Photographer
Stu
Posts: 222
Atlanta, Georgia, US
lets get a lawyer in on this...yeah that will fix this....
Photographer
Warren Leimbach
Posts: 3223
Tampa, Florida, US
Stu Haluski wrote:
lets get a lawyer in on this...yeah that will fix this.... "First thing we do, we photograph all the lawyers."
- Will S.
Photographer
SensualArt
Posts: 772
Aldershot, England, United Kingdom
Perhaps it's to do with the fact that some people just aren't aware of how short a strobe's (useful) output is [ignores discussions of t/0,5, t/0.1, etc]
1/1000 of a second, a typical flash duration, is a very short time indeed!
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Stephen Fletcher wrote:
I mean the light has less time to get away! Did you ever do criminal defense work? 
Photographer
Stereoblind
Posts: 663
Vancouver, Washington, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Me too. Until on a discussion here I was shown to be wrong in my own understanding of it. I had always assumed that since the "point source" assumption was violated when using soft boxes, the inverse square law would not work in the studio. A nice person pointed out that it still does work (give or take a little margin for error), I tested it, and he was right. Wow.. I need to get out more.
I have NO friggin clue wtf either of you just said.
time for a google search again
I did learn about shutter sync speed on my own though. Didn't KNOW I knew it because I wasn't thinking about it (sadly, how I do most of my pictures), but after I overheard a photographer say "shutter speed controls ambient light" it clicked. (So to speak.)
Maybe one day I'll graduate and figure out how to cheat the 1/200 limit myself.
Photographer
Richard Tallent
Posts: 7136
Beaumont, Texas, US
Two other advanced techniques for brighter photos:
1. When you need more light, you should always grab your biggest lens. Bigger lenses capture more light.
2. If you know you will be working in a dark environment, you can "pre-expose" your memory cards by leaving them in the sun for a few hours. This is known as a "double exposure" for the old film guys. To reset them, just format them or leave them in a dark closet overnight.
Also, you should never leave the lights on in your studio while using flash, unless you use red light bulbs.
I love how much good info you can find on the Interwebs!
Photographer
DWolfe Photo
Posts: 872
Germantown, Maryland, US
Richard Tallent wrote:
Two other advanced techniques for brighter photos:
2. If you know you will be working in a dark environment, you can "pre-expose" your memory cards by leaving them in the sun for a few hours. This is known as a "double exposure" for the old film guys. To reset them, just format them or leave them in a dark closet overnight. When the sun sets should I put a full spectrum light on them maintain the pre-exposure condition until the sun comes back up?
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
 Moderator Warning! Richard Tallent wrote:
Two other advanced techniques for brighter photos:
1. When you need more light, you should always grab your biggest lens. Bigger lenses capture more light.
2. If you know you will be working in a dark environment, you can "pre-expose" your memory cards by leaving them in the sun for a few hours. This is known as a "double exposure" for the old film guys. To reset them, just format them or leave them in a dark closet overnight.
Also, you should never leave the lights on in your studio while using flash, unless you use red light bulbs.
I love how much good info you can find on the Interwebs! (31) No BS: While this is Model Mayhem, we would like to keep a nice balance between the mayhem and being resourceful. This is where the "Industry Forums" come in to play. All forums under this header are meant to be used for serious discussion only. Please think before you post and only hit the submit button if you have a well thought out contribution. Junk posts/threads do not belong here. These forums will be heavily moderated by the Forum Mods. If they feel someone is too much of a nuisance, the offender could be banned from the forums.
There's enough legitimate confusion in the thread without making jokes that many will miss as being a joke.
Photographer
Michael Alan
Posts: 1499
Bayshore Gardens, Florida, US
DWolff Photography wrote:
When the sun sets should I put a full spectrum light on them maintain the pre-exposure condition until the sun comes back up? LOL... so funny...
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
TXPhotog wrote:
This seems so obvious that I wouldn't mention it . . . except that it has come up four times now, including twice with people who make their living doing photography.
When shooting with studio strobes, the exposure has nothing to do with the shutter speed!
OK, I know that's a bit of an overstatement. The shutter speed has to be slow enough to sync with the studio flashes, and the ambient light has to be small with respect to the exposure from the flashes. "Nothing to do with" isn't quite accurate. But for practical purposes, it's close.
