Umbrella Technique
BigGuy
I would like to use umbrellas to get a nice large diffuse light with a wrap
around soft look. I have tried some shots as an experiment but it is
difficult since I cannot see the flash results until after I am done. I have
a Nikon 8008 and I don't think that it has the ability to do Polaroids.
Could anyone give me some tips on how close the umbrellas should be set and
how to position the strobe relative to the umbrella. I am trying to do close
face shots for promotional use.
Thanks,
Ivanhood
D I G I T A L photographer
your post is off topic for the charters of this group. please read the group
charter and post questions and topics accordingly.
please read the guidlines below.............
rec.photo.technique.people Portraits, figure studies, weddings etc.
This group is for postings related to the photography of people. This
includes portraits, figure studies, abstracts, nudes etc. It is not
intended for the discussion of equipment except as related to other
issues of technique. Suitable topics for posting would include
lighting, posing, models, releases, wedding photography etc.
Examples of appropriate question involving equipment might be:
* What's the best focal length for portrait photography?
* Do I really need to move to medium format for weddings?
* Are soft focus lenses/filters really useful?
Inappropriate equipment related questions would be:
* What's the best 85mm f1.8 lens?
* Should I buy a Canon or Nikon system?
* Are Sigma lenses just as good as Zeiss lenses?
* What is the best equipment to create a picture?
These latter 4 questions all belong in the relevant equipment
subgroup.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This
group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisments or
other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are
prohibited.
Albert E. Anderson
Visualizing the effect of flash is difficult.
Idea number one: invest in a flash meter. It will record the amount of
light your flash puts out. It'll cost you $150 to $400, but the information
you get from the meter is invaluable. After you read several of the good
books available on portrait photography, you can use your flash meter to
test your studio lighting. (What happens if you move the light closer?...
How much light do you lose with the umbrella?)
An alternative to buying a flash meter is to buy several rolls of cheap film
and do a little experimenting. Write down all your settings for each frame
you shoot.... and draw a diagram of the studio setup. Start with a a simple
straight flash from the camera mount. Set your camera and flash according
to the manuals. Then proceed shooting several photos using bounce flash,
the umbrella, different angles, different flash and camera settings. Be
sure to write down what you did... and of course change only one thing at a
time. (You'll find that bouncing eats up 1 or 2 stops of light so you'll
need to compensate somehow.... like opening your camera aperture.) If
you've been creative and written everything down, you'll be able to compare
the photos to your notes, and after a few rolls of film, you'll have it
figured out.
Visit your local portrait studio and see how they set up their lights. And
look closely at your favorite magazine portaits. Start simple and have
fun. And when you get it right, let us know what you did. We're all
learning here.
- Al Anderson
BigGuy wrote in message <6hs2b2$o...@examiner.concentric.net>...
Karen Simmons
D I G I T A L photographer wrote:
>
> your post is off topic for the charters of this group. please
> read the group charter and post questions and topics accordingly.
Excuse me, Eric, but how is posting about using umbrellas to light a
subject off topic for this group.
Get over yourself and quit trying to be such an asshole dictator. I
have already copied all of these messages to your ISP and sent a BCC of
my communications to my ISP in case you try to claim that I threatened
you as you have with other members of this group.
You're pathetic.
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
The DK Gallery
http://www.thedkgallery.com
Atlanta, GA 404.233.1230
----------------------------
Steve1chsn
karen said:
>Get over yourself and quit trying to be such an asshole dictator. I
>have already copied all of these messages to your ISP and sent a BCC of
>my communications to my ISP
Oh Karen, you are just pissed because Georgette is the new hot babe in this ng.
Why don't you accept that gigi is our new love and stop the tattletale stuff?!
Bernard
Karen Simmons wrote to eric, who quoted from the Usenet charter:
> Get over yourself and quit trying to be such an asshole dictator. I
> have already copied all of these messages to your ISP ............
Sorry that I have to say it, Karen, but I'm really disappointed in you.
I'll have to vote for Steve instead, now.
Bernard.
Darrell A. Larose
"BigGuy" (big...@home.com) writes:
> I would like to use umbrellas to get a nice large diffuse light with a wrap
> around soft look. I have tried some shots as an experiment but it is
> difficult since I cannot see the flash results until after I am done. I have
> a Nikon 8008 and I don't think that it has the ability to do Polaroids.
