Lighting set up question!

[L.A.B.]

I was in the supermarket today (bad bad idea on a Saturday!) and there was a photographer set up in the back of the shop, taking photos of children for a "Bonnie Baby" competition in a local paper.

Anyway the point here is I was a wee bit confused with his set up.

He had two lights, at a HUGE height (over 6 foot high I would have said) each light was directly in line with him, but at either side (IYKWIM) they seemed large lights, big giant heads on them. The thing confusing me the most was he had brollies on the lights, set like reflector brollies but they were shoot through diffuser brollies, I thought at first maybe they were white reflectors, but I checked and they were definitely shoot through ones.

What would be the benefit of setting up like this, or was it just a flawed set up?

During all of the research I have done on lighting for studio portraiture I have never once seen this set up advised, so I am a little curious.

 

[AllFallD0wn]

I know next to nothing about lighting, but my guess would be they diffuse the light so it's not as harsh, creating a softer, more natural light?

 

[Chappers]

I think Nick is right. He was shooting through these brollies to diffuse the light, making them into a soft box. Not an unusual technique and has the advantage of being quick and easy to set up

 

[Garry Edwards]

Flawed in the sense that it isn't even remotely creative, but it would work equally well for all of his subjects, and babies don't need creative lighting anyway.

Over 6' high? Well, how high is the bloody sun? Light naturally comes from above, so lighting from above looks natural.

And yes, these shoot through brollies soften and diffuse the light. Like a poor man's softbox, except that the light spills where it isn't wanted as well as where it is wanted. The fact that you hadn't seen this type of umbrella in use before doesn't mean that it's unusual.

 

[Treesie]

I think Nick is right. He was shooting through these brollies to diffuse the light, making them into a soft box. Not an unusual technique and has the advantage of being quick and easy to set up

Ditto

 

[L.A.B.]

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself properly.

They were shoot through brollies, but they were set up as if they were reflectors...does that make more sense. So instead of the flash head pointing towards the subject with the brolly in front of it to diffuse the light the flash head was pointing away from the subject, upwards, and then the diffuser brolly, so the light was shooting through the brolly but away from the subject.

Is that a bit clearer?

 

[Chappers]

Sounds like a very odd technique. I can't think of any real reason why he should be doing that if they were shoot through brollies. Very strange

 

[Peachy]

I thought that was what you meant when I read your original post. It sounds completely wrong to me. He can't be a professional photographer or he'd know better. Very odd IMO.

 

[L.A.B.]

I am glad I managed to explain myself a bit better!!

I am so new to lighting set ups so have been experimenting myself, however I was completely baffled with his set up and was wondering if there was some kind of benefit to it that I was unaware of!

They were definitely diffuser brollies, I may have walked past several times......subtlety you know!!

 

[Peachy]

Well why not ask him? Casually walk past again. Flatter him (tell him you've noticed his big lens ) then ask him about his set up. See what he says....

 

[L.A.B.]

Flatter him (tell him you've noticed his big lens ) then ask him about his set up. See what he says....

lol!

I may just send my dad to do it! He is very good at asking random strangers some questions!

 

[Mike Jackson]

Perhaps he couldn't dial the power down low enough on his lights for the compact space so he was reducing the light by using the shoot through brollies as reflectors. There will still be a fair bit of light that bounces back.

 

[Peachy]

I had thought that at first but then dismissed it. He's in a supermarket. That's quite big. Could be wrong though. Maybe they only gave him 6 ft square space?

 

[Danzaroonie]

I think you can still shoot at the brollies as its still white and should add a soft light affect back at the subject (not the best as you will lose a lot of the light through the brollie...foiled reflectors I would think are more ideal in this situation as they are taking baby shots which don't have adult wrinkles...

 

[HoppyUK]

If you measure the light either side of a shoot-through brolly, you usually get about the same amount bounced back as passes through.

I've used them back-to-front before, mainly for practical reasons. You can just swivel the head around and you immediately get about four feet more distance and height. Eg, solo sitting portrait, use shoot-through with light close to the subject; next shot, a standing group, swivel them around, light instantly higher and further away, and bounce out of the back. Easy

Shoot-thoughs are very indiscriminate and quite insensitive to positioning. They basically spread the light everywhere, front, back and all around - a bit like a giant stofen. It's hard to get it too far wrong, if that's the effect you want.

With light, there are 10001 ways to skin a cat. Assuming the guy knew what he was doing of course

 

[L.A.B.]

Thanks guys!

That helps my poor befuddled brain!

He was set up just to take baby portraits, so I am guessing its not an ideal set up but it would work is the answer!!

 

[jon ryan]

There are ads around for `photographers` saying `no experience necessary - full training will be given!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!` offering work in stores/clubs/whatever. Try googling something like that - and weep. Must make real photographers trying to make a living in those environments feel murderous.

Putting a few impressive lights up to catch the eye of the punter, perhaps? Or an out-and-out genius photographer with a technique so advanced that we mere mortals are incapable of comprehending the subtleties.

Price and results could offer a clue.