Newbie help metering studio flash...

domino1999

domino1999

Suspended / Banned
Messages
700
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
I've had a Lencarta Ultrapro 300 for a while, but not really used it until today. I was tasked with taking some head & shoulders shots of a few work colleagues for our Intranet.

Over the past few weeks I've read loads of books and articles on the web, as well as these forums, so thought I'd be prepared, but obviously I wasn't.

Basically, as most people advise, I opted to start with just 1 light, the Ultrapro with 60x90cm profold softbox attached. This was at 45 degrees to my subject on a stand and positioned so it was pointing down at around 45 degrees also. A pretty basic arrangement. I had an RF603 wireless trigger attached to the sync port. Distances were as follows:-

Camera to subject approx. 5 ft.
Softbox to subject approx. 4ft.

I was using my Canon 350D on tripod with 50/1.8 attached.

There was some ambient light in the room, but it was low. There are no windows in the room.

So, I used my Sekonic L308S set to ISO100, shutter speed 1/125 and got a reading of F/8 from my subject's position.

So I set my camera to Manual, ISO 100, shutter 1/125, aperture F/8 and took some shots, but all of them were horribly overexposed.

I'm probably doing something stupid or missing something. Anyone have any ideas?
 
We need more info...
ISO is fine, shutter speed is fine (and not relevant).
Distance from light source to subject is relevant, distance from camera to subject isn't.

Now, what exactly did you do?
Your meter needs to be in incident mode with the little white thing covering the sensor.
It needs to be placed as close as practicable to the subject
The sensor needs to point towards the camera
You need to make sure that your body isn't blocking the light that reaches the meter from the flash head.

My guess is that one of those things didn't happen
 
A few things come to mind.

You were in the flash mode, yes?
Was the ball out (if your model has one) when you measured it?
Were you pointing the meter at camera position or towards the light?

On a different note, for single light setup, pointing down a smallish softbox (at that distance) that acutely will create shadows in eye socket. Lower the light position, and get it positioned flat. Also bring it in a bit closer. You don't need 4ft light/subject distance for head and shoulder.

All the best
Keigo
 
Garry Edwards said:
We need more info...
ISO is fine, shutter speed is fine (and not relevant).
Distance from light source to subject is relevant, distance from camera to subject isn't.

Now, what exactly did you do?
Your meter needs to be in incident mode with the little white thing covering the sensor.
It needs to be placed as close as practicable to the subject
The sensor needs to point towards the camera
You need to make sure that your body isn't blocking the light that reaches the meter from the flash head.

My guess is that one of those things didn't happen
Click to expand...

Beat me to it :)
 
Garry Edwards said:
We need more info...
ISO is fine, shutter speed is fine (and not relevant).
Distance from light source to subject is relevant, distance from camera to subject isn't.

Now, what exactly did you do?
Your meter needs to be in incident mode with the little white thing covering the sensor.
It needs to be placed as close as practicable to the subject
The sensor needs to point towards the camera
You need to make sure that your body isn't blocking the light that reaches the meter from the flash head.

My guess is that one of those things didn't happen
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Garry & Keigo. All very valid points and all things I'd considered, but, as expected, it was ME making a VERY STUPID and elementary mistake. As much as I said my ISO was set to 100, after reviewing the shots they were all ISO 400!!! This was my bad memory again, where I sincerely thought I'd changed ISO to 100, but hadn't :bonk:

Now I feel a complete numpty! My apologies for wasting everyone's time. :amstupid:

Darren
 
Last edited:
I must say, stupid mistake aside, I learned an awful lot from my first "portrait" shoot.

1. I need a sturdier stand for my Ultrapro/softbox combo.
2. I must check and double-check my camera settings.
3. I learned how to setup a basic 1 light setup.
4. I must check and triple-check my camera settings.
5. I even used a 430EX firing into a reflecting umbrella for a bit of fill in the later stages of the shoot and I think it worked well.
6. I must quadruple-check my camera settings!
7. I tried a 2nd flash on the background with a blue gel. However this had no effect, even at full power. I think the main light was spilling over on to the wall. Next time I'll move my subject further from the wall, and/or turn the main light away from it, and/or fit the grid onto the softbox to give more direction to the light (which I'd forgotten was in the bag).
8. Check camera settings...again!

