The size/distance fallacy...

[Garry Edwards]

Stage follow spots often have simple lenses rather than fresnels. This produces a less even light with a lot more fringing. But they usually have a simple mechanism for adjusting the size of the spot on the go.

I imagine that they are the same as photographic focussing spots, optically at least. A large condensor lens to focus the light, and a holder at the front for gobos. Gobos include holes of various diameters. The better photographic ones also have 4 sliders that fit between the light source and the condensor lens these can be pushed and pulled to create any shape of light, invaluable for lighting the labels on wine bottles etc.

I still have an excellent one, made (or sold) by Elinchrom, although I no longer have any flashes to fit it They do eat power though, I used to have to fit one of their Chic 2 generator flashes to it, 2400Ws.

 

[juggler]

Gents, this has strayed somewhat from @sk66's original post but there's a lot of useful and hard-to-find information in it. I don't suppose one of you - perhaps @Terrywoodenpic? would care to turn it into a coherent article? And maybe the others could make edits or suggestions? It'd be an invaluable resource.

 

[mike weeks]

This might be a good read and is it only 1985 that softboxes were invented @Garry Edwards https://photoflex.com/pls/understanding-how-soft-boxes-work

mike

 

[Garry Edwards]

This might be a good read and is it only 1985 that softboxes were invented @Garry Edwards https://photoflex.com/pls/understanding-how-soft-boxes-work

mike

I don't wish to be pendantic, but the first FABRIC softbox was invented by Chimera in 1979 http://www.plumeltd.com/bio.html and I think that it came to market in early 1980
Before that, they were made of sheet metal with frosted glass fronts, they were used for product photogaphy, suspended overhead on a pulley system, I think that they orginally cost about £2000 for a 4'x3' one
I was one of the first advertising/product photographers to buy one in this country and it was worth every penny, even though that £2000 is more like £5000 in today's money.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Gents, this has strayed somewhat from @sk66's original post but there's a lot of useful and hard-to-find information in it. I don't suppose one of you - perhaps @Terrywoodenpic? would care to turn it into a coherent article? And maybe the others could make edits or suggestions? It'd be an invaluable resource.

We are coming to a time when the wheel is starting to be reinvented.

There are not many Photographers of my generation left, who were brought up on tungsten lighting.
The discussion started with Hollywood lighting....studio stills photographers of the time used what they had available, and that was giant studio spots. Mostly they had to work fast during breaks in filming. They took advantage of both the studio film makeup artists and the available lighting. The result is the dynamic and glamorous Hollywood style.

Professional portrait photographers soon caught on and abandoned the gentler style derived from daylight studios. They bought smaller versions of those giant Studio spots. the rest is history.

So why did it all change... It was not because of the invention of studio flash... it was the demand for colour.
Most studios had a variety of tungsten light none of which produced a standard colour balance when mixed. It was a nightmare of colour meters and colour gells. This hit home in the late fifties and early sixties.
when studio spots became a thing of the past in many studios. Unlike floods which could easily be adjusted for power by moving them nearer or further away, Spots had to be adjusted with rheostats that dramatically changed their colour temperature with the power setting.
For a time many studios like ours had both the old spots as the preferred option for black and white, and the new bulky studio flashes for colour, complete with their power consoles and heavy cables.
By the late sixties the studio spots had all but gone.... along with the taste for the Hollywood style.

For many years thereafter there was no easy means of converting flash into the equivalent of a studio spot. so people invented various light modifiers. The new generation of photographers never learnt the skills and accuracy needed in positioning a spotlight. Every thing becomes more critical and even the slightest movement changes the modelling and the position of facial shadows. A flash with its usually ineffective modelling lamp was totally unsuited to this critical placement.

We seem to have come to a turning point. I do not know whether it was the advent of LED spots or a rebirth of interest in dramatic lighting, but the Hollywood and Rembrandt styles have had a renaissance.

However it is so far only a turning point. Neither Led bulbs nor flash are ideal for powering spotlights. The led because it is made up of numerous light sources in covering a fairly large area mounted in a fixed reflector. ( which is not much like the needed near point source.
An adequate modelling lamp has always been the Achilles heel of studio flash of any kind of . This is multiplied in Spot lights, as both the Flash lamp and the bulb need to be in the exact same position. In floods it can be simply achieved by surrounding one with the other.

You only have to look at the bulb shelves of a B&Q to realise the amount of research going on into various forms of lighting. LEDS are the in-thing but there are many assorted variations on a theme. I would have thought that a smaller than usual flash tube surrounded by led elements could fill the bill for a studio spot.

