Full length lighting

Michael Ant

Well-known member
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, US
Hello. My question basically deals with shooting models full length. I am curious if it is better to use two lights, one high and one low, if you do not have the high power units? I mean if I only have two mono lights that are 300 watts pers second, would this be a better set-up so I get the model lit from head to toe? Thanks.
 
Hello. My question basically deals with shooting models full
length. I am curious if it is better to use two lights, one high
and one low, if you do not have the high power units? I mean if I
only have two mono lights that are 300 watts pers second, would
this be a better set-up so I get the model lit from head to toe?
Thanks.
It's really hard to avoid ugly multiple shadows if you use two lights directly or two round umbrellas. You may be able to do it with two adjacent soft boxes. You can also do it with two square Reflectasol-type umbrellas. But you have to take great care that the two reflecting surfaces are moved and direct as though they were a flat surface. Tricky.

It would be easier to use a diffusion screen with two lights behind it. Check the diffusion screens used at this site:

http://www.lightingmagic.com/equipumb.htm

--
RDKirk
 
I prefer the photoflex panels..
I have a kit with crossbars and connection clips
as well as T-clamps ... This makes a great set
with two or three light stands you can do everything
Put multiple stropes behind it (along a car or so)
use it as refelector or shade outside .. as light trap with black
cloth etc etc..
the frame is more solid than pvc pipe of same diameter
and I do not like to use 40mm PVC .. too bulky ...
my 2c
gmd
 
Mike Ant wrote:
I am curious if it is better to use two lights, one high
and one low, if you do not have the high power units? I mean if I
only have two mono lights that are 300 watts pers second,
Mike,

Try this go out and purchase 4 4x8 sheets of foamcore. Tape two of the sheets together, so they will make a V. Bounce one of your mono lights into each of these V foamcore pannels. Place the pannels at a 45 degree angle to the model, with the light on a stand half way up the pannel. That should give you pretty nice and even lighting on the front. Since you didn't really say what you were using for a background, I don't know if you need to light it or not.

You may want to invest in a basic lighting DVD such as this one

http://www.shootsmarter.com/digiport1.html

Regards,
Phil W
 
It's my experience that you don't need to worry about the high/low setup. One or two lights high work fine for me. You can kill the b/g shadows that RD mentioned by lighting the b/g separately. I didn't in this image but you can see that the model is well exposed.



I used two umbrellas very high; one on each side of the camera.

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com
Hello. My question basically deals with shooting models full
length. I am curious if it is better to use two lights, one high
and one low, if you do not have the high power units? I mean if I
only have two mono lights that are 300 watts pers second, would
this be a better set-up so I get the model lit from head to toe?
Thanks.
 
Learning to properly feather a lit can be extremely useful. Don't always point the light right at the subject. If you point the light more towards the feet, you can control the fall-off extensively along the vertical plane. By pointing the light past the subject, you can control fall-off on the horizontal plane. this is a good way to light multiple subjects evenly. Bounce boards on the shadow side & floor can also help. If your shooting models, a fall-off of 3/4 of a stop between head & toe is often quite acceptable.

If you need more output, bounce a second light off the modifier. Two heads can easily be used on a single umbella.
 
I appreciate everyones advice. I will try some of the ideas and see how it works. Once I rented a video from Dean (shoot I forgot his last name) but he is like a master of lighting from San Diego. The problem was that he was too much of a master and you could barely understand him. Well anyway thanks again for the help.
 
I'd hardly call Dean a 'mediocre' photographer. Toyota, Hyatt, Adobe, Apple, Chiat-Day, SinarBron, Top Deck, among countless other high end clients he has worked for think very highly of his work. He's done a lot more than just sell videos. Why don't you give Jay Maisel a call and ask him what he thinks of Dean's lighting.

His videos have to appeal to a wide range of levels and are primarily about light control. They don't necassarily reflect his day to day work.

If you've never seen Dean's portfolio, what backs up your statement? Nothing probably. Jealously, maybe?

Mike
 
Say what you will. Let me know how well your career is going in 25 years. Dean's is still going strong, shooting in Hawaii for the NFL. You know, more mediocre images and such. Photography/lighting is subjective. If you please the client, it's not mediocre. It's doing your job. Creative lighting doesn't make you a succesful photogrpaher. Knowing how to create the image your client wants, does. Sometimes it's a mediocre look they want. Sometimes it's more creative. Beleive me, Dean could give them whatever they ask for. And does.

