I like to look at lighting in two ways. As sculpture or as painting. As sculpture when you start with an overall wash of light and like painting when you commence in complete darkness. It is for this reason that I would like to suggest lighting systems and accessories that may assist you in attaining your final goals in lighting your subject or scenario. These examples relate more so to interior lighting situations, but can also apply to close quarter outdoor scenarios. If shooting out doors, you will need a much more powerful lighting set up to compete with the light already surrounding you.
There are several lighting systems out there and most of them provide a vast panoply of lighting accessories and add ons. If they don’t have what you want, you can often use other manufacturers accessories and adapt them to your systems mounting hardware. However, I would suggest that you find a brand that have the modifiers available to achieve your present and future lighting goals. I have designed my own system for one of my lighting techniques and this system does not exist in the market place.
You may wish to consider either getting the power pack system and flash heads with modelling lights that plug in to the power unit or several independent mono block flash heads with modelling lights. I would recommend getting at least two heads or mono blocks. Three would be better. As to which brand, again that depends on your budget. You can have a complete system for around 2000 dollars or euros. It also depends on the size of space you will be working in which will determine the output required for the job. My own personal kit which I use when not doing a job (for testing or personal projects) are the following. Two MultiblitzProfilux 600 ws monoblocsand two Multiblitz Compact Lite 200 ws monobloc units. I have 6 Honey Comb Grids, 2 snoots, 2 barn door modifiers, four 7 inch silver bowls as well as 4 Multiblitz umbrellas and a Multiblitz 60 cm soft box which I have used only once. I have a multitude of black scrims which can cover any part of the umbrella or softbox, I wish to obscure, made of black material and Velcro or gaffers tape to attach to the umbrella or soft box. I have several home made scrims anywhere from 30 cm to 1 meter square as well as home made cones and black card mini scrim modifiers. A scrim is a panel that can be used to either redirect (white) or block (black) light from hitting an object.
In almost every discussion I have had with photographers, the greatest frustration expressed is the lack of control over their light source. There is just too much light going everywhere. It is for this reason that I often opt for the paint with light rather than the sculpt with light approach. It is more akin to a half empty or half full approach to lighting. I prefer to build my scenario from complete darkness than to sculpt out the light from an existing light source. Umbrellas are akin to sculpting where highly focused snoots and honeycomb grids are more akin to painting. However, even those tools may not give you the desired effect, as they cast a very definitive circle on to the photo landscape. That is where the art of dodging with scrims come in to play. Scrims can be shaped in anyway you desire and can be done so using wire hangers or wires to construct the shape of the modifier you wish to employ. Of course, the distance from the light source will have a major effect on how soft or sharp the gradation from dark to light will appear in your image. That is where experimentation comes in to play. You may also wish to use another technique that I have used called “Controlled Vignetting” mixed with scrims to add further dimension to your image. By moving an opaque object near your lens you can add a further dimension to your photo. I often use my hands to do so, or plants, vases, glasses etc. I have also used semi opaque scrims to effect the softness and hardness of my light source.
One of the problems with the use of scrims, is the need for stands to support them. So be prepared to buy several. You can purchase clips at most hardware stores.
In my next instalment, I will discuss the use of flags, scrims on umbrellas and soft boxes as well as other types of modifiers available to shoot with.
Recently, I received an e-mail from someone who saw my image on myintroduction page of my blog, asking “…how did you do it?” I will not include what he speculated, which was actually quite close.
For those of you wishing to participate, I would like you to tell me, what you think I did. I will eventually tell you all the technique I employed for this particular beauty story shot for “Citizen K International”.
So, go ahead and tell me what your impressions are. Post your answer on the Forum and on my Blog. That way, everyone who has participated can see all of the responses.
Thanks
Ben
So, here is the lighting set up for the shot.
A 4 bulb Kino Flo Light, lit from below with a white shoot through diffuser.
An Opalight diffuser on a Profoto flash head shooting down at around 60 degrees and around 1 meter above and 2 meters back from the model.
Two Profoto bare bulb flash heads, one on either side of the model at around 100 degrees just slightly off the 90 degree axis of the model.
Two HMI 1.2 Kilo Cinema Lights for the backdrop, shooting down to achieve the gradation.
Full Blue Gelatins on all of the flash sources and a Midnight Blue Gelatin on the HMI’s using a Blue Backdrop.
