Is Flash a Must-Have For Macro Photography?

Question

I want to start into macro photography this year so I've chose the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens to start with (I still haven't bought it since I'll do it next week, which I'll be in the US), but a friend that is really into urban photography suggested said to me that a flash is a must-have for macro photography.

The problem is that I don't like to use flash (examples), so I wanted to know if it's really a must or only a matter of choice.

Asked by Nathan Campos

Answer

I am not an expert macro photographer, but from my little experience I've understood that flash is NOT a must. However, in macro photography often we have to deal will DOF too shallow and even a mili-meter movement can change your focus drastically. For this, often you'll end up using f/11 or even higher to ensure that all parts of the subject you're shooting are in focus. Keeping f/11 and still getting a moderately fast shutter speed to avoid hand shake/movement blur isn't much of a problem in bright and sunny days but can cause you trouble if theres not much light or event its a little cloudy. So, its safer to carry a flash around, preferably a ring flash for macro shooting. Thus you don't take the chance and increase your keepers whether its broad daylight or cloudy.

Answered by ShutterBug

Check more discussion of this question.

What type of flash/diffuser was used in this picture?

Question

What type of flash/diffuser was used in this picture ? I am amazed of the by level of diffused light. I am sure there is a lot of post processing but i believe the lighting is the most important aspect.

Asked by Daniel

Answer

It actually says in the description: "lighting- extern flash canon 480II+ difuzor"

I guess he either used the diffuser supplied with his speedlite or, as Matt above mentioned, a Sto-fen diffuser (these are the most popular nowadays).

Yes you are right, light in macro photography is really important. I'm surprised that he managed to achieve such excellent light diffusion with his speedlight instead of using the o-ring flash attached to the front of the lens.

Best Greg

Answered by Greg

Check more discussion of this question.

What lighting and pre- or post-processing is required for a high key image?

Question

The definition of high key photographs is thoroughly answered by @mattdm. What I understood is that a light toned subject is the most important requirement to take a high key image. However, it seems there are other pre/post processing arrangements that needs to be considered. If you see photographer's description on the example image mattdm posted in his reply, there are few things to note:

1. He exposed it for 3secs. (Probably to get unsharp edges.)
2. He is using halogen worklights. (To lighten the tones?)

So my question is: what are the lighting and other pre- or post-processing requirements for a high key image similar to this?

Asked by Vikas

Answer

The halogen work lights are a common DIY substitute for more expensive photograhic "hot lights" (such as the Lowel Tota-Lite or the Ianiro RedHead) -- you can usually pick up a 250 or 500 watt fixture with bulbs for under $50 rather than spending hundreds on the "real deal". They're usually much lower temperature than photographic lights, but filters (with film) or a white balance adjustment (video or digital photography) will make up the difference.

The picture is not only high-key, but overexposed for effect. (The overexposure is absolutely not necessary for high key.) If we assume 2 250W lights and a one-and-a-half to two stop overexposure, 3 seconds is not a tremendously long exposure at a low ISO -- hot lights may seem ridiculously bright when you're looking at them, but they can't hold a proverbial candle to the sun or to a flash. The long exposure was probably made, as you assumed, for the etherial quality it lends the subject due to subtle motion.

As for high-key as a concept, it simply means that the majority of the tones in the image are lighter than mid-tone. An image can have a full tonal range and still be high-key, such as, say, a still life consisting of white objects on a white background with full-developed shadows, or a floral macro consisting of a wash of pinks against a light background, with accents of deeps reds and purples. It's just a matter of where the majority (usually the preponderance) of tones in the image lie on the tonal scale.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I create a (good) Hair Light?

Question

My attempts at creating a hair light have been less than successful; I can get a hint of highlight but nothing like I see in the pro shots. What are the things that I should be adjusting in terms of location, height, distance, and light modifiers?

Asked by Craig Walker

Answer

I'd put a hair light almost behind the model and a bit high and try to have it very focused so it wouldn't spill into the camera, using a grid or snoot. Something like this:

Answered by che

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best techniques for photographing overweight people?

Question

I'm not the most lean person on the planet, and many pictures seem to really point this out. While I wish I was simply in better shape, it is simply not the case for me or unfortunately, many people.

Are there poses, lighting techniques, focal lengths, etc. that will work better to reduce some of the common overweight features (large stomach, double chin, etc.)?

---

Update: Ok, so I incorporated a few of the suggestions that I could into a self portrait in the limited space I have. I didn't have suitable room or patience for a three-quarters shot, so here's just a headshot. Some of the suggestions really, really made a noticeable difference.

Its a picture of me I actually like! (I pushed the DOF a little shallow though, and the back of my ear is out of focus.)

---

Second Update: So here's another shot that takes into account a few more of the suggestions yet (including Jay's suggestion of slightly rotating the light a bit more). The only thing I think I'd additionally do is make sure to where a higher collared shirt to help hide neck rolls. Also, I found straightening my back fairly rigidly helped a lot.

And in finale, here's a before picture of how bad it could look. This was taken about 30-40 pounds lighter, by another photographer. (This is a lowres crop, unfortunately.)