(Many years ago My eldest brother, a scientist working in Electrical Engineering, demonstrated to me that an Ordinary domestic Tungsten lamp could be used as a flash by massively over powering it with a a surge of very short duration, and without burning it out. It is true that it greatly shortened its life and needed special safety precautions... but it was doable. it had two massive advantages, the lighting effect remained identical and the power was predictable. Such an arrangement might have been workable in a Spotlight.)

Until these problems are sorted, it would seem that the best way to achieve the Hollywood style is to obtain a period spotlight that has not been converted to domestic use. Though I think @Phil V is onto something if he can resolve the modelling issue.

I thought I would mention the role of Make-up in the Hollywood look. As most stars were Photographed in full Max Factor make-up on set. It became part of the standard. They were mostly shot on Large format and the detail captured was quite fantastic. This had both an up side as well as a down side The up side was that very little pencil retouching was needed. The down side was that women of a certain age tended to need more help with the lighting and soft focus to soften the cracks.

 

[sk66]

Until these problems are sorted, it would seem that the best way to achieve the Hollywood style is to obtain a period spotlight that has not been converted to domestic use. Though I think PhilV is onto something if he can resolve the modelling issue.

Ok, I understand/see some benefits to a constant light w/ a fresnel lens.
But I fail to see anything special in the quality of light they produce that cannot be duplicated otherwise. The acquaintance I mentioned earlier tried to explain to me that it was something in the shadow transitions. And I studied numerous images trying to see what was being pointed out, but I simply could not. Am I really missing something?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't wish to be pendantic, but the first FABRIC softbox was invented by Chimera in 1979 http://www.plumeltd.com/bio.html and I think that it came to market in early 1980
Before that, they were made of sheet metal with frosted glass fronts, they were used for product photogaphy, suspended overhead on a pulley system, I think that they orginally cost about £2000 for a 4'x3' one
I was one of the first advertising/product photographers to buy one in this country and it was worth every penny, even though that £2000 is more like £5000 in today's money.

I am sorry... But that might be the first date they were manufactured, But the First time I used one for product photography was in 1957 when I had a number construed in our Madrid studio. both vertical floor standing and overhead. types, these each measured two meters by one meter, they were illuminated with reflector caps over the bulbs so all light was reflected off the back reflector.. I modelled them on those in a friends studio in London. On my return to London in 1959 he had converted his to flash.
I do not know the date of the first ones, but I suspect they were in use some years before that. Most were constructed from the lightweight Dexion fittings. All of the ones I knew about had fabric fronts and crinkled aluminium on curved plywood back reflectors, or simply painted plywood. they were cheap and easily constructed with standard readily available parts.

 

[sk66]

Gents, this has strayed somewhat from @sk66's original post but there's a lot of useful and hard-to-find information in it. I don't suppose one of you - perhaps @Terrywoodenpic? would care to turn it into a coherent article? And maybe the others could make edits or suggestions? It'd be an invaluable resource.

I originally made this post *instead of* writing an article... to put it all together with diagrams/photos/etc would be pretty involved. Especially if it goes into how feathering changes distances/size. But I might do it at some point.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Terry, you're a few years older than me and, more to the point, have a lot of real-world experience that is very rarely found in today's generation of "put it right in PS" photographers, and I agree with most of what you say and I've personally been there and done that, and I've still got the Tee Shirt, even though it's strunk and doesn't fit me now.
But I don't accept your point about the different position of the modelling lamp, relative to the flash tube, being a problem. It was a problem until decent qualty digital became available, but now we just remove the modelling lamp and replace it with test shots.

As for LED fresnel spots, to quote the late unlamented Harold Wilson, I've seen the future and it works... I've seen them in a very high end factory in Shenzen, and they not only work but they work brilliantly. Most "photographic" LED lighting is terrible, false claims are made about the CRI (and everything else) and the componant parts are in fact just the cheapest LED lamps, designed for security lighting - but the factory I visited has solved all the problems except one, and the outstanding problem is the cost, which is massive.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ok, I understand/see some benefits to a constant light w/ a fresnel lens.
But I fail to see anything special in the quality of light they produce that cannot be duplicated otherwise. The acquaintance I mentioned earlier tried to explain to me that it was something in the shadow transitions. And I studied numerous images trying to see what was being pointed out, but I simply could not. Am I really missing something?