> Could anyone give me some tips on how close the umbrellas should be set and
> how to position the strobe relative to the umbrella. I am trying to do close
> face shots for promotional use.
>
That is why studio flashes all have modelling lights. Strobosol used to
make a clip on modelling light for use with their umbrellas. This would
not be very hard to build for your self. You just need to find a way to
mount a small 75 W reflector spot in a similar position as the flash head.
I would hang it at 180 degrees from the flashhead, at the same distance as
your flash. The umbrella should be easier to adjust. Polaroids are handy
but you can work without them. Personally I prefer using a studio flash
with a flash meter, as you have more options, and you don't have to
cobble stuff together. But a small spotlight used as a modelling light
will help.
Darrell Larose http://www.newforce.ca/darrell
Photo Technician
Ottawa, Canada dar...@newforce.ca
Steve1chsn
If nominated I will not run,
if elected I will not serve!
Darrell A. Larose
D I G I T A L photographer (er...@onramp.net) writes:
> your post is off topic for the charters of this group. please read the group
> charter and post questions and topics accordingly.
WHY?
> please read the guidlines below.............
>
>
>
> rec.photo.technique.people Portraits, figure studies, weddings etc.
>
> This group is for postings related to the photography of people. This
> includes portraits, figure studies, abstracts, nudes etc. It is not
> intended for the discussion of equipment except as related to other
> issues of technique. Suitable topics for posting would include
> lighting, posing, models, releases, wedding photography etc.
^^^^^^^^
The last time I looked the use of an umbrella is a lighting technique!
> Examples of appropriate question involving equipment might be:
>
> * What's the best focal length for portrait photography?
> * Do I really need to move to medium format for weddings?
> * Are soft focus lenses/filters really useful?
>
> Inappropriate equipment related questions would be:
>
> * What's the best 85mm f1.8 lens?
> * Should I buy a Canon or Nikon system?
> * Are Sigma lenses just as good as Zeiss lenses?
> * What is the best equipment to create a picture?
>
> These latter 4 questions all belong in the relevant equipment
> subgroup.
>
> All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
> guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This
> group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisments or
> other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
> photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are
> prohibited.
He merely metioned what camera he uses, so people don't say use polaroid
which in his case wasn't an option. I suppose, someone will tell him to
go out and buy a XYZflex so he would have a polaroid back option..
===ORIGINAL, ALLEGED, OFF-TOPIC POSTING!!! ==========
> BigGuy wrote:
>
>> I would like to use umbrellas to get a nice large diffuse light with a wrap
>> around soft look. I have tried some shots as an experiment but it is
>> difficult since I cannot see the flash results until after I am done. I have
>> a Nikon 8008 and I don't think that it has the ability to do Polaroids.
>> Could anyone give me some tips on how close the umbrellas should be set and
>> how to position the strobe relative to the umbrella. I am trying to do close
>> face shots for promotional use.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ivanhood
>
>
>
BigGuy
I cannot believe some of the crap that this post engendered. I have never
shot portraits before but I do know my way around a camera. I have not done
much in the last 10 or 15 years but I have done a lot of landscape and
existing light work. Thanks to those who responded to my question.
Let me expand my question. I have 2 umbrellas and 2 SB24s. I have a flash
meter and have made crude modelling lights. I set up my lights and adjusted
the ratios. Everything looked great with the modelling lights and with the
meter. My photos looked flat. I did not achieve the 1:3 ratio that I metered
and in what I set up with the modelling lights. I can only assume that I do
not understand the use of the umbrellas. I set them as follows. Key up and
to the left of camera position. Fill lower and to the left but about the
same distance from the subject. I put the flash heads about 15" from the
umbrella and set them to 24mm for the widest dispursion. The umbrellas were
set up about 8-10' from the subject. I was hoping that the lighting would be
softer than it was. I want a soft transition from highlights to shadows with
the above stated ratio. The catch lights were smaller than I expected. Am I
setting the umbrellas too far away? Am I setting the flash in the umbrella
too far or too close. How can I get the light to spread more?
