What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Just got the X150 Home Studio Lighting Kit for Christmas


SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
I am not sure what level I am at, but I know the basics!
I am getting into lighting (Butterfly, etc..)
I started off with the basic lighting setup without a backlight (did not come with set, should it?)
What do you think of my lighting for the first time?
 
Last edited:

Hoogle

Guru
Messages
8,334
Likes
2,587
hard to say on a male model but at first glance I would say your 2 main lights are to close to each other by the catch lights in your eye, unless of course you want that effect.

the light seems to be even maybe slightly under exposed but I am looking at this on a laptop without the most reliable screen, which may also be reason behind the images looking a little flat.

But for a first time setup I can only see things getting better for you as your off to a good start.

I am sure Tom will be along shortly with a whole lot more detail on improving and science of lighting. I dont do detail and wouldnt until seen images properly.
 

MikeMc

McGuru
Messages
1,871
Likes
1,202
Are you using the same exposure on all the shots, or using a "mode" ? the first (top)image seems the best, and as you progress down (adding more of the blind) the image seems flatter, like the camera was seeing the white and resetting the exposure.

Also agree with Hoogle, about the distance and the catchlights...Not enough light if spread ?

I could not do much better < but I would say the same to myself as I was shooting and adjust to get what I think I wanted. That said are you shooting in RAW or jpeg mode ?
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
I presume this is the kit you are talking about?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/569837-REG/Interfit_INT416_Stellar_X_150_Flash.html ???

I also noticed that you posted exactly the same question in several other photography forums, so since you will likely get a large number of answers, my response is going to be terse:

1. Your lighting ratio is almost perfectly 1:1. It should be more like 3:1.

2. Your background is as light as the subject. It should either be a lot darker or a lot lighter (ie, high key). You can't do the latter with the setup you have, but you can do the former.

The reason for such bright background and such a low contrast ratio is there is too much spill light bouncing around the room. The best way to control this is with a larger studio with dark walls, but lacking this, simply move both light stands *much* closer to the subject- ie, just out of sight of the camera. Then, the ratio of direct to bounce light will be more favorable.

If you bought the version with umbrellas that can be used in a shoot-through mode, not softboxes and not umbrellas with black rear sides, but they came with rear black covers, install them. If they didn't come with covers, fabricate something to block the light going through the umbrellas.

3. For a male subject, more skin texture is often desirable. Consider shooting one of your strobes directly at the subject as the key light, not at the umbrella (or through the softbox, depending on which model you bought).

4. Get a book on posing. Turn your shoulders. Not just your head.

Gotta run.

HTH,

Tom M
 

SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
The reason for the lights being so close is because of my studio is in a tight space: View attachment 40967
I guess I can turn the lights down and move them back. The light does seem underexposed. I will definitaly work on that and I guess it's better than overexposed.
 

SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
The white is because of the blinds in the back I think. The first shot I put the green screen in front of the blinds. (idk why I did start with that). I am shooting jpeg. I don't think I need RAW and am at that level for it or have the program. I don't understand what the hype is about RAW.
 

SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
There reason for posting on the camera one is I thought i'd give it a try and see which one would be more suitable for photography since this one is more towards photoshop. (I find this sites replays faster and cares more). anyways, the ratio I had was actually what you said but it looks too overexposed on the side, I guess I should turn my shutter down then. I was shooting at 1/200th, 6.3 ap. I am confused about the bounding light thing because I have one guy telling me that they are too close and its looking too flat. *I will note "more skin texture is often more desirable". I will also take note on the posing! Thanks!
 

Hoogle

Guru
Messages
8,334
Likes
2,587
I am not going to get into it in depth here there is plenty of resources on it around the web

Raw is not an image it swallows up everything your camera can see and makes a snapshot of that moment in time. It is only in post production when the image is made to a readable format once editing is done (outside of raw editing software.

A jpeg takes a snap shot and compresses it to a readable image straight away and trimming away all the data that is not needed.

WHen you edit a jpeg you can only do minor adjustments before you start seeing artifacts and noise and is a lot more limited whereas with raw you can make heavy edits such as exposure etc before image quality starts decreasing. Also raw images are a lot more flexible when it comes to sharpening.