Four times recently I have had photographers in the studio tell me that if their exposure is off when shooting studio shots with strobes, all they have to do is change the shutter speed to fix it. Happened again this last weekend, when a working pro told me, with a straight face, that if I were to go from 1/200th of a second to 1/100th, my exposure would go up one stop. And we were shooting with his Profoto flashes.
No. It doesn't work that way. Really.
Shutter speed is one of the ways you can use to control exposure when shooting with ambient light or continuous light sources. Not for flash. Doesn't work the same.
Again, I apologize for all the very many of you who are scratching their heads and wondering why this even needs to be said, but urge those of you who are scratching your heads wondering why it doesn't work to actually try it and see what happens. Yes that's more or less right. With strobes the exposure for the subject (what the flash is illuminating) is controlled with aperture + ISO. Ambient light exposure (every else besides the subject) is controlled actually with the shutter + aperture + ISO. Also in some situations (when ambient light is bright enough) having a longer shutter time can add exposure to the subject as well.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Thats got me puzzled too! Shouldn't a faster shutter speed capture more light?
I mean the light has less time to get away! finally someone who understands the physics of light!......
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Shutter speed is one of the ways you can use to control exposure when shooting with ambient light or continuous light sources. Not for flash. Doesn't work the same. When using strobes outdoors, shutter speed is criitical as it adjusts the background exposure without affecting the stobe exposure.
When using strobes outside, typical studio settings will yield a correctly-exposed subject with a night-like background, which is usually not ideal.
In order to get balanced backgrounds, strobe power must be lowered, ISO must be raised, and shutter speed must be lowered.
The main thing to look out for is motion blur of ambient-light affected areas of the subject, such as shiny jewelry and body outlines.
This manifests itself as a subject with a share face and eyes, but blurriness in other areas.
Photographer
J C ModeFotografie
Posts: 14718
Los Angeles, California, US
cassios co wrote:
Yeah, You want to shoot within 1/100 or 1/200 that's it for strobes. The industry average is 1/125  I usually shoot at 1/500th with my leaf shutter lenses which I am glad are more available for my film cameras . . . some digital cameras have even faster sync speeds.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Shutter speed is one of the ways you can use to control exposure when shooting with ambient light or continuous light sources. Not for flash. Doesn't work the same. rp_photo wrote:
When using strobes outdoors, shutter speed is criitical as it adjusts the background exposure without affecting the stobe exposure.
When using strobes outside, typical studio settings will yield a correctly-exposed subject with a night-like background, which is usually not ideal.
In order to get balanced backgrounds, strobe power must be lowered, ISO must be raised, and shutter speed must be lowered.
The main thing to look out for is motion blur of ambient-light affected areas of the subject, such as shiny jewelry and body outlines.
This manifests itself as a subject with a share face and eyes, but blurriness in other areas. Please read the thread . . . . this is not about how to use ambient light.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
RickMartin wrote:
Perhaps it's to do with the fact that some people just aren't aware of how short a strobe's (useful) output is [ignores discussions of t/0,5, t/0.1, etc]
1/1000 of a second, a typical flash duration, is a very short time indeed! With my limited understanding of the subject I will add the following: Please correct me if I am wrong!!!!
camera mounted speedlights (as an example, a Nikon SB800) might be as short a duration as 1/10,000.... (T=0.5)
but studio strobes tend to be longer duration... I use Speedos, and at full power a 102 head is something like 1/225th... (T=0.5)
Back to the original post....
I suspect it would be a true statement in about 99.99% of the cases....
I suppose you COULD run into changing exposure via shutter with a leaf shutter faster than your actual strobe duration... but......how often is THAT going to happen?
Photographer
Warren Leimbach
Posts: 3223
Tampa, Florida, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Happened again this last weekend, when a working pro told me, with a straight face, that if I were to go from 1/200th of a second to 1/100th, my exposure would go up one stop. And we were shooting with his Profoto flashes.
No. It doesn't work that way. Really. This reminds me of this thread:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=359719
Vision and marketing may trump technical knowledge. But I thank god for technically incompetent photographers. They are my bread and butter.
Photographer
Stephen Fletcher
Posts: 7501
Norman, Oklahoma, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Did you ever do criminal defense work? I will make an exception for you.
(Do you want me to bring an alibi witness?)
Photographer
Eclectic imagery
Posts: 77
Columbus, Ohio, US
I get it... basically, iso and aperture being equal in all instances, with NO light source whatsoever aside from the strobe(s), an exposure time of 1/200th will produce the same effect as 200 seconds or 200 minutes... the amount of light produced has not changed from one set to the next it is the same amount of light for the same duration in each instance...
