Hilite help

[steveinhants]

Hi guys,

So, having collected a Lastolite Hilite the other day I finally got around to trialling it, all be it too briefly, tonight.
My setup was: 2 x speedlites to light it and a softbox and shoot-through to light the guinea-pigs.

I need a bit of help with the background (as I expected), i.e. the greyness.....any suggestions?
Not looking for critique of the actual image, it's just a good one to show the grey background.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/28984351@N04/5350445286/] Logan_etal by Steve J Lacey, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[mjcombe]

To me it looks like you need more power from your lights.

Can you remember what settings you had on the speedlights and your camera? That may help as to pinpoint where you're going wrong (so to speak).

 

[Garry Edwards]

More power would just increase the edge degradation, visible in the hair. You don't need more power, you need more even distribution of the light - never the easiest thing to do when using hotshoe flashes, but definately do-able, just by adjusting the angle.

 

[EOS_JD]

Looks to me like the subject is pretty close to the background.

If you want white meter the background at least 1 stop more than the subject. Normally the subjects are taken at around f8 mainly for depth that offers and sharpness of most lenses at that aperture. So you need the background lights aroud f11 or maybe a touch more. As Garry says the main thing is to get the light even - pretty tough. Turn the flashes towards the back of the hilite and fire into the white surface - use your flash meter pointed at the background (up close) to measure the light coming from the background - If you get a consistent reading across the hilite then great.

From the image you have, light is falling off top to bottom. THe bottom of the hilite is pretty dark and there is more light on the cameras right than on the left. So angle the flashes appropriately. Once you have it set correctly, make a note of power settings and check the angles so you can repeat.

Welcome to the world of lighting

 

[HoppyUK]

I can't see any edge degradation. The background is grey, and more grey around the areas where the adults are shading the background from the front lights. I may be wrong, but I supect the HiLight itself is fairly evenly lit behind, just under-exposed.

In terms of exposure, just crank up the flashes in the HiLight - with blinkies enabled, until they flash. You are now on the brink of over exposure and if you're happy with the level of the front lights, take the HiLite power up just a smidge, and it will blow to pure white.

I find the best way to light the HiLite with hot-shoe guns is to aim them about two thirds of the way across (ie just past the middle) but stick a tiny piece of card on the flash head with BluTack so that no light is allowed to fall directly on the front panel.

 

[JonathanRyan]

I can't see any edge degradation.

It's at, um, the edges

Wisp of stray hair on the rhs is the most obvious but there's clear smooshiness going on in both the adults' shoulders.

Having said that it looks like a slow shutter speed or that kid's arm is moving really quickly (by no means impossible).

I'd move them forwars - as far away from the hilite as you can. Then you can safely increase the power inside the hilite. Also consider fitting diffuser caps to the flash guns (like stofens) to widen the spread as the light leaves them.

This was lit with 2XSB800s in the hilite and one with an umbrella box. The edges of the chair are starting to degrade but I reckoned it was close enough that most parents wouldn't spot it


Oh no you didn't..... by Jonathan Ryan, on Flickr

 

[jingphotography]

The safest lighting would be two stops over. So if main light is f8 , you need to aim highlite to be f16. Sit the subject so that light reading at hair, shoulders should maintain at f8.

 

[The23rdman]

The safest lighting would be two stops over. So if main light is f8 , you need to aim highlite to be f16. Sit the subject so that light reading at hair, shoulders should maintain at f8.

That's way too much and unnecessary.

Steve, don't take it as read that 1/4 power is enough, mate. It depends on your f-stop. I tend to shoot around f5.6 so got away with 1/4 power at iso 200.

I agree about getting some space between hilite and peeps though if you can.

 

[JonathanRyan]

The safest lighting would be two stops over. So if main light is f8 , you need to aim highlite to be f16. Sit the subject so that light reading at hair, shoulders should maintain at f8.

Ooo wait until Uncle Garry gets here with a rant about bleed and flare....

 

[Hodders]

I useful exercise is to photograph just the background with blinkies turned on (ie the clipped part of the image flashes on the camera's back screen).

Start at F16 and work you way down to the point where the whole background is blinking.

Have a look at where the BG starts blinking. Ideally you want the whole BG to start blinking at the same exposure as this indicates perfectly even lighting. Realistically it won't happen but will take a transition gap of about 1 to 1.5 stops.

Play with the angle of the lights in the hilite and the modifiers (like the wide angle diffuser) to minimise this transition gap.

Getting even lighting is the key as it will let you just over expose the background and will minimise the edge damage caused.

Also get the people away from the background as this will cause a lot less wrap (where light from the edges of the hilite reaches the sides of the subjects).