I am afraid you are... You may not see much difference on a screen or in a reproduction, neither of which can show the micro contrast and detail possible.
I have never used anything as small as 35mm for this work, though medium format could take advantage of it.
However to get the full effect it was normal to use large format. Today, I am sure the better full frame sensors are capable of capturing this level of detail and tonality.
Though the natural heel and toe curve of a Black and white film, are hard to reproduce in digital formats. Sparkling detail full highlights at the same time as rich blacks with non muddy mid tone greys were always the hallmark of Hollywood style tones. This was as much down to the quality and control of the light as to the materials.

To see the total effect you need to see a 10x8 bromide contact print produced at the time.

 

[sk66]

It was a problem until decent qualty digital became available, but now we just remove the modelling lamp and replace it with test shots.

This was my thought as well...

 

[sk66]

I am afraid you are... You may not see much difference on a screen or in a reproduction, neither of which can show the micro contrast and detail possible.
This was as much down to the quality and control of the light as to the materials.

To see the total effect you need to see a 10x8 bromide contact print produced at the time.

I read that as "no, I'm not missing anything." In todays world of digital photography and digital reproduction (and smaller formats predominant) I'm not going to see any difference.

Although I'm quite confident I can create an image w/ "sparkling detail full highlights at the same time as rich blacks with non muddy mid tone greys." Particularly w/ post work/compositing if necessary.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Terry, you're a few years older than me and, more to the point, have a lot of real-world experience that is very rarely found in today's generation of "put it right in PS" photographers, and I agree with most of what you say and I've personally been there and done that, and I've still got the Tee Shirt, even though it's strunk and doesn't fit me now.
But I don't accept your point about the different position of the modelling lamp, relative to the flash tube, being a problem. It was a problem until decent qualty digital became available, but now we just remove the modelling lamp and replace it with test shots.

I am afraid it is not the same, In that style of lighting the position of the spot is critical, and movement of any kind changes the effect dramatically. The nose shadow and shadow under the brow and lighting of the eye socket are critical to the fraction of an inch, as the shadow is sharp and unforgiving. No amount of chimping and adjusting are the same as watching the effect as you adjust the position and height of the light. Chimping is absolutely fine for balance and exposure but not position. ( something that is sometimes forgotten, is that a main light spot needs to be as easily raised and lowered as it is moved horizontally. fill lights can be more forgiving. A good mobile stand can be as important as a good light.)

As for LED Fresnel spots, to quote the late unlamented Harold Wilson, I've seen the future and it works... I've seen them in a very high end factory in Shenzen, and they not only work but they work brilliantly. Most "photographic" LED lighting is terrible, false claims are made about the CRI (and everything else) and the componant parts are in fact just the cheapest LED lamps, designed for security lighting - but the factory I visited has solved all the problems except one, and the outstanding problem is the cost, which is massive.

That is good to hear...I did not know that they had come so far, but prices will come down as is always the case with new technology.
I take it that they are supplying the film, advertising and and TV industries who have never much bothered about price.
But that was previously the case with Studio spots as well, and they were always expensive. But Photographers still managed to afford them, because they had no choice if they wanted to work in that area and style.

That high quality LED spots are expensive now is not surprising. But If a photographer wants to work in and develop a niche market. he can put a gap between himself and those less progressive photographers.
It would also suit those photographers who want to adventure into video in a serious upmarket way. ( or both)
Some times buying Big is a way to differentiate yourself into new market places, that the less courageous can never follow.
Some will certainly Go for it.
Those that don't will find themselves left behind.

I am sure you could sell a few....

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I read that as "no, I'm not missing anything." In todays world of digital photography and digital reproduction (and smaller formats predominant) I'm not going to see any difference.

Although I'm quite confident I can create an image w/ "sparkling detail full highlights at the same time as rich blacks with non muddy mid tone greys." Particularly w/ post work/compositing if necessary.

You would be one of very few if you can match the old studio masters for sheer quality
But if you can't see the difference you can hardly reproduce it.

@juggler is getting near the style in his lighting and tonality, though the Highlights are a little lacking yet
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simoncarterphotography/26260656802/

 

[pjm1]

Ok, I'm not sure if this is remotely interesting to anyone, but I had a long lunchbreak there and decided to work out what a softbox does in terms of the simple physics of light and shadows (sorry, I've probably turned off most of you already...)