I could write a whole thread on its own regarding why raw is better and only a few advantages of jpeg. jpeg images are good for immediate access and sharing, smaller file sizes, can shoot faster between images etc.
 

MikeMc

McGuru
Messages
1,871
Likes
1,202
Think of this...RAW is the camera negative with everything there, a Jpeg has been run through a one hour lab....hope you like the results the computer gave you....ME I shoot in RAW only
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
OP: "I guess I can turn the lights down and move them back."

Huh?

I said exactly the opposite: "...lacking this, simply move both light stands *much* closer to the subject- ie, just out of sight of the camera..."

I also explained why I made this recommendation.

T
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
A few more things:

1. OP: "... The reason for the lights being so close is because of my studio is in a tight space ..."

No knowledgeable studio photographer would ever consider your lights particularly "close" given the sizes of the modifiers and the fact that you are shooting head-and-shoulder portraits. A light is considered "close" if the distance between the light and the subject is is less than the size of the light's exit aperture (ie, the size of the front of the softbox or umbrella).

I am suggesting that you actually move at least the key light even closer to the subject in order to have better control over the illumination of the subject.

If you want a very specific recommendation, now that I have a better idea of what you are working with, I would suggest making the light on our right (the one with the small softbox) your key light and moving it in to about 2.5 or 3 feet away from the subject. For the time being, leave the light on our left (the one with the big modifier) where it is (ie, as a fill light), but dial it's power waaaay down till you get the desired lighting ratio on the face.
------------------

2. OP: "...anyways, the ratio I had was actually what you said but it looks too overexposed on the side..."

When a lighting ratio such as 3:1 is stated, it means the ratio of light intensities on the subject, ie, AS MEASURED ON THE SUBJECT (say, with a flash meter). All you did was dial in a 3:1 power input ratio to the lights. Everything that happens to the light after it leaves each of the flash units, particularly, bouncing around and absorption (both in your light modifiers and in the room), spread with distance, etc. will all change the 3:1 ratio that you dialed in by the time all the light eventually makes it's way to the subject.

If you don't have a flash meter, just use your own eyes to judge the lighting ratio. Do any of the images you posted look like a 3:1 ratio at the subject? No! The L and R sides of the face are all almost equally lit. In addition, in contrast to what you said, neither side of the faces in any of those images is even close to being overexposed (xcept for tiny areas of specular reflection, such as the catchlights in the eyes, glints on the teeth, etc.).

In a small room like that, and with the sources that far from the subject, one always gets huge amounts of spill from one side to the other because of light bouncing off the ceiling and other surfaces. The only way to get up to a 3:1 L-R ratio is move at least the key light source in closer.

Whomever suggested that you move them even further back is essentially clueless about lighting.
------------------

3. OP: "...but it looks too overexposed on the side, so I guess I should turn my shutter down then..."

In general, one NEVER adjusts the shutter speed to change the exposure due to the flash units. This is because the duration of the flash (usually, around 1/500th of a second) is always much shorter than the maximum permitted shutter speed, so the length of time your shutter is open generally has no effect on the exposure of your images.

However, there are two exceptions to this:

The first exception is that you have to be operating the camera within its rated limits. For your Sony Alpha (ie, SLT-A55V), the max sync speed is either 1/160 or 1/200 depending on which website you read. If you increase your shutter speed, from the current value of 1/200th to, say, 1/500th, most likely you will wind up with an ugly dark band down part of your images. Read the manual for your camera and don't go any faster than what it says.

The second exception, ie, ways that changing the shutter speed could influence the brightness of a flash exposure, is if there is a substantial amount of ambient light (say from the windows or conventional room lights) floating around the room. If you are attempting to shoot studio quality portraits, you don't want this. You want to be in full control of the lighting. Just like spill light hitting the ceiling and reducing the contrast ratio, the only thing ambient room light will do is also make it harder to reach your desired contrast ratio and let YOU be in full control of the lighting.
------------------

4. Thanks for providing the photo of your setup taken on your iPod Touch. It was useful, but it still leaves me with some questions:

a) What exactly is the modifier I see on the left in this photo? Is it a shoot-through umbrella, an octobox, or something else? Please provide a URL link to a description of it.

