Few More Inches, Big Difference

So what is the difference between a 26” and 36” soft box made by the same company with every other variable mitigated?

The left image on the larger mod is considerably more open, warmer and softer. Brightness was close to the same (1/2 stop to the little one, but I also aimed it straighter, where the 36” was feathered).

Depth of coverage is also excellent, better than my depth of field!

The smaller one is better for this type of thing though.

Another Win For Neewer...ARTDNA......Neewer, whatever.

I received a large box today. A large, light weight box.

Inside was a Chinese puzzle. It is one of those shoot through soft-boxes that needs a little construction. 14 (!) spines inserted and pushed into the bowens ring, then 14 inner baffle clips (pesky little things) and what do you have?

Probably something a little big for a small studio, especially with the construction process involved.

The soft box, all 34.5” of it, was bought as an ARTDNA, but came in a sealed Neewer bag. This was not a huge surprise as the same softbox is listed that way also. What is a surprise is the price. I paid half the Neewer price ($42au), just as I did with my 26” and the massive 48” I ordered just after this one for even less! I can only just get this out the door, so the 48” may not get a heap of use.

Nicely made, went together as it should have. The 26” is on the floor below and unfortunately you can see both corners of the room so pretty cosy!

So, a win for Neewer by proxy?

A win for me ;).

The Budget Logic Revisited

I consider myself a lucky hobbiest when it comes to my current employment. I kind of fell into a job that is a perfect fit for my varied photographic experience and in turn I offer the benefits of this depth to a school that can use any and all parts of it. Some things neither of us new at the time would surface.

The flip side is, I have had to upgrade my gear in several directions at once, as I came into my current employment after a kit scale down and was basically only equipped for street and travel. I am only casually employed so my income can be inconsistent.

My saviours are the brands that are classed as “beginner” or copy brands, but there is more to it than that.

Yongnuo was the first of the original “heart breakers”. In a time dominated by name brands and older after-markets, like Metz or Nissin, YN entered the market with reliable, powerful and solidly made alternatives. To the best of my knowledge, they were the first of the straight-from-China brands and quickly carved a grudging respected name for themselves. I started with a YN 560 III have since purchased five YN560 IV’s and they have been solid and reliable, one has even been dropped three times (!) and is still going well.

I bought the 560 III at a time when I had little use for one, but it was cheap and I trusted the brand. I simply did not have a need or interest in an expensive Olympus unit, much the same as my time with Canon.

Godox came on the scene a little later and quickly overtook YN as the “smarter” alternative. Yongnuo seemed to slip into a less aggressive role as the second option both on price and technical advancement, but still had its supporters especially in the semi-smart flash range. YN are also coming back now with a great LED range. I purchased a couple of Godox “smart” flashes (685/860), simply because their reputation in this space was very strong at the time and the similar YN’s slipped under the radar.

These two brands sit in the “respected cheaper option” bracket. Many top shooters recommend them and they are reliable and honest in their offerrings. They have earned their place in the market. I personally prefer them to the reasonably cheap, bottom end name brand options like the Apurture Amaran COB lights, that are better, but still much dearer.

*

The next step down is a personal favourite and the brand that I feel sits at the very top of the “cheap knock off” brands, pushing hard to be in the same league as Godox/YongNuo. I have found Neewer to be predictable and generally honest in their advertising, but you have to be realistic and shop around. there is a bit of “creative” pricing as the name grows. As a testiment to their quality, they seem to be an Amazon favoured brand.

They are often offered and reviewed as great value options, but can suffer from a reputaion for manufacturing inconsistencies with some products. That can make even their great value seem less appealing*. This has meant that I tend to lean towards their non-electronic items, with the exception of their LED panels and COB lights. Neewer products tend to stand out, sometimes sharing their products with other brands, but more often having their own cosmetic touches and features. I did just jump at a air on NL140’s, based on some new reviews, before finding out they are a little twitchy around poor power consistency, but we will see.

An example of Neewer’s value are their COB video lights. I bought two of these recently for $85au each. It occurred to me this morning that I bought two of these and a similar no-brand one (getting to that), for the same price as a single well respected, but still budget friendly Godox SL-60 (about $260au).

The Godox SL-60w and Neewer SL-60w are often directly compared (go figure), with the Godox coming in as the slightly better made option (slightly quieter fan, slightly nicer accessories, slightly better build), but producing basically the same light (I actually prefer the Neewer’s slightly more even and warmer output) and importantly for Neewer, similar reliability.

A win for Neewer.

In a second example, I bought a pair of the new Godox 120cm soft boxes for $100 recently, assuming they would be much the same as the two Neewers I bought last year for about the same, but they seem better in many respects and came with grids. Both do the same job, but the Godox just looks and feels a little better built for the same money and, I am going to test them, but will assume better light also.

From the Neewer in my first studio test group. Really like this light, regardless of price.

A win for Godox.

Below Neewer sit the “transient” brands, the brands that access the huge Chinese manufacturing base, often sourcing the same parts, even the same items or are cobbled together as copies of the copies, sometimes with surprising results…...both ways. Brands like Selens, Abeststudio etc are a mixed bag. Some will claw their way into respectability, others will come and go and some will stay locked into a single product type, doing what they do well and sticking to it. No matter their business model, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

The Selens COB light I bought most recently is a good example of a better result. It was dearer than the Neewer, but promised to be up to three times more powerful. In actuality it is maybe 20% more powerful, but it is heavier, quieter and has nicer accessories. In this class of gear, the reassuring Neewer “punch above their weight” vibe changes to “read between the lines” or “take with a grain of salt”.

The Selens (not even branded as such on the box or unit) looks to be a hybrid of parts from other models. The outer shell is identical to the Neewer SL-60, but the internals and accessories are different and heavier. The front end actually looks like the older Neewer 60w or even the Godox and the output looks similar to the Godox (slightly “hotter” and a little stronger than the Neewer), so who knows.

