Lighting!

Lighting!

(Photo by Strobist reader Sam Simon)

Welcome to Lighting 101. You may not realize it yet, but you have just stepped through a door that may change your photography forever. Over the past few years, over four million people from nearly every country in the world have begun their lighting education right here. And if they can do it, you can do it. Photography is literally writing with light. As you read through Lighting 101 you'll learn how to control every aspect of your electronic flash. If you can imagine it, you'll be able to create it.

You'll learn how to take the removable flash that you probably already have on the top of your camera and use it off-camera to make beautiful, more three-dimensional photos. Once you learn the basics of controlling light, you'll quickly see that most lighting is intuitive, easy and fun.

The Good News: The Gear Doesn't Cost Much
Basic lighting gear is also refreshingly inexpensive. If you have a camera, lens and flash you have already done the spendy part. The gear needed to take your light off-camera is very inexpensive compared to your camera, your flash or even a single lens. By getting your flash off-camera, your images become more threedimensional, more textural and more professional looking. All of the photos on this page were made by Strobist readers (who very recently may well have been exactly where you are right now) just lighting with small flashes. Click on a reader's picture to learn a little more about how it was made. (The uncredited ones are mine, mostly culled from my career as a staff photojournalist at a series of newspapers.) And don't worry if you don't understand the terminology yet. You will soon.

(Photo by Strobist reader Ken Brown)

The difference between their photos and yours is that they already know how to use their flash off camera. They know how to synchronize it with their shutter, position it, modify the quality of the light, change the color with gels and tweak the balance of exposure between their flashes and available light. Which is exactly what you'll soon learn in Lighting 101. That may sound difficult, but I promise you it isn't.

(Photo by Strobist reader Benny Smith)

Learning how to light is incremental, creative and fun. There is almost no math involved, nor any difficult technical know-how. In fact, good lighting is less like math and more like cooking. It's like, you taste the soup and if it needs more salt you add some salt. You'll see that when we learn to balance a flash with the existing, ambient light.

Lighting 101 - Understanding Your Flash

(Photo by Strobist reader GreggBK)

So let's talk about the basic gear you'll need to learn how to light, beginning with your flash. Generally, most people at this point will have a DSLR, a lens or two and a typical flash. (I.e., the removable kind that mounts to the top of your camera, not the built-in pop-up kind.) If so, you have already bought the expensive stuff. The gear to use that flash off-camera is surprisingly, refreshingly cheap. But before we get to that, let's take a moment and talk about your flash. __________

The Bare Essentials
So, here's what your flash absolutely has to have: The ability to work in manual mode, and to do so at different power settings. (I.e., full power, ½ power, ¼ power, etc.) And that's it.

Most flashes, including the one you probably already have, include that capability. And that's the only thing that is mandatory. If your flash has that, skip buying another flash for right now until you have a chance to play with the gear you already have. You may really be surprised at what you can learn to do with it. So take a quick look at your flash and see if it can go into manual mode, or "M". If your flash has manual setting that you can vary, you are golden. Most of your major wallet pain has already happened. (Woo hoo!) __________ IMPORTANT NOTE: If your flash is more than, say, 10-15 years old, do a little research to make sure it is safe to directly hook up to a modern digital camera. Some old flashes can fry the electronics of a digital camera. And once that little bit of magic smoke escapes your camera, it is almost impossible to get it back in… __________ Since we're going to learn to use that flash off-camera, we'll have to synchronize it with your shutter so your flash will go off when you take the photo. Normally, this happens with electrical connections on your flash's hot shoe, which is the built-in electrical connection that is completed when you mount your flash to your camera. When your flash is off-camera, that physical connection is no longer there. But you can electrically sync it with a simple wire, called a sync cord.

Sadly, your flash almost certainly does not have the jack for this external sync capability. But no worries, you can add it for about $15 bucks. At the other end of the sync cord connection, your camera also probably does not have a ⅛" jack. But a second, same $15 device (pictured at left) will add the capability to your camera, too. Then you can use a cheap ⅛" audio cord to sync your flash. This little doohickey also adds an old-style "PC" jack, (it's on the other side and not visible in the photo above) which means it will marry just about any camera to just about any off-camera flash. For that reason, I like to call it a Universal Translator. But no need to worry about that now—we'll get to it later. Very important: We are not about spending unnecessary money around here. Relax in knowing that most everything in the basic kit from here is going to be inexpensive. So you got that going for you, which is nice.

Lighting 101 - A Beginner's Lighting Kit

In this post we'll talk about the small, inexpensive gear kit that you will need for going off-camera with your flash. And this is all you really need to make the jump into being a lighting photographer. You can see it in use above. It will allow you to do some very cool things as a photographer. But as you can see, it is extremely portable and lightweight, too. (Which makes sense to this 40+ guy who does not want to carry around a lot of gear.) So here are the basics, i.e., what you'll absolutely need:

1. A Light Stand

Budget about $40. This folds or extends, and holds your flash in the position where you want it. The main choice is compact or full-size. I recommend compact, as they will go from seven feet (extended) to about 19 inches (folded). These models will also hold your flash at about 21 inches off the ground, which is cool for low shots. Full size stands typically go to eight feet, but only fold to about three feet so they don't travel as well. Plus, they cannot get your flash very low to the ground if needed. The vast majority of people go with compact.

2. An Umbrella Swivel

Budget about $15. This is a small bracket that attaches to the top of the light stand and holds your flash (and an umbrella, usually) and will tilt to any angle. They are small, cheap and rugged. With one of these you can also mount a flash to any type of a standard, 5/8" post (like a photo clamp) if you are not using a stand. For this and the light stand above, I also recommend LumoPro models as they are inexpensive, well-made and guaranteed for five years. LP has built a great reputation as an off-camera lighting supplier, and for good reason.

3. An Optical White, Shoot-Through Umbrella
Just like in the photo up top. Budget about $20. It will be your very first light modifier. And even after 25+ years of shooting professionally, it's still a go-to choice for me. The most versatile umbrellas are those that open up in the 40" range. I can recommend the Westcott White Double-Fold with removable black backing or a normal-fold white shoot-through version. This double-fold umbrella goes from 43" to just 15 inches when folded. Which, of course, makes it travel very well alongside the compact version of the stand listed above. Or you may well prefer the single-fold (standard) umbrella which is, I think, a little stronger and more durable but does not pack quite as small. If you

haven't guessed yet, we are building a small, light kit that will sling over your shoulder (on in a small bag or pack) and let you take your new "studio" with you anywhere. It's really kind of a pick 'em. Both work fine. The only thing with lighting umbrellas is that they are just as fragile as normal umbrellas. If you use care they will last you quite awhile. But you can't be rough with it and expect to hand it down to your kids.

4. A Sync Kit
Budget $30-$40. This three-piece kit will marry your off-camera flash to your camera and sync it to your shutter. It consists of two Universal Translators (seen on previous page, one for the flash and one for the camera) with a 16foot sync cord (fitted with a ⅛-inch plug at each end.) You can go with wireless, and eventually you probably will. But shooting wired is the simplest, most reliable and cheapest way to start. It also becomes your backup (important) should you move to wireless later. Trust me, this is the way you want to start. __________

If you have been running the math in your head, we have totaled out at about $100, give or take. That's amazing to me. As much as DSLRs, lenses and highend flashes cost, just the addition of about $100 (and some basic knowledge) can get you from "meh" to gorgeous, studio-style lighting. And you can easily take that light anywhere you want it to go. By the way, here's the actual shot from the setup photo shown at top:

__________

Two Very Good starter Kits
Below are two pre-packaged options for beginner kits as described above. I recommend Midwest Photo as a source because they are reputable, reasonable and carry the full line of LumoPro gear. (The 2- and 5-year warranties are a big deal, and to my knowledge no other brands have it.) Plus, when things do go wrong I have found MPEX to be responsive (to the point of bending over backwards) via phone, email or onTwitter. Life's too short to deal with needless stress.

Compact-Size Kit (~$107) Standard-Size Kit ($108)

Note: If you do not yet have a flash, for a long list of reasons explained here, I recommend the current model LumoPro LP180 Quad-sync speedlight. It is less than half the cost of the Nikon and Canon flagship flashes, twice the guarantee and, frankly, a better flash. __________

So that was a lot of gear talk to throw at you. Sorry. But we just wanted to get you started off on the right foot, with the basic equipment and not spending more than you needed to. While we wait for the new toys to arrive, let's start learning about them —and how to use them...

Lighting 101 - Light Stands

So the idea is, you want the capability to light without breaking the bank —or your back. And as you'll soon see, your new portable studio is easier to cart around than even a pricey ultralight tripod. Above is a (7.5-foot) LP605, which I consider to be the best compact light stand made today and which you probably by now already have on the way as a part of your starter lighting kit. Compact light stands like the LP605 generally have five sections (so they fold up very small—21 inches or so) and are ideally suited for photographers using lightweight, speedlight-based lighting gear. The LP605 uniquely comes with folding spikes for extra stability when you are outside in the wind. Folded up, they will ride in a small roller case. Or you can add some O-rings and a strap, as detailed below, and throw a whole "portable studio kit" over your shoulder.

I love hacking or modding my gear to make it better, and this little trick is one of my favorites. Throw this strapped stand over your shoulder (with a compact umbrella attached, as you'll soon see) and it it'll ride just as comfortably as a camera. Seriously, you can hike five miles with this setup and bang out a kick-ass lit portrait when you reach your remote destination. If and when you get further into lighting, you'll likely end up adding to your stand collection. Maybe some bigger stands, or a boom arm to float a light out over someone. But you cannot go wrong with a compact, 5-section stand for openers. This is the one you want to start with. I have a boatload of photo support gear and these things still get used more than any other.

To drill them, pivot one of the spikes (if your stand has them) out and drill a ¼ hole at each end of one of the legs. Then stick in some decent sized O-rings (this will take a little prying) and strap it up. If you carry it upside down, the natural forces will keep it closed nicely. This piece of gear is not complicated. Essentially, a light stand exists only to do one thing: oppose gravity. It holds your light at a place in threedimensional space. Pretty simple stuff. For portability, solidity, price (and 5-year warranty) the $40 LP605 is tough to beat.

Lighting 101: Umbrella Swivel Adapters

To attach your flash to a light stand, you'll need an umbrella swivel adapter. They are also called umbrella adapters, or just "swivels." This pretty straightforward. These are rugged and cheap at about ($15). Top to bottom, here's how they work.

A. The Cold Shoe
Unlike a hot shoe, this has no electrical connections. It just holds a flash. (Or, in many cases the Universal Translator that would give your flash a sync jack.) Then you put the flash on top of that. This cold shoe (on the LP633) has an expanding/locking clamp, which makes it sturdy and also lets it fit the foot of some weird flashes whose feet are slightly oversized.

B. The Umbrella Mount

This is a hole and clamp which holds the optical umbrella (more on that in a bit) which you will use to soften your flash's light. Even if you are not using an umbrella (which you will not do all of the time) you need this to attach a flash to a light stand, or anything els that is tipped with a 5/8" male stud. You put the umbrella shaft into the hole and clamp down the screw. Pretty simple. If you are doing it right (i.e., not backwards) the umbrella shaft should point about ten degrees up (instead of down) to offset the fact that the flash is a little off-center due to the mount.

C. The Tilting Mechanism
I'll bet you can figure this out by yourself. You loosen it, tilt the flash and/or flash/umbrella combo, and tighten it back to lock in place. This model has a toothed grip for an added margin of no-slip safety.

D. The Light Stand Mount
This is the female receptacle and locking knob that holds the whole assembly to the top of your light stand. Or anything else with a male, 5/8" stud.

E. The Extra Stud
Some swivels ship with an extra stud. (The LP633 does.) This has a female, threaded ¼" x 20 hole at one end and a 3/8" hole at the other. With a little ingenuity and a bolt of the right size, you can figure out all kinds of positioning devices and/or brackets that might support a flash in a tight or unusual spot. This stud will marry your frankenstein lighting creation to the swivel and allow you to connect it all together. Go nuts. __________

Lighting 101: Synching Your Flash

When your flash is connected to your camera, it syncs automatically. When it is off camera, you have to take care of this yourself. And there are several ways to do it. In the photo above, I synched everyone else's flash to my camera to to get "one of those lucky moments." Except it wasn't luck. I made it happen over and over again for this shot. More on that in a minute.

The Wire
If you are a beginner (and presumably on a budget) you'll want to sync your camera with a simple wire, also known as a sync cord. You'll sometimes hear it called a "PC cord," from the old PC jacks. But you'll want to go with the cheaper audio patch cord version.

As we said before, using a universal translator on both your camera and your flash will allow you to sync it with a simple audio cord. The translator will add

the ⅛-inch jack to both your camera and your flash. (If you are using an LP160 flash, you already have the jack on your flash and will not need the second translator.) This is about as cheap and simple as it gets. No batteries, no sometimes-fickle wireless radio issues. But you are limited in range to 20 feet or so, depending on the length of your cord. Still, go this way first while you are learning. For the record, I always have a sync cord with me at a shoot as a backup, even when I am using wireless remotes, as we'll talk about below. Cheap, and very reliable.

Sync With a Slave
If you have more than one flash, you can sync the extra flashes to your original off-camera flash with optical slaves. (If you'll remember, an optical slave fires your flash at the exact instant it sees the light from another flash.) Which is why, from this day forward, you should not buy a flash that does not have a built-in optical slave. It's that simple -- just don't do it. You are shooting yourself in the foot if you do. In the photo at top, I used a wireless remote (more on that in just a minute) but slaved all of the other peoples' flashes to my flash. Thus, every time I fired my camera all of their flashes fired, too. Was it a coincidence they just happened to all be in position to create glamorous light for my two subjects? No it was not. I positioned them exactly how I wanted. It was for a live "shootout" in front of a crowd in Dubai in the UAE. You can see a full post -- with video -- on that here. (Opens in a new window to preserve your L101 post thread.) Suffice to say, having flashes with built-in slaves makes all kinds of cool things

possible. I would never buy another flash that did not have a built-in slave.

Wireless Sync Via Radio
Another popular method of syncing is via radio remotes. This is not cheap, but if you get into lighting to any real degree this is where you'll end up. For instance, a sync cord would have made it pretty difficult for me to get this shot:

(You can read all about how that photo was made, here.) Here's the thing. You can get cheap remotes, or you can get good remotes. Cheap remotes, which run about $100 for a set, are not (IMO) nearly as reliable as the inexpensive sync cord kit you probably already have on the way to you now. The Gold Standard for standard remotes are the PocketWizard Plus series. The entry level model, which I depend on every day, is pictured below. If I am not mistaken, it's the 7th generation of remote trigger for PocketWizard. I have been using Pocket Wizards for over 20 years, as do the majority of working pros I know. The latest models are far better (and cheaper) than the ones I started with in the early 1990s.

And here's the kicker: these things are still compatible with the PocketWizard remotes from way back when I started out. I love that. (Conversely, I loathe "forced upgrade via planned obsolescence.") You'll need a PocketWizard on your camera and one on your flash. And they are $99.99 each. Given that, I'd still suggest you start with a sync cord (and slaved flashes if going multi-flash.) As you grow into it, wireless remotes will likely make sense for you. And if they do, do yourself a favor and invest in a good one.

There is little more frustrating than a fickle remote trigger, which is why the pros usually end up at PocketWizard. You can spend more (including more advance models of PocketWizard) but a PW Plus X is IMO the very best value in the world. It balances price, quality, reliability and non-obsolescence. Think of it this way: You'll swap out your camera probably ten times in the lifetime of service you'll get from a good quality remote. Choose wisely, and with the long run in mind. __________

Okay, we are almost done with the basic gear. Sorry to hit you with all toys and no technique, but it is good to be getting an understanding of the stuff you have coming so when it arrives you can be ready to roll. So let's talk next for a minute about your very first light modifier…

Lighting 101: Using Umbrellas

Okay, now is where things start to get a little more interesting. Let's talk about your first "light modifier." An umbrella will almost certainly be your first light mod. (It is included in the jump starter kit, if you presently have one on the way to you.) Think of your flash as a very brief-but-powerful flashlight. And like a flashlight the

business end of your flash is only about two square inches in area. Thus, while it gives out a lot of light instantaneously, that light is very harsh. To some degree, that may be why you previously have been unhappy with your flash photos. An umbrella takes your harsh flashlight and essentially turns it into a window. Except we are talking nice, soft window light that you can position and control—in intensity, in location, in angle, even in the color of the light itself. Photo umbrellas are cheap, portable and super useful. Which is why you'll want want an umbrella as your first soft light source. There are two general kinds -- the reflected umbrella and the optical white shoot-through umbrella. I strongly prefer the white (shoot-through) version as it is more versatile. In particular, because you can bring it right up next to someone's face for both power and softness. If you are going with the compact light stands, you'll probably want a 43" shoot-through umbrella, which is pictured above. It folds down to about 14" so it transports very easily along with your compact stand. You can ball-bungee it to your strapped stand and have a nice, transportable light kit. They are cheap (less than $20) small and easy to transport. Because of the telescoping shaft, they can be a little fragile. But use care, and they will last. I used to use the reflected umbrellas (they have a white or silver lining and a black backing) but I almost never do any more. I pretty much stick to the shoot-thru's 99% of the time, which is why we chose the white shoot-through model for your starter kit. __________ Now, let's look at how to use them. (Ahh, the new gear finally begins to transition into technique—and results!)

Shoot your harsh flash through an umbrella and you get softness and control. Stick it in close and you get light that is tailormade for portraiture. This is a very simple way to make your mugshots look more like they were shot by a professional and not by someone from the Department of Motor Vehicles. With a short telephoto, and umbrella'd strobe and awareness of your ambient light, you can make any headshot look more like a cover shot. Back it up a little bit, and your new "portable window" can also light some of the environment:

It is safe, classic-looking light that is easy to tote around. Total no-brainer in

the bang-for-the-buck department. In the photos above, the umbrella is being used from what can be considered to be a "classic" position -- 45 degrees up and over to one side. There's nothing wrong with this, and it is probably how you will start out using the light source. The danger is, you don't move past that and your photos start to all look alike. That is the blessing and curse of an umbrella -- it is easy to look good with it, and it is a very safe light source.

But, as seen above, umbrellas also can be used to create more unusual and dramatic light. And that's where I like to hang out now. The portrait of cellist Caleb Jones is a great example. (Click here to have that assignment -- including a behind-the-scenes video -- pop up in a new window.) We were flying the umbrella just over and behind his head. By doing that, we created a light that was less predictable, and more ethereal.

An umbrella on a small light stand is light and portable enough to be flown over someone by using an assistant as a "voice activated light stand". This gives you all kinds of opportunities for different lighting directions. Work the angle. Try different orientations. Get out of the 45-degree rut. You'll be surprised at what an umbrella can do.

Take this portrait of Pat Morrissey, above, shot in Edinburgh.

By flying the umbrella out over him (but, unlike the cellist, slightly in front) we create a more mysterious "character" light. You can see the location of the light by looking at the reflection in Pat's eyes. Again, atypical position for an umbrella light. But, I think, more interesting than the standard "45."

For Dancer Kassi Mattera, above, we took an opposite tack. The umbrella is being used not as a key light, but as a "fill" light. (Don't worry, you'll learn more about multi-light setups soon enough.) The umbrella is coming from below. It is actually positioned on the ground in front of her:

Not typical, but interesting. That umbrella is filling at about two stops under the main exposure level. Kassi is being lit by another, hard light source at upper right. The umbrella, on the floor, is bathing Kassi in soft, "bottom light" and keeping all of the hard light's shadows from going to black. (Clickhere to see a full runthru of this shoot in a new window.) Long story short, umbrellas are a great choice for a first soft light modifier. But even better—and if you allow yourself—you can grow with them and get into far more interesting light. __________

Lighting 101: Bouncing off of Walls and Ceilings

I am thinking many of you already use your on-camera flashes creatively by bouncing them off of a ceiling or wall. This is a great technique, and one of the most common ways to get a taste of creating good light with your flash.

(Photo by Strobist reader Leon Tolner)

So why bother to take your light off of the camera when you are just going to bounce it off of a wall/ceiling anyway?

• Because you move around when you shoot, which changes where the light hits/comes from in a room. • Because lighting on manual from a set location gives you consistency in exposure, light direction and hard/soft quality. • Because it is a quick technique to half-way set up and begin shooting while you decide what you really want to do with cooler light. • Because working with the light off camera is a good habit/ethic to get into, whether you are just bouncing off of a wall/ceiling, or using a plastic diffuser with a half tungsten gel through an office-plant cookie (explained here) to make a slick, layered quickie portrait in an otherwise drab, flourescent office. This technique is easy, heavy-use, bread-and-butter stuff. And, you will notice, we are talking pure technique at this point and not hitting you up for yet another piece of hardware. 'Bout time, huh? OK, then. So this gives broad, room-filling light and is good for setting up a forgiving zone of directional light. Smooth and flat, but crisp, too. This is the strobist's version of quick and dirty. Things to remember? First, watch your wall color. It'll color cast your light.

You can frequently use it to advantage, as in the warm light the wall kicked back in this artist portrait.

Use the lens angle adjustment on your strobe to control the size of the patch of light illuminating your subject. Just pop the flash and eyeball the hotspot on your bounce surface. The above photo of the county sheriff had the flash set on 85mm, bounced off of the ceiling near the subject. Note the fall-off through the back of the frame.

Conversely, this shot of a midnight Harry Potter fanatic was lit up into the ceiling behind me with the strobe set to 24mm. So this just casts a wide, soft swath of light.

Lighting 101: Bare-Bulb Lighting

(Photo by Strobist reader Janaka Rodrigue

As you have already seen, we can the hard light of your bare flash and soften it with an umbrella. We can further soften it by bouncing it off of a wall or ceiling. But we can also turn it into a 360-degree glowing light source. The old-school term for this is "bare bulb" lighting. That's because older flashes (and most current large studio flashes) have the ability to totally expose the flash tube, allowing the light to radiate in all directions. Your speedlight can't do that as is, because the grain-of-rice-sized flash tube

is permanently housed in its internal reflector an covered with a plastic fresnel lens at front. But we can diffuse the light after it leaves your flash to create omnidirectional, bare-bulb style lighting. That's just what Strobist reader Janaka Rodrigue did above, using an inexpensive lamp globe from a hardware store. By sticking the speedlight inside, the harsh light turned into a soft, glowing orb. Which made for a beautiful, ethereal portrait. Many flashes come with a small, white dome (sometimes called a Sto-Fen) that will convert the flashlight-stlye light into a into a bare bulb-style light. It is omnidirectional, but is it still small and harsh. But it will absolutely make your flash act like a bare light bulb. In fact, I used that same technique here— that's a speedlight in the tiki hut, not a light bulb:

See how the light illuminates the inside of the tiki hut and spills in a natural gradient across the ground? I made that happen by using a small dome on the flash to imitate a bare light bulb. I made the photo of my parents to celebrate their 50th anniversary. You can read in more detail how it was made, here. Also, bare-bulb modifiers can actually give you softer light—as long as you are near walls and/or a ceiling for that omnidirectional light to bounce off of. That's the secret behind commercially produced larger dome diffusers like the LightSphere.

They work well in small rooms with nearby walls, but they are not well-suited for open spaces. Just saying that so you know what they can and can't do. Plus, next time you see a wedding photographer using one outside (and they do that a lot) you can feel just a little bit superior. Not to say they are not useful. But you don't have to spend $100 on one, either. You can get one for under $5 at your local Chinese takeout—and they come full of hot-and-sour soup as well:

Just wash it out (or not, whatever, I'm a guy after all) and cut a little "X" in the lid with an X-acto knife. Then it'll slide right onto your flash for a friction fit. These are great to experiment with. Need light to fill a room in all directions? Bare bulb is your mod. Gonna light the inside of a fridge to simulate that "late-night-snack" glow? Made sure you've already ordered the hot-and-sour soup first. There are tons of different ways to modify lights, and many have DIY versions

you can try for next to nothing. Heck, we're just getting warmed up here. But for the moment, let's take everything away and play with that harsh bare flash that has previously been the reason all of your flash pictures looked like, well, flash pictures… __________

Lighting 101: Hard Light

So, we have spent a decent amount of time on soft light modifiers. Soft light generally comes from physically large sources or modifiers—think umbrellas, walls, overhead clouds, etc. But hard lights—which come from small sources— can look really cool, too. It's just that hard flash gets a bad rap because of how mad it looks when mounted right on top of your camera.

Take the quickie portrait I did of the basketball player, above, done for my newspaper. I have the flash off of the camera, way over to the right. This creates a shadow that I then used as a graphic element in the photo. Still just the one flash, just in a different location. Mind you, this photo would have looked pretty bad if my flash were mounted on the camera. But it would not have been the hardness of the light, but rather the location that did the damage. After 25+ years as a lighting photographer, hard light is to me far more interesting than soft light. Especially when you are able to use multiple hard light sources. Take this product shot for instance:

(Photo by Strobist reader Danny Bird)

This product shot looks completely different (and, to my eye, more interesting) for having been shot with hard light sources. They sculpt the jacket and reveal form and texture. Let's look at another:

(Photo by Strobist reader Christopher Tan)

And just as in the photo up top, this photo uses a subject and a wall, but more than one hard light. (For details, click the photo.) The hard lights combine to partially reveal and sculpt the subject. And they are far more appropriate than would be a soft, portrait-looking umbrella or the like. Often the key to success with your hard light images is to control the lighting ratio (i.e., relative levels of brightness) between the lights and shadows. Think of that hard shadow created by the hard light in the photo up top. It is harsh and abrupt, but not completely black. I can still see detail in the shadows, such as in the wall and on the shadow side of his face. I like to think of a hard shadow as the equivalent of the light abruptly falling off of a ledge. To briefly press the ledge analogy: The depth of that ledge you just fell off of is the difference an interesting experience and, well, a fatal one. It's not about the ledge. It's about the depth. If you want to dip your toe in the hard light water, try balancing your flash close to the ambient (i.e., normal continuous) light level. The fact that the hard shadows will have good detail in them will lessen the chances of getting a bad result with hard light. But the edgy effect will still be there. __________

Okay, so we have looked at soft light (umbrellas, wall-bouncing, etc.) and hard light. But there are all kinds of ways you can modify and shape the light. Up next, two of my very favorite ways to do that...

Lighting 101: Two of My Favorite (if a Little Unusual) Light Mods

Photo by Strobist reader James Madelin

While we are on the subject of the quality of light, here are two of my favorite light modifiers for creating interesting light for portraits. I use them a lot—both individually and combined with each other. The first is a ring flash adapter. A ring flash is a donut-shaped flash, with your lens sticking into what would be the hole of the donut. This allows the light to come from all around the lens axis, which does a couple of things. First, it makes smooth, shadowless light (on the subject at least). Second, it creates a unique, signature shadow on any wall or backdrop that might be directly behind the subject. You have probably seen that look before in fashion and or modern portrait photography. Now you know how it was done. Real, professional ring flashes are… very expensive. But you can turn your

garden-variety speedlight into a ring flash for a lot less with something called a ring flash adapter. Essentially, these are very sophisticated reflectors that bend light around your lens before releasing it.

My favorite of the ring flash adapters is something called an Orbis (seen above). I like it because it is the only model of ring flash adapter on the market which (a) can be used with nearly any hot-shoe style flash, and (b) has a better quality of light than the others. I use it a lot, both by itself and in combination with other lights. It was invented by James Madelin, a long-time reader of this site. As such, he has set up a tutorial/special offer page where Strobist readers get free shipping and 10% off, here. (Thanks, James!)