 

[jingphotography]

That's way too much and unnecessary.

Steve, don't take it as read that 1/4 power is enough, mate. It depends on your f-stop. I tend to shoot around f5.6 so got away with 1/4 power at iso 200.

I agree about getting some space between hilite and peeps though if you can.

with two stops over, it reduces the risk finding patches of 'un-blinky' background, or the hassle of fine tune speed lights angle

 

[lawrie29]

Are you diffusing your speedlights at all inside the hilight?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Ooo wait until Uncle Garry gets here with a rant about bleed and flare....

I've said, demonstrated and proved that anything more than 0.5 - 0.7 of a stop is unnecessary and destructive so many times that I just can't be bothered to go through it again

 

[steveinhants]

:bonk:

I know what I did wrong. I had the background set to f/5.6 and my family set to f/8

I'm not sure why I did this but that's what developing a new technique is all about I guess!!

I will try again at the weekend and re-post for more crtitique if that's ok with everyone. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

I've said, demonstrated and proved that anything more than 0.5 - 0.7 of a stop is unnecessary and destructive so many times that I just can't be bothered to go through it again

On occasion I use it one stop over. I shoot at f8, and light the background at f11. For the purpose of creating wrap around lighting on the subject, so it's a creative choice I use, rather than a destructive accident

 

[EOS_JD]

Some amazing images of on your flickr Mahoney.

Yes I used to follow the Mark Cleghorn rule of lighting 2 stops over but am now nearer one stop. I actualy don't mind if the background is not totally blown as I think it looks nicer but it depends what and/or who I'm shooting - i like just playing around. Grey looks nice so consider turning the background lights off too

Something different.

 

[HoppyUK]

There are all sorts of ways of doing this, bearing in mind the objective is the get the background even, and only just blown to pure white. Then get the main subject exposure level as close to that as you can.

On the evenness thing, I find that Sofens don't actually help much and tend to concentrate too much light locally around the gun. The more you can project the light around the HiLight, the more it bounces around and the more even it becomes. Hence my suggestion of pointing the gun towards the far side and the back, but making sure no light falls directly on the front panel. Though to be fair, the genuine Lastolite HiLite is quite tolerant in this respect and you can almost just shove the heads inside and fire away regardless, but tweaking it a little obviously helps even things out even more.

Another way of setting the exposure. Turn on the background lights only, and wind them up until the blinkies flash. Turn them up one half stop more. That is your overall exposure set. Add the front lights at a lower level and turn them up until the blinkies start to flash on highlights like foreheads, cheeks and noses, then knock them back just a fraction until the blinkies on the main subject stop. The background will still be blinking though. That will probably be about as good as it gets.

With a HiLite, the distance of the subject from the background doesn't affect anything except the amount of wrap, although that's important of course. Closer gives more, further gives less but with a larger group your can then start to run out of background area. Adjust to taste.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Some amazing images of on your flickr Mahoney.

Yes I used to follow the Mark Cleghorn rule of lighting 2 stops over but am now nearer one stop. I actualy don't mind if the background is not totally blown as I think it looks nicer but it depends what and/or who I'm shooting - i like just playing around. Grey looks nice so consider turning the background lights off too

Something different.

Thanks

 

[Garry Edwards]

With a HiLite, the distance of the subject from the background doesn't affect anything except the amount of wrap, although that's important of course. Closer gives more, further gives less but with a larger group your can then start to run out of background area. Adjust to taste.

Not so. Any increase in the distance that the light has to travel from the light source (in this case the Hi-Lite) to the subject will result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of light available to degrade the edges.

All explained by that nice Sir Isaac Newton, who explained the workings of the Inverse Square Law

 

[gman]

Wasn't there a thread just like this not so long ago going into a lot of detail and showing all sorts of examples? It had that big creepy man-size model or something....

 

[JonathanRyan]

All explained by that nice Sir Isaac Newton, who explained the workings of the Inverse Square Law

Yeah but to be fair, he did that in Latin. And he pretty much got the idea from Kepler

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yeah but to be fair, he did that in Latin. And he pretty much got the idea from Kepler

And Kepler got it from me, when I was a young man, back in the 16th century

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Not so. Any increase in the distance that the light has to travel from the light source (in this case the Hi-Lite) to the subject will result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of light available to degrade the edges.

All explained by that nice Sir Isaac Newton, who explained the workings of the Inverse Square Law

I believe you are both refering to the same thing. One is calling it wrap around lighting, as I would, and you are calling it degradation of the edges of the subject. What to call it I guess depends on the intention of the user, and whether it's achieving a desired effect...or it's an accident and doesnt look appropriate.

