Choosing Your Key Modifier

Decisions, decisions!

If you're at all like me, you have gear that offers more than one choice for a key light (main light) modifier. I'm talking, of course, about when you're using strobes.

There's all kinds of potential candidates for the key modifier job and different situations and/or environments might dictate which modifier makes most sense. Other times, the "look" you're going after pushes you towards one modifier over another. Still other times, it's simply about which modifier you feel like using for a variety of reasons-- including what might be the quickest and easiest to set up. (The last one often dictates my key light modifier choice... but I'm sometimes mostly lazy that way.)

Lighting manufacturers offer a big array of modifiers to choose from: From umbrellas to soft boxes to panels and scrims to ring flashes to beauty dishes and more. Of course, some people like to shoot bare bulb. Bare-bulbers, I'm thinking, might be photographers who are also nudists.

Just joking.

Badly.

I'm not going to attempt to write about all the reasons you might choose one modifier over another. That's a subject that sometimes takes up a chapter or more in photography books. But I will mention a few things that might push you towards choosing one key modifier over another, especially if you're a pretty girl shooter.

When shooting beauty and a lot of glamour, soft is good. Soft lighting isn't always the way to go, depending on the look you want to give your images but, often enough, soft is the way many glam and beauty shooters go. Leastwise, for their key or main light. (Note: Just to make sure we're all on the same page, when I say "soft" I'm speaking to the quality of the light. I'm not talking about focus.)

If you're thinking soft, you're probably thinking bigger modifiers. You know, like BIG soft boxes and BIG umbrellas and BIG whatever you're using. The bigger the better if soft is your goal. When it comes to lighting, soft lighting, size does matter. If you don't have BIG, you should be thinking of moving your key modifier in as close to your model as possible. That way, the source becomes bigger by virtue of its proximity to the subject. It's kind of like those words printed on your car's side-view mirror about things appearing closer than they appear... sort of, in a round-about way. Or maybe not.

Regardless...

My two, fave, key modifiers, not necessarily in order of preference, are Octos and beauty dishes. I own a Mola 33.5" "Euro" and a 5' Photoflex Octodome. Through one of my regular clients, I also have regular access to a 7' Photoflex Octodome.

There are some distinguishable differences between the Mola dish and an Octo. Most notably, the Mola provides more "wrap-around" light while the Octos seem to produce less of that quality. I've never shot with a big parabolic but I'm thinking it also provides a lot of wrap-around light quality.

Many shooters use grids on their big light sources. Grids provide more control, i.e., less spread to the light. They also effect wrap-around quality as they make the light more directional. Grids, I should add, don't particularly reduce the soft qualities of a big light source. I mean, they might to some extent, but you'd probably need scientific instruments to measure a grid's effect on softness.

I should also note that I have a white, silk, baffle for my Mola but I almost never use it. The baffle, to my eye, alters the effect of the dish, turning it into something that more closely resembles a soft box in its light quality. If I want the look of a soft box I'll use a soft box.

I hear a lot of shooters say they're in search of their "style." Style comprises many elements, from composition to color and exposure, to so many other things. Lighting certainly is one of those elements. In fact, its a BIG element when defining one's style.

I suggest people experiment with using a variety of key modifiers until they find one or two that, for the most part, makes them happy. That's not to say that once you've found some favorites you should ignore all the other possibilities. Variety is the spice of life. Changing up your choices in this matter shows a greater range of lighting acumen. You probably don't want to appear static or stagnant in your lighting approaches in spite of your desires to create a definable and recognizable personal style.

The pretty girl at the top is Kat from some time ago. It was shot in a studio in North Hollywood, CA. I lit Kat with my 5' Photoflex Octo for a main, set slightly to my right at about the same height as me. (I'm 5'10") To camera-left, at about a 45 behind the model, I set a medium Chimera strip box on a stand with the top of the box about even with the top of the model's head. To camera-right, I used a small, silver-lined umbrella, boomed up fairly high also coming from behind Kat. I snapped the image with a Canon 85mm f/1.8 prime on my 5D.