Thanks to those with patience,
Ivanhood
gary gaugler
On 25 Apr 1998 03:11:30 EDT, "BigGuy" <big...@home.com> wrote:
>I would like to use umbrellas to get a nice large diffuse light with a wrap
>around soft look. I have tried some shots as an experiment but it is
>difficult since I cannot see the flash results until after I am done. I have
>a Nikon 8008 and I don't think that it has the ability to do Polaroids.
>Could anyone give me some tips on how close the umbrellas should be set and
>how to position the strobe relative to the umbrella. I am trying to do close
>face shots for promotional use.
>
>Thanks,
>Ivanhood
>
>
What type of strobe are you using? If it has a modeling light, it
would help to indicate the amount of light reaching the person and the
degree of shadows as a consequence. If there is no model light, there
are several options. First, a simple dual 45 degree setup between
light sources and subject will produce a predictable result.
alternatively, you can adjust the amount of light from the separate
strobes and control the shadows....or eliminate them. Other options
include lite panels which diffuse the overall light sources such that
the total light hitting the subject is more even than that from a
close point source such as a strobe unit.
What seems to work for me without Polaroids is a flash meter which is
used for metering each strobe unit independently to balance the light
overall. that is, if you want to expose the subject at say f-11, set
the main strobe to a power setting that achieves f-11. Then, adjust
the power setting of the other strobes for equal or less light levels.
I have not said anything about the background. That is another
variable which can be equal, less or greater than the subject. That
is of course your call. A separate strobe with a 90 degree backlight
director will allow you to decide that independently of the other
light sources.
I use Buff Ultras and these adjustments are really easy.
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards....you can too at
E-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com
gary gaugler
SB-24....This seems like trying to kill ants with a toothpick. I
started with Ultra 600s and found out that they did not have the power
I needed. I now use only Ultra 1800s with and without umbrellas. An
SB-24 is going to lose at least 2 stops with an umbrella. If you
subject is within 3 feet of the umbrella, you might be OK. As Scotty
said, "Ay Captain, We haven't got the power." It really does take a
lot of power to make this work out. Or at least to offer enough
variabilty to make infinite adjustments to suit the situation.
I think that you just don't have enough power in you flash sources.
DCJPhtgrfy
"BigGuy" <big...@home.com> wrote:
>I cannot believe some of the crap that this post engendered. I have never
>shot portraits before but I do know my way around a camera. I have not >done
>much in the last 10 or 15 years but I have done a lot of landscape and
>existing light work. Thanks to those who responded to my question.
>Let me expand my question. I have 2 umbrellas and 2 SB24s. I have a >flash
>meter and have made crude modelling lights. I set up my lights and >adjusted
>the ratios. Everything looked great with the modelling lights and with >the
>meter. My photos looked flat. I did not achieve the 1:3 ratio that I >metered
>and in what I set up with the modelling lights. I can only assume that I >do
>not understand the use of the umbrellas. I set them as follows. Key up >and
>to the left of camera position. Fill lower and to the left but about the
>same distance from the subject. I put the flash heads about 15" from the
>umbrella and set them to 24mm for the widest dispursion. The umbrellas >were
>set up about 8-10' from the subject. I was hoping that the lighting would >be
>softer than it was. I want a soft transition from highlights to shadows >with
>the above stated ratio. The catch lights were smaller than I expected. >Am I
>setting the umbrellas too far away? Am I setting the flash in the >umbrella
>too far or too close. How can I get the light to spread more?
Mount umbrellas on strobes as far away as mounts will allow; 15" - 24" should
be fine. Place fill light directly behind camera position so that umbrella is
higher than camera and will light subject. Place key, or main, light 45 degrees
from camera axis as CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT AS POSSIBLE WITHOUGHT BEING IN VIEW OF
THE CAMERA. (This is important for soft lighting with smooth transitions).
For a 3:1 ratio, meter the strobes separately (the one that is being metered is
OFF). There should be a one stop difference between the key and the fill with
the key light being one stop more powerful.
Once you get them to meter properly by themselves, you should meter them
together aiming the incident hemisphere toward the main light (the total output
will most likely be 1/2 stop added to the key light).
The Nikon strobes will probably give enough power, at full power, to shoot at
f/2.8-f/4 or so with 100 speed film. You can stop down to smaller apertures, by
using a 400 speed film, or even Fuji NHG II 800.
