I tried to do a photoshoot last night with my studio lighting in a house instead of a using a studio backdrop. I normally set the lights and aperature at F8 and my shutter at 1/125. This time I was trying to use things in the house as a background and trying to set my camera to 1.8 or 2.8 but it didn't seem to work because I guess the strobes don't go down that low. Can anyone explain how to do this? If you need more explaination to make this clear, please ask!!!
you mean they were over exposed?
don't know much about studio lights, but couldn't you use the exposure comepensation of the camera, f:2.8 @ 1/125 with -3 EV compensation.
leave the lights at f:8
Yeah, the photos were overexposed if I tried to set the aperature below F8 when the strobes were set at F8. Then I tried to turn the 2 strobes all the way down and set my aperature to F2.8. It was still overexposed... Just need to talk to somebody who uses studio flash heads in a house or a place where you want flash and bokeh not using a studio backdrop.
1. If possible, move the lights back, although this will lighten the background.
2. Neutral density material over the strobes to cut down the amount of light. ND gels are probably available if you look for them. You may have to fabricate a holder.
Invest in some neutral density filters for your camera. B&H carries the Cokin "P" series which are wide enough for Canon's "L" glass.
Hmmm. Let's see if I can be less cryptic.
One of the easiest things to do is put a neutral density filter on the front of your lens. Now you can keep the lights at the level you want to but less of the light gets into the camera so you get to use wider apertures.
I suggest that you use the Cokin "P" system of filters. They're easy to use, fairly inexpensive, pretty high quality and stackable. To use a filter set like this you need a filter adapter ring (examples: fits the EF 85 f/1.8, fits the EF 17-40 f/4 or EF 24-70 f/2.8 or EF 70-200 f/whatever) which screws into the lens. You then need a filter holder (P holder with small booklet which slides over the adapter ring. The holder I have can hold 3 or 4 filters so I can stack different effects if I want. Now that you have the adapter ring and the filter holder you need the filter. Choose one of the neutral density filters (examples: P152 - 1 step, P153 - 2 steps, P154 - 3 steps) and slide it into the holder. Now you can open your aperture up by 1-, 2- or 3 stops depending on which filter you choose.
Using this system allows you to run your lights high enough so that you can get a step or two worth of difference between your key and your fill or kicker/hairlights.
i use a 2 stop neutral density filter on my 24-70, so i can get shallow dof with my strobes. that means it cuts the exposure by 2 stops lower than what it would be normally.
so the exposure compensation wouldn't serve the same purpose - at no cost?
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i use a 2 stop neutral density filter on my 24-70, so i can get shallow dof with my strobes. that means it cuts the exposure by 2 stops lower than what it would be normally.
Ok... It makes more sense to me now how the "pro's" here do it! It also sounds like a more technical subject so now I don't feel too bad as to how I didn't know how to do it. Doing studio shots, low key or hi key, are very easy because you really don't have to worry about dof too much. But if you take pictures in front of real backgrounds, such as a staircase, and you want a shallow dof, it obviously gets more technical.
So basically I can, if wanted to, keep my strobes set at F8 and get a 3 stop ND filter, the aperature can be set at 2.8 and it will expose correctly with a shallow dof, correct?
Yes, that's pretty much it. You can also stack the ND filters on the lens to get even more combinations if you wanted to use a smaller aperture (say f/11 or whatever).
Soup,
People with more experience in this arena may have other reasons for doing this but here is mine. To achieve a particular lighting effect without having to play with an image and worry that you're going to pixelate the image because it just doesn't have the color or luminance or some other data that you really want to get in your output, you have to sometimes achieve the look "in camera" before you ever get to software. If you can imagine some looks that you might want to produce in the camera then you're halfway home to understanding why sometimes its preferable to use this method.
Anyone who has some time working with Photoshop or a similar package realizes that he/she can do some pretty powerful stuff but let's say you've been commissioned for a triptych or some similar work that requires multiple shots. Does it make more sense to hand edit pixels in multiple exposures and hope you got them equivilent or just setup the lighting the way you know its consistent and then shoot the frames you need?
The lighting was achieved in camera. The image has been cropped, sharpened and had the trailing edge of the plexiglass removed. Contrast was raised slightly but nothing was done to affect the lighting in any one area at all. A better example might be one of casting shadows where one wants on a subject.
