Lets See/Read About Your Studio Setup

Squidgy Black

What kind of studio set up are you guys using? Is it just the odd off camera flash and umbrella or are you going all out with high end flashes and softboxes?

FoxT

http://bit.ly/hSeOWi

Thecageyone

stetyrrell wrote: »

Is it just the odd off camera flash and umbrella

That's me. Does the job.

sineadw

Lucky enough to have the use of 2x1500 watt and 2x1000 watt bowens, 2 very large softboxes, a sunlight dish, a small-ish dish, two barn doors, a snoot, a spot and a fresnel spot. Oh and various reflectors, blocks, and a triflector.

Borderfox

2x400w Dlite 4 kite, Lastolite Hilite. Loads of off camera gear.

Hugh_C

Plus a large luminescent paddling pool by the looks of it

Thecageyone

sineadw wrote: »

Lucky enough to have the use of 2x1500 watt and 2x1000 watt bowens, 2 very large softboxes, a sunlight dish, a small-ish dish, two barn doors, a snoot, a spot and a fresnel spot. Oh and various reflectors, blocks, and a triflector.

Any shots to show off the effectiveness of all this?

dazftw

http://pix.ie/sineadw/2215058

I could be wrong but I reckon all the portrait stuff there is using it.

sineadw

http://pix.ie/sineadw/album/404578 is a bit clearer. I haven't used any more than two lights at a time for these though. It'd be only highkey stuff where i'd use all four. It's great to have the option of the different boxes and dishes though - means I have great control of contrast.

No difference really from the smaller lights except power, but it was great when I was doing a large format still life a while ago, shooting at f/64, when I needed a crapload of light. Even with the 1500s I was at full blast, and between 4 and 8 flashes per exposure.

kelly1

I recently bought a D-Lite 2/4 kit with umbrellas here but swapped an umbrella for a softbox (Thanks oshead ) Next purchase will be a background light.

Background stand purchased here
and paper roll here

Can anyone suggest a suitable modifier for the background light? Bishop's hat or grid?

FoxT

Interesting you swapped an umbrella for a softbox - I am hoping to get 1 or the other of these soon - how did you find they compared with each other? Thanks.

kelly1

FoxT wrote: »

Interesting you swapped an umbrella for a softbox - I am hoping to get 1 or the other of these soon - how did you find they compared with each other? Thanks.

The softbox gives a softer, smoother light and you have more control over where the light goes compared with an umbrella. The umbrella is fine for high-key shots of groups etc and it's easier to manage than the softbox. If I had to make a choice, I'd go with the softbox.

Borderfox

Did you get rid of the umbrellas Kelly?

Thecageyone

Brollys break very easily too. Mine blew over in a gust of wind during my last outdoor shoot and 3 of the spokes needed straightening.

F/64! Would that not diminish the quality a lot? I have a lens that does f/57 in 1:1 but cannot ever see me using it.

kelly1

Borderfox wrote: »

Did you get rid of the umbrellas Kelly?

Just the reflective one. I still have 2 shoot-throughs.

jpb1974

My studio is made up of a PVC Window (Light Oak effect - Double Glazed) + a reflector.

bullpost

Solar-powered?

jpb1974 wrote: »

My studio is made up of a PVC Window (Light Oak effect - Double Glazed) + a reflector.

PopeBuckfastXVI

sineadw

Thecageyone wrote: »

F/64! Would that not diminish the quality a lot? I have a lens that does f/57 in 1:1 but cannot ever see me using it.

On the contrary! It gives beautiful detail, and when you use it with the tilt controls of the camera to widen the DoF you get beautifully crisp images. It's what Adams would have used most of the time for his Yosemite shots. In fact, there was a whole photographic movement dedicated to it. You have to remember that f/64 on a large format camera is *very* different to f/64 on a 35mm frame though, never mind a cropped sensor!

Here's the shot at f/64. Click through to see it at not even it's full resolution at the full size, and you'll see what I mean.. That's why I needed so much light for it. It would have been a lot more complicated with smaller wattage lights*.



*I love the studio. I'm going to miss it terribly come June

dazftw

Thecageyone wrote: »

F/64! Would that not diminish the quality a lot? I have a lens that does f/57 in 1:1 but cannot ever see me using it.

Ansel Adams used F/64 a lot.. He even started a group called F/64

Thecageyone

Ah cool. I did wonder if the format made a lot of difference. Smaller sensors suffer a lot of diffraction beyond f/22 from what I've read. Very nice to have that ability.

kelly1

Thecageyone wrote: »

Ah cool. I did wonder if the format made a lot of difference. Smaller sensors suffer a lot of diffraction beyond f/22 from what I've read. Very nice to have that ability.

And that's only possible on full frame from what I've read. Limit of f/16 on cropped.