Asked by rfusca

Answer

Not an odd question at all. As a large man myself, I constantly find myself on the lookout for ways in my portrait business to help people look their best (no particular order... just as they came to mind):

1. No broad lighting. This is a 'basic' for portrait lighting, but I'm always amazed when I see inexperienced photographers who simply throw light all over the place and don't seem to understand that broad lighting makes faces rounder and short lighting 'sculpts' the face...
2. Rotate the subject 45-degrees to the camera. This, in combination with short lighting can dramatically de-emphasize a person's size.
3. If the subject is sitting have them lean forward. I always tell subjects to 'lean over their belt buckle.' This naturally de-emphasizes the belly, and provides elongation of the neck without specifically asking a subject to stretch their neck (that often causes subjects to really stretch, which always ends up looking awkward).
4. Arrange the legs. There's a whole 'science' to positioning legs, but one of the most basic things to do for female clients is have them place one foot in front of the other, put all the weight on their back foot, bend both knees slightly and rotate one hip towards the camera. (Check out any picture of a female celeb on the red carpet to see this in action... They all do it. Good for you paying attention during media training, celebs!)
5. Hide the gut. Portrait photography has a long tradition of putting the more... rotund... subject behind something to hide the belly. Whether it's another subject ("All them kids are finally good for something!" Actual customer quote during a session of mine. All in good fun, of course... I hope.), or an actual object. Get creative.
6. Hide the gut, Part 2. Lay the subject down. Great/easy way to hide a multitude of problems.
7. The ol' vignette. I find the vignette is a great post-production tool for directing the eye towards the most important part of the picture- the face.
8. The liquify tool. If you're a Photoshop user, the Liquify tool can be great for shrinking muffin-tops, saggy arms, etc. Plenty of 'sin' is committed with the over-use of Liquify, but used subtly it can be a great addition to the toolbox.
9. Darkness favors the big subject. I'm generally very hesitant to light a subject high-key if they're big... Unless the bigness is the point of the picture (A.K.A. you're photographing a pregnant lady, or a sumo warrior). Dark backgrounds and purposeful shadows can have a surprisingly large (har har) slimming effect.
10. Use the group to your advantage. If you have a mixed group of 'average sized' people and 'bigger folk,' position the bigger people farther from the camera than everyone else... Instantly they will appear smaller. It's surprising how far back in the picture you can place people without it being obvious that they're farther back in the frame. Not such a great technique if your subject is big, but short, however. BONUS: This also works great if you need to shorten up a really tall person in a group photo. :-)
11. Lens choice. Generally speaking focal lengths between 50mm and 85mm will give you the least amount of 'unexpected body part distortion' when taking pictures.
12. The clothes make the woman, or man. In addition to the 'standard advice' you often hear about reminding clients not to wear horizontal stripes, wearing darker clothing, etc., many bigger people respond to being uncomfortable with their size or with being photographed by choosing to wear bigger/baggier outfits for the photo session. Typically this only serves to make them look even bigger in photographs... It is far better to recommend that someone wear properly fitted clothing (even if that means seeing a tailor to help) than to have to work around the fact that the client now looks even bigger because of their tent-like outfit.
13. Get A Little Closer. Don't Be Shy. Try really pushing into the subject. Often times the most interesting shots are a bit 'closer than is comfortable,' and leaving things out of frame can 'cover over a multitude of sins' without having to use any additional techniques.
14. Focus, Focus. Try widening the camera's aperture. An f-stop down in the 2s can help you make a portrait with a more selective focal point (which in portrait photography should almost always be the eyes) and as everything else is more out of focus the viewers attention will be drawn back to the important/in-focus parts, and away from the unimportant/out-of-focus parts.
15. Posture-perfect. While not exclusively the domain of bigger folks, poor posture is something that a lot of bigger folks struggle with. A slouch can add apparent weight to a subject as it can make the stomach protrude even farther, so have the subject straighten their back, and also pull their shoulders back as well.

Answered by Jay Lance Photography

Check more discussion of this question.

DIY Lighting for Macro Photography

Question

I am using a simple reversal ring to mess around with macro photography at my home. My question is this what is the best way to light shots for macro photography?

A Few Notes:

• I am photographing stationary objects.
• I am looking for cheap Do It Yourself Methods
• I am not looking to buy a macro flash.
• I have only the built in flash, no external flashes.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Although it's not a DIY, the NEEWER® Macro Ring LED is considered to be cheap (around $30). I tried myself with my extension tube, not bad at all. It provides constant light which is essential if you are too close to the subject. You can mount the power supply for it in your camera's hot shoe, you can use either 4 AA batteries or plug it directly.

If you want to Do It Yourself for the sake of fun, check this but it will cost you around $20

Answered by Akram Mellice

Check more discussion of this question.

What does “Open-N-Use” mean?

Question

In the description of a softbox kit it says "Open-N-Use as studio umbrella. More convenient than traditional soft box." What does that mean exactly?

Here's the product http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Photography-Photo-Studio-Softbox-Continuous-Video-Light-Lighting-Kit-VL-9099-/120804387578?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item1c2080aafa

Asked by Graham

Answer

Open-n-use has a similar meaning to the much more common "plug-n-play" adjective of computer peripherals, it means you just open it up like an umbrella and start using it right away.