Portrait of French Designer Alexis Mabille photographed by Benjamin Kanarek for Vogue Brasil
Image taken in July 2009 at Alexis Mabille’s show-room in Paris. Photography: Benjamin Kanarek for Vogue Brasil featuring Alexis Mabille
Model: Myrthe Mabille
Digital Retouching: Fredddy Baby Paris
July 2009, interview of Alexis Mabille by Suzy Menkes for the International Herald Tribune & the New York Times.
Alexis Mabille discovered fashion at a very young age, attracted and inspired by fabrics, costumes, antique jewlery,and museums he visited as a child. As a teenager, he would put together theatrical pieces as well as outfits for his friends and family. Graduating from Paris’ Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture in 1997, he undertook apprenticeships at the Couture Houses of Ungaro and Nina Ricci. He then joined the team at Christian Dior . At Dior, he created exquisite fine jewelry for Women and Men, both respectively overseen by John Galliano and by Hedi Slimane.
As a kind of a quirky signature, Alexis can always be seen wearing a bow tie. In 2005, he embarked on his own personal adventure and created his own Fashion House and decided that the bow tie which accompanied him thus far would become his lucky charm, his special signature. Since, doing so he has utilized bow ties in novel ways in all of his collections.
He also designs a Mens’ collection and a Womens’ accessory collection (bags, shoes, jewlery). His faux-casual and romantic touch marries the hyper feminine with the influence of the perfect cut androgen tuxedo look.
To build a sustainable business, his challenge is to evolve from the cute and gimmicky identity of the bow tie to a timeless style. Alexis Mabille deserves credit for developing a signature company that is pragmatic and focussed in this economic malaise. At a time where Christian Lacroix and Yohji Yamamoto are facing the worst financial backlash in their history, Alexis has established a loyal customer base and is also offering his collection as a ready-to-wear option.
Alexis Mabille has already gained quite a following amongst Celebrities.
Keira Knightley, Dita Von Teese and the French First Lady, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy wearing Alexis Mabille.
Alexis Mabille’s last collection was inspired by “personal memories from a grand old linen closet, with recollections of distant travels”. Pastel shades, sensual silk and fluid lace contrast with the sharpness of the deep navy blue long gowns and tuxedos. Architectural and geometrical cuts meet with simple, light and gently floating lines.
His fashion is definitely wearable and that is key. Too often, at the early stage of their career designers forget that ready-to-wear and Couture are not Art but an Applied Art to the human form. People do eventually have to wear what is designed and that is often the major challenge that young designers must come to grips with. Clothing is more akin to “Functional Art”. One could make a similar comparison between Sculpture and Architecture. One is pure form and the other is Form and Function. Fashion is business and as entrepreneurs, Designers need to convince Buyers of Department stores and in the end the clients.
If you are looking for spectacular, show-off and breath taken collections using BOWS, I would suggest you take a look at Viktor and Rolf‘s work. Here the bows become an animated, magnified and surreal element of their designs, yet utterly wearable. They have found ways of surprising us with a global concept of excess stretched to the max. However, they never overlook the commercial and viable side of the business. In the final analysis, they know how to downsize their collection prototypes for commercial consumption.
Is BIG necessarily BETTER ?
Viktor and Rolf, Spring-Summer 2005 ready-to-wear collection
Alexis Mabille’s integral Spring-Summer 2010 Collection – part 1
Alexis Mabille’s integral Spring-Summer 2010 Collection – part 2
As I have worked with many of the SLR’s and Medium Format camera’s out there, I want to share with you some of my favorites. In my career I used Nikon, Canon, Pentax SLR’s and all of the Medium Format stuff out there.
My choices are based on my most frequent go for lenses when doing actual projects in the past and present.
Pentax: smc Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited
Pentax: smc Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited
Pentax: smc Pentax DA Star 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM
Pentax: smc Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4
Pentax: smc Pentax DA 12-24 f/4.0 ED AL (IF)
Canon: EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
Canon: EF 35mm f/2.0
Canon: EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon: TS-E 45mm f/2.8
Canon: TS-E 90mm f/2.8
And of course, not to forget two of my favorite 3rd party lenses,
Tamron: SP AF 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD (IF)
Tamron: SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro
Well, there you have it.
Ben
Here are 2 instructional videos discussing the attributes and rendering of different focal lengths.