Good Luck!
DCJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SPAMMERS, send SPAM to:
tos...@aol.com
pres...@whitehouse.gov
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
ro...@127.0.0.1
ab...@127.0.0.1
rhu...@fcc.gov
jqu...@fcc.gov
sn...@fcc.gov
rch...@fcc.gov
sync@localhost
gary gaugler
On 26 Apr 1998 06:58:25 GMT, dcjph...@aol.com (DCJPhtgrfy) wrote:
>The Nikon strobes will probably give enough power, at full power, to shoot at
>f/2.8-f/4 or so with 100 speed film. You can stop down to smaller apertures, by
>using a 400 speed film, or even Fuji NHG II 800.
>
>Good Luck!
>
>DCJ
I'm so used to my 1800 WS monoblock strobes that I really overlooked
the option of faster film. Rather simple, eh? At f-16 to f-22 as
normal readings for ISO-100, I guess I'm spoiled. The problem for him
will be controlling DOF. he may get good exposure but at wide open,
there is near zero DOF. That must be taken into consideration.
Steve1chsn
gary, unable to resist an opportunity to brag-while completely missing the
point of the question, wrote:
> I
>started with Ultra 600s and found out that they did not have the power
>I needed. I now use only Ultra 1800s with and without umbrellas.
Gary, this guy doesn't give a hoot about how many joules you can muster. The
question was about light RATIO and QUALITY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Merrily,merrily,merrily,merrily-
life is but a dream.
steve vancosin
gary gaugler
On 26 Apr 1998 12:50:10 GMT, steve...@aol.com (Steve1chsn) wrote:
>Gary, this guy doesn't give a hoot about how many joules you can muster. The
>question was about light RATIO and QUALITY.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------
>Merrily,merrily,merrily,merrily-
>life is but a dream.
>
>steve vancosin
Agreed. However, I don't see how he equipped to even be able to do
anything about ratios since there is so little control range. He
would wind up with the umbrellas almost in the model's face.
I have not tried this with little strobes like the SB series. But at
somewhere close to 100WS, there just doesn't seem much to work with.
Have you used these before and confirm that it would work?
D I G I T A L photographer
here is why...........this was sent to me by my ISP............you have a
problem with it, you can contact them yourself............
Postmaster Onramp wrote:
> I forgot to attach this to the previous e-mail.
>
> Darren Grabowski
> Postmaster
> Verio Texas - Dallas Office
>
> rec.photo.technique.people Portraits, figure studies, weddings etc.
>
> This group is for postings related to the photography of people. This
> includes portraits, figure studies, abstracts, nudes etc. It is not
> intended for the discussion of equipment except as related to other
> issues of technique. Suitable topics for posting would include
> lighting, posing, models, releases, wedding photography etc.
>
> Examples of appropriate question involving equipment might be:
>
> * What's the best focal length for portrait photography?
> * Do I really need to move to medium format for weddings?
> * Are soft focus lenses/filters really useful?
>
> Inappropriate equipment related questions would be:
>
> * What's the best 85mm f1.8 lens?
> * Should I buy a Canon or Nikon system?
> * Are Sigma lenses just as good as Zeiss lenses?
> * What is the best equipment to light a picture?
>
> These latter 4 questions all belong in the relevant equipment
> subgroup.
>
> All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
> guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This
> group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisments or
> other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
> photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are
> prohibited.
Karen Simmons wrote:
> D I G I T A L photographer wrote:
> >
> > your post is off topic for the charters of this group. please
> > read the group charter and post questions and topics accordingly.
>
> Excuse me, Eric, but how is posting about using umbrellas to light a
> subject off topic for this group.
>
> Get over yourself and quit trying to be such an asshole dictator.
um wa........i am only doing what you people said you wanted.......to keep
the group on track.........you do not like the rules then you change
them.........
> I
> have already copied all of these messages to your ISP and sent a BCC of
> my communications to my ISP in case you try to claim that I threatened
> you as you have with other members of this group.
being a little paranoid aren't you.................
have a good day........
