Really fantastic episode. I love the subtleties of of window light and found the subtleties of using the softbox this way perfectly recreated some of my own window lit images. I've spent a lot of time trying to recreate some of the images I have captured using flash photography and have just learned how to recreate the shots I love. The lighting in one of the images shown in this show matches the lighting on one of my portraits 100%, fantastic! Joel you are the best. Thank You.
This is great! The only thing that I would change is to show the last picture so you can compare. I had to go back and forth looking for the last picture to see the difference. At least with subtle changes like these. Keep it up!
An old video I watched a long time ago; however, it gave me the idea to use two softboxes side by side so you can vary power between boxes by a stop or two and have a "larger" softbox at the same time. This will give you a very smooth graduation and more control. I think this setup looks better than the typical main / fill light sources from two different directions. If you have two boxes, give it a try! And yes, I would agree on comment below - loop lighting.
Nice! Instead of building a bracket, you can also put a black cloth on the 1st quarter of the stoftbox, loosing some of the softbox size, but saving the hastle building stuff if you're not a MacGyver like Joel.
I notice the background comes out very nice, almost grey with just a soft glow. But in the vid with your setup, it looks totally blown out white. How did you get that effect?
Because he is using a strobe. A quick flash of light that will expose his image at least a couple of stops over his background. Whereas the video doesn't capture the strobe exposure (well it does but only for a very brief amount of time each time it fires).
Well yes, and there is a certain thing called shutter speed. That is 1/50th, 1/60th for video, and maybe he is shooting 1/200th on his camera, making sure less ambient light is caught on sensor.
@ 17:10 I'm a bit confused. Joel says that if you push the light back it's going to be harsher and if you bring it in closer it will be softer. But wouldn't the opposite be true? Closer would cast a harsher shadow on the right side of the nose, while moving it farther away would soften the shadow, would it not? Thanks for the video, enjoyed it!
Nice Series, thanks for sharing, WESCOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ! But look at poor Kara Tolberts legs,she has been modeling for so long that her legs grew across in her natural stand 3:04-5:20 and 10:57-13:40 ;-) However she is lovely to look at. Keep up the good work !!!
No. Think about it this way: when the light is close, the nose begins to block the light from one side of the softbox (light) surface, while light from the other side of the softbox still has a clear line-of-sight to the same area. The closer the light is, the larger the angle between the first hints of shadow and the point at which the whole light is blocked. When you move the light farther away, the angle is less, so the edge of the shadow is sharper; it's like using a smaller light.
Joshua Breyfogle At least...I would guess 600 to 750ws. HIs settings were f/9 1/200 and ISO 100...that would black out all the ambient in the studio. So it's definitely a stronger strobe. I have a 60" octo I use with a 600ws strobe, with double diffuser panels I'm pretty close to full power just to get even lighting.
I think you're confusing harsh with dark. The "harshness" has to do with the quality of light. The transition from light to dark on the subject, not the amount of darkness. The more gradual the transition is the softer and less harsh it is. Harshness isn't a bad thing, it's just rarely desired when using a large, diffuse light source. Quality of light is determined by the size of the light source relative to the subject. Larger = softer. Smaller = harsher. Moving the light away makes it smaller.
Sorry to break the news to you but that's not Rembrandt lighting, it's an attempt at it. Real rembrandt lighting is not allowed to touch the lower eyelid or spill into the eye.
Dennis Clark You aren't breaking anything to him. He's likely off having the time of his life, taking beautiful images for the people that demand them, and I bet are paying a pretty penny for them too. On another note- dude, your portfolio is a joke. If you photographed my wedding as you did with those brides in your “portfolio” (simply horrid) I'd sue you. Seriously, it's that bad dude. Spend more time shooting, less time giving technical advice to professionals on RUclips. There is more to photography than specs, and technicalities, and the rules are meant to be learned and then broken with respect to creativity. If that is your best work (who doesn’t think to put their best work in their portfolio?) then I truly hope you are absorbing information from all these photography tutorials you’ve been watching. That said, you can’t lean creativity, and you can’t buy a good “eye”. Good god. Well, if I look on the bright side, if "photographers" like you can make some change, there's hope for anyone.
+xchicglowgoxo dude, what are you doing? First of all, he's right, that's not Rembrandt, that's loop lighting. Watch the video again and compare the painting example he gives to the images he makes, they aren't the same. And why are you being so cruel to him about his portfolio? I'm not sure where you found it, but even if it's bad who are you trying criticize him? If you were any kind of photographer with substance or talent, you wouldn't be criticizing people on RUclips, especially people who know what a Rembrandt triangle is while you obviously don't. Just cause a pro says it doesn't mean they're right.
