Flash in soft box. How to feather?

squareballoon

I bought a softbox for my flash and set it up last night with my pop up lasolite backdrop. The softbox is 24"x24". With the bracket to hold my OCF it cost about €60 which I was very happy with. I had bought the flash triggers seperately at conns.

I like these but I'm wondering if my lighting is too harsh. Do I need to buy a reflector on a stand for the other side? Do I need a larger softbox to be able to feather the light better or is it acceptably feathered? The first is straight out of camera with WB set to Flash.

oshead

Very expressive shots Lynn. He's really giving it his all. The lights are fine IMO. To feather it off a little more you could avoid pointing the light source directly at him. Ie, use the edge of the light as it falls off. You could also use a reflector on the other side if you want to kill the shadows a lot. My preferred way to reduce the shadows though is to setup a large fill light some ways back and just off the camera axis and to your right. It could probably read as much as stop less than the key and would help fill the shadows.

Here's an example using that technique. The key is a 4x1foot strip softbox, 45deg off to the right, with the fill a 3x4foot softbox just to the left of the camera axis, ie just behind my left shoulder. If my memory serves me correctly, the fill was about .66 of a stop less than the key.

This is SOOC with colour correction and crop applied. As you can see, it's a great way to bring detail back to the shadows.

eas

Nice work guys. Lynn, I quite like the shadows myself, I think they add drama to the subjects and often find studio work lacks in the shadows, but that's subjective to some degree.

As David recomends, you can use the the softbox itself to feather, or you can use some material as a gobo of sorts to drap over the box to narrow the width of box.

David, just curious on your technique, not that the photo posted shows any need for improvment, but woudlnt keeping the fill light close to the subject and reducing output give a softer light?

oshead

eas wrote: »

David, just curious on your technique, not that the photo posted shows any need for improvment, but woudlnt keeping the fill light close to the subject and reducing output give a softer light?

Not my technique... The fill is not actually casting any perceptible shadows. It's there just to bring up the shadows and even out the general light. The ratio is about 2:1. ie, key is about double the strength of the fill. Have a look at the background, the shadow behind her and on her leg. Without the fill, there'd be a lot more light fall off from the key. Bringing the fill in closer would have a similar effect on the subject. Except being closer would mean placing the fill substantially off axis and that would create perceptible shadows on the subject as well as significant light fall off on the background. If the fill were a little lower in power, it's effect would change dramatically. Just one stop further @ a ratio of 4:1, ie -2 Ev and you'd hardly know a fill was being used at all. Minus another Ev and you're clipping the blacks...

squareballoon

Thanks for that. I do have another light ( a really crappy cheap one) that might do the job for a fill light. I don't think I'll be using studio lights much but I do love how the light is so consistant for pping!