Mike
 
Shooting in Hawaii for the NFL does not impress me in the least. If you have an good examples of his work, I would sincerely like to see them. Otherwise I stand by my statements.

Avedon, Penn, Frank, Kertez, Weston, Newton, & such, are the photographers I could be envious of.
 
Your statement was that Dean Collins wasn't a master lighter, not if he measured up to Penn, Weston, Avedon, etc. Wether you like his work or not is subjective. Dean is a commercial photographer. His clients know they can depend on him to give them the shot they are looking for.

Dean has been teaching lighting technique and theory for over 20 years to people all over the world. I'm sure Kodak, SinarBron, Hassleblad, Adobe, and countless others wouldn't sponsor him if they thought he was mediocre. But you are entitled to your opinion. I do however think a lot of people looking for lighting techniques could learn a lot from Dean. And do. As much as I love the masters you mentioned, I don't think we can find any material mentioning how they lit there images. Dean teaches you light control. What you do with it is up to you.

And sorry, Dean's in San Diego. I'm in Fl. I don't have easy access to his book. But if you haven't really seen some of his real work, again, how can you comment on it?

Mike
 
Dean has been teaching lighting technique and theory for over 20
years to people all over the world.
Most really good comercial photographers do not have the time for this. They are to busy shooting & making much more money.
I'm sure Kodak, SinarBron,
Hassleblad, Adobe, and countless others wouldn't sponsor him if
they thought he was mediocre.
I know, personally, other mediocre photographers that have been hired or promoted by these clients.
But you are entitled to your
opinion.
It is only that.
I do however think a lot of people looking for lighting
techniques could learn a lot from Dean. And do. As much as I love
the masters you mentioned, I don't think we can find any material
mentioning how they lit there images.
When I first started I scoured almost every possible source of info on photography. I don't recomend any sources that feature chessy photography. I think cheesy photography is a bad place to start.

The best thing to do is learn how light works. If you understand the differences between specular & diffuse light in addition the inverse square law you are half way there. There used to be a good book on this, but I can't find it anymore. It was a text book for RIT.

After that try to emulate the work that you admire.

I have been wanting to build a web site devoted to lighting, but have been too busy so far.
Dean teaches you light
control. What you do with it is up to you.

And sorry, Dean's in San Diego. I'm in Fl. I don't have easy
access to his book. But if you haven't really seen some of his
real work, again, how can you comment on it?
I've been in comercial photography for quite a long time. My profile says I am an assistant, but it's not really accurate. My offical job title descibes me as a glorified lighting technician & I have worked for a number of very well known photographers & directors. I do know my lighting & I dare say, probably better than Dean. Surely, he is a better teacher, & dancer, than I am. I am not blowing my own horn, just trying to quantify my answers.

I have seen Dean's work for 20 years & I have always thouht it was mediocre. Clients can constrict a photographers vision & do. We work for Vogue alot, & the work they want is mediocre. They will kill much better images & ideas.

But I have never seen one image by Dean Collins that was anything memorable. His images have always been uninspired & lacked any emotional content. While technically competent, the images lack an individualistic style & could have been shot by 10,000 other photographers.

I salute him for promoting & teaching photography. I know of no schools who uses his teaching as part of their curriculum & I do not recomend his videos or such. I do not personaly know of a single photographer that does. Whenever his name is brought up, it has always been with chuckles. Perhaps it's his chessy video covers.

If you ever find some good examples of his work that could change my mind, I would be thrilled. I mean this sincerely.

I apologize for beating up on Dean's work, I just can't recomend his teching. I respect all working photographers.

Regards,
CLTHRS
 
Mike Ant

A really good way to learn is to shoot. You probably have a digital camera as this is a digital camera site. Set up the strobes and record an image! Another really good way to learn is through mentorship. My best teachers have been other photogs and dark room printers. A really good printer that knows cameras and lights can be invaluable as a tool. Shoot some b&w film as a study, find a good lab and chat the printer up. You’ll find a really good source of knowledge .
--
bm bradley
 