As I always say, I was born with a camera under my arm (maybe you know the Latin expression “he was born with bread under his arm”). My dad is a photographer, and like any son in the world, I admire his work. My first steps with photography were with a P&S Canon camera, but I always wanted to play with the big boys toys, the SLR´s. I learned the basics in lighting, aperture, speed, ISO (in the past we called it ASA), and something about the printing of photos… I love the moment of the shooting. The tension of having it all in the right place, the feeling when you press the shutter. I love how I could capture something or someone on a piece of film, and then print it and keep it for the ages to come… Film photography is beautiful, as digital is. I learned with Canon, Hasselblad, Contax (my first personally owned camera). It was something incredible, because you know that you couldn´t take gazillions of pics like today. Film was expensive, and you only had 36 to 39 pics in the camera each time as a maximum. At that time you planned the photo, so much more than you do now. Maybe that´s why I keep doing that with digital photography. I don´t take 1000 pics a day with my camera, even when I know I could. I love the art of thinking about the photo before taking it, and that´s why I´m here writing. I´m trying to spread the word… I am always in the process of learning and I think I found some people who are helping me… sometimes with advice, sometimes just with photos that inspire me. I´m not a professional photographer (maybe in the future), but I´m glad I know some of them, and I try to learn from them. I agree with Benjamin on one basic thing: it´s not the brand of the camera, it is the photographer and the love he puts in to the photo. I love photography and I hope I can transmit that in to my work. I own a digital SLR, and I try to do my best… Keep doing what you´re doing, pretend I´m not here… Click!
Thanks to Gerardo for his contribution to this blog.
I am often asked the question, “How Did You Do That?” I could very simply answer the question which I often do and the results that person gets isn’t what he/she was expecting. If I talk about post production, yes the actions on the image will be as I recommended, but when asked about the results of a shoot, I more often than not get a disappointing, “it doesn’t look like yours…!”
Now, I will not go in to a lengthly diatribe about what is required to put a shoot together, as I have covered that topic ad-infinitum in several of my articles. What I am trying to explain here will be quite difficult, but I will attempt to do so here.
Imagine a huge globe and that globe is the culmination of all of the information you have accumulated over the many years of experience you have acquired in your craft. You might wish to call it a brain, but for my purposes, let’s call it a huge floating globe. All of the information is stored in that globe and inter connected and accessible at any moment in time. The speed at which the information is accessed is astounding. So much so, that you are often not aware of the process for how you collected all of the elements to get to the final output or finished product.
The more elements within the globe the more complex the output possibilities become. Let us call these elements in the globe “epiphany events”. Epiphany Events are those events that occurred during a learning process that had a paradigm shifting effect on how you viewed your reality. These types of events will create a completely new subset of elements to draw from for future products creations, photos, music, dance, sports etc…
You are probably wondering where am I going with all of this. Well just hang in there for a while and I may just get to the point.
The more elements in your globe the more possible permutations and the more permutations the more potential elements that can be placed in to your globe for future use.
Now, what happens during the act of creation when some element that has not yet been added to your globe is presented to you? You get what most of us would call disorientation. The time it takes to integrate this element could be from a nano second to the complete rejection of that element, or worse yet the ignoring of it all together. It is often under those circumstances that some of the greatest creations occur and the epiphany happens. I like to call them, creative accidents.
When I am on a creative roll, I cannot recall all of the elements that are in action during the process until I take a break and stop to think about it for a moment. I don’t know if any of you have ever thought about what is going on in your head during a photo shoot. The more elements in your globe the more complex the computations. You can never really be missing elements in your globe. You may have less or more, but there is no such thing as missing elements. Just less elements to choose from and what ever you create will be a direct reflection of the elements you had available to create what you did.
What I have retrospectively recalled in thinking about my own process, is that I am dealing with literally thousands of considerations during the act of creating an image that come to light so quickly that if I were to stop during the process and think about it, I would stall to a HALT.
It is never just the technique and it is never just the creation during the process. It is everything from thinking about the last time you cleaned your ears to is there enough fill light to I must try to stop being so self deprecating to I need to increase the speed of the Fan to get the hair moving a bit more.
Your random thoughts will effect which elements you access as well and those thoughts are often what trigger the brilliant idea. The reason so many of you out there are not getting what you want has a lot less to do with technique than allowing yourself to be open to the possibilities of allowing elements in to your globe that may give you the freedom to fly. I know that sounds corny. But being creative is SO much more than the camera you use or all of that other stuff. I could show you what I did technically for a shoot and more often than not the results will not be satisfactory to you. Why? Because the elements I had to draw from are not as yet part of your Global Repository. Just to prove my point here. The other day I posted an image of a man on a park bench. Now, rather than presenting it horizontally, I presented it vertically, as it gave the impression of him being crucified. I would say that over 80% of the viewers could not handle looking at the image without crooking their heads to see it in a horizontal position. Now those that rejected it did not allow the “Element” to enter their globe. They will never see in another perspective until they let disorienting elements in to their globe. Those that did, have added a new element and thus a new perspective for how to view “Reality”.