I wouldn't call it degradation, the same as I wouldn't call a blown out white background, degraded.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I believe you are both refering to the same thing. One is calling it wrap around lighting, as I would, and you are calling it degradation of the edges of the subject. What to call it I guess depends on the intention of the user, and whether it's achieving a desired effect...or it's an accident and doesnt look appropriate.

I wouldn't call it degradation, the same as I wouldn't call a blown out white background, degraded.

No. Wrap is the unplanned light that appears on the sides of the subject and is a product of the size of the light source, i.e. a light that is larger than the subject will inevitably spill light onto the sides of the subject, that's a law of physics. The only way of avoiding it is to have a small light source, or at least one that's small in relative size, i.e. that has become effectively smaller by having the subject a long way away from it.

Degradation is degrading of the fine detail (typically hair) caused by the backlighting being too powerful. That's another law of physics.

Whether edge degradation is acceptable or not depends on both the degree and on whether or not the viewer thinks it's OK. Personally I hate photos that show fine detail destroyed by bad lighting, but I accept that some people don't care or maybe don't even notice.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

No. Wrap is the unplanned light that appears on the sides of the subject and is a product of the size of the light source, i.e. a light that is larger than the subject will inevitably spill light onto the sides of the subject, that's a law of physics. The only way of avoiding it is to have a small light source, or at least one that's small in relative size, i.e. that has become effectively smaller by having the subject a long way away from it.

Degradation is degrading of the fine detail (typically hair) caused by the backlighting being too powerful. That's another law of physics.

Whether edge degradation is acceptable or not depends on both the degree and on whether or not the viewer thinks it's OK. Personally I hate photos that show fine detail destroyed by bad lighting, but I accept that some people don't care or maybe don't even notice.

I utilise wrap on occasions for creative purpose. Believe me it is not unplanned. I would sacrifice edge degradation for the sake of achieving a desired effect. If that means in your opinion my lighting is bad, so be it, I won't lose sleep.

I suppose you hate, wrap, flare, hard light, people that don't conform to the rule of thirds, Terry Richardson...:bonk:

 

[Tugster]

No. Wrap is the unplanned light that appears on the sides of the subject and is a product of the size of the light source, i.e. a light that is larger than the subject will inevitably spill light onto the sides of the subject, that's a law of physics. The only way of avoiding it is to have a small light source, or at least one that's small in relative size, i.e. that has become effectively smaller by having the subject a long way away from it.

Degradation is degrading of the fine detail (typically hair) caused by the backlighting being too powerful. That's another law of physics.

Whether edge degradation is acceptable or not depends on both the degree and on whether or not the viewer thinks it's OK. Personally I hate photos that show fine detail destroyed by bad lighting, but I accept that some people don't care or maybe don't even notice.

Isn't moving the subject further away from the Hilite just going against what the Hilite was designed to do....Allow the subject to stand as close as possible without causing shadows on the background.

Where do you meter the Hilite Gary ?
Right up against the panel or at the distance from the panel where the subject is standing ?

 

[Garry Edwards]

I utilise wrap on occasions for creative purpose. Believe me it is not unplanned. I would sacrifice edge degradation for the sake of achieving a desired effect. If that means in your opinion my lighting is bad, so be it, I won't lose sleep.

I suppose you hate, wrap, flare, hard light, people that don't conform to the rule of thirds, Terry Richardson...:bonk:

Using it deliberately and creatively is fine. Assuming that I don't like anything that doesn't conform to the 'rules' is just nonsense.

Isn't moving the subject further away from the Hilite just going against what the Hilite was designed to do....Allow the subject to stand as close as possible without causing shadows on the background.

Yes, but the whole point is that there should only be just enough light power to make the background white, and if that's done neither flare nor edge degradation is a serious problem - but the problem get progressively less as the distance is increased, so it's a judgement call.

Where do you meter the Hilite Gary ?
Right up against the panel or at the distance from the panel where the subject is standing ?

Theoretically, from the rear of the subject, but it doesn't matter all that much as long as it's consistent.

 

[EOS_JD]

You have to meter it up against the light to set the power and position of the background lights but it can be useful taking a reading to see how much light is spilling back onto your subject - As sugested moving the subject away from the background just a few feet can really help - But really it's down to whether you notice much of a problem. i see the problem often but it's so small noone really notices it!

The HiLite was built as a solution for creating a high key background in tight spaces. i don't think the manufacturers say it's the perfect background and you can place a subject 12" from it and not see any edge degradation or wrap..... that is down to how you use it. But the HiLite does a great job for many that do not have the space to set a multi light setup in a very small room.

