«

when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light source is
a larger one than the main light source as long as it is at less
power ?.
a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .

im know the end result is that matters but what is the correct way ?

oleuncleted

terry coles wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:11 -0800 (PST), ""
> <> wrote:
>
>> when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light
>> source
>> is a larger one than the main light source as long as it is at
>> less
>> power ?.
>> a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>>
>> im know the end result is that matters but what is the
>> correct way ?
>>
>> oleuncleted
>
> The "correct way" is obtaining the results that you need, not
> what
> anyone else needs or has ever done before. Just because there
> are
> boring stock-photography lighting formulas doesn't mean that
> anyone
> should ever adhere to them. Why follow what everyone else has
> done
> before? Those methods became popularized because they worked
> well for
> one photographer at one time. Then everyone followed like the
> blind-sheep that they are, to try to emulate that first
> person's
> techniques. Do you have no creativity to be able to define your
> own
> studio lighting? If so, then give up on photography. Become a
> hobbyist brick-layer that only makes patio-cookers from one set
> of
> instructions. You too will be able to lay all the same shaped
> bricks
> the same way one day.
>
> The real clincher here (laughable even) is that those boring
> stock-photography lighting formulas were found by extensive
> shooting,
> developing, printing. Then trying something new. Repeating the
> painstaking and costly shooting, developing, printing each
> time. You
> have digital now. Shoot as many test shots as you want to get
> the
> results that you want in a matter of moments. Nothing lost,
> instant
> feedback, instant creativity.

Great answer. Just the kind that's destroying Usenet bit by bit.
I find it hard to imagine the kind of excuse for a life jerks
like you must be living.

To the OP: Sorry I can't help you as I have little experience in
that area. But don't be discouraged by idiots like this poster. I
think I understand your position. You are willing to experiment
but feel that pointers from those with more experience will be
helpful. I hope you will receive more meaningful replies, like
that by Allen Smithee.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:45:47 -0600, terry coles
<> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:11 -0800 (PST), ""
><> wrote:
>
>>when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light source is
>>a larger one than the main light source as long as it is at less
>>power ?.
>>a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>>
>>im know the end result is that matters but what is the correct way ?
>>
>>oleuncleted
>
>The "correct way" is obtaining the results that you need, not what anyone else
>needs or has ever done before...


Great response. Funny the trolls tend to attack the really good
responses. Maybe they want everyone to lower themselves to their
level.

>Do you have no creativity to be able to define your own
> studio lighting? If so, then give up on photography .

you read way to much into my questions ,simple question .




On Dec 11, 12:45*am, terry coles <tco...@emailunwanted.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:11 -0800 (PST), "oleuncle...@aol.com"
>
> <oleuncle...@aol.com> wrote:
> >when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light source is
> >a larger one than the main light source as long as it is at less
> >power ?.
> >a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>
> >im know *the end result is that matters but what is the correct way ?
>
> >oleuncleted
>
> The "correct way" is obtaining the results that you need, not what anyone else
> needs or has ever done before. Just because there are boring stock-photography
> lighting formulas doesn't mean that anyone should ever adhere to them. Why
> follow what everyone else has done before? Those methods became popularized
> because they worked well for one photographer at one time. Then everyone
> followed like the blind-sheep that they are, to try to emulate that first
> person's techniques. Do you have no creativity to be able to define your own
> studio lighting? If so, then give up on photography. Become a hobbyist
> brick-layer that only makes patio-cookers from one set of instructions. You too
> will be able to lay all the same shaped bricks the same way one day.
>
> The real clincher here (laughable even) is that those boring stock-photography
> lighting formulas were found by extensive shooting, developing, printing. Then
> trying something new. Repeating the painstaking and costly shooting, developing,
> printing each time. You have digital now. Shoot as many test shots as you want
> to get the results that you want in a matter of moments. Nothing lost, instant
> feedback, instant creativity.

wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:45:47 -0600, terry coles
> <> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:11 -0800 (PST),
>> ""
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light
>>> source
>>> is a larger one than the main light source as long as it is
>>> at less
>>> power ?.
>>> a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>>>
>>> im know the end result is that matters but what is the
>>> correct way
>>> ?
>>>
>>> oleuncleted
>>
>> The "correct way" is obtaining the results that you need, not
>> what
>> anyone else needs or has ever done before...
>
>
> Great response. Funny the trolls tend to attack the really
> good
> responses. Maybe they want everyone to lower themselves to
> their
> level.

Typical troll response - partial quoting and taking things out of
context. It should have been obvious to anyone with a grain of
intelligence that I was objecting to the gratuitous sarcasm and
insults. There are much more civilized ways of advising someone
not to rely completely on everything they read.

Sure, go tell everyone to reinvent the wheel independently for
themselves instead of learning from the experience of others.
Sure, invent the digital camera all by yourself. Start by going
to the beach, pick up a sack of sand, refine it into pure silicon
and go on from there. Reinvent from scratch a method of grinding
optical glass. Reinvent plastics and solidstate electronics.

wrote:
> when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light source is
> a larger one than the main light source as long as it is at less
> power ?.
> a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>
> im know the end result is that matters but what is the correct way ?
>
> oleuncleted

The size of the softbox doesn't change the amount of the light, it
changes how "soft" the light is (how soft or harsh the shadow is). The
choice of no softbox (e.g. reflector), beauty dish, small softbox, large
softbox, strip light, reflector, etc. is made to create the type of
light - hard light or soft light, crisp shadows or soft shadows, and
this choice depends on what you are shooting - people, objects, glass,
objects with shiny reflections (jewelery, polished metal items), etc.

I'm assuming you are talking about using studio strobes to shoot
portraits. If you want hard shadow lines for a more dramatic effect,
your key light would be a harder light - the sun, a light with a small
reflector dish, a beauty dish, or very small softbox set far back from
the subject. You would typically then use a softer light (large(r)
softbox or reflector) for the fill light. This way you get a "natural"
sun-light type of shadow from the main light (key light or sun) but the
shadows are filled in with some light so you can see details in the
shadow areas on the person's face. If you want to minimize shadows then
you would use a larger softbox (closer to your subject) on your key
light. As a rule you wouldn't use a hard light as a fill light, because
you don't want shadows from the fill to create a cross shadow on your
subject. But you may use a hard light on a hair light or kicker.

The light also becomes harder or softer depending on how close it is to
the subject. A small softbox placed 2 feet from the subject is going to
produce softer light than if you move it back so that it is 15-20 feet
from the subject. This is how a "large" light source like the sun acts
as a "hard light" and produces sharp shadows - it is a long way back
from your subject.

One of the best ways to learn studio lighting is to take a class where
the lights and modifiers are provided as part of the class. Yesterday I
just finished printing my final project for an Advanced Lighting class
at CCSF (City College of San Francisco, one of the largest community
college system in the US). This allowed me to play with all these
lighting modifiers and learn how they work without having to buy them
first. I'm *much* more confident with studio lighting now, and have a
much better idea what types of lights and modifiers I want to have on
hand for my own photography.

Photography classes at CCSF are an *amazing* value. They have an
amazingly well stocked issue room with cameras (up to 4x5), studio
strobes, softboxes, etc. and a studio with 4 studio bays with light
stands, shooting table, backdrops, etc. All for ~$100 per class.

If you don't have access to a community college with an excellent studio
lighting class like this, look for workshops at your nearest pro-level
camera store. Calumet has workshops at most of their locations. IMHO
camera store workshops are not as good of a value as a semester-long
class - usually they are just 1 day for 2-6 hours, and you have limited
time to play with the lights to learn how light modifier choices and
placement affect the quality of the light and shadows on your subjects.

jc

JC Dill wrote:
> wrote:
>> when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill light source is
>> a larger one than the main light source as long as it is at less
>> power ?.
>> a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>>
>> im know the end result is that matters but what is the correct way ?
>>
>> oleuncleted
>
> The size of the softbox doesn't change the amount of the light, it
> changes how "soft" the light is (how soft or harsh the shadow is). The
> choice of no softbox (e.g. reflector), beauty dish, small softbox, large
> softbox, strip light, reflector, etc. is made to create the type of
> light - hard light or soft light, crisp shadows or soft shadows, and
> this choice depends on what you are shooting - people, objects, glass,
> objects with shiny reflections (jewelery, polished metal items), etc.
>
> I'm assuming you are talking about using studio strobes to shoot
> portraits. If you want hard shadow lines for a more dramatic effect,
> your key light would be a harder light - the sun, a light with a small
> reflector dish, a beauty dish, or very small softbox set far back from
> the subject. You would typically then use a softer light (large(r)
> softbox or reflector) for the fill light. This way you get a "natural"
> sun-light type of shadow from the main light (key light or sun) but the
> shadows are filled in with some light so you can see details in the
> shadow areas on the person's face. If you want to minimize shadows then
> you would use a larger softbox (closer to your subject) on your key
> light. As a rule you wouldn't use a hard light as a fill light, because
> you don't want shadows from the fill to create a cross shadow on your
> subject. But you may use a hard light on a hair light or kicker.
>
> The light also becomes harder or softer depending on how close it is to
> the subject. A small softbox placed 2 feet from the subject is going to
> produce softer light than if you move it back so that it is 15-20 feet
> from the subject. This is how a "large" light source like the sun acts
> as a "hard light" and produces sharp shadows - it is a long way back
> from your subject.
>
> One of the best ways to learn studio lighting is to take a class where
> the lights and modifiers are provided as part of the class. Yesterday I
> just finished printing my final project for an Advanced Lighting class
> at CCSF (City College of San Francisco, one of the largest community
> college system in the US). This allowed me to play with all these
> lighting modifiers and learn how they work without having to buy them
> first. I'm *much* more confident with studio lighting now, and have a
> much better idea what types of lights and modifiers I want to have on
> hand for my own photography.
>
> Photography classes at CCSF are an *amazing* value. They have an
> amazingly well stocked issue room with cameras (up to 4x5), studio
> strobes, softboxes, etc. and a studio with 4 studio bays with light
> stands, shooting table, backdrops, etc. All for ~$100 per class.
>
> If you don't have access to a community college with an excellent studio
> lighting class like this, look for workshops at your nearest pro-level
> camera store. Calumet has workshops at most of their locations. IMHO
> camera store workshops are not as good of a value as a semester-long
> class - usually they are just 1 day for 2-6 hours, and you have limited
> time to play with the lights to learn how light modifier choices and
> placement affect the quality of the light and shadows on your subjects.

I second JC's points, and can recommend Berkeley City Colleges'
offerings in Photoshop and printmaking. The intro to PS, which I took a
few years ago, was outstanding.

--
john mcwilliams

ross halster wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:32:16 +0530, "pawihte"
> <>
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:45:47 -0600, terry coles
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:11 -0800 (PST),
>>>> ""
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> when using studio strobes does it matter that the fill
>>>>> light
>>>>> source
>>>>> is a larger one than the main light source as long as it is
>>>>> at less
>>>>> power ?.
>>>>> a larger softbox as fill vs a smaller softbox as main .
>>>>>
>>>>> im know the end result is that matters but what is the
>>>>> correct way
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> oleuncleted
>>>>
>>>> The "correct way" is obtaining the results that you need,
>>>> not
>>>> what
>>>> anyone else needs or has ever done before...
>>>
>>>
>>> Great response. Funny the trolls tend to attack the
>>> really
>>> good
>>> responses. Maybe they want everyone to lower themselves to
>>> their
>>> level.
>>
>> Typical troll response - partial quoting and taking things out
>> of
>> context. It should have been obvious to anyone with a grain of
>> intelligence that I was objecting to the gratuitous sarcasm
>> and
>> insults. There are much more civilized ways of advising
>> someone
>> not to rely completely on everything they read.
>>
>> Sure, go tell everyone to reinvent the wheel independently for
>> themselves instead of learning from the experience of others.
>> Sure, invent the digital camera all by yourself. Start by
>> going
>> to the beach, pick up a sack of sand, refine it into pure
>> silicon
>> and go on from there. Reinvent from scratch a method of
>> grinding
>> optical glass. Reinvent plastics and solidstate electronics.
>>
>
> Hint: That's exactly how new discoveries are made. A little
> fumbling
> novice experimenting and he might find a better and simpler
> method
> than you have known all your life. We're not talking about
> formulating new glass and plastics compounds, we're talking
> about
> SIMPLE ligthing placements for cryin' out loud. Don't go making
> mountains out of mole-hills just to troll yet another
> newsgroup. Go
> crawl back into your monkey-see monkey-do hole. You useless,
> ****ing,
> pretend-photographer troll.

If it's such a SIMPLE thing that everyone can and *should* find
out all by themselves, why are others giving good advice,
explaining the basics and suggesting lighting classes? Are they
all recommending the "monkey-see monkey-do" route?

Giving and receiving suggestions does not necessarily mean blind
copying. A sensible person just uses them as starting points. You
name-changing troll.

pawihte wrote:
> ross halster wrote:
>
> Giving and receiving suggestions does not necessarily mean blind
> copying. A sensible person just uses them as starting points. You
> name-changing troll.

You boys are giving Trolls a bad name.

--
lsmft

John McWilliams wrote:
> pawihte wrote:
>> ross halster wrote:
>>
>> Giving and receiving suggestions does not necessarily mean
>> blind
>> copying. A sensible person just uses them as starting points.
>> You
>> name-changing troll.
>
> You boys are giving Trolls a bad name.

<G>