b) Why don't I see any light coming from the softbox on the right, but a huge amount of light coming from the source on the left? If the two are in sync, I would expect to see light from both, or from neither depending on exactly when you too the iPod photo, but not one on and one off.

c) If you are only shooting with two flash sources, what is/are causing the two bright blobs of light on or near the ceiling (circled below in red)? If they are conventional room lights, are they on when you took the photos you posted at the start of this thread?
------------------

5. For the time being, PLEASE lets only discuss lighting, and not confuse the issue with an almost entirely irrelevant discussion of RAW vs JPG files, post processing, color balance, or anything else. Everything we are discussing here could have been discussed in 1965 with black and white film shot on a view camera, LOL. You need to get the basics of lighting down first before you move on to topics further along in your workflow.


Cheers,

Tom


PS - So that we are efficient about discussing your lighting problem, when you respond to me, please (a) respond to each of my points in turn - don't miss any; and (b) don't mix responses to other folks in a post for me - put responses to others in separate posts and indicate who each one is for.

IMG_1665-tjm_annotated-acr-ps01a-01_500px_wide.jpg
 

SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
Sorry I do understand but I was reading too much stuff at once with a couple other forums and it messed me up. I do understand though. I am actually trying it right now.
 

SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
A few more things:

1. OP: "... The reason for the lights being so close is because of my studio is in a tight space ..."

No knowledgeable studio photographer would ever consider your lights particularly "close" given the sizes of the modifiers and the fact that you are shooting head-and-shoulder portraits. A light is considered "close" if the distance between the light and the subject is is less than the size of the light's exit aperture (ie, the size of the front of the softbox or umbrella).

I am suggesting that you actually move at least the key light even closer to the subject in order to have better control over the illumination of the subject.

If you want a very specific recommendation, now that I have a better idea of what you are working with, I would suggest making the light on our right (the one with the small softbox) your key light and moving it in to about 2.5 or 3 feet away from the subject. For the time being, leave the light on our left (the one with the big modifier) where it is (ie, as a fill light), but dial it's power waaaay down till you get the desired lighting ratio on the face.
------------------

2. OP: "...anyways, the ratio I had was actually what you said but it looks too overexposed on the side..."

When a lighting ratio such as 3:1 is stated, it means the ratio of light intensities on the subject, ie, AS MEASURED ON THE SUBJECT (say, with a flash meter). All you did was dial in a 3:1 power input ratio to the lights. Everything that happens to the light after it leaves each of the flash units, particularly, bouncing around and absorption (both in your light modifiers and in the room), spread with distance, etc. will all change the 3:1 ratio that you dialed in by the time all the light eventually makes it's way to the subject.

If you don't have a flash meter, just use your own eyes to judge the lighting ratio. Do any of the images you posted look like a 3:1 ratio at the subject? No! The L and R sides of the face are all almost equally lit. In addition, in contrast to what you said, neither side of the faces in any of those images is even close to being overexposed (xcept for tiny areas of specular reflection, such as the catchlights in the eyes, glints on the teeth, etc.).

In a small room like that, and with the sources that far from the subject, one always gets huge amounts of spill from one side to the other because of light bouncing off the ceiling and other surfaces. The only way to get up to a 3:1 L-R ratio is move at least the key light source in closer.

Whomever suggested that you move them even further back is essentially clueless about lighting.
------------------

3. OP: "...but it looks too overexposed on the side, so I guess I should turn my shutter down then..."

In general, one NEVER adjusts the shutter speed to change the exposure due to the flash units. This is because the duration of the flash (usually, around 1/500th of a second) is always much shorter than the maximum permitted shutter speed, so the length of time your shutter is open generally has no effect on the exposure of your images.

However, there are two exceptions to this:

The first exception is that you have to be operating the camera within its rated limits. For your Sony Alpha (ie, SLT-A55V), the max sync speed is either 1/160 or 1/200 depending on which website you read. If you increase your shutter speed, from the current value of 1/200th to, say, 1/500th, most likely you will wind up with an ugly dark band down part of your images. Read the manual for your camera and don't go any faster than what it says.