> You're pathetic.
i do not know what your problem is but if you wish to talk to me like this
then please take your comments somewhere else.......i have done nothing to
you and do not need your harassment.........
thank you kindly.........
bcc to your provider as well........
eric
pat jerina
Sounds like you are off to good start. Don't worry about the ratio
bit. Who says that having a correct ratio is the only way to photograph
a person? Who ever told you this is full of themselves and is a big
proponant of cookie cutter photo. Some of the best portraits ever made
are done with only one light source. Start off with only ONE umbrella
and work your way from there. Move it in a little closer. The closer
(or relatively larger to the subject) a light source is, the softer it
is. Move it in and around until you think the light looks good. Burn
off a frame or two for every one you do to see which one you like the
most. And of course, take notes if your are not familiar with what you
are doing. Some recommend looking at the Kodak books for ideas on
portrait work. Personally, I say avoid them. Look at magazines,
(Rolling Stone, Wired, American Photo, Aperture, etc.) and see what is
being done today. Look at the images and figure out how they lit their
subjects. I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free
to ask.
pat
-- pat jerina photography
972.320.5143 voicemail / pager
www.flash.net/~pjerina
Steve1chsn
gary asked:
>I have not tried this with little strobes like the SB series. But at
>somewhere close to 100WS, there just doesn't seem much to work with.
>Have you used these before and confirm that it would work?
Yes, many moons ago, in the days before emulsions had a flexible backing, I
used a few Vivitar 283's like this. With fast film, power was sufficient to
shoot at decent apertures for the 35mm format. The problem though was just as
the poster described, you really can't tell what effect you will get without a
good modeling light or polaroid. The suggestions to rig up lightbulbs and
whatnot to substitute work out to be less than useless, as again the poster
discovered. You just can't duplicate the throw of the flash with any
accuracy. I too use White lightning and as you know, they pride themselves on
the way they have gotten the modeling lights to duplicate the flash pattern.
So what it boils down to , is that it can be done but the learning curve is a
tough one, with a lot of hit or miss in any case.
--------------------------------------------------------
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
steve vancosin
SPECTRUM
It will work but of course you'll need a 400 ISO film and
an aperture of f/4.0-5.6. Not generally acceptable but certainly
it can be done.
Also I'd recommend using the silver-ized umbrellas as
their reflectance is much higher.
Regards
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 14:37:18 GMT, see.si...@bottom.com (gary
gaugler) wrote:
>On 26 Apr 1998 12:50:10 GMT, steve...@aol.com (Steve1chsn) wrote:
>
>
>>Gary, this guy doesn't give a hoot about how many joules you can muster. The
>>question was about light RATIO and QUALITY.
>>steve vancosin
>
>Agreed. However, I don't see how he equipped to even be able to do
>anything about ratios since there is so little control range. He
>would wind up with the umbrellas almost in the model's face.
>
>I have not tried this with little strobes like the SB series. But at
>somewhere close to 100WS, there just doesn't seem much to work with.
>Have you used these before and confirm that it would work?
>
>
Bill Guy
pat jerina wrote:
> Start off with only ONE umbrella and work your way from there. Move
> it in a little closer. The closer (or relatively larger to the subject) a
> light source is, the softer it
> is. Move it in and around until you think the light looks good.
I agree with Pat that if you have not worked with umbrellas before start
with just one and move it in closer to the subject. Once you start to see
how the light will wrap around the subject you can then start to add a
second light or refector.
Claude Bouvoire
>Sorry that I have to say it, Karen, but I'm really disappointed in you.
>I'll have to vote for Steve instead, now.
>Bernard.
Why not take your head out of erics ass for little while. Plenty
of fresh air to smell in the real world.
Claude Bouvoire
>Get over yourself and quit trying to be such an asshole dictator. I
>have already copied all of these messages to your ISP and sent a BCC of
>my communications to my ISP in case you try to claim that I threatened
>you as you have with other members of this group.
>You're pathetic.
The light finally shines.
SPECTRUM
Illumination is the essence of photography !
Regards
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
On 27 Apr 1998 14:33:02 GMT, Bouv...@francais.fr.net (Claude
Ryan Shawgo
{cut}
:>The catch lights were smaller than I expected. Am I
:>setting the umbrellas too far away? Am I setting the flash in the umbrella
:>too far or too close. How can I get the light to spread more?
Impressive group, arguing over the topic of the ng endlessly, while never
actually answering a single question.