I honestly think I'd not be doing much in the way of studio style images had it not been for the invention. I got it failrly early on and although I don't use it as often as I'd like to I think it does a marvellous job for those that use it.

For event togs it's quick and easy to set up take down and easy to set up. For the casual photographer, I too can set up and create images that clients love! they may not be award winners but I've gotten some very nice images using it in tight spaces.

Most that shoot with the Hilite may not need the perfect shot - some edge degradation is perfectly acceptable because we don't have the space to move the subject back 2 or 3m from the background.

Re Garry's use. I'm not even sure Garry would use the HiLite? Having a studio means little need.

 

[EOS_JD]

Theoretically, from the rear of the subject, but it doesn't matter all that much as long as it's consistent.

How can you measure the power of the background light from subject location? It has to be from the background location?

 

[Mahoneyd187]

....I hate photos that show fine detail destroyed by bad lighting, but I accept that some people don't care or maybe don't even notice.

You basically said, any lighting that causes edge degradation, is "bad lighting". Just because you are not a fan of it, it doesn't make it bad

Such a statement begs a provocative response

 

[Garry Edwards]

How can you measure the power of the background light from subject location? It has to be from the background location?

Let me put it this way (but I fully accept that if the subject is right up against the background, which may sometimes be necessary, it amounts to the same thing).

If you measure with the meter right up against the background then you'll get an actual reading, say f/16, which tells you in objective terms how much light has reached the meter. If you then measure the light falling on the subject, say it's f/8 - now that's 2 stops, and despite what it may say on the Lastolite site, that's far too much with the subject touching the background but may be totally fine if the subject is 5m from the background.

Now, if you measure from the rear of the subject and you get a half stop difference between the reading from there to the background compared to the reading immediately in front of the face, that tells you that you won't have any real problems with unwanted flare or edge degradation (bold type to keep Mahoneyd187 happy ). It won't matter how much light there is at the background, what matters is the amount reaching the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Edwards
....I hate photos that show fine detail destroyed by bad lighting, but I accept that some people don't care or maybe don't even notice.

You basically said, any lighting that causes edge degradation, is "bad lighting". Just because you are not a fan of it, it doesn't make it bad Such a statement begs a provocative response

Maybe it provoked a response from you, but I think it was clear that I regard it as bad lighting if it's unplanned, although I also said that I accept that some people don't care or don't notice. I think that's the whole point, what is good or bad in photography is highly subjective. My take on this is that it's fine to create faults deliberately for creative effect (for example bad lens flare by including the sun in the shot) but it's a very good idea to learn how to create technically good shots - that way, we are giving ourselves real choices.

Re Garry's use. I'm not even sure Garry would use the HiLite? Having a studio means little need.

I don't use one in my studio, as you say there's no need. But I've used them for 20 years (OK, I've used a large softbox, same thing) when I've wanted to create controlled flare or have had to shoot on location where space is limited.

One of the things that I personally feel important is that there is no actual need to create flare, wrap or edge degradation accidentally - last year at Focus I had 4 days of listening to Jeremy Nako giving demonstrations of how to shoot at events, he was right behind me - very entertaining it was too Jeremy - the first time I heard it - sorry and every shot he took with the Hi-Lite was perfect, with absolutely none of the faults that some people accept as inevitable.

 

[HoppyUK]

Not so. Any increase in the distance that the light has to travel from the light source (in this case the Hi-Lite) to the subject will result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of light available to degrade the edges.

All explained by that nice Sir Isaac Newton, who explained the workings of the Inverse Square Law

Garry, why are you saying this? The inverse square law doesn't apply here. I know you don't like the HiLite for some reason, but they work very well and are pretty much invaluable if you want to produce the white background look in a small working area.

As I know you know full well, the inverse square law only applies to a point light source. While it also applies accurately to a small flash gun, and to a slightly lesser extent to larger light sources like umbrellas and softboxes, with something as huge as a HiLite, it really makes no odds in terms of exposure, whether the subject is right up against it or a few feet away. This is really the least of your problems with this lighting. You have also contradicted yourself on this twice in subsequent posts.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrap - basically a reflection of the background off the subject - is part and parcel of this style of lighting. It's never 'unplanned' as you can't avoid it, nor is it undesirable - that's the look you're after. How much of it is down to taste, and you can vary it with the size of the background, or the distance that the subject is positioned from it (which makes the background effectively smaller). Or more usually, you just put up with what you've got because it looks quite good and you've got no room to manoeuvre anyway.

