First Studio Shoot

DannyDMR

DannyDMR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
746
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening All

I did my first Studio shoot today and the chap that was teaching my how to use the equipment etc. didn't really seem to know what he was talking about when it came to settings and his own camera, it was setup by the photographer that owns the studio and he just shoots without changing anything, (Hes been working there 3 yrs) so i have a question or 2 if i may

First question

How does shutter speed effect the image within a studio? i was shooting 1/125 at F8 what difference would it have made if i had shot at 1/200 at F8?

They have there lights setup up the way they are and they are never changed, is this normal? they move them about etc. but never change the settings on them. cameras are the same.

Which got me wondering, if i wanted to shoot at a wide aperture say 2.8 for Shallower DOF would i be over exposing or should the light know i have changed my aperture, like TTL would with a flashgun

Sorry if these are basic questions i didn't really get a chance to try different things.

Heres the results from my first shoot, any crit would be wonderful

Many thanks in advance

Danny
 
If you're shooting with flash, then the flash exposure is not affected by shutter speed - so long as you stay below the max x-sync.

If you want to use f/2.8 instead of f/8, then you need to reduce the flash power by three stops (or drop the ISO three stops).
 
Erm......... without wanting to cast aspersions, I would seriously question a studio that had a single setup, and that was it!

It sounds like they found a setup that gave them an image they liked, and then they kept it.

Not very encouraging, and it does beg questions regarding abilities and experience.

As to your questions:
Increasing the shutter speed will reduce the ambient light's effect on your image, although most studios operate in a fairly dim environment anyway, so it won't make an impact unless you happen to drift above your camera's maximum synch speed. In which case you will see evidence of curtain shadow along the bottom of the image.

Light setup, see above :bang:

Shooting at a wider aperture? Turn the lights down lower, in fact quite likely as low as they will go, and you may still need to increase the distance from the lights to subject.

Also, no images are showing :bonk:

I would respectfully suggest looking for another studio
 
Did the guy who was teaching you have a white stick?

Serious answer - as per the first two replies. What you experienced wasn't studio photography, it was a 'how not to' session. Real studio photography is about creativity, knowledge and experimentation.
 
Thanks guys, like i said one bloke is the tech man the other is a people person but they both shoot separate, i'm hoping a session with the tech guy would be more productive but it's not what im looking for in a studio.
 
Another question i did ask but the bloke had no idea what i was talking about

When i first got there i asked if it makes any difference what Metering i am using Spot or Matrix he had no idea what i was asking, Thinking now i can't see why it would make any difference which one i use as im not using the light meter in camera and in manual set to a set ss and ap Does it make any difference?

Also what would you say is a normal WB to start with, i had 4760 but my models face was coming through red, changed the WB several times but it made no diffrence, on my treck home it hit me that i had my picture set to Vivid, thankfully i was shooting raw so it was fine, but what is a good starting point for WB and does it change much depending on what lights you use?

Thanks for all the info Guys it's alot to take in
 
Last edited:
WB is best set to 5500 or the flash setting. (Use your post processing to change the WB on the images you have already taken).

The camera's meter isn't of use within the studio, as your correct exposure is only measurable during the duration of the studio strobe's flash. The studio should have had a hand held meter for your use. The's meter triggers the flashes and measure the light at that point.
 
Thanks for the WB tip i have changed my WB but think my laptop monitor will be off so have done 3 shots which is best?

First shot, WB as shot 4750
4750.jpg


This ones 5000
5000.jpg


This ones 5500
5500.jpg


Do i need to go higher or lower?

Thanks guys all this help is much appreciated
 
Quite a few studios in the past did not even use a light meter other than to calibrate their string

They had string tied to the monobloc (as they were known then) which had knots tied into it at each full stop depending on the distance from the light, counting the knots would give them their aperture, if they were in between knots then that equated to a half stop.
 
EdBray said:
Quite a few studios in the past did not even use a light meter other than to calibrate their string

They had string tied to the monobloc (as they were known then) which had knots tied into it at each full stop depending on the distance from the light, counting the knots would give them their aperture, if they were in between knots then that equated to a half stop.
Click to expand...

