[pingflood]

Just wanted to share since I am very happy with the result. Been looking at a friend's work where he basically tries to enhance whatever little existing light there is, or at least place his lighting so that it appears to be natural. Decided to give it a go, with a single light source representing "ideal" window light (something we never get because there are too many trees in the way). Placed a single 420EX (I guess basically like the Pentax 360) shooting through an umbrella near the window and angled it about like afternoon sunlight would be coming in. I am pretty pleased with how it turned out, and think it looks pretty 'real' even though more or less 100% of the light was from a single basic flash.

What do you guys think? Convincing enough?

[Mike Cash]

Why don't we have a lighting/studio forum?

Because it would be overrun with people telling us flash sucks.

[wildman]

"Faking natural light"

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[pingflood]

Not all flash sucks.

On camera in your face non-modified flash sucks.

[GerryL]

Not all flash sucks.

On camera in your face non-modified flash sucks.

LOL!

[Mike Cash]

"Faking natural light"

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

No.

"fake natural light" would be an oxymoron.

[mithrandir]

I really think you are on to something. Lighting looks totally natural-source with no menacing shadows. I think I need to look into this method myself, especially since it involves only one light source to accomplish it. Thanks for sharing. Perhaps we need to take a chance and have a lighting subforum.

[leadbelly]

I've always been fascinated with "faking natural light" to produce results wherein the viewer won't notice that a flash has been used, as opposed to the strobist style, where flash is used off-camera, obvious though used in a creative and appealing way... here is a link that taught me a lot regarding "faking natural light" with the flash gun ON THE CAMERA. Fascinating really. The author rarely uses off-camera techniques... (though no on-board flash).

edit: forgot the link: http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

[pingflood]

I've always been fascinated with "faking natural light" to produce results wherein the viewer won't notice that a flash has been used, as opposed to the strobist style, where flash is used off-camera, obvious though used in a creative and appealing way... here is a link that taught me a lot regarding "faking natural light" with the flash gun ON THE CAMERA. Fascinating really. The author rarely uses off-camera techniques... (though no on-board flash).

edit: forgot the link: http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

Thanks for the link! Looks like a lot of good reading material there. I have not had much look with on-camera flash so it will be interesting to check out. And I'd like to put my monster Metz 58 to better use than just flash triggering which is what it's been doing lately. (Though it comes in handy for when you need to light up a big area, just point it at the ceiling and let 'er rip.. that thing has some serious power!)

It's interesting how everything ends up being a delicate balance between light power, positioning, size, distance...e.g. you can make a light source relatively larger by moving it closer, but when you do you also greatly affect the relative amount of light covering the subject at given distances from the light source.

For instance, say you have a subject 3 feet wide and your light is off to the side from it.

If the light's six feet away, the side furthest from the source gets 6^2/(6+3)^2 = .44 times the amount of light that the side closest to it does. Move the light to three feet away and the side furthest now gets 3^2/(3+3^2) = 0.25 times the amount. So by moving the light source closer it went from just over a stop difference to two stops. Sounds bad, right? But by moving the light source (let's pretend it's a softbox) closer you've increased the relative size of it to the subject, which will make it more smooth/soft. So it's a tradeoff like everything else.

It would be great if some people would share lighting setups that they've had success with, and what they've learned.

By the way, did a quick test with on camera direct flash:


Versus off camera with shoot-through umbrella (maybe two feet to the left of me):


Even moving the light a little and adding a basic modifier makes a big difference!

[benjikan]

Every indoor shoot I do is usually a mix of Flash+Tungsten or Flash+HMI or Flash+Ambient light sources. My whole reputation resides in using flash creatively.

Ben

[maxwell1295]

I agree.....there should be a lighting forum. It's all about the lighting, baby.

The fact that I recently acquired a total of 5 Photogenic Powerlight studio strobes has a lot to do with my thirst for lighting knowledge. I've only been able to find lighting discussions at places like Photo.net, DPR, and FM forums. There's a Strobist group here, but it's not very active.

[wildman]

No.

"fake natural light" would be an oxymoron.

I was not making an assertion but merely stating a fact - It "sounds" like a oxymoron to me - and it still does.

Perhaps simulating or imitating or even feigning would be more appropriate.

But I digress.

[pingflood]

I agree.....there should be a lighting forum. It's all about the lighting, baby.

The fact that I recently acquired a total of 5 Photogenic Powerlight studio strobes has a lot to do with my thirst for lighting knowledge. I've only been able to find lighting discussions at places like Photo.net, DPR, and FM forums. There's a Strobist group here, but it's not very active.

Five? Nice deal, let me know if you decide you don't need 'em all.

I found a book a while ago called Light: Science & Magic which kind of takes an Alton Brown approach to the whole thing. Explaining WHY things work a certain way and giving you all the knowledge to go cook up your own thing. Great read and very very useful. Learned a few neat tricks (like how to deal with "impossible" lighting situations) from it, and it's one of those books you'll go revisit now and then to brush up on things.

Had an idea this evening; I usually carry an Interfit reflector disk (I think it's around 4' across) in my car since it folds up nicely. If I could get somebody to hold it as a giant bounce card to the left or right of me I could just bounce the big Metz off it and have a huge portable light source. Seems like it'd work, so going to give it a try.

[Clicker]

Didn't someone say in another thread, Pentaxians are "frugal", hell strobes cost an arm an a leg

[Venturi]

Every great photograph has one common characteristic - the masterful use of light.

I poo-poo'd the idea of a lighting forum in a thread last week because while I like the idea I didn't think there'd be enough participation. Perhaps I was wrong.

The "Strobist" social group here fizzled and took off for flickr land. Don't know how that's going as I don't use flickr. Maybe it was just too limited in scope to take off here at PF.

Lighting encompasses so much more than putting a flash on a stick with an umbrella in front of it; it's pretty much everything when you get down to the nitty gritty. Our cameras are useless without photons afterall. For something that is so vital to photography it's strange so many photographers avoid the subject. We'll spend thousands on lenses yet balk at a $300 flash. A photographer armed with a Holga and its plastic lens can make a great photo if their lighting is good, but an FA*85/1.4 might as well be a coke bottle* if your lighting is crap.

A lighting forum wouldn't need be limited to "studio" photography, or even about the use of strobes and hot lights. Rather about sharing the good use of all forms and sources of light in our photography. Whether you seek out locations where there's great ambient light or you bring the light to the location in your bag we're all striving for the same thing. Reflectors, gobos, screens and diffusers are equally valuable tools to know how to use (and make) regardless of whether it's the Sun or a Sunpak providing the key light.


* pardon my blasphemy