The old “How did you do that?” question never really suffices. It can introduce new elements in to your globe, but they will NEVER be exactly like the formula of another persons Global Experience.
I would sum it up putting it this way. The greater the vocabulary the richer the experience…
Doing Beauty shots is sometimes more akin to doing still life, as the lighting is over a much smaller area and thus may be approached differently than fashion.
The modifiers used and the placement of the model should be planned carefully if wishing to get something out of the ordinary.
I often build a mini studio around the torso of the model and use tiny modifiers to reflect light where desired as well as focal lengths that work well for this type of configuration.
I suggest setting up a frame where you can set up your reflectors around the model using small cardboard white modifiers of 3-9″ or 8-25 cm square as well as snoots and honeycomb grids to direct the light to the modifiers. Use Hollywood Grids to be more dramatic and don’t worry about the light drop off. That is what makes a close up shot have the contrast between shadows and highlights so interesting.
Of course if that is not your cup of tea you can still use the classic modifiers to kick light in to the subject, but the gradations will not be as evident.
I would recommend lenses allowing you to come in close enough to capture a lip, eye lash or eye detail. Many non-macro lenses with close focussing capability will do the trick, but if you need to get in real close without blocking the light by your close proximity, a 70-150mm Macro might be the way to approach this kind of set up. You can do wide angle close ups if that is the desired effect you want, but prepare your lights accordingly.
Also, try to prepare the back ground for any eventual angle you wish to shoot at. A mini “Cyclo” (Curved Back Drop) might be a good way to allow you to shoot within a 180° area around the model. Make sure it is high enough to allow you to shoot up at the subject if so desired.
When doing Beauty shots, the make-up must be as perfect as what the make-up artist wished to accomplish. I say this, as she/he may want a messy look. None the less, the better the make-up the less retouching time in Photoshop.
Don’t be afraid to come in really close. As one of my favorite Art Directors Jacques Michel Verger once said to me, “When you think you are in too close, come in closer…”
When preparing to embark on a Fashion or Beauty shoot, it is important to know what the environment and shooting space you will be doing your project in is like. For the sake of clarity, I will commence with a classic fashion shoot in a moderately sized studio and will follow with the beauty shoot in the same environment.
Location and Studio fashion shoots require very different approaches to the choosing of your focal length. In both cases however it is important to be sufficiently prepared for all of the possible permutations that you may consider during the shoot. However, when shooting in studio, you are often limited by the size of the workspace, the width of the background and the distance from the subject. If you are in a small space using the standard back drop, you may find that you are compromising between the distance of the model from the background and the focal length required to get the entire subject in to the frame. Not only is this a major constraint, but if you are thinking of back drop lighting as well as back lighting the model, the compromise between the focal length and getting the coverage required within the width and height of the backdrop may be problematic. If you are in a position to work in a large space, these limitations will be pretty well eliminated except for the width of the backdrop. If you have the luxury to work with a full “Cyclo” studio where you can paint the backdrop, then the possibilities become pretty well limitless. In the most positive of conditions where space is not a limitation, the choice of focal length will have more to do with effect than necessity. Your only limitation will be the height of the studio. Ideally you will have a 5 meter high studio (18-20′). This will allow you to sit on the floor and shoot up in to the subject if desired, without having to photoshop in the backdrop above the models head.
When shooting in a smaller studio using the standard backdrop and working within a distance of around 12-20 feet or 3-4 meters from the subject, I find that a 40-50mm APS or between approximately 50-80mm in Full Frame format to work very well for full silhouettes of a 178-180 cm 5′-9″-5′-11″ model to work quite well. You will find that the model will be around 6 to10′ (1.5-2.5 meters) in front of the back drop, allowing you to light the background. This is usually what I find works when attempting to get the model and backdrop in to the frame without having to Photoshop in the background texture. Thus, a minimum of 25′ or 6 meters in length is the minimum for a classic studio set up, for me at least. More is always better of course. You will need at least 15′ in width or around 3.5 meters to be able to set up side lights and back lights..
In the classic fashion shoot studio situation, one can get away with just three focal lengths from 24 through 35 to 50mm in APS format or 36-75mm. Thus a good zoom might do the trick, like a Sigma 24-70 or any other brand with a constant aperture between 24-70mm. In some cases, some of the better kit lenses (18-55mm) can work quite well if stopped down to optimum aperture.