I'm still fairly new to the umbrella idea, just bought my first set of lights
and also a couple Eclipse Umbrellas. From what I understand the close to the
subject the better. This will provide a softer more diffuse light. In my
opinion, the flash head should be close to the umbrella as well to avoid spill
over the edges.I believe the rule of thumb for umbrella position is to
position the umbrellas a distance twice the diameter of the umbrella away from
the subject. Example: 45" umbrellas work effectivly at 90", 30" at 60" away
from subject.
Again like all other aspect of photography, you still have to work with it
befor you understand it.
Shawgo
Ryan Shawgo sha...@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~shawgo the SkyLight Gallery
David Dyer-Bennet
"BigGuy" <big...@home.com> writes:
>I can only assume that I do not understand the use of the
>umbrellas. I set them as follows. Key up and to the left of camera
>position. Fill lower and to the left but about the same distance from
>the subject. I put the flash heads about 15" from the umbrella and
>set them to 24mm for the widest dispursion. The umbrellas were set up
>about 8-10' from the subject. I was hoping that the lighting would be
>softer than it was. I want a soft transition from highlights to
>shadows with the above stated ratio. The catch lights were smaller
>than I expected. Am I setting the umbrellas too far away? Am I
>setting the flash in the umbrella too far or too close. How can I get
>the light to spread more?
The catchlights being smaller than you wanted can only be adjusted by
apparent light-source size (actual size as modified by distance), so I
guess you have them too far back. The actual distance you list
doesn't sound too large; but perhaps we want different effects.
(Larger umbrellas would also work; are you using 24", 36", 54", or
what?)
You may also be putting the flash too close to the umbrella. With the
flash at a very low power setting, trigger it while looking into the
umbrellas from the subject position; do they get lit out to the edges?
(You can't actually *damage* your eyes bouncing an SB24 off an
umbrella, but full power would be uncomfortable for some people,
depending on how dark-adapted their eyes were).
Too sharp a shadow also means not soft enough lighting -- so you have
to use a bigger light source, or move the one you have closer in.
--
David Dyer-Bennet d...@ddb.com
Me: http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf)
Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
David Dyer-Bennet
see.si...@bottom.com (gary gaugler) writes:
>I have not tried this with little strobes like the SB series. But at
>somewhere close to 100WS, there just doesn't seem much to work with.
>Have you used these before and confirm that it would work?
I've done a two-umbrella setup using a Sunpak 555 and a Vivitar 285;
these are no more powerful than the SB-24s the original poster was
using. (The 285, at least, is less).
You won't be shooting at f22 with ASA 50 film this way, that's for
sure. But there are very fine ASA 400 portrait films these days, and
most 35mm zooms don't stop down to f22 anyway :-) . More seriously,
stopping down to f22 is actively undesirable in most portrait
situations I've shot. You don't *want* the background in focus,
especially if you aren't completely in control of it. In a studio
with a black velvet background and barn-doors and gobos to keep spill
off it, shooting medium format, f22 might be useful; shooting 35mm in
the field with improvised backgrounds, I don't think it is.
gary gaugler
On 8 May 1998 20:57:39 -0000, d...@gw.ddb.com (David Dyer-Bennet)
wrote:
>>I have not tried this with little strobes like the SB series. But at
>>somewhere close to 100WS, there just doesn't seem much to work with.
>>Have you used these before and confirm that it would work?
>
>I've done a two-umbrella setup using a Sunpak 555 and a Vivitar 285;
>these are no more powerful than the SB-24s the original poster was
>using. (The 285, at least, is less).
>
>You won't be shooting at f22 with ASA 50 film this way, that's for
>sure. But there are very fine ASA 400 portrait films these days, and
>most 35mm zooms don't stop down to f22 anyway :-) . More seriously,
>stopping down to f22 is actively undesirable in most portrait
>situations I've shot. You don't *want* the background in focus,
>especially if you aren't completely in control of it. In a studio
>with a black velvet background and barn-doors and gobos to keep spill
>off it, shooting medium format, f22 might be useful; shooting 35mm in
>the field with improvised backgrounds, I don't think it is.
What would you consider to be the major factors with an umbrella and a
1200WS or 1800WS strobe head? Each with a 7" reflector. How about
distance from end of reflector to apex of umbrella and distances from
umbrella to subject?