Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,572   Online: 1078
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    No, I do understand. In all honesty, the 90mm was probably a bit too short. It would have been better with the longer lens, but I would have run out of room

    I probably need to make some decent flagging screens. Might have to find some sheets of cardboard or 3mm mdf and paint them matt black on one side and possibly white on the other.
    It is definitely easier to catch flare, and harder to isolate it, with a wider lens IME. I shot something once on 8x10 with a 240 lens (a bit wide), and caught a bit of flare on the top left corner of the frame coming from a backlight. I reshot with a 360 lens (more or less normal) and it want away.

    Does your lens have a hood?

    Attaching grids to the backlights would probably help you to isolate their beams. Though the light in the case I mentioned was gridded.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #12
    Ottrdaemmerung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    258
    Images
    5
    It looks to me that your problem is that you're over-lighting your subject, and the choice of clothing (all light colors) doesn't help.

    Your key light - the light that illuminates your subject's face - should be the brightest light and thus the higher f-number. Yours, as you said, is around f/8 to f/11.
    Your fill light - the light that fills in shadows and gives dimensionality to your subject - should be weaker, by usually a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio to the main light. You said yours was set to f/5.6.

    Thus, your fill lights are both brighter than your main, which is why the white quilted hood on your subject is starting to blow out. Notice how the inside of the hood around her face is nearly glowing from the fill lights? That shouldn't be happening. Try switching the power levels so that your main is at f/5.6 and your fills are f/8 to f/11, and you might see a little more contrast. If some of the girl's clothing was darker, it would "eat" (absorb) some of the excess light and would help bring up contrast. You haven't posted your film pictures, just the digitals, so that's what I'm basing my judgements on. :-)
    website | Flickr
    "Embrace the negative with absolution, your final positive reward." --IQ, "The Province," Frequency

  3. #13
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ottrdaemmerung View Post
    It looks to me that your problem is that you're over-lighting your subject, and the choice of clothing (all light colors) doesn't help.

    Your key light - the light that illuminates your subject's face - should be the brightest light and thus the higher f-number. Yours, as you said, is around f/8 to f/11.
    Your fill light - the light that fills in shadows and gives dimensionality to your subject - should be weaker, by usually a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio to the main light. You said yours was set to f/5.6.

    Thus, your fill lights are both brighter than your main, which is why the white quilted hood on your subject is starting to blow out. Notice how the inside of the hood around her face is nearly glowing from the fill lights? That shouldn't be happening. Try switching the power levels so that your main is at f/5.6 and your fills are f/8 to f/11, and you might see a little more contrast. If some of the girl's clothing was darker, it would "eat" (absorb) some of the excess light and would help bring up contrast. You haven't posted your film pictures, just the digitals, so that's what I'm basing my judgements on. :-)
    There is no fill light in the OP's shot – only a main light. And the main light is not always the brightest light; case in point. Take the same situation outside, in natural light. You are shooting the front of your subject, but the sun is pointing at your subject's back. Is the sun the brightest light? Absolutely. Is it the main light? No, it is not; the main light is whatever is illuminating the main part of the subject that will be visible in the shot – probably light bouncing off of the surrounding environment and from the sky. If you wanted to expose for the front of your subject, would you meter the sun with an incident meter? No, you would meter the main light, which is reflected from the surroundings.

    As for what "should" be happening, that will vary; it is up to the shooter. And lights from behind are very often used like the OP tried to use them, even if in this case it may not have been the most effective implementation of this technique.

    Doling out rules to follow in all situations is not going to help people learn about the fundamentals of light so that they can make their own decisions. It is going to get them stuck into pre-made boxes without the ability to think independently.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    I didn't mind the lighting setup at all - thought it was nice and anyway, rules are meant to be broken!
    I recently did a week-long portrait workshop with a well-known pro in Sydney. He was using his Hasselblad with a 150mm lens, a good lens hood and a waist level finder - on a tripod, and it was superb.

    I was using my Rolleiflex which was once the camera of choice for studio work but the longer lens on the Hassy was brilliant. I agree - 90mm on a 6x7 is borderline. I don't have a Tele Rolleiflex (135mm) - only the standard 2.8/80mm and a 4.0/55mm WA, but I think a normal tele 150mm on a Hasselblad or Bronica 6x6 would require less backing up than a 180mm on the KO? If there was a 135 for the KO it might suit better.
    Since you're leaning towards the Bronica you might find this review interesting <http://photo.net/equipment/bronica/sq-ai>
    Last edited by Leigh Youdale; 04-16-2011 at 01:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #15
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,877
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    I think it's all to do with personal choice. The lighting setup was something I saw on a youtube channel (can't remember who now, I think it may have been snapfactory, for those who care about these things) and was something I thought I would try. I do agree that the back lights were probably a bit strong and yes they have blown out highlights. In the end, though, my wife liked them and that's what really matters!

    And thanks for the link Leigh. I have been toying up with systems for a few weeks now. I had thought of going the hassleblad route, but in reality, it is beyond my reach and probably always will be, once you factor in the prices of lenses! I have also been toying with the GS-1 or the ETRS, but the 6x6 format seems that bit more flexible

    Cheers for all your input.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin