Newby back...need help for next step

Gene Palmiter wrote:

I have 2 low-powered strobes now...and have a higher power one
coming. I have brellas for all. So I set my best one near camera
position...it's 800Ws...with a belle. Set another (just 120ws I
think) 30 or so degrees to the side away from the camera...just out
of frame...for some shadows to shape the face with shadows. The
third light (120ws) can be behind the model and light the backdrop
and bounce back to light hair (until I get a light with a snoot to
light just the hair). Number 1 (main) should have a brella...the
other two should not. Is that about right?

There *is* no "right". The right setup is one which does what you
want it to do.

A simple, normal situation is to use a large source (umbrella/soft
box) for the fill as doing so will just about preclude
distracting/conflicting shadows from the fill. But that doesn't mean
one *has* to; hell, I've used spots for fill...true spots, totally
collimated light.

What you are looking for is a set of rules: do this and you will
always be safe. Such exist (check PPA) and it doesn't hurt to know
them, just don't treat them as gospel as they are creativity stiflers.
Much better to try various things, assess the results and figure out
*why* you like or dislike an effect.
____________________

Once I get this part right...then we discuss metering....I meter
off the one to the side? The fill? And adjust the main to not over
power the fill?

No. Meter as I told you. "Draw" with the main, use the fill to
lighten shadows to the extent desired. You can even use NO fill. Or
you can use two fill lights. Or more. When you know more, you can
use fill lights both to fill and create additional highlights and/or
shadows.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.05...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

In message ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Yeah, I'm confused too. But Randall sounds like he's talking from long
experience making it work, which is a good indication he knows
something :-).

He just said in another post that his experience with studio lights is
film-only. That should tell you something right there.
--


John P Sheehy

In article bXJld.3168$h15.487@trnddc07, dadiOH
wrote:

So says you and that idiot Texan, Criccio. Other people understand
light/exposure.

I've met and studied with Frank, along with a number of other
well-known portraitists from across the country. His system worked
very well for film. As I said earlier, I haven't done any multi-strobe
work in digital yet so there's probably some adjustment in order.
Frank's method is technically sound and produces repeatable results
every time.

In article bXJld.3168$h15.487@trnddc07, dadiOH
wrote:

So says you and that idiot Texan, Criccio. Other people understand
light/exposure.

I've met and studied with Frank, along with a number of other
well-known portraitists from across the country. His system worked
very well for film. As I said earlier, I haven't done any multi-strobe
work in digital yet so there's probably some adjustment in order.
Frank's method is technically sound and produces repeatable results
every time.

In article tlKld.6627$pP5.5912@trnddc05, dadiOH
wrote:

Randall is talking PPA (Professional Photographers of America)
standard. What he is saying is partially right inasmuch as it will
give a printable negative under the limited lighting conditions used
by the vast majority of portrait photographers. But it will also
result in denser than necessary negatives and limits creativity.

This method does not stifle creativity. On the plus side, it gives you
consistent, repeatable results every time. You can't recreate the wheel
every time a customer walks in the door.

Moreover, the PPA "standards" flip flop. I used to have an article
from the PPA magazine...an article extoling the virtues of the
portraits illustrated in the article. The portraits were just about
the worst i ever saw and I saved the article to remind me that the PPA
is full of **** much of the time.

Yeah, let's see some of your work.

In article tlKld.6627$pP5.5912@trnddc05, dadiOH
wrote:

Randall is talking PPA (Professional Photographers of America)
standard. What he is saying is partially right inasmuch as it will
give a printable negative under the limited lighting conditions used
by the vast majority of portrait photographers. But it will also
result in denser than necessary negatives and limits creativity.

This method does not stifle creativity. On the plus side, it gives you
consistent, repeatable results every time. You can't recreate the wheel
every time a customer walks in the door.

Moreover, the PPA "standards" flip flop. I used to have an article
from the PPA magazine...an article extoling the virtues of the
portraits illustrated in the article. The portraits were just about
the worst i ever saw and I saved the article to remind me that the PPA
is full of **** much of the time.

Yeah, let's see some of your work.

In article ,
wrote:

He just said in another post that his experience with studio lights is
film-only. That should tell you something right there.

I haven't hooked up my Flashmasters to the 10D yet because I don't want
to blow out the electronics. I've got a Quantum radio slave the would
isolate the two quite well but need a PC-PC cable which I don't have.
Also, what used to be my photo studio is now a recording studio filled
with drums, amps, PA stuff, and guitars.

There *is* no "right". The right setup is one which does what you
want it to do.


True....I am just looking for some place to start. I don't use rules when I
shoot without lights....I expect to be breaking them soon enough with
lights. I am just looking for some place to start. With natural light I can
see it....with flash....not so much. Heck...its digital....I can see....I
can fix. But, I want to learn what those who came before discovered.

There *is* no "right". The right setup is one which does what you
want it to do.


True....I am just looking for some place to start. I don't use rules when I
shoot without lights....I expect to be breaking them soon enough with
lights. I am just looking for some place to start. With natural light I can
see it....with flash....not so much. Heck...its digital....I can see....I
can fix. But, I want to learn what those who came before discovered.

In article ,
says...
In article ,
wrote:

He just said in another post that his experience with studio lights is
film-only. That should tell you something right there.

I haven't hooked up my Flashmasters to the 10D yet because I don't want
to blow out the electronics. I've got a Quantum radio slave the would
isolate the two quite well but need a PC-PC cable which I don't have.
Also, what used to be my photo studio is now a recording studio filled
with drums, amps, PA stuff, and guitars.

I don't know your strobes or how old they are, but most, if not all,
modern strobes are safe with digital cameras. I actually used a volt
meter to measure mine before I hooked them to my 10D. They put out a
nice steady 8 volts, no problem.

I did have problems with a home-made PC cord when I inadvertently
reversed the polarity. The thing still worked, but inconsistently, often
not flashing. The electronic switches some modern cameras (digital and
film) are sensitive to polarity.

Only very old flash packs designed to work with purely mechanical
cameras put high voltages on the PC cord.

Marc