The Selens 150w has been a good find, but it could have gone either way and for more than a Neewer ($109), it’s value is just on the right side of the ledger.

A narrow win to Selens (representing no-name brands).

The reality is, if the option is nothing or these, I will bring these brands on board. After a while you get a feel for them. For example I cannot pull the trigger on Neewer mics due to a reputation for poor build consistency*, no matter how good their happy user reviews are and the price difference between their base model flash units compared to the bullet proof YN’s is so little it does not count (I found a YN560 IV for $71 after a quick search, $60 for the Neewer), but for lights, they are just too good for the money right now and light is light.

Are they reliable? I have three for the price of one so, reliability by depth.

*

*The Neewer matched condenser mics, their XLR cables, their large diaphragm condenser mics all review well for quality of output, but not manufacturing consistency. I bought a pack of 6 cables and they are all identical, but others have said about 1-2 per set are poor. That’s a win, but I decided against the Condensers after a spate of negative recent reviews on Amazon. I will watch that space.

The Future

Today was a strange day.

I had a meeting with my current employer regarding a job for a friend of his, and conversation wandered to my role, my future and my needs. It turns out I am worth more than I thought I was.

Nice to know.

The afternoon was filled with real estate photography, tagging along with an experienced team trying out their processes, some of their gear, including a drone, and generally learning and sharing some ideas.

To be completely honest, the whole thing left me cold and is obviously bothering me as it’s 3:40am here.

It took me a while to work out why, but I resisted the process from the get-go. To be clear here, I have embraced change in my current role, taking on video, new programmes and processes, but something about this took me straight back to my old job in the camera shop. A job I found my self resisting more and more.

The primary stake holder insisted on using a tripod for accurate framing and edge straightness. Good advice. The sort of advice I would give and did for 20+ years. There is also the valid consideration of customer perceptions. I even had the same tripod they were using in my car boot.

I resisted and continued hand holding because nothing I was doing fell into my current “zone of fear”, although I was a little sloppy, taking half considered snaps, not realising that my images were going to be used as “live” ones.

Flash was used by the photographer I shadowed, mostly to make up for the short comings of their Canon 17-40L and the usual SLR realities (how quickly these have become “old school”). A great old lens but a good example of a film era “pro” lens, one that would pass muster to the eye with decent contrast and colour, but falls short these days of high res screen critique. I had four of the same YN560 flash units in my car boot.

I resisted again, relying on the better quality of my 8-18 Leica and C1 processing. This proved to be enough.

Hand held single capture, no flash. This file was not pushed to the limit either.

There was also a push for bracketing (with flash), to allow the off-site processors (based in India?), to do their magic. The EM1x can do this easily enough in a single capture, even hand held.

I resisted, continuing to shoot single RAW files within histogram indicated limits and processing with C1, which gave me all the brilliance, dynamic range and detail I need.

Then there was the drone. I have no issue with them, possibly even getting one myself soon, but there is a push for me to be the pilot of one, where others have resisted. Not sure why. It actually looked like fun if not that compelling.

I am resisting, realising that I would basically be specialising in a few areas of little interest like returning to Photoshop processing, Drone piloting, going back to old habits of rigid SLR landscape photographer, working for a selling based business, all that I have little interest in, just to earn minimum wage.

I am resisting!

Why did I not just do what the others did?

I am pretty sure that the whole process could be done quicker and more efficiently my way, especially with processing that could concievably be done on the spot and finalised in the same time the shoot alone took. From a value to agent perspectie, does using more gear slower, with a heightened deception of complication and slow processing pathways make more sense than much the same result faster?

“Know thy self” comes very much to mind and “read the signs”, but so does “belligerent old bastard”.

Is it wrong at my age, which is old enough to know what I like, but young enough to still have to think to my future path, to turn down an opportunity to do a little work in a field adjacent to what I like, but one I really dislike, to help keep the job I like? Should I take the hint from my current and prospective employers and back myself, sticking to the job I love and seek more of the same?

To be honest I would just as happy doing ten hours a week in a shop.

Give me people, movement and purpose or don’t bother.

My future has to include a better income and more security and both of these paths could lead that way, but I expect some friction in the near future if I try to juggle both and I will certainly bias towards my current employer.

Always looking for something new. This was a three shot in camera HDR, not my usual thing, but interesting to try (hand held!). I think this is easily achieved with a single shot and C1.

Life is better when there is balance. Taking on new things is also important, but retaining balance is the key.

I have seen many people for example take promotions, only to find their job is no longer what they enjoy or are good at. What they lost, they gave away, often unable to see the solution or feel it is a retrograde step.

As you get older you realise that you can easily pass your point of maximum happiness without realising it. It is not a lack of ambition, because isn’t ambition to find happiness?

Be careful what you wish for.

Constant Light Portraits

I love people,

I love photography,

I love portraiture of all types,

I do not love the guessing game that is flash photography when dealing with the controlled but fluid environment that portraiture should be.

Moments grabbed with flash can be powerful and seemingly perfectly timed, but in reality, unless the subject is wotking with the photographer knowingly, holding a pose, the process can be one of luck or manipulation.

The problem is, you get a good look, a perfect moment and you have to guess what that look will be like the split second you take the shot or worse still, you don’t get the shot if your light is recharging (rare but it happens). Even if recharging is not an issue, multiple flash fires can be intense. Unfriendly even.

Control is theoretically easy, but not for every shot, every time.

Another small point, but possibly significnt, is the look. Flash lighting can be perfect, boringly perfect. Lots of depth, guaranteed frozen movement, sharp, contrasty and white balanced.