Photography as a Profession: Its Future

...Or lack of one.

I don't envy young or new photographers starting out these days, leastwise, those with a mind towards making a career out of it. It's a tough business made tougher by the economy, technology, and more competition than ever.

It doesn't matter whether your hopes and dreams include being a photo-journalist or shooting editorial, fashion, glamour/tease, commercial, events, or most anything else. These days, the future for professional photographers looks like a bleak landscape, more so for those just starting out.

The economy sucks. No startling news there. Newspapers and magazines are shutting down in droves. Soccer Moms and Uncle Alberts are shooting weddings and events for near nothing. Everyone, it seems, is as good as the pros or think they are. What's happened to the career photographers who once owned these businesses and others? They're now competing with everyone else for whatever is left, photo-wise. It's like a pack of dogs fighting for scraps.

Photographic technologies have moved forward by leaps and bounds. Never has the technological state-of-the-art been so dynamic or seen such advances in such a short time! The results? Photography approaches no-brainer status, i.e., in terms of capturing images that are, or seem, competent in terms of their technical aspects.

Competition is overwhelming. Everyone, it seems, is a shooter. And many of them are shooting stock or posting pics on FlickR and elsewhere or giving images away for bragging rights, allowing the folks who once paid well for good images to pick and choose photos that are good-enough and pay little or nothing for them.

Of the many iconic photographers of yesteryear, how many of them would be able to make a dent in today's photo markets? Sure, talent is meaningful and the cream rises to the top. But when there's so little room for the cream to rise, and when so much cream (and other stuff masquerading as cream) is poured into the mix, the odds of standing out become longer.

From where I'm sitting, these trends will continue. For the career photographer, current or would-be, the future doesn't look so rosy. It looks more difficult than ever. Yes, some will always succeed. But the number of people who comprise those "some" are becoming fewer and fewer.

On the other hand, it's probably the greatest time ever to be a hobbyist!

The pretty girls at the top taking a bubble bath are dark-haired Sofia and blond Devin. Snapped that one in a house in Vegas in '07. The future didn't look so rosy then either, athough not as un-rosy-like as today. Image captured with a Canon 5D w/85mm prime. As I recall, I used a single light to illuminate them: A monolight with a Photoflex 5' Octodome to modify and, if I also remember right, a flex-fill reflector for some fill. (That bathroom wasn't very big.)

Note: This update is a cut-and-paste of a post I made on MM this morning. Since many of you aren't big fans of MM, I thought I'd re-post here. I was overdue for an update, after all.

The MM version of this update really blew up and it's still going strong. If any of you who read this blog are people who also participate on MM, and you responded thoughtfully to my MM OP, please feel free to follow my lead and cut-and-paste your MM response here, in the PGS comments. I'm sure there are some who visit here, and not MM, who would like to hear your thoughts on this.

DIY vs. Paying for the Real Deal

I got sucked into a Model Mayhem thread recently that was about DIY gear (Do It Yourself) versus paying for manufactured equipment. I can't believe how easily I can be drawn into these things. As is usually the case with MM threads, it morphed and distorted and zig-zagged around the original subject but, at first, it remained relatively on topic.

The OP (Original Poster) was wondering if he should make/use DIY gear or should he save up and buy manufactured stuff.

I suggested he use whatever he could until he was able to purchase the real McCoys.

But since, as is often the case on MM, the thread got somewhat personal with a few people becoming asses assertive in their opinions, I might have occasionally raised my emotional level, just a hair, to make my points.

Please note these are my opinions on the subject. Some or many of you might disagree. That's the beauty of opinions: I can have mine and you can have yours and we all should still be able to peacefully co-exist, in the real world or the cyber world. I know. I know. How naive is that?

Anyway...

I have a fair amount of money invested in lighting and grip. I don't think I spent that money because I'm an idiot. (Altho me being an idiot is, at times, debatable.)

