More Studio-In-A-Box Tests
Wow. I just really don't know how to use this. I don't even know if the diffusion cube is arranged properly. I'm assuming that I've set it up the way the makers intended, as it sags horribly if I try to set it lengthwise. These new photos haven't been tweaked very much - just sharpening - as I wanted to see what I was getting in terms of raw, pre-massaged material. The results still aren't very promising.
I tried three different light set-ups this time, as well as moving the whole shebang into the Blair Witch Room (what I call the particularly desolate, unlit end of the basement, back behind the laundry area). First, I put a light on each side of the cube, shining through the sides. I got what I call "Irwin Kershner lighting":
Not bad, but I can still see plenty of the cube's fabric, and it's not really a look I want all of the time. Then I tried backlighting it, while leaving the right-hand light on the side. That didn't work at all:
Then I tried aiming moving the back light into the front, shining through the cube opening. Better, but there's still shadows and fabric wrinkles all over the place:
On all of these shots, I'd placed the figure on a white box, in the hope that I could eliminate the ground seams, but that didn't work - the box just showed up plain as day. So I got rid of the box, and used the same lighting set-up:
Which pretty much brings me back to where I started. It's not that much different from the first shots I took.
So far, none of the pictures look anywhere near as good as the shots on the plastic chairs in natural sunlight. They look like, well, shots taken in a dark room inside a lit tent. This is clearly not going to be a immediate gratification thing. I think I have some options left before I write this off as wasted money:
1) Add the third light. Maybe that'll help wash out some of the cube details.
2) Add a ramp background, for the same reason. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm beginning to think that the cube is only good for diffusion, and not for a backdrop. I may be overestimating the versatility of each part of this set-up, which is an easy trap to fall into, as I felt that I was encouraged to feel this stuff would be all that I'd need.
3) Also, maybe the cube can only handle displaying objects well away from the top and bottom seamwork - smaller items elevated into the center of the cube. That'd be disappointing, as I was hoping I could use more of the cube's real estate. #2 might be able to help with this.
Unfortunately, all of the options involve spending more money. I'll see if I can find a good photo supply store nearby, and see what they recommend.
I tried three different light set-ups this time, as well as moving the whole shebang into the Blair Witch Room (what I call the particularly desolate, unlit end of the basement, back behind the laundry area). First, I put a light on each side of the cube, shining through the sides. I got what I call "Irwin Kershner lighting":
Not bad, but I can still see plenty of the cube's fabric, and it's not really a look I want all of the time. Then I tried backlighting it, while leaving the right-hand light on the side. That didn't work at all:
Then I tried aiming moving the back light into the front, shining through the cube opening. Better, but there's still shadows and fabric wrinkles all over the place:
On all of these shots, I'd placed the figure on a white box, in the hope that I could eliminate the ground seams, but that didn't work - the box just showed up plain as day. So I got rid of the box, and used the same lighting set-up:
Which pretty much brings me back to where I started. It's not that much different from the first shots I took.So far, none of the pictures look anywhere near as good as the shots on the plastic chairs in natural sunlight. They look like, well, shots taken in a dark room inside a lit tent. This is clearly not going to be a immediate gratification thing. I think I have some options left before I write this off as wasted money:
1) Add the third light. Maybe that'll help wash out some of the cube details.
2) Add a ramp background, for the same reason. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm beginning to think that the cube is only good for diffusion, and not for a backdrop. I may be overestimating the versatility of each part of this set-up, which is an easy trap to fall into, as I felt that I was encouraged to feel this stuff would be all that I'd need.
3) Also, maybe the cube can only handle displaying objects well away from the top and bottom seamwork - smaller items elevated into the center of the cube. That'd be disappointing, as I was hoping I could use more of the cube's real estate. #2 might be able to help with this.
Unfortunately, all of the options involve spending more money. I'll see if I can find a good photo supply store nearby, and see what they recommend.
Labels: day to day, journal, photo studio-in-a-box, photography
posted by Jeff Pidgeon at
6:36 PM
10 Comments:
Two words "George Hurrell"
www.hurrellphotography.com/Hurrell/index.htm
Keep at it pal. Rome wasn't lit in a day you know.
Not an easy thing to do my man!
Here are some possible helpful/not helpful tips?
If you have three lights, Use one light in front-offset to left or right. One other as a back light - offset to the opposite side. this second light should only be half as bright as the first one. Backlight is best as a highlite/rimlight.
The third light is the tricky one if you don't have much space. Use it to light the area behind the figure, not the figure itself. When doing so try and ballance the amount of light from both front fixtures so as not to overlight the forground elements, eg the figure itself.
If you don't have " barn doors" for your lights you can find black aluminium foil at most camera stores. tear some off to shape the light to where you want it. Black foam core can work as well. You need to be able to sculpt the light away from the areas you don't want overbright.
Don't give up!
I only have two lights right now - I'm thinking about getting a third, since almost everyone I talk to feels you really need at least three lights to do it right. The two that I have don't have "barn doors", either.
So you use the black foil to form a cookie-like cover that fits over the front of the light? How would you attach the foam core to the light?
So many questions...
I guess you would need another base and clamp to hold the foamcore.
If you had an extra pole you could use a clamp from home hardware and duct tape?
If you only have the two lights you could try bouncing the light from the second one. Not shining it directly on the subject. Use some sort of reflective surface to do this. It might help?
Well, the "ramp" shouldn't cost you much... you can use a fairly large piece of thick paper (we call it cartolina in this part of the world) which would cost next to nothing in an arts and craft (or school supplies) store.
The ramp would make for a seamless background without adding any third light to wash the backdrop out.
You can also buy different colors of paper to suit your backgrounding needs.
I agree with nap. Go with the ramp. That's what I use for my lego stuff and it works out fine. I just need better lights.
A "ramp" like this http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/04/really_cheap_homemade_diy_phot.html
will do wonders.
A better link for the seamless backdrop:
http://www.diyphotography.net/homestudio/cheap-homemade-diy-studio-no-lighting-needed
the next time you set up your softbox, can you take a picture of the whole setup (including the lights) so we can have an idea of what you are doing. :-) Maybe we can better help you when we see your setup.
The Cube IS only good for diffusion, not for a backdrop.
If I use a cube at all, I take mine outdoors and don't use any lighting except natural light. I put my "infiniti board" (ramp) right inside the cube.
I kind of gave up on using the cube - just one more thing to get in the way. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home