Using strobes vs hotlights on Actor portfolios
Patrick L.
doing headshots. But I'm reading a book by John Hart, whose
techniques in the book use hotlights exclusively. John is also a
playwright, and very close to actors and their needs. His reasoning
is that actors are used to working under similar lights on stage, and
the way he shoots them is to have them 'perform' -- he shoots candid
style and he says he feels that flash will be too distracting for the
actors. His photographers are excellent, of course, and he has done
quite a few celebrities.
I once had a headshot, a few years back when I was performing jazz
guitarist, and since I don't remember any kind of flash being used,
and the room was brightly lit, the photographer must have used
hotlights, but I don't remember sweating or feeling necessarily warm
or anything like that. He took 30 shots on two rolls (judging from
the proof sheets), so it had to be a 645 medium format camera, that he
hand held. He shot me in a semi-candid style very much like John Hart
does.
What do you say about strobes vs hotlights for shooting Actors, pros
and cons, etc? I'm having a tough time trying to decide which way
to go. Also, I might want to think of more versatility beyond just
headshots (portraits and weddings, perhaps), so any info you can give
will be appreciated
Thanks for the feedback,
Patrick L.
ajacobs2
source works depending on the job you are doing and the situation and the
subject at hand. I might want a big bright print on one subject like a
dancer and just a one directional one source pinpoint very dark on another
face, like a heavy "bad" character actor....... I want to have the use of
either, so a good strobe with a strong modeling light allows both worlds in
one package and expense....
I would suggest a pair of Paul Buffs Flash Units. Lights like the 1600
series have internal modeling lights, with softboxes and the 150 watt
modeling lights give you the best of both worlds. In one unit, you have a
choice of flash and fairly powerful hot lights.
We have shot small product using the modeling lights for digital catalog
work and switch with the strobes for the big area shots. You can't do that
with hot lights alone. One unit does both. As to whether the actor will
respond better with one method or the other.....hotlights especially here in
Florida aren't big sellers....we have all the hot light in the sun for our
needs................
--
(B>)# I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
Teaching site: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2
Mxsmanic
The lights aren't really that hot, unless you are very cheap with
ventilation and/or air-conditioning; after all, actors work under
essentially the same lights every day, and they do not drip with sweat or
anything like that.
The biggest advantage to continuous lighting is that you can see exactly
what will be photographed. I've always hated flash for this reason. HMI
lamps are nice, if they are in your budget, since they work with daylight
film.
"Patrick L." <fo...@oijbl.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
_rkc9.180$6i4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Gordon Moat
tones. There is no one way to do these shots, and all artificial lights
attempt to mimic the parallel lines light source of natural daylight. The
best light is still from the sun, though a little help (like fill flash)
can provide an interesting shot.
It is really all in the eyes. These are the most expressive element in a
head shot of a person. When using hotlights, the eyes will adjust to the
light, and the irises will close down. Having the irises open has been
shown to attract more attention. Desmond Morris for one, a noted
researcher of human behaviour, has likened our attraction to the more
open iris in ones eyes to the fact that the iris will dilate (open) when
people are sexually aroused.
So, use a bit of fill flash to light the eyes. Do what you can to keep
those irises open. You can also do this in PhotoShop, but it is not
always as effective. PhotoShop can also be used to enhance skin tone,
though some films and filter combinations can accomplish this in camera.
Photographing people also involves understanding human nature. The more
you consider those aspects of basic human nature, the more interesting
your shots will become.
By the way, if you want an idea of what sorts of light and reflectors are
used on shots, look at fashion and lifestyle magazines. Often you can see
the reflection(s) of the lights, soft boxes, cards, and scrims in the
eyes of the subject. You can do the same for interior architecture and
product shots, though some of these get really complicated.
PDN often has articles about lighting set-ups. Many of them may seem a
bit surprising, and can lead to more experiments. Lighting can also help
define a style in your work.
Good luck with your shooting. May the light be with you.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Lisa Horton
pictures that sell". While there is some good info in the book, it's
quite dated. It says copyright 1995, but in the preface the author
notes that the first edition was published in 1983. Overall, the book
seems to have changed little since then. Hair, clothing and lighting
styles are ... welll... "Like totally 80's!" :) Kind of like reading
old Gary Bernstien books, great info, but you have to account for the
many years of development between then and now. The techniques that
were new and modern photographing Morgan Brittany in her heyday are
hold and hackneyed today.
I can reccomend a couple of better books: Studio Portrait Photography,
from the Rotovision ProPhoto series, and The Portrait, a Kodak book.
Both have glorious and beautiful portraits, using modern techniques
and technology.
As for strobes vs hot lights, strobes are cheaper to run (electricity)
more controllable, with more light modifiers available to suit them,
and unlike hot lights, allow you to use the wide variety of daylight
balanced films, rather than the meager handful of tungsten balance
emulsions. Sure, you could filter, but have you ever tried to focus
or watch expressions through a very deep dark blue filter? Not easy!
Lisa
Patrick L.
Lisa Horton <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3D726039...@lisahorton.net...
> It sounds like you're reading "50 Portrait Lighting Techniques for
> pictures that sell".