In the montage above, shot by Strobist reader Ed McGowan, you can see how a ring flash adapter can quickly give a cool look/theme to a series of portraits. It's a unique vibe, which works well on its own. But I tend to also use a ring flash in conjunction with other lights. (More on that in a minute.)

Little Bitty Soft Box

A soft box is simply a box that emits light. They usually run from 2x2 feet to as big as 4x6 feet. But filling a box that big is a lot to ask in terms of power when using speedlights. So another of my most-used light modifiers is a tiny (as in 8x9inches) version of a soft box, which happens to be very useful for lighting portraits from up close. That's it above, providing the light for a self-portrait. (As you can see, I like to experiment with my light mods…)

But these things are super useful. Take this photo, for example. The small

soft box is being held just out of the frame to the left, and is what is responsible for the great quality of light sculpting his face. Soft boxes of this size also fold down to almost nothing (8x9", and maybe half an inch deep) so they pack great. They are also very inexpensive. My favorite tiny box is the LumiQuest Soft Box III (AKA SB-III). I use the crap out of this mod—especially for close-in portraiture.

Just Like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup

Often when I photograph people, I am working quickly and with very lightweight gear. And I frequently use the Orbis and the Soft Box III in combination. These last two photos are all good examples of that. Seen above, I photographed poet Linda Joy Burke using a flash with an SB-III as my "key" (or "main") light off to the left. For fill light, to get that very controlled intensity of shadow, I used a second flash with an Orbis Ring flash Adapter.

Ditto this portrait of blogger Siany Meades, shot in London. Same combo, same general light locations, actually. This was shot in a shaded courtyard but the light(s) gave me the ability to create a little sultry late-afternoon style light. __________

So, lots of cool toys and gear to think about to get your mind spinning. But now, let's take a moment to learn about balancing the light from your flash with the existing ambient light. For most people, this will be when you start to really see the control you get from learning to use your small flash like a professional…

Lighting 101: Balancing Flash and Ambient, Pt 1

Editor's note: To understand balancing flash and ambient, you should have a good, basic understanding of f/stops and shutter speed. That stuff can be found in lots of places (Google it) so I am not going to totally restate it here. __________

F/stop, Shutter Speed and Flash
While f/stop and shutter speed both control exposure, for our purposes it is important to know how they do so differently. Shutter is a time-based control. F/stop is a diameter-of-the-lens-hole based control. Since the light from your flash is pretty much instantaneous, it really does not care about the shutter—as long as you are at or below your camera's top "sync" speed. Which for most cameras is either 1/250th or 1/200th of a second. Note that there are fancy, flash-pulsing methods which will allow you to sync at higher shutter speeds such as 1/1000th of a second. But (a) they have their drawbacks, and (b) getting into that now would be needlessly complex. So just set that aside.

Two Exposures Happen at the Same Time

Every time you take a flash photo, you are making two exposures simultaneously. You are making an exposure of the ambient light, and an exposure of the flash's light. Whether you take this into account or not, it is happening every time. The ambient exposure is controlled by the f/stop and the shutter speed. The flash, being instantaneous, is controlled by the aperture. The photo up top is a good visualization of the fact that two images are being made at once. The shot of Robert, a soldier in the U.S. Army, was made with a slow shutter speed. But I also included a flash, which happened instantaneously and froze Robert irregardless of the shutter speed: Think of it as two overlaid exposures: Frozen, instantaneous flash exposure, mixed with a slow-shutter-speed ambient exposure. Both are made at once, and both light sources are additive to the exposure. So you have two exposures to consider in every flash-lit picture: the ambient and the flash. I like to find my ambient exposure first—nothing fancy, just trial and error. Once I have that exposure (in which, remember, the shutter speed must be at or below my camera's sync speed) I have a starting point for my final, lit image. Next, I'll "dial down" my ambient exposure. This means nothing more than changing my camera's settings to underexpose the ambient. How much? That's your choice. And it will determine the contrast range in your final, lit picture. Remember, when you move your flash off camera, the difference in location produces shadows in your image. That's what makes your subject look all cool and 3-D. And the depth of your shadows—your contrast range; your drama— is determined by the underlying ambient exposure.

Let's Give This a Test Drive

Below is a portrait I shot of Jessie, a local social media entrepreneur. We are going to use a second flash here, to light the background. But the light balancing principles are exactly the same. They work whether you use one flash, two flashes or a hundred flashes. Okay then. Let's get her in some shade first, because it's much easier to balance a small flash indoors or in shade rather than competing with the full sun. (But we'll get to that next post.) Here she is, exposed for normal ambient light in shade:

The exposure here is f/5.0 at a 1/160th of a second. For the record, we are at ISO 200 on the camera's overall sensitivity setting. It's okay, but kinda "meh," right? So before we even add any flash, let's crank her down a little bit and create some "drama" in our final image. I am going to close down my aperture and drop her by a little over 2 f/stops. So I am going from f/5.0 to f/11. Nothing else has changed:

Exactly what you'd expect, right? Everything is darker. But there is still legibility everywhere - no big black areas. This legibility is important in the final image. Also, notice that since we closed down the aperture we now have more depth of field and the wall in back is now more in focus. We have created a "safety net" of darkened ambient exposure. When we add flash, no part of this image will get any darker. So we'll end up with drama PLUS legibility. Now, let's bring in our flash. (Flashes, actually.) We work with manual flash— for predictability and repeatability. One less variable to screw up. And because of this, adding the right amount of flash exposure to a photo is simple and straightforward.

I'll bring in a flash, on manual power, in an umbrella positioned out of the frame and from camera right. Take a test shot. If the flash is too dim, I'll turn up the power. Say it was at quarter power (on manual, as nearly always) when I made my first frame. If too dark I might turn it up to half power. Or vice versa if it was originally too light. Also, I am going to do the same thing with a second flash back on the wall. Just to make the wall pop a little bit. And here is the result:

Wow, right? Same exact spot as the first shot above, which was properly exposed open shade. Then we dropped down that exposure to get the sort of "safety-net" ambient-only exposure. Then we lit Jessie (and the back wall.) This is balancing and flash, in a nutshell. If you don't understand it, re-read the above. But be aware that it may not really make sense until you get out there and actually do it. When working this way, I like to think of my flash as a main (or "key") light and the ambient as my supporting (or "fill") light.

The Process: 1. Get a full ambient exposure. 2. Drop it down to create some "drama." How much, is up to you. 3. Bring your subject back up to full exposure by adding flash.

It's Almost Not Fair
How often have you heard this, usually with a tone of superiority:

"I am a purist, I only shoot available light." (Translation: I am scared shitless of flash.) As an ambient light photographer, you only have one "correct" exposure. Maybe a little wiggle room if you are being interpretive. But as a lighting photographer, we control everything in the frame, independently of the other areas, by how and where we expose and add light. I have been doing this for almost three decades, and I still think that is the coolest thing ever. If you want more detail on the Jessie shoot, it is laid out in more detail (but also assuming a little more knowledge) in the On Assignment section, here. Otherwise, let's flip the process and use flash to control the harsh shadows created by directional ambient light. Same process, just backwards.

Lighting 101:Balancing Flash With Ambient, Pt 2

(Photo by Strobist reader Brent Williamson)

Okay, now let's get out of the shade (or the indoors) and do battle against full sun with our off-camera flashes...

When last we met, we talked about the idea of balancing flash with ambient. We were using the flash as a main light and the ambient as fill, but you do not always have to do it that way. Straight fill flash is very simple these days, with TTL flashes doing the heavy lifting (i.e., thinking) for you automatically. But doing it the easy way usually means keeping the light on the camera. The goal here is to start to replace the blah concept of 'fill flash' with that of 'balancing light.' And, more important, to separate the idea of fill flash fill/balance from the rote use of on-camera flash. The process of using flash to augment (which is a better concept than fill) sunlight is very straightforward. First you are going to start at your camera's highest synch speed, because that'll get you the most flash-friendly aperture. And thus, the most flexibility from your small flash. While you're at it, dial your ASA down as low as it will go to get better quality, too. Now think about your lighting direction and angle. As opposed to the idea of fill flashing, on-camera, from any angle outside without regard to the sun's direction, using a strobe on a stand effectively gives you two lights to play with. You can balance. You can cross light, You can do both. You'll have more flexible (and consistent) results using this approach. When you just fill flash from on-camera, true, it does bring up the shadows. But while the flash adds detail it really misses out on the opportunity to improve the depth and quality of the light. So why not do both at the same time? Step one: Think of the sun as your main light source, and your strobe as a secondary light. You are not just getting rid of raccoon eyes now. You are working with two lights. You have flexibility. You might even have style. Choose your angle of attack. Maybe you have the sun behind you (on the left side) at a ~45-degree angle. Why would you have your fill on on camera when it might look better lighting from the upper right? On-camera flash limits you.

Avoid it if you can. Maybe you turn the angle around and shoot the subject in profile. Say he is facing to your right. You could have him looking into the sun, which is angled to come from slightly behind his face to provide rim light that is nice, but way too contrasty as is. Just move your strobe over to the left side, elevate it a little, and you have a cool-looking, two-light setup. That's exactly what I did for this quick portrait of the son of the exiled Shah of Iran, made for The Baltimore Sun:

Whatever the angle, the technique for balancing is the same. We are basing the exposure on the ambient this time, and bringing the flash up to fill shadows and/or provide light from another direction. Assuming a sunny ambient light level to balance, set your camera at the highest synch speed (i.e. lowest aperture) to provide a lower aperture and ease the burden on your flash. Now, get your base (ambient) exposure. We'll call it a 250th at f/11 at ASA 200 for the sake of argument. Now, with your strobe on manual and on a stand, set it to somewhere around a quarter to half power if you are working close. Maybe half to full power if the flash is further away. If you are not lighting a large area (and you usually are not) zoom the flash to a 70mm or 85mm lens angle to make it even more

powerful. Pop a test frame and eyeball it. If your flash-lit area is too bright, dial the flash down or move it back. If it is too dark, dial it up or move it forward. The thought process is the same whether you are balancing sunlight or starlight. (And when you think about it, sunlight is starlight, isn't it?) Just start with a good ambient exposure — in this case, exposing the stars — add a little flash to give detail where you want. In this case, the underside of a natural arch:

(Photo by Strobist reader Joe Stylos)

Since we are not exactly swimming in ambient light here, the starting point will be a little different. Instead of 1/250th of a sec (or 1/200th, whatever) to control the sun, we'd probably wanna start with our lens wide open and choose a pretty high ISO to get the fastest reasonable shutter speed for the night sky. Solve your most pressing variable first, then go from there. The process is the same. __________

The important thing to remember (and why I told you the angle stuff first) is that this is now a starting point to turn your outside "fill" strobe into a true, useful second light source. Experiment. I used to practice my outdoor lighting skills any time I was assigned to shoot a simple headshot, AKA a mugshot, for the paper. What you have to remember is that they don't know you could do a perfectly good job by just sticking them in the shade for 30 seconds and bolting. Muah-ha-ha, you are now my lighting model for 15 minutes... Outside? Play with fill light and angles. (You might want to grab something safe in the shade first just in case.) Inside? Set up a quick umbrella in a corner where one wall is your background and another is your fill card. I'd turn a mug shot into a head shot, which is just a more professional way to do it. I would get some good (low-pressure) experience with my lighting. And they'd look better in the paper. It's a win-win. And, contrary to what you might think, most people will be secretly flattered by the effort you are putting in to making a better photo of them. And one more thing. For you newspaper photogs, stop thinking of them as mug shots from this point forward. A reporter trained monkey can do a mug shot. Start shooting head shots. You'll improve your quality and get into a habit of using light effectively.

Lighting 101: Using Gels to Correct Light

(Photo by Strobist reader Siddarth Siva)

Some you may be starting to realize already, but I'll say it aloud: When lighting a photo it is not about absolute light levels. It's aboutrelative levels. You can adjust for just about any overall light level you have by simply changing the overall exposure on your camera. So that zeroes the "absolutes" out. It is the relative light levels that define the look of your photos. And for shorthand, we call this a "lighting ratio." I.e., what is the ratio of brightness between the highlights and the shadows? Guess what? Lighting color sort of works the same way. Only instead of adjusting the exposure, we can instead adjust the camera's white balance to zero out the color of a light source. For instance, if you were in a fluorescent room, you might balance on the "FL" white balance to make ambient light photos. Since FL lights are in fact green (mostly, but pretty variable these days) your camera would compensate by shifting the color balance about 30CC units of magenta. (That's the complimentary color of green. So if you used flash in that environment, and was "mixing" the balance with the ambient, your flash would appear … too magenta. Your camera is

balanced for FL, and there is a daylight-colored light source. Your flash. So that light would react to the color shift in a not great way. How do you fix this? You turn the flash's light green, like a fluorescent. And you do it with the special green "gel" (AKA "window green" pictured below:

What about those orange-tented tungsten (AKA, "incadescent") lights? What gel would they get? Hint: It's the other gel in the photo above… You get the picture—orange tungsten ambient light, you compensate in the camera by going to tungsten WB. And the camera adds blue to the image. So you need to make your flash orange to match. And you do that with a tungsten gel, also known as a CTO gel. (Color temperature orange.) They can also go the other direction (physically converting a tungsten source into daylight) by using a CTB (color temperature blue) gel. Simple to mount, you just tape or velcro them to the flash. Leave a little space to vent the heat from the tube:

Heck there are even commercial versions, complete with commonly used gels. But, as far as being able to make your light pretty much any color you want? Or multiple lights a mixture of colors? Are you starting to see lighting possibilities yet? __________

Oh, and Check This Out
It appears as though the photo up top brings our last two topics right into perfect example. It was shot by my friend Sid Siva in Dubai. He balanced his exposure by shooting wide open at a high ISO (to get a good shutter speed) and exposing for the street lights. Which looked extra cool when out of focus. Then he added a little light into the directors face with a small off-camera flash to bring his face back out of the shadows. But those lights in the back included tungstens, so he did the white balance swap-and-gel, too. Camera on TUNG WB, CTO gel on the flash. Bingo. Is it starting to make sense yet? Oh, and to get the cool, limited spot of light on filmmaker Mahmooud Kaabour's face, he used a small snoot to restrict the light. What's a snoot?

Oh, that's just one of several different types of lighting restrictors,which we'll be talking about next. (See? These cliffhangers are worse than Lost, right?) __________

Lighting 101: Snoots and Gobos and Grids

Now that you are getting comfortable with the idea of shooting a light into an umbrella or ceiling, creating the lighting ratio and being color correct, it's time to start stretching a little. Sometimes what makes a photo sing is not so much where the light is, but where it isn't. And, given that you already have a basic, off-camera strobe setup, you can make the gear you will need to restrict light for just a few pennies. Remember when we talked about putting the Velcro on the sides of your flash head? It holds gels fine, but you can also use it to attach lighting mods to your flash. (You don't have to permanently attach Velcro to your flash, either. There are removable Velcro "grippers" for mounting things.) One of my favorites is called a "gobo." Gobo is short for "goes between optics," as in something that goes between the light and your lens. Some people also call them cutters, or flags. Whatever you call them, they are there to partially block light.

To make a useful-sized GoBo, Cut a piece of still cardboard to make a rectangle about 4x8 inches. Stick some Velcro (the "hooks" side) at one end and at about a third of the way from the other end. This will allow you to attach it to the side of your flash either way so that you can choose how far it sticks out. I also cover mine with a layer of gaffer's tape. This is the cloth-backed tape that is widely used in the photo industry. It holds great and does not leave any residue. It is not duct tape. Not even close. They are not interchangeable. Now, you have a sort of "barn door" (really, that's what it's called) that can block the light from your flash in the direction that you choose. Say you are using your flash to side/backlight something. Your flash, being small and not-too-powerful, is just out of the camera frame. The Gobo could be stuck on the side of the strobe closest to you to keep light from flaring into your lens. You can also use one on each side of the flash to make light that spreads vertically, but not horizontally (or vice versa.) You can keep light off of a background this way, as you may be lighting it from another source. You can make them out of cardboard or you are into the DIY look. They just slide into the lid or back pocket of a Domke bag and weigh almost nothing. No

brainer.

If you want to restrict the light even more, you'll want a snoot. It is nothing more than a sort of tunnel for the light to go through that will restrict it is all directions except for the exact direction the strobe is pointed. Just shape the cardboard into a rectangular-shaped tube that will slide over your flash head. Make a few - 6", 8", 12" - the longer the tube, the tighter the beam of light. Now cover it in gaffer's tape to make it more durable and lighttight. (By the way, when you shoot with a snoot, set your flash on its most telephoto setting. No sense in wasting power by sending a wide beam of light just to block it with the snoot.) How much do snoots restrict the light? Let's do a test:

This is a flash fired against the wall (4 feet away) at the "85mm" zoom setting. Note the pattern of the light.

This is the same setup, with an 5" snoot on the flash. When doing a portrait, the aim of the snooted flash is obviously a bit critical. How can you tell where the beam will hit without a modeling lamp on your flash? Easy. You ask your subject, "Can you see the front of my flash through the tube from where you are sitting?" If they can, the light will be falling on their face. Do a test and tweak it as necessary using the back of your camera's display as a guide. __________

In the frame at the top of this page, I used a snoot to light the face of the CEO of Ciena, a digital fiber optics company. I liked the holes and the daylight that streamed through. But the blinds were light grey, and thus no contrast for the light holes if my main light hit the blinds. So I restricted it with a snoot. (You can read more about creating that particular shot here, where there's an example shot without the snoot, too.) On disadvantage to a snoot is that the fall-off area of the light's beam is not very elegant. It's kinda of abrupt. If you want a more elegant, gradient fall-off to the light beam, you'll want to use a grid spot instead of a snoot. Here's an example:

Remember our dancer shot from a few posts ago? The umbrella was on the

ground, acting like a fill (or secondary) light. The key (or "primary") light was a flash with a grid spot. In this case it was aHonl Speed Grid (in the 1/8" size). Grids are a little more expensive than snoots, and generally not worth DIY'ing. But they give beautiful gradients at the edges of the light. You can see how the edges of the key light gradate very nicely above. __________ So, restricted light. The takeaway from this page is that now we can have more precise light that we can sculpt. You know that cool shaft of light you like to exploit when you see it coming from a window or something? Now you can make it any time. This is a very useful style of light for cool portraits, but you have to be aware of your ambient level. Crank up the shutter speed for more drama, or open it up for more detail in the unlit areas. The choice—and control—is yours. For many beginners, this is a new technique that will open up loads of possibilities. Spend an evening experimenting with it at home to start to understand what it can do.

Lighting 101: Textural Lighting for Detail Shots

This is one technique I like to use when I am looking for one or two more photos to glean from an assignment.

Designers appreciate the flexibility of being able to use a well-done detail shot in a layout, and you will sometimes be surprised by how well they are used. This is especially the case when they have strong relevance to the story or are executed particularly well. The key is adding depth and texture to what may be a boring, twodimensional object. To do this, you'll be placing the item somewhere so that you can get the strobe to exectly the same height to let the hard light rake across your object. You can use a table, or you can simply set the item on a floor and place the flash on the floor a few feet away.

By far, your biggest variable will be the height of the flash to your object. Nail this variable down first. Little moves make big differences n the way a seemingly two-dimensional object expresses its true three-dimensionality. For that reason (and more flexibility) I sometimes like to use a table to get the subject I am shooting off of the ground (and place the flash on a nearby light stand. That way I can control the relative angle and height very precisely.

You'll be surprised at how much texture you can bring out in a "2-D" object this way. Move the flash away a little. You have power to burn - you are shooting with direct, hard light - so there is no sense in getting light fall-off if you do not want it. Use a warming gel to mimic late-day light if you wish. Place books strategically between your light and the objects to create interesting shadows. (If you do this, consider having the light come in from the direction of on of the corners of your frame. That makes for more interesting compositional lines.) Actually, I use this "single plane" kind of lighting for more three-dimensional objects, too. You can get more complex with it, adding multiple light sources and pieces of paper to diffuse the light:

As with anything else related to lighting, the only limit is your imagination and creativity. Are you a freelance editorial shooter? This table-top (or floor) lighting is a technique that can quickly quickly boost your income. Most assignments are billed on a day-rate-against-space basis, meaning you get paid more if they run more pictures. Page designerslove adding detail shots to layouts. You'll be surprised how often spending 5 minutes on making a nice one can net you another hundred bucks on the day.

Lighting 101: Cross Lighting

Cross lighting is nothing more than using two light sources that oppose each

other in their direction. I say light sources, instead of strobes, because It is important to remember that if you are photographing outdoors with one strobe, you really have two lights. Rather than just trying to do damage control on what the sun is doing to your subject, start to think in terms of using the sunlight as your main (or secondary) light. The photo above is of a fifth grader who, using herself as a human shield, saved this tree at her school when construction workers building a nearby parking lot were about to mistakenly bulldoze it. She was a hero in the story. And I wanted to visualize her that way in the photo, so I shot up at her from a low angle. To get a clean background, the sun had to be coming from the upper-back-camera-right direction. I could have very easily fill flashed her if I was just trying to undo bad sunlight. But if you are working with a small stand, it is just as easy to use your strobe more effectively. I placed the strobe on manual (at 1/2 power) up on a stand coming from the upper-camera-left, and had her face the strobe. Exposure was 1/250th, of course, to make life easier on the flash, with the corresponding aperture to properly expose the sky. Now, the strobe becomes the main light, and the sun becomes the rim light. Waaay better than on-camera fill flashing. This cross lighting scheme is pretty forgiving with respect to subject movement, too. As long as you are working on the quarter angles (roughly splitting the difference between the two light sources) you are going to be fine.

When I shoot high school basketball I like to cross light, too. I use two SB's, one at the top center of each set of bleachers, aimed in a cross pattern at the top of the key. Using them at 1/2 power with a 50mm throw will usually get you an honest, crisp-looking f/2.8 at ASA 800 from the mid-court line to the other basket. It can be helpful to use external battery packs for these strobes, as you are gonna be firing off a lot of half-power frames. AA's get eaten up pretty quickly this way. Plus, you'll be waiting between shots.

Lighting 101: Back Light as Main Light

When you are deciding how you are going to add light to a scene, don't forget to consider the idea of adding only back light. And try not to think of it as such. Learn to think "separation" light. Those of us in the newspaper biz need all of the help we can get when it

comes to repro. And using a separation light can really make a photo pop. Additionally, if the light is strong it will create shadows that will create leading lines into the direction of your light source. One caveat is that you have to hide your light from your camera. As mentioned before, one good techniques (especially in a darkened room) is to mount the flash backwards and turn the head around. This will let you use the recycle light as a guide to help keep some item in your frame between you and your flash. The shadows should tell you which performer I am using as a GoBo to block my flash. It's the guy in the middle. In the photo below, the hidden flash's location (behind the guy) is revealed by a red dot. You can also see that the shadows always point to the flash:

One other thing you should notice with this photo. This small, shoe-mount flash is about a hundred feet away from the kids rehearsing their end-of-show theatrical bow. These little strobes put out a lot more power than you might think, especially when working in low light conditions. As you get a little experience with your lighting, you will become less and less afraid of the dark. The dark is your friend. It is full sunlight that is hard to compete against with small flashes.

Lighting 101: Headshot in a Corner

As newspaper photographers, we shoot a lot of headshots. That's just the way it is. It has always been thus. While you can look at it as a mental vacation (really, a trained monkey could shoot a newspaper headshot) they can also be an opportunity to practice with light. Thing is, your subject probably does not know you could bang it off in about 30 seconds in some shade. So why not use the assignment as a low-pressure chance to work on your lighting skills? To that end, I offer the quick and easy, one-light corner headshot. The concept is simple, but it allows you the chance to play with ratios to see how they affect your photo. Exhibit "A," above, is actor Bruce Vilanch, in drag, prepping for his role as

Edna Turnblad in Hairspray. All you need for a headshot that is crisp and detailed enough to get bigger play is an umbrella'd strobe, a stand and a neutral corner. Not the boxing-type of neutral corner, but one with white or grey walls. If they are tan or some other warmer color, you can get away with that, too. But purple? Not so much. You're going to be using the side wall as a reflector, and the light will pick up the color of the wall. Now, back to the ratios. There are two ratios at play in this photo. The first will control how bright the background is. The ratio would be the flash-tosubject-distance:flash-to-background-distance. Simple English: if your strobe is much closer to the subject than it is to the background wall, you background will be darker.

The fill light for the headshot comes from a reflection off of the other wall of the corner. In this example, the strobe is at camera left, at a nice, safe, boring 45 degrees. At camera right is a wall. (The other wall that comprises the corner becomes our clean background.) So, the second ratio at play is that of flash-subject-distance:flash-reflectingwall-distance. In other words, the further your reflector wall is from the flash/subject combo, the darker the shadow side will be. How does this work in practice? Simple. For openers, you are shooting at the high synch speed of your camera (probably 1/200th or 1/250th) to minimize the ambient light in your photo. Dial up enough power on your flash to get a working aperture of f/5.6 or f/8. Start with 1/4 power on your flash at ISO 200 at a 4-foot light-to-subject distance and adjust from there. This will give you sharpness and keep room ambient from screwing you up. If you cannot kill the florescents (sigh, there are alwaysflorescents) you'll have to gel green and balance for them if the ambient is encroaching on your photo. Say that you start with the subject two feet from the side wall, with the flash three or four feet away (in an umbrella) and the background wall four feet behind him. Pop a test frame. Or better yet use your hand (placed where his head would be) to quicky get into the ballpark before your subject sits in his spot. I shoot my left hand a lot when testing light. Adjust your flash power until the subject (or your hand as a stand-in) is well exposed. Now, play. Wanna make the background lighter? Move the whole shootin match (subject and light) toward the back wall. Wanna make it darker? Move it away from the background wall. Same idea applies to the fill light. Move subject/strobe combo towards the side wall for lighter. Away for darker. It's pretty simple once you try it.

Your head shots will look good. And you will be gaining speed and confidence in your lighting skills.

Lighting 101: Lighting for Glasses

This one is gonna be quick and dirty. If you already know how to do a portrait without having to worry about reflections in peoples' glasses, just scroll down to the bottom and move on. But if glasses have been giving you a Devil of a time, this is gonna be one of those Homer Simpson "D'Oh!" moments. And if you are having trouble with it, don't feel bad. I did, too. The problem is that if you are going to the trouble to light someone, you are naturally inclined to have them face toward the light. Which is fine.

Unless they are wearing glasses.

To avoid refections in glasses, simply light from one side and have the person face the other. There is no need to be shooting all of the way in profile, either. A flattering, 3/4 angle (subject to camera) will work just fine. But honestly, you do not have to go even that far for your angle. Just a smidge will work fine. The important thing is to light him slightly from one side and have him look slightly toward the others. What if you have more than one person in the photo? No problem. The principle still works. Let's try it with an 11-person group shot:

Bam. Look at that. Not a shiner in the bunch. And four of them are wearing glasses. And I knew I was okay before I tool my first test shot. Light is coming from camera left — speedlights in two big umbrellas. But look at my group. All five(!) people wearing glasses are standing (or sitting) on the left. And facing slightly right. Are there still reflections? Yep. But they are falling harmlessly out into space at far camera right. (For the record, there is a second flash at back camera right adding that splash of rim light.) Think of the light hitting the glasses as a pool ball. It's going to reflect off of the glasses, no matter what. The thing is to position the glasses so that the angle is such that the light reflects off into space. Doesn't really matter where. Just not towards your camera. If the subject is looking away from the light, that's a piece of cake. That's all there is to it. __________

A little fun story: There are other ways to do this, too. Some more complicated. Some ... less elegant.

I read about a wedding photographer in China who has everyone who is wearing glasses take them off and replace them with one of the sets of glasses out of the box he brings. Only he has removed all of the glass from those frames. Clever as hell, actually. But I'd think you'd want to be pretty early in that line rather than last. Because I can't imagine that the empty frames are all that great looking...

Lighting 101: Long-Throw Hard Light

Here's another little trick, and one more lighting technique example before we move on to your learning how to "reverse engineer" others' light. And to get you started thinking that way, I am going to guide you through reverse engineering this photo. For lack of a better term, I am going to call this technique "long-throw hard light." This photo, like the backlit kids taking a bow onstage, is a good example of just what kind of a working distance you can acheive with a small shoe-mount flash. The light in this case was a Nikon SB-28 on a stand, at full power, 85mm throw, about a 80-100 feet from the budding gymnasts. I was working at ASA 800 but the light makes the photo crisp and gives the

illusion of a lower ASA, in my opinion at least. This was also shot with an early Nikon D1, which did not do nearly as well with high ASA's as do today's bodies. OK, let's break down the light as we explain the technique. Look at the picture. Was the light on the right or the left? It was to my left, as the shadow of the obscurred, back center gymnast on the right side of the background should show you. Was the light hard or soft? Well, you already know that. Hard. As it darn well had better be if you are throwing a shoe-mount flash 100 feet. Imagine how tiny that actual light source looks at that distance. That's how hard the light will appear to the subject. What was my lighting ratio? The tonal value of the shadows of the gymnasts on the wall, compared to the lit portion of the wall, should clue you into the fact that I was working my ambient about 1 1/2 stops below the strobe. "So, gyms are not daylight-lit," you say. No, they are not. Not where I live, anyway. They are usually icky sodium vapor color. The closest I could get my flash was to gel for florescents on the flash, dial it in on the camera, and dial the white balance compensation down to -1 (a bit warmer) to try to "spackle over" the inconsistencies a bit. If I had missed it badly, where would you see it? If you said the color of the (ambient-lit) shadows on the walls, brownie points for you. But the gymnasts would have looked a little bit hinky on the shadow side, too. What about the gymnasts in the foreground? They are closer to the flash, yet they are not as brightly lit. What gives? Here's where the tight beam spread of the 85mm setting on the SB-28 pays off

for a second time. Because it has a controlled beam spread, I was able to "feather" the light, or aim it a few degrees high. This put the kids on the balance beam in the main path of the light and the kids in front in the falloff, bottom portion of the beam. Why did I do it? Purely sobjective choice. I wanted to emphasize the kids on the beam, instead of the ones in the foreground. They would have been brighter than the beam kids had I not feathered. The success of this photo is not the final product (I like it, but it is not the end all) but rather the difference in what the photo would have looked like really bad - if I had shot available light in the dark, cavernous gym. No on-camera lighting technique could have helped much, either.

Lighting 101: Strobe/Ambient Balance — A Shorthand Way of Thinking

Okay, so by now you should have a decent understanding of how you can balance flash flash with ambient light. In this segment, we'll give that process a little shorthand language to help you understand other photographers when they talk about the way the lit a photo. Here, I want to accomplish two things:

1. To set you up with a way of quickly understanding and/or communicating how a given photo was balanced, and 2. To not have to repeat full, detailed number-by-number walk-throughs on this process every time we mix flash and ambient. Which is just about every lit photo we shoot. __________

First, a little confession. Lots of times when I am explaining to someone how a photo was lit, they will want to know everything -- shutter speed, ISO, aperture, flash power settings, etc. I have to be honest with you -- most of the time I have no idea what those numbers were. It is not that I forgot them. It's just that I didn't care enough about them when I was making the photo to remember them, so they never registered. No kidding, if you ask a professional PJ, "What's your favorite F/stop?" He or she will know you are talking about the amateurs that sidle up to us at a football game. We are really not that numbers oriented. Truth be told, I don't think in terms of absolute F/stops and shutter speeds. They are not what is important. It's the relationship between the different light levels that is important. Take the photo of my friend Shadi, above. It was shot on a hazy, colorless afternoon in Dubai. Here was the process to make this photo:

1. Find the exposure for the ambient. (That's easy - just grab a shot on auto or zero out a manual exposure.) 2. On manual mode, set the camera to underexpose the scene by two stops. 3. Set the camera to tungsten WB, to shift everything from dark grey to dark

blue. 4. Light Shadi from the front with a flash with a CTO gel (plus an additional 1/4 CTO gel for extra warmth.) 5. Rim light him (from behind, low) with two ungelled flashes, at about two stops down compared to the main flash. That is the actual relative exposure level hitting Shadi, already accounting for the fact that that the flashes were ungelled. (The gel eats light from the key flash. So the rims might have actually been set 3 to 3 1/2 stops down in terms of absolute power settings.) __________

If I were talking to another pro about this photo, I would likely just say this: "We dropped the ambient two stops, shot on tungsten, CTO'd the key light (plus an extra quarter cut) and left the rim lights ungelled, about two stops below the main." That sentence tells me everything I need to know, because it starts with an assumed reference: They properly exposed key light. What were the exposure settings? Can't remember, and don't care. It's just not that important. What is important is the relationship between the flash exposure and the ambient exposure: About two stops. And, just to make things more complex, the fact that we did the tungsten-ambient shift, overgelled the key and left the rims straight. Understanding this shorthand way of thinking drills into your head that it is the relationships between the lights that matter -- not the absolute settings. There are two power ratios to think about here: The relationship between the key light and the ambient, and the relationship between the key light and the fill (and/or background) flashes.

Given that our first example was a little complex, lets walk through some familiar photos, thinking and talking in shorthand about the balance.

"Sodium vapor ambient. Shot on daylight, underexposed the wind tunnel by 1 2/3 stops, bare flash behind the fan blades about a stop hot." So, this tells us that the reference point for the exposure was actuallybetween the exposures for the flash and the ambient. This photo is

underexposed by 1 2/3 stops for the ambient, and the flashed area is one stop overexposed. My ambient is 1 2/3 stops down -- on the wrong color balance -- and my flash is a stop overexposed. This photo should really suck, right? Honestly, if one area of the frame were "correctly" exposed, it would not be as interesting. The important thing is that I chose these relative brightness levels, without being chained to my camera's ambient meter or the "proper value" of some incident flash meter. (You can read more about this photo, including those unimportant f/stops and shutter speeds, here.) __________

Let's try it again:

"Shot on daylight setting in a tungsten room. Exposed for the flash under the orange bowl on Chris' face and dropped the room by a stop and a half." What's my reference point? The flash's exposure on Chris's face. I put the flash under the bowl on low power, shot a couple of frames until I got the aperture right. (Easier than adjusting that flash.) And then dialed in the shutter to set the ambient to a stop-and-a-half down.

Technically, I supposed I should have shot in tungsten, but why get rid of all of that surreal color? Besides, have you seen Chris Hurtt's natural skin tone at midnight in a bar in a Dubai hotel? I'm just sayin'. Thinking about your flash and ambient in terms of their relative (as opposed to absolute) values not only makes you quicker at reverse engineering photos, but makes you quicker at pre-visualizing and creating them, too. __________

Sometimes you are working so far above the ambient that it is not a component of the exposure at all. Yes, you need to communicate that. But given that you are far enough above the ambient for it not to be an issue it really doesn't matter if you are five stops over, or twelve:

"We killed the ambient; umbrella at camera left, gobo'd to control the reflection on the locker; ring light fill about two stops down." What was the ISO? The f/stop? The shutter speed? The flash's power settings?

Don't remember, don't care. Because all you need to know to reproduce that look is in the short description above. And if you start thinking about your photos this way, you'll find that the lighting design comes easier and easier. (More on this assignment here.) __________

Okay, one more:

"Exposed for flashes in chopper -- one in front cabin, two in back -- and dropped the ambient by three stops." That is all there is to it, and tells you everything you need to know about lighting and exposing photo. Again, the absolute settings do not really matter, from a reverse-engineering point of view. They are yours to choose based on what depth of field (or rotor-stopping shutter speed) you want. (More on this assignment here.) __________

So, does this stuff make sense? It had better, because you are going to be seeing a lot more of this lingo in the future around here.

Don't worry, it is not like the posts are going to be three sentences long from here on out. (You wish...) There is still a lot of stuff to think about when you are creating and lighting a photo. It's just that we do not really need to reinvent that wheel any more. Instead, I'll just give you the info in a way that helps you to think on your feet better and link to this page for the newbs. I realize that the vast majority of the people who read this site are amateurs. But as many times as we'll be going through this process, we should start talking and thinking like pros. And if you just dropped in and this is all Greek to you, definitely give the Balancing Flash and Ambient posts another read...

Reverse Engineering Other Shooters' Light

So, you've worked your way through most of Lighting 101 (seriously, you're in the home stretch) and you are hopefully starting to get a grasp of basic photographic lighting. You might not think you are an expert, but you also bring a lifetime of subconscious light analyzing experience to the party. When you see someone

standing out in the sun, you pretty much know where the sunlight is coming from just by instantly processing the way the surfaces on their body and face are reacting to the light. You know whether it is a cloudy day, or a sunny one, or noon, or late evening or whatever. So really, you are reverse-engineering light all of the time. In this same way, you can learn a lot about how a photograph was lit just by looking at it. That's because light has to obey the laws of physics. You cannot hide how you lit something. Everything about the light — style, color, direction, size, beam spread, etc., — is on display for any shooter with the willingness to figure out. It may take a little effort at first, but you'll get used to it. And stick to fairly simple photos at first, or just try to reverse-engineer the main (or "key") light in the frame. True, sometimes photos will be composites or heavily Photoshopped and the light won't make sense. But don't feel bad, as that is likely more of a bad reflection on the photographer who shot the photo than on your engineering skills.

Sometimes when you are creating light you want to have a logic to it. That is to say, you are creating light that could have existed and makes sense. That's

the case in the fencing photo, above. But sometimes you can go off the beaten path and create light that has no real logic but just looks cool, or theatrical or even ethereal:

The key light in those two photos is the same — a speedlight stuck in a large paper Japanese lantern and suspended overhead by fishing line. But the fencer light is believable and logical and the soprano in the woods is more theatrical. I.e., that light is probably not really going to exist in the woods at night. Either way, most of the time you should be able to analyze and figure out the light that has been used by others. Just look at it and ask questions. Here are some starters.

Q: What direction is the light coming from? A: The shadows will tell you.

Q: Were there multiple sources? A: (Okay, this one is pretty easy.) If the light appears to be coming from multiple places and/or directions, yeah, probably multiple sources. As you progress further into lighting, you'll likely become interested in using multiple lights.

Q: Is the light falling over a small, restricted area? A: Suspect a snoot, or a grid.

Q: What is the easiest way to check the style of the front light in a portrait? A: Reflections in the subject's eyes will tell you a lot about the frontal

lighting:

Looking at photos can intuitively tell you other things, too. Q: Was the light nearby? A: Check how fast it falls off as it travels across the subject. Falls off fast? Probably pretty close. Falls off slowly or not at all? Probably further away. Q: Do the highlights transition smoothly to the shadows? A: It was probably a soft light source. Hard transitions signal harder light sources.

Q: Is that light strobe or continuous? A: Trick question. Unless there is movement over time involved, you can't tell. Light is light. And you'll learn to use that to your advantage. For instance, in the photo above (which was taken in a nearly pitch-black room) there are six light sources: a flash on his face, another filling the entire scene and two in the rafters bouncing off of the wooden ceiling. The other two are the fire and the red-hot metal he is working on. Those count, too.

Q: Whoa, how did they get that overcast sky so neon blue? A: Set the camera balance to tungsten, which renders the formerly neutral clouds blue. Underexpose the sky (to, say, a stop below medium grey) for

more of an effect. Then, CTO-gel the flash lighting your subject to render the light hitting it as white and you have the effect. Boom, instant moody atmosphere. There are no secrets when it comes to light. Only physics. And as for the light bulb image above, it was done completely in-camera — no Photoshop. If you want to take a little side trip and see how it was done, check out the On Assignment post on this image,here. (It will open in a new window, so you can close it and get back to Lighting 101 when you wish.)

Lighting 101: Pre-Visualizing Your Light

The big problem with flash is that for many photographers it is a leap of faith. It happens so fast you can't really see it — or what it's doing. Continuous light is so much more comfortable, because we can observe it real-time. One workaround for this is to use a big, heavy expensive flash with a "modeling" light built in. The modeling light mimics the much more powerful flash (same location as the attached flash) and shows you what the flash will illuminate, and how. I am going to try to talk you out of that, to start. Why? Because flashes with modeling lights are bigger and more expensive. And either they have to plug into the wall or they need pretty heavy batteries.

And besides, with a little experimenting you'll find you don't need that crutch of a modeling light. Here's why. You know what hard light looks like. Sunny day. You know what soft light looks like. Cloudy day. You already have a lot more intuition about light than you think. You just have to hone it a little, as we talked about in the last post about reverse-engineering others' lighting. It's the same thing; we are just approaching it from the opposite direction. You are trying to visualize what your light will look like (i.e., what it will illuminate) before the fact, not after. You'll want to know things like, a) where will the light fall, and b) will there be reflections? Reflections are pretty easy. Light works like a pool shot. Light will reflect off of a subject at the same angle (but in opposite direction) that it struck. That is why we learned to light eyeglass wearers at an oblique angle. The reflections are still there. They are just diverted to bounce harmlessly away from the camera viewing angle. You can also pop the flash and "eyeball" the scene - especially shiny or glass areas - to check for reflections, too. Just make sure you are looking from the same position from which you will be shooting. It is easier than you think. Try it. Now, where will the light fall? What will be illuminated? That one is different, and is the main reason most people use modeling lights. And there is a really easy workaround to this question. You are already used to walking around a looking at your scene from a few different points of view to choose your camera angle. (You should be, anyway.)

You need to get in the habit of doing this with your light, too. A good time to do it is while you are setting up your lights. Simply view the subject from the position of your light. When you are looking at the scene from your light's position, you see exactly what the light will see. Makes sense, right? And with a little practice, this will eliminate your need for a modeling light. It is a very fast procedure. Especially if you are folding the process into that of setting up the lights. I know it may sound a little weird. But just try it.

Lighting 101: It's Not (All) About Flash

Guess what? You made it all the way through Lighting 101. This is the last lesson. And you are probably a little stoked about your new-found skills. You might even already be playing with your starter kit. (If not, you are totally ready to.) So I am going to suggest something to you that may sound a little strange: It's not about flash.

Photo-graphy is, literally, writing with light. That's what we do. And you have just enough flash and lighting knowledge right now to be pretty dangerous. Because your photos are going to look better, more polished, more professional, etc. But don't make your your photography all about off-camera flash — or even all about light. It's also about content and moment and emotion and gesture and setting and, yes, light, But the point is that it is notall about light. And certainly, it's not all about flash. I say this because since starting Strobist in 2006 I have seen literally thousands of talented (and otherwise perfectly normal) photographers become infatuated with their newfound lighting skills to the point where all they thought about was the light. So off-camera flash is all they are paying attention to. Which is not good. Lighting is a tool. And you are learning how to use it. At this point, you already have more education and training than the average photographer. And that's great. But it is important to make your lighting knowledge light additive to your previous existence as a photographer and not a substitute for all of those other cool skills you used to bring to the table. In other words, use your new and growing skills to nurture your own existing skills as a photographer. Don't let lighting take over and subsume your creative vision. The very last thing I want to do is to kill that individuality you had before you got here. Just let lighting make it better. __________

Also, take time to just look at light. I mean real, ambient light. Daylight. Industrial light. Blue hour light. Golden hour light. All kinds of light. Discover

it. Study it. Wallow in it. And make sure you keep shooting with natural light, too. The photo at the top of this page, taken on my first night in Havana, is natural light. But I saw (and continue to see) it differently because I am a lighting photographer. There's a base-fill of blue-hour evening light, a couple of stops down. And the unseen hidden street light (at upper back right if that wall wasn't there) is very warm. And it's dominant over the blue — as far as it reaches anyway. The the fluorescents coming from inside the building at left are just as rich and green as you'd expect fluorescents to be. And if you were creating this light (which you'll soon be able to do with a little practice) hopefully you'd have the sense and good grace not to "fix" those fluorescent lights. The green is beautiful in this context. The palette in this picture works because it could literally be a painter's palette — some blue paint, some yellow, and a section of the two mixed together to make a goopy green. And that's the point of observing and respecting and discovering beautiful light. Because any light you can see, or imagine, or remember can be created (or re-created) with flash. And that's freakin' awesome.

Lighting 102: Introduction
Welcome to Lighting 102.

If you were around for last summer's Lighting Boot Camp, you will find this a completely different experience. Boot Camp went for the instant gratification of a quickie series of assignments. L102 is designed to be a comprehensive course that starts from square one and is designed to build a broader and organic understanding of how to control light. There will be full assignments and small exercises. But where Boot Camp skipped straight to dessert, this time we'll eat our veggies first.

We will start by exploring the different ways in which light can be controlled. Along the way we will be doing exercises to build a strong understanding of each of those variables. As we start to get some of the control factors under out belt, there will be assignments that make use of what we have learned so far. With each new subject, exercise and assignment, there will be discussion threads created on Flickr so you can easily ask and answer questions. Photo classes typically have class review sessions, where the students just stick their assignments up on the wall and learn from each other. This one will be no different, except for the class size and the far-flung nature of the students. And the more people participate, the more valuable the experience will be. And if you are reading this post sometime much later than June 4th, 2007, no worries. All of the above will be archived it in such a way as to make it easy to start whenever you want and work at your own pace. You may catch up to us, or you may not. Makes no difference. You'll still have access to the course material and the students' photos will be archived. Like most courses, you will get out of this exactly what you put into it. You are not required to do anything. There are no grades. There will be no tests. I will only make you one promise: If you study the lessons, do the exercises and complete the assignments, you will build a stronger understanding of how to control light. Some of you are already doing some fantastic lighting work. You guys may find the beginnings of this class a little boring and/or remedial. But I am not structuring this course to make a few Rock Stars that much better. This class is designed so anyone, at any experience level, will be able to learn to light better.

Okay, let me back up on that just a bit. You'll want to already be comfy with exposure, as in f-stops and shutter speeds and such. Because we will be leaving your TTL flash comfort zone behind in search of more creative control. That said, let's get started.

First Things First: Be Willing to Change Your Thinking
The first goal is for you to be open to thinking about light in a different way. Depending on whether you are experienced at using flash or a rank beginner, this will mean one of two things. If you are an old hand at this stuff, be willing to learn to approach it from another different direction. No one is asking you to forget what you know, or to abandon your tried-and-true techniques. But looking at a well-known task from a different angle can serve to strengthen your understanding of it. If you are a total newb, your job is a little more difficult: You'll need to put aside any fears you have of learning about a subject as nebulous and intimidating as lighting. We will be breaking this down into little chunks that are easily digestible. And you'll have many, many people who will be able to answer your questions. All I ask is that you go into this process with the confidence that you can absolutely learn this stuff. Because you can. Here's a little secret: There are only a few things you can do to control light. Once you learn those - and learn them well - you are off to the races. Conversely, I find it to be an amazing thing that so few controls can yield such an huge variety of visual styles for lighting. When I wrote Lighting 101, it was pretty much created on the fly. I was a newspaper shooter with a decent grasp of a few lighting principles and tricks,

and I wanted to share them. Fast forward a year or so, and I am a completely changed photographer. That's the biggest advantage of being in the position of running a lighting blog: It tends to make you to think about light pretty much non-stop. And you also find yourself at a vortex of a continuous stream of ideas being flung at you by readers. Every day I get new threads and emails pointing me to neat photos, ideas and tecchniques. That rocks. And any long-time pro will tell you that ideas are the valuable commodity in this business. I can easily teach you lighting techniques. But what do you do with them after you learn them? That's the real trick. The goal is to get you to the point where your only limitation is your imagination. If you can visualize a look that can be created with light, you can almost certainly achieve it. But that assumes that you can visualize it to begin with. Once you learn the techniques, some of you will be limited by them - or to merely reproducing them and other techniques that are demonstrated by other photographers. But some among you will find that having the techniques under your belt will free you so that you are capable of doing just about anything you want to do with light. I do not spend a lot of time dissecting technique when I shoot. I don't think of light in terms of f-stops and shutter speeds any more. Lighting ratios are gone, too. Inverse square rule - never much fun to begin with - is history. Now, I think of light in the same way that I think about music: Genre. Style. Volume. Ensemble. Mood. Or sometimes I think of light in terms more like food: Flavor, spice. complexity, simplicity. Do I follow the recipe, or do I ditch it and improvise?

Food, actually, is a very good analogy to light. Science tells us that we can only taste five things: Sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami. Don't believe me? Check out the Wikipedia pagefor more info. (And I didn't know what "umami" was, either.) Yet, even with only those five tastes, the possibilities are endless. And the concept of food and cooking still captivates millions - billions - of us. How many magazines, books, TV shows, etc., are devoted to food? How many restaurants are there? How many years are spent in search of the perfect BarB-Que? The perfect red wine? Here's the analogy: Try as I might, I cannot come up with more than seven things you can do to light. Seven simple little controls. Each with its own effect. Each with associated advantages and disadvantages. Each infinitely variable. You learn those seven controls, and you have the Rosetta Stone. You speak the language. You get so comfortable with them as to be able to manipulate them effortlessly, and lighting becomes merely another method of creative expression. And that's the real goal. Each of the seven controls is very simple in both concept and execution. We will discuss each one at length, discuss them in Flickr threads and do exercises to drive the concepts home. We'll do assignments throughout the process that incorporate what we have learned so far. By the time we get through all seven controls, they'll seem like old friends.

Do you drive a car? Or maybe ride a bike? Can you walk? If so, you are clearly capable of calculating and controlling a simultaneous stream of variables. Lighting is way easier than any of those activities when you think about it. So for today, your only assignment is to clear your mind of any fear you may have associated with learning to light. You can get this stuff. Only a jerk would assign homework on the first day of class. But if you do want to learn more (or review) I have moved all of the L101 posts and the On Assignments to drop-down menus on the sidebar. They will be good references throughout the course, and now you can get to any individual post in one click. As we get to concepts that also are covered in the book Light: Science & Magic, I will be referencing sections you may wish to review. So if you are stuck on a point, this should help you to get past it. And if that doesn't work, there's always those couple of thousand other photogs in the Flickr threads to ask.

L102: Light Controls Overview
Today, we'll run through the various lighting controls to give you some context for later. If these are all old hat, you may be in for more than you think. While they may sound simple to some of the more seasoned readers, I am discovering new techniques all of the time simply by studying these controls on a one-byone basis. And I expect to learn a lot just by going through this process myself. Each control has a range of possibilities, and offers both advantages and disadvantages that can be exploited or avoided for a given subject.

Lighting Controls Overview
1. Varying the Position Changing the angle of your light position is what will allow your flash to define the three-dimensional shape of your subject. This is where on-camera flash fails us. It illuminates, but does not reveal shape. Getting your light off of the camera is the most basic control, so it is our first of the seven. In addition to varying the angle of your light source, you can also dramatically change the effect of your light by varying the distance to the subject. In particular, altering the distance of the light to the subject as it relates to the distance from the light to the background.

2. Varying the Apparent Size of the Light Source Note that I said "apparent." In photography, size does not matter. Apparent size matters. How a subject sees your light source will determine many things. Size of light source can be altered by reflection off of a diffuse surface, or transmission through a translucent material. In addition to changing the apparent size of the light source, this will lower the intensity per square inch. This, in turn, will alter the way your light interacts with your subject. We also will spend some time in this section talking about how the various surface properties of your subject come into play with your light source, and how to exploit those variables.

3. Altering the Relative Intensity This is about balancing light - with the ambient, other strobes, lightning, glowing swamp gases, whatever. It is not about the light level. That is easily compensated for by your exposure settings. The magic is in the relative light levels, and where you place your

exposure settings with respect to your various light intensities. This is a sticking point for a lot of people, so we are gonna hit it hard.

4. Restricting Light Even more important than where your light goes is where it does not go. We'll be using various light restricting tools and exploring their effects in a methodical way. Snoots, grids, gobos, cookies, (man-made and natural, oatmeal and chocolate chip) beam-width adjustment, feathering - it's all good. And we'll be hitting each one in turn.

5. Refraction and Reflection You do it without thinking about it every time you zoom your flash. That little fresnel lens in the front bends your light to suit your mood. Or at least your lens. But there are other ways to bend light, and we will be exploring them. Water, glass, mirrors, the extreme gravity around a black hole - whatever it takes.

6. Altering the Color We're talking gels, gels, gels and more gels. Sure, white light is clean and predictable, but you have a whole color spectrum to play with. We'll make sure we get the basic color correction stuff in. But we'll also be looking at altering light color to develop a theme in a photo. There are subtle things you can do, and not-so-subtle things. Most people are about as subtle as a ball-peen hammer when they start out with gels. But, just as the vinophiles will tell you, the real fun is in the slight variations. Layering colors from a given family, complimentary color cross lighting, deliberate in-camera color balance shifting and more.

If you do not have a Rosco or Lee sample pack, beg borrow or steal one. And if you have a good source for said sample packs, please sound off in the comments. Especially out-of-US sources. I never, ever turn down a sample pack. Ever. Go ahead. Offer me one and try me.

7. Time Flash is impossibly brief, but continuous light is variable with respect to time duration. This gives us another creative lever to exploit. Yes, light is light. But elapsed time adds a fourth dimension to a threedimensional world, and offers results that simply cannot happen in a single instant.

_________________________________________ So, there you go. Seven straightforward concepts that together yield a world of possibilities. We will explore them, dissect them, discuss them, occasionally curse them and finally get to know them on an instinctive level. That accomplished, the goal will be to control them without letting them distract us from more creative thoughts. When you tie your shoes, you do not consume mindshare by remembering that the little bunny has to go around both trees before it hops into its hole. (Can you tell I have kids?) You just tie your shoes while you are thinking about more important things. That's how you want to be when you position your lights, for example. I have noticed a lot of questions popping up in the comments and theL102

thread on Flickr. So before we dive into "position," I will answer as many questions as is practical in the next L102 post, to minimize confusion going forward. If you have a question, try to stick it in the L102 thread in the next few days. I'll go through and answer as many as I can, assuming they have not been answered by someone else. FYI, I am teaching for the rest of the week at the Defense Information School at Ft. Meade in Maryland. It is put on by the US Department of Defense and Nikon. I have three days with a hand-picked class of six military photographers to teach an intensive course on location lighting. With such a luxurious amount off time and such a small class, I am chomping at the bit to get started. That's right folks, join the Army and learn to light. ("Just sign on the dotted line, son, and those SB-800's are yours...") Following that, I am headed down south with my family for a week to see my folks in greater metropolitan Umatilla, Florida. But I have some interesting stuff in the hopper all ready to go during my so-called vacation. And two more big announcements when I get back

L102: You Got Questions, We Got Answers
Thanks for the questions, guys. It is the most efficient way I know to hit all of the things I forgot to explain in the first place. Let's get them out of the way so we can get this L102 party started. Regarding the suggestions as to (a) where to get the gels, and (b) the admonitions to actually buy them so as to not mooch off of the company, I totally agree. You should pony up for a full sheet of CTO and a sheet of window green. These are the tungsten and fluorescent conversion gels. You will use these A LOT. But, for speedlights, it is hard to justify buying many more. So just ask for a sample pack at every opportunity, and you should be

well-covered. What I'd like to see: A sample pack that had 10 each of CTO and Window Green, 5 each of CTB, 1/2 CTB, 1/4 CTB, 1/2 CTO, 1/4 CTO, 1-stop ND, and a coupla reds for $15 each. Slightly bigger than the current sample packs would be great. They'd make money and we'd be gellin' in style. There was a suggestion that people shoot their setups on the photo uploads for the assignments. I totally agree with that, if you can remember to do it. Not being without sin in this area, I cannot really insist on it...

Q: Will I be picking example reader submissions to talk about after the fact? A: Sure will. Probably three or so from each exercise/assignment.

Q: Could you add a Lighting 102 link to the top right side menu of the Strobist homepage? A: Yep. It'll be up as of the first lighting control post, which will be next in the series.

Q: Should I do Lighting 101 first? A: That will always be a good reference/foundation. But L102 will be a far more comprehensive approach. I will be referencing relevant posts in L101 as we go along.

Q: How often do new posts (lessons) go up for it? Once a week? A: That will roughly be the schedule. We'll need time for stuff to sink in, for people to see the latest post, and for exercises to be done. And also, for me to create the posts/exercises while also running the rest of the blog, shooting

for The Sun and occasionally sleeping. The exercises will be quick hits, completed from week to week. But the assignments will be more involved. You'll have a minimum of two weeks to complete each assignment. I'll get into a rhythm of posting L102's on or near Mondays. But because of the vagaries of my job at The Sun, that is more of a goal than a promise. (Could be Sunday or Tuesday, for instance.)

Q: I only see one thread for the Lighting 102 discussions. Will there be separate threads for each section? A: Oh, yeah. Can you imagine all of the L102 discussion compressed into one thread? Yikes. I will be setting up a separate thread for each discussion, exercise and assignment.

Q: (I am) attempting to participate without a hot shoe or any means (that I know of...if there are ways to manually control off-camera flash without hooking it up to my camera directly, please let a newbie know) of off-camera flash....ergo, lamps. Well the principles will still be the same? A: Uh, yeah... somewhat. But you'll miss out on a lot. If you were learning how to SCUBA dive, you'd want a mask...

Q: I have a new monolight kit (200ws each so small) that I want to get comfortable using, so I think I'll try the sam exercises with them as well. A: That should work just fine.

Q:I would like to create videos of the exercises/assignments and post them on YouTube. Is this okay? A: It is more than okay. I think it is a great idea. We are visual animals. Monkey see, monkey do. I will be happy to link to the good ones and archive

them so that others may benefit from your efforts. FWIW, the YouTube videos that are linked here tend to get about 10,000 views over the first couple of weeks. Which always helps if you are looking for exposures. And if you are really good, I have a script I'd like to share with you...

Q: I would like to blog about my progress in Lighting 102. Is this cool? A: Absolutely not! (Kidding.) Of course it's cool. In fact, I would encourage it. In a broader sense, I think anyone who is into photography should be blogging. It's free, creative, visual - all those things shooters like. Couldn't be easier, really. Heck, I helped my dad start up a blog this afternoon, and he's 62. I recommend Google's blogging platform, blogger.com. It may not be the spiffiest platform out there, but it is pretty darn good and getting better each day. Besides, with Google owning it, it'll probably be around in five years. A year ago, I started a blogspot blog just to fart around with lighting ideas and look what has happened. You really never know. And I have never paid a penny for bandwidth, or anything associated with this site. Way cool. Besides, blogging steadily about this process will mean you'll be more likely to stick to it. Kinda like telling your coworkers you are starting the Atkins Diet. For the 6th time this year.

Lighting 102: Unit 1.1 - Position (Angle)

Summary: Lighting angle reveals form in a threedimensional object. To see how light from a particular angle will affect your subject, view the subject from the position of the light.

_______________________ We live in a world of off-axis light. The sun does not stay right behind us. Our lighting fixtures at home illuminate us from above and other various angles. And we are constantly exposed to imagery - both still and moving - that makes use of very sophisticated off-camera lighting techniques. Yet so many photographers, when they take the time to compose and illuminate their photos, settle for the bland, flat, on-axis (i.e., on-camera) light. Because that is the path of least resistance. The biggest failing of on-camera flash is that the light, which comes from a point very near to the camera's optical axis, does not have the ability to reveal the three-dimensional quality of the subject. Granted, most flashes can be tilted to bounce the light off of walls or ceilings while still attached to the camera. But those are very limited choices out of a wide variety of lighting angles available to the off-camera lighting designer. For the purposes of this discussion we'll think in terms of only hard, bare light from a typical electronic flash. (No worries, we'll be softening it up soon.) But the idea at this point is not to create flattering light for a subject, but to explore the way off-axis light reveals and defines an object. The first thing that you have to consider when visualizing (or pre-visualizing) the effects of off-axis light is to remember that there are two points of view in play. The first is that of your camera, which defines what you will be able to see in the photograph. But just as important is the second, which is the point of view of your primary light source. What your light can see will define what is lit in your photo. If your light cannot see it, it will not be directly lit. The ability to visualize the difference between these two points of view is the key to understanding how changing your light position will alter the way your subject appears.

Look, You Already Know This Stuff.
As we start this process, it is important to begin to merge the way you think about continuous light and the way you think about flash. I really cannot overstate the importance of learning to think of strobe the same way you think of continuous light. Why? Because you are already a seasoned pro at dealing with continuous light. You experience it and react to it all of the time. You see a shadow and instinctively know where the light came from. You know by the edges of the shadow whether the light was hard or soft. If you can learn to think about flash as a very bright, continuous light source, you will be able to make use of all of your experience with light that you have been subconsciously building for your entire life. Thinking of a flash as a very bright continuous light source is not so easy for some people. But it will get you past the math-anxiety-type fears you may have about learning how to light. Heck, even a little mouse munching on lunch in a field knows it had better haul butt when it is suddenly darkened by a shadow. It very well could be an approaching hawk. And the mouse likely knows which way to run when the shadow appears if it has a situational awareness of the lighting environment it is in. Here is simple exercise that will improve your light visualization skills. Stand in front of a mirror, holding a (lit) table lamp in one hand. Move the light around so that it falls on your face from a series of angles and observe the results. Yeah, you might feel (and look) a little goofy doing this. Oh, and you might want to have a good response ready for when your significant other pops in and gives you one off those "What the...?" looks, too. But I can vouch for the fact that it works very efficiently to train your eye to light.

Reverse Engineer Photos to Sharpen Your Perception of Light
Let's see what we can tell about the light in this photo just from studying the shadow:

1. Well, right off of the bat we know that the light is coming from camera right, because the shadow goes to camera left. (Don't get cocky. The mouse could have figured that out.) 2. We know the light is hard because the shadow edge is hard. (We're not there yet, but you know that info all the same.) 3. We know the light is slightly higher than the subject because the shadow goes slightly down. 4. We know the light is fairly close to side light (i.e., close to the wall) because of the length of the shadow. (Note that there is a very dim secondary shadow at camera right. This is coming from the ambient light, which is not totally overpowered.) It's just a dumb, quick little exercise. But the more you make it a habit to look at photos with an eye toward analyzing the light, the easier it becomes to create any effect you are looking for with your own light.

Here's a little home experiment to try without even making a photo. Position a household lamp so that it illuminates an object. Look at the object from the position of the lamp. See what the lamp sees. Now move away from the lamp and study the changes in your subject as the lamp reveals the object in relief while you move your point of reference further away from the axis of the light source. Compare the lit portion of the object (as you move away from the lamp) with what you were able to see of the object from the position of the lamp. That's the first step to pre-visualizing light. Do this kind of exercise enough, and you'll be able to know exactly how a subject will look when lit from any direction before you ever position your light. Better yet, when you pre-visualize a photo you'll know at what angle to position your light to get the effect that you want. There are actually two variables to consider when deciding where to position a light. The first is at what angle to light your object. The second is at what distance to light your subject. Each variable offers a different form of control for a photographer to exploit.

Let's Try it with Some Live Ammo
For the first little shooting exercise, we'll be dealing only with angular position of the light. This experiment is going to be so simple that many of you will not even want to do it. But I really hope that you do.

Take a person or object (in my case, Combat Camera photog Jason Robertson,

from the DINFOS workshop earlier this month) and shoot it/him/her with the light very near the camera axis. You can even stick the flash directly fired on camera for the first shot. You should have a wall behind the subject (with a few feet of separation between the two) as a reference for any shadows. As for exposure, try this method as a way to start to learn to light without a flash meter. Shoot in a normally lit, indoor room. Set your ASA on 200 and your camera at your normal max synch speed. For most of you, this will be somewhere between 1/125th and 1/500th. Set your aperture on f/5.6. Start with your flash on manual at, say, 1/16th power, about five feet away from your subject. (If you keep the flash-to-subject distance the same as you change the angle, your exposure will not change.) Now do a test shot. You subject will likely be a little too light or too dark. Adjust the aperture on your lens until the exposure looks right. If this seems clunky, understand that working this way will soon turn your brain into a built-in flash meter. With a little experience, your first tries will get closer and closer and exposure adjustments will be more and more minor. Back to the exercise. After adjusting for a good exposure for your on-camera light, move the flash around the subject and shoot it from a variety of lighting angles. For the example above, I just put up a straight-on and a 45-degree lit shot. But you'll want to play with it more than that. Experiment with some hard angles, in addition to the normal stuff. Look at the different ways in which your light reveals the subject. Again, keeping the distance constant will help keep your exposure constant, too. Try a shot with the light at about 45 degrees to one side. Have your subject look directly into the camera. (Or have your inanimate object continue to be inanimate.) Now, keeping the subject looking in the same direction, walk over to your light and shoot the subject from the perspective of the light. Compare the two photos, noting what you see from the position of the light

with what portion of the subject was lit in the straight-on photo when the light was hitting it at a 45-degree angle. This may seem like rote, boring stuff. But the goal is to learn to light in a more intuitive manner. And observing your subject from the position of your light source is a great first step in that direction. There is no need to stick these in the Strobist Flickr pool, but you are welcome to do so if you want. The important thing is to start actually doing this stuff and to learn to use the tagging process. Then we can easily tag, group and view the more challenging assignments later. When uploading this exercise to Flickr, your photos should have the following tags: • strobist • lighting102 (note that there are no embedded spaces) • position • angle If you do that, everyone will be able to easily find them with by clicking here. We'll be talking about this exercise next Monday (June 25th) and moving on to discussion of Unit 1.2 - Position (Distance). ____________________________ Questions, answers, etc: Please use the discussion-specific Flickr thread for further discussion. Related Archive Pages: L101 See the Flash L101 Be the Flash Hard Light L101 Reverse Engineering Light Bloggers/Vloggers: If you are blogging your exercises/assignments online, or

posting videos about the process, you can include your efforts in the Technorati Trackbacks by linking to the permalink of this post.

Lighting 102: 1.2 - Position | Distance
Summary: By the end of this discussion, you should completely understand the following two statements: 1. Light has depth of field. 2. With enough light, you can turn a white wall black. ________________________________

Leading Off: (1.1) Angle Exercise Discussion

Okay, the 1.1 section had what was admittedly a pretty rudimentary exercise. Which maybe explains why many of you didn't uh, actually do it. This stuff is the equivalent of "wax on, wax off" in the beginning of Karate Kid, and you really want to explore these things in an environment where you are not also trying to make a real photo at the same time. The point of this exercise is not so much to stretch yourself, but to just go and do it. Walk before you run. Start building an easy comfort zone and then stretch it. For those who want to check out the results, you can see the tagged and posted results here. And it is good to see that most of you are navigating the Flickr posting and tagging issues just fine. The thing that should strike you from this exercise is just how different a three-dimensional form can look when lit from different angles. I didn't

mention it at the time, but some of you made the leap to considering angles above and below the object, too. The above composite is basically a matrix of horizontal and vertical light source changes. Click the pic for a big version. (Thanks for the extra effort, Chris!) Experience tells me that many more of you guys will be showing up for the "real assignments," but that is the dessert. You folks who are eating your veggies and doing the supposedly boring stuff are going to be much more intuitive when the more complex stuff gets thrown at you. I'm just saying. _________________________________

Light Position: Distance

My experience in learning to light (actually, in learning just about anything) is that I do not learn in a linear, sequential way. I tend to learn in fits and starts. That is to say that I will plod my way through without making much progress, and then something clicks and I move to the next level. Take snow skiing, for instance. When you start out, your only means of controlling your speed is by forming a wedge with your skis. It's called "snow plowing," and it ain't pretty. You form a wedge with your skis and use the friction of the inner edges to control your speed. The first transition to real skiing is when you learn how to do ahockey stop, which is nothing more than lifting your skis up and planting them down perpendicular to the fall line with the uphill edges biting hard.

It looks so cool. And you think you are pretty hot stuff the first time you pull one off, with that awesome little spray of snow. (The sounds of screeching brakes actually played in my head.) But what you do not realize at that moment is that the hockey stop is also the key to nearly everything that follows in intermediate skiing. It is all incremental from there. In other words, that little progression is the key to moving to the next level - and opens up many doors later on. That is how I have come to feel about learning to understand flash distance as a lighting control variable. So, pull out those slide rules, folks, 'cause this is where we introduce the concept of the Inverse Square Law No, no, no. Not gonna do that to you. Geez Louise, I have an engineering background. I worry about inverted yield curves in the bond market. I build cool stereo equipment from scratch for relaxation. I would eat math flakes for breakfast if I could. But the Inverse Square Law still makes my eyes glaze over. Not that it is necessarily so hard to understand. (Although it is for many.) But because it just sucks all of the life and soul out of lighting. Kinda like showing up at the hotel on your honeymoon night with one of those biological/plumbing textbooks from high school to make sure you can exactly figure out the precise plan for the evening's activities. Yeah, it may be accurate. But where's the creativity? Where's the experimentation? Where's the fun? You gotta lose the math. Here is what you need to know about the inverse square law: The closer you are to the light source, the more powerful the light. Get real close and it gets really powerful. Get far away, and it gets weaker.

And here's the other thing: The closer you get to the light source, the quicker the lighting values change as you move in. When you get farther away, small differences in distance (from the light) become meaningless. So, let's think about this in the context of a lighting scenario. Let's say that we have a subject about 6 feet from a light grey wall. Like, say, Jason, from last week:

In this case, the light was about five feet from him, and the wall was another ~6 feet behind Jason. As we moved the light around him for the first exercise, neither the light-to-Jason or light-to-wall distance changed much. So our wall is pretty consistently medium grey. Now take two more shots of Jason, from the same setup:

In the first, we moved the light way back. This, of course made it less powerful. But we adjusted the aperture (opened up) to compensate for that. So Jason is properly exposed. But look at the wall: It is lighter. Why? Because the flash-to-Jason distance is about 25 feet, and the flash-to-wall distance is about 31 feet. Relatively, those two distances are not very different. So the light does not fall off much between Jason and the wall. But for the second pic, we brought the flash in close. Like about one foot

from Jason. But the wall is ~7 feet from the flash. Relatively, that's huge difference between the flash-to-Jason distance and the flash-to-wall distance. We close down the aperture to compensate for the brighter, closer light. So Jason is exposed correctly. But our light grey wall is now about 7 times further away from the light than is Jason. So it goes dark. Jason is very close, where the light is powerful. The wall is at an intermediate distance, where the light is less powerful. As I move the light close to Jason without even gobo'ing the flash to block light from the wall, I could easily make that wall go the rest of the way to black. So, with my subject a few feet away from a light grey background, I can make the background black simply by moving my light in close to the subject. NOTE: If little bells aren't going off in your head as to some of the doors that this light-distance variable opens up, keep knocking it around. This is a major thing. Extra bennies? More power, (Argh, argh, argh.) Apparent size of the light source gets bigger, too. But that comes later. So, moving in gives control and power. The light, in effect, has very shallow "depth of field," which is to say that the exposure that is correct for the closein subject drops off very quickly behind him. Jason may be at f/11 or f/16. But just a few feet behind his head, you are already down to f/5.6 or f/4. You gain the ability to light one plane without contaminating the other one. Sort of like selective focus, but with light. Expressed differently: Shallow lighting depth of field. I could stick another flash on the background and light the two areas independently. That is control.

But sometimes you want a lot of depth of field to your light. Group shots, for instance. You want the front row and the back row to be in the same neighborhood, exposure-wise. Even though they may be a few feet away from each other. So you give up power in favor of even lighting.

That is the secret to this side-lit (but still evenly lit) basketball gym in this shot. The speedlight (main light, camera left) is about 75 feet away in the top row of seats. It is firing at 1/2 power, and I got f/2.8 at ASA 800. But it is lighting a huge area. And pretty evenly, to boot. (More info on the shot is here.) So, here is the first of our actual lighting control sliders, for lack of a better term:

• Light Placed Closer = more powerful, and control of the depth of the correct exposure. • Light Placed Further = less powerful, and a broader zone of even lighting exposure.

In other words, lighting has depth of field if you know how to exploit it. And with enough light - and adjusting the exposure to compensate for the increased power - you can drop the exposure on a nearby white wall to black.

_________________________

Trust Me, You Want to Actually Do This One

Who wants to guess this week's exercise? It is similar to last weeks, except you will keep the lighting angle the same and vary the distance. Try to find a place with a clean background and some space to work with. I am thinking living room. You'll be shooting a person or object in such a way as to use various lighting distances to control the relative tone of the background: 1. Find a nice lighting angle. Set the light a modest distance away - 5 or 6 feet. Shoot at max sync speed with your flash at say, at 1/8 power on manual. Adjust the aperture to get a good subject exposure with the light at the moderate distance. 2. Move the light back. Way back if you can. You may need to pump up the power to get a decent exposure. Maybe to 1/4 or 1/2 power. Adjust the aperture until the subject looks good, then note the background. It should be getting lighter. 3. Now move the light in tight. Real tight. As in one or two feet away. You'll probably have to dial your flash way down to compensate for the distance. Adjust your aperture for a good subject exposure. Note what happens to the background. It should get darker. What you should find is that you have a surprising amount of control of the depth of field of the light. And this is before restricting or feathering the light in any way. And we will get to that later. You should also start to be getting more intuitive about where you need to set you flash power to get a good working aperture from a given distance. Keep

this up. You are growing a free flash meter in your brain. Here are your tags for the exercise: • strobist • lighting102 (no spaces) • position • distance You would not believe how many shooters out there have a "standard" lightto-subject distance and just give up this wonderful means of control. Don't be one of them. Here's a feedback request for the comments: To the beginners - does this light distance concept make sense to you? If not, did it after you tried the exercise? To the more experienced - are you already thinking consciously of light distance in this way? If you approach it differently, how so? ______________________ Related reading: Light Science and Magic text, 3rd edition, pp 36-39 (Briefly talks about the inverse square law in more traditional terms. Note: It appears this book is getting to be in tight supply. I am sure Focal will be running off more copies soon, if they are not already. It is a great book. Find it wherever you can.)

Lighting 102 - Position | Review
This week we are wrapping up control number one, lighting position. Other than getting the exposure correct, this is the

most basic control. But it is also the foundation for just about any light that you will design.

As you spend more time observing and creating various lighting angles, you'll find that this process will begin to get intuitive. You'll know exactly where to put your light(s) based on the look you have preconceived. And you'll be able to look at an existing photo and understand where the various light sources are coming from. Even if you can't see them.

A good understanding of light-to-subject distance as a control will allow you to more effectively light on multiple planes. This will be especially important when you are creating a photo with two or more sources, whether it is multiple strobes or a combination of strobe foreground and ambient background. In our next control, apparent light size, we'll learn how the light-to-subject distance will affect not only the quantity but the quality of the light. So being comfy with the distance/intensity thing will make the apparent light size control more intuitive. As an analogy, being comfy with algebra really helps when you get to calculus. Put differently, if you are not really comfy with algebra, you are a train wreck waiting to happen when you get to calculus.

At Least Remember This

The important takeaways for Control #1: • The difference between light position and camera position reveal the three dimensional shape of the subject. • You can visualize what portion of your subject will be lit by viewing it from the flash's position. • Lights are extremely powerful when placed close to the subject. • Lights can illuminate broad subjects more evenly when placed far from the subject, at the expense of power. • Light-to-subject distance vs. light-to-background distance can be used as a lighting control. • Varying these ratios can alter a light's useful range. This can be thought of as lighting depth of field. • This, in turn, can allow a photographer complete control over a background's relative brightness. This is especially important when you are trying to light on two separate planes.

Nice, quiet, easy week. There is no shooting exercise this time. But going forward, your exercise is a continuous one: Try to be more aware of lighting position in your daily life. Note the way that natural light sculpts the objects around you. Pay special attention to the light that you really like. You'll probably find that it is very

different than the light that we tend to create when you get a flash and stick it onto a light stand. At first, we tend to think of lighting in terms of softened, and placed at a 45degree angle to the subject. Nice and safe. But a little boring, if you ask me. Environmentally speaking, I am more likely to react to hard light. Or back light. Or rim light. Or partially obscured light. Or light transmitted through a translucent background. Light that is more unexpected and edgy. So while the standard, go-to stuff can always be done, I am always looking for an opportunity to create the kind of light that wows me when I see it in real life. And to be honest, it probably makes sense to learn the standard stuff first anyway. It's a good foundation. And depending on what you are shooting, it can really pay the bills. But do not limit yourself to that. Heck, you're driving, right? Don't always go for the path of least (creative) resistance. Take the curvy, secondary roads. Or go off-road altogether. This section has been about light quantity and the foundation for light quality. Next week, we'll be hitting apparent light size. And there's a whole lot more going on there than meets the eye. Controls one and two comprise so many different possibilities that you could spend a career exploring these two alone. (Don't worry, We won't.) We'll do a couple of exercises on apparent light size and how your subject's tonal range and surface quality affect how it reacts to various size light sources. Then we'll be doing our first full assignments. _____________________________

Lighting 102: Unit 2.1 - Apparent Light Size
Summary: Light size is not what matters in determining softness. Apparent light size is what matters. _____________________________

Would you use a bare speedlight to illuminate a shiny, metal car? That's what I did in this photo. To be fair, it is a Hot Wheels car. I have a six-year-old boy, which means we have about 3 billion Hot Wheels cars in the house. You work with what you got. (Hey, we can't all have access to a classic car museum.) But a bare speedlight? Even with a piece of paper taped to it -- the same size as the fresnel head of the flash -- to knock down the intensity, isn't that a pretty hard light source? Depends on who you ask. I think of it is a hard source. You probably do, too. But the car sees it as a huge softbox when the flash is about an inch above the car's roof. And what the car sees is all that really matters.

Take a look at the setup photo for the shot. One small speedlight head lighting the car. Another on the wall (with a blue gel) to create the background. I made this photo to prove a point. A tiny light source can look big and soft. Conversely, a huge light source can look tiny and harsh. Take the noon sun on a cloudless day, for instance. It is a huge sphere of light -- far bigger than our own planet. But it is 93,000,000 miles away. So it looks tiny. And harsh. (But, from control number one, distance, we know that it has the ability to light large objects evenly...) Back to light softness. We tend to equate umbrellas with soft light and bare flashes with hard light. But that is not necessarily the case. It is all about how a light looks to the subject, not the light's actual size. Why is this?

To explain, let's make the subject you. Here is a 43" Westcott Doublefold umbrella, from about 10 feet away. Not bad. Looks like a reasonably pleasing light source.

Now, here is the same umbrella from about 5 feet away. Looks bigger, right? Softer. What makes a bigger looking light softer? To understand that you have to learn to think about your subject in terms of four different lighting zones. And we will be talking about three of them today. The first is what you normally think of as the lit area. This is the area of your subject that receives the light and scatters -- or diffuses -- the light back at the camera. The term for this area is the "diffused highlight." The unlit area has a very technical name that I hope all of you will be able to understand: We call it the... shadow area.

But what about the boundary between the two? That is called the "diffused highlight-to-shadow transfer area." Big term, but it should make sense. That border zone, more than any other area, is what defines a subject as being lit by hard or soft light. Think of yourself as the subject again. The lit portion of you can "see" all of the light source. The shadow portion cannot see any of it. The border zone the diffused highlight-to-shadow transfer area -- can see part of it. Like this:

That is why larger-looking sources make for broad, smooth transfer zones. They disappear more slowly as you wrap your way around the subject away from the light source. Hard sources are more of a "now-you-see-them, now-you-don't" kind of thing as you rotate away from them. Thus, very abrupt transfer zones. Now think for a second about the differences between a silver umbrella and a shoot-through umbrella. You might think that the silver would always be more efficient. Not so. Remembering our distance discussion, not only does our light get softer as we get closer, but it gets far more powerful. The actual light source of a shootthrough umbrella can be placed very close to your subject, making a huge, soft, powerful light source.

Not so with a reflector umbrella. Unless you want to skewer your subject's well-lit eyeball on that shaft. I used to shoot with mostly silver umbrellas, but I have come to think of the shoot-throughs as more versatile for the above reasons. Take a look at this shot (and the setup) of my daughter, for example. As you can see, I can bring that sucker right down close to her and make a beautiful light source. But umbrellas are not the only way to make a hard light softer. You can use walls and ceilings for that, too. Your flash most likely zooms its head to compensate for different lens focal lengths. But that can also be used to control the size of the light hitting a bounce wall or ceiling. Which will alter the softness of the light, all other things being equal. Here is a flash, about five feet from a wall and set on 85mm beam spread:

Here is the same setup with the flash on 24mm:

And just for good measure, the same flash with a diffuser, which approximates a bare-bulb flash:

(It is hard to tell because of the decreased intensity, but the whole wall is being lit by the flash.) You can see how easy it is to alter the softness of your light source by using either an umbrella or a bounce surface in this way.

By zooming a flash out to ultra-wide and bouncing it off of a wall, for instance, you can make a huge light source to get results like this wonderful portrait by reader San Ramon (oops) Jason Lee. Why just bounce your flash off of a wall or ceiling, when you can put a little thought into it and get exactly the size and shape of light source that you want? You can point a flash at a wall right behind you and get an almost softbox/ringlight look, for instance. ___________________________

Size and distance are relative. But remember that the size/intensity/fall-off thing is always in play, too. More complex, more control. As for the size/distance thing, I tend to think of a light source as reasonably soft if it's size is at least half of the measurement of the light-to-subject distance. That is to say that a 3-foot umbrella will be reasonably soft at up to, say, 6 feet from the subject. But that is just a rule of thumb. Your opinion may differ. ____________________________ We have two more exercises and then we will do a series of full-blown assignments working with the material we have covered so far. Learning just these two controls -- position and apparent size -- offers a wealth of

possibilities. And we are gonna play some before going on to the other controls. For this week, the exercise is a simple one. You'll be varying the apparent light source size and seeing the effects on your subject. Our subject will be a piece of fruit. Your choice, but just a single piece. Use just one light source to shoot it. You may wish to position the source in a way to also light the background to separate the shadow side of the fruit. But that's old hat to you now, right? Soften the light source however you like -- bounce off of a wall, use an umbrella, shoot it through a piece of wax paper -- whatever. But the important thing is to do a series of photos with the light source differing in apparent size. This will mean moving the light source in some cases. Or altering the flash beam spread and/or distance if you are reflecting off of a wall. (Be sure to adjust your aperture to compensate for any different distances.) For this exercise, try to keep the direction of the light source reasonably consistent. The idea is to see the differences caused by apparent size changes, not angular ones. We already did that in exercise 1.1. Please leave caption info on each photo that will help others to understand exactly what they are looking at. Especially changes made with respect to the light source. When looking at others' photos, study the highlight-to-shadow transfer areas carefully. They will tell the tale of the light source.