Essentially it's an umbrella softbox hybrid that opens quickly like an umbrella, but has a front diffuser screen like a softbox, giving a softbox like quality of light but without the hassle of assembling a softbox (which can be like putting up a small tent at times).

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

What should I consider when choosing continuous lighting vs. strobes for studio photography?

Question

If one were to want to get started with studio photography (I'm thinking things like portraits, headshots, perhaps pets, etc) what would be the considerations in choosing whether to go with continuous lighting vs. strobes for the lighting equipment?

Asked by ahockley

Answer

Studio strobes:

• + More light means lower ISO, larger aperture etc.
• + Can freeze motion
• + Can overpower the ambient light meaning you can leave the room lights on to see what you're doing
• + Greater choice of flash units / accessories / lighting modifiers
• + Can be used with battery pack for location shoots
• - Have to be triggered somehow
• - Need to use a flash meter, or test shots to set exposure
• - Can be too bright (some have limited options to turn the power right down)
• - Can be more expensive to start off with

Continous Lighting

• + Can be done on the cheap using gear lying around the house
• + Can use the camera's metering system
• + Can be used for video as well
• + No need to trigger
• - Limited power output
• - Can cook your subject
• - High levels of ambient light can be undesirable when working
• - Fire risk with homemade mods!
• - There can be colour issues with some florescents

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

Where does the assertion that food photography must not use flash come from?

Question

I often hear/read in webcasts and blogs that when doing food photography, it's better to use only the indirect sun light from a window, and without flash.

Why?

I tested multiple times two setups:

1. Reflected sun light from a window (no direct sun),

2. Reflected sun light from a window + light from a single flash, bouncing from a ceiling or a white wall.

Every time, the second setup gave much better results than the light from a window only. Am I doing it wrong? Have I misunderstood the assertion?

Asked by MainMa

Answer

Generally anybody who says "Don't use flash, it won't look natural" about any photography, means don't use direct, on camera, harsh small flash - because it doesn't look natural.

Mixing flash and ambient like you're doing or even doing all flash with sufficient softboxes and such is just fine and can produce some wonderful results.

As usual, rules in photography are more like guidelines - trying to help those who may be starting out and not fully understanding what they're doing. Its easier to tell somebody with a point and shoot or not real flash equipment to just 'not use flash' than it is to explain to them the intricacies of 'real' flash work.

Answered by rfusca

Check more discussion of this question.

When is it really necessary to use AF assist light?

Question

I find the AF assist light to be distracting at times when I'm trying to take a candid shot without disturbing the human subjects or taking pictures of pets (they hate getting the AF light in their eyes and turn away).

I find that if I turn off the AF assist light, the picture usually still turns out ok.

What is the AF assist light for and when is it really necessary?

Asked by nmc

Answer

AF assist light does not affect picture qualiyy per se.
What it does is assist the camera to focus by increasing light level.
Once focus lock has been achieved the assist light has done its job - its light does NOT appear in the image.

Experience will tell you when the light will improve focusing.
Often the camera may attempt to use the light when you can focus adequately without it by using a little extra effort. As light levels drop contrast levels fall and focusing becomes more difficult. By focusing on an area of visually distinctive contrast change you can focus in such situations and then recompose. I almost always waste all the nice focusing sensors that modern SLRs provide and use centre 'spot" focus plus recomposition.

A point will be reached as light falls where focusing slows dramatically or becomes very unreliable. At that stage you are well past where the AF assist light would have been of some use.

When shooting in good light levels a camera may 'decide' to use AF assist - often due to a darket area somewhere in the scene. So, even in the brightest day you can not be certain that the AF assiste will not be auto-triggered. In "street photography' or when photographing crowds, fairs, shows etc it is often not useful for people to be disturbed and alerted by the visually bright AF light. I've spent quite a lot of time wandering around china with a camera in recent years. I find that eg Chinese policemen are not keen to be photographed at the best of times. Alerting them to your artistic attentions with a bright red lights seems unwise [tm].

I do my best to try to remember to turn AF assist off when I am in walk around mode :-).

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

What white balance settings do I need to capture the cast of a coloured streetlight?

Question

I want take a photo of a scene lit by a yellow-orange street light. Unlike many of the questions here, I don't want to balance the colours in the scene, rather I want the areas lit by that light to remain yellow. The street light is the dominant light source in the scene.

What white balance settings do I need to capture the cast of a coloured light?

Asked by fmark

Answer

Try sunlight. That'll give you a fixed setting which will assume a relatively "hot" light source, which will render the more-yellow light sources as yellow in your image. (Conversely, if you shoot actual sunlight in incandescent-wb, you'll get a strong blue cast.)

If your camera (or RAW processing software) allows you to set color temperature in Kelvin, try setting it around 5000, and adjust up and down to find the cast that looks right to you.

Aside: Somewhat unfortunately, the numbers used for color temperatures come from science rather than art, so hotter light is more whitish blue, and cooler light more yellow-red — the opposite of our natural sense of white/blue as cold and red/orange/yellow as warm. Oh well; just more functional jargon to learn. Rather than going into it in much more detail in this answer I'll just point to another couple of questions: What is color temperature and how does it affect my photography? and What is the meaning of White Balance, which have good information on the topic already.