Using Excel and a bit of GCSE trig, it's possible to calculate what light will fall on a face (or sphere or piece of paper) from a softbox held at different angles and distances. We can then add a "nose" or some sort of protrusion and calculate the shadow that is cast. I've creatively called this Nose Shadow Analysis or NSA

For what it's worth, @sk66 is absolutely correct that holding a softbox of pretty much any size at 1x distance creates a certain "softness" (not a surprise since he clearly knows what he's talking about!) but a pictorial representation of the shadows cast by a 1m softbox at varying distances (45 degrees off from subject/camera axis) illustrates what we're talking about when we say hard and soft - it's the way the shadow disappears back into the light again:

I've looked at holding the size/distance constant at 1x as well as the above analysis and, finally, moving the light around from 45 degrees to flatter as well as more side-on lighting. The full document/analysis can be seen in pdf format in case anyone is as sad as me:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vj7nzl4uy9tc5ee/Softbox light pjm1.pdf?dl=0

Just a caveat, I may well have got my maths wrong and some of this could be a bit out, but the principles should be spot on and directionally it should be correct (hopefully!)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I find it hard to believe that any one would have any difficulty visualising what happens when a soft box is moved or angled.
At infinity any sized soft box would act as a point source. At a distance closer than its width it acts as a surround light.

Turning it at an angle to the subject plane reduces its apparent width.
The closer to a point source you get, the harder the light..... the wider the light the softer it gets.
Directional light can be achieved by angling the light or moving it further away, both will have a similar effect because both reduce the apparent width of the light
However the inverse square law can not be avoided, and total illumination will lower with distance.

All these effects are similar to that faced by a rugby player kicking for goal, either out wide or at a larger distance the width of the target narrows.
As does the effective width of the light, however the height of the light only changes with distance not with the angle of the light. so the effect will inevitably be different in kind

 

[juggler]

Ok, I'm not sure if this is remotely interesting to anyone, but I had a long lunchbreak there and decided to work out what a softbox does in terms of the simple physics of light and shadows (sorry, I've probably turned off most of you already...)

Using Excel and a bit of GCSE trig, it's possible to calculate what light will fall on a face (or sphere or piece of paper) from a softbox held at different angles and distances. We can then add a "nose" or some sort of protrusion and calculate the shadow that is cast. I've creatively called this Nose Shadow Analysis or NSA

For what it's worth, @sk66 is absolutely correct that holding a softbox of pretty much any size at 1x distance creates a certain "softness" (not a surprise since he clearly knows what he's talking about!) but a pictorial representation of the shadows cast by a 1m softbox at varying distances (45 degrees off from subject/camera axis) illustrates what we're talking about when we say hard and soft - it's the way the shadow disappears back into the light again:

I've looked at holding the size/distance constant at 1x as well as the above analysis and, finally, moving the light around from 45 degrees to flatter as well as more side-on lighting. The full document/analysis can be seen in pdf format in case anyone is as sad as me:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vj7nzl4uy9tc5ee/Softbox light pjm1.pdf?dl=0

Just a caveat, I may well have got my maths wrong and some of this could be a bit out, but the principles should be spot on and directionally it should be correct (hopefully!)

I think it's interesting - but not necessarily useful.

A more interesting comparison - and in line with Stephen's original point - would be to compare softbox A at 1m with (say) one with 4 times the area at 2m. I'd expect that to illustrate the fact that while the relative size of the light source is the same, the fall-off is different.

And all that's ignoring the fact that softboxes come into their own when feathered; modelling that would take a whole heap more sums.

 

[pjm1]

I find it hard to believe that any one would have any difficulty visualising what happens when a soft box is moved or angled.

You might find it hard to believe, but it is clearly the case. Otherwise we would not have thread after thread after thread of pictures and questions about why peoples' images aren't quite how they want. I know I've been there once upon a time.

I think it's interesting - but not necessarily useful.

A more interesting comparison - and in line with Stephen's original point - would be to compare softbox A at 1m with (say) one with 4 times the area at 2m. I'd expect that to illustrate the fact that while the relative size of the light source is the same, the fall-off is different.

And all that's ignoring the fact that softboxes come into their own when feathered; modelling that would take a whole heap more sums.

That's all in the pdf

Edited again - doh, 4x the area is 2x the width so that's in there as is

 

[juggler]

That's all in the pdf

Just looked, ta.. though it doesn't include any discussion of feathering. (Not that I expect it to )

Maybe I'm reading your charts incorrectly, or perhaps I've just confused myself (with your assistance!!) - but I'm slightly surprised that in your sums a 3m softbox at 3m has faster falloff than a 1m softbox at 1m. If it were a point source you'd expect the closer source to have more rapid falloff.