Lighting 102: Unit 2.2 - Specular Highlight Control
Summary: The fourth lighting zone on a given photographic subject is the specular highlight, or reflection of the light source. This can be manipulated in both size and intensity to allow total control over the tonal range of a portion of your subject. _______________________________

Last week we talked about the diffused highlight, the shadow and the diffused highlight to shadow transfer area. But there is a fourth area, which is usually brighter than the diffused highlight. The specular highlight is nothing more than the reflection of the light source in the object you are lighting. This reflection is an often overlooked control in lighting design. In it's most basic form, it is simple to grasp and to predict. Explored more fully, it allows you to completely manipulate the tonal structure of your subject. Take a look at the ball up above, lit with a single soft box. It's a frame grab from the excellent lighting DVD's compiled from the 1980's Finelight tapes by Dean Collins. What tones do you see? You see the true tonality of the ball, which is your mind's visual anchor for judging color and tonal density in the photo. This is noted by the blue circle, and is called the diffused highlight. You see a dark shadow, in the unlit area of the ball. And you see a soft, transitional area between highlight and shadow. And you see the reflection of the soft box -- or the specular highlight -- inside the diffused highlight area of the ball. (This soft box has been broken into fourths, probably by the use of gaffer's tape strips, to better simulate a window light source. Neat trick.) Your brain processes all of these relative tonal densities to tell you much about the ball and its environment. You know the color, of course. You know the shape, as revealed by your off-camera light source. You know the approximate size of the light source by the nature of the highlight-to-shadow

transition area. How would your brain discern the surface quality of the ball, without your touching it, just by looking at the photo? By processing the quality of the specular highlight. The specular highlight reveals not only the size and shape of the light source, but the surface quality of the object. What if the ball were lit by a point-source light, and not a soft box? How would it look different? Well, the specular would be much smaller. And much brighter. All of that lighting energy would be coming from a small source, so it would have a lot of intensity per square inch. It would be a point-source specular that would almost certainly blow out in term of the brightness. But the soft box specular is well-contained on the tonal scale because all of that lighting power is spread out over a larger area. As the size of the light source decreases, the intensity of the specular highlight increases. And vice versa.

Light sources can be manipulated to gain control of the specular highlight. I placed my glasses on a pillow and bounced a speedlight off of the ceiling for a light source. With the zoom head set on tele, you can see a decent-sized light source (the partially lit ceiling) reflected in the glasses. But the reflection is distracting in its size and too bright in its intensity.

Now look what happens when I zoom the flash head out to 17mm and light the whole ceiling area above the glasses. First, the specular fills the whole lens area, making for a far less distracting tone. But on further examination, you can see that the intensity of the specular has been lowered to the point where you can easily see through it. Now it reveals both the surface texture of the glass and detail underneath it. You can see a couple of really good examples of using specular highlights selectively in these watch photos. So, when is a glasses reflection not a bad thing? When the intensity of the light is spread out (from a very large light source) such that you can see right through the reflection. The surface texture of the lenses are defined, but detail is still visible through them.

To prove the point I flew in a supermodel at great personal expense and photographed him wearing his (purely cosmetic) glasses in my living room. The illumination was from a speedlight fired into a nearby wall and zoomed to make a huge light source. See how you can see the surface quality of the glasses, and yet still lose yourself in those devastatingly handsome eyes? You get the point: Light, spread out over a large enough area, becomes less intense per square inch. So much so, that it can both illuminate and offer partial transparency in the reflections.

Here is a shot from one of the London seminars which featured a student against a darkish room divider. We used the light (in an umbrella) to illuminate Ray. But we get double duty out of it by lining the specular highlight off of the background in such a way as to separate Ray's shadow side (tonally) from the background. You can see another version of this technique here, where the specular is used to form a halo, of sorts. (From the Rhode Island seminars, scroll down the page.) This is one of my favorite one-light portrait techniques. Such an elegant result from such a simple setup. Executives in dark-paneled boardrooms or offices look like a million bucks with this soution. If you are still with me, let's go this one better. (And this was another one of those "Aha!" moments for me when I first learned it.) Let's try a little mental exercise. What if you could use the specular highlight of a large light source to introduce a new, artificial tonal area in a very darkskinned subject? Here's a scenario: You have for a subject a Caribbean islander. And to say that his skin is dark is an understatement. The man looks like blued steel. He shows up in a white shirt just to piss you off. And you need to reproduce him in your paper (as in, printing on Charmin) and hold detail everywhere. What do you do? You light him with a soft source from the front is what you do. This creates a

three-tone structure for his face. First, is his true tonality, which your paper can probably not even reproduce if he is properly exposed. And you have to properly expose him to keep the white shirt from blowing out anyway. Second is the shadow area -- even darker -- which you can only define by separating it from a light background. But third is a tone that you can totally control by varying the angular position (and the distance) of your big light source. You are lighting him, but fat lot of good that does for you with a very dark diffused highlight. But you are also creating a nice, much lighter tone -where you want it -- on his face by exploiting the specular highlight from your light source. This is what will reveal your detail and create a beautiful tonal structure which could even reproduce on a old photocopier. You are not shooting his skin. You are shooting the reflection of your light source on his skin. When shooting a dark object, form is revealed by specular highlights. When shooting a very light object, form is revealed by the shadows. And when shooting a highly reflective object, you are basically shooting a reflection of your light source. The stainless steel and cookies On Assignment was a good example of this. The double-diffusion technique described there allows you to define the light source and its edges separately. The Light Science and Magic book has a tremendous amount of info on specular highlights in chapters four, six and seven. There is so much you can do with this layer of control. ______________________________

Your exercise this week -- the last before we move onto a few full assignments -- is to choose a 3-d object that is reasonably reflective and explore what you can do by manipulating a specular highlight. I am not being too specific on this one, because I want you to have some room to explore. You do not need to use an umbrella as a soft source. You can bounce a flash off of the wall of a ceiling to get a soft light source. Or diffuse it through some paper. Billiard ball, apple, face, whatever. Just create that specular highlight and play with it.

Lighting 102: 2.2 - Specular Discussion
You guys have really started to hit your stride with this exercise. I deliberately made it a little looser than the others, as the point was to explore the specular control technique. There's a great discussion going on in the Flickr thread, and some really cool photos have been submitted. Even right out of the blocks many of you are kicking butt, lighting highly reflective objects with much more control over your highlights. On a semi-reflective subject, specular highlight size and intensity are defined by the apparent size of the light source. To control specular highlights on a highly reflective object, you are not lighting the object. Rather you are lighting the area that the object is reflecting back at you. And the portion of your subject that does not reflect can be lit on an entirely different plane, yielding yet more lighting control. All of the position and apparent size rules apply to each plane. Which either will make your head explode make you realize that you have even more control than you have when lighting a subject on just one plane. Of course, if your subject is not adjacent to the background, you can have yet another plane of light to work with. Let's look at a couple of your shots as examples.

First off, this clock photo shows what James Rubio picked up from Ming Thein's watch photos, and his set-up shots. (Thanks again, Ming.) Again, you are shooting reflections of light sources. So whatever you design into those sources is going to define the tonality and shape of your specular highlights. James is using partially backlit typing paper as his light sources. Simple? Yep. Cheap? Uh-huh. But very effective for shooting small objects.

Here's the setup. You can see here that the key is the edges of the lit area on the pieces of paper. That smooth fall-off defines the edges of his clock highlights. For small scale stuff, you can get away with using typing paper way more often than you'd think. And the relative inefficiency of the paper (at transmitting light) is no problem, because we know that light is far more powerful when it is close.

This progression of a photo of a disc drive reveals a very clean approach, by Ron Nabity. He is lighting the subject on two planes. In the first photo, he's only using one light, through a small umbrella and lighting from the left. This lights the scene (including the background) and creates a baseline for the true tonality of the subject, absent the large specular highlights that will define its texture.

Needing a large clean light source, he aims a strobe at the ceiling and uses that as his reflection in the drive platter and other reflective areas. Note that the spindle in the center is already reflecting the left-hand light source, revealing more of the shape of the complex subject. Mind you, this is happening on completely different planes. So he has complete control over the relative levels of the specular highlight by adjusting the light level on the ceiling. This looks very nice, actually. Granted, he could have improved the photo by spray painting "Strobist.com," in reverse on his ceiling, of course. Or he could have reflected a product logo, for instance. They point is that you can play with that other lighting plane.

Which is exactly what he did here. Note that the addition of a color gel on the ceiling strobe does not alter the areas of the photo that are not reflecting the ceiling light source. Again, it is because you are lighting on two totally different planes. Specular highlights are a playground for photographers who know how to control them. (Ron talks about the process behind his photos here, in the discussion thread.) I recommend reading through the discussion thread of you haven't already. There are lots of people asking (and answering) questions. If you have bouncing around in your mind, they have probably been hit already in the thread. If not, ask away. Or you can just browse all of the exercise photos submitted by the site's readers. And be sure to check back in tomorrow, when we will get our first full assignment.

Lighting 102: Assignment - Cooking Light

The first full assignment for Lighting 102 is deceptively simple. You'll be using what we have discussed in both the position and light

source sections. The assignment is to photograph one or more kitchen utensils - knives, forks, spoons, whisks - whatever you like. The look you are going or is that of ordinary object elevated to high art. Or at least commercial art, as this is the kind of thing that might appear as a catalog cover or in a calendar or on the wall of one of those ubiquitous "fast casual" restaurants. Suggestions: • K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple, stupid. Less is more. Go for quality over clutter. • Go beyond the literal subject matter. Use light, form and focal plane to create an evocative photo that is more than the sum of its parts. If Edward Weston can make a pepper look sensual, why not a spoon? • You may wish to convert your photo to black and white to emphasize form and light, That's fine. It is your choice. • Your style of lighting will depend on the surface quality of your subject. A wooden spoon will call for very different light than a stainless steel cleaver, for instance. • Pay attention to your background. If it does not help your photo, it should not be there. Again, K.I.S.S. The deadline is August 4th. You may tag as many as you wish, but only submit one final image. For example, you might submit four photos. They would be tagged with: Strobist Lighting102 Assignment Cooking

But your final, single image will have all of those tags, and and additional one: Final So your final edit would have as tags: Strobist Lighting102 Assignment Cooking Final You can see all turned in pix here, and just the final edits here. From the comments: If you want to add a "setup" tag to your setup shot, that will allow people to search those images, too. Your choice. Have fun with it, and do not be scared to experiment and make mistakes. That's the whole point.

Lighting 102: Cooking Light Assignment | Discussion
We talked about this assignment in terms of shooting for a polished a simple look, as if for wall display, or a calendar. There is no question in my mind that we could pull several great calendars out of the pool of assignment photos. I had the impossible task of looking through all of the photos (whew, there were a lot) and picking out a selection to feature and discuss on the main site. This was not an easy thing to do, both in terms of quality and quantity. As a photo editor, this is exactly the kind of problem one wishes to have: Too many choices. But for one guy, it pretty much kills the day before you have the chance to write word one.

Before I get to the photos, a couple of items: First, there were many, many great photos. I was floored by the breadth and depth of the submissions. You were clearly paying attention in the light control discussions. Many of the photos submitted could stand up to inclusion in just about anyone's portfolio. Second, such a constricted subject range, it was inevitable that there were many similar photos and even some near duplications. Don't be irked by that, if it affected you. We were working in a pretty tight sphere. Third, some of my very favorite photos -- several of which which would have been included on this page -- were submitted in such a way that I could neither add a tag to them (to note it as a standout) nor grab a pic URL for the blog. If someone knows the exact reason behind this, please illuminate me in the comments so I can instruct people how to change their photos if they choose. On these particular photos, I was at least able to fave them. So, if you happen to see your Cooking Light shot in the first four or five pages my faves gallery, please add a tag saying "standout" to your photo. This is how I am ID'ing the ones that I thought went above and beyond. This way, it'll be included in the slideshow linked below. And, even though it is possible to do, please do not add the standout tag unless it appeared in my faves gallery. I want to make this set of photos searchable without having them drop off the top, as they will in my faves gallery. Much better to get there next time with your camera and lights than now, cheaply, with your keyboard. As for the photos below, please click on them to see a larger version and/or check to see who did it. There are some great photos here (heck, there were a hundred great photos in the batch) and your comments on the ones you liked best are much appreciated by the photogs. If you would like to ask lighting questions of the photographers, do so in the comments of the actual photos. And if they left little or no lighting info, please rag them mercilessly.

Links to the whole slideshow and other sets follow after the photos. ____________________________

The Dirty Dozen

The quality of the specular highlight on this one is just gorgeous. There were many photos similar to this one in composition and I did not want to duplicate too much. But it is clear that many of you get the idea of softly (or partially) illuminating an off-camera object (fill card, ceiling, etc.) whose sole purpose is to be reflected in the shiny surface of your subject. The actual lighting of the scene is done (typically) with another source. Varying the relative intensity of the two sources gives you total control of the two zones. You should note that the source that reflects typically takes very little light to accomplish the job. Nice textural contrast, too, with the cut-up surface. Click on the pic to see setup shots in his stream, too.

This wine capper, one of a few similar versions, was a very nice example of lighting on two completely separate planes. The photographer was nice enough to include shots done with each light individually, which is great for learning purposes. (The setup shots were done with a red gel instead of a blue one, but you get the idea. Click through the photo for a link to the setup.

Lewis Hine gets reincarnated in this photo of a garlic press. Those broad light sources, not far off axis, are great for photographing matte, semi-reflective objects. This photo had an industrial quality to it that I just loved. The textural contrast in the background really works, too.

This is certainly the most sensual rendition of an ice cream scoop that I have ever seen. My favorite part? The warm vs. cool specular reflections. You'll have to click through to see the ingenious method the photog used to get them.

The contrasting textures and chiarascurastylebackground arrangement on this one totally work. The effect is not so much done with light (normally that's the whole idea) but with a dark-to-light transition that is hidden by the subject. A simple idea, executed very well.

I love the repetition of textures in this photo.

This is not an easy thing to accomplish, as the reflectance values of the spoon and the brown eggs are quite different. The photographer was kind enough to include a lighting setup shot if you are interested in learning more. There are lots of setup photos incuded with this assignment, actually. You'll find a link near the end of the post to a search for them. (Extra thanks to those of you who shot and tagged setup pix.)

This is art. I am even at a little bit of a loss to reverse engineer it, too. The notes say a snoot from above, but I do not know how that yields the creamy metal highlights up top. The photog has several other versions which merit seeing in their stream, too. I am gonna have to stare at it a little more and figure it out.

As a group, the propensity to shoot knives bordered on fetish. Not that I can blame you, seeing some of the cutting instruments at your disposal.

This shot (and the next two) really show off specular control in blade surfaces. Again, you are shooting a reflection. THis is the key to specular control in flat, metal surfaces.

This knife shot produced a great juxtaposition of tonal densities. Great highlight control, too. Double points for the setup shot (always appreciated) which you can see under the photo if you click on it. You will smack your forehead when you see how easy this was. If you know exactly what you are doing when you shoot it, of course.

Today, I learned a great idea for a macro backdrop: A laptop computer. Wonderful thinking, and always available. You could use your desktop, too, of course, if you sport a flat-screen monitor. The knife and plate pick up the tones of the backdrop in a lovely way, which the photog enhanced with a little blurring in post. I think you could get a

similar result with aperture selection. Or focal-plane shifting, if you are soequipped. But the takeaway here is the creative thinking on the any-way-you-want-it-tolook backdrop.

Last, and certainly not least, I cannot stop looking at this photo. Less is more, here. Way more. I love everything about it - the composition, the tones, the highlight control, the feel - everything. Triple aces. I was surprised by so many photos from the whole group, actually. You have set the bar pretty high right out of the blocks. I don't know what you are going to do to follow this up. Just a wonderful selection of kitchen photos, with far too many good pictures to do the whole group justice on one page. You can see all of the assignment-tagged photos (over 1,000) here. You can see the final entries here. Photos that people tagged as setup shots appear here. You can see the slideshow of some of the other ones I really likedhere. And be sure to check the first few pages of my faves gallery to see if you had something I could not access. Please add the 'standout' tag if it is in the gallery. And of course the discussion thread, with lots of interesting words and photos, is here. Which was your favorite? What did you love that I missed? (This is just one person's opinion, you know.) Are you guys impressed with yourselves as a

group as much as I am with you? Sound off in the comments.

Lighting 102: Umbrella Specular Portrait
So, did you catch the postyesterday when we talked about the umbrella-background-reflection thing? I hope so, because that is your assignment this week. This one is sort of a cross between an exercise and an assignment, as it requires a specific technique. You'll be doing a photo of a person, using one soft light source (shoot-through or reflective umbrella, soft box, scrim, whatever) and angling it so it becomes a specular highlight in a darkish, semireflective background. I gave you some ideas on where to find such a backdrop in the previous post (see link above) but be creative. And speaking of being creative, try to look beyond the mere technique and make a real photo of someone. Add some personal style, catch a nice moment -- do something to make this a photo, rather than just a lighting technique.

This photo, shot byDINFOS workshop student Jason Robertson, uses the dark headboard of a bed for the dark backdrop. And he caught a nice moment, too. That last part is very important. Light is not enough. In fact, you might want to take a moment to read this post on the topic.

As for light positioning, Jason used a pretty scary-looking human boom for holding the umbrella. This is a fun, easy, one-light technique that yields a very polished-looking photo if done right. Give it a whirl and see what you can come up with. Your tags will be: Strobist Lighting102 Assignment Umbrella Specular Add "final" as a tag to your best shot, and "setup" if you are including a pullback shot for the benefit of other readers. Those setup pix are much appreciated, BTW.

Lighting 102: Specular Background Assignment | Discussion

Results from two weeks ago, in which you were asked to shoot a portrait using an umbrella to both light your subject and create a specular highlighton the background, as inthis example. From the final edits, it is clear that this was a bit of a polarizing experience. You either got it or you didn't. It was either a natural extension of the experiments in the kitchen, or it was a maddening exercise in geometric

futility. The trick: Stay close to the umbrella and don't push that angle too much because everything is doubled. Also, maybe find your specular reflection first and then just stick your person in front of it. As always, click the pic for more info, or to leave props to the specific photographer. The takeaway from this technique-based assignment is that one small light can be stretched to create a nuanced, three-dimensional portrait if you keep your eye out for a background with the right tone and surface quality. Leading off above is a self-portrait by h_oudini, who used his armoire as a reflective surface. He took care of the crack between the two doors by applying a frontal lobotomy crop to himself. This is always a great solution for hiding an imperfection, whether the offending area be in the background or on top of your subject's head.

The surface quality of the background in this shot, courtesy Scott Campbell, is not as reflective as some of the others. This background results in a softer highlight being thrown back at you. It's more subtle and muted. The expression is this photo is a nice bonus, too. Since you can choose to include a specular highlight or not in these situations, you now have the ability to get two different tones out of any one dark, reflective background. If you are shooting in a fixed location (like a studio) just think of the range of background colors and tones you could have at your beck and call be keeping a collection of 4x6-foot pieces of cheap countertop laminate laying around. Seriously, this stuff is not that expensive.

Remember: After you nail the lighting technique, you still have to include some personality in the photo. Which is exactly whatitsjustanalias did. If you don't believe me, check out this composite from the shoot. If you want to keep a model happily sitting for you, it is hard to go wrong with pie.

Most of the entries were horizontals. But this technique lends itself well to verticals. And those can be done with a much smaller piece of real estate for the background. This is a great trick to pull out when you need a potential cover in a pinch. Andaigi is a cowboy killer (love those aliases, folks) came in tight and vertical for a more pensive version for his effort. Once you get that background highlight lined up, move in. Hit some tight crops. Play around with the internal geometry of your shot.

Finally is this rather ingenious solution, which a few of you figured out. Can't find a good specular highlight background? Maybe you are looking in the wrong dimension. No, not the Twilight Zone. It's just that maybe you were concentrating too much on vertical surfaces as backdrops. How many of you have a coffee table (or some other kind of table) which would have worked, turned on it's side? That's what Danny Kino did. Nice thinkin' there, Danny. Actually, one of the other shots pictured here used that same technique. Can you spot it? _______________________ So, them's the shots for the specular background portraits. See them all here, and the selects here. Group discussion is here. As for the ones on this page: Nice, simple elegant, tonally rich photos, all. It's just a neat look, and I hope you feel comfy trotting it out the next time you want to do more with less. But for now, better rest up, get some exercise and eat your Wheaties before next week. Because that is when we jump back into the lighting controls. Next is light balancing, maybe the most complex -- and most useful -- of all of the lighting controls.

Lighting 102 - 3.1 Balancing Light: Twilight
For the available-light photographer, the idea of exposure is a fairly simple and static concept.

There is a correct exposure for a given ambient light scene. Sure, you can tweak it, say, half a stop up or down. But go much beyond that, and you move beyond "artistic license" to "I screwed up." But what is the correct exposure when your photo can have as many different zones of varying light levels as you have flashes? The correct exposure is what you say it is. And you say it by establishing a zone of (traditionally) correct exposure on your main subject using the flash. If you are looking for a touchstone in this process, that's it. Establishing a correct exposure on your primary subject allows you to do whatever you want with the exposure levels in the rest of the frame. And you can go far beyond the "correct exposure" range of an ambient-only, evenly lit scene. And look like you knew what you were doing. In short, "screwed up" becomes "artistic license" when you have established an exposure reference point with your light on your main subject. (More after the jump.) To really understand the concept of balancing light, many of you will have to expand your concept of a so-called proper exposure. After all, you are creating a scene that has precisely the tonal range that you want it to. You can use this ability to compress the tonal range of a photo, or to expand it. It's up to you.

Take this scene photo which includes longtime Strobist reader Ryan Brenizer. Exposing for the model, the sky is washed out. Exposing for the sky, the model would be too dark. But with flash, you can expose correctly for both. By adjusting the shutter speed and aperture to get exactly the desired tone in the sky and then filling

the model with flash sufficient to raise her exposure to the aperture you happen to be using, you get this:

In addition to turning the water into diamonds with his flash, Ryan has compressed the tonal range of this scene to where everything fits in the histogram rather nicely, thank you. So, is Ryan shooting at the correct exposure? Yes. Or no, depending on exactly how he wants the background to look. Ryan shot this photo at 1/250th at f/3.2 at ASA 160. He could easily open his shutter speed up to, say, 1/125 and lighten the background. Or, he could up the power on his flash by a stop, close his aperture down a stop (to f/5.0 - a partial stop between f/4.0 and f/5.6) and reset his shutter to 250th to darken the background. How does that work? Let's look more closely. The background is lit by ambient light. It is controlled by a combination of the aperture and the shutter speed. The model is exposed by the flash. (She would be significantly underexposed without the flash.) So as long as the model is receiving the correct amount of light from the flash, the background can be placed at whatever tone the photographer wants. What if Ryan cranked up the power on his flash 2 and 1/3 stops to where it lit the model to f/8? (He would then set his aperture to f/8 to correctly expose her.)

But what about the shutter speed? The new shutter speed to get the same effect on the background would be 1/50th of a second. (We simply open up the shutter 2 1/3 stops to neutralize the fact that we closed down the aperture 2 1/3 stops.) Thus, the exposure on the background has not changed. We did this step to get away from our 1/250th of a second sync speed, and give us some "playing around" room with the shutter speed. So now, imagine you are Ryan, wading in the water, shooting at 1/50th at f/8 and getting the same tones as we see above. Now, say you drop the shutter to 1/100th. What happens? Model lady does not change. She wants f/8 from the flash and that is what she is getting. But the background gets one stop darker. You have just increased the contrast range of the photo. Darker, moodier and looking completely different. And I'm thinking those water diamonds are really popping now. Drop the shutter down to 1/200th. Darker still -- but not black yet. Completely different feel to this photo than with the other two. Which is correct? They all are -- just different. "Correct" is determined by the exposure on the model -- and that is set by the flash (and choosing the corresponding aperture that makes her look well-exposed.) But the sky? That's up to you. Airy, normal, moody, black -- it's all good. And it is all available to you. What you have is two different photos -- each with its own exposure -- being compressed into one scene. There is a flash exposure, which happens instantaneously and is controlled with the aperture. Then you have an ambient exposure which happens over time and is controlled by a combination of the aperture and the shutter speed. _____________________

Now, You Do it
Our first light balancing exercise will be very similar to Ryan's setup, except that you will probably stay dry and you probably won't have a beautiful model to work with. (If you want to stick a gorgeous model into the water to do this, knock yourself out.) Drag a partner out to an area where you have a fairly low horizon and a view of the western sky. Go out at about sunset and wait for the twilight sky to meter (continuous light level) at your sync speed (probably a 250th) at f/5.6 at a reasonable ASA (ASA 200 or 400.) Now shoot a photo of your model using the correctly exposed twilight sky as a backdrop. He/she will be too dark. Next, light your subject with a flash so that he/she is correctly exposed at f/5.6. You can do this with hard or soft light, on-camera or off-camera light -I don't care. We are working on balancing light here. Shoot a few frames of your subject this way. Talk with them. Tell them how good they look. Show them the images on the back of the camera. You are doing this to (a) build rapport and (b) to keep them around for a few more minutes. Pretty soon the twilight background will drop to 1/125. Adjust your shutter and keep shooting. Next it'll go to 1/60th. Adjust your shutter and keep shooting.

But now, also shoot some frames at 1/125, to underexpose the background by a stop. And try a few at 1/250th to underexpose by two stops. You should see a very different feel in these photos, but they should all look okay, as does the underexposed sky in this photo, by Jonathan Shears. When the background drops to 1/30th instead of opening up the shutter to compensate, turn the power on your flash down by one stop. (If you were shooting at 1/4 power, move to 1/8.) Now, instead of opening up from 1/60th at f/5/6 to 1/30th at f/5.6, you're opening to 1/60 at f/4 and adjusting your flash to compensate. This buys you more shooting time before you get into the "Hail Mary" range of shutter speeds. The next time the sky drops another stop in exposure, power down your flash another stop and move to f/2.8. if this sounds difficult, it is not. Try it. As your light drops lower still, keep opening up your shutter. Play with different speeds to see the effect on the background. But remember to choose the correct aperture to expose your subject correctly with the flash. You will soon have too little light to focus. But before that happens, you'll have a lot of cool photos, with a range of background looks. If you want to post some, tag them: Strobist Lighting102

Balance Twilight

You can see the tagged photos here. If you would like to talk about it, I have set up a thread here. There's lots more coming on the light balancing front, so no need to get fancy yet. Next week, we'll be looking at how to do this kind of thing in full daylight.