All lighting instruments are not created equal. Their qualities, other than simply producing photons, are varied: Power ranges, flash durations, recycling times, maintaining color temps throughout those power ranges, build quality and reliability, and more. If you want better performance, better quality, more versatility, you're gonna have to pay for it.

Example: Profotos versus shop lights from Home Depot? No brainer. Profotos versus crap from Hong Kong? Still no brainer if you're really serious about lighing and photography. (I don't mean to only pimp Profoto. There's plenty of great manufacturers of quality lighting instruments out there.)

All lighting modifiers are not created equal. Again, their qualities differ, sometimes immensely, sometimes in more subtle ways. The right tool for the job is key to modifying light. As an example, I don't own a Mola beauty dish because I'm too dense or narrow-minded to believe a big, modified, DIY'd salad bowl will get the job done equally well.

I don't own Chimera and Photoflex softboxes because I'm an elitist and stick my nose up at cheap-oh shit from Hong Kong, offered on Ebay, even though it's built to the same standards. (Yeah, right.)

All grip gear is not created equal. I don't use stands and arms and clamps from companies like Matthews, American Grip, Norms and others because I'm blind to the fact that wobbly, questionably constructed, cheap-ass, unreliable grip gear--stuff that can be bought for very little--is just as good as the pro gear or because I'm a gear-snob or because I don't know I can find things at Home Depot that might suffice.

Do I sometimes buy shit from Home Depot to use in my photography? Sure. Do I occasionally cobble stuff together to modify or control light? Absolutely. Do I think, because I can cobble or head over to Home Depot, manufactured gear is a waste of money?

Photographers, please.

The pretty girl pics at the top are a couple of more snaps from last week's shoot with Lupe. Three light sources: Two medium umbrellas, either side, from the front, and a shoot-thru, boomed high and from the side/behind, on the left. Canon 5D, 70-200 f/4 L, ISO 100, f/8 at 160th. Lighting is fairly flat across for my personal tastes but that's what the client wanted so who am I to disagree?

Model Mayhem's Mayhem

Been too long since I've updated: A combination of being busy and being lazy. I'd lay the blame about 50% on each of those factors.

I've been spending some of that lazy time on Model Mayhem lately. Nothing Earth-shattering about that. It's just that MM isn't a forum I've invested too much time with in the past.

Generally, I perceive MM as more a social networking site and less a photography forum. It's like MySpace or Facebook with a model/photographer theme. Nothing inherently wrong there although I spend very little time on Facebook and I deleted my MySpace account about 6 months ago due to my complete lack of interest.

So why MM? Well, once you get past the many recycled subjects, there's much on MM to amuse, entertain, and occasionally enlighten. Some of the recycled subjects, btw, remain amusing regardless of how often they are recycled.

My first post on MM, a thread that I started, got shut-down and locked fairly quickly. I don't even remember what it was about but it caused a stir and I don't really remember why. Maybe it's just me? Whatever. Anyway, I didn't intend my post to be controversial but I guess some people thrive on controversy and, to be honest, I'm not exactly allergic to it nor do I run from it.

Of those recycled subjects I mentioned, the lion's share of them are either about models flaking, models with "demands" in their profiles, models not responding to messages and emails, GWCs, diva models, models' boyfriends, model escorts, model nudity, and scams. As you can see, the common denominator in many recycled threads are models.

There's an obvious love/hate relationship between models and photographers, assuming MM is representative of these two groups as a whole. While models and photographers need each other, leastwise if we're talking "pretty girl shooting," this symbiotic relationship is often strained.

The folks who populate MM are a varied bunch in terms of experience. You have everything from brand-spanking-new models and shooters to those with much experience. The newbies, no doubt, account for many of the forum's subjects being recycled over and over and over. Yet, those who have been around that forum for quite a while still take the bait and participate in those threads. Go figure.

As for pro models/