Shot with a single flash and some reflected fill, this image owes its softness not so much to the modifier (26” double soft), but more to post processing. Flash gives you tons of depth, movment freezing assurance and clarity, but softness comes more from modifier size and post processing.

Not a small issue, although this is sometimes a benefit also, is subject awareness of the process. A good model with set themselves between each exposure, following the shutter sound and flash fire.

A first timer however, may react quite the other way and may find the whole thing very invasive.

The answer may be continuous light.

The new “faux” Oliphant grey Jonah leather-look fabric (colour number 4), “tanned” up. The f1.8 aperture on a 45mm still provides sharpness on the eye, but softens all else making the background texture only a gentle suggestion. The Neewer SL-60 pushed through a 42” shoot-through brolly at only 30% looks very natural and the background lighting was a known commodity pre-shot.

Constant light would allow me to see before I shoot, to use the silent shutter, which also gives me the option of hand held high res images (50 or 80mp). This really doesn’t make much difference……until it does.

Finally, and this is a biggie, constant lighting allows for video to be captured or even for the same lighting set-ups to be used at different times, for different purposes, using the same formulas.

So, from the perspective of a sitter, no flash, no camera noise, just conversation and connection. For the shooter, what you see is what you get, more connection to the process and and more control. May be a thing.

Actually a focus miss due to subject movement, but the animation conveyed adds more than technical perfection. It is all about the eyes sharp and clean, or is it.

The main issue with constant lights is in the name.

To be powerful enough to provide clean and powerful light, giving equally clean and colourful exposures at “safe” smaller apertures, the light has to strong. Strong light can be uncomfortable.

This relatively low quality image is a lift from some 1080 video (2mp). The point is though, Daisy the dog is not keen on flash, but ignored the large modified constant light. Conversely, the same light through my 26” double baffle was too bright and needed to be too close for softness.

To shoot with subdued constant light means higher ISO’s and/or wider apertures. Not ideal for quality? My MFT cameras and lenses may give me enough room. With f1.8 performing similarly to f2.8 on a full frame I can have a Mark Mann style shallow depth, which is intriguing, as well as keeping other quality issues under control. It may even introduce “a quality” in and of itself.

The two constant light images above (not the video lift), were taken at f1.8, 1/60-80th, ISO 200 at 35% power. Meg said it was not uncomfortable and the flash “popping” was gone. Silent shutter closes the loop, taking away all process sounds, except the quiet hum of the Neewer light.

There is also the possibility I can control light spill better.

My two kits are plenty for the two jobs they are designed for.

For stills, I have potentially* 7x GN 60 flash units, which in MFT format are 2 stops more powerful thanks to the DOF advantage, so it’s like having 7x Godox AD200’s for a full frame. I have a ton of mods for these, a few of which are not constant light compatible, but most are.

For video, I have probably 400w output total from a wide range of COB and LED lights. For these, I have a couple of dedicated mods, most of the flash ones can work and they often (in my kit), provide more even and open light. Something I struggle with on the “square” flash units. This is not really enough to promise good quality stills if used conventionally. F4 to f8 and ISO 100-200 need a lot of light. F1.8 to 2.8 on the other hand is quite do-able.

*5 from one system, 2 from another, but slave firing is possible.

Nanah, nanah, nanah, nanah....Tom-man)

Super hero cape, two mini drills and Tom-man is born (aka “The Fixer”).

On lighting.

This was taken using a Neewer 43” umbrella soft box (one of my oldest and cheapest mods) in butterfly mode, in front and slightly above me and a medium Neewer strip box underneath for fill. EM1 mk2 and 45mm at f4.

Next Step And Some Thoughts On New Lights

I feel an urge to get the light grey in the same fabric as my brown backdrop, so I can do a mixed drop style image, have a lighter colour to start with and a back-up. For $120au 2.8x4m coverage with matching textures, just different shades. Alternately, I may just get a second 3 or 4mtr piece, so I can do a joined 3x3m with off-set panels (or not).

In other news;

The Neewer NL140’s arrived today.

I was trying to put off getting the second Selens 150w and managed to spend more on two of these lights, but they were cheaper per light.

First impressions;

Very cheap.

The body is very light, very plasticky. The barn doors are plasticky-stiff, the pivot locks etc feel like they will not take much punishment and the design, in two parts, seem overly complicated and quite large. The cases they came in could each easily accomodate both of my other LED panels or indeed, two COB lights..

The lights are bright, but not much more so than my 480 RGB, which to be fair did cost twice as much and like a lot of things, is getting even dearer in this troubled world. They are quite comfortable to be in front of though, so maybe they will fill a niche.

They do run a fan, which is quieter than the Neewer COB’s, but not as quiet as the Selens.

Another small thing, likely related to their app-run nature, they are always set to 3200k, 0% when I turn them on.

The limitation of wall power only without a V-mount battery or optional V-mount to NP adapter is ok I guess, but I have to wonder how many people would have multi hundred dollar V-mount batteries and buy these cheap lights, and the adapter costs half as much as the light! NP slots would make a lot more sense.

The known issue of (repairable) power spike capacitor blow-outs may be a pain, so I will use a spike protector on them.

All up not my best Neewer purchase (although I am glad I did not pay $250+ea RRP on the Neewer site) , I guess they will be used as studio fill lights, maybe head shot specialists, but will not get much other use and in reality the second Selens (bought anyway), would have been a better purchase.

Next Day Review

Am I deluding myself with my cheap Oliphant?

Who would know this is not heavy duty canvas skillfully textured?

The length in particular does something unexpected. It makes my tiny 8’ studio floor seem irrelevant. It could be a corner of an aircraft hanger or a New York loft as far as viewers are concerned, so it can be added to the range of “small studio tricks”.

So far my brush mask manipulations have been crude, but the image above was produced with minimum intrusion.