Lighting 102: 3.2 - Balance | Flash/Sun Crosslighting
UPDATE: Some of you guys are already all over this one. There's a good discussion thread forming already, so there should beplenty of help for the newbs. Please ask technique questions in the Flickr threads rather than the comments. Last week we talked about creating great light with just one flash and a sunset. (Results here.) But what about those photos which can't be scheduled for the evening? This week I want to get into the idea of balancing and crosslighting sunlight, and take a look at a Strobist reader who is using this one technique as a calling card. (More after the jump.) Before we learn how to tame the harsh sunlight, let's take a look at what TTL, on-camera fill flash does so we can have a basic understanding of the concept to better understand how we can expand it. I have nothing against TTL, mind you. There are situations for which it is clearly the best solution. But I cringe at the thought of all of that technology being brought to bear on what turns out to be a boring photo because the light was coming from on-axis. You have seen the photo before, in the back of your camera or flash manual. It's usually a very nonthreateningly beautiful female Japanese model, posing by a railing with a background of, say a nice lake or harbor scene and perhaps

a sailboat or two. The before-and-after photos show the ugly, raccoon-eyes look of the model in harsh sunlight and the improved-but-still-sterile TTLMatrix-Balanced-Computer-Assisted-Patented-Photographer-Brain-Softening fill light. Raccoon eyes are the problem, and the pat solution is to pop just enough light in there to fill them. The camera calculates the basic, ambient exposure and pops in a little fill at, say, 1.7 stops down. It fills the harsh shadows and leaves that little "fill flash twinkle" in the eyes. But geez Louise, with harsh sun and one flash you can do so much better. I mean, even keeping the flash hard (no umbrella) you can get some very cool looks by going off camera. And you only have three decisions to make:

1. At what angle do you want your strobe light and sunlight to hit your subject? 2. How bright to you want to set your ambient? 3. How bright do you want to set your flash?

Boy, that there's some real rocket science right? No, it's not. It a simple series of choices that can leave you with some super cool-looking mid-day photos. Let's run through the thought process and take a look at some of the results you can get.

Taming the Sun

Here's the basic setup. (Like those new, high-impact, 3-D graphics? Yeah, baby...) Click the pic for a bigger view. It's good to start with the sun coming from behind your subject, out of the frame, on the back/right or back/left side. You'll be throwing hard sunlight against hard strobe light, so lighting-wise you do not care which is coming from where. But your subject would probably rather not look right into the sun. (The choice to go back right or back left is going to be made by which background you prefer, given the differing sun positions.) Immediately, you will want to go to your max synch speed, giving you the most open aperture possible and allowing your flash to do the most work with the least output. (This is where having a 500th of a sec synch -- or higher -- at your disposal pays real dividends.) But 1/250th will work fine, too. Below that, it starts getting tougher. We'll be playing with the ambient in a bit, but for right now let's just grab a decent background exposure and go with it. Remember, you're at your synch speed, so you will do this with the aperture on manual. This is not some compromise, namby-pamby, mama's boy, try-to-keepeverything-in-range exposure, either. Expose for the sky and environment and let your subject's foreground exposure fall where it may. Make the environment look good. You'll be fixing the foreground in a minute. This is also the background/separation light for your subject. So do pay a little attention to how that light looks skimming off of your subject, too. You'll be surprised at how good that back/rim looks coming of of the sun side of your subject when you do not have to worry about the shadows in the

foreground. Now, bring your flash in from the opposite side (a little high and at about a 45-degree angle to start) and set it on, say, 1/2 power, with no light mods attached. (You do not have enough power for an umbrella unless you are in very close or you are rocking some serious watt-seconds.) You can warm it with a gel a little if you want. Maybe a 1/4 CTO. I would start with my flash at about six feet away, on 1/2 power. Pop a frame and chimp. Too dark on the flash-lit side? Move your light in. Too light? Drop it to 1/4 power to get some faster recycle time for a better shooting rhythm. When you balance it right, it'll look like this:

Now, seriously, does this not look better thananything an on-camera fill flash could accomplish? This is by New Zealand shooter Brent Williamson, who uses this light all of the time and does not even appear to own a proper light stand. It's not an equipment thing. It's a brain thing. Of course, synch-wise, Nikon and Canon do the wireless thing very well at close range. And this is a situation where your synch connection is gonna be pretty much bullet proof. So definitely use this as a way to amp those family pix if you are so-equipped. You do not even need a stand, either -- just a bystander to hold the flash and point at your subjects.

Here's a setup shot of a different lighting angle situation, also by Brent, which shows the flash acting as more of a backlight. He is crosslighting almost on the 90's (flash a little behind) but the idea is the same. Looks so obvious when the light is in the photo, but click through on the photo and cover the flash/tripod with your hand and see the lighting look without the setup context. Cool huh? Exposure-wise, your flash has to be pretty close to correct. But you have a half-stop range either way, so don't get too anal retentive about it. Also, after you nail the exposure, move the strobe around a little to find the best lighting angle/height to make your subject look the way you want. But the exposure on the ambient/background -- that's another story.

Take a look at this third shot by Brent, which is clearly underexposing the background a little. Totally different feel. To get this, you are going to underexpose the background by staying a the synch speed and closing down the aperture -- and cranking up and/or moving in the flash to compensate or the tighter aperture. It looks so 3-D because the sun and the flash are painting the subject from opposite sides, and you can play with the ambient exposure to let your subject pop as much as you want.

The flash exposure still needs to be on target, but play a little with the ambient portion. It's the concept of straight crosslighting (instead of straight, on-camera fill) that gives you the look. As long as you shoot on the 3/4 (or 1/4) angles to the lights, you are gonna get a really nice, 3-D effect with this light. The ambient light level, which defines the feel of the photo, is up to you.

Lighting 102: 3.3 - Balancing Flash/Ambient Indoors
UPDATE: [ Completed exercises |Discussion ] When last we met, we talked about moving from the idea of balancing a nice, even, back-curtain of sunset light to dealing with a highly directional light source (and learning to use it rather than just fill it.) This week, we are taking it indoors to apply the same principles to light that is less directional, less intense and more diffuse. The common thread you should be starting to see is that there are two simultaneous exposures going on every time you use flash. This is true whether you make use of the second exposure or not. In fact, even if you are shooting with a disposable point-and-shoot and nuking your drunken frat brother with the flash at about, say, twelve beers into the party, you still have two exposures happening every time you push the button. The difference between neanderthal and nuanced is learning how to finesse the ambient portion of your exposure. I mean, it's always there anyway, so why not use it? In fact, the more you understand it, the more you realize that it is at least as useful as another flash. And sometimes even more so. (More after the jump.) Typical indoor ambient light, for instance, might be about 1/60th at 4/f at ISO 400. So If I shoot you in that light, available only, you are going to be properly exposed. You'll still probably look pretty bad -- we nailed the

quantity, but the quality of the light is likely ugly as it comes from overhead fixtures. So, I decide to stick an umbrella'd flash up near you and light you that way. After all, I think we have established that you need all of the lighting help you can get, right? I put my camera at the max synch speed (1/250th) and put my flash on 1/4 power and light you up to f/8. As my umbrella is very close to you (yeesh look at those wrinkles - I can fix that with soft light) we remember that the light is going to fall off very quickly and go pretty dark by the time it gets back to the wall, right? So now you look great (all things considered) but the wall on the other side of the room is way too dark. The problem is, the only thing that is lighting the wall is my flash. That's because my ambient exposure is set to 1/250th at f/8, which is underexposing the non-flash-lit portion of the room by four stops. So let's move from the hypothetical to the practical and do a little exercise in walking the ambient exposure up a little bit to see the effect of various shutter speed on the flash/ambient combo. Rather than use photos of you, dear reader, (we don't want to scare the small children, now do we) I'll use a camera as a stand-in. In this room (my living room) the daytime ambient exposure is about 1/4th of a sec at f/4 at ISO 200 with the lights out. I have the blinds open so the back part of the room is receiving some light. The camera, in the foreground on a coffee table, is receiving much less. The first thing I want to do is to establish that, at our starting exposure with no flash, the room would be black:

Here we are, at 1/250th at f/4 with no flash. This stunning exercise in minimalism is, in fact for sale. But only a true art lover would appreciate the beauty and meaning of a photograph like this, so please do not be offended if it appears overpriced. At a 250th at f/4, the ambient light in the room is 5 stops underexposed. Darn near black, I'd say.

Next we'll add a little flash, in the form of anSB-26 in a shoot-through umbrella. Please forgive the umbrella ribs reflection in the front filter. I was working fast today. Besides, I had already made my artistic statement for the day and I was too bushed to be creative again. But wait, what's that light on the back wall? Well, we already know that it isn't ambient, so it must be flash. Which is exactly what it is -- spill light from the umbrella.

So, let's open the shutter speed up two thirds of a stop to a 1/160th of a second.

Hmm. The background doesn't get any brighter. Same thing for 1/100thand 1/60th. (Okay, maybe a tiny bit at 1/60th.) This is simply because we are working so far from the ambient exposure of the room. If the flash is much more powerful than a given, combined ambient setting, I call that "working above the ambient," as in, "I was shooting flash at f/4, working 4 stops above the ambient." That tells you that at f/4, my chosen shutter speed was four stops too high for the ambient exposure.

It's not until we get to 1/40th of a second that the ambient starts to creep in, albeit barely. This is the threshold of the shutter settings at f/4 (and ISO 200) that will allow the ambient to burn into the flash's shadow areas in the photo. So here is where you'd start paying close attention to the TFT screen and adjusting your shutter to get the best effect.

At a shutter speed of 1/25th of a second, things are starting to happen. Clearly the ambient is starting to make a more pronounced appearance here.

Mind you, the camera is staying consistent because it is lit solely by the flash at this point. The background isn't really usable at this point, exposure-wise. But the light is coming up and I am confident that I can fine-tune it to whatever tone I want.

At a 15th of a second, the background is getting usable. From here on out (or up, actually) the tone of the background becomes a personal choice. There is no "wrong," as it is now a matter of how much separation I want between the subject and the background. Remember when we told you to throw the concept of "proper exposure" out of the window? This is what I am talking about: The the exposure reference point is set by how you choose to expose the light falling on the camera. The background can be anywhere in a wide range of tones, with the choice being yours.

At a tenth of a second, my off-white wall is a rich tone, influenced as much by the color of the green-filtered shady light coming through the north-facing window as it is by the ambient portion of the exposure. Doing an exercise like this (hint, hint) will show you just how much control

you have over a situation once you start to understand the concept of balancing strobe and ambient.

At a 6th of a second, we are still below medium grey on the tonal level of the background. But now we are starting to get into a background range that, say, a newspaper might be able to reproduce. The ultimate medium in which the photo is going to be reproduced will be your guide as to the limits of your chosen ambient fill level. But again, the choice within that range is yours.

One quarter of a sec. This is my personal choice, as I like the "invisible" quality of the light and ambient combo for this picture. It's a subjective call, but for something like this the light can be made to disappear (not too obvious) and the photo just has a quality edge to it that does not look lit, but just looks nice.

At 0.4 secs (1/2.5) the room starts getting

airy. Remember, the walls are well above medium grey, so the camera considers this an overexposure of the ambient. Again, that "proper exposure" thing is a very fudgeable concept. You might like this frame better. There really is no right or wrong here.

At 0.6 secs, the background looks airier still. I could go up more on he ambient, but the highlights in the center right portion of the background would start to blow out, which would be distracting (but still not "wrong," IMO.) There is more leeway here than in a Composition 101 paper in 9th grade. The first concept that you have to learn is that there is a base exposure that will render any scene as black. Indoors, this is frequently an easy exposure to achieve while still being at or below your synch speed. From there, merely opening up the shutter will allow progressively more ambient light into your photo until you get exactly the balance that you want. Here's something else to think about: Your tripod is another flash unit, but with near-infinite power. Say you are shooting in a huge, cavernous, dimly lit, windowless room. You could umbrella-light someone with a flash in the foreground, and just hold that shutter open until the room was raised exactly to the supporting exposure that you wished. Just lock your camera down on a tripod and leave the shutter open until the whole, "unlit" portion of the room burns in. I have done it (on a tripod) for 30 seconds at f/2.8. The person swayed just a tad during the exposure. But honestly, that made it look even better. And speaking of movement, one last shot:

Given a quarter second of shutter with which to play, of course I am gonna try a little flash-blur. But that's not until Part 7, so let's save that for later.

____________________________________ We still haven't finished the balance unit. So this week's exercise is just that, rather than an assignment. I did these demo shots in ten minutes, literally, from light setup to final frame. It's really no big deal to try something like this in your living room. The important thing to remember (as it always is when "burning in" ambient against flash) is to have your flash-lit subject in a part of the scene that is receiving less ambient light than the ambient-lit part of the scene. In practice, this usually means shooting into a brighter background and lighting your subject with flash in the foreground. Remember, the whole distance thing still applies. So keep that flash in close, lest it contaminate your background.

FYI, here is a shot which shows the

incredibly difficult and complex setup that was used to make this series of shots. (That's "Ginger" sniffing the umbrella, by the way. She's not the brightest bulb in a three-pack, but she's very sweet.) One final note on the umbrella: I "choked up" on the shaft a little but, which means that I did not make full use of the full umbrella as a light source. Reason is (other than that I did not need the full light source at this small distance for the light to be soft) is that I did not want any raw light to spill past the edges of my umbrella and further light the background. If you are doing the exercises, please tag your photo(s) thusly: Strobist Lighting102 exercise balance indoors You can view the completed exercises of others, here. There is a discussion thread set up for this post here. Finally, given the range of background tones that would have been displayed on the back of your camera, which shutter speed would you have chosen, and why? Hit us in the comments.

Lighting 102: Assignment - Balance
We have spent the last three weeks studying light balancing and producing photos in fairly restrictive exercises. We have a lot of people doing the work it takes begin to understand the complete and subtle controls you have over the dance that happens in your photos between strobe and ambient.

You have shot into sunsets, flashed against harsh sun and built up your backgrounds with ambient indoor light. These were three very specific techniques, but they all point to a better understanding of ambient/flash control and balance. Later, we'll be playing with more than one strobe at a time. But for now, this balance stuff should start to be getting intuitive if you are using one strobe. I want to detail the techniques for balancing flash and ambient as they relate to actual camera operation, and this send you off on an assignment with a little twist -- and a nice, long deadline. (More after the jump.) _______________________

Controlling Your Light from the Camera
Assuming just one flash and ambient light, there are only three combinations with which to control the two variables.

1. To alter flash and ambient levels together: Remember, flash cares about the aperture and ambient cares about both the aperture and the shutter speed. So to lighten or darken both at once, we adjust the aperture. If, for instance, our whole scene (flash and ambient) is too dark at f/8, we could move to f/5.6. This would lighten everything by a stop -- flash and ambient alike. Conversely, we could darken the entire scene by going from f/8 to f/11. 2. To alter the ambient level but not the flash:

As we said, flash cares about aperture and ambient cares about both aperture and shutter. So to control the ambient only, we will adjust the shutter but leave the aperture as is. Assuming you are within your sync speed, this will alter only the ambient-lit portions of your photo, as in our coffee table camera shots. 3. To alter the flash-lit area but not the ambient: This is the most complicated of the three, but only as much as "chocolate/vanilla twist" ice cream is more complicated than either of its components. Flash cares about aperture, and ambient cares about both aperture and shutter speed. So to alter flash only, we are going to adjust the aperture (which alters both) and compensate for the ambient by adjusting the shutter the other way. (Sound of 2,000 heads exploding.) This is not hard at all. Say our ambient is fine, but our flash is not bright enough. Aperture is at f/8 and shutter is at 1/60th, for the sake of argument. So we open the flash up to f/5.6, which brightens the flash-lit area -- and the ambient, too -- by one stop. Then we close down the shutter to 1/125th, which brings the ambient exposure back to its original exposure value. (1/125 @ f/5.6 = 1/60 @ f/8, right?) Piece of cake. To darken only the flash but preserve the ambient exposure component, we would close down the aperture and open the shutter speed by the equal amount. _________________________ Three slick moves which add up to total control of your lighting world. All in manual. All from the camera.

And Now for the Twist
Everyone will be doing this assignment in the nude. No, no -- kidding. But I had you for a minute, huh? No, the twist in this assignment is akin to the difference between algebra and physics. Stay with me on this one. Algebra is pure math -- or pure torture if you were not a "math person" when you got to algebra. Math as an end to itself. ThisCrapWon'tEvenHelpMeBalanceMyCheckbook math. Math for math's sake. Whereas physics is math with a purpose. Physics is math getting something done. We are talking "1/2 AT squared tells me where the water balloon will land" math. And that's cool. And your third assignment will hopefully get something done, too.

Assignment #3: Balance

Two of my friends, Rissa Miller and Nathaniel Corn, are both photographers who also happen to be married to each other. A few weeks ago, Rissa sent me an email about a project that she and Nathaniel had been working on along with two other people who I have not yet met. It's called the Thank You Calendar. It is a calendar designed for (and to raise money for) members of the armed services who are recovering from wounds sustained in a very politicized war.

Politics and opinion are the last things on Rissa's and Nate's mind. In fact, they make it a point for the Thank You Calendar to be politically neutral. Which makes this project all the more special, IMO. They are not doing the calendar for the war, or against the war. They are doing it for the people who are caught up in the war. They are neutral, yet they are trying to do some good. (Boy, that's a 180 from most people with a "for" or "against" stake in this thing...) One hundred percent of the money raised by the Thank You Calendarwill go to wounded service members recovering at Walter Reed Medical Center and to their families. The money will go to help fund visits, and buy personal items that they may need as they recover, etc. What a neat idea. Isn't it amazing what a few people with the ability to make cool pictures can dream up? And here's the thing: There are easily 10,000 people reading this post who are working at this level, photographically. The trick is to look beyond taking pictures of, say, a camera on a coffee table and figure out how you can make the world a little better place with your camera. So, here's your assignment with the twist: Photograph someone in mixed flash and ambient light, using what you have learned in the Balance section to control your variables in the manner that you choose. But more important, produce a photo that makes a difference to someone. How it makes a difference, and for whom, is completely up to you. Try to look beyond the technique to make a photo that is special in some way. Do not get so hung up on the technique that you fail to make a real picture. Maybe there is a local organization (like a charitable foundation) whose director could use a nice portrait for an annual report. Perhaps there is a family you know -- a single parent facing tough economic times -- who would love to have a high-quality family portrait for the holidays.

Maybe there is a centenarian in your town that deserves to have their achievement marked with a photograph. The specifics do not matter. The magnitude of the result is not what is important. The idea matters. And the idea is, what a waste it is to be learning to do such great work only to have it sit on a Flickr page as an end-all. If you don't want to do this, it is completely your choice. But in the same way it would be a waste of your ability to do a fine photo of a mannequin as an exercise, it would be a wasted opportunity for me not to at least attempt to harness the wonderful pool of talent and goodwill we have built together in this community in such a way as to do some good. You want time? You got time. The single photo is not due until November 3rd. That's plenty of time to put some thought into it and pull off something neat. We'll take a little breather on the L102 new material to give you time to concentrate on applying what we have learned to an assignment with a little more depth and potential than he first two had.

Here are your tags: Strobist Lighting102 Assignment Balance and for your best shot, include the tag: Final You can see all of the take here. You can see the final edits here. Discussion is here -- and please use this as a clearing house for ideas. You are spread all over the world -- people from 176 countries logged on in September. Duplication of good ideas is fine, even encouraged.

It's a really good feeling to make a good picture. It is a much better feeling to make a good picture that makes a good difference. Thanks for your consideration. And if you have time, please take a moment to check out the Thank You Calendar as an example of what a few photos can potentially accomplish.

Lighting 102: Balance Results
Results from the Balance Assignment, in which you were asked to make a photo of someone that both used the technique of balancing strobe and ambient and to try to make a difference in someone's life. (More after the jump.)

I am going take a little detour on the discussion for this assignment. Rather than dwell on the technical aspects of a selection of photos, I am going to throw a couple of them up (as in this Mark Sirota's birthday project, left, for several grandmothers) and then list a few of the things people tried to accomplish with their assignment photos. This was a pretty big jump from the earlier, "just for the heck of it" style of assignments and exercises, but it was an important step up, IMO. Yeah, it's all cool to learning how to light and stuff. But just shooting cool pix for the sake of shooting cool pix is a bit of a wasted resource, IMO.

This idea is something that is pretty close to my heart. Now that I do not have the paper to shoot for every day, I am spending a lot of time trying to decide what I can accomplish with my future photos. The engagement portrait at left, for instance, was by lilskibumm, as a gift for the couple. The idea of accomplishing something could be as simple as an afternoon's recreation or helping out a friend. But it could also mean a portrait for a family during hard economic times, shooting an annual report for a charitable organization, helping a community institution -- whatever. That said, here are some of the goals behind some of your submissions. These were selected to show the range of the ways people chose to benefit others. Click on the link to open up the photo. Helping a local science museum Portrait for a man separated from his family Kid photos for a mom enduring hard times Cancer survivor portrait, for a church publication Community activist portrait, for non-profit newsletter Portrait of his mother's beloved, aging cat Family portrait, with little girl battling cancer Volunteer rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina Children's portraits for disadvantaged family Photo to benefit Technical Aid for the Disabled Long-distance family portrait -- mom is stationed in Iraq Documenting a friend's new business

Photo benefitting a local astronomy club Portrait of a camera-shy daughter, after she finally agreed to be shot Photos of support staff and volunteers at local school _________________________________

Finally, reader Andrew Smith bumped the idea up to something community-wide, inviting readers of his local paper to submit ideas. Still looking to see what Andrew comes up with. Hopefully, he will shoot us a link in the comments... Thanks to all of you guys for the cool photo-related gestures. Next time we meet for L102, we'll be back in straight learning mode -- snoots, grids, gobos and all that cool stuff. That'll be in two weeks, as next Tuesday will be soaked up (along with the other days) by another theme week. And I'm a little excited about it, too.

Lighting 102: 4.1 - Restricting Light
Soft light is... nice. Soft light is safe. It is flattering. It is, well, expected, for lack of a better word. And don't get me wrong -- nice, safe, flattering and expected are good things. They put bread on the table every single day for pro shooters around the world. But the people who are doing edgy, risk-taking stuff -- fun stuff -- tend to not be the typical, umbrella-toting photographers. Hard light -- especially hard light that has been restricted in some way or

another -- can really get you out of a rut if you are looking for a way to amp your photos. Remember, using light balancing techniques, you can still control the ratio of the lit-to-unlit sections of a photo. This is true whether you are transitioning from a strobe-lit area to an ambient-lit one, or from an area lit by one strobe to an area lit by another strobe. So, while apparent light size controls the abruptness of the transition to shadow, your various light balance levels will control how far you fall into the shadow. These two variables, used in tandem, give a wide range of control. But the beam of the light source itself -- usually a hard light source in this context -- can be controlled via various light restricting devices. More after the jump. _______________________

Gobos

A gobo is basically any type of a light shield. "Gobo" is a slang abbreviation for "go between." It can be either attached to the side of the light, or placed between the light and any place you do not want the light to reach. This can be to solve a flare problem with a light that is aimed back toward the camera, or to shield light from falling onto the background, or any number of

things. Gobos are extremely useful items that do not take up much room in a lighting kit. You should always have a few around.

For example, here is a group shot at one of the London seminars, in which we had just placed a warmed-up separation light in the background, aimed directly the group. As you can see, the light is also spilling onto the ceiling pretty badly. We can solve that problem by placing a gobo on top of the flash, blocking the light from heading straight up.

The light now does what we want it to do, but not what we don't want it to do. There is no reason you could not put a gobo on the bottom, too, for instance. In fact, you can have just about any beam pattern you want through the use of gobos, snoots, and/or grid spots. (You can see a full On Assignment writeup on this photo here.) Any good mechanic will tell you that it is important that your car be able to go, but it is more important that your car be able to stop. This is also how I feel about light. Put the light where you want it, and keep it from going where you don't. For instance, I could have a hard light that travels as a vertical strip by placing a gobo on each side of the flash.

Snoots
A snoot is essentially a four-sided gobo -- just a tunnel for your flash to restrict the light to a tight beam. The longer the snoot, the tighter the beam. Simple as that. But there are more controls to be had with a snoot. You'll get fast fall-off on the edge of your beam if the inside of your snoot is black. This is because there is very little light bouncing around the inside of the snoot, contaminating the edges of the beam. You'll get softer edges to the beam if the insides are light grey, or white. And softer yet edges if the inside is silver. You can see more on snoots and gobos in the original L101 post. I am a cardboard snoot and gobo kinda guy, but you can get ready-made(i.e., non cheapskate-looking) versions if you do not want your clients to catch a cereal box vibe from your gear. A good example of problem-solving (including the why and the how-to) with a snoot is in this biz portrait On Assignment post. You can also make snoots out of black foil to have teeny-tiny openings, as in this example. This gives exception light beam control, which is especially helpful with light painting. Even with close-up photography, the ability to direct strobe light right where you want it can give you the control to light on complete different planes, even if the two planes are literally inches away from each other.

Grid Spots

Grid spots are essentially a patterned group of snoot built into one device. They offer much more beam control over the light. I have grids that will throw about an eight- by six-inch pattern at six feet. That's tight. The longer the grid is (and the smaller the individual channels) the tighter the beam. The best two ways to make grid spots are out ofblack straws or coroplast, (a plastic version of corrugated cardboard.) As an example of the level of light control with a grip spot, I bounced a light around the inside of a missing slice of cake in this photo. The light does not hit the white icing right next door. That's control. That's a grid spot.

Cookies
In addition to simple objects that are designed to block the light, you can shoot through complex objects to partially block the light, or to create a neat pattern of interest in your photos. Typically, these are colled "cookies," if they are 2-D and man-made, which is short for "cookaloris." It's an old movie lighting term.

They are usually a sheet of black cardboard, with a seemingly random pattern of holes. But my preference is to use found objects, such as potted plants, to create patterns as in the photo at left,

which is explained in detail here. I cannot tell you how many times this technique has helped to elevate an otherwise boring photo.

Time to Play
So, those are my Four Horsemen of light restricting. But you'll never get feel for using them if you just read about them. So, for this session's exercise, we'll be making some light restrictors and test-driving them. This is easy, sit-around-and-digest-the-Thanksgiving-turkey stuff. Your exercise is to make some various light restrictors and shoot some consistent photos, swapping out and/or moving the light mods. For example, you might do something as simple as make a couple of gobo's and a few snoots of dfferent lengths and set a flash on a stand and shoot pic of the wall. By placing the different light mods on your flash, you should gain a good understanding of what it is that they do. You'll want to be putting together a grid spot, too. It's a tad more complicated to build than the gobo and snoot, but it turns your flash's output into an amazing little beam of light. We are gonna play with that more later.

Lighting 102: 4.2 -- Ultra-Hard Light / Film Noir
Results form last week's exercise, in which you were asked to experiment with restricted light. Also this week, an easy way to create a unique light source and a new assignment, all after the jump. _________________________

Looking at the photos that came in from last lesson's exercise, we start off with none other than a self-portrait by Eke, who is also the guy in Yesterday's On Assignment post. (Apparently, it's Eke Week here at Strobist.) This is a classic film noir look, shooting a strobe through a gobo to throw some patterned tones on the background wall of a hard-lit portrait. It is especially appropriate to this week's discussion, but we will get to that in a few minutes.

Swilton's chess shot is also a nice example of using restricted light to zone-light a small subject. Without the grid spot he would have had to deal with flash spill on the backdrop. This way, he could leave it black, as he chose to do, or light it with a second flash knowing that the first flash would not have contaminated it. This multiplane lighting technique can give you total control over various sections of the photo, and is one thing for which grids are especially well-suited.

Next, we have a nekkid self portrait by Jonathan Roberts, after seeing which I will never look at one of those tiny racing saddles the same way again. He used three strobes, and explains the process in his caption. (Can't wait to see the comments on this one.) Jonathan, if you are confident enough to stick that photo up in the Strobist Flickr Pool, the least we can do is Full Monte you right up to the main blog. May I be the first to stick a folded dollar bill into your brake cable. _________________________

Seriously Hard Light
Back to this week, Eke's photo got me to thinking about something I have yet to talk about in the 800+ posts on this site: Further restricting a bare speedlight to create an even harder light source. You may think of a bare speedlight as being a pretty hard source already. But that depends entirely on what you are trying to do with it. A typical speedlight is actually a focused light source (via the fresnel on front) that is about 1"x2" in size, give or take. This is, granted, a very hard light. But if you think about it, it is harder in one direction than the other, by a factor of 2x. In practical application, this does not matter very often. But it can come into play of you are trying to throw a hard shadow from something like, say, a set of Venetian blinds.