Dean has been teaching lighting technique and theory for over 20
years to people all over the world.
Most really good comercial photographers do not have the time for
this. They are to busy shooting & making much more money.
Yet Dean did both very well, so much to the point where he can now cut back on his work and enjoy more time with his family. And he hasn't turned 50 yet.
The best thing to do is learn how light works. If you understand
the differences between specular & diffuse light in addition the
inverse square law you are half way there. There used to be a good
book on this, but I can't find it anymore. It was a text book for
RIT.
So let me get this straight. The things you stated above are the things people should learn about light, and yet, these are the very things Dean discusses in all his videos, seminars and workshops. In fact, it's what he discusses at the beginning of every seminar and at the beginning of his Basics videos he did with Bogen. Have you ever really watched any of his videos? Or just one or two? He's been doing this since the early 80's. To this day I have found no one who explains better the quality and charactoristics of light. Please, tell me and others of other sources. Whether or not the images he uses in the videos are cheesy or not is not the point of the videos. They have to be simple so a beginner can understand it. Again, those images are not a true reflection of his real world work. But you won't let that go.
I have been wanting to build a web site devoted to lighting, but
have been too busy so far.
If you ever get around to it, and I won't be holding my breath, I'd love to hear how differently you explain the charactoristics of light. There are only so many. You mentioned a few here, so does Dean, along with all the rest and what controls them.

I do know my lighting & I dare say, probably better than
Dean. Surely, he is a better teacher, & dancer, than I am. I am not
blowing my own horn, just trying to quantify my answers.
LIghting is subjective. To say you know more than Dean is something you'd have to prove. Tell me something about light that Dean or myself does not know? As I stated, there are only so many things that control light. How you use them, is up to you. Cheesy or not.
But I have never seen one image by Dean Collins that was anything
memorable. His images have always been uninspired & lacked any
emotional content. While technically competent, the images lack an
individualistic style & could have been shot by 10,000 other
photographers.
He didn't set out to teach how to take inspiring, emotional images. He set out to teach lighting. If there is anything in his videos about lighting that you find wrong, I'd love to hear about it. He never said he was the best photographer in the world or that the lighting techniques were anything new. He just taught lighting to those who wanted to learn. Not how to shoot like Avedon or Penn. He found demand and supplied it.

I know of no schools who uses his teaching as part of their curriculum & I do not recomend his videos or such.

And yet, he had a Intern Program with Brooks Institute and gave a lot of workshops/seminars there. Please get your facts before you comment on them.

I've yet to see any seminar, book or video or website that doesn't discuss the very things Dean taught me 15 years ago. I do see a lot that copy him. Watching one or two of his videos won't make you a lighting expert. That's why he has produced over 15 of them along with 2 books, Global Notes, featuring the worlds best photographers.

I really don't have to defend Dean. His work and teachings can stand on their own. Your opinion of his work, well, his 'video covers' (get real) has no bearing on his teachings, or anything really. He's taught thousands worldwide and at the same time ran a very successful studio. I, for one, am very glad he found the time to teach what he knows. You only comment on his images, not his teachings. This Forum is called Lighting Techniques, not Style & Creativity. If you'd like to comment on the content of his videos and his lighting theory, I'm all ears.

Mike
 
Dean has been teaching lighting technique and theory for over 20
years to people all over the world.
Most really good comercial photographers do not have the time for
this. They are to busy shooting & making much more money.
Yet Dean did both very well, so much to the point where he can now
cut back on his work and enjoy more time with his family. And he
hasn't turned 50 yet.
The best thing to do is learn how light works. If you understand
the differences between specular & diffuse light in addition the
inverse square law you are half way there. There used to be a good
book on this, but I can't find it anymore. It was a text book for
RIT.
So let me get this straight. The things you stated above are the
things people should learn about light, and yet, these are the very
things Dean discusses in all his videos, seminars and workshops.
In fact, it's what he discusses at the beginning of every seminar
and at the beginning of his Basics videos he did with Bogen. Have
you ever really watched any of his videos? Or just one or two?
He's been doing this since the early 80's. To this day I have
found no one who explains better the quality and charactoristics of
light. Please, tell me and others of other sources. Whether or
not the images he uses in the videos are cheesy or not is not the
point of the videos. They have to be simple so a beginner can
understand it. Again, those images are not a true reflection of
his real world work. But you won't let that go.
I have been wanting to build a web site devoted to lighting, but
have been too busy so far.
If you ever get around to it, and I won't be holding my breath, I'd
love to hear how differently you explain the charactoristics of
light. There are only so many. You mentioned a few here, so does
Dean, along with all the rest and what controls them.

