21 Comments »

1. 

   Perfectly gorgeous work and subject.

   The catch lights seem to indicate either window light or a soft box. How were these lit Neil?

         Comment by Tom K. — December 23, 2008 @ 10:54 am

2. 

   Nice. Do you have any tips on ensuring enough DoF around the eyes when shooting wide open? Seems one must be very familiar with the lens/camera combination and know how much DoF is achieved at a given subject distance?

   As for lighting, in addition to a big (guessing) soft box to camera left, it looks like there is also a separate light source behind and above Kaylex to camera right. Is the background lit separately?

         Comment by Emil S. — December 23, 2008 @ 11:19 am

3. 

   Hi there Tom and Emil ..

   These were fairly simply lit. The main light to my left (model’s right) was a new purchase I tried out, the Westcott Bruce Dorn Strip Bank (18″x42″) (B&H).
   The flashgun was a Quantum T2. (Here is more on my Quantum set-up.)

   I used another Quantum T2 to light up the grey seamless background. I had the Quantum 12×12 softbox on this one, and feathered it to give me uneven light on the backdrop. I also had a snooted Nikon SB-800 as a hair light in most shots.

   btw … the flashguns might just as easily have been Canon or Nikon speedlights. In this small a space, you don’t need huge amounts of light. Also, as you’ve noticed, some images were taken at f1.4 @ 200 ISO .. which means I had the power turned way down on the Q-flash. 1/32 and 1/64 .. just to ensure that kiss of light.

   So there’s nothing here that is out of reach for any photographer.

   The set-up was in my dining room and quite cramped. Here’s a pull-back shot to show you just how unglamorous it looked.
   (click on the photo for a larger image)

   Neil vN

   

         Comment by Neil — December 23, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

4. 

   Emil, regarding your question about depth-of-field ..

   >> Do you have any tips on ensuring enough DoF around the eyes when shooting wide open? Seems one must be very familiar with the lens/camera combination and know how much DoF is achieved at a given subject distance?

   Honestly, I don’t over-think this. I just use enough depth-of-field. ; )

   In the images where I used f1.4 there is obviously intentionally minimal depth-of-field. For me, there is no calculation when shooting at such wide apertures, other than wanting to attain that specific look of minimal depth-of-field.

   How to ensure there is enough depth-of-field when using those apertures? I don’t. I don’t try to ensure anything other than getting my subject’s eye in focus. (Usually the eye closest to the camera.) That’s all I need to have in focus for the portrait to be effective.

   Your attention is immediately drawn to her eyes (and it does help that she is a striking looking model), but how much her other features fade into a soft out-of-focus look isn’t really of much concern here. If it was, I’d crank up the lights and use another aperture like f8

   I hope this answers your question, even though I didn’t answer with specifics. But essentially .. it doesn’t matter, as long as one of your subject’s eyes is in focus.

   Neil vN

         Comment by Neil — December 23, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

5. 

   hey neil,

   was wondering, aside from showcasing this model…. were you testing out different lenses etc??? as i noticed each of the 4 shots was shot with a different lens????

   thnx!

         Comment by brett — December 23, 2008 @ 3:49 pm

6. 

   Brett …

   The shoot actually started out with me wanting to test my new Profoto AcuteB 600R lighting kit (B&H), and the Profoto beauty dish (B&H) … but I was inadvertently supplied with the incorrect flash-head. So instead of just calling the shoot off, I played with some other lighting instead. : )

   It was far too cold to venture outside, so I improvised a small studio set-up there in my dining room.

   The use of different lenses (and cameras), was in part motivated by a conversation I had with a friend recently who is a Nikon shooter who was pining over the Canon 85mm f1.2 II (B&H) … which I thought was silly, since Nikon has the stellar Nikon 85mm f1.4D (B&H).

   So the choice of lenses was just to show that there isn’t really any difference to be seen between the two lenses. Admittedly I used the Canon f1.2 optic at f1.4 because that is what my lights were set up for at that point … but I’d still go out on a limb here and say that it would be really tough to spot any difference between the results from either lens.

   Similarly, I used 3 different cameras .. Nikon D3 (not posted here), Nikon D700, Canon 1D mk3 … and with slight adjustment in the raw post-production, there isn’t immediately much difference between how the files look when shooting this way.

   Which brings me to a point I mentioned on one of the forums .. that in the everlasting Canon vs Nikon debate (and I certainly have my opinions on this), it ultimately doesn’t matter in the way that most photographers think it matters. What I strongly believe though, that what matters is that we should use the best that there is in any camera / lens make.

   It’s a topic I touched on with an earlier posting here – equipment as inspiration. (This posting in turn was prompted by someone’s comments that the equipment didn’t matter at all.)

   I hope this answers your question, although I think the answer was different than you expected. ; )

   Neil vN

         Comment by Neil — December 23, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

7. 

   Thank you for this great web site where us old “film camera” relics can learn from a pro.