Photographer
GK photo
Posts: 31025
Laguna Beach, California, US
what is this, nostalgia week?
Photographer
Free at last
Posts: 1472
Fresno, California, US
TXPhotog wrote:
This seems so obvious that I wouldn't mention it . . . except that it has come up four times now, including twice with people who make their living doing photography.
When shooting with studio strobes, the exposure has nothing to do with the shutter speed!
OK, I know that's a bit of an overstatement. The shutter speed has to be slow enough to sync with the studio flashes, and the ambient light has to be small with respect to the exposure from the flashes. "Nothing to do with" isn't quite accurate. But for practical purposes, it's close.
Four times recently I have had photographers in the studio tell me that if their exposure is off when shooting studio shots with strobes, all they have to do is change the shutter speed to fix it. Happened again this last weekend, when a working pro told me, with a straight face, that if I were to go from 1/200th of a second to 1/100th, my exposure would go up one stop. And we were shooting with his Profoto flashes.
No. It doesn't work that way. Really.
Shutter speed is one of the ways you can use to control exposure when shooting with ambient light or continuous light sources. Not for flash. Doesn't work the same.
Again, I apologize for all the very many of you who are scratching their heads and wondering why this even needs to be said, but urge those of you who are scratching your heads wondering why it doesn't work to actually try it and see what happens.
Edit:
This thread is not about ambient light, shooting outdoors, shooting in a studio with big windows, or any other situation in which continuous light sources are a substantial part of total exposure, whether deliberately or not. Yes, we all know ambient light can be mixed with flash. If someone feels the need to tell us still more about how to do that, please start another thread. It is off topic for this one, since it just dilutes the message to where it will not be understood by those who need to receive it. Roger, why do you keep doing this to yourself? Not that your observations are not appreciated by those of us still trying to learn, but you know (or damn well should by this time) that many will not carefully read (or think about) what you have said, and quite happily go off on any number of tangents (that have nothing at all to do with your talking points). I'm thinking that "no child left behind" has been a miserable failure.
Regards
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
TXPhotog wrote:
This seems so obvious that I wouldn't mention it . . . except that it has come up four times now, including twice with people who make their living doing photography.
When shooting with studio strobes, the exposure has nothing to do with the shutter speed!
OK, I know that's a bit of an overstatement. The shutter speed has to be slow enough to sync with the studio flashes, and the ambient light has to be small with respect to the exposure from the flashes. "Nothing to do with" isn't quite accurate. But for practical purposes, it's close.
Four times recently I have had photographers in the studio tell me that if their exposure is off when shooting studio shots with strobes, all they have to do is change the shutter speed to fix it. Happened again this last weekend, when a working pro told me, with a straight face, that if I were to go from 1/200th of a second to 1/100th, my exposure would go up one stop. And we were shooting with his Profoto flashes.
No. It doesn't work that way. Really.
Shutter speed is one of the ways you can use to control exposure when shooting with ambient light or continuous light sources. Not for flash. Doesn't work the same.
Again, I apologize for all the very many of you who are scratching their heads and wondering why this even needs to be said, but urge those of you who are scratching your heads wondering why it doesn't work to actually try it and see what happens.
Edit:
This thread is not about ambient light, shooting outdoors, shooting in a studio with big windows, or any other situation in which continuous light sources are a substantial part of total exposure, whether deliberately or not. Yes, we all know ambient light can be mixed with flash. If someone feels the need to tell us still more about how to do that, please start another thread. It is off topic for this one, since it just dilutes the message to where it will not be understood by those who need to receive it. And that explains why sometimes I have sharp images while hand-holding a camera and shooting at 1/15 shutter. 
![https://www.pbase.com/image/106144322.jpg]()
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
TXPhotog wrote:
I'm wondering if there could not be a "misconceptions about photography" thread in here somewhere . . . .
Let's not forget "72 dpi". But I digress . . . . don't you mean ppi?
Ducks for cover...
Photographer
Eclectic imagery
Posts: 77
Columbus, Ohio, US
Gene Kane wrote:
what is this, nostalgia week? I think it's probably people like me, that are new, going back 25-30 pages into the older threads to read before doing any major posting, asking questions on those first... if any more questions are needed for us to understand...and also to not bring up things have been discussed 20-30 times in the last month or so...lol... 8^D
|
Moderator Warning!
