 Jessica K. Cunningham |
Making a Portrait Studio I am remodeling the basement of an old church to be my portrait photography studio. I have about 5000 square feet to work with, and will need to be choosing lighting soon. The ceiling is completely ripped out so I can put in anything I want. I want something that will not interfere with my pictures, or make colors funny. Should I get a dimmer? Does fluorescent seem to be the best and most budget friendly option? Or is there some type of LED lighting or something better? Any help would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Jessica, I am assuming you are discussing viewing and work lights rather than shooting light. Your shooting lighting should be strobe, and then the color of the ambient light in your space wouldn’t matter. There are several things you might do in a larger space, but I would be concerned to maintain flexibility. Track lights can be very useful, especially as you can set them differently for day to day use and for shows of your work. In my previous studio, I had track light and fluorescent tubes. The tubes were good working lights, and they are cheap to use. Another possibility is to place power outlets all around the ceiling. This would let you string up any sort of light that seemed appropriate.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jessica K. Cunningham |
Thanks for your response. I have only so far been working with modeling lights in my tiny space, so I wasn't sure if my new strobes I am buying would over power the ambient light or not. That really helps me not to worry so much about the type of lighting, thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Jessica, Glad to help out. Here's a link to an article that might be helpful: www.siskinphoto.com/magazine/buildastudio.pdf You may have to right cllicj and save as to download. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
One thing I would suggest is to have controls so you don't have to have all the lights on or off at the same time. I don't like any lights over my subject, or necessarily close to them. I do like to have lights behind me on. I prefer lights in the room behind me so that the models pupils are not overly dilated. The modeling lights on my strobes are not quite bright to offset this.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bruce A. Dart |
All good answers here. The type of lighting in rooms today is not as critical as it used to be. John's point is well taken of having fluorescent lights as work lights is economical and fine to light the space. However, portraits and photos look much better under incandescent lights. If you are displaying some images in that space, John's suggestion of track lights will properly illuminate the works. For shooting of course, strobes are an absolute must. Dennis is correct too, no lights in the area of the subject except the studio lights (strobes). However, I work with the modeling lights up --not set to match the power of the strobe. It helps ME to see what I'm doing and provides a somewhat lighter room to help keep the pupils of the eye a little smaller. A couple of things to keep in mind. In creating portraits you want to be able to repeat your successes. Generally that means having consistent lighting and more specifically, consistently exposed. Art photos are different but portraits -- to help set you apart from the 99 cent photo studios -- need to exude quality. One of my wise old mentors said to put a string on your lights, meter them and tie a small knot at different f-stops. You can check the distance to subject with a string much faster than getting out your flash meter (or even faster than the easy method John outlined). Some say this might make you "look" like you are "unprofessional." With high school seniors who give me strange looks when I do this, I say "here's your physics lesson for the day" and explain to them how the falloff of light varies in an inverse square proportion and in a very short distance you can have half as much or twice as much light (one f stop). Further, since the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflectance, an accent light or even hair light -- because of the angle -- appears brighter than a light of equal intensity in the area where your main light is. After 30 years of portraits (and numerous awards in print competitions) I still use this. IMPORTANT: THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOUR LIGHTS ARE "NAILED DOWN!" (Placed in one spot and never moved.) On the contrary. In spite of the fact that the human body is SUPPOSED to be symmetrical, we are NOT. People DO have a good side that photographs better. Discerning that and using your lights to enhance your subject takes lots of practice to learn completely. POINT #2. This from my old Navy days of standing watch on ship pertaining to night vision and how the human eye sees light. THIS CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT. Many photographers get used to "seeing the light," that is, after hundreds, even thousands, of times of placing the same intensity of light on a subject you pretty much can tell how it looks and whether or not it is correct. This is true provided you stay in the camera room under those same lighting conditions for 15-20 minutes. That's how long it takes the eyes to adjust. For that reason the Navy would not let us look at white light (it had to be red, similar to some old fashioned darkrooms before the common OC light) for a half hour before going on watch. Otherwise, we are "blind" and do not have night vision for about 20 minutes. The point here is, in a small studio like mine where between outfit changes I may step from the camera room back to the sales area (and much brighter light, especially in the summer months) and then back to the camera room. Not being able to "see" the light again for another 20 minutes, if I am just looking at the lights it will appear that the subject is darker and I might move the lights closer and mess up my exposures. This is where a quick check with the string is helpful. If there is a quizzical look I say, "the string has been pre-calibrated and this saves me from getting out my meter and testing, which is annoying for both of us!" At that point my subjects will concede that the string is "professional" and necessary. This is a long winded response but I felt it relevant. It's nice that each of us has our own method that works for us and we arrive at the same point. John's point at using the computer and histogram is very valid. My only problem with that -- with student and people just starting to work with these -- is that it took me a long time to understand what I was looking at and how to adjust. I found I got there quicker with a meter. His point of those ONLY using the meter and not adjusting as necessary is valid. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION AND TWEAK IT TO YOUR SITUATION. I don't have a BP web site but mine studio site is www.photosbydart.com and I have tons of portraits there. Best wishes everyone. Bruce
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Great answer Bruce! I recently got out a tape measure to check light placement for a series of demonstrations in my new book. Thanks, John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bruce A. Dart |
You are welcome my friend! Thirty years of seminars (and practice) help sometimes. LOL Best wishes, Bruce
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
I am always learning, and teaching. I will be doing some workshops soon in connection with my next book about architectural lighting. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bruce A. Dart |
John and all, We are always learning. And it is said that one learns as much or more by teaching than just attempting to learn. For the most part too, the photographic community is willing to share its knowledge with one another. One of my friends put it quite aptly that "in this journey up the photographic mountain, those of us farther up the trail have an obligation to come back down a bit and help others along the path!" I like that concept. We were all there at some point and appreciate the sage advice of friends along the way.No one has completely "new" ideas, perhaps a different combination though, and, unfortunately, none of us has a monopoly on the opportunity to make mistakes and learn. Read Ansel Adams' "The Making of 40 Photographs" and see some of the mistakes he made along the way to creating some of his most famous images. Bruce
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
40 photographs and the two versions of Fiat Lux have always been my favorite Adams books, at least after they were released. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||