things like LED panels, CFL bulbs, etc.

 

[soupdragon]

Ham, when you get a mo I'd clone out that stain between the kids as no matter how much I try and ignore it I can't

Good luck with the lighting and the forum people and banter!

I hadn't noticed that 'til you mentioned it.
I was more distracted by the gap at the bottom of the backdrop and what appears to be a crease in the fireplace.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Gary is one of the experts here, with years of experience, so you should certainly listen to what he says, it's invariably great advice.

Just to elaborate on what Gary has said in this paragraph, as it might sound like it contradicts what he said earlier.

While you do need sufficient quantity of light for the correct exposure, that is very much the basic starting point - and once you have that what you need is the ability to control the light - direction, hardness/softness, power, etc. and that is where modern Studio style lights (either mains or battery) with the wide range of modifiers you can fit to them, are so much superior to things like LED panels, CFL bulbs, etc.

I'm not sure that this is a contradiction. Go back to the early days of digital (I started with it in about 2001) when the image quality was poor at 100 ISO and indescribable at higher settings, or when we were using film, and the quantity of light was important. But now, with most cameras perfectly OK at 800 ISO and many OK at far higher settings, the quantity of light is far less important than the quality.

Garry denies that he is an expert . . .
X = an unknown quantity
spurt = a drip under pressure

 

[Faldrax]

I'm not sure that this is a contradiction. Go back to the early days of digital (I started with it in about 2001) when the image quality was poor at 100 ISO and indescribable at higher settings, or when we were using film, and the quantity of light was important. But now, with most cameras perfectly OK at 800 ISO and many OK at far higher settings, the quantity of light is far less important than the quality.

Garry denies that he is an expert . . .
X = an unknown quantity
spurt = a drip under pressure

Apologies for the missing r, now corrected.

With both my daughters now teenagers (and the eldest able to start learning to drive in the very near future) I don't have the spare cash left to splash out on the latest cameras, so ISO 800 or so is the limit for me, and if I can I always shoot at ISO 200 (base for my camera).

However, I completely understand what you are saying - almost any decent light source will give sufficient light, particularly if you can up the ISO.