Lighting options

Renee Brown · 07-30-2001, 08:33 AM

I have read Karin Wells information on her website about the white lightening ultra zap system. It looks very good. Are there any other 'single light with fill' lighting setups or other setups that other artists use to light their subjects? Can you recommend which ones and how to actually set it up and how it works? Just looking for all the available and recommended lighting options before buying. Are you using photo bulbs, what type, which brand, what wattage. etc.? Also, are there any books on lighting models ( simple-without all the photography complexity ) ? I'd like to make the best choice the first time for my needs.Thank you.

Renee Brown

Chris Saper · 07-30-2001, 12:19 PM

Hi, Renee,

As I do not use artificial lighting when photographing my subjects, I can't offer much in regard to lighting systems. However, when you do use natural daylight, here are a few tips:

1. Time of day: try to match your film's Kelvin temperature (light's color temperature) as closely as possible to your film. Regular daylight film is most accurate when daylight temperature is matched, typically about 10-11 am and 1-2 pm. Direct sulight earlier and later is redder in color, and gives a red-orange cast to your photos. You can use blue filters to help compensate; in any case you will still have to compensate for the color distortion when you mix color. (Interior incandescent lights give the same distortion.) The upside is that you can get beautiful light and shadow patterns when the sun is lower in the sky.

Artificial light systems should not present the same color distortions.

2. Shadow problems: it's the nature of negatives and prints to comress shadows and make them darker than they should be as well as devoid of color. This is just an inherent problem with photos..you can compensate a bit when you shoot the film, by adding fill light. You can find collapsable fabric reflectors (similar to the collapsable windshield shades for cars) on small portable supports that will bounce a small amount (you do not want your filled in light to compete with your primary light source). I have had good luck with B&H photovideo in New York for photo equipment and supplies.

For the sake of simplicity a piece of white foam board, 24" X 30", is all I've ever needed; just postion it on the ground opposite the light source, angled so it bounces light back onto the subject's shadows.

I have been interested to read of photo systems used by other painters, and perhaps might try them out at some future point. As of now, simpler seems to work fine for me.

Good luck!

Linda Ciallelo · 07-29-2002, 12:44 PM

I have used a 35mm with window light, for about 30 years. I recently switched to digital photography and built myself a light bank using flourescent "daylight" tubes. I find that the digital works just as well as the 35mm, and with the light bank, I can shoot anytime regardless of the weather. Here is a recent effort.

Mike McCarty · 07-29-2002, 04:47 PM

That's a very nice photograph.

I haven't gone to the digital camera yet. I can see that there are some real advantages. My next camera purchase will probably be digital. The one I want, Nikon 6 meg, is still almost $2K. In a couple of years it may be half that. I think the ones that will really be affected are the medium-format cameras like the Mamiya 645 and the Hasselblads. These type cameras are close to $3K and up. These are great portrait cameras but why will anyone buy these cameras I wonder?

Chris Saper · 07-29-2002, 06:22 PM

Linda,

Beautiful photo. I would never have guessed you used anything but natural light. Can you say more about the light placement, film, etc.?

Mike,

It will be interesting to see how the digital "revolution" will impact medium-format users. Historically, their clear advantage was the large negative (yes, great lenses, etc.) which yielded far superior prints to the 35mm. To the extent that print quality depends less and less on a negative, this advantage will evaporate. In addition to the equipment expense, the film is more costly to buy and process, and it can be hard to find labs that process the larger film.

For film lovers and darkroom folks, though, I doubt they will ever give up their medium-format cameras.

Mike McCarty · 07-29-2002, 07:06 PM

Chris and Linda,

It will be interesting. I think I would place my bet on digital. But if the price of one of those good medium- format cameras goes way down there, well... The quality of those images will be hard to match even with great digital. In the end it will come down to price. It may be that in 5 years film cameras will go the way of the 8 track tape. Last year I bought a Mamiya 645 severely used on e-Bay. I think I paid $400 for body and lens. I use it to take some of the window light shots indoors.

More and more, for what I do, I don't really need the hyper-quality image. If I were doing professional photography, that's another thing. And for all the image manipulation that goes on from camera to PC, the digital seems to win hands down.

Susan Ballinger · 07-29-2002, 07:43 PM

Mike,

I'd like to eventually buy a digital camera but I was wondering how high does the resolution need to be? What other options do I need to look at when picking one out for portrait reference use?

Susan

Administrator's note: see digital camera topic discussion at http://forum.portraitartist.com/foru...?s=&forumid=48

Marvin Mattelson · 07-29-2002, 08:14 PM

Kodak makes a digital medium format back for Mamiya, Contax and Hasselblad cameras. The file size is 16 million pixels. The resolution is such that you can blow up a full figure to life size at full resolution. The bad news: the back costs approx $15,000.00 for the Hasselblad and $12,000.00 for the Contax and Mamiya, not including camera of course. Larger camera sizes equal larger sensor panels. For those who want the very best.

Mike McCarty · 07-29-2002, 08:56 PM

Susan,

I'm not a great resource for this infomation. However, my general impression is that a 3.5 - 4 megapixel camera can do the job pretty well. I also think you can get this range of camera fairly cheaply. As far as features, I just hope they give the creative control that my film camera does. I will probably do a flurry of investigation when I am ready to go to digital.

Personally, when I use a photograph, I will produce an 8x10 image and work from it. Enlarging to 8x10 for photo reference work is not really a problem unless you begin with a high speed film -800 or faster. Then it could get a little grainy. But that's film, I don't even know how film speeds translate to digital yet.

Marvin,

I like to say that I am not picky, I am always satisfied with the very best. Maybe that camera back is for creating billboards on the highway.

Linda Ciallelo · 07-31-2002, 10:03 PM

The photo that I posted (above) was taken with my Epson 3000Z digital camera. I bought it in 2000 for $900. It can take one photo as big as 3 megs, but you need a special memory card. This photo is about 1900 K when I print it. It's the setting that I commonly use. It allows me to take 15 pics before I must deposit them into the puter. It provides all the detail that I could possibly need.

This photo was taken with one shop light mounted on a board, containing two Sylvania Sun stick flourescent tubes. I have since made another light containing two shop lights ($7 each) and four tubes. I found that the increased shutter speeds from higher light source is necessary for kids.

I also have an Epson 2000P printer that prints with archival ink. It uses pigments instead of inks so that it will last for 200 years plus. The largest size it can print is 13x18". I bought it in 2000 for $700.

I print my photos in a 6"x8" size on 8x11 paper. My canvases are 12x16 or 15x20, or 18x24, all proportional to 3x4, like the photo. I grid the photo and then grid the canvas and draw the outline with brush and paint. I often print out another photo that doesn't have grid on it to work from after that.

The advantages of the digital over the 35mm are numerous. I can see what photos I have taken immediately. I can delete any photos that aren't good and take more. This way, there are no unpleasant surprises after you get the film back and the client has gone home. You can adjust your own prints. You don't need to buy any film. You don't even need a telephoto lens. When I first bought the camera , I ordered one , but then realized that the digital zoom works fine. You can print in any size you want to.

And you can take photos of the finished painting and send them by email to your client.

It takes a little getting used to. I am still learning things about this camera. I need my glasses to see the LCD.

That's about all I can think of .