Thecageyone

What's only possible? Clean results up to f/22? I've been shooting at that aperture recently for flash macro shots. They're pin sharp with no obvious diffraction/ distortion or any loss of quality. The lens must play a significant part on it too.

kelly1

Thecageyone wrote: »

What's only possible? Clean results up to f/22? I've been shooting at that aperture recently for flash macro shots. They're pin sharp with no obvious diffraction/ distortion or any loss of quality. The lens must play a significant part on it too.

Sure, it depends on the diameter of the aperture and the size of the photo sites. Read all about it at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

eas

kelly1 wrote: »

And that's only possible on full frame from what I've read. Limit of f/16 on cropped.

you guys don't really pay any attention to that BS do you?

.

charybdis

eas wrote: »

you guys don't really pay any attention to that BS do you?

.

Diffraction?

eas

yes, or any other element in photography that requires someone to geekout and take photos of brick walls at every aperture then compare results at 400x.

ValueInIreland

kelly1 wrote: »

I recently bought a D-Lite 2/4 kit with umbrellas here but swapped an umbrella for a softbox (Thanks oshead ) Next purchase will be a background light.

Can anyone suggest a suitable modifier for the background light? Bishop's hat or grid?

What you need is the 16cm reflector, Bulldog clips and Black flag, have a look at this You Tube video on how to achieve the perfect result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRiRZYQJ0xk&feature=player_embedded#at=14

charybdis

eas wrote: »

yes, or any other element in photography that requires someone to geekout and take photos of brick walls at every aperture then compare results at 400x.

I think diffraction is worth understanding. Of course, it might not be highly pertinent to the area of photography you're interested in, but that doesn't mean you should ignore it.

Aside: I've never done or been interested in doing the brick wall 400% crop thing. Understanding diffraction does not require you to do this.

magicbastarder

dazftw wrote: »

Ansel Adams used F/64 a lot.. He even started a group called F/64

ansel adams used cameras the size of michael lowry's secret bank account. he could get away with f64.

eas

sure, I agree...knowing all the little compromises we make with every photographic decision is important. However, I think diffraction falls into a bucket of subjects that is more about interweb hysteria than actual real life issues. I often find myself at the top end of my aperture numbers, sometimes I do think I'd rather be at f8, but if I need f22 that's what I need.

my studio at the moment comprises of 2 lightstands, 2 sb800's, 1 sb900, 1 su800, a few modifiers and cheapo triggers. thinking of maybe getting a Ranger Quadra set, but not sure yet.

woody_2000

kelly1 wrote: »

Sure, it depends on the diameter of the aperture and the size of the photo sites. Read all about it at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I just read very briefly down through the article which references camera optic becoming "diffraction limited", and it occurred to me that there may possibly be a counterbalancing interplay between aperture and photosite size... Larger photosites may be more light sensitive and need a smaller aperture at any given shutter speed (implying a reletive shift in exposure), however the possible loss of resolution due to diffraction with a smaller aperture may be counterbalanced by the fact that the larger photosites mean a lower resolution anyway - compared to a higher resolution sensor of the same size... If necessary, it could be an idea to set up a controlled experiment/test to examine/test the particular diffraction characteristics of a particular camera configuration - and maybe with regard to particular lighting situations... Just a random thought/interjection. Please excuse.

EDIT: Two similarly sized sensors but with different resolutions, at the same aperture setting, may possibly be a case for comparison -- e.g. A Canon 1000D (10MP) compared to a Canon 550D (18MP) with the same lens and aperture setting (all at the same ISO, of course)... A difference at various exposure settings/scenarios could also be factored in, for a more comprehensive comparison...

kelly1

ValueInIreland wrote: »

What you need is the 16cm reflector, Bulldog clips and Black flag, and You Tube video on how to achieve the perfect result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRiRZYQJ0xk&feature=player_embedded#at=14

Thanks for that VII. I have a mid grey background and I want to have a graduated circular light just over the shoulders or to the opposite side of the key light.

kelly1

woody_2000 wrote: »

I just read very briefly down through the article which references camera optic becoming "diffraction limited", and it occurred to me that there may possibly be a counterbalancing interplay between aperture and photosite size... Larger photosites may be more light sensitive and need a smaller aperture at any given shutter speed (implying a reletive shift in exposure), however the possible loss of resolution due to diffraction with a smaller aperture may be counterbalanced by the fact that the larger photosites mean a lower resolution anyway - compared to a higher resolution sensor of the same size... If necessary, it could be an idea to set up a controlled experiment/test to examine/test the particular diffraction characteristics of a particular camera configuration - and maybe with regard to particular lighting situations... Just a random thought/interjection. Please excuse.

Yes, I see what you mean. I really is down to the physical cell size. But that's too geeky, right eas?

sineadw

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks for that VII. I have a mid grey background and I want to have a graduated circular light just over the shoulders or to the opposite side of the key light.