Some built-in WB presets will also adjust on a magenta-green scale, which isn't taken into account by color temperature. This is important when photographing under some fluorescent lighting. If you're shooting under high-pressure sodium-vapor lights (like many streetlights), with their characteristic pink-orange glow, you're pretty much out of luck in getting any natural looking balance, because the spectrum is so narrow and strange. In that case, going with a daylight preset and just preserving the odd look may be best. Or, deciding not to worry about it and going to black and white.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

What is “feathering” a light?

Question

When I read instructions about lighting setups, I often see reference to to "feathering" this or that light.

I have some ideas what that means: for example, I imagine taking a flashlight and instead of holding it perpendicular to a wall to make a circle, rotating the light "down the wall" so it forms a parabola, and has an extended falloff.

Asked by jfklein13

Answer

The "feather" of a light source is the transition between full light straight on, and no light when a light source is rotated away from the subject. Imagine you have a main light source say at 45 degrees to the line between the camera and the subject and the light source (say a square soft box) is pointed straight at the subject. If you rotate the light source away from the subject (keeping the light at the same location), the light source will appear to become a narrower and narrower rectangle (thinner vertical) until it totally disappears because it it is eventually facing away from the subject.

The great thing about feathering is that, as you rotate and narrow the light say over the first 45 degrees there is little change in the quantity or quality of light, but as you get close to the light disappearing there is a more rapid drop-off. This is the "feather." This is a sweet light to use. Experiment with it by rotating little by little.

An added advantage is when photographing say group of people in a straight line all facing the camera. If the main light is say at 45 degrees to the persons with the face of the source pointing at the center of the group, the end of the line closest to the light will be much brighter than the end furtherest from the light (because of drop-off due to distance). By feathering the light by pointing it at the end of the line of people furtherest away, they see the light as a square, and those closest see the light as a thin vertical light. Consequently those furtherest away get more light (it's full on to them) while those closest get less light (as the area they 'see' is smaller and the quantity of light is dropping off). Thus you get even lighting across the entire line of people.

Answered by John Hopkins

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it practical to shoot portraits by only candlelight?

Question

Is it practical to shoot portraits in candle lights, only, provided there is no flash around? If yes, then for portrait shots, where and how should one place the candles? Are there any specific factors that need to be taken care of? Is it prone to creating a flat light?

Here are some specific details about my gear:

• Camera: Canon Powershot SX210 IS
• Min F8, Max F3.1 (but I zoom it gets up to 6, doh)
• My ISO performs horribly beyond 100, and cannot shoot in raw

Considering these conditions in which way should the candles be placed so that they light up the model's face and do not create a flat light? On the side (left and right) of the person, or in the front of the person? How does the position impact the results?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

Yes, this can work. I know because I've taken photos of children lit only by their birthday-cake candles and they've come out nicely.

First, some general tips, without regard to your specific camera. These are probably most appropriate for a DSLR or other advanced camera which gives a lot of photographer control:

• Use manual exposure. The camera's automatic metering will try to make the scene look nicely bright overall, which is probably not what you want. Even if you're trying to create a brightly light room with lots of candles, the metering is likely to be confused.
• Spot meter on the subject's face. That'll give you a base reading for correct exposure for that area. Metering on the candles themselves will cause the subject to be very dim — which can also work, but tends to make the candle the primary subject.
• Once you have this base exposure reading, take test shots and see how they look. The histogram will probably be useless here, since it'll be mostly flat with peaks near the edges.
• Decide on whether you want to have a largely black photograph with a small pool of light, or a tightly-framed portrait with just a candlelit face, or a whole room and scene lit by candles. This will influence your overall exposure decision, and frames your your other artistic choices as well.
• Decide what you want to use for a shutter speed. A fast speed will reduce the flicker of the flame, and if you're trying to expose so as to show the candle itself clearly, this may be desirable. On the other hand, a little bit of motion blur might be acceptable or even preferred.
• Decide what you want for aperture. Wide-open to gather the most light is the obvious choice, and will fit with the visual expectation of most viewers. The shallow depth of field can add to the intimate, personal feeling of a candlelit shot. On the other hand, a greater depth of field can help show more context.
• Choose your ISO to match the factors above, so that the scene is exposed as you want. Again, take test shots here. You may decide you have to compromise on your artistic wishes for depth of field or shutter speed.
• If you opt for a longer shutter speed, use a tripod. Having to worry about the subject moving is enough trouble; even with image stabilization, keeping the camera still enough will be a challenge.
• Consider black and white, or perhaps a warm monotone. This will give you more latitude in using very high, noisy ISO settings, because color noise is the most annoying and distracting. A little color is nice for candlelight, though. Choosing a warm monotone similar to that cast by candles may be a good compromise — if you experiment or look at some sample pictures, you can see that color photographs often look monotone orange/yellow in this light anyway.
• If you do go for color, set white balance manually. Candlelight is very warm — which means low Kelvin temperature. The camera's auto-wb will try to make the lighting neutral, which is probably not what you want. The tungsten/incandescent setting may be a good choice — candle flame is even warmer than that, so you'll still get a pleasant tone. Typically, candlelight is around 1500-1900K, while incandescent lights are 2700-3300K (and flash or sunlight more like 5500-6500K). If you set the camera to incandescent, the candlelight will still have a strong warm cast, which is probably what you want.
• Manual focus may be required, as autofocus sometimes struggles in low light. Check focus carefully if you're using a wide aperture.
• If you're using any filters for lens protection, take them off, particularly if the candles are in the frame. This is a perfect opportunity for them to increase glare and ruin your image.
• Place the lights as close as possible to the subject — light follows the inverse square law, which means it decreases rapidly as you move away from the source. The birthday-cake photos work because the child is leaning in to blow out the candles, providing lots of immediate light.

