Karl Baxter wrote:
if you've got a big enough space - the eli max spot with the silver inside (29 degree throw) gives huge output and hard shadows.. you'll ideally want it a few metres in the air and a few back.. but it's a lightweight and versatile alternative.

cheap too.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 9#23762709 (18+)

that's an example of it in use in a relatively limited space.

Lovely pic, Karl. If you want even sharper shadows, line the reflector with black cinefoil and remove the modelling light.


I like the s40 fresnel

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Raw head, as far away as possible. The farther the light source is from the subject, and the smaller the light source is, the harder the source will be, creating harder shadows. May mean controlling ambient light in order to get the result you want, and you may have an awful lot of wasted light (also watch out for bounce creating problems).

+1

Michael A Broughton wrote:
a light yellow gel to simulate the sun

.


Sunlight is *white* -- not yellow.

Refer to Sir Isaac Newton's prism experiment.



.

David-Thomas wrote:

Lovely pic, Karl. If you want even sharper shadows, line the reflector with black cinefoil and remove the modelling light.


I like the s40 fresnel

Thanks

FWIW, I very rarely have the model lamp on, this particular example was a little too close, but that was the practicality of the set.

I just used the profoto version of my dish on a shoot where I had a touch more room. The shadow lines are very hard indeed.. but then the dish aperture is narrow and it's a deep dish too. I can't post a result unfortunately, as it was a spread for a september issue.

I liked the system and modifier so much, I'm going to change over gradually. Can't do it all at once... 7 heads + equivalent modifiers = £YIKES.

C R A W F O R D wrote:
profoto hardbox

or you can make a DIY replica.

The hardbox was the first modifier that made me justify a potential move from eli..

RSM-images wrote:
.


.


Sunlight is *white* -- not yellow.

Refer to Sir Isaac Newton's prism experiment.



.

If the sunlight comes from a low angle  it's amber/yellow, it if comes from a high angle  it's white.

C R A W F O R D wrote:
profoto hardbox

+1

The Profoto Magnum with tube and grid comes close.  Does Elinchrom have anything similar?

Alt Nudes wrote:
Lately I've had a few shoots where I've been asked to emulate direct sunlight. I've used big 6Kw HMI movie lights with fresnel lenses, but they are big, heavy, hot and expensive to rent. Ideally, I would like to buy a light modifier for my Elinchrom studio lights. My question is, which modifier will give me the sharpest, crispest shadows at the best price?

No modifier at all.  See how much $ you're saving?

Now as far as color temperature is concerned - you may want to use a gel to warm the light.

A modifier like a softbox will produce a larger light source which will produce softer shadows.

RSM-images wrote:
.


.


Sunlight is *white* -- not yellow.

Refer to Sir Isaac Newton's prism experiment.



.

i don't know what planet you're from, but this one has a yellow dwarf for a sun and an atmosphere that scatters blue light. not that it would matter if the sun actually were white. the point of using blue or yellow gels is to recreate the difference in colour temperature between the sky and the sun.

Laura Ann - Fashion wrote:


AlienBee800.  All I did was paint the silver reflector black.

Pulling the light back will make the shadow sharper.

Interesting, have you experimented more with this? I've been meaning to try this out but the 7" reflector didn't go any good, what kind of  post did you do on the photo besides B&W? it would be helpfull if you could show an unedited version...

RSM-images wrote:
.


.


Sunlight is *white* -- not yellow.

Refer to Sir Isaac Newton's prism experiment.



.

First define white and define yellow. You can't. It's all relative.

Dream-foto wrote:
If the sunlight comes from a low angle  it's amber/yellow, it if comes from a high angle  it's white.

Well, it's not the sun's light that is changing color - it's sky light (bounced light).

If the color of the sun's light ever changes - we're probably fairly doomed.

John_Robert wrote:

Well, it's not the sun's light that is changing color - it's sky light (bounced light).

If the color of the sun's light ever changes - we're probably fairly doomed.

As the sunlight is filtered through the atmosphere, it will change color due to the dust and moisture in the air. 

At sunrise the sunlight color temp is 2000 to 3000K
At Noon the sunlight color temp will be around 5000 - 5400K

Of course skylight is much more blueish 7000 - 8000K

If you want the light to look like sunlight, you need to add the visual cue of the color that people expect. So at sunrise the sunlight has a much warmer temp than the fill light coming from the sky.

WMcK wrote:

First define white and define yellow. You can't. It's all relative.

from wikipedia:

"White is not a color, it is the absence of all colors and as colors absorb light, the absence of all colors results in all wavelengths of light being reflected. The perception of which is evoked by light that stimulates all three types of color sensitive cone cells in the human eye in nearly equal amounts and with high brightness compared to the surroundings. A white visual stimulation will be void of hue and grayness."

"Yellow is the color evoked by light that stimulates both the L and M (long and medium wavelength) cone cells of the retina about equally, with no significant stimulation of the S (short-wavelength) cone cells. Light with a wavelength of 570–590 nm is yellow, as is light with a suitable mixture of red and green"

Cuervo79 wrote:
Interesting, have you experimented more with this? I've been meaning to try this out but the 7" reflector didn't go any good, what kind of  post did you do on the photo besides B&W? it would be helpfull if you could show an unedited version...

Let me see if I can find the unedited version, but I don't believe I did too much with it.  Lemme see if I have the photo on the external I currently have hooked up...