   Your photography is outstanding. And this from a retired wedding photographer with 25 or thirty years experience. Your site was posted on http://www.photo.net last night, 12/24/08.

   A very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

   Richard Beisigl

         Comment by Richard Beisigl — December 24, 2008 @ 5:38 am

8. 

   Richard, thank you very much, and best of luck!

   Neil vN

         Comment by Neil — December 24, 2008 @ 6:35 am

9. 

   You just keep making it look so easy! Oh, and that 1.4, that would be a sweet ‘bride’ lens… Thanks for keeping us all inspired!

         Comment by Nina — December 24, 2008 @ 9:14 am

10. 

    A little off topic, but MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!

    Thanks for all the hard work you do in putting together these tips and post and images for us all to learn from.

    Hope Santa brought you something in an F 2.0 flavor :)

          Comment by Rene Skrodzki — December 25, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

11. 

    Merry Christmas Niel !!! The pictures are awesome. I also have trouble choosing Nikon or Canon for a long time and your advise above make me realize the most important is the person who take photos not the gears. Thanks!

          Comment by Math — December 25, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

12. 

    Happy holidays Neil!
    Thanks for showing the equipment setup you used for this shoot. I’m glad to continue to see that basic studio lighting setups can be bought for less than a few thousand dollars. My wife and I already bought a white backdrop and stand from B&H, and she took a portrait photo of my sister and me for a present to my parents. I am impressed how a little equipment goes a long way in the creative aspects of photography. When we had the photo printed at the local photo development store, the store was asking if this was professionally done (for photo release reasons). It’s nice to be able to reach a point where our photography starts to take a “professional” look to them.

          Comment by Stephen — December 27, 2008 @ 11:40 am

13. 

    I’ve got a question which you might be the right person to ask from: What is the difference between the quality of the out of focus made by large apertures and made by large focal lengths? I mean, for example, could you make the second photo from top by a larger focal length and f/5.6 or f/8?
    By the way, thanks for the great tips. I always follow your posts.

          Comment by Alireza — December 29, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

14. 

    Alireza ..

    Not only would the perspective change, and a much longer lens give you a working distance which isn’t practical, but I do think that to attain the same depth-of-field with a longer lens at f5.6 to give you the same depth of field as an 85mm lens at f1.4 … that would only be a theoretical possibility at best.

    Neil vN

          Comment by Neil — December 30, 2008 @ 6:42 am

15. 

    Neil,
    I got the feeling when looking at the FM buy/sell forum that you were in the process of getting rid of all your Canon equipment and going Nikon. Is that true?

          Comment by Tom K. — December 31, 2008 @ 12:04 am

16. 

    Tom,

    Indeed, I am moving back to shooting primarily with Nikon. In this case, two Nikon D3 bodies.

    But I am keeping a core of Canon equipment, since I need to be familiar with the Canon flash system for the workshops that I present, and also to keep the tutorials on this website balanced.

    I don’t want the articles on lighting and flash photography to be overly equipment-centric, but rather deal more broadly with the techniques. : )

    Neil vN

          Comment by Neil — December 31, 2008 @ 2:26 am

17. 

    Neil,

    Could you elaborate on “feathering” the softbox to get uneven lighting on the backdrop. I’m not familiar with this but I like the look of it.

    Thanks so much!
    Brian

          Comment by Brian — December 31, 2008 @ 7:56 am

18. 

    Hi there Brian ..

    What is meant by ‘feathering a light’, is that you don’t point it directly at the subject (or background or whatever), but instead have it at an angle so that there is light fall-off of some kind.

    You can even feather your softbox towards another reflector to add more indirect light.

    Neil vN

          Comment by Neil — January 2, 2009 @ 3:50 am

19. 

    Amazingly informative site, Neil. I have learned more here than anywhere else. Thank you.

    I shoot the Nikon 85/1.4 on a D200. I find the DOF almost too razor thin when used wide open and very challenging to get enough in focus. Your shots above look amazing wide open. Do you find it easier to shoot wide open on the full-frame D700 because the DOF is not quite as narrow?

    P.S. Come to Minneapolis with your workshop.

          Comment by Jeremy — January 14, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

20. 

    Jeremy … Depth of Field becomes narrower the larger the sensor / film.

    Here is an article written by Bob Atkins on that subject.
    It’s as clear a description as I’ve ever read on the topic .. but it still makes my head hurt.

    The thin DoF at those apertures is a challenge, and not every shot will be pin-sharp. Quite often the problem is that either the model or I will subtly move out of position. So I do have to take several frames, and refocus every frame to ensure images that are crisply sharp.

    Re a Minneapolis workshop .. probably not this year, although I’ve had a few inquiries. But we’ll see. Add the blog to your RSS feed to keep updated. : )

    Neil vN

          Comment by Neil — January 14, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

21. 

    thanks Neil

    very interesting and enlightening

          Comment by Erez Avraham — January 31, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Filed under: gear,lighting,models,personal work — Neil vN @ 9:59 pm