Nick Lewis Oh the irony. What the fuck are you doing on RUclips criticizing my comment? Oh and BTW, point out the part where I said he was WRONG about Rembrandt VS Loop. I'll wait. Like I said, he should spend less time on RUclips telling professionals how to do their job, and more time workin' on his sh*t. Just sayin.
why do they always mimic as if theyre talkn to somebody but they never show the person theyre talkn to lol..mks me think are they high and talkn to self lol
Excellent photos but don't some of you Yanks waffle! There was about 5 minutes of tutorial and 15 minutes of meanderings. Take a look at Mark Wallace, straight to the point and full of information, also our very own Gavin Hoey. You won't fall asleep watching these two.
Truly one of the best channels on lighting on RUclips.
Immense thanks to you Joel.
You guys do some of the best photography videos on youtube. Thank you.
Thanks for taking the time to share your wealth of knowledge! It's much appreciated!
Framed and Joel, thanks a lot for the sharing the knowledge with all of us.
This was probably the best lighting video I have ever watched. Any my god she's gorgeous
Really fantastic episode. I love the subtleties of of window light and found the subtleties of using the softbox this way perfectly recreated some of my own window lit images. I've spent a lot of time trying to recreate some of the images I have captured using flash photography and have just learned how to recreate the shots I love. The lighting in one of the images shown in this show matches the lighting on one of my portraits 100%, fantastic! Joel you are the best. Thank You.
So much free information! Thank you Joel Grimes!
Thank you Joel and everyone involved in the process. It was explained clearly, inspiring!!!
Very professional, detailed explanation of the triangle light.
Thank you.
great video and very useful information. it is really helpful to hear your detailed explanations on this setup
Good tutorial Joel!
I really like your style. You keep it straight and simple.
Great series and approach of demonstrations, thanks for sharing.
Years and years experiment things to become a legend!
great video!
This show is wonderful, please keep it up!
Excellent! I learned a lot, and will definitely be watching this a number of times. Thanks for sharing!
Joe, this was great... keep the great work up!
good stuff man! ur very mellow and it makes for a good tutorial & ur very knowledgeable!
This is great! The only thing that I would change is to show the last picture so you can compare. I had to go back and forth looking for the last picture to see the difference. At least with subtle changes like these.
Keep it up!
Wow! Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom!
simple, clear and very experienced advices, thanks a lot !
Awesome job, Joel! I learned a lot from that, thank you!
Excellent video thanks!
محتواكم جدا مفيد ومختصر للغاية
Good stuff, thanks for Sharing.
Excellent... Thanks.
Joel the Great!
Thank you ***** & Framed Show!
An old video I watched a long time ago; however, it gave me the idea to use two softboxes side by side so you can vary power between boxes by a stop or two and have a "larger" softbox at the same time. This will give you a very smooth graduation and more control. I think this setup looks better than the typical main / fill light sources from two different directions. If you have two boxes, give it a try! And yes, I would agree on comment below - loop lighting.
GRAZIE MILLE JOEL
Nice! Instead of building a bracket, you can also put a black cloth on the 1st quarter of the stoftbox, loosing some of the softbox size, but saving the hastle building stuff if you're not a MacGyver like Joel.
Fascinating! Also wondering, in the age of photoshop, how much the delicate difference in lighting would matter during shooting.
I notice the background comes out very nice, almost grey with just a soft glow. But in the vid with your setup, it looks totally blown out white. How did you get that effect?
Because he is using a strobe. A quick flash of light that will expose his image at least a couple of stops over his background. Whereas the video doesn't capture the strobe exposure (well it does but only for a very brief amount of time each time it fires).
Well yes, and there is a certain thing called shutter speed. That is 1/50th, 1/60th for video, and maybe he is shooting 1/200th on his camera, making sure less ambient light is caught on sensor.
@ 17:10 I'm a bit confused. Joel says that if you push the light back it's going to be harsher and if you bring it in closer it will be softer. But wouldn't the opposite be true? Closer would cast a harsher shadow on the right side of the nose, while moving it farther away would soften the shadow, would it not?
Thanks for the video, enjoyed it!
I would love to know which speed ring you used for this set-up? Great video btw. Your one of my favorite modern day photographers.
4:21 money shot! the coveted side view of that chic WHOA!
Nice Series, thanks for sharing, WESCOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT !
But look at poor Kara Tolberts legs,she has been modeling for so long that her legs grew across in her natural stand
3:04-5:20 and 10:57-13:40 ;-)
However she is lovely to look at.
Keep up the good work !!!
who the hell would dislike this, im GOING TO FIND THEM
No. Think about it this way: when the light is close, the nose begins to block the light from one side of the softbox (light) surface, while light from the other side of the softbox still has a clear line-of-sight to the same area. The closer the light is, the larger the angle between the first hints of shadow and the point at which the whole light is blocked. When you move the light farther away, the angle is less, so the edge of the shadow is sharper; it's like using a smaller light.
Good style
thank you
thanks
where can I buy this bracket？please give me the ebay link,thanks
When he's talking about using smaller or larger light boxes is he also using smaller or larger powerful lights?