Edge degradation is a different thing entirely, although it can sometimes look confusingly similar to wrap. It is just down to excessive over-exposure of the background and I can't see any reason why that should ever be desirable. That's why I agree that the 'two stops higher' for the background that we often hear is too much and is very bad advice, but having said that, working in less than perfect environments as we often do - ie the front room with a couple of hot-shoe guns, and not a great big custom studio with a battery of equipment - you have to compromise. Sometimes to get the background blown all over, the inevitable hot spots will unavoidably be two stops over; and if you're trying to get a train to go white, then one of the ways of helping along that very difficult task is to put more light than is perhaps desirable on the background (because that will be reflected of the train, and will brighten it). Rather than worry about two stops or one stop or whatever, personally I find that being guided by blinkies (highlight over-exposure warning on the LCD) is both the easiest and most accurate way to set up - as I explained in my previous post. For those that prefer to use a meter, whatever works for you.

This style of lighting is difficult and fundamentally compromised even before you start. Basically the trick is to know what's going on, minimise the compromises, and deliver an acceptable image as best you can. It will not be technically perfect, even after some cleaning up in post processing, but people like it - a lot. And that's what matters.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I know you don't like the HiLite for some reason

I don't have any problem with the hi-light and have recommended them to quite a few people. What I don't like is the results that a lot of people seem to get with them - and their acceptance of bad results as inevitable. I also admit that I'm not a fan of white backgrounds generally - I use them all the time because I have to, I just personally prefer almost all other types of backgrounds to white.

As I know you know full well, the inverse square law only applies to a point light source.

Yes and no. The ISQ doesn't apply in linear terms to any light source used in photography, and the larger the light source the less the effect, or at least in linear terms (I'm happy to explain the reasons if anyone wants me to) But what you may be missing here is that the Hi-Lite (or any other large light source) actually consists of untold millions of point sources of light, all of which follow the immutable laws of physics.

Wrap - basically a reflection of the background off the subject - is part and parcel of this style of lighting. It's never 'unplanned' as you can't avoid it,

It isn't a specular reflection, it's light pollution. And although it cannot be avoided as such at a close distance, correct exposure of the background can make the effect so subtle that it isn't obvious.

Edge degradation is a different thing entirely, although it can sometimes look confusingly similar to wrap. It is just down to excessive over-exposure of the background and I can't see any reason why that should ever be desirable. That's why I agree that the 'two stops higher' for the background that we often hear is too much and is very bad advice, but having said that, working in less than perfect environments as we often do - ie the front room with a couple of hot-shoe guns, and not a great big custom studio with a battery of equipment - you have to compromise. Sometimes to get the background blown all over, the inevitable hot spots will unavoidably be two stops over; and if you're trying to get a train to go white, then one of the ways of helping along that very difficult task is to put more light than is perhaps desirable on the background (because that will be reflected of the train, and will brighten it). Rather than worry about two stops or one stop or whatever, personally I find that being guided by blinkies (highlight over-exposure warning on the LCD) is both the easiest and most accurate way to set up - as I explained in my previous post. For those that prefer to use a meter, whatever works for you.

This style of lighting is difficult and fundamentally compromised even before you start. Basically the trick is to know what's going on, minimise the compromises, and deliver an acceptable image as best you can. It will not be technically perfect, even after some cleaning up in post processing, but people like it - a lot. And that's what matters.

Agreed, except that I find a very clear distinction between edge degradation and wrap.

 

[gman]

Would it be safe to say that the Hilite isn't quite as easy a tool to master as it is made out to be?

PS. You two are hurting my head

 

[jamesoliverstone]

No no, keep it up, I am immensely enjoying this debate

 

[gman]

No no, keep it up, I am immensely enjoying this debate

Aye, try enjoying it after a bottle of plonk! It is very interesting though as I shoot with both traditional background and muslin and also the hilite. Mind you, after recently shooting with the muslin I've decided I need another light and am still debating what to get - and also trying to figure out how the hell to fit another light (and stand) in my bag!

 

[HoppyUK]

Would it be safe to say that the Hilite isn't quite as easy a tool to master as it is made out to be?

If you want a pure white background, in a limited working area, then it's as easy as it gets - given that it's not an easy style to master.

The big advantage is space. If you have a HiLite that is say 7ft wide, then you can pretty much get away with a working width of about 8ft, with the heads in the HiLite and only the feet of the stands sticking out. To do that properly with a conventional lights and a white paper or vinyl background, you need about double that which basically rules it out for most in-home location type portrait sessions.

And I honestly think the results speak for themselves

PS. You two are hurting my head

Don't mention the Cosine Law! Sorry, didn't mean to rant if it came across that way.

Hi Garry!

 

[JonathanRyan]

Guys. Why don't we all just go out and take some pictures?

Or stay in and take pictures if you work in a boring studio