I also suggest that the backdrop go up in height to a minimum of 9′ or 2.5 meters. Ideally 12′ or 3.5 meters would be better.
I have just saved you a load of cash. Shooting with your 24-70 or 18-55mm kit lens at the optimum performance of f5.6-f11.0 will give your 24-70 or 18-55mm close to prime focal lens quality. You can show up to your shoot with a couple of bodies, one for back up, one lens and a flash meter, as I often do.
Today on a generalist Photo Forum under the Portrait Fashion category, someone from a small independent and in my opinion based on what I saw on their web site, not very good fashion magazine, placed an ad for photographers for their magazine. Now that seemed strange in the first place, which I go on to explain in the copy below. Here is part of the content of her query.
I have left out the name of the magazine and the name of the person.
We are looking for an up and coming photographer each month to shoot images for our cover. This is an unpaid commission, but provides great exposure as the cover stays on the front page for one whole month
This was my response to her…
Hello …
My concern is that if you are coming to a forum to seek out photographers for your magazine, then that speaks volumes about the credibility of your magazine. I have been in this strange business for over 20+ years and do know one thing; the minimum one should know is where the sources are, where the press offices are which agents represent which photographers and what are the agencies representing the models etc. Now, perhaps you are new at this, so I will consider this query as naive, but, I do know that if I had to put a production together and I wasn’t the photographer, I would know exactly where to find them.
That tells me, that getting exposure in your magazine could be considered poison in disguise, wrapped in a sweet chocolate covered coating. Why? Because anyone in the know would see immediately by the content, layout, choice of talent and advertisers what your standing is in the Fashion community. This may sound cruel and arrogant, but the reality is, in looking at your web site, I would recommend to anyone wishing to shoot for this magazine the following…“Buyer Beware!”
Getting to shoot for VOGUE, Harpers, Elle, Marie Claire, Numéro, V, W, or ID has and never will be a question of “How Much Do I Make?” that is a joke! You couldn’t pay VOGUE enough money to shoot for them! The status associated with doing so is the following…“Once you are in VOGUE, you ARE in Vogue” and your phone will slowly start ringing off the wall to shoot Ad campaigns that command 5 to 6 figure numbers per day. Now let me repeat that, anywhere from 10,000 to 250,000 dollars per day!
There is a very simple barometer in this business. The less credible the magazine, the more perks and amenities it should provide for the team, as the exposure the team gets may actually be more detrimental to them than if they hadn’t shot for them at all. If you want a Photographer, Stylist, AD, Make-up or Hair stylist, Set Designer, etc… just order LeBook. Now if you didn’t know about Lebook or other sources for talent, you should NOT be in the Fashion Business. If you want to play the game, learn the rules.
I never would have expected that sharing my “GENERALIST” view of a lighting technique could cause such a stir. In fact it was based on a personal preference only and was NOT written for any other reason but to challenge you to think about the why and how one might consider the tool they wish to employ for a certain effect.
Now in reading many of the responses to my essay, it seems that I could perhaps give greater clarification to what I stated.
When ever there are adverts for lighting kits, they are generally shown sold with a soft box and an umbrella or two. So I can understand where the “Got it with the kit. May as well use it…” conditioning comes from. Personally, I find that rather unfortunate,as this inadvertently sets up a mind set about what studio lighting is and in my opinion falsely represents. I would prefer if flash heads, continuous lighting kits and mono blocks were just sold as is and the client could then be informed of the optional accessories available and what they can produce as a result of using them.
An umbrella is in fact a very interesting utility if understood and applied creatively. Like all light modifiers, they create an ambiance that is unique to the manner it diffuses light. I recently saw an illustration that made me laugh. It was showing how to set up an umbrella and the distance from the light source. It showed the light source close to the center of the umbrella with a “No No” sign next to it and then another far from the center of the light source with another “No No” sign next to it. Finally they showed what they considered the proper placement of the light source within the umbrella. That was a “Yes Yes” sign. All of that is utter nonsense, as there is NO proper placement. It all depends on how concentrated the light source you want will be.
Lighting is a very complex art form and to master it takes several life times in my opinion. There are absolutely “ZERO” rules about how to light and what is correct or incorrect. If what you are attempting to do or NOT works out as desired or as a pleasant surprise, that is what it is all about. Hopefully you will have logged how you attained that pleasant mistake, so that you can replicate it again.
What is more important than the umbrella, light-box, snoot, bowl, opalite, kino light etc., is the capturing of an image that is poignant, powerful and meaningful. The tool you captured it with is meaningless if what you captured leaves a lasting impression on those viewing it.
