Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,732   Posts: 1,515,273   Online: 798
      
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 150
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,765
    guy

    sometimes you can find "Lowel Location Kits"
    which are a half a dozen or more Lowel L-Lights.
    they are a socket+cord, and special fitting that slides
    onto a flood light .. and barn doors ( and a case! ).

    you can get floods of all sorts of flavors,
    through places like topbulb.com and bulbman.com ...

    i have a handful of these lights and they word very well, and
    they are very inexpensive off of eBoo. if a socket is toasted,
    lowel sells replacement parts for almost nothing too


    good luck!
    john
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  2. #82

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    25
    i got rid of my 8x10 monorail (too much backache -- literally). still have 4x5 and 6x6, and, of course, 35mm. i'd be happy with focus from the tip of the nose to the nearest eye.

    why would i want more light with LF? is it because the lens only opens to f4.7? (or because i won't be able top see a darn thing without more light!)

    I'd probably start with three lamps of the same wattage, just because it's easier to conceptualize a hollywood setup that way, where the power of the light is controlled mainly by distance from the subject.
    makes sense to me.

  3. #83
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,135
    Images
    20
    For LF the main issue is that at the same f:stop you get less DOF. So for really short DOF as you describe, f:1.4-2 is probably fine for 35mm, f:4-5.6 on 6x6, and maybe f:8-11 on 4x5" for a tight portrait. You can go wider on 4x5" if you just want the eye and can sacrifice the tip of the nose, Martin Schoeller style (not Hollywood, of course, but he does like really short DOF).
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  4. #84
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by guy catelli View Post
    thanks to all for your responses. i realize there is no "one" answer to my question. but, on the other hand, i'd rather not just start buy lighting wearing a blindfold, so to speak.

    Chris, i'm surely going to try to shoot single portraits before i try groups. and, i've found that very few faces are flattered by close-ups that are too close. from head and shoulders to 3/4 is where i'd like to start.

    would it make sense to start with 3 lamps (key, fill, and hair) with a 100W, 150W, and 250W bulb? or would some other combination of wattages be better? or should i get 3 lamps and 3 bulbs of each wattage, just in case?

    btw, fwiw, my primary shooting space is 23 feet in length (over 25, if i move some stuff out of the way), 11 feet in width and 12 feet in height.

    As far as "Hollywood" portraiture is concerned —if you accept the premise that George Hurrell wasn't the only photographer of that era— even one light (presumably a fresnel spot) can be enough. A.L. ("Whitey") Schafer was a sometime-proponent of this technique, using it to create many excellent portraits of Loretta Young, for example.

    Having said that, I tend to agree with David. Three lights of equal output are good for a basic setup; four if you want to light the background (I do). If you want to go full-speed-ahead, I'd say at least five lights and a small selection of bulbs (or, for the Hollywood purists, "globes") of different wattages. And, always: BARN DOORS and a good lens shade! Lastly, unless your prefer your main light to always come from the side, you'll be frustrated unless you acquired a boom.... or two. Anyway.. you have the book. Take a look at it for specifics.

    Your shooting space is of course relative to the format and focal length to be used and the subject "height" you want to cover (in this case, your max is 3/4), so your space seems fine .. I mean, even under worse conditions in a more cramped space you could still have your subject stand with their back actually touching the wall . . . this was done all the time in the days when the long exposure times required that the subject not move even a hair's breath. That's why, even today —even with digital— (ewwe, I said it) the "look" evokes a Hollywood pose. PS - Don't forget electrical and ventilation issues.

    Best,

    Christopher

    PS - Note that my prefered style is not necessarily "Hollywood" glamour of the 1940's, but rather the kitchy "Kodak-correct" look of the 1950's. David and Sander, among others, are shovelling-out some excellent advice on this thread (and on the whole forum!) on the Hollywood style .. perhaps more relevant to your question.

    .

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    london
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    25
    Your shooting space is of course relative to the format and focal length to be used and the subject "height" you want to cover (in this case, your max is 3/4), so your space seems fine .. I mean, even under worse conditions in a more cramped space you could still have your subject stand with their back actually touching the wall . . . this was done all the time in the days when the long exposure times required that the subject not move even a hair's breath. That's why, even today —even with digital— (ewwe, I said it) the "look" evokes a Hollywood pose. PS - Don't forget electrical and ventilation issues.
    Here are a few pics taken a few days ago in my "zoo cage studio"-well it is my tiny bedroom full of furnitures and lights; so cramped that the model stands a foot from the background and there is no room for hair lights. Working space here is 1.5m x 2.5m; madness isn't it? Can it get any worst?

    PS photos taken with one to two fresnels or Dedo plus two Chimera as softlights. They were not intended to look like Hollywood style but I just played with the lights drawing inspirations from old hollywood photos.

    Mr. Satan
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG_9694BWsmall.jpg   IMG_9546BWsmall.jpg   IMG_9612BWsmall.jpg   IMG_9601BWsmall.jpg   IMG_9695small.jpg  


  6. #86

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    london
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    25
    between this thread and the referenced thread on MM, there seems to be sharp disagreement as to whether 1k or 2k Watts are the minimum required, or more than 300W is way too much, or whether 50W will do nicely.

    since i can just as easily get 100W, 150W, or 250W, or 2x250W (ie, 500W total) halogen bulbs, is there any consensus on:

    1. how many lamps i should start out with?