With a little more work the results can be seamless.

An easy conversion to mono.

Realistically this is itch scratched. I did not ever envisage heavy use of this type of backdrop, but it is awesome to be able to just literally roll it out.

The whole 4m length is easy to roll up, stores well, is easy to maintain, being furniture grade covering, is light to carry, but heavy enough so wrinkles fall out easily. If it came in 4m wide bolts, it would be perfect. Surface texture is very close to my Kate microfibre, with a similar mild sheen and softness, but unlike the Kate, wrinkles do fall out of it within minutes of hanging, leaving a fake, but hard to pick worn-canvas look.

Art? No, just fun.

Noise......What Noise?

I was cleaning out an old card the other day and found some images taken on the EM1x. The lens was a 45mm f1.8 wide open.

Happily processing the files, with no real application in mind, but they were of the dogs, who have been neglected a bit lately, I happened to notice the meta data. ISO 3200.

They are clean, bright, saturated and delicate.

Delicate, unlike Daisy’s treatment of her long suffering sister.

Nothing to obviouslty alert me they were in the upper end of the usable ISO range.

Clean and sharp, even in close.

Just a Captue 1 import, a little post and still with ON1 up my sleeve. I have a rule these days, that no RAW file should take more than half a minute to get right unless I am working towards fine art level images or it needs special treatment like ON1, then I will stretch to a minute.

Maybe boring to users of full frame cameras, but a nice reminder how far I have come with MFT and with the OM-1 avaialble, how much further I could go.

If the only hurdle that MFT genuinely has to beat is noise in comparison to larger sensor cameras, then for all practical purposes, the format is nearly there. If the real benefits of the system, which mainly come down to lenses, are fully exploited, there are really no real world situations where it cannot produce at pro level, but the secret is in the lenses (as it is for most systems). The point where the real benefits of full frame sensors in low light conditions pull away are testably find-able, but from a user perspective, effectively irrelevant.

Nikon Z series are in a similar space, only reversed. The benefits they have with a wider mouthed full frame mount mean that yuu can have an f4 kit lens, with effective depth of field of a full frame f2.8 lens, so where their format works against you DOF-wise for exposure (less depth at each stop so more exposure needed for the same depth), it allows you to buy their excellent kit glass for pro looking results.

So, MFT ca give you f2.8 full frame DOF while using f1.8 light gathering and Nikon Z can give you f2.8 looking DOF at f4. Two paths, same result.

Conversely, a Z series with their f0.95 lens or MFT at f16 produce extreme results at the other end of the spectrum.

Pick yuor poison or play it safe with Sony or Canon etc.

And The Oliphant In The Room Is.........

My wife is the practical, clear headed one of us. She cuts through to the core of things while I dream big, often getting nowhere but broke (but I have fun).

Backdrops have been doing my head in, and she knows it. I have an order in for the 1.8x2.1 Lastolite collapsible grey/black, which, being on short term back order so not despatched yet, I have requested be changed to the 1.5x1.8 Walnut/Pewter, but being the Easter holidays, I have not heard back yet either way. To be honest, I would be happy either way, I will leave it up to them to make up my mind for me!

I looked at the Westcott Joel Grimes* and Glyn Dewis Drops, the Eziframe’s, some double sided Kate’s and even post processing (bringing back Photoshop into the fold). Nothing felt right, or was realistically available or practical, so it was a Lastolite (which one still to be determined) or nothing.

The issue is, I can easily change colours, but texture is proving harder to achieve without total replacement. If I have texture, I can change the colour, the hardness and grit, but with no texture at all, I only have tones and colour to manipulate.

By the nose I was dragged to a local fabric supplier, although my long honed intuition when it come to things to do with Meg also allows for some quiet anticipation. Sure enough, amongst the furniture coverings, ideal for width at 1.5m, we found a faux leather, semi matt mottled vinyl in a not brown, nor grey, but neutral tone on sale and several rolls to boot.

It is hard to pass on how excited I was. It instanlty bought to mind Oliphant, Lastolite and Grimes textures. It is gently done, even and subtle. Perfect.

Four takes on a single shot, so easily done. All the images were taken with the 25mm at f2.8, using ambient light or shot through a 26” soft box, then two more levels of diffusion for that Leibovitz “book light” look.

So for $60au, we grabded a 4x1.5m section and I will go back and get a 3m long one as backup and for just hanging. I also like the idea of the two section, “The Last Jedi” shot taken for Vanity Fair.

There is a little sheen to the fabric, but nothing lighting and a little post cannot fix. It has a few packing wrinkles, but the fabric is quite heavy and soft, so they are falling out already and stool feet etc don’t leave permanent marks. It also hangs well, so the edges, neat as they are, can be included. The back is even a decent soft brown felt.

So many variations on a theme, so easily applied.

Using the Dehaze and Clarity tools in reverse, adds an antiqueness overall, or if applied to the backdrop only you can increase or decrease texture. The middle image below is close to “as shot”, the right hand one “full noise” the left, “milky”.

I could even use two sections horizontally for a 3m wide shot, with a little healing brush joint removal (or not).

One of the benefits of this system is the subject is neutrally captured, then the background colour can be shifted, without colour failure.

Can this be a workable solution?

The “Jonah” leather look upholstery fabric, comes in three shades, the darker grey-brown above and a beige and light grey, so maybe a couple of metres of the light grey would add options.

Unlike the Kate, the pattern comes out more with some extra clarity, but is otherwise quite subtle. The Kate is more obvious, which to me feels less pro looking. The art in the Oliphant, Savage, Lastolite and Westcott backdrops is in their deep colour, layered look and subtlety.

If this works out, based really only on light reflection control, I can get solid colours, other textures, even patterns, all at any length I want and for roughly $30-80 per piece. All the fabrics are high grade furniture fabrics so they are tough, resistant and long lasting and generally heavier than most. I may even be able to find some wider ones!

