Francisco Castro wrote:
You didn't like one of the most important pieces of equipment for getting just the right exposure. A light meter. Learning to use one properly will help you control your lighting, and minimize the number of test shots you take.

For the Terry Richardson look--- avoid any modifiers that diffuse your light source. Point light source is what you need, not a source that creates a soft edged shadow.

I do have a lightmeter - i was looking more for guidance as to light placement, power settings etc to start with and adjust from there.

The Terry shots - i have tried using my SB800 - setting the flash "zoom" to 100mm to get a strong straight beam etc but it has had mixed results.

Looking for more technical guidance rather than "you should have done this that"  I know plenty of photographers who get proper exposure right off the bat without a lightmeter so whether I use one or not is not the biggest concern relative to what I am trying to achieve based on my post's questions.

Thx

DFTBA Photography  wrote:

I do have a lightmeter - i was looking more for guidance as to light placement, power settings etc to start with and adjust from


Thx

Dude are you not testing your equipment before shoots.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
In the past I have attempted to get that AA/'Terry Richardson' style lighting using strobe as well as flashguns and just always seem to blow out the model in my attempt to get a white wall etc.

That simple statement is the key. It means the wall and the model are at different distances from the flash where the ratio between them is too great.

For a single flash to light them almost the same, both subjects must be:

1. about the same distance from the flash
2. the ratio between the two subjects must be within the dynamic range of the medium

The first solution is simple - and you can see that in all the AA/Terry Richardson pictures. The model is standing almost against the wall.

The second is not so obvious. If the subjects are not close in distance from the single light, the light must be far enough away that the ratio (difference) in distance of both subjects is small. For instance, the sun is far enough away so that if you stand a mile away from a wall, the ratio of the light between what hits you and the wall is so small as to be insignificant.

If the light was one foot from the subject and the wall is a mile away, the difference is too great and the subject will be blasted out if you expose for the wall.

The flash is too close. The wall and model are too far apart. Mover them closer together. Use a longer lens and place the light farther back from the subjects. It's a basic lighting rule.

LA StarShooter wrote:
And here is someone with a white wall, doing self-portraits in the version of the T.R. style: http://paintedfoot.com/blog/2012/06/on- … i-love-it/

That's not a bad effort, but it could have been even better just by removing the reflector from the strobe unit.  You can see the effect of the reflector best behind her right arm; the shadow is deep closest to the arm, then there is a band of light shadow, then no shadow.  That band of light shadow is caused by the light bouncing off the reflector.  To get a harder shadow, they could have removed the reflector and just used the bare bulb.



This is a telltale sign of Alienbees/White Lightning use.  I don't know if the more curved reflector on the Einstein has the exact same effect, but just knowing how light works, the smaller the light source, the harder the shadow it casts.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
I have two Einstein 640 strobes, an octabox, umbrellas and a big parabolic.  I have an upcoming studio shoot that has a plain floor and white wall.  In the past I have attempted to get that AA/'Terry Richardson' style lighting using strobe as well as flashguns and just always seem to blow out the model in my attempt to get a white wall etc.

Any advice, lighting diagrams etc anyone can share to help me achieve what I am trying to do?

Thx!

Use the inverse square law to your advantage.

If you place your subject and wall at least 8mtr away from your light source and less than 1mtr from each other they should get roughly the same amount of light.

As you will be using an on axis light source you might want to use a snoot and a long lense or zoom.

1472 wrote:
Dude are you not testing your equipment before shoots.

The guy asked for help in determining a light setup, he wasn't asking for snarky responses that aren't helpful. If you know how to light it, share!

Brian Diaz wrote:

That's not a bad effort, but it could have been even better just by removing the reflector from the strobe unit.  You can see the effect of the reflector best behind her right arm; the shadow is deep closest to the arm, then there is a band of light shadow, then no shadow.  That band of light shadow is caused by the light bouncing off the reflector.  To get a harder shadow, they could have removed the reflector and just used the bare bulb.