    2. what wattage they should be?

    (sorry to be so cranky this morning, but i'd like to avoid "buyer's remorse" if possible -- not so much as to money (although that is a factor), as much as wasted time on disappointing results, going back and forth, etc.)
    1K fresnel is quite uncomfortable for the subject as key light without diffusion---unless you got big space and move it far away from the subject. Having said that 1k-2k is good if you want to turn it to a soft light---add scrim diffusion frame or bounce light off reflector. But 1K fresnel like Arri is expensive, if you wanty soft fill, there is cheaper alternative like Redhead open face with barndoors: good for bounce.


    300W-650W fresnels serves better as undiffused key. Often 650W fresnel can take 300W bulb anyway. Generally speaking, 150W fresnel is a bit on the low side but 150W Dedo is a different story....unfortunately the price of Dedo is very steep.

  7. #87
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    I picked up a big old fresnel hotlight that got modified with a 2400WS strobe head (the modeling light is 250W I think). Should be interesting to try out. Seems like you'd get an equivalent effect to the 1K lights.

  8. #88
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    Singlo, are these 35mm shots you posted? They are very nice, considering the generous "studio size" you have to work with (madness indeed!). Nice tonality and the look is certainly good, lovely model, by the way. Which film, camera & lens setup were used? tim

  9. #89

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    25

    Progress (Regress?) Report

    as mentioned on the MM thread, in a mad moment i purchased the unit pictured below, believing that if i didn't start on the wrong foot, i wouldn't get started at all:


    (picture taken by "Danny Who", though i tweaked its levels.)

    i've subsequently purchased 2 solo units of the same make, and now plan on splitting the dual unit into another 2 separates, thus totalling 4 lamps. i also have 6 250W halogen bulbs, 3 150W bulbs, and 3 100W bulbs.

    and, i bought a 50-ft roll of cinefoil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos View Post
    As far as "Hollywood" portraiture is concerned —if you accept the premise that George Hurrell wasn't the only photographer of that era— even one light (presumably a fresnel spot) can be enough. A.L. ("Whitey") Schafer was a sometime-proponent of this technique, using it to create many excellent portraits of Loretta Young, for example.
    i make reference to "Hurrell" because everyone knows his work. my goal is achieving the same emotional aura of the Holywqood portraits that characterized that era, not literally duplicating the effects of any single photographer.

    the only reference i could find on the web to a Whitey (or A. L.) "Schaefer" was this:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/WHITEY-SCHAEFER-...QQcmdZViewItem

    (speaking of George Hurrel, his shot of Veronica Lake, which you include in your book, totally blew me away.)

    regarding a one-light shot of Loretta Young, i found this shot by Horst, which seems to have been taken with one light (to my untrained eye):

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0810...68#reader-link

    Having said that, I tend to agree with David. Three lights of equal output are good for a basic setup; four if you want to light the background (I do). If you want to go full-speed-ahead, I'd say at least five lights and a small selection of bulbs (or, for the Hollywood purists, "globes") of different wattages. And, always: BARN DOORS and a good lens shade! Lastly, unless your prefer your main light to always come from the side, you'll be frustrated unless you acquired a boom.... or two. Anyway.. you have the book. Take a look at it for specifics.
    i plan on using the cinefoil as a sub for barn doors, until i can figure out which "real" photo lamps to use.

    i have good lens shades. i'm cogitatin' on the "boom" thing.

    i certainly will be relying heavily on your book in my tests.

    ... you could still have your subject stand with their back actually touching the wall . . . this was done all the time in the days when the long exposure times required that the subject not move even a hair's breath.
    great tip.

    That's why, even today —even with digital— (ewwe, I said it) the "look" evokes a Hollywood pose.
    have you ever seen a shot taken with digital, then tranferred to silver-based film, and then optically printed in a wet lab on fibre-based b&w paper?

    PS - Don't forget electrical and ventilation issues.
    i have a 28,000 btu air conditioner pretty close to the staging area.

    ....David and Sander, among others, are shovelling-out some excellent advice on this thread (and on the whole forum!) on the Hollywood style .. perhaps more relevant to your question.
    i am very impressed by Singlo's results, which inspire me to endeavor on. and, i will definitely keep an eye out for relevant posts by David and Sander in other threads.

    thanks again.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    london
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by noseoil View Post
    Singlo, are these 35mm shots you posted? They are very nice, considering the generous "studio size" you have to work with (madness indeed!). Nice tonality and the look is certainly good, lovely model, by the way. Which film, camera & lens setup were used? tim
    thanks Tim,
    I am a bit mad...you would laugh if you see how pathetic, small space of my "ghetto" studio. I shoot with Cannon 35mm full-frame digital( sorry for any offence caused to my chemical brothers in this forum) camera. Lenses are Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Ex Macro and Canon 70-200mm f2.8L.
    I fiddled the curve in Photoshop to get the tonality closer to BW film.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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