*I confess, I have never seen a more extreme set of reviews than those on B&H’s site for the Grimes backdrops. Either 5 or 1 star, nothing much in between.

The Art Of Subtlety In A World Of Grey

The grey (and black) Lastolite backdrop is coming and I am a little excited.

The potential is nearly endless, even if the actual item is bland, utilitarian even. The lure of the Pewter/Walnut is still strong and I may still get one if this experiment works out, but my gut says my burgeoning “style” will be catered for here.

In my minds eye the frame is tight, full and animated, therefore the background is only a support to the subject. This support can come in a few forms, from manipulation of the background colour or tone, to vignetting or shaping and even wholesale replacement.

The next element is framing.

I will not be stubborn adout it, but if I can, I will push to make the humble square my framing shape of choice. The square is again subtle in application, but strong in effect. It invokes in me a compositional freedom that no other shape can.

Any one of these images works on some level, which cannot be said for a rectangle which is too opinionated and is not possible with a vertical, which is the most restricting shape.

The square allows for relaxed horizontal shooting, then square framing after. An easy and ideal work flow.

Tight cropping is also powerful in this format.

The third element of my style may be the triptych.

Above is a simple example of this, but a true triptych can tell a story using more abstract elements mixed with standard portraits.

The triptych gives me the ability to show three sides of the same subject, either as a matching set of images or a deliberately different set, exaggrating the disperate moods, interests, props or poses of the subject.

The square facilitates the triptych, being the perfect shape to form an elongated rectangle (my other favourite format) and then the grey base allows subtle background shifts to bring these elements together harmoniously.

Lots And Lots Of Light

I just ordered another Selens 150w (?) light from the same seller, who had one left at a discount.

The casing is identical to the Neewer, but that’s where the similarities end.

In a test I just ran (see tech and processes), it looks like it is the only single constant light I have that is capable of fighting daylight* and without making objectionable noise. Two guarantees this and doubles output. More output also means softer light. The Neewers are fine for darker rooms etc, but the fan noise is obvious at higher outputs.

The trick is exposing the background to within post-processable levels, then brighten up the main subject to match with soft, shaped light.

I also grabbed an ART DNA 36” double diffused soft box at a great price, making any of these bowens mount lights more useful.

Sufferig a little purchasing amnesia, I remember I also grabbed a couple of Neewer NL140’s the other day. These new LED’s with a good power to cost ratio, but possibly a design flaw (very power surge sensitive), but they will be good studio lights. Embarassingly, that makes 2x60w, 2x 80ish-w, 2x 50w, 2x 35w, 2x 200 Led.

*daylight back-lighting when shooting against a window without any reflected light available aka airport window silhouette syndrome.

Watching Movies

For a change of pace, I thought I would share my take on what a little knowledge can do.

Specifically, the monster that deep diving into cinematography has created.

All very boring I know.

I now find it very hard to just “watch” a movie or TV show. I now feel I have to analyse it.

This was great at first, seeing the inner workings and understanding them. I felt like I could reverse engineer a lot of techniques, rate them compared to others and plan my own smaller versions of them. It is cool being able to work out why programme “X” is avergae looking compared to programme “Y”.

The problem is, turning it off.

I have always been aware of this with stills photography. It is a common problem when you get inside of the process, you can see the cogs turning and tend to be awed by brilliance, dwell on short comings and compare it all to your and others work. It was not a real issue because apart from a decent collection of books, I did not spend too much time dwelling on others work and when I did, I did it in context.

With video however, it is really hard to avoid it, because like most of us, I escape to TV and movie land regulalry. Now I just tend to notice more, both good and bad. It’s distacting.

Example;

Teal and gold are “on trend” with a lot of cinematographers. I like it, but am already a little over it. When I point the trend out to others, they immediately see it and I feel a little crummy, because they are now also, more or less, too aware of the process and less accepting of its effect.

If I had said nothing, then they could have happily just let it run its course along with everyone else, but by highlighting it, I have possibly shortened their acceptance span and possibly their enjoyment of the production (or maybe I am making too much of it).

On the funny side though, I watched the ‘70’s “To the Earth’s core” yesterday and had a giggle. Sometimes anyone can see the cracks and a little more knowledge only makes it more enjoyable.

Perseverance (From All), Making In-roads.

My poor wife was under the delusion that I would leave her alone once “Joe Black” came into the equation. Unfortunately, he does not cut it for skin tones, animation nor wardrobe, so Meg has become my reluctant model (again).

EM5 mk1 (semi-functional*), 45mm f4 with the K&F 1/8 Black Mist. Single 42” shoot through upper left, silver reflector under the chin and the tiniest bit of blue pushed into the black background with the brush tool and white balance. The slight ripple in the background is from the cheap black/white collapsible letting some back light through.

On the plus side, she is liking a few of the images, so I must be getting something right.

*My studio camera for tooling around is an old EM5 that cannot shoot above 1/500th shutter speed, which for studio work is ideal. For serious stuff, the Pen F is my choice.

Backdrops......Yes, They Do Matter It Seems.

After deciding last night over a lovely anniversary dinner, that a textured backdrop was not for me, I went to sleep last night with a clear head and happier wallet.

When walking the dog this morning, I realised though, being able to fix background issues for both stills and video is still a priority.

I recently completed a large job based on talking head interviews. The indoor ones were a bit hit and miss, with unseen before locations pushed me a little and required in one case, several fixes to combat a wall of glass.

I have just ordered the Lastolite 1.8x2.1 grey/black backdrop, which I discovered by mistake is only a little over $200au, considerably cheaper than the textured ones. Black is handy, because yes, I can theoretically make any location black by directing light away from it and underexposing the ambient, but if I want black when I point light at the back ground, then only true black will do. I can also push deep colour into black with predictable results.