Thank god for light meters then lol
 
just had a play with a low key shot i did last, it just makes it a little lighter or darker this right? best to just keep it on 5000 all the time or is WB something i should always be playing with?

Thanks again Michael wish u lived closer lol
 
Thanks :) i have been asked to go back on Thursday to have a session with the tech guy, hes going to compare before and after shots. so this time it should be alot better :D
 
Ideally, you should set a custom white balance - but it's really all a bit academic because, typically, the theoretically 'correct' white balance often looks wrong.

The Fuji S5 camera was/is renowned for producing 'pleasing' Jpegs straight out of camera and so it does - but IMO the 'pleasing' bit about them is that they tend to be a bit on the warm side.

What does matter with studio photography is colour temperature consistency. All studio flash units are colour inconsistent to some extent but some are much worse than others, and it's when there is a marked variation from one shot to the next that it really becomes an issue - which is why people by the better makes.

Not a criticism of you because it wasn't under your control, but the lighting on your shots is absolutely bloody awful - dead flat lighting like that kills all shadows and is extremely unflattering to the subject - I'm sure her face isn't that fat.

Here's something I wrote a day or so about my own approach to training, on the Lencarta blog.
 
Daniel, if you compare 2497 with 2508, you will see what Garry means.
2497 is very evenly lit right across her, and from all angles.
2508 has more depth and texture to it, as there is shadow to her left (Camera right) and her face appears physically narrower/thinner.
And yet they are similar poses in relation to the camera
 
Thanks Garry, you say her face looks flat? can you explain in more detail what you mean?

Also would the bad lighting be down to bad light placement or the lights themselves?
 
Thanks Garry, you say her face looks flat? can you explain in more detail what you mean?
Click to expand...
What I said was that her face looks fat, not flat.

Surely you must be able to see that the shots where the whole of her face is lit very evenly, it looks a lot fatter than where part of the face is in shadow?

What's happened here is that you've booked studio time with a studio that knows nothing about studio work. What they've clearly done is to set up lighting that is totally flat and featureless, in the mistaken belief that this type of lighting is in some way professional (of course, the opposite is true).
What YOU have done is that you have accidentally moved around the studio, placing your model in different places, where the lighting has accidentally become uneven - and this has resulted in much more interesting lighting which has created some shadows. It has also accidentally resulted in slightly less exposure, which is better - the shots taken in the 'right' area are in fact overexposed.

There's an old saying that a photographer is judged by the shadows he creates. And it's true.
Total beginners often believe that the opposite is true, i.e. they believe that 'good' lighting is the absence of shadows, but when there is an absence of shadows the whole of the face is lit, and this makes the face (or whatever the subject happens to be) look much broader.

Here is an example of what I believe to be good lighting.
single_softbox.jpg

The photographer used a softbox and he placed it where it created shadows that sculpt and define the face, emphasing its strong points and creating shadows that draw the viewer's attention to the bits that matter. That isn't what happened in your studio shoot, the so-called experienced photographer placed lights (almost certainly umbrellas or softboxes) all over the place so that light hit the model from all angles, and the light also bounced off of the walls and probably the ceiling, adding to the problem. All of this unnecessary and unwanted light has lit the whole of her face, including the sides, which made the face (and body) look wider and therefore fatter.

That photo was taken by a man who I believe to be one of the lighting greats, Marc Gouguenheim, and it belongs to an article on the Lencarta website that I think you'll find interesting. It's basic and easy to understand but it will help you to understand what lighting is really about
 
Thanks Garry, i'm not paying for the studio time, so it's a learning curve but a worth while one, Just glad i can put photos on here and get worth while crit on where i am going wrong. Hopefully fingers crossed Thursday session will be better but if not ill try and get a session where it's just me and model and try out any suggestions i receive here. Poses, lighting direction and where i stood were all down to the chap teaching me, i would have done a couple things different but u assume he knows best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top