In general, working with little point sources like this will emphatically not produce flat lighting. You will get pools of bright light and interesting shadows. As for where to put them exactly, experiment! Move the candles around and pay close attention to how these shadows shape the image.

For your specific camera: on the plus side, it offers a lot of manual control, including spot metering, so you can follow most of the suggestions above. But on the downside, the aperture is only f/3.1 at the widest lens setting, 28mm-e, which you probably don't want to use for portraits as it will tend to distort your subject's features unflatteringly. You'll probably want to zoom in to at least 50mm-e, and probably more like 70-100mm-e is ideal. This reduces your light-gathering ability, forcing you to increase the ISO. Additionally, in combination with the tiny sensor, this basically removes the possibility of shallow depth of field as an artistic choice. That doesn't necessarily kill the idea entirely, but it's a constraint you'll have to work around. Likewise, if you really don't want to raise the ISO beyond 100, you may be quite limited.

---

Here are some examples demonstrating some of the suggestions above. With the exception of a very minor curves adjustment in the last black and white image, these are all JPEG files from the camera, with no post-processing trickery other than choosing different in-camera toning options for the middle example.

A different look and more flexibility could be achieved by shooting RAW and spending more time on post-processing, but I wanted to demonstrate what can easily be done by anyone without special software (or time or knowledge to operate that software.

I spot-metered on on my subject's face, and generally didn't bother with the exposure dials after I was satisfied. I wanted to use settings that you could easily emulate with your point and shoot, so at first, I tried an aperture of f/3.2 and a longer shutter speed, but my model has trouble holding still for more than a fraction of a second. I dropped to f/2.8 and used a 1-second exposure, which almost worked:

f/2.8 / 1 second / ISO 100; two candles

But she looked away at the last second.

I should add that this is with my Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited; I tried the 70mm f/2.4 first, but the fact that I was using fire around a small child meant I really needed to be closer.

As is probably evident, I'm using two standard taper candles. In this image, the white balance is set to tungsten. I discovered that the manual white balance in my camera doesn't go below 2500K, and I didn't bother to take a reading with a gray card. The image is actually a little cool and the candles too white — I don't like at all how the flames are rendered here and would work on that more for a final image. I do like the soft, muted, low-key tones of the "ghost" image — for me, if she hadn't looked away, I'd crop out the candles and this would definitely be a keeper. (Although, while imaging how things could be different, I'd also pose that stuffed animal so it looked somewhat cute rather than being a bedraggled amorphous blob. Don't tell my daughter I said that.)

f/2.8 / 1 second / ISO 100; two candles

So there's the next try. Pretty much the same as the first but I had her rest her head in her hands in an effort to keep still, which worked relatively well. I also moved one of the candles much closer in order to provide a little more shaping to the shadows on her face. You can see that even that slight change makes a visible difference.

f/2.8 / 1 second / ISO 100; two candles; converted to black and white

That really looks pretty good. My wife likes the color better; I prefer this one.

Here's the sepia version:

f/2.8 / 1 second / ISO 100; two candles; converted to sepia tone

I'm not so keen on how that turned out; I don't think my camera's built-in toning options are flexible enough to make me happy.

Anyway, after that, one second shutter wasn't working — that's a lot to ask of a six-year-old for more than one or two lucky shots. So, I dropped to a third of a second and upped the ISO to 400. I think you might be able to get away with this with your P&S camera too. Or, if you can order up a somewhat more restrained model, you may be able to go with longer exposures and keep the ISO down — even with your more-restrictive aperture in this focal range.

f/2.8 ⅓ second / ISO 400; two candles

Here, some experimenting with changing the angle of the lights. You can see that the close candlelight is very much the opposite of flat lighting, and this image feels almost three-dimensional to me.

f/2.8 ⅓ second / ISO 400; two candles, one off-scene with reflector

This is the only one I edited out-of-camera, and even then only by adjusting the tone curve so that there's a lot more contrast. The images above could also be subjected to the same treatment: the other B&W image, in particular, is very easy to make more dramatic.

I also did more playing with the light. In particular, there is candle just to the right of the frame next to the foot of the tripod where I had the camera, and right behind that, just far away enough to not catch fire, a 32" silver reflector. I'd planned to post a second version of this with that candle extinguished — the effect was dramatically different — but my model decided she'd had enough at that point.

So yeah. This can be done. You can do it, and you don't need 400 candles, or any such nonsense. Your point and shoot camera might have some limitations, but I'd highly suggest you go ahead and see what you can get out of it. It may pleasantly surprise you.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

What is split portrait lighting?

Question

Ok, so I got interested enough in the other lighting setups, what is split portrait lighting and when is it appropriate to use?

Asked by rfusca

Answer

What is Split Lighting?