The real winner though is grey.

My other option is the mottle grey Kate, which also looks much better a little light starved and a shift to blue, but the Lastolite does not need a stand, always unfolds smooth and flat, and if it does need support, it only needs a single stand and it is bigger than any other 5x7 equivalent.

A subtle push to Olive using the brush tool and a little white balance shift.

With a true grey back drop, I can measure my white balance off of it, turn it any shade of grey from true white to true black or even shape colour based on lighting application, turn it any colour (gently) using post, which I much prefer to gels and RGB LED’s as they retain the muted, matt finish of the background, do not effecsct skin tone balance and use I can use it as a colour bleed free green screen for total replacement.

I can now enter any environment and shoot a 1-5 person portrait or video with a safe and reliable background.

The other thing is something that has come to light after the research and investigation I have been doing.

I like textured backdrops for the right subjects and in the right circumstances, but for my use, grey with tonal and colour shifts is more than enough. Textures compete with the subject, becoming part of the image, sometimes too much of the image.

Solid, subtle and elegantly applied colours can compliment the subjects clothing, eyes, role, demeanour, mood, location and the images future display without competing with the subject.

I do not love basic grey, in fact I will probably never use it as supplied, but with very little effort, it can be what ever I want.

Backdrops.....Do They Matter (To Me)

So, the bigger question I need to ask myself is, do backdrops really matter for me, or more to the point, can backdrops be “faked” when needed using what is around, some post processing, creative thinking or using “A” to become “B, C, D” etc?

Processing.

Post processing is of course the standard way of creating backdrops of any type after the event. A little Photoshop or similar and away you go. This has a few issues for me, not the least of which is, I do not actually have Ps loaded these days, shunning all things Adobe, but ON1 has a background tool available as well as many others, so no real issue. The other thing is that I think I would like to see the results in camera, rather than in my head.

Removal.

Simply taking the background out of the equasion is also easy. Shallow depth, manipulation of light and shooting angles can all help to remove the background as an element. Black is the prime example. Black makes the subject stand on their own, no distractions, no gimmicks, as there is literally nothing other than the symbolism of black and the subject in the image.

White is similar, but black is king. When I was crash-coursing flash, the bulk of the environmental portraitists I came across use DOF and lighting, but not backgrounds. Those who did use backgrounds, did not always and often applied the same techniques with or without.

All about the person. This could easily enough have a little colour added, maybe even with some shape and be achieved in almost any environment, even outside on a sunny day.

Using soft focus blur or Bokeh, is also a tried and true method, heavily drawn from natural light styles and creates interesting backdrops out of bad ones (when blurred) using compression and fast glass. MFT format is less easily blurred, but there is plenty if you go about it properly.

Standard non-studio portraiture.

Staging.

An alternative to removal is to use the elements you want to tell a story. This is much like setting a stage for cinema. Storytelling portraiture is a style in itself and goes back to my roots, dreaming of being a National Geographic shooter, but may not always be possible.

A combination of using the enviroment balanced with blurring it out.

Basic Manipulations.

Changing colours and tones is easy enough, with several methods available. If I take the cinematography path, then just making the main subject the brightest element in the frame is probably enough. This means all my portrait shoots would be light dependant, not background dependant, which is closer to my standard method, natural light candid shooting.

This has bought me to a revelation, belatedly.

Replacement.

Textured backdrops do one main thing, they allow you to include the backdrop in the image as a strong element of the image, sometimes a near equal partner. The backdrop in effect replaces a connection to environement or a void with its own statement.

Of the above, the only one I cannot do right now to a satisfactory level is the textured backdrop used as a partner in the image, so the question is, do I need it or can a combination of the above, be enough?

This is a style, it is a recognised look, is it me? Annie Liebovitz, Joel Grimes, Glyn Dewis, Rory Lewis and many, many others make their living from backdrop style shots, I don’t, but it does not hurt to know a little more about it.

For me, black is cleaner, easier and more relevant and I do not need to produce large bodies of work in this style. One well practiced and applied look is enough. When black is not relevant, the subjects environmet probably is. So, either a complete removal of outside influences or an equally complete embracing of them, but no replacing with a stylised outsider.

Possibly a plain grey as a base for formal portraits, but then I am half way to the pewter Lastolite anyway.

In my wife’s words, I can dabble in a lot of areas, master a few, but some can be let go. If asked, yes I can do this style, but my way, within my self imposed limits.

Final thought is to fore-go a better backdrop at this point.

My studio is allowing me to explore lighting techniques, but as for better backdrops, I will stick to using what I know and cut out the traditional portraitists path. The reality is, I have never been that guy and likely never will be. If I suddenly need to be up-geared for a student ID shoot or similar, I will simply get the balck/grey Lastolite and apply the skills I have learned.

My money, should I spend any is likely better spent on a modifier to fill any perceived holes in my kit. The only one i can think of is a large white brolly, like the Godox 165cm parabolic white with lining. This calls to me, being a better version of the type I like best.

Door closed, for now.

Backdrops Redux

Looking at this backdrop thing logically after a nights sleep and more time on the net and after breaking down my likely uses, preferred looks and processes and aiming for maximum versatility, my thinking has drifted towards doing it the best I can, just once, then see how it goes.

The Lastolite 1.8x2.1 collapsibles seem to be the undisputed kings of this space. They are expensive, but looking at several other options, maybe they are not as dear on balance as I first thought.

Quality.

They win here pure and simple. The stitching, fabric and frame are all top notch. No other brand seems to come close, even with cost to performance ratios considered. Apparently, the heavier ring also folds more easily.

Price and value.