This is a telltale sign of Alienbees/White Lightning use.  I don't know if the more curved reflector on the Einstein has the exact same effect, but just knowing how light works, the smaller the light source, the harder the shadow it casts.

I've done that a lot, but the drawback is how much light out put you lose. Without a reflector, you might lose as much as five stops of effective light. To mitigate the loss of output, I started to use a Speedotron Desisti Fresnel, with the Fresnel lens open. It's basically a bare tube at that point, but the bowl reflector behind the strobe tube amps the output enough that I don't lose as much F stop. I've never tried this light ala TR's technique, but I bet it would work well.

Robert Randall wrote:

The guy asked for help in determining a light setup, he wasn't asking for snarky responses that aren't helpful. If you know how to light it, share!

True but I read light light placements and settings... Which made me think he didn't.

B R U N O wrote:
... I know the guy that shoots a lot of their ads and it's really not this complicated.  Think on-camera flash.

For Terry Richardson, think pocket camera.  He seems to be emulating the common look that everyone is used to seeing when they use a cheap pocket camera which happens to have the small flash very, very close to the lens.  There was a brief phase when Terry was using a real pocket camera, but its flash range would have been limited (See Mr. Gee's earlier comment about needing some distance to balance the fall-off).  So Terry returned to a serious camera with a bracket fashioned to hold the small flash head right next to the lens.  If you browse enough YouTube videos, you will spot glimpses of him using it.

So get an extension cord for your on-camera flash and hold the flash right next to the lens.  If the shadows aren't sharp enough for you, put black tape over half the flash to make it smaller still.

1472 wrote:

True but I read light light placements and settings... Which made me think he didn't.

You know what they say about assumptions...


Thanks for all the help everyone - I know this is pretty straight forward which was why I asked the question, if it is so straightforward why am I not getting the results I intend pretty much. 

I'll take this all to heart and test run it in the next few weeks when this shoot comes together.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
I do have a lightmeter - i was looking more for guidance as to light placement, power settings etc to start with and adjust from there.

The Terry shots - i have tried using my SB800 - setting the flash "zoom" to 100mm to get a strong straight beam etc but it has had mixed results.

Looking for more technical guidance rather than "you should have done this that"  I know plenty of photographers who get proper exposure right off the bat without a lightmeter so whether I use one or not is not the biggest concern relative to what I am trying to achieve based on my post's questions.

Thx

Okay. So I guess being a dick is the path you've chosen. Dude, I was sincerely pointing you in the right direction. I didn't give you a "should have" answer to your question. I gave you a straight up answer on how to get the same results. Also, you didn't list a light meter in your list of gear so I thought I would point out that you need one. And thirdly, I don't specially care if other photographers get their lights correct the first time out; clearly you're not one of those guys so learing how to use a light meter is in your best interest and yes, lighting should be your biggest concern.

Now, if you want a step by step diagram on how to get the shots you want, you can just go play with yourself because clearly you have no idea how to deal with people who are genuinely trying to help you out.

And to answer your question in the last post, "why am I not getting the results I intend". Simple. You're too stuborn to listen, and your big ego is getting in the way of your lighting.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
I have two Einstein 640 strobes, an octabox, umbrellas and a big parabolic.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
I do have a lightmeter...
The Terry shots - i have tried using my SB800...

Use the SB800 to light the subject.

Use the two Einsteins to evenly light the background 1.5 or 2 f-stops brighter than the subject.

Edit:  Actually, I would set this up in reverse order.  I'd light the background at f/11 for instance and then light the subject at f/5.6.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
I have two Einstein 640 strobes, an octabox, umbrellas and a big parabolic.  I have an upcoming studio shoot that has a plain floor and white wall.  In the past I have attempted to get that AA/'Terry Richardson' style lighting using strobe as well as flashguns and just always seem to blow out the model in my attempt to get a white wall etc.

Any advice, lighting diagrams etc anyone can share to help me achieve what I am trying to do?

Thx!

Have the model lean against the wall. Then the exposure will be identical for both.


The really key for this look is the positioning of the light.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:

I do have a lightmeter - i was looking more for guidance as to light placement, power settings etc to start with and adjust from there.

The Terry shots - i have tried using my SB800 - setting the flash "zoom" to 100mm to get a strong straight beam etc but it has had mixed results.

Looking for more technical guidance rather than "you should have done this that"  I know plenty of photographers who get proper exposure right off the bat without a lightmeter so whether I use one or not is not the biggest concern relative to what I am trying to achieve based on my post's questions.

Thx

Set the camera to 1/125, f16, 400 ISO and the exposure compensation for the flash to +1 in the matrix/evaluative mode.

Also, you want the flash next to the lens when horizontal, not above.

DFTBA Photography  wrote:

You know what they say about assumptions...


Thanks for all the help everyone - I know this is pretty straight forward which was why I asked the question, if it is so straightforward why am I not getting the results I intend pretty much. 

I'll take this all to heart and test run it in the next few weeks when this shoot comes together.

Probably the post processing, or you're using a light modifier when it's not necessary.


Also, don't use a telephoto lens. Try shooting around 50mm. That will influence your flash distance.

Mark Salo wrote:

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
I have two Einstein 640 strobes, an octabox, umbrellas and a big parabolic.

Use the SB800 to light the subject.

Use the two Einsteins to evenly light the background 1.5 or 2 f-stops brighter than the subject.

Edit:  Actually, I would set this up in reverse order.  I'd light the background at f/11 for instance and then light the subject at f/5.6.

This is great advice for shooting on a white background and getting a nice look, but one of the fundamental elements if Terry's look is that the background is not lit separately.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I strongly disagree about the necessity of a light meter.  A light meter is only necessary if the user doesn't know his lights well enough for them to be 'second nature'.  In the days of film, that used to mean using the same lights for a couple years.  In today's world of digital capture and instant results, that means a couple of months.

I still use a light meter for teaching, and I use one when I'm using someone else's lights - particularly lights that have a power readout other than full, 1/2, 1/4 etc., such as some of the Elinchroms.  Unless I'm trying to impress a client, I never use one for my own lights, because I know exactly how they work.

To the OP:  that doesn't mean that you don't need a meter.  That means that you don't need a meter if you do a lot of testing and pay attention to your results and settings while you are doing it.

We actually had a chat in my studio photography class about the 'American Apparel look' last night.  Basically, the consensus was that the images look like really high-end versions of what would show up in a hip, young person's Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, or other social media feed.  The thrust of AA's advertising is to tell people that, "We're exactly like you - only better.  Buy our clothes, because they will improve you and your image, while still fitting into your established lifestyle."

That's what the class came up with, and I have to say - it sounds pretty spot-on.  My students are pretty awesome

So that's what I'd think about when you're shooting.  If your photos look like they'd be the best social media uploads ever, then you're doing it right.  If they look too 'professional', then you're doing it wrong.

AA, and all those hipster brands, go out of their way to look ratty and thrown-together.  Hobo-chic, I think is the term.

A light meter is only necessary if you don't know how to chimp!

DFTBA Photography  wrote:
Any advice, lighting diagrams etc anyone can share to help me achieve what I am trying to do?

Thx!

IMO

One of the first steps would be not to care, as long as it's in the ballpark of being exposed decently you've accomplished your job.

After that it's a matter of lighting it with some harsh light. For this, if you can, I'd go get a older hot shoe flash with red green or blue (whatever they were) settings. Place that with a cable off camera, set your camera to whatever the flash says, and shoot away. Not off camera a lot, but as if it were on a bracket, or get a old bracket and go at it.

With a good model and decent clothes it would be hard to screw up that look.

If you don't have a old flash then use a bare bulb light (I use speedotrons witih a larger reflector for these) and get your exposure in the ballpark and you're good.