Split Lighting is one of the 5 basic lighting setups used in studio portrait photography. Split lighting at its most basic level is constructed with a single light source placed 90 degrees offset from the subject and a bit higher than eye level, lighting one half of the face, and leaving the other in shadow.

The thing that distinguishes Split Lighting from Short or Broad lighting is the placement of the subject’s head- Split Lighting is always taken with the subject facing square to the camera, unlike Short, Broad, and Rembrandt lighting which all have the subject’s head angled in relation to the camera.

One-light Split Lighting setup:

When do I Use Split Lighting?

Split lighting is a very ‘moody’ lighting option, so it is generally used when the photographer wants to create a strong sense of drama with the image. It is less frequently used in portrait photography because generally people want to see a subject’s whole face in a picture, though it does go in and out of fashion for commercial and advertising photography every few years. This is often referred to as ‘the comic book villain’ lighting style, and indeed, many comic artists use this technique when they are portraying the bad-guy in their comic books. Whereas Short Lighting and Rembrandt Lighting are 'everyday' lighting choices and the vast majority of portraits will use one of these lighting setups, Split Lighting is an 'accent' lighting choice... A session with a small number of Split Light portraits can add some variety, but a little goes a long way and an entire session of Split Light portraits can become boring very quickly.

Answered by Jay Lance Photography

Check more discussion of this question.

What lighting equipment to purchase for under $50?

Question

I'm an enthusiastic beginner with Canon 550D, shooting both stills and videos, indoors and outdoors.

My biggest problem is strong shades and insufficient light when photographing people. I figured out that the solution is some basic lighting equipment.

My current wishlist is:

• Neewer 110CM 43" 5-in-1 Collapsible Multi-Disc Light Reflector ($9.46)

• Some kind of lightbulb

On a budget of $25-$50, what general-purpose lighting equipment should I buy?

Asked by Adam Matan

Answer

With that type of a budget, you are much better going the DIY route, putting in some of your own time instead of your own money.

For portrait photography, you can find a huge benefit to having a beauty dish. I made one of these myself for only a few dollars. You can find examples of how to do so on many internet forums, but here is one example. These were the materials I used:

You could also do things like

• DIY Light Diffuser
• DIY Softbox
• DIY Gary Fong Lightsphere
• DIY Light tent for product photography(Google has many options)

Just take a look at the instructables website, or Google the lighting accessories that are mentioned in this thread and see if you can make it yourself on the cheap.

Instead of going to an expensive photography shop, think of the hardware store as your new photography store, you can find many many things that will suffice just fine for non-professional use.

Answered by dpollitt

Check more discussion of this question.

What does a black reflector do?

Question

I'm familiar with using white / silver / gold reflectors to add fill light to a photo. When would you use a black "reflector"?

Asked by Eddie Deyo

Answer

To remove light. I'm no professional but I had it explained to me by a friend.

If you're shooting outside, or in a place where there's lots of background light being bounced around, it might not be enough to place an item to create a shadow onto your object, since light reflected off of that item might still give you tints or light you don't want.

A black "reflector" creates shadow and doesn't reflect light (or as much light, depending on the quality) onto your object, which might help you darken it.

For instance, if you're trying to take a portrait outside, and the face gets a bit too much light on one side, a black reflector might help you reduce that by both creating a "shadow" by blocking light, and not reflecting any light onto that side of the face.

Answered by Lasse V. Karlsen

Check more discussion of this question.

What is white or black “clipping”, and how does one avoid it?

Question

I have been told that this photograph has "white clippings"?
What are they, and which light sources should be placed in what way to avoid that?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

Clipping is a term that basically refers to data loss in a captured image. Another common description for this phenomenon is referring to part of an image as 'blown out'. The light streaming into your camera hits the pixels on your camera senor and is turned into a tiny amount of electric charge. Each element can only hold so much charge so when its full the highlight is fully saturated and when a whole area of pixels are saturated, any detail in that area is lost, referred to as clipped or blown. Similarly there has to be a sufficient amount of light hitting the pixel to generate any measurable charge and if there is not enough in an area of the sensor only a solid black is captured and any detail in that area is similarly lost. No amount of post processing can bring detail back in these areas because no detail at all has been captured.

With a film camera the same thing happens except that instead of the light being turned into an electric charge on a sensor it causes photosensitive molecules on the film to react. When they have all reacted in an area of the negative no detail can be captured in that area.

In compositions where there are both very bright and very dark areas such as your example it is very challenging to capture detail across the whole image. Techniques such as HDR were developed exactly for this scenario where several images at different exposures are combined to increase dynamic range. It is impossible to capture detail across the whole image with a single shot without employing some external lighting to illuminate the darker areas so you can lower the exposure an bring the lighter areas in. Professional photographers tend to make good use of reflectors to do this just to lift the shadows enough to get some depth.

Answered by Paul Round

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the 18% gray tone, and how do I make a 18% gray card in Photoshop?

Question

I have heard about 18% gray tone - what it real is, why 18% ? (and not 20%) and how can I make it in photoshop ?

Thank you in advanced.

To summarize an answer.

From white to black, the eyes see a range of greys. Because the eyes see logarithmic (and the ears hear logarithmic), what the eyes looks like the middle - this is actually not contains 50% black + 50% white, but 18%.