At about $175-200au per side, you want to get it right. This is a lot for a mistake or poorly thought through idea, but less paid for less is just as wasted if the quality and look are not there (I would rather have an item that is genuinely good, just rarely used, that a junk one, never used and the reality is, one good job and it’s paid for).

I am borderline on backdrops, only really responding to the top end ones, so it’s do it right or don’t do it at all. The cost is also a little less odious when freight comes into the equasion. X-Drop, Kate, Westcott etc are all potentials, but often when freight is calculated, the difference becomes even less. They are also the biggest and squarest, being genuinely useful horizontally deployed, effectively making them 4 backdrops in one.

Colours and textures.

This brings up the issue of limited choice and colour/texture fidelity. The Lastolites are in set combinations, but there are two I like and one in particular that is nearly ideal, but Kate has a few better combos, assuming they are what they look to be (not always the case and few examples I can trust). Lastolites are heavily used by top pro’s, so lots of very nice images available and no complaints of inconsistency.

My preference is for a very subtle texture or a very natural one. Most have overtly stylistic textures, that can be worked around, but they should be abke to be worked with. The Kate I have for example, really only works for me whan blurred out, which is not really what I was after.These, like top end hand painted ones, are clearly good enough to have the subject hard up against them, which many of the cheaper ones prohibit.

Use.

The collapsible type, especially the Lastolites with their very flat edges (they are bigger and squarer than most) seem the most convenient all round. Their shape means a wall or single stand with a clamp (or their magnetic bar), is all that is needed. If going horizontal, you can use two stands or sit it on a table, but that is all that is needed.

The X-Drop is an aparatus in it’s own right and cannot do horizontal (?-not seen it done) and their textures don’t go sideways either. The oval Neewers and Kates are also less horizontal or floor/wall friendly than the Lastolites effectively making them about 1/3rd smaller and less versatile and the cloth type need a cross-bar supported by two stands and a bunch of clamps to do the job.

My choice.

The Walnut/Pewter looks to be the one. The Walnut is a slightly cool take on antique browns and the texture is quite natural and uneven rather than obviously repetitive (a bit like an old decaying wall). Being the size it is and slightly graduated, I think different looks could be found with subtle shifts of the backdrop and the colour seems to display warm to neutral reds/browns and some cool metallic silver/blues also. With some post, I think this has many nice looks including warmer ones like the Olive/Tobacco to cooler ones and I feel it will like mono as well and match well with old floors or concrete equally.

The Pewter side appeals even more because it looks to be quite tightly textured and mildly graduated. This I really like, being more of a fan of the Oliphant super layered-to the point of only hinting at texture-look. It is a cold green-grey colour, but that is easily fixed and the texture is subtle enough that I think it sits perfectly between flat grey and textured. Lightening and darkening the grey are easily achieved with simple light control and colour can be very subtly shifted with RGB LED’s, strobes or more likely a tiny bit of post. I really like the idea of it being only just exposed above black with the option of the slightest hint of a red, green or blue added.

If I want balck, anywhere will do, if I want white, then a wall can be splashed with light, but texture is harder.

Below are three examples of simple processing from grey, all much stronger and clumsier than I would do with the more subtle Lastolite, but you get the idea.

The two below are the result of different amounts of light on the background itself.

So, a universal “antique” look with plenty of versatility and a lightly textured neutral grey with even more versatility.

Others I like, but would struggle with if I had only one are the Tobacco/Olive, possible a better choice for a portrait only business, Ink/Sage, but feel with both colours, some colour shifts on the Pewter would likely achieve something close and the Red/Aubergine. I love the red, struggle with the purple and would likely only buy it as a third or fourth option and again, dark red is possible with the Pewter. Kate also has a storm Grey and Red for $170au which would likely be fine for occassional use.

I almost pulled the trigger on the Westcott Grey/Chroma 5x6.5, but for the reasons mentioned above held off. For twice the money I get twice the useable backdrop colours (chroma does not appeal), better quality, better colours/textures and cover a bigger area.

The big queston now is, do I really need it at all?

Backdrops..........What To Do?

Afer a lot of light tests, some format pondering and experimentation, I am now at the point where I need to choose a background style. This is not as easy as you may think. Choosing a background is tough enough, choosing whether you even want one or not is harder.

This is a question of style.

Doing my usual deep dive into the subject, and not for the first time, I have become a little numb to the whole thing. Lots of models, lots of ideas, nothing that really grabs me. The biggest question I guess is, do I really want to be this photographer?

The studio has been great, scratched an itch that was a long time needing to be scratched, but realistically it was a practical move to help me experiment with my environmental portrait and work processes, not a passion in its own right. I love portraiture, but I am not sure I love this type of portraiture, nor will I chase the subject matter that will make it worth while. Maybe for the odd project, probably for work, but video and other stills projects are more distracting.

Like a lot of things in my life at the moment, I need to “be across” this, but I have to resist getting carried away, as it is not needed at a higher level. It is however, good to master the basics, because like all things, skills bleed into each other. I feel it needs to be done professionally , but efficiently. This is not an area that will take well to a poor-mans implementation, as the crasks will show, so a simple, repeatable, classy look, with no gimmicks, no junk level gear or short term styles.

Textured.

This is the knee-jerk ground zero. All (most) portrait photographers start here and there are lots of options. I have a Kate grey graduated texture that has been (literally) hanging around for a few years waiting to be used and it is versatile if a little heavy on the gradation, but it can be quite effective especially with a little Capture 1 masked brushing.

The base grey first, then some density control, then changed colour using colour temp and a little manipulation from there (apologies to my wife for the poor image). These were all achieved with the brush tool and its mask, white balance controls and a little saturation adjustment. The pure black needs some work, but the others are quite natural. I especially like the more muted and darker ones.