The second exception, ie, ways that changing the shutter speed could influence the brightness of a flash exposure, is if there is a substantial amount of ambient light (say from the windows or conventional room lights) floating around the room. If you are attempting to shoot studio quality portraits, you don't want this. You want to be in full control of the lighting. Just like spill light hitting the ceiling and reducing the contrast ratio, the only thing ambient room light will do is also make it harder to reach your desired contrast ratio and let YOU be in full control of the lighting.
------------------

4. Thanks for providing the photo of your setup taken on your iPod Touch. It was useful, but it still leaves me with some questions:

a) What exactly is the modifier I see on the left in this photo? Is it a shoot-through umbrella, an octobox, or something else? Please provide a URL link to a description of it.

b) Why don't I see any light coming from the softbox on the right, but a huge amount of light coming from the source on the left? If the two are in sync, I would expect to see light from both, or from neither depending on exactly when you too the iPod photo, but not one on and one off.

c) If you are only shooting with two flash sources, what is/are causing the two bright blobs of light on or near the ceiling (circled below in red)? If they are conventional room lights, are they on when you took the photos you posted at the start of this thread?
------------------

5. For the time being, PLEASE lets only discuss lighting, and not confuse the issue with an almost entirely irrelevant discussion of RAW vs JPG files, post processing, color balance, or anything else. Everything we are discussing here could have been discussed in 1965 with black and white film shot on a view camera, LOL. You need to get the basics of lighting down first before you move on to topics further along in your workflow.


Cheers,

Tom


PS - So that we are efficient about discussing your lighting problem, when you respond to me, please (a) respond to each of my points in turn - don't miss any; and (b) don't mix responses to other folks in a post for me - put responses to others in separate posts and indicate who each one is for.

View attachment 40977

A) http://www.interfitphotographic.com/featured%20product/home%20studio%20ex150%20flash%20jan%2007.php
I am using a translucent umbrella.

B)I am not sure why that is happening, I am pretty sure I had both of them turned on. I think it's just my iPod. I am using Phottix Strato II as the trigger for them if that helps.

C)They where on when I took the photo, I will never make that mistake again.

D) I know there wasn't a D, but I added it. :mrgreen:

:question:Did I respond to this correctly:question:
 

SolidBrowser

Well-Known Member
Messages
46
Likes
5
I have summed up everyones advice so I can go out and try again:
Forum Lessons Lighting***


Problems:


Problem #1: Main Lights are too Close to each other.
(You can see two lights in the eyes)


Problem #2: UnderExposed.


Problem #3: Flat Images.
Solution #3: Move Lights around so they are not “crossed”. Also make a 3:1 light ratio.




Problem #4: Shooting JPEG


Problem #5: Bright Background, Low Contrast.
Solution #5: Due to the spill of light as it’s bouncing around the room (Dark Walls should be preferred). Also can move the light stands closer to the subject. Will also Have better control over the illumination of the subject.


Problem #6: Light going through the umbrella.
Solution #6: Fabricate something to block the light going through.


Tips:


1. Male Subject = More Skin Texture Desired


2. Turn shoulders not just head (Learn more about posing)


3. Edit in RAW (Find a RAW editor)


4. A light is considered “Close” if the distance between the light and the subject is less than the size of the light’s exit aperture (i.e., the size of the front of the soft box or umbrella).


5. With sources far from the subject, one always gets huge amounts of spill from one side to the other (search spill) because of light bouncing off the ceiling and other surfaces. The only way to get that 3:1 ratio is to move them more closely to the subject.


6. Never adjust shutter speed to change exposure due to the flash units, because the duration of the flash is always much shorter than the maximum shutter speed. (Has no effect really)


7. Try shooting with a custom white balance.


8. Shutter Speed controls the ambient light exposure.


9. Aperture controls the strobe light exposure. (Search Ambient Light).
(How can I get that great depth of field (f)1.1, if I am needing less strobe exposure?)


10. Inverse Square law of Light = 2x further away only 1/4 as much light gets on the subject, not 1/2.


11. YouTube and Photo Flex Lighting School can help. Practice and understand how light works. Try bottles and food.


12. Set Soft Box to 45 degrees, put umbrella right next to the camera. (This is called the on-axis light)
 

Top