 

[pjm1]

Just looked, ta.. though it doesn't include any discussion of feathering. (Not that I expect it to )

Maybe I'm reading your charts incorrectly, or perhaps I've just confused myself (with your assistance!!) - but I'm slightly surprised that in your sums a 3m softbox at 3m has faster falloff than a 1m softbox at 1m. If it were a point source you'd expect the closer source to have more rapid falloff.

To be fair, I'm quite good at confusing myself on this after a while When I'm talking about fall-off in relation to the nose shadow, it's only fall-off of that shadow, not fall-off elsewhere on the face. I actually started off calculating the fall-off around the face (or a sphere, more accurately) allowing for the increasing distance from the box as well as the angle of incidence - but it just told us what we know: general fall-off is quick for a small box held close, a box 10x the size held 10x the distance has less fall off around the face.

Back to the nose shadow stuff, this is simply just looking at that shadow element and the length of shadow as well as the degree to which that single shadow falls away. That fall-off (a better term is probably out there to avoid confusion!) is linked to the relative size of the nose and the size/distance of the softbox. If we take an extreme example, a 5cm box held 5cm away from a 2cm nose is going to cast a pretty big and soft shadow off that nose - more so than a 10m box held 10m away, where the relative size of a 2cm nose is insignificant (so that shadow falls away quickly).

It is confusing!

By the way, the way I set up the calcs, feathering is dead easy to do - I can move the softbox along its "plane of light", i.e. shift it laterally without changing the angle.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have started again with Stevens @sk66 first OP and the question of feathering and distance.
I have done this by considering the question from the point of view of the illuminated nose.

What does the nose see as the effective light source using a regular 1 metre square soft box?
A) Square on it sees a light 1 meter square
B) At 45 degrees it sees an oblong light of 1m x500cm
C) Fully feathered it sees a strip light of may be of 1m x 10cm

The next thing to consider is how the light leaves the surface of the materiel covering the surface of the box..
Some rays might pass directly though the weave and at right angles to it.
However the material of a soft box is chosen to spread the light randomly and evenly.
so one must expect very little cohesion with few if any hot spots.

However, again from the noses point of view all the light reaching it will arrive in a straight line of sight from various parts of the soft box surface this is true however it is oriented.
It is also true that as the distance increases that the light arriving is coming from a narrower overall angle. i.e.. the further the box the more parallel the incident light at the nose.

What does this tell us?
1) The effective shape of the box surface changes relative to the angle of the box to the subject.
2) that the light comes as a progressively narrow beam as it is turned and feathered
3) that this narrowing is only in width not height ( it becomes a slit not a point source).
4) that increasing the distance diminishes both dimensions in that proportion.
5) that we can have no idea how this changes the required exposure, as we do not have any data about how light travels through the box surface material and how much is lost in the process at different angles.

All light that does not reach the "nose" is lost.

How does this compare with a Fresnel spot?
A spot is designed to produce a narrow angle beam of light. this beam gets narrower and more parallel with distance or by adjustment. as it is a compact source it is equal both vertically and horizontally.
so surfaces are lit with the same narrow angle what ever their orientation.
This is not true of a feathered soft box, which is only plane to vertical surfaces this means surface texture and modelling are also only emphasised in one plane.

None of this considers the box at close range which we have already established causes the condition of wrap. At such short distances Feathering is not possible.

This shows that... the apparent hardness of light is dependant on the shape and size of the light source and the resultant angle subtended by the diameter of the light seen from the subject. .
(If you increase the distance you decrease the angle.)

Soft boxes start from the position of being inherently soft
Fresnel spots start from the position of being inherently hard
Feathered lights are an effective compromise. ( but waste a large proportion of the available light)

 

[sk66]

You would be one of very few if you can match the old studio masters for sheer quality
But if you can't see the difference you can hardly reproduce it.

@juggler is getting near the style in his lighting and tonality, though the Highlights are a little lacking yet
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simoncarterphotography/26260656802/

I think that's just a matter of reducing the power a bit... Digital just doesn't have the same taper to highlights that film has.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I am afraid you are... You may not see much difference on a screen or in a reproduction, neither of which can show the micro contrast and detail possible.
I have never used anything as small as 35mm for this work, though medium format could take advantage of it.
However to get the full effect it was normal to use large format. Today, I am sure the better full frame sensors are capable of capturing this level of detail and tonality.
Though the natural heel and toe curve of a Black and white film, are hard to reproduce in digital formats. Sparkling detail full highlights at the same time as rich blacks with non muddy mid tone greys were always the hallmark of Hollywood style tones. This was as much down to the quality and control of the light as to the materials.