I only really like a couple of these as they all feel a little heavy handed, but for examples they were easy enough, each taking only a few seconds after the initial brush and mask.

It is also easy to change the background density, simply based on light placement. Black and white are only a small step further away.

I already have this Kate one and may look at a few more for $50au, just for the different textures. They are hard to get wrinkles out of for free hanging, but with clamps, tighten up well.

My only real issue with textured is the distracting way it shares the space with the subject.

Texture does look good, but is that at the expense of maximum focus on the main reason you are here, the human subject? I have seen countless examples of beautiful people in front of these lovely (or sometimes not so lovely) textured drops, but tend to prefer the less process dominated ones of people and I have noticed, the top end ones are usually less textured looking. The Oliphant drops used by Leibovitz etc are nearly texturally smoothed out to being non-textured, just hinting at texture like an antique wall or tapestry, which is why they cost so much.

I think I actually prefer a plain backdrop, one that compliments the person, their clothing and their story, rather than a textured one that shares the composition, sometimes dominating it. This is based also on my preferrence for a dark, almost black shade with just a hint of colour showing through.

Basic black.

This is a project or subject specific style and one that I love and can implement any time, anywhere. It is basically backdrop agnostic (irrelevant even), but can be over used. I see no need to buy a black backdrop, so this would be using any one I have with lighting control.

Clean white.

White, with colour manipulation using gels, RGB LED’s or post processing (see above). With lighting, white is cleaner and more briliant.

Neutral grey.

Less brilliant than white, so less responsive to gels and LED’s, a grey will produce a good deep colour base and will post-process well, again as above. This is probably my best option. It is also possible to add texture to these, with the grey as a consistent base, so I could shoot now and process to taste later.

Westcott make a 5x7 grey/green and a solid grey for their X-drop system, that are both high quality and well priced as well as offering a Glyn Dewis textured grey for the X-Drop system (the whole lot coming in at about the cost of a Lastolite collapsible).

One of my favourite Rory Lewis images is of an Italian Army officer in her Khaki uniform. He used a grey background, that looks slightly olive in the shot, matching her uniform and complexion perfectly. It would be easy enough to use a solid grey and subtly shift it to a different colour with the above tools.

Another option with any of the plain backdrops is to shoot uneven light at them, using shadows, even light streak textures to break up their flatness.

The environment.

Here is where things get fun. I had settled on the square format for some of my portraits, as I feel this is the most interesting and the least demanding compositionally. I love the democratic square. It can be a little limiting for larger subjects and busy compositions as it shrinks things, but otherwise it is just right.

So, what if I composed a portrait like a movie set in wide screen, with supporting elements shaping the subjects environment? This would mean backdrops as we know them are irrelevant.

This plays into a couple of interesting areas for me. Cinematigraphy is my current crush, even more so than portraiture, which is more of a preparation thing, and the dressing of a scene can be reliant on constant lights as well as flash, again a strong area at the moment.

So, where are we now?

I can use any plain wall for a black or near black background or any other colour using lights or post, my Kate textured for the same and my environment blurred out or used as a stage, all based on context and subject.

I don’t feel I will over do backdrops. They are great for some, but just have not clicked with me yet. I think lighting will be more useful, so more tests, hypotheticals and out of the box thinking, but I may pick up a cheap Neewer grey/blue 5x7 or the Westcott in the same so I have a guaranteed wrinkle free option and maybe another Kate in a less overtly textured pattern. The Chroma-key may also be useful for video.

More Butterflies

Three takes on Butterfly lighting.

The 42” white reversed with diffused flash at full stem, 45 degrees to the front with a 60cm silver reflector under the chin. Very soft and even, but quite inefficient.

The 42” as shoot through with diffused flash at full stem 45 degrees to the front with a 60cm silver reflector under the chin. Slightly more brilliant/harsher, about two stops brighter.

The 4’ octa, overhead and feathered backwards with a flash fired into a silver reflector under the chin. This was brightest (almost ran out of options to reduce power), most dramatic and (physically) intimidating, but has the nicest skin tones. It also had the benefit of a single clean catch light.

Of particular note is the hair highlights, or in the first case, lack of and the more three dimensional look of the 4’ octa.

First option for dreamy-flat, second for work horse-safe, third for the most dramatic-pro look.

Also, a little try out of a blue background using one of my white walls.

Neewer 480 RGB at about 90%.

Something To Explore

Using the EM1’s in super high res mode (80mp RAW), gives me some obvious advantages in resolution, maybe some tonal and gradation advantages, a known ISO advantage and maybe, just maybe a feeling of an image being “bigger”.

The big issue is, no flash, becasue the mode uses silent shutter and pixel shift.

I just ordered what seemed to be a great bargain, maybe one with a catch or two, but theoretically a solid increase in constant panel lighting for my studio.

I picked up two NL140 Neewer LED panel lights, based on (1) seeing them cheap at about $63 for 50w units, (2) finding a good and honest review of them and (3) seeing that the price was under half the Neewer retail and (4) the seller was a rare ebay 100%-er. I have never seen these before, but they seem to be tapping into the newer LED designs.

They can run on a V-mount battery or an NP to V-mount adapter, but I won’t bother for studio use.

The next review I watched, after the purchase was despatched showed an easy fix for a common problem with these blowing out a capacitor regularly, but it was an easy fix and for studio use, it should not be an issue (my studio power supply is voltage regulated to protect the computer). My gut says these may be a double edged sword, a bit of a new and flawed but potentially potent design, but for my uses, I will make them work.

With these, I have roughly 350-450w total, constant light, with 120w allocated to the studio specifically (the two NL’s and a 216 mini panel) and the COB lights and 3 battery powered LED panels for field use. This is plenty (actually still too much) for my little space, so it should let me shoot in high res mode with the EM1x hand held or the EM1 mk2’s from a tripod.