The middle point for the eye contain 18% Black On White.

To make this on Photoshop you fill a white background with 18% black pattern. So in photoshop if you fill with half black a white background, you do not get the middle gray that eye can see.

Many years ago I was made a page base on that 18% rule to calibrate the monitor. The different with other calibrations was that, I use 18% to fill the background with black and not 50%

I still have this gamma calibration page online. Blur your eyes and try to make the circle inside to disappear.

Asked by Aristos

Answer

Warning: this is a long, somewhat technical post that includes some math (but when you get past the superscripts and such, it's ultimately pretty simple math).

Some time ago, Thom Hogan published an article:

http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

that claims meters in Nikon digital cameras are calibrated for a mid-level grey that corresponds to 12% reflectance rather than the 18% grey of most standard grey cards.

Unfortunately, while the title and opening paragraph of the article are quite emphatic about 18% being a “myth”, the remainder of the article fails to provide much factual basis for this claim. Here’s what Thom gives as the basis for his statements:

ANSI standards (which, unfortunately, are not publically published--you have to pay big bucks to have access to them), calibrate meters using luminance, not reflection. For an ANSI calibrated meter, the most commonly published information I've seen is that the luminance value used translates into a reflectance of 12%. I've also seen 12.5% and 13% (so where the heck does Sekonic's 14% come from?), but 12% seems to be correct--one half stop lighter than 18%, by the way. I haven't seen anyone claim that ANSI calibration translates into a reflectance of 18%.

In the end, he seems to have no real basis for his claims, merely a statement that “12% seems to be correct,” with no real evidence, or even information about why he considers this correct. Despite this, however, this article is now widely cited on various photographically oriented web sites (among other places) as if it were absolute and indisputable fact.

Since this issue seems to be of interest to a fair number of photographers, I decided to see if I could find some real facts with evidence to support them. The first step in this journey was to find the standard in question. Doing some searching, I found the relevant standard. Contrary to Thom’s implication above, this is really published by the ISO rather than ANSI. This may be trivial to most, but when I was looking for the standard it was somewhat important – I put in a fair amount of work trying to find an ANSI standard that apparently does not exist. In the end, however, I found the relevant ISO standard: ISO 2720-1974, “Photography - General purpose photographic exposure meters (photoelectric type) - Guide to product specification (First edition - 1974-08-15)”.

I also found that Thom was (at least from my viewpoint) quite mistaken about prices as well – a copy of this standard costs only $65 US. This didn't strike me as "big bucks" -- in fact, it seemed like a fair price to pay for some real enlightenment (pun noted by not really intended) on the subject.

The standard confirmed part of what Thom had to say, such as calibrating meters directly from sources that emit light rather than from reflected light. Unfortunately, other parts of what Thom had to say are not quite so closely aligned with the content of the standard. For example, at the conclusion of his article, he includes a comment from “lance” that mentioned a "'K' factor", without specifying its exact meaning or purpose. Thom replied by saying: “No manufacturer I've talked to knows anything about a K factor, though, and they all speak specifically about the ANSI standard as their criteria for building and testing meters.”

As stated, this may not be exactly wrong – but it’s certainly misleading at best. In reality, a large part of the ISO standard is devoted to the K factor. Much of the rest is devoted to the C factor, which corresponds to the K factor, but is used for incident light meters instead (the K factor applies only to reflected light meters). It would be utterly impossible to follow the standard (at least with respect to a reflected light meter) without knowing (quite a lot) about the K factor.

The standard specifies that: “The constants K and C shall be chosen by statistical analysis of the results of a large number of tests carried out to determine the acceptability to a number of observers, of a number of Photographs, for which the exposure was known, obtained under various conditions of subject matter and over a range of Iuminances.”

The standard also specifies a range within which the K factor must fall. The numbers for the range depend on the method used for measuring/rating film speed (or its equivalent with a digital sensor). For the moment, I’m going to ignore the DIN-style speeds, and look only at the ASA-style speed ratings. For this system, the allowable range for the K factor is 10.6 to 13.4. These numbers do not correspond directly to reflectance values (e.g. 10.6 doesn't imply a 10.6% grey card as mid-level grey), but they do correspond to different levels of illumination that will be metered as mid-level grey. In other words, there is not one specific level of reflectance that is required to be metered as mid-level grey – rather, any value within the specified range is allowable.

The K factor is related to a measured exposure by the following formula:

K = LtS / A²

Where:

K = K factor
L = Luminance in cd/m²
A = f-number
t = effective shutter speed
S = film speed

Using this formula and a calibrated monitor, we can find the K factor for a specific camera. For example, I have a Sony Alpha 700 camera and a monitor that’s calibrated for a brightness of 100 cd/m². Doing a quick check, my camera meters the screen (displaying its idea of pure white) with no other visible light sources, at an exposure of 1/200th of a second at f/2. Running this through the formula, gives a K factor of 12.5 – just above the middle of the range allowed by the standard.