To see the total effect you need to see a 10x8 bromide contact print produced at the time.

I fully accept that the quality of a 10x8 contact print is pretty unbeatable, I used to do a lot in this format, and larger. But how many people actually saw them? The finished product was a print produced non-photographically, via the half tone process - which dates back to W. H. F. Talbot - at which point the quality was severely compromised.

Film photography is now very much a niche market, and espcially with LF. If we want to use these very precise light shaping tools then we have to make them work with digital and my suspicion is that it's possible to do so, by combining new technology with old fashioned craftsmanship, knowledge and care. When I was shooting large format, it was so expensive in terms of both labour and materials that we measured twice and cut once, because back then, wasted materials meant a trip to the 5th floor to pick up our P.45.* But now, we can experiment for zero materials cost, and very little labour cost, simply by using digital and precise positional adjustments can be carried out whilst viewing the live image, no chimping actually required.

*Back then, working at Wallace Heaton's, we all put a bit of our own money into a pool each week so that we could buy a box of plates, so that we could cover mistakes - and avoid the trip to the 5th floor

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I fully accept that the quality of a 10x8 contact print is pretty unbeatable, I used to do a lot in this format, and larger. But how many people actually saw them? The finished product was a print produced non-photographically, via the half tone process - which dates back to W. H. F. Talbot - at which point the quality was severely compromised.

The film studios gave out thousands of photographic 10x8 contacts of their stars, as publicity material to Cinemas, as did the stars to fans.. they still come up regularly at auctions.
The early ones are printed on Velox paper ( Blue black, silver Iodide based and very slow, though could be processed to give a very warm black) the later ones are usually same sized projection prints on Bromide or chlorobrmide paper.
Mechanical rotagravure prints were also distributed But these were not cost effective in other than very long runs. Similar quality rotogravure prints were pasted in to The BJP photo section for many years, as the intaglio process could produce such high quality tones. ( the ink depth varies rather than the size of the dots as in litho or letterpress.) ( many pepole can believe they are looking at bromides particularly if the are printed on a chromo paper.

Film photography is now very much a niche market, and espcially with LF. If we want to use these very precise light shaping tools then we have to make them work with digital and my suspicion is that it's possible to do so, by combining new technology with old fashioned craftsmanship, knowledge and care. When I was shooting large format, it was so expensive in terms of both labour and materials that we measured twice and cut once, because back then, wasted materials meant a trip to the 5th floor to pick up our P.45.* But now, we can experiment for zero materials cost, and very little labour cost, simply by using digital and precise positional adjustments can be carried out whilst viewing the live image, no chimping actually required.

How do you view flash positioning on live view?

*Back then, working at Wallace Heaton's, we all put a bit of our own money into a pool each week so that we could buy a box of plates, so that we could cover mistakes - and avoid the trip to the 5th floor

Now that has the memory flowing... Just before I went to work in Spain in about late 1956 I attended an interview at Wallace Heaton, I was so shocked by the then extremely tatty staff working conditions, and dingy managers office, So that when he started talking about wages and working hours and rules. I said I had another interview and hurriedly left.. (Their wages then were well below the going rate and the rules were stupidly strict.) and there were jobs and openings galore.

I was fortunate that I never worked for anyone who was the least bothered by the cost of materials I have always believed that material costs were the lowest factor in costing a Job. In fact in the sixties is was usually an add on.... as in cost of the job + materials and expenses. When building room sets, film was usually the cheapest item on the cost sheet. And out of the studio, travel and subsistence were usually far far higher.
I always bought paper in the largest boxes available usually 250's and developer and fixers in five gallon cubitainers. Kodak had a scheme where they based their quantity discounts on the previous years total purchases. It kept you loyal....

Sorry for all the unnecessary detail but you got my memories flowing..............It was a different world

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes, it was a different world and Wallace Heaton wasn't the best employer at the time, but they were very good to me.
At that time, there were only 15 (I think) places available in London for the C&G course, but WH sponsored it and enrolled me on it with a phone call. Everyone else had to queue around the block to go on the waiting list for it...
And later, they sponsored my photography degree, I was their first ever trainee sponsored for a degree. It was a struggle for me because I had no education qualifications and had to go to evening classes 3 nights a week to get my O levels and then my A levels before I could start my degree.