I do know my lighting & I dare say, probably better than
Dean. Surely, he is a better teacher, & dancer, than I am. I am not
blowing my own horn, just trying to quantify my answers.
LIghting is subjective. To say you know more than Dean is
something you'd have to prove. Tell me something about light that
Dean or myself does not know? As I stated, there are only so many
things that control light. How you use them, is up to you. Cheesy
or not.
But I have never seen one image by Dean Collins that was anything
memorable. His images have always been uninspired & lacked any
emotional content. While technically competent, the images lack an
individualistic style & could have been shot by 10,000 other
photographers.
He didn't set out to teach how to take inspiring, emotional images.
He set out to teach lighting. If there is anything in his videos
about lighting that you find wrong, I'd love to hear about it. He
never said he was the best photographer in the world or that the
lighting techniques were anything new. He just taught lighting to
those who wanted to learn. Not how to shoot like Avedon or Penn.
He found demand and supplied it.

I know of no schools who uses his teaching as part of their
curriculum & I do not recomend his videos or such.

And yet, he had a Intern Program with Brooks Institute and gave a
lot of workshops/seminars there. Please get your facts before you
comment on them.

I've yet to see any seminar, book or video or website that doesn't
discuss the very things Dean taught me 15 years ago. I do see a
lot that copy him. Watching one or two of his videos won't make
you a lighting expert. That's why he has produced over 15 of them
along with 2 books, Global Notes, featuring the worlds best
photographers.

I really don't have to defend Dean. His work and teachings can
stand on their own. Your opinion of his work, well, his 'video
covers' (get real) has no bearing on his teachings, or anything
really. He's taught thousands worldwide and at the same time ran a
very successful studio. I, for one, am very glad he found the time
to teach what he knows. You only comment on his images, not his
teachings. This Forum is called Lighting Techniques, not Style &
Creativity. If you'd like to comment on the content of his videos
and his lighting theory, I'm all ears.

Mike

You say what I would have said. Dean's seminars in the early 80's gave me an understanding of light as if it were clay. Molding & shaping and pre-visions of lighting before going to set. Long live Dean Collings!
--
http://www.pbase.com/tojo123
[email protected]
 
I've been following this discussion with interest. I followed the link below to Dean's three samples, and have to say that, speaking ONLY of the three images it leads to, I am not impressed with the lighting. It is over-done, unsubtle, and, in places, not well-controlled. But crucially, it LOOKS like it has been artificially lit -- and very much so.

There have to be better examples than these on view somewhere, so I went looking for more of Dean's work, but only came up with sites whose purpose is to sell me products through which I can emulate Dean. But none of Dean's work was on view to convince me of how good he is.

Can anyone point me to any sites which will give me a better idea of what Dean does? I'm interested to see.

ron mcmillan
Since my formative years Dean Collins has been a teacher and
inspiration. I have a section in my web site showing his bio and
three images. This should open up some shadows...

http://www.geocities.com/sethuprofoto/collins

Sethu
http://www.geocities.com/sethuprofoto
 
This is probably the last post I place on this subject, since I am very uncomfortable with repeatidly criticising another photographer.

I have seen more than his video covers, but nothing truelly recent. I have not seen alot of his work, because he does not get much attention in the commercial world. If you ever come across some other images that show his skill, please e-mail me & I would love to have my opinion changed.

Everything I've seen is mediocre. That is my opinion. His lighting is nothing to rave about & his compositions are uninispired. If he thinks his video covers are a good idea, well I think that alone speaks volumes.

I am sorry that I hurt some peoples feelings, but in all honesty, his work & videos have always been a running joke in the circles I work in. This is the first time I have ever heard of any pros defending his work.

I did try looking for his work online as this thread first started. He doesn't seem to have a site for his work, but he does have one for his teaching series. Here are some quotes from the bio.

"In that time, he has not only been a working photographer, but has influenced the way an entire generation sees its profession."

"Over the years, his lectures, videos and publications have developed terminology that has become the standard for photographers everywhere."

"Recently, his video instruction on digital photography has promised to revolutionalize the way professionals learn lighting for digital photography as well as the use of PhotoShop to enhance their imagery."

The first statement is utter bull, & the second is also. In the third quote he says "revolutionalize the way professionals learn lighting for digital photography". Lighting is lighting. Why do pros need to learn to light for digital. We all know digital has a similar dynamic range to chrome. Another statement that is full of it.

Regards,
CLTHRS
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top