The next step is to figure up what level of “grey” on a card that corresponds to. Let’s do that based on the sunny f/16 rule, which says a proper exposure under bright sunlight is f/16 with a shutter speed that’s the reciprocal of the film speed. We can mathematically transform the formula above to:

L = A²K/tS

Let’s work things out for ISO 100 film:

L = 16x16xK/.01x100

The .01 and 100 cancel (and they will always cancel since the rule is that the exposure time is the reciprocal of the film speed), so this simplifies to: L = 256K.

Working the numbers for the lowest and highest allowable values for the K factor gives 2714 and 3430 respectively.

Now, we run into the reason the ISO standard specifies light levels rather than reflectance of a surface – even though we’ve all seen and heard the sunny f/16 rule, the reality is that clear sunlight varies over a considerable range, depending on season, latitude, etc. Clear sunlight has brightness anywhere from about 32000 to 100000 lux. The average of that range is about 66000 lux, so we’ll work the numbers on that basis. This has to be multiplied by the reflectance to give a luminance – but the result from that comes out in units of “apostilbs” rather than cd/m². To convert from apostilbs to cd/m², we multiply by 0.318:

L = I x R x 0.318.

Where:

R = reflectance
I = Illuminance (in Lux)
L = luminance (in cd/m²)

We already have the values for L that we care about, so we’ll rearrange this to give the values of R:

R = L / 0.318 I

Plugging in our minimum and maximum values for I, we get:

R₁ = L / 10176
R₂ = L / 31800

Then we plug in the two values for L to define our allowable range for R:

R_1,1 = 2714 / 10176
R_1,2 = 2714 / 31800
R_2,1 = 3430 / 10176
R_2,2 = 3430 / 31800

R_1,1 = .27
R_1,2 = .085
R_2,1 = .34
R_2,2 = .11

In other words, between the range of brightness of the sun and the range of K factors allowed by the ISO standard, a reflectance anywhere from about 8.5% to about 34% can fall within the requirements of the standard. This is obviously a very wide range of values – and one that clearly includes both the 12% Thom advocates and the 18% of a typical grey card.

To narrow the range a bit, let’s consider just the arithmetic and geometric mean of the range of brightness from the sun: 66000 and 56569 lux respectively. Plugging these into the formula for the range of possible reflectance values gives:

R_1,1 = 2714 / 20988
R_1,2 = 2714 / 17989
R_2,1 = 3430 / 20988
R_2,2 = 3430 / 17989

The results from those are:

R_1,1 = .13
R_1,2 = .15
R_2,1 = .16
R_2,2 = .19

An 18% grey card is close to one end of this range, but still falls within the range. A 12% grey card falls outside the range; we have to assume an above-average light level for it to work out. If we average the four numbers above together, we get a value of about 16% grey as being the "ideal" – one that should work out reasonably well under almost any condition.

To summarize:

1. The ISO standard allows a range of calibrations, not just one level
2. Normal daylight brightness covers a fairly wide range as well
3. 18% grey is justifiable based on average light levels
4. 12% grey is not justifiable based on average light levels
5. Based on average light levels, the ideal value for a grey card would be about 16%
6. You meter might be calibrated to 18%, but probably isn't (and shouldn't be) calibrated to 12%.

Answered by Jerry Coffin

Check more discussion of this question.

What lighting equipment do I need for a high contrast portrait photo?

Question

I am an amateur photographer, and I have little to no experience in shooting studio photos. There is one subject in particular that interests me more than others in that area - high contrast portrait photos.

What is required to achieve a high contrast light portrait on a dark/black background and a dark portrait on a light/white background?

Is there a way to do it at home without professional equipment?

Asked by Igor Zinov'yev

Answer

I believe the photos can be made this way:
for the light on black (You don't necesarrily need to have black background to make it look black. This photo was taken in a normal room, I just put the lights on the sides and really close to the toys, so the main direction did not hit the wall, and the subject was so bright that the difference made the wall look black. See Strobist for better explanation.)

for the white background one (you might get better contrast without the softening sheet and with the light on camera right a bit more to the back)

Answered by che

Check more discussion of this question.

Bad video camera + little money = decent video quality

Question

I have a kodak easyshare z950 camera.Previously I only used it to take some pictures while travelling.Now I want to seriously work with video.Not that seriously as in TV studio, but still I want to produce high quality videos.

It shoots HD720p which is pretty good.Until I'm outside it looks well, but if I shoot inside the footage I produce is grainy with lots of background noise.

I think if I installed some proper illumination it would be fine.The problem is my budget is very limited smth around $50-$100.How do you get the most lightning with least amount of money ? I thought about just buying the most powerful light bulbs in the store and using some aluminum foil as a reflectors.Any better ideas ?

I also thought about waiting for spring and when it's at least 10Celsius I could shoot outside.Problem then would be the sound, because wind blows into the mic.Should I build some hard cardboard walls or smth ;D

Answer

The difference in brightness outdoors compared with indoors is much greater than you'd think due to the way your brain compresses the dynamic range. If you've ever been on a location shoot that's been properly lit for video you'd see the difference - it hurts your eyes!

I'm afraid the point here is that you're not going to recreate outdoor lighting for that price range. You are better off trying to rearrange your shooting to make the most of natural light.

If you really need to shoot indoors, getting some work lights and using hard, direct (undiffused) lighting will give you the biggest bang for buck. It's a distinctive look that can work well.

Check more discussion of this question.