Generally though, they were poor employers. Everyone had to work in the stores for 6 months, and then spent 6 months in every other department, to complete the apprenticeship. I did my stores stint, was then moved to second hand, and then to the main shop, but I made a big mistake - customers tended to be very flush with money but one day someone who had been saving for months for his first 'proper' camera came in, he had pretty much decided to buy the worst camera there was, the Ilford Sportsman, and asked me whether it was a good camera. I told him the truth, and also mentioned that we called it the Ilford film tearing machine, and got him to buy the Vito A instead, same price, much better camera. The shop manager overhead this, took me to one side and told me that I was 'unsuitable' and told me to go to the 5th floor to get my cards.
Whilst I was waiting, the MD, W.D. Emmanual, came into the office and asked me what I was doing there - he was a remarkable man in many ways, he was very tough buy he could also be very kind and it surprised me that he even knew my name. I told him what had happened and he said "Well, I can't interfere with decisions made by Mr Mills, but as it happens we do have a vacancy in our commercial photography department, if you would like to work there" - well, commercial photography was the absolute pinnacle and it normally took 5 - 5 1/2 years to end up there, so of course I accepted. The rest is history.
Working conditions weren't too bad, but the staff canteen was in the basement, right next to the boiler room, no ventilation and full of flies. and hot and stuffy doesn't even begin to describe it. And right next door to the staff canteen, and just as hot, was the film storage room
Back then I turned down job offers from the likes of Bennets (later taken over by Dixons) and Dixons - they offered much more than my £5 a week but I didn't want to work for either of their bosses. I believe that the trading name "Wallace Heaton" ended up with Dixons.
After Wallace Heatons, I worked for James A Sinclair at No.3 Whitehall, very upmarket, and the makers of the famous 35mm underwater Sinclair cine camera, AFAIK their only customer for these was the Admiralty, but with a customer like the Amiralty you don't need any others Not only could the camera be used underwater, also the film could be removed underwater, so there must be a lot of those cameras still sitting on the floor where Russian warships had been.After that I had a lot of different training jobs, a couple were with photographers who are still household names, and then eventually I set up my own brass plate, and have gone downhill ever since.

Life was hard, there was no job security and wages were poor, especially for trainees, but we really did learn the craft. And if one job didn't work out, there were plenty of other jobs available. My record was 3 new jobs in 10 days.

 

[sk66]

Ok, I'm not sure if this is remotely interesting to anyone, but I had a long lunchbreak there and decided to work out what a softbox does in terms of the simple physics of light and shadows (sorry, I've probably turned off most of you already...)

Using Excel and a bit of GCSE trig, it's possible to calculate what light will fall on a face (or sphere or piece of paper) from a softbox held at different angles and distances. We can then add a "nose" or some sort of protrusion and calculate the shadow that is cast. I've creatively called this Nose Shadow Analysis or NSA

I found it interesting that you did that to start with. But I'm wondering if the calculations account for the changes in flash power required with distance changes... I'm guessing not.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes, it was a different world and Wallace Heaton wasn't the best employer at the time, but they were very good to me.
At that time, there were only 15 (I think) places available in London for the C&G course, but WH sponsored it and enrolled me on it with a phone call. Everyone else had to queue around the block to go on the waiting list for it...
And later, they sponsored my photography degree, I was their first ever trainee sponsored for a degree. It was a struggle for me because I had no education qualifications and had to go to evening classes 3 nights a week to get my O levels and then my A levels before I could start my degree.

Generally though, they were poor employers. Everyone had to work in the stores for 6 months, and then spent 6 months in every other department, to complete the apprenticeship. I did my stores stint, was then moved to second hand, and then to the main shop, but I made a big mistake - customers tended to be very flush with money but one day someone who had been saving for months for his first 'proper' camera came in, he had pretty much decided to buy the worst camera there was, the Ilford Sportsman, and asked me whether it was a good camera. I told him the truth, and also mentioned that we called it the Ilford film tearing machine, and got him to buy the Vito A instead, same price, much better camera. The shop manager overhead this, took me to one side and told me that I was 'unsuitable' and told me to go to the 5th floor to get my cards.
Whilst I was waiting, the MD, W.D. Emmanual, came into the office and asked me what I was doing there - he was a remarkable man in many ways, he was very tough buy he could also be very kind and it surprised me that he even knew my name. I told him what had happened and he said "Well, I can't interfere with decisions made by Mr Mills, but as it happens we do have a vacancy in our commercial photography department, if you would like to work there" - well, commercial photography was the absolute pinnacle and it normally took 5 - 5 1/2 years to end up there, so of course I accepted. The rest is history.
Working conditions weren't too bad, but the staff canteen was in the basement, right next to the boiler room, no ventilation and full of flies. and hot and stuffy doesn't even begin to describe it. And right next door to the staff canteen, and just as hot, was the film storage room
Back then I turned down job offers from the likes of Bennets (later taken over by Dixons) and Dixons - they offered much more than my £5 a week but I didn't want to work for either of their bosses. I believe that the trading name "Wallace Heaton" ended up with Dixons.
After Wallace Heatons, I worked for James A Sinclair at No.3 Whitehall, very upmarket, and the makers of the famous 35mm underwater Sinclair cine camera, AFAIK their only customer for these was the Admiralty, but with a customer like the Amiralty you don't need any others Not only could the camera be used underwater, also the film could be removed underwater, so there must be a lot of those cameras still sitting on the floor where Russian warships had been.After that I had a lot of different training jobs, a couple were with photographers who are still household names, and then eventually I set up my own brass plate, and have gone downhill ever since.