Assuming you are shooting through a horizontal set of blinds and will be throwing a horizontal pattern of light onto a wall, you would get a sharper pattern if you oriented your flash horizontally than if you shot it rotated 90 degrees to create a vertical light source. Reason being, the horizontallyoriented light is harder in the direction that matters when hitting the blinds. If you experiment, you'll see that this does make a difference. For an even sharper shadow, then, you might choose to use an even smaller light source than the horizontal dimension of your speedlight. Here's how you do it.

As you can see, we have just slipped a little box head with a slit cut out over a flash. But what we have made is a light source that has the same width, and about half the height, of the bare speedlight. If you are trying to create an edge on some sort of shadow, paying attention to the orientation of your light and further restricting its size in the chosen dimension can make a big difference -- especially when you are working in close. Also, if you are trying to skim a light past a gobo in a very precise way, a restricted light size can give you the ability to better control what a light sees and what it doesn't.

Doesn't cost anything, money-wise. Just come cardboard and some tape. But this model, for instance, does cost you about one stop of light from the flash's output. That's because we are covering up about half the surface area of the flash head. You can make a light source very tiny this way, but it will cost you more output. If you are working in close -- where even a speedlight can look more light a soft light source -- you can create a darn-near point source light. If you are shooting past an object - blinds, ficus tree, whatever -- a tiny light source will give you control not possible with a bare flash. _________________________

ASSIGNMENT: FILM NOIR
We have Eke to thank for this week's photo assignment inspiration. It's a simple photo assignment, really, with a lot of potential. I will leave you to decide how you interpret "film noir," and I am sure there will be a lively discussion in the Flickr thread with lots of linked examples. I would think most of you will be shooting in black and white, and I would suggest it if your camera and/or image editor gives you that capability. We all have a lot of schedule to contend with in this holiday season, so I am going to be long on the deadline, too -- January 2nd. I hope you'll have some fun with this one. It certainly goes well with the restricted light theme.

Lighting 102: 4.2 -- Film Noir Discussion
It was only 8:00 in the evening, but it was already dark outside. Real dark. As in too-underexposed-to-be-saved-in-Photoshop dark -- even if you were shooting raw. But I was well-lit, thanks to the off-camera flask in my hip pocket. Not that the victim I was presently staring at cared. She had apparently been hit from two different directions with a well-aimed '25. An Nikon SB-25, to be exact. And it was up to me to figure out exactly how it had been pulled off. (See the Film Noir Assignment results after the jump.) _______________________

If you haven't already guessed, today we are looking at photos from the post of December 4th in which you were asked to use hard, restricted light to create a "film noir"-type of shot. Film noir lighting is about a subtle as a ball peen hammer, and it's a good way to experiment with restricted light. Subtlety and nuance took the week off in favor of edgy and contrasty light, window blinds as gobos, and lots of knives, guns and liquor. As always, click the pic to get to the Flickr page. This gets you to a bigger version of the photo, along with lighting info (hopefully...) and an easy way to comment on individual photos. __________________________

Leading off is this study in subtle symbolism

fromTheBauerGallery. Check me if I am wrong here, but I think the shadow you can just make out on the back wall represents the person who may be causing the tense expression in the subject. I could be way off base, as I never was one for picking up obscure hidden messages in art. But that's my guess. Can you find the photog in the photo? Click through to learn about his setup.

Next up is a shot byRichard Melanson. He uses a very tight snoot, balanced several stops over the ambient, to draw attention to the the subject's eyes and away from the gun in his hand. Let alone the bottle of courage the subject has apparently loaded himself with. Snoots and flash/ambient balance are a match made in heaven, and that's what we'll be playing with in our next exercise. The whole effect is governed by two variables: Where the snoot is allowing the light to fall, and how far the exposure falls off in the area which is not being lit by the tight beam of light. There is no right and wrong in the lighting ratio, either. You figure out the look you want and adjust the balance to create it. Quick: Where is the snooted light coming from? Try your hand atreverse engineering before clicking on the pic to find out.

Liquor is again the scene setter in the third photo, by John Leonard. I like the way John is using snoots to highlight the two areas of interest in the photo. But let's look at the balance thing again. Assuming John is on a plain background (or could shift the setup of the shot to where he was against a wall a few feet away) I would love to see him tweak it for just a tad bit of separation between the shadow side of his head and the background. Be nice to hold that shoulder, too. He is shooting at 1/200th at f/11. I would open the shutter up (1/125, 1/60, 1/30, etc.) until I brought the wall to a very dark grey, barely separating the black elements on camera right. I just noticed that he appears to be wearing a white shirt, which could be a problem. (Shirt comes up as the wall does.) But you could solve that by bring the wall up to a higher ambient level than the shirt. How? Just stick a lamp between the subject and the wall.

You can't have a selection of film noir photos without a set of blinds, and itsjustanalias doesn't disappoint. And here is a great example of the "no correct exposure concept, in which being able to place various areas of your photo at different tonal levels gives you total control. The inside is "too dark" according to just about any continuous light camera meter. The outside light is "too bright" by the same measure. But the whole bowl of porridge is just right, connoting a dark room at night lit by streetlights below. That's what I am talkin' 'bout. All that's missing is the flashing "HOTEL" sign, with the last two letters burned out.

Last but certainly not least is one of those gratuitous female shots that tends to pop up in our 95% male-dominated site. (We gotta balance that out a little.) I send you guys out for film noir and you use the assignment to do a chicks-and-stockings-and-knives shot. I say all that because this one is byambienteye, AKA Katherine Gaines. Katy is busting some really cool stuff lately and one of her other photos will be

featured in the next L102 installment, which is coming next week. This is just pure, elegant light on an extreme budget. The grid is made with straws. The cookie is made of foam, as is the "ND filter" on the third speedlight to knock it down to a usable range. Katy gives you the strobe placement info on the photo's Flickr page, but think it through before you go and look. Without giving away the light positions, I would say that the SB-600 sets the whole tone of the photo, with the first 383 calling attention to the knife and filling the face. The second 383 pulls the whole thing into range (tonally) and provides light for the first 383 to push against. ___________________________ You guys obviously had some fun with this one. To look at the whole take as a slideshow, click here. Or join in on the discussion thread,here. And if you think about it, leave a comment or two on the stuff you really like.

Lighting 102: 4.3 -- Assignment: Cross, Balance and Sculpt
Now that we have played around with restricted light in a blunt-instrument sort of way, it's time to learn to finesse it to go for something a little more subtle. Just because that beam of light is tight, does not mean it has to be garish. By combining a couple of different lighting controls, you can tweak restricted light to do just about whatever you want. More after the jump. ___________________________

As an excellent example of what I am talking about, I offer this moody, full-length portrait by Katherine Gaines, AKAambienteye, whom you may remember as having taken the cool film noir shot from last week's discussion. Click here to open the shot pictured at left in a new window, bigger for reference. I'll be a little less formal from here on out and refer to her as Katy. I can do that because I have seen her wake up one morning. Although, to be fair, it was at about 11:45 a.m., and it was over two hours into one of my lighting seminars. Katy is quite the night owl, and doesn't normally do mornings. So I was quite honored that she even showed up for a Sunday morning session. Her well-executed photo calls into play at least three different light control techniques: Crosslighting, Balance and Restricted Light. Let's look at them, in order.

Crosslighting
Katy's main light in this photo is the late afternoon sun. (This could also be done in the early morning, except for I am pretty sure that someone else would be shooting it.) It is defining the scene, and as such is considered the main light even though it is not coming from camera front. It's coming from back camera right, about 30 degrees above horizontal. I am

pretty sure it is the sun (as opposed to a flash) because of the even quality of the light. That tells me it is pretty far back. You could do this with a strobe, but you'd have to be pretty far away with it (and high to get the angle). NOTE: If you were going for a sodium vapor street light look, you could gel the flash with a green fluorescent gel and a 1/2 CTO and simulate a puke green sodium vapor streetlight quite nicely, thank you.) Her flash is pointed fairly close to back at the sun. (Not possible to get an exact crosslight because of he wall.) This creates a zone of 3-D wrap-light which makes for a well-defined subject.

Exposure Balance
No secrets here: Katy has the two light sources balanced pretty close to even, exposure-wise. It is safe, and still can be quite interesting if you are restricting the light. Remember, each of these controls works individually, but they can be combined with other techniques for great effects.

Restricted Light
This is the control that makes the picture, IMO. (Lighting-wise, anyway -- the color scheme, wardrobe, body attitude, etc., all rock in this photo.) As for light position, she placed her snooted Nikon SB-600 down lower, at camera left, to just get up under the hat. But the use of a snoot creates a beautiful fall-off to the strobe's light, calling attention to his face but fading out as the light travels down the subject's body. By the time it gets to his hand, it is there but it is not there. By the time it gets to his feet, it is gone. This shows you how dark the subject would have been on the shadow side without the added light.

This is just a cool technique when you consider the lighting equipment involved: A speedlight and a cardboard tube. But there is some seeing involved here, too. You have to be able to previsualize what you want and make it happen. Which brings us to this sections's assignment. __________________________

Assignment: Cross, Balance and Sculpt
This time around, we'll be aiming a little higher on the subtlety meter than film noir. Your goal will be to take advantage of some directional light, and then to sculpt some restricted light into the scene in such a way as to add interest to your photo. You do not have to crosslight it, either. For instance, Katy could have shot this guy from against the wall (current camera left) in profile, and filled under his hat with a snooted strobe in front of him as he faced away from the wall. The point is to be able to learn to go with the interesting ambient that is presented to you, and to selectively improve it through some off-axis fill -exactly where you want it. Add to this the ability to control the fall-off via grid shape and light position, and you can start to see the possibilities.

L102: 4.3 -- Cross Balance and Sculpt Discussion
Report from the assignment given on January 18th, in which you were asked to shoot a photo predominantly lit in one direction, and partially filled by restricted strobe coming in from another direction. This concept proved a tad elusive for many of you, but there were some cool photos made, all the same. Pix and more, après le jump.

__________________ This assignment and technique is a pretty tough thing to get, IMO. But it is one of the most useful ways to use a single flash. For instance, Joe McNally is basically doing exactly this -- selectively lighting against the ambient -- in his blog post on lighting a fence. Seriously, if I put out an assignment for you guys to shoot a fence with a single flash, take a moment to picture in your mind what would come back. But a photo like that in the hands of a photographer who is elegant with his or her light can yield a beautiful photo. Also: Until he starts explaining to you how he lit it, did you notice that the final photo was not really about the light at all, but the fence? It just looks pretty darn good photo of a fence, is all. When light works really well, it does not call attention to itself. Your mind just explains it away as being natural light. Only really cool natural light. That is sculpting with restricted light. He restricted it by zooming the flash out to 105mm, which at that range is as good as sticking asnoot onto the flash. That said, there were some cool shots in this group, too. So let's look at a couple. Leading off is a nicely done photo that I am reluctant to post because it just reinforces that 94% male thing we apparently have going on here. (I would like to report, for the record, that I am 100% male, whereas you, as a group, are merely 94% male.) I'm just saying.

Anyway, here is Dat-Tuyen Nguyen'ssimply and beautifully lit portrait, shot in color but (IMO) looking better converted to black and white. I really like the photo, but I might have moved the camera-right light up (in direction) a tad. As it is, it is pretty cleavage-oriented. But I suppose that is a matter of personal choice. Remember that you connote a lot about what is important and what is not by what you choose to selectively light. (And yes, I do expect that there will be some comments -- both ways -- about this...) That said, I think you will find that any controversy attached to the above photo pales in comparison with that of the following picture, which is by Lowell Sannes:

You see, Lowell is busy shooting his assignment while he is also flying a Boeing-Effing-737 jet plane.

Now, I do not know about you guys, but what I like to hear from my pilot during a flight is the occasional report of the (smooth) weather that is expected ahead, meted out over the intercom in a confident, baritonepitched voice. And not something like, "Hey, look, Bob! Every time I do a test pop with my Pocket Wizard the nav displays go nuts! That's right, the same guy who would prefer that we turn off our pacemakers as he prepares to land the plane is just hunky-dory with a Pocket Wizard transceiver going off repeatedly at 34,000 feet. It's good to be the captain. Also, I would like to know: Did he actually turn the plane to position the sun correctly? I can hear it now: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain Lowell speaking. Shortly, we will be executing a quick l'il barrel roll, so's I can nail my backlight for an important photo. Please do not be alarmed. Oh, and you might wanna buckle up... That said, what is important in this venue is that it is a very cool pic. And it is just what the doctor ordered for the assignment. Lowell has chosen a scene defined by strong backlight and selectively filled it with restricted flash to light exactly what he wanted lit, and nothing else. And if I may address Mr. Sannes directly: You, sir, are the charter member of the Strobist Lighting 102 Six-Mile-High Club. That said, my URL had better not be the most recent address in the browsing history of your charred iPhone when they find it next to the plane's black box. _________________________

Smoldering remains aside, the takeaway from this assignment should be to consider the possibility of working against the direction of the ambient light, and then working some selective light back into it to create a center of interest that is controlled entirely by you.

Lighting 102: 5.1 -- Refract and Reflect
Okay, show of hands: How many people have been trying to do this Lighting 102 stuff with just one flash? Don't feel so bad. Back in the day, lighting guru Dean Collins was onlyallowed to use one light source for his first year of studying his craft at school. And he did just fine, thank you. Whether you have one light or twelve, the trick is making them look like more is knowing how to stretch them into doing double-, triple- and even quadruple-duty for you. Or you can just take that one light and give it some texture -- a little more interestingness. By reflecting and refracting light, you can pimp it up like a college student making a gourmet meal out of ramen noodles and a few Taco Bell fire sauce packets. Hit the jump for more. ________________________

For the most part, light from your flash starts out looking pretty yucky. We have learned how to move it around, soften it up andrestrict it, but you can also bend it, or shoot it right back at itself. In fact, before the light ever leaves your speedlight, it has already been refracted. The fresnel lens on the front of your strobe bends the rays to make them spread out wide or zoom in tight. But who's to say that you can't do a little more of that kind of stuff after the fact?

At left is a photo of photographer Ant Upton, who did this cool guest On Assignment of a soccer player in Paris a ways back. I shot him during a lighting seminar in London last year. Before we lit it, the backdrop for this photo was an speckled grey room divider. A gelled flash took care of the drab color. But the subtle pattern was created by shooting our background flash through a water pitcher to bend the light around in a funky way. This is the kind of thing that can turn a plain-jane background into something with a little texture to it. I do these lighting gigs in typical, boring hotel conference rooms, and I often have to scrounge for something to make the light a little more interesting. I have to go with what I have on hand, and frequently, that means a stack of water glasses or a pitcher. In this instance, the trick is to back the flash up a little from the pitcher to make the light point-source enough to create a good pattern as it shoots through. (This also means you are probably gonna get a lot of spill around the pitcher, so I tend to snoot or grid the light to keep the beam tight.) If you are looking for an even cooler thing to shoot light through, those (cheap) translucent, wavy-glass blocks at Home Depot look even nicer for a light bender. Use your imagination -- light modifiers are everywhere. ________________________

Or, you can easily make one light do the work of two. For this quickie headshot-in-a-corner of actor Bruce Vilanch (in drag for a role in the musical "Hairspray," I stuck a speedlight into an umbrella and used one wall of the corner setting for a backdrop and the other wall as a reflector. Bingo: One light becomes main and fill. (Full how-to on the quickie corner headhot setup here.) This is simple stuff, and you should always think of a neutral-colored wall as a second light source, waiting to help you fill those shadows. But refracting light can make it more interesting, and reflecting light can multiply it into something that looks far more complex than it is.

For instance, you can shoot light through something translucent and use the resulting modulated shadow as a

compositional element. A good example is this shot of a pair of glasses, byEkistoflarex. All it takes is a little imagination. ________________________ But especially nifty, IMO, is what you can do with mirrors. And rather than throw an example up for this, I want you to take a moment to previsualize it. This way, you start to build a photo in your mind before you pull out the first (and sometimes only) light. You want to get to where you can see the light in your mind before you ever start to create it. You want a process you can depend on, not a string of lucky accidents. (Although we'll certainly take lucky accidents when we can get them.) Imagine a table-top product shot, lit with a single, bare light, say, from directly above. You'd obviously get that "suspect-getting-the-third-degree" kind of light. Which can be cool, depending on the reflective quality of the surface the object it is sitting on. But say, for the sake of argument, that you happened to drop by Ikea or a home store and bought a pack of four mirror tiles for $5.99. Now, say you placed two mirrors front camera left and right of the subject, and the other two back camera left and right, too. If you angled them properly, you would turn that one, top-spotlight into a full, five-sided wraplight setup for just $5.99. You seeing it? In fact, you can do a lot of seemingly complex table-top photography with just one real light source, if you bounce that thing around some. That mirrorwrap thing is just an example. You might decide to build your lighting scheme on one (real) rim light with reflector cards and mirrors stretching it into a near-endless set of apparent light sources.

If you are into gelling your light, you could control the color of each of those mirrored light sources individually. You just have to remember that you'll get double the strength out of your gels, because the light gets gelled on the way in and on the way back out when reflecting from the mirror. (It's an easy fix. You just use half of what you need -- a 1/2 CTO becomes a full CTO, etc.) If $5.99 is beyond your disposable income limit this week, consider making some foil reflectors. Just a little cardboard covered with aluminum foil can do winders for a small product shot. Remember to crinkle the foil up, then spread it back out, for a nice, even reflector surface. No assignment today -- just some thoughts to get your gears turning. Just a heads-up to be thinking about what you have -- or can scrounge or buy -- as a set of reflectors. Because our next assignment (which I'll be doing, too) will require that you use one light -- in several different directions at once.

Lighting 102: 5.2 - Assignment: Double-Duty Light
Today's Lighting 102 assignment is simple, in theory. Your job is to create a photo, using just one flash, that makes use of reflective surfaces to create light coming from multiple directions. Sounds easy enough. But there is a little twist. More after the jump. ____________________ Technique-wise, this assignment is just as simple as it sounds. You'll be using one flash, which you can combine with ambient light if you like. But you'll be stretching it to make it do double duty. Or triple duty. Or more. This assignment is a little different from what we have been doing up until now, in that this is more than just a technique-based photo. This is also a conceptual shoot.

Realizing that 85% of the people who read this site are amateurs, I wanted to introduce an element of your having to produce a shot designed to illustrate a concept. This should give you an added layer of complexity. But I am also going to include a choice of three concepts just to make things a little easier. Before we get to that, a roadmap to help you conceive your shot.

Concept, Subject, Light, Gesture
Normally, a photographer would get an assignment to illustrate a single concept. And you'd think you would want a nice, big, general concept, right? Maybe not. In my experience, those are more difficult to do than the niche stuff. It just a matter of having to many choices. Once your concept is narrowed down, you need to choose a subject that you will use to illustrate it. One earlier example on this site is this On Assignment post, from a shot to illustrate winter book clubs. We chose as our subject origami chairs, made from the pages of classic books. Physical subject chosen, we next had to design the light. In the above case, I was trying to mimic a dark night and fire from a fireplace. (You can read the whole assignment post on the other page, so I won't dupe that here.) But the point is that the physical subject had to exist before we started to figure out how to light it. If you think of this as a linear creative process, it starts to work itself out a little. How you interpret the concept will point you to your representational physical subject matter. The choice of subject will help you craft a lighting scheme -- within the bounds of this assignment, in this instance -- and then you are on your way to making a photo. If your subject is a person, you'll also want to pay careful attention to the

gesture you elicit, as this last step with either make or break the photo. Not that a person is required. But if you use one, don't drive the ball 99 yards and screw it up because the person's gesture is totally wrong for your concept.

First Things First
How will it be used? Even if you do not have a publication venue in mind, it helps to make one up in your mind to act as a guidepost. This will help you to visualize the photo you want to make and give you some boundaries that will help you make your choices along the way. Choosing a venue will help you get the creative ball rolling. Mind you, for the pros, the venue is typically already chosen, as is the concept. And frequently, the subject is pre-selected, too. Each of these prechosen variables can be a blessing or a curse. But this time, for better or worse, you are driving.

Your Choices Here are the three conceptual choices for your assignment. Choose one:

1. Financial Planning. 2. Going Green. 3. Physical Fitness. Three simple concepts, with many possible choices.

I'm Playing, Too

As mentioned in the reflect/refract post, I am gonna be doing this one, too. I will write it up as an On Assignment and throw my thought process into the ring along with everyone else. And, FWIW, I'll share some of my choices here. My concept choice will be #1, Financial Planning. It is an avocational interest of mine, so I know enough to at least get started thinking about it. My potential end venue will be the blog, "Get Rich Slowly," which is run my friend, J.D. Roth. He has no idea I will be shooting a conceptual photo for him to use, and will likely only find out when he sees his inbound traffic from my site today. (Hi, J.D. -- Surprise!) If he wants to use it, fine. If not, fine. But the point is that having an end use in mind will help to guide me through the decision-making process. That's where I am going with it. More later. ___________

For this assignment, your tags will be: Strobist Lighting102 (note, no spaces) Reflect Please tag only one photo with the above three tags. And remember: One flash, stretched with reflectors. That's the technique we are using. You can see all of the photos from this assignment here. Discussion for the assignment is here. The assignment is due at the end of the day on March 3rd.

Lighting 102: Discussion - Double-Duty Light
UPDATE #1: Adds killer shot that did not show up in tag search.

Report from Assignment 5.2 -- Double-Duty Light, in which you were asked to illustrate one of three concepts: Physical fitness, financial planning or going green. You were asked to stretch your lighting budget by reflecting and/or refracting one light source. Lots of really cool stuff this time. We'll be looking at four examples, pointing to a few more and linking in to some photogs who went the extra mile and chose to blog or video their efforts -- after the jump. __________

Long story short, you guys turned out to be luminary contortionists. I hope you enjoyed finding out what one light could accoplish as much as I enjoyed watching you. This is one of those times where there was an embarrassment of riches, as far as the number of good photos was concerned. So as visual examples, I am looking at three people who took different directions with their light. (No pun intended).

Leading off is Lbeetge and his "going green" theme. He chose to start with strong, undiffused backlight, which he sent through his plant to make it glow. This hot light coming from back camera right (via a Sunpak 4205 flash) was easy to reflect back into front camera left using two silver reflector boards.

I love the way the plant goes a little nuclear. (Or, "nukuler," as our Commander-in-Chief says.) Starting with a hard light from the back is a useful way to stretch your lumens budget, and it translates well to working with hard, directional sunlight, too. But since you can create hard, directional light any time you want with your speedlight, this is something you can do any time, anywhere.

Batting second isNick.Flick, who managed to conjure up a whole studio for this one-source, wrapped-light photo. The flash is coming in bare from back camera left. It is reflected by a mirror on camera right. (Thus, the "wrap.") A fill card is at camera front light to paint a nice soft light on the cans in front. Still not exactly sure what he shot the flash through for the background light. (Even after looking at the setup shot...)

Third up, we have treeffe2000, who did pretty much everything except for project some birds and clouds into the sky on his

background. Flash comes in bare from back camera left, lighting the coins. It is then reflected from camera right, to light the coins from the other direction. (A piece of paper was also used above the coins to catch some raw light and paint a nice smooth tone.) A mirror at camera left also catches some raw light and sends it through a house-shaped gobo to create the background image. The setup shot is here. Bonus points for the Elliott Erwitt book on dogs. I love that one, too.

And batting clean-up (and a grand slam, IMO) is this shot which I marked earlier -- then missed it because it for some reason does not show up in the tag search. It is by The Light Whisperer, which is an appropriate name as far as I am concerned. One light. I am proud to say that I was able to reverse engineer it - but only by narrowing it down to two guesses. Try to figure it out before clicking through to the photo to see it bigger and read how it was done. This is an slick idea, and I never would have thought if it. Triple aces. _____________

Neat stuff, all. And if you want to see more, check out:

• Paul Morton's penny -- setup shot here • Jon's dime -- link is to a how-to post • Meyerson posted on his quarter shot, here • D. W. Heywood's racquetball player • Steve's aging muscles • Nick's nest egg -- with a how-to video • And (other) Nick's bucket-o-coin, which took the cake for most complex -setup here

(You can see everyone's tagged stuff here.) _______________

Which did you like best? Why? And, while we are asking questions, where's mine? Dog ate my homework. (Just kidding. It's coming next. But I won't be topping that $100 egg...)

On Assignment: Nest Egg

For my shot at the most recent Lighting 102 assignment, I went with financial planning as my theme. Specifically, riffing on the idea of a nest egg having great value. (Click the pic to see it bigger.)

I had my light all planned out in advance, and I thought it would be quick and easy. I was wrong. More after the jump. __________

I chose financial planning as my theme. I was looking to create a photo that would be generically useful, in a variety of ways, for my friend and fellow blogger J.D. Roth, who publishes Get Rich Slowly. I read the blog. And I am, in fact, getting rich slowly. Very slowly. Excruciatingly slowly. So slow that my net worth may at times appear (to the untrained eye) to actually be shrinking. But in reality, I am getting rich. Slowly. I will be ready to retire at, say, age 152. So I wanted to create something for J.D. that was simple, textural and versatile. My initial idea was to do it with a ring light, and reflect the ring light back on an angle to edge light the next.

Problem: Golden Eggs do not like ring lights. So, one quick test shot into the shoot, my idea falls apart. Clearly, I would need a large light source to paint the kind of specular highlightthat would make a spray painted 24-carat, solid gold egg look the way I wanted.

Takeaway: If something is not gonna work, you can see why, and it cannot be changed, then bail. Go for plan "B" instead of knocking your head against the wall to fix a flawed plan "A". So I threw up some light stands around a nest which was created by my prop department (avian division) last spring. I placed it on an old cutting board to

help carry the warm tones I wanted for the photo. Then I taped some paper to the stands to make a nice diffuser. Could have done it with a big cardboard box, too. Any support in a storm. Firing a bare SB-800 through that, my specular started to look a lot better. But it was all on one side of the egg.

No prob -- that's an easy fix. Remembering that the egg will "see" and reflect everything around it, I continued around the top and other side with more white paper. The top and right side paper is illuminated by the lit paper on the left and makes a quasi-light tent that creams out the egg nicely. My light stand for the SB-800 was the arm of a couch. I used the couch because the kids weren't home from school yet. Thus, no voice-activated light stands. (Hey, they work cheap.) You can see a hole in the top of the paper, too. I first thought I might like to shoot from directly overhead. But that was too symmetrical. So I bailed on that idea real quick. (Persistance, apparently, took the day off...) At least the egg is now solved. But the nest is dark on the shadow side, even though the paper was filling it from camera right. So I built a little aluminum foil reflector which I tucked in on the bottom camera right side to fill the right front of the nest. You can see it in the setup shot if you click through. The camera right foil-fill keeps the texture flowing nicely all around the nest, making the light as symmetrical as the composition. It's a simple photo, built on color and texture. I wanted the color and texture

to be the theme of the photo, rather than over-the-top light. But the use of soft-fill reflectors all around the top were still important, even if they do not scream, "HEY, PEOPLE! LOOKIT MY LIGHT!" Ditto the little piece of foil. It is subtle, but it needs to be there. If the egg is seeing a highlight everywhere, the nest would look weird if it were dark on the right. For the gear-wonks, I shot it with a Nikon D300 and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. Light was from a single SB-800 speedlight, as mentioned above. It was on full power, which got me the aperture I needed to carry focus on the nest, even though working in close. So, J.D. there's a photo, appropriately, for you to stick away and use later when you need it on your website. If you want it for the cover of your sure-tobe bestselling financial planning book, tell Random House to call me for, uh, details...

IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE LIGHTING 102 THREAD, NEXT: L102: 6.1 - Gelling for Fluorescent IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE ON ASSIGNMENT THREAD, NEXT: Peter Yang Shoots Admiral William Fallon

Lighting 102: 6.1 - Gelling for Fluorescent
On their face, gels are a pretty simple concept. You stick a colored piece of plastic in front of your flash and it alters the color of the light accordingly. But so much is possible from just this simple trick. In this, the first of a four-part section on using gels, we'll be looking at their most common use -- converting the color of your flash's light to the color of the ambient light in which you are shooting. This is called color balancing. We first visited the idea of color balancing in Lighting 101 where the two most

important gels were discussed. The "window green," (or "plus green") gel converts the light from a flash to nominally match that of a fluorescent light. A "CTO" gel similarly converts your flash's light to match the light from an incandescent (i.e., tungsten) bulb. But for today, we'll be talking about just the little green gel. It's certainly complicated enough to merit its own post, as you'll soon see. While the fluorescent conversion used to be a simple process, this is no longer the case. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that it still is. At least for the moment. Traditional fluorescent light is green. About 30 color correction (CC) units of green, to be exact. By placing a 30cc window green gel on our flash, you make the flash's light match that of a traditional fluorescent environment. If our ambient is green, and your flash is green, you're okay. Because you can correct for all of this similarly green light by setting your camera on the fluorescent light balance, and all is white again. This is because the FL white balance setting just shifts everything over 33 units of magenta. This is what balances out the green. Take, for example, this shot I made a couple of weeks ago at Western Kentucky University, while teaching the PJ students there.

(Sorry, Jeanie. You were my most recent example...) This is a fluorescent-lit studio. In this shot I lit Jeanie with an SB-800 in an umbrella and the flash was gelled with a window green gel. My shutter speed

was opened up to let the background of the photo burn in to make a decent exposure. But in addition, the green gel, combined with the camera on fluorescent setting, brings the colors up pretty close to correct. None of that sickly-green cast that happens when you forget to gel your flash and the fluorescents just come in the ugly green way they really look. Pretty simple technique, right? But in practice, there are two little gremlins that usually come into play. First, rooms can often have a mix of fluorescent and daylight. Maybe even a little tungsten thrown in for good measure. In addition to that, fluorescent lights are now all over the map, color-wise. In reality, they can now actually be warmer than tungsten. Let's take these problems one-by one. First, on the multi light sources, sorry to say that you have to choose a source color and go with it. But this can be better than it sounds. My first trick, if there is a lot of daylight bouncing around in a fluorescent room, is to ask if I can turn off the overhead lights while I shoot. If the daylight is enough to cause light balancing issues, there is usually more than enough to work by with the fluorescents turned off. Then you do not balance at all -- just shoot in the daylight with normal flash. If that solution is not available, I will close the blinds or drapes to minimize the encroaching daylight. (This daylight comes through as magenta when you are set on fluorescent white balance.) One other thing you can do to help are to work on the opposite side of the room as the windows, to minimize the daylight contamination. If you have a mix of fluorescent, daylight and tungsten, do everything you can to lose the fluorescent light. Then shoot on daylight with no color correction

gel on your flash. The daylight and tungsten will mix a lot prettier than any green/other combo will. (And if all else fails, hope it runs in black and white...) ____________

And as we said earlier, fluorescents are no longer just 30cc's of green. And for us photogs, that really sucks. There is no good solution here. The important thing is that you have to be able to counteract your conversion gel with a white balance camera setting. That is to say that, even if your fluorescent light is not a perfect green, you pretty much have to live with the difference. Just green your flash and neutralize it (the flash) with the FL white balance setting. Sometimes the ambient will go a little weird. But it is better than not gelling at all. For those super warm fluorescents, the ones close to tungsten, I will usually just treat them as tungstens. I'll CTO the flash, and set the white balance on the camera to tungsten. Again, not perfect. But better than nothing. And the flash-lit part will look good. How can you tell where the fluorescents are, color-wise? The easiest was is to shoot an ambient-only shot and chimp your screen. If it looks more green, gel and balance for fluorescent. If it looks more orange, treat it as a tungsten. This is also a good approach for working in vapor-based light (sodium, mercury, etc.). Your flash-lit subject (usually the most important part of your frame) will be okay. The ambient burn-in part may be a little off. But that's the price we now have to pay for having 57 varieties of fluorescent bulb colors. And as for dealing with tungsten lights, we'll be hitting that in the next installment of Lighting 102.

Lighting 102: 6.2 - Gelling for Tungsten

In the last L102 post, we talked about some of the problems we have to face when gelling to work under fluorescent light. Gelling for tungsten yields similar, but different problems. Fortunately, tungsten is easier -- and more forgiving. First of all, when we gel for tungsten, we use an "CTO" gel, which is orange and converts our daylight-balanced flash to tungsten (or incandescent). This means that our little flash has basically been turned into a normal light bulb, as far as light color is concerned. As you can imagine, this is gonna be pretty orange. But when you are shooting in a tungsten environment, you need to get your light consistent. And CTO'ing the flash makes the flash orange, so your flash and ambient now match. Setting the camera to the tungsten white balance setting (usually denoted by a little "light bulb" symbol) corrects for all of this and brings all of the lights back to daylight. Except when it doesn't. And there is the rub. Like fluorescents, tungstens are not always the "correct" color. In fact, a bulb's color can change radically - even moment to moment. How? By being dimmed. If you do not believe me, dim down a tungsten light in an otherwise darkened room. Watch as it gets redder and redder. They go almost pure red right before the dim to "off".

TIP: If shooting in a dimmed tungsten room, try to get the lights cranked all the way up. You will get a higher ambient level -- easier for balancing. And you'll get truer tungsten colors -- easier for gelling to balance.

Knowing this, you should now realize that you cannot perfectly balance for all tungsten lights with just a CTO gel. And even if you could balance for everything, you probably would not want to. First of all, as with our fluorescents, when color converting we can only gel our flashes for something we can reliably correct with white balance settings. And custom white balance is not very useful, because you would have to match the flash's gel pack with the custom color to complete the process. If you do shoot regularly in, say, the same room with the same whacked-out color, it might be worth it to test a build a gel pack that matches the room light for your flash. Then you could cancel it all out with a custom white balance. But on a daily basis, this is impractical when shooting flash. Fortunately, flash and tungsten get along pretty well when not perfectly balanced. The main thing is to get your flash correctly CTO'd and balance that at the camera. Then let the ambient tungsten do what it is gonna do. It frequently will not be perfect, but it will be much better than if you had not gelled at all. And you can also vary the background color effect by how much ambient you choose to include, remembering that the ambient component is controlled with the shutter speed. Balancing down lower with ambient (more stops underexposed) intensifies the color. So bring it up a little so smooth it out. Long story short, the bad news is that with tungsten, you have a color problem you might not have previously considered. But the good news is that you do not need to be as exacting with tungsten light, so missing it a little is not a tragedy. CTO and Window Greens explained, we will jump into some fun stuff next -color key shifting.

Lighting 102: Assignment | Work That CTO

We've talked about the primary use for the CTO warming gel -- balancing strobe, which is (close to) daylight balanced to the color of incandescent light. In a tungsten room you CTO your flash, set your WB to incandescent, and Bob's your uncle. But the CTO is such a useful, sweet little gel to have around, we can't stop there...

CTO Overdrive
Pictured above is Shadi, whose stunning good looks proved to be such a distraction to the ladies in the Dubai intermediate class that we had to move outside to disguise the fact that he was clearly making them all hot under the collar. And hot it was. Dubai is about 172 degrees in the shade in the afternoon. But they make up for it by sucking all of the color out of the sky for your photographing pleasure. To call this sky a hazy grey is to do grey a disservice. But that didn't stop us from getting a rich-blue, ad-hoc portrait of Shadi in the courtyard. We had to be quick -- people typically start to burst into flames after about five minutes outdoors in the afternoon there. So to get this shot of Shadi, we walked three SB-800s out, already on stands, and set him up in a triangle configuration. We essentially dialed in the blue background by shifting the camera's white balance to incandescent, even though we were shooting in a daylight environment. The white balance "fixes" tungsten light by throwing a lot of blue in there. Hence our newfound color.

The back flashes were with no gel. We let them push a little bluish rim light to accentuate the sinewy muscles that define Shadi's neck. Ladies, you may wish to sit down and/or grab a glass of water at this point. But take a look at that area, because that's what an ungelled flash gives you on a tungsten/incandescent WB setting. You can see the photo bigger in a new window here. To light Shadi's face, we had to get the light from that flash to be appropriate in our new, tungsten WB setting. So we warmed it up with our CTO, turning it into the "correct" light for this setting. In effect, one little orange piece of acetate turned this whole environment blue. Well, two pieces, actually, as I added another 1/2 CTO to bring the flash beyond "correct" and have it warm-light Shadi's face against the blue. This is a neat trick to whip out on a crappy day (or at twilight on a no-show sunset) when you need some atmosphere. I have used it for food shots and moody portraits alike. You may also notice that we are underexposing the ambient by a couple of stops to get a good, rich color. It is not enough just to shift it -- you have to knock it down, too. We could have easily warmed up the rim lights, but I like the steely effect of that blue rim. Especially for a man who just oozes confidence as does Shadi.

You can do it indoors, too, with the daylight streaming through a window.

I faved this photo a ways back, 'cause I just loved it. Turned out it was shot in Dubai by none other than Sid Siva, (AKA Sid the WonderVAL) who I would be shooting with out in the UAE desert only weeks later. Small world, huh? Sid used the exact same color shift technique on this biz portrait in Dubai. Set the camera to incandescent. Crank the exposure until it looks rich, and throw some CTO-gelled flash in where it counts. Sid for the win.

You're Getting Warmer... Warmer...
So the CTO (plus another 1/2 CTO) thing is a staple for me when I need to drop back and punt on a colorless day. But I have been seeing some stuff come upstream from you guys which is making me wanna use my CTOs even more.

Check out this climbing photo, by Dr. Benny. This photo rocks. Just pushed a little CTO up in to there with the camera set on daylight. The CTO gives you the familiar warm of a tungsten bulb -- or that last hint of golden light at the end of the day when it gets really red. That splash of light just totally makes the photo. Just a little beam of lastminute sun coming through a hole in the unseen rocks. Only not quite, you see as you take a second look. Because the daylight is coming from up top. The

crosslight thing he has going on is totally sweet. Think light balancing for a second while looking at this photo. What makes it sing is where The Doctor chose to expose the ambient light before adding in the CTO splash. He could expose for the highlights, let the rocks go darkish, and build that CTO right up in there. Perfect.

And this photo, voted by me as the "Photo I am Most Likely to Rip Off" of the month.Mazzapix mixed some CTO light (through a straw grid) with some straight light from another flash in a daylight WB shot, and made a quick test for a headshot look like a movie poster. That is what I am talking about. You may sense that I get just a wee bit excited when I start talking about gels. And why shouldn't I? All of these photos were made with the help of a tiny little piece of orange acetate. And the samples are free. How can you not like that?

Your Turn
We have not done an assignment on L102 in a while, so it is time to break out the cameras.

This time, you'll be using a CTO gel in one of the two ways described above -both technically "rule breakers," if you will. You'll either be doing the tungsten WB shift thing in a daylight environment, or throwing some CTO into a daylight WB setting in a daylight environment. The subject matter is open, meaning that some of you will namby-pamby your way through it with a teddy bear, or a mannequin or an egg ( please, oh please, not an egg.) But others will use this as an excuse to stretch. And you know I live for stretches.

Here's the Deal
For this assignment, your tags will be: Strobist Lighting102 (note, no spaces) WorkThatCTO (no spaces)

You can see all of the photos from this assignment here. Discussion for the assignment is here. The assignment is due at the end of the day on June 24th. _____________

Related Posts: :: On Assignment: Spring Desserts :: :: On Assignment: Man in a Boat ::

Lighting 102: CTO Assignment | Discussion

Report from June 3rd, in whichyou were asked to use a CTO filter to do something other than correct for incandescent light. The CTO is maybe the most useful CC filter in the whole pack, as several readers demonstrate in their photos, after the jump. ___________

Greg Cee shot on tungsten white balance and gelled his flash with a CTO -- but went with an additional 1/2 CTO (full CTO plus a 1/2 CTO) gel on the thin sliver of light coming from camera right. This is important, as it puts the light past normal and into a warm color, which is nice when you are making it try to stand out against the blue you have gotten by shooting on incandescent WB. Fill was from an umbrella, no gel, and pointing up to feather the light off of the bottom of the frame. Takeaway: If you are trying to do that cool-light shift thing, with a CTO on your light, go past full CTO to either (2) CTO or (1.5) CTO to get that warmon-cool light that usually looks better than white on cool.

What's the one day a year when you can cover your kid in spaghetti and not catch trouble? Father's Day, of course. Especially your very first Father's Day, which is whenBrad Herman chose to reproduce a photo he had seen done long ago, this time using his kid as the model. Brad used a palette of warm-to-neutral light: Full CTO on the spaghetti monster, half CTO shooting through the tree in the background, and a no-CTO rim. That last one is assuming he was on incandescent WB, but looking at it now I am not totally sure. Reason is, the full CTO front flash looks pretty warm for a straight CTO in tungsten WB mode. And the rim light does not look quite full CTB. I am guessing he either walked the WB around a little in between, or shifted the color a little bit in post. Maybe Brad will clue us in via the photo's caption. Either way, this is the kind of photo that will make someone pick up the phone and call someone at a kid's modeling agency. Or social services. We trust the bath followed shortly thereafter.

Also going for the 1+1/2 CTO thing on tungsten WB was jgentsch, which allowed him not only to deepen the sky's blue tone, but to contrast it nicely with warm light (even after the WB conversion) on the flowers and window. Thanks much for the setup shot, too. Those are always helpful for people to see. Although there is a bit of a setup shot in the original photo, in the camera left window...

Shutter-Think skipped the incandescent WB shift and decided to go warm and warmer in his photograph of a woman practicing yoga. He went the other way, balancing to shade. The half blue gel on the main light brought it back closer to daylight. But it caught a lot of warm bounce fill and warmed up from a backlight gelled full CTO, made even warmer by the camera's shade WB setting. Remember, with the combination of full and partial CTOs and CTBs, you have

quite a range of options to dial your photo warmer or cooler. And you can do it for the whole photo, or vary the shift with each light.

And finally, this self portrait bynikonbhoy works all around the warm/cool scale, using a full CTO front light, a blue backlight, and daylight ambient fill. It was shot on tungsten WB, which shifted everything toward blue. __________

As a group, these photos do a great job of showing some of the different looks that are possible using a couple of sheets of orange-ish acetate, once you realize that stuff is far more useful than just correcting for tungsten light. Really nice work, guys. You can see the original assignment here, and all of the entries here.

Lighting 102: 7.0 - Time-Based Variables
Way back when, we talked about the idea that you could balanceyour flash and ambient light levels by leaving the shutter open long enough for the ambient light to burn in. But during that "burning in" time, there are also lots of things you can do to add layers of interest to your photos. And that is exactly what we will be

covering in the last unit of Lighting 102... The beauty of altering your camera's settings, focus, focal length or position during a flash/ambient exposure is that you can merge two completely different sets of circumstances into one single frame. It's a little like incamera Photoshop -- with a nice, creative randomness attached to it. Today, I want to go through a few of the ways in which you can manipulate your photo during burn-in and show some examples of the end results.

Flash and Pan

For this shot of a soldier in the woods near Ft. Meade in Maryland I based my exposure on the ambient light level. The first value chosen was the shutter speed, which was chosen to create the best pan effect. Having chosen the shutter, that also gave us the aperture for the proper exposure. Then, it is just a matter of adjusting the flash to the correct power to light Robert's face. So, why even use flash at all? First of all, because the flash adds a nice margin of error to a pan shot. Since the flash happens instantaneously, it will freeze your subject. This works best if the background is brighter than your subject. If you expose for the background, your subject will be dark -- and ready to be frozen by the flash without any ghosting. Second, it gives you control over the relative exposure level between the

subject and background. I could have raised or lowered the background level, for instance, without changing the tonal values on Robert's face. (More on how this photo was made here.)

For this shot of an up-and-coming local hip hop artist, I spent a few frames grabbing a flash/pan look even though he was not moving during the exposure. It was an assignment that appeared to be doomed form the start, so I was grasping at straws. (Perversely, I kinda enjoy the challenge of situations like that. As long as they do not happen all of the time.)

The top frame is a static shot, and this is the panned version. The rapper (who performs as "Bossman") had just been signed by a record label and his ego was in overdrive. I am sure he thought he deserved to be surrounded, nonstop, by a dozen of those dancing hotties from MTV and BET. And as such, was far too cool to waste his time on a lead photo in the Features section in the local metro daily. So (once I pried him out of his living room) anything I wanted to try for variety had to be done without changing the setup. But even when pinched for time I am always looking to burn a few seconds

trying something different just to see what it looks like. And even if this one did not work out very well (we went with the still version) the point is that a quick change of the shutter speed and moving the camera could give me a second look -- without wasting any more of His Majesty's precious time. (You can read more about this blood-from-a-turnip shoot here.)

Will it Go 'Round in Circles

Another way to add an abstract layer is to rotate the camera during a flash exposure. When I am shooting with just a point-and-shoot and built-in flash, this is sometimes the only way I have to amp a flash-lit photo. In this shot of Danny Ngan owning Chase Jarvis on Guitar Hero, rotating the camera during a flash exposure helped to make the background a little more abstract. ________

Whether you are panning, or panning or rotating, you want to begin the action before you press the shutter. This will give you a smooth effect, without the jerkiness that happens if you wait until you start the exposure to start the movement. As before, it also helps if you are working against a brighter background.

Diffuse the Situation

Using time as a variable during a flash exposure does not necessarily mean moving the camera, either. You can shoot one portion straight and the other portion heavily diffused, for instance. Or filtered. Or both. In the "Winter Book Club" assignment show at left, I started the exposure by firing blue-gelled flash from the back while there were about eight layers of plastic wrap over my lens. Then I removed the diffusion and finished the exposure painting with the modeling light on a second SB-800 with a CTO gel attached. All of this has to be done in a darkened room, of course, or you will get (unwanted) burn-in from the ambient light. You can see more detailed look at how this photo was made here.

By now, you should be starting to get other ideas on how you can use time to manipulate your images while they are still being formed. You might, for instance, choose to light someone against a sunset and the defocus the camera during the ambient portion of the exposure. If you need for the image to stay in register during the process, a tripod is obviously a big help.

Lighting 102: 7.1 - Flash Zoom and Stone Soup
Remembering back to our last post in Lighting 102, we talked about panning, rotating and selective diffusion as a means of altering your photo after the flash has popped but before the shutter has closed. The fourth time-based manipulation I frequently use is zooming through the

exposure. And last month we pulled that technique out of our as.. bag of tricks during the "stone soup" shoot in NYC. Having thrown down the gauntlet for a local shooter to come up with a subject and venue, I was at first a little underwhelmed with the response. I mean, this was NYC, fer Pete's sake. There had to be something interesting going on. Then Tim Herzog popped up, with not one but four separate ideas. His strategy: Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. What stuck was an invite up onto the roof of one of those amazing apartment buildings on the Upper West Side overlooking central park. Not a bad location, you know, if you have to slum it... Here's the view, looking northeast, right after sunset. It is a five-shot stitch shot on a D300 and assembled in CS3. (Thanks for the easy pano tip,Ben!)

If you are not the jealous type, click on the pic to see it bigger. Michael (who granted us access to his rooftop) just stood there enjoying the view with us, with the serenity of a man who has chosen a kickass place to live. Timothy, ever the gracious host, had also brought along puppeteerPatrick Zung as our subject. And Patrick is not one of those "sock puppet" makers, either. He builds these cool puppets used for stop-motion animation. The joints were made out if pool balls -- genius. It was cool and creepy, all at the same time. Like something out of the movie, "A.I.," if you ask me. The view was amazing. But logistically, I knew the photo was gonna be tough. The park pretty much went to black after the sun went down. And the Midtown buildings, along with the rooftop's layout forced us to shoot in a way that was tough to get the good lights in the frame unless we crammed up

against the edge. Also, we had no way to light him from the far side. Unless you had a 300-foot light stand. Or Spiderman.

So, as our light started waning, I lit Patrick and friend with an umbrella'd SB-800, ( front camera right) secretly wishing I had invited Peter Parker along to assist. We really needed that light out on the far side for separation. As our ambient started to drop further, I added a couple of accent lights to add some shape to our subjects.

As you can see, one came from back camera right and another from underneath the puppet. These gave a more 3-D look to our guys. Also, I gelled those flashes with a 1/2 CTO and a fluorescent green combo, which gets you a neat, sodium vapor feel without going all of the way there. Sort of the way sodium vapor looks to the eye, rather than to the camera. It is more logical. Straight white light would look weird and contrived in this environment. Shooting handheld with a 70-200/2.8, our ambient light was dropping fast.

Patrick's black top was not going to separate without some light from the left, and things were getting darker by the minute. As my shutter speed inched toward the Hail Mary range (~1/4 sec) I started pulling the zoom as I shot. This gave me another look to the lights -- and a more abstract look to the photo. Suddenly the environment was not necessarily a New York rooftop. It was a weird, swooshy thing that really started to fit well with the creepy futuristic puppet vibe.

So we decided to let the black top go dark and just hint at the separation with the swooshed city lights. (I could vary the background light by opening up the shutter.) I really liked the effect that zooming gave the background. And the up-light on the puppet (and Patrick) added some nice form. FWIW, the form on the shirt comes from the back/right light. It is important that the ambient light level on Patrick was lower than that in the background. Otherwise he would ghost badly during the burn-in time. We had scads of sodium vapor up there, so we knocked it down some with a piece of black foam core that is always with me in my bag. We simply "A-clamped" it to the light fixture. I would have used Tim as a gobo, but he was already working as my voiceactivated back-right light stand. There is still some ghosting on Patrick, but I think that little bit works okay within the abstract feel of the photo. Another thing on the zoom -- start the zooming (wide-to-tele in this case) before you hit the shutter. This makes for a smoother effect without the jerky looks you'll get otherwise.

We finished it out at about the one-second at f/2.8 (ISO 400) light level. When it gets that dark, it is time to call it a night. Plus, there was to be food involved at this point. In NYC, you are never more than a few minutes walk from some good food -and Tim delivered there, too.

Lighting 102 - 7.2: Time in a Bottle
Before we get to the assignment for this last unit in Lighting 102, I have one more technique for you to consider when using time as a variable for your flash photos. It's very useful, because it acts as a gear multiplier for those of you who may not have as many strobes as you'd like. Given that a flash can record it's subject in an instant -- even if the exposure is spread out over a long time -- there are several ways to stretch a flash into looking several light sources when shooting a static object.

You'll remember Jonathan Boeke's cool shot from Julyin which he ran around during a time exposure popping his greengelled flash from behind several trees to create this photo. It's a great idea, and you can easily see how it can make one flash look like a whole bag full of lights. But you'll need a very dark environment and a long shutter to have time to make all of your locations for popping the flash. And if you screw up one pop, your whole photo is shot. Another way to approach this is to use your camera's multi-exposure setting, if it has one. Some do, some don't. If your camera is so equipped, this gives you

great flexibility and time to spare when you are lining up your various light locations. If you do not have three PW's (one to manually trigger, one on the camera in relay mode and one on the flash) you'll want to wrangle a button-pushing friend to help. The camera, obviously, should be on a tripod. If you'll remember, we set up a tag cloud for others who wanted to try this technique. You can see their resulting photos here.

For my take on Jonathan's night woods shot, I chose the multiple exposure route because it allowed me to control the ambient light. There was still plenty of twilight when this photo was taken, but since I shot each multi-exposure pop at a 250th of a sec, I could totally control my ambient. I could even have chosen to lay down a, say, three-stop-underexposed ambient frame to flesh out the rest of the photo if I wanted. But I liked it better on black. I tried the straight multiple exposure method about ten times (all pretty time consuming, too) and never got one I liked. So I decided to cheat. I use that term loosely, as there are no real "rules" for this kind of shot. As far as I am concerned, any tool you have is fair game. So I decided to do this multi-exposure on separate frames and combine them in Photoshop. I shot each frame separately, and added each new photo a layer at a time, and combined them using the lighten mode. This simply compares the two layers, pixel by pixel, and the lightest pixel in a given location wins.

Which means it pretty much works like a multi-exposure -- except you can tweak each layer / flash pop before you add it to the final photo. You can shift the color, exposure, etc. It's a fantastic trick for shooting large scenes with one speedlight. I used my single loaner SB-900 for this one. (It turned back into a pumpkin last week and had to go back to Nikon.) Thanks much to Photoshop Honcho Ben Willmore for the heads-up on the lighten technique.

The best way I can explain the advantage of being able to build this exposure around the totally controlled ambient is to say that I shot the photo at left almost an hour after the multi-pop photo. I think that kind of control is pretty cool, when you consider you are getting it with just one speedlight. The soft look in this photo came from the fact that I used a plastic Holga lens (more on that here) on my D3. Kind of ironic, really - a $50 Holga lens on a D3. But I love the look, when combined with hard strobe. And that's exactly what I did here -- camera on tripod, ambient underexposed a stop or two and a 30-second exposure. Just tripped the shutter and walked up to the side of the tree (out of the frame, tho) and popped the flash manually. My choice of shutter for the multi-exposure shot above turned day into night, and the long shutter for this one turned night into day. Understanding flash / ambient control lets you do some cool stuff.

Speaking of Doing Cool Stuff

Now, it's your turn. You have just about everything I have to give on time manipulation of your flash photography. So for this, our last L102 assignment, your job is to shoot a still life. Your photo should contain a combination of flash and some form of time-based manipulation. That's pretty wide open, I know. I wanted it to be that way because I thought we would make this one a little more interesting. At the close of this assignment I will choose one shot, and the winner gets a set of Lighting Seminar DVDs, shipped anywhere in the world. Hopefully that will add a little layer of fun to the last assignment.

The Details
The deadline for this assignment is midnight, local, September 20th. Please make sure your photos are in Flickr and tagged before then. If you are a newb to Flickr, go ahead and sign up now (it is fast and free) and drop some photos in so you can get through the week-or-so waiting period before they let your tagged photos show up.

Here are your tags: Strobist Lighting102 (Note: no spaces) Assignment TimeInABottle (Note: no spaces) and for your best shot, include the tag: Final You can see all of the take here. You can see the final edits here. Discussion is here.

Judging will be by a committee of one (yours truly). I will choose based on technique, creativity, how badly I wish I would have taken it myself, my general disposition at the time, what I may have had for breakfast in the morning, etc. PLEASE NOTE: Please do not enter pre-existing photos into the running for the DVDs. I would like to award them to the best photo shot specifically for this assignment. We are doing this one on the honor system, but make sure your EXIF can back you up... Best of luck to all, and I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with!