How this might have been set up?

[mateoc15]

Can anyone tell me how this photo might have been set up? I want to take a similar photo (similar lighting, etc) and I have two studio strobes and a SB-600 flash that I can use remotely if needed. I have looked for an image with EXIF data but can't find one. That wouldn't give me much idea about physical studio setup anyway.

Thanks!

[Raoul Isidro]

Looks like a live stage performance with light coming from a spotlight source across the audience.
A studio light may look like this:

[mateoc15]

Ok, so for a newbie to lighting like this how might I simulate the first shot using studio lighting? Also, suggested ISO and aperture would be nice to know also.

Thanks!

[Swisstony10]

The best way to work out how a shot may have been lit is to check out the shadows. There's virtually no light hitting the subject from the left hand side of our viewpoint (where the camera is), or from behind it. It's all coming from the right hand side and a little bit above, this is why half of the musician's face is in shadow. The biggest giveaway (in terms of light, not physical size!) is the nose. Check out the way one side of the nose is really bright, and the other side is in complete shadow - it's most likely been lit with a single light source. Also note the wa the shadow under her nose on the left-hand side goes down slightly - that in conjunction with the hint of detail in her hair tells us that the light is shining down, but not by that much.

If I was going to recreate that in the studio, I'd have a single light off to my right, maybe at about a 45-degree angle to me, firing onto the musician (assuming I was having them in the same pose as the picture) with the light a little bit above her head-height. I'd probably go a little further, and use a 60-degree reflector on the light, with a honeycomb so that the light just pools onto the musician and doesn't really go anywhere else. That's a good way to get a nice intimate feel to the light.

If you're using a speedlight, rather than a full-on studio head, then I'd probably suggest keeping the flash power quite low so the light doesn't go everywhere. The depth of field looks like it's pretty shallow in the original picture (although it could just be the way it's been reproduced) - keep the aperture fairly wide if you want that "face in focus, arm and guitar slightly blurry" thing - maybe F2.8 or 4.5, or stop it down to around 8ish if you want more of it in focus. Go with the lowest ISO available (unless you specifically want noise). As far as shutter speed is concerned, play with a few different speeds (up to your camera's flash sync speed, at least) until you get the right balance between the lit side of the musician and the ambient side. In the most simple terms, the faster your shutter speed, the darker the unlit side is going to turn out.

I'll give you two really really valuable pieces of advice though - those two versions of taking that shot are just two versions - there'll likely be as many versions as there are people reading this thread. That's how I'd do it with my kit, and how I'd do it with your kit, but there'll be plenty of variations on that theme. Best option is to experiment. Have a play with it. It's not like it's costing you to have film developed to see what works and what doesn't.

Second piece of advice - if you're a newbie to controlling and manipulating light, then while you're taking a break from experimenting and playing with settings, you'd do well to make a nice cup of coffee, tea, or your favourite beverage, and have a good leaf through "Light: Science and Magic." - it'll make many many things suddenly look very obvious and logical.

Russ.

[mateoc15]

Russ, this is GREAT! Thanks so so much. I really appreciate the detail some people put into posts around here! I'm going to give this a shot. I'll post results! Also, I do have that book and just haven't looked at it in a while. I need to get back to it I guess.

[sk66]

Russ's reply was very good, but I'll add a couple of points.
With the SB 600 zoom out on the flash, I'd probably add a snoot or grid(honeycomb). To make a cheap snoot make a tube with some black paper, or use a "can coozie" with the bottom removed ( have a "bottle coozie" with the bottom cut out that I use as an "adjustable snoot" but when opened up there is some light spillage). To turn that into a grid, stuff it with pieces of drinking straws. (smaller diameter work better...I stole a bunch of stirring straws from the breakroom)
I don't think the D-40 has commander mode, so you'll probably also need a cable or wireless system to get the flash off-camera..

[sk66]

oops, D90. Make sure you turn the on board flash to commander only, no flash output.

[mateoc15]

Luckily I'm using a D90 so I'm good there. I have a piece of black foam and a large wide rubber band that I use for directional "snooting". That can coozie is a GREAT idea though! Nice! I'll try all of this. Thanks everyone.

[Swisstony10]

Now those DIY/emergency snoots and honeycombs that SK suggested are brilliant. That's the trouble with having the "big" stuff available - it's easy to get a little kinda lazy and reliant on it.

I'm totally loving the idea of an adjustable snoot. That's pure genius. I may have to make one to fit my 580EXII..

Russ.

[candleman]

Originally Posted by sk66

I'd probably add a snoot or grid(honeycomb). To make a cheap snoot make a tube with some black paper, or use a "can coozie" with the bottom removed ( have a "bottle coozie" with the bottom cut out that I use as an "adjustable snoot" but when opened up there is some light spillage)...

i wish i knew what a "can coozie" was....


my adjustable snoot consist of a roll of paper/cardboard that i tape around the flash.. then i cut it back shorter and shorter until i get the amount of spill i want.
it works though.

you can also cut it an an oblique angle for a slightly different effect when snooting it abainst a wall for a background light.