I agree.
What lens are you using here?
to get rembrant lighting I don't know why you would use a fill white board instead of using a black board to create more contrast on her right side
What soft box is this?
Even better - let's switch the modeling lamp on so we can see/preview the effect.
It's hard to take a bad photo when Cara is standing there. Wow.
where can i upload the homework ?
hay traducción al español? gracias
What is the size of that softbox?
What are the dimensions on these soft boxes?
They look like 24"x36"
thanks that is kinda what i thought just wanted another opinion!
What watt lights do you think he has behind them, 500?
Joshua Breyfogle
At least...I would guess 600 to 750ws. HIs settings were f/9 1/200 and ISO 100...that would black out all the ambient in the studio. So it's definitely a stronger strobe. I have a 60" octo I use with a 600ws strobe, with double diffuser panels I'm pretty close to full power just to get even lighting.
Those lights are Einsteins by Paul C Buff. They're rated at 640Ws on full power.
and if u stop it at 1 second,, it says Fork
I think you're confusing harsh with dark. The "harshness" has to do with the quality of light. The transition from light to dark on the subject, not the amount of darkness. The more gradual the transition is the softer and less harsh it is. Harshness isn't a bad thing, it's just rarely desired when using a large, diffuse light source. Quality of light is determined by the size of the light source relative to the subject. Larger = softer. Smaller = harsher. Moving the light away makes it smaller.
I do not see any Rembrant lighting
She is Beautiful...
Sorry to break the news to you but that's not Rembrandt lighting, it's an attempt at it. Real rembrandt lighting is not allowed to touch the lower eyelid or spill into the eye.
Dennis Clark You aren't breaking anything to him. He's likely off having the time of his life, taking beautiful images for the people that demand them, and I bet are paying a pretty penny for them too.
On another note- dude, your portfolio is a joke. If you photographed my wedding as you did with those brides in your “portfolio” (simply horrid) I'd sue you. Seriously, it's that bad dude. Spend more time shooting, less time giving
technical advice to professionals on RUclips. There is more to photography than specs, and technicalities, and the rules are meant to be learned and then
broken with respect to creativity.
If that is your best work (who doesn’t think to put their best work in their portfolio?) then I truly hope you are absorbing information from all these photography tutorials you’ve been watching. That said, you can’t lean creativity, and you can’t buy a good “eye”.
Good god. Well, if I look on the bright side, if "photographers" like you can make some change, there's hope for anyone.
+xchicglowgoxo dude, what are you doing? First of all, he's right, that's not Rembrandt, that's loop lighting. Watch the video again and compare the painting example he gives to the images he makes, they aren't the same. And why are you being so cruel to him about his portfolio? I'm not sure where you found it, but even if it's bad who are you trying criticize him? If you were any kind of photographer with substance or talent, you wouldn't be criticizing people on RUclips, especially people who know what a Rembrandt triangle is while you obviously don't. Just cause a pro says it doesn't mean they're right.
Nick Lewis Oh the irony. What the fuck are you doing on RUclips criticizing my comment?
Oh and BTW, point out the part where I said he was WRONG about Rembrandt VS Loop. I'll wait.
Like I said, he should spend less time on RUclips telling professionals how to do their job, and more time workin' on his sh*t.
Just sayin.
But have you seen Dennis Clark's videos? No one else has either cause he's a nobody in the photography world.
Oooooo look.....yet ANOTHER expert.....funny why have I never heard of you until now...
im sorry, i have to watch this again, the model caught my attention, lol
hello, i like your video. i want to mention one thing model is very pretty say hi to her. good luck
I don’t think he cares about the name of the light stiles, he only wants to look good for him, he is very good on his technique
why do they always mimic as if theyre talkn to somebody but they never show the person theyre talkn to lol..mks me think are they high and talkn to self lol
He keeps saying Rembrandt, but he never actually gets a Rembrandt triangle. What he's doing is loop lighting.
Rembrandt lighting is a loop lighting, but a Closed Loop. Joel has got Open Loop, so yes, not Rembrandt lighting.
very good light but not Rembrandt
smaller softbox would do the trick ..
Absolutely not Rembrandt lighting. Light needs to be much higher to achieve it.
Right, he has achieved an 'open loop'.
who is a girl?
How to discuss relatively simple subjects for 20 mins: The Movie
Excellent photos but don't some of you Yanks waffle! There was about 5 minutes of tutorial and 15 minutes of meanderings. Take a look at Mark Wallace, straight to the point and full of information, also our very own Gavin Hoey. You won't fall asleep watching these two.
5 people uses PICASSO LIGHTING
Dana White.
8 dislikes!!...seriously ?
It took this guy 20 years to do one thing? Wow .. he shouldnt be in photography.
PLEASE CUT THE MUSIC, OTHER WISE A GOOD VIDEO. THANK YOU.