EDIT:

Not the same shoot, but the same lighting set up.  Unretouched.

Alt Nudes wrote:
Lately I've had a few shoots where I've been asked to emulate direct sunlight. I've used big 6Kw HMI movie lights with fresnel lenses, but they are big, heavy, hot and expensive to rent. Ideally, I would like to buy a light modifier for my Elinchrom studio lights. My question is, which modifier will give me the sharpest, crispest shadows at the best price?

Elinchrom offer two zoom spots that seem to be able to focus the light and give me the hard shadows I'm looking for. But I've never used them so I'd like to hear from someone who has experience with them.

http://www.elinchrom.com/product/Mini-S … ml#content

http://www.elinchrom.com/product/Zoom-S … ml#content

Also, if there's a different way of achieving this type of light, I'd love to hear about it. I'm not averse to creative solutions and a little DIY.

Thanks!

The Elinchrom Zoomspot produces a very nice shap clean shadow and resembles direct sunlight very well.

It is actually a Selecon Acclaim with an elinchrom bayonet on the back.
You can get them quite cheap from theatrical lighting supply stores. You can even get it wihtout the hot lamp section if you are lucky. Then you use a fotoflex old style speed ring and screw it on the back.

Anyway the Zoomspot or a Leko light will produce a better effect than a bare flash head. Beare flash heads produce a double shadow as does the ProPhoto hard light.

I shot this with the Selecon Acclaim modified for flash.
You can see how clean the shadow is by the detailed shadow cast by the hair.

Karl Baxter wrote:
if you've got a big enough space - the eli max spot with the silver inside (29 degree throw) gives huge output and hard shadows.. you'll ideally want it a few metres in the air and a few back.. but it's a lightweight and versatile alternative.

cheap too.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 9#23762709 (18+)

that's an example of it in use in a relatively limited space.

I find that direct heads with reflectors produce a double shadow rather than a clean edge. The sun produces a clean edge. The difference is very evident in the fine shadows cast by hair, eyelashes etc.

Fred Greissing wrote:
I find that direct heads with reflectors produce a double shadow rather than a clean edge. The sun produces a clean edge. The difference is very evident in the fine shadows cast by hair, eyelashes etc.

If you move the light further from the subject, you will create a smaller light source which should make those double shadows far less noticeable.  Or really, what about just lining the reflector with cinefoil? (assuming you are keeping the reflector on for spill)

Michael A Broughton wrote:
"White is not a color, it is the absence of all colors ."

It depends.  If you are "making" white (like paint), then yeah, it's the absence.  If you are talking imaging, then the opposite is true.  You see white because the object is reflecting ALL of the colors.  When you see black, that object is absorbing the light waves (which is why black objects get hot).  It gets pretty confusing.

Michael A Broughton wrote:
"White is not a color, it is the absence of all colors ."

That maybe appropriate if we are talking about painting. For photography, black is the absence of all colors, white is the presence of all colors (full wavelength).

Al Lock Photography wrote:
That maybe appropriate if we are talking about painting. For photography, black is the absence of all colors, white is the presence of all colors (full wavelength).

Bingo.  It's tough explaining light waves/reflected light because many people think in terms of color wheels (like paints).

There was a forum I used to participate in on another site and I'd constantly have people tell me I was full of shit when explaining you see blue because that object absorbs the blue light waves.  I get that it may not make sense at first - but then again, that's why I suggest reading books as a wiki entry likely won't help people grasp the full concepts and principles.

EDIT: UGH, this is why I hate posting while frustrated.  I mistakenly wrote that blue objects absorb the blue light waves - the opposite is true - they reflect the blue and absorb the rest.  Not that it's an excuse but the example of black was being combined into my blue explanation for some reason.  I are retarded at times.

John_Robert wrote:
There was a forum I used to participate in on another site and I'd constantly have people tell me I was full of shit when explaining you see blue because that object absorbs the blue light waves.  I get that it may not make sense at first - but then again, that's why I suggest reading books as a wiki entry likely won't help people grasp the full concepts and principles.

You see blue because it REFLECTS waves that stimulate the sensation of blue in your brain.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

You see blue because it REFLECTS waves that stimulate the sensation of blue in your brain.

Nah, it's from watching the Smurfs as a kid.  Everyone knows that!

Al Lock Photography wrote:
That maybe appropriate if we are talking about painting. For photography, black is the absence of all colors, white is the presence of all colors (full wavelength).

In photography the main difference between objects we call black and objects we call white is exposure. You can make a white wall black and a black wall white.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

In photography the main difference between objects we call black and objects we call white is exposure. You can make a white wall black and a black wall white.

Uh, wait...I assumed you were joking with your earlier post. 

Please don't confuse the thread more than it already has been.  I don't mean to sound like a dick by saying that, but you are way off.  You are confusing exposure with light waves and they are not one and the same.

John_Robert wrote:
I don't mean to sound like a dick by saying that, but you are way off.

There actually is no such thing blue light. There is light of a certain wavelength. The sensation of color, which is a result of the wavelength(s) of light, occurs in the brain.

And more than one wavelength recipe combo can stimulate the sensation of the same color in the brain. Those different recipes that look the same are called matamers.

John_Robert wrote:
Al, wanna chime in and take over?  This is quickly turning into the very reason I hate explaining light and color.

I'm going to start a thread on the topic. You are welcome to join it.



------------

here it is

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=771840