All in all, I think simple panic kicked in and I completely forgot all the things I'd read about up now...hopefully this will improve with practice.

It's hard to tell what the shots are like on the piddly screen on the 350D. I'll have to wait until tonight when I can load them on my home laptop. If there are any decent ones, then I'll post them in an appropriate forum/thread tonight.

Darren
 
Last edited:
We all make mistakes, all the time - I'm willing to bet that I've made a lot more than you:)
If you're putting extra light on the background, remember that it's an additive effect. If the background is already white you'll just add more white, which won't help. And the blue gel, on the full power of even something as low powered as a hotshoe flash, is going to end up nearer to white than to the colour of the gel. You need an unlit wall, the darker the better. And you need to make sure that spare light doesn't spill onto it, which is partly about light source to subject distance, partly about subject to background distance (both of which are enormously affected by the inverse square law) and partly about the position of the key light, i.e. where any stray, unwanted light will actually end up...

Speaking of which, your choice of course but my view of Rembrandt lighting is that it's generally horrible for portraits. It worked for Rembrandt because he was a clever lad and used paintbrushes that could make the shadow areas as dark or otherwise as he liked, but it's different for us. My personal starting point for most single light portraits is straight in front of the subject and fairly high, all explained here

Apart from anything else, spare light and shadows disappear onto the bottom of the background, and are usually hidden from view by the subject.
 
Garry Edwards said:
We all make mistakes, all the time - I'm willing to bet that I've made a lot more than you:)
If you're putting extra light on the background, remember that it's an additive effect. If the background is already white you'll just add more white, which won't help. And the blue gel, on the full power of even something as low powered as a hotshoe flash, is going to end up nearer to white than to the colour of the gel. You need an unlit wall, the darker the better. And you need to make sure that spare light doesn't spill onto it, which is partly about light source to subject distance, partly about subject to background distance (both of which are enormously affected by the inverse square law) and partly about the position of the key light, i.e. where any stray, unwanted light will actually end up...

Speaking of which, your choice of course but my view of Rembrandt lighting is that it's generally horrible for portraits. It worked for Rembrandt because he was a clever lad and used paintbrushes that could make the shadow areas as dark or otherwise as he liked, but it's different for us. My personal starting point for most single light portraits is straight in front of the subject and fairly high, all explained here

Apart from anything else, spare light and shadows disappear onto the bottom of the background, and are usually hidden from view by the subject.
Click to expand...

Excellent advise as always Garry, thanks! I'll take those points about background lighting into consideration next time :thumbs:

Just one question about your suggestion about putting the light straight in front of the subject up high; doesn't that just result in flat shadowless portraits, or just gives the butterfly/clamshell effect?
 
domino1999 said:
Excellent advise as always Garry, thanks! I'll take those points about background lighting into consideration next time :thumbs:

Just one question about your suggestion about putting the light straight in front of the subject up high; doesn't that just result in flat shadowless portraits, or just gives the butterfly/clamshell effect?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, it gives the results shown in the link, at a suitable distance/softbox or beauty dish size/distance/angle combination. It creates shadows that reveal the qualities of the face, and the shadow areas also slim the face, as you can see.
 
Garry Edwards said:
No it doesn't, it gives the results shown in the link, at a suitable distance/softbox or beauty dish size/distance/angle combination. It creates shadows that reveal the qualities of the face, and the shadow areas also slim the face, as you can see.
Click to expand...

Lol, sorry I missed that link. Coincidentally, I was reading that blog last night, but it was late and I don't think I took much in :lol:
 
domino1999 said:
Lol, sorry I missed that link. Coincidentally, I was reading that blog last night, but it was late and I don't think I took much in :lol:
Click to expand...
That's good to hear, I didn't know that anyone actually read them:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top