Lighting Setup Issues

[aribabybug]

I originally posted this in Critiques, but then I realized that it probably belonged here instead. I'd be happy to delete it out of Critiques if I knew how.

I've had a lighting setup since Christmas, but I've barely played around with it since then because when I set it up (guessing about where to put things based on what I've seen in other photographers' studios), I get photos like this one.



Camera model : NIKON D200
Date/Time : 2009:05:21 23:19:52
Resolution : 600 x 401
Flash used : No
Focal length : 28.0mm (35mm equivalent: 42mm)
Exposure time: 0.769 s
Aperture : f/3.3
ISO equiv. : 100
Whitebalance : Manual
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : Manual


They're glowy and hard to get in focus, and if the subject moves, I get funny orange after-images. This is without triggering flash, just with the lights on. If I trigger flash, the effect gets worse. According to my camera, this image is correctly exposed.

Tonight, I set up the equipment in the yard, since my house is too small, and had the lights, backdrop, and camera in a triangle only a few feet across, with my subject in the center. I got the following shot, which I think is pretty decent.



Camera model : NIKON D200
Date/Time : 2009:05:21 23:20:58
Resolution : 600 x 553
Flash used : No
Focal length : 28.0mm (35mm equivalent: 42mm)
Exposure time: 0.333 s (1/3)
Aperture : f/3.3
ISO equiv. : 100
Whitebalance : Manual
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : Manual

Unfortunately, I can't seem to replicate this at larger distances, which is necessary in order to take anything but headshots. I'd like any critique on the lighting of the better shot, as well as any suggestions for how to use my lighting equipment more appropriately at greater distances. Thanks!

[cphoniball]

I'm very new to lighting as well, but I think I can start the discussion at least...

First off, you said the effect gets worse if you trigger the flash, so I'm assuming you've got some sort of continuous lighting along with the flash bit. I don't think your first image is out of focus - your shutter speed is just so long you're capturing motion blur.

The second shot I'm assuming you moved the lights closer - since they were closer, they put more light on your subject, and you were able to use a shorter shutter speed to get the same exposure.

If you have flash to use with it I would imagine that increasing your shutter speed quite a bit would be the way to go. Again, I don't know what your setup is, but if you use off-camera flash the shutter speed doesn't have an effect on the flash (to a point), only the aperture. So you could increase your shutter speed to, say, 1/100 (or even something as low as 1/15th) and still get an exposure with light from the flash. Using a shorter shutter speed will get rid of the blur.

If you just have continuous light, you're gonna be stuck based on the power of your lights. You have a couple options to get rid of the motion blur then. You can increase your ISO, you can move your lights closer (thus increasing their intensity), you can buy more/stronger lights, or you can use a larger aperture lens.

If any of that was confusing just let me know. I'll probably get back to you in the morning though, because I'm going to bed now.

I liked that second shot, btw.

[b3nj1]

Your shutter speeds are set pretty slow. Even if you're using a tripod (are you?), the subject movement can cause blur at those speeds. For equivalent exposures, have you tried higher ISO and faster shutter speeds? Try ISO 800. That will buy you 3 stops or 8x faster shutter speeds (1/24) which should help. The noise level is probably fine on your camera at ISO 800.

Does the lighting kit get any brighter? That would also enable you to set faster shutter speeds, and maybe lower the ISO down if 800 is causing trouble. You can also position the light closer to the subject if possible. Cutting the distance in half will quadruple the light on the subject. The light being closer has other interesting effects that might be of interest to you. Being closer makes the light source larger relative to the subject which softens the light.

[aribabybug]

That's as bright as my lights will get without using the flash. I am using a tripod, otherwise the whole thing would be an exercise in futility, I think.

I'll try a higher ISO (I was worried about noise, but I'll play with it and see what happens.) Also, can anyone recommend a good book about lighting/flash? I've got the Hot Shoe Diaries, and I glanced through it and didn't see much that looked helpful, but I'll take another look.

The professor in the one photography class that I took didn't teach us anything about flash because she preferred natural light, so every picture that I take with my Speedlight looks awful. I simply don't know how to use it, let alone how to manage to hit the shutter just at the moment when it and the strobes go off, OR how to meter for flash, since it's not there when I'm setting up the shot. Clearly I need a good book, or I need to take another class.

Thanks for your help, now that I know my last picture wasn't good for any mystical reason, but just because of more light, I can focus on what WILL help.

[mseigafuse]

I really liked Light: Science and Magic - http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-...3084678&sr=8-1

But Strobist is great too and you don't have to buy that - http://strobist.blogspot.com/

[cphoniball]

Read the strobist here. That'll probably keep you busy with lighting stuff for a while...

I haven't read it yet, but I've had Light: Magic and Science recommended to me as well.

[cphoniball]

Uhh. Mseigafuse. You beat me by a minute lol.