Again IMO the hard part seems to be making them look just crappy enough where people say "hey, I could do that, it's easy" but well enough where there aren't many if any unintentional flaws with the clothing or model.


But really, if you're thinking about this you're over thinking about this.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com/fashion.htm

Guss W wrote:

For Terry Richardson, think pocket camera.  He seems to be emulating the common look that everyone is used to seeing when they use a cheap pocket camera which happens to have the small flash very, very close to the lens.  There was a brief phase when Terry was using a real pocket camera, but its flash range would have been limited (See Mr. Gee's earlier comment about needing some distance to balance the fall-off).  So Terry returned to a serious camera with a bracket fashioned to hold the small flash head right next to the lens.  If you browse enough YouTube videos, you will spot glimpses of him using it.

So get an extension cord for your on-camera flash and hold the flash right next to the lens.  If the shadows aren't sharp enough for you, put black tape over half the flash to make it smaller still.

^This is the answer.

Look here for behind the scenes stuff by TR...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cWYqtqzSJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVevrcrrt48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMHq_6G2AfM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DowMNbliTDQ

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
A light meter is only necessary if you don't know how to chimp!

Exactly.  If you know your gear, you can get it chimped out with 2 or 3 photos.  If you don't, then it's going to take you a while, and the whole time you'll be wasting the subject's time(or yours, if you're paying a model), and you'll look like an idiot.

tonygale wrote:
If you want the wall to be white the best thing is to light it separately from the model. with as much space as possible between the model and the wall.
If you don't want to do that, the model needs to be right up against the wall. If the model is closer to the light then the wall, they will be brighter

NO!!!

Review the Inverse Square Law.

Brian Diaz wrote:
That's not a bad effort, but it could have been even better just by removing the reflector from the strobe unit.  You can see the effect of the reflector best behind her right arm; the shadow is deep closest to the arm, then there is a band of light shadow, then no shadow.  That band of light shadow is caused by the light bouncing off the reflector.  To get a harder shadow, they could have removed the reflector and just used the bare bulb.



This is a telltale sign of Alienbees/White Lightning use.  I don't know if the more curved reflector on the Einstein has the exact same effect, but just knowing how light works, the smaller the light source, the harder the shadow it casts.

While this is correct, I have found that because most flash tubes are circular, you still get that band of light shadow - although it is reduced quite a bit. I have gotten the best results using a speedlight as below.

tonygale wrote:
If you want the wall to be white the best thing is to light it separately from the model. with as much space as possible between the model and the wall.
If you don't want to do that, the model needs to be right up against the wall. If the model is closer to the light then the wall, they will be brighter

Leighthenubian wrote:
NO!!!

Review the Inverse Square Law.

The advice that you are disagreeing with is entirely consistent with the application of the Inverse Square Law.  Either place the subject and the background in the same plane so that they are automatically lit identically or place them far enough apart that they can be lit independently with separate lights to whatever relative brightness is desired.

Robert Lynch wrote:

tonygale wrote:
If you want the wall to be white the best thing is to light it separately from the model. with as much space as possible between the model and the wall.
If you don't want to do that, the model needs to be right up against the wall. If the model is closer to the light then the wall, they will be brighter

The advice that you are disagreeing with is entirely consistent with the application of the Inverse Square Law.  Either place the subject and the background in the same plane so that they are automatically lit identically or place them far enough apart that they can be lit independently with separate lights to whatever relative brightness is desired.

Except the light will bounce off of the background differently when they are lit separately and that alone will change the look.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

Except the light will bounce off of the background differently when they are lit separately and that alone will change the look.

Agree, will also eliminate the signature hard shadows of that TR/american apparel style the op is trying to recreate!

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Except the light will bounce off of the background differently when they are lit separately and that alone will change the look.

Possibly, though a featureless white background is still featureless no matter how you light it.  However, it is true that AP doesn't limit itself to just plain cyc walls.