Snoot then?

ValueInIreland

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks for that VII. I have a mid grey background and I want to have a graduated circular light just over the shoulders or to the opposite side of the key light.

Ok, I was assuming you were one of the 99% attempting Hi-Key all white backdrop -a welcome change!.
I find the snoot gives a very small spot, so my preference is for either the 21cm or 18cm reflectors fitted with a grid. The 18cm is available in a value bundle with a 30deg grid, or you can splash out and get a set with either reflector with different grids.

eas

kelly1 wrote: »

But that's too geeky, right eas?

Unless you wear a lab coat and safety glasses in order to feed your family, that is well too geeky.

kelly1

ValueInIreland wrote: »

Ok, I was assuming you were one of the 99% attempting Hi-Key all white backdrop -a welcome change!.
I find the snoot gives a very small spot, so my preference is for either the 21cm or 18cm reflectors fitted with a grid. The 18cm is available in a value bundle with a 30deg grid, or you can splash out and get a set with either reflector with different grids.

No, I'm not a fan of hi-key generally 30deg grid sounds like the best option.

oshead

eas wrote: »

sure, I agree...I think diffraction falls into a bucket of subjects that is more about interweb hysteria than actual real life issues.

.......thinking of maybe getting a Ranger Quadra set, but not sure yet.

I agree with you on the diffraction thing. Certainly over hyped. It is difficult to nail down and identify when an image is suffering from diffraction or slight camera movement.

I was thinking of getting a Quadra set recently too. The one/two thing(s) that stopped me were price and necessity. How often in the field do you actually need the extra power. Maybe to kill the suns ambient, but apart from that, 2 grand worth of gear and no ttl to boot.

woody_2000

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I see what you mean. I really is down to the physical cell size. But that's too geeky, right eas?

Yes, it appears to have a lot to do with photosite size (other than aperture size) - but what difference it may make subjectively in any "real life" application is another question... If one is overly concerned about something that may make no real difference in practice, then it could possibly be considered a bit geeky...:o

EDIT: I just added an edit to my previous post.

City-Exile

ValueInIreland wrote: »

What you need is ...

What would you suggest for someone who gets asked to do the odd family portrait/kids photos, but doesn't need a complicated studio setup?

eas

oshead wrote: »

I was thinking of getting a Quadra set recently too. The one/two thing(s) that stopped me were price and necessity. How often in the field do you actually need the extra power. Maybe to kill the suns ambient, but apart from that, 2 grand worth of gear and no ttl to boot.

I'm stuck on the same issues. For the few times that I'd need them weighted up against the price it does seem like a crazy investment. But then, I think if I got them I'd probably explore options that arn't available to me with my current set up. Then again, even though they are extremely portable for what they are, they can never match a couple flashguns....

FWIW I think Sheldon's have a pretty good price of around 1800 for the a head kit.

Squidgy Black

I ordered a Yongnuo YN-460 and a set of triggers off ebay earlier today, gonna get an umbrella and a stand for now, and then reflectors and a background

squareballoon

we're all natural light so far but use big floor to ceiling windows for light.

ValueInIreland

City-Exile wrote: »

What would you suggest for someone who gets asked to do the odd family portrait/kids photos, but doesn't need a complicated studio setup?

A good starting point would be a single Studio head on a stand with a large umbrella. Lighting won't be fancy, but will be even without shadows.
Stand, Elinchrom D-Lite2-it head, Large umbrella. -You'll have change out of €300. A two head kit is about €550 - or you could get a cheaper Interfit kit (two head) for under €300. Use the natural background of the room (a bit hit and miss), but you could try a high angle and shoot down onto the family who can sit on the floor (not patterned carpet!).

City-Exile

ValueInIreland wrote: »

A good starting point would be a single Studio head on a stand with a large umbrella. Lighting won't be fancy, but will be even without shadows.
Stand, Elinchrom D-Lite2-it head, Large umbrella. -You'll have change out of €300. A two head kit is about €550 - or you could get a cheaper Interfit kit (two head) for under €300. Use the natural background of the room (a bit hit and miss), but you could try a high angle and shoot down onto the family who can sit on the floor (not patterned carpet!).

I don't suppose you accept One4All vouchers.

oshead

Just finished setting this up the other day and haven't had a chance to use it yet. The backdrop support has 4 engines and is remotely controlled. It's attached to the ceiling so rolls up conveniently when not in use. I've got 4 rolls on it at the moment. Yellow roll in behind the pink one.

Ballyman

It's arrived!! Excellent stuff. I'll be over to you during the week to have a look!!

oshead

Ballyman wrote: »

It's arrived!! Excellent stuff. I'll be over to you during the week to have a look!!

Sure Aindreas, Bring your little one and we'll get a few shots done....