Life was hard, there was no job security and wages were poor, especially for trainees, but we really did learn the craft. And if one job didn't work out, there were plenty of other jobs available. My record was 3 new jobs in 10 days.

I some how skipped the trainee bit... I went straight from full time college student to senior photographer (There were no photographic degree in the UK at that time.)
Though I had taken various holiday jobs, as a walkie op at Butlins (very lucrative), a print mounter and finisher in a studio in Wales near my home (unpaid), and as a shop assistant in the Harrow photo centre ( £8 per week, very good at the time, but he had asked what I needed) The shop was owned by Alec Pearlman the author of the Rollei manual and another on print Quality. he was an expert Photographer.

My first real Job was as senior photographer for the Gallerias Preciados in Madrid, where we set up the Monte Riscal studios, under señor Escobedo, The studio was to specialise in commercial, Industrial and Catalogue Photography. all my subsequent jobs were either as chief photographer or manager or self employed, and covered everything from commercial, aerial photography, glamour, film, industrial and architectural... To Graphics and studio manager covering everything for design and print (lithography)

Along the way I had gained all the skills necessary to design, photograph, retouch, typeset, paste up (filmset) platemake and print on Heidelburg litho presses ( GTO and MO) and including print finishing.
I ended my working days as Print and Photographic manager at Bradford college. Not far from you....... My last task was to amalgamate the department with that of Bradford University.

A life's work history in 244 words.....

 

[mike weeks]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k

 

[juggler]

A life's work history in 244 words.....

You know what they say.. a picture is worth a thousand words . Go on, show us some of your stuff (just interested, not looking to pick holes!)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You know what they say.. a picture is worth a thousand words . Go on, show us some of your stuff (just interested, not looking to pick holes!)

99% of the stuff I shot no one would want to keep.

For instance in a six month period I shot the interior of nearly every Coop shop in England and Scotland, Not the sort of stuff you want to keep.
Likewise When I was chief Photographer For Skyphotos. I and we, shot every ship that passed through the English channel.
I certainly did not keep any wedding stuff though the odd pack of negatives tun up from time to time.
Photography to me has always been a business not a photograph collection, like my cameras it has all passed into history.
I do have one or two prints that are too big to scan, that some how missed the clearout when we moved to Saddleworth.

From time to time I do put stuff in the odd thread to illustrate something or other...
Such as this taken during the building of new sheltered accommodation, It was two sets of shots stitched together, with three exposures of each, fused with Tufuse. It solved a problem of exposure and of angle of view.



This other is the " impossible" view of a disabled toilet using the same technique and adding a shifted point of view for the mirror... Or I would have included myself and kit.



This is a self portrait of me as a young photographer..... a point of interest ... that is a 500W Mole Richardson spot in the background, The foreground light is a three foot flood. taken on a rolleiflex.




As I said excessively boring stuff....

Not sure why the pics are not showing but they respond to a click...

 

[pjm1]

I found it interesting that you did that to start with. But I'm wondering if the calculations account for the changes in flash power required with distance changes... I'm guessing not.

I did eventually... although the first cut of the analysis (in the pdf) didn't correctly account for the fall-off from one side of the softbox to the other. I re-worked it and I have to say, the results are almost identical. As you'd expect that correction has slightly more effect at very close distances but it doesn't fundamentally change the conclusions or trends.

I found it helpful to further my own understanding of why softboxes do what they do in the way they do it. Whilst it can also model feathering, it is fairly imperfect in that it assumes the edge of the softbox has the same intensity and angle of dispersion as the centre - I'm assuming such a "perfect" softbox isn't readily available and part of the feathering effect will be from a restricted angle of light dispersion at the edge combined with slightly lower output per unit area, neither of which I've modelled.