I do have that one, but John Hart also wrote "Professional Headshots",
which was first published in 1994, and that is the book to which I
refer. In this book he is not writing about "Portraits" in the
general sense, but in the sense of actor portfolios, wherein the
objective is utilitarian, i.e., they are needed in order for the
actor to get work. They are almost always black and white. In general
portraiture, I would imagine the photographer wants to deliver the
most flattering result possible. Not that this is not a similar
objective with an actor headshot, however, in an actor headshot,
delivering a result that does not actually look like the actor, or at
least portray the actor in a reasonably honest fashion, the concept
of flattery notwithstanding, is to do the actor a disservice, in my
view. For example, in a general portrait, one could retouch the photo
to the client's heart's desire, but, though an actor might want it,
he should be warned that doing so might alienate casting directors who
often complain of actors not looking like the person in the photo.
This is not to say that a very modest amount of retouching isn't
acceptable, such as the removal of a blemish which may be considerably
exaggerated in a photo more than in real life, i.e., we do want the
actor to at least get his foot in the door, and not be too
disadvantaged by the quirks of photography, but at the same time we
want the photo to be a good representation of the actor, his persona,
and so forth.
Thanks all for the helpful info.
Patrick.
Stefan Patric
> Most of the camera shops I have visited recommend using strobes for
> doing headshots. But I'm reading a book by John Hart, whose
> techniques in the book use hotlights exclusively. John is also a
> playwright, and very close to actors and their needs. His reasoning
> is that actors are used to working under similar lights on stage, and
> the way he shoots them is to have them 'perform' -- he shoots candid
> style and he says he feels that flash will be too distracting for the
> actors. His photographers are excellent, of course, and he has done
> quite a few celebrities.
>
> [snip]
>
> What do you say about strobes vs hotlights for shooting Actors, pros
> and cons, etc? I'm having a tough time trying to decide which way
> to go. Also, I might want to think of more versatility beyond just
> headshots (portraits and weddings, perhaps), so any info you can give
> will be appreciated
Using hot lights is quite possible. In fact, I started my professional
career 30 years ago using hot lights for all my studio work, people and
products, black and white and color. I shot with them for two years
before I could afford flash. The major drawback is the need to use
slow shutters speeds and fast film to get adequate depth of field. So,
in most cases, a rapidly moving subject results in a blurred and
rejected photo. Subjects must be static during the actual exposure.
Most anybody can be still for up to 2 seconds, but I tried to keep
exposure times at 1 sec or less. (Hot lights are more hot than bright.)
Using hot lights is a great way to learn lighting -- you can see
immediately what you've got -- but get strobes as soon as you can.
It's worth the price just for the convience and ease of use.
Good Luck ...
--
Stefan Patric
too...@yahoo.com
Richard Cochran
> Most of the camera shops I have visited recommend using strobes for
> doing headshots. But I'm reading a book by John Hart, whose
> techniques in the book use hotlights exclusively. John is also a
> playwright, and very close to actors and their needs. His reasoning
> is that actors are used to working under similar lights on stage,
>
>
> What do you say about strobes vs hotlights for shooting Actors, pros
> and cons, etc? I'm having a tough time trying to decide which way
> to go. Also, I might want to think of more versatility beyond just
> headshots (portraits and weddings, perhaps), so any info you can give
> will be appreciated
If you've ever tried to take a photo of an actor or musician on stage,
you'll realize that stage lighting is a LOT dimmer than what's optimal
for photography. You need fast lenses nearly wide open, fast film,
and camera support to do a good job of that, and even so, the pictures
aren't likely to be "studio quality".
OTOH, any person who is used to going outside, even only on cloudy
days, is accustomed to being under MUCH brighter lighting than stage
lighting or photographic hot lights. So it doesn't make sense to me
that you should shoot actors under hot lights because that's what
they're used to working under.
Sure, it's possible to get good shots using hotlights, but it's a
lot easier using strobes, IMO. Even a puny little battery operated
flash bounced into an umbrella will do headshots at f8 or better
for ISO 100 film, using an exposure time (flash duration) of around
1/1000 of a second. That makes camera support unnecessary,
and freezes the subject's motion. To do the same with hot lights
would require more electricity than can be provided by most home
wiring.
--Rich
Tony Spadaro
does he use hotlights and how well air conditioned. Actors may be used to
hot lights but most of the people wanting heads are not yet actors. A lot of
the people we shot were looking to get modeling work - models do not work
under hot lights. If a dress is ruined by sweat there would be hell to pay.
I shot heads with a single strobe (White Lightning about 300 watt
seconds) in a 2x3 foot softbox above the camera. Three white reflectors were
used (chin and both sides) for a very even looking light. A flash (Vivitar
285) was used to splash light onto the background or the hair, according to
the hair colour of the model. All shots were B/W and most shot onto TMax
100. This is a fairly standard "head" set-up, or was ten years ago when I
was doing it. Heads tend to be pretty much production line shooting. There
isn't any need to vary the lights as, like every other type of standardized
shot, there is no need or desire for anything different.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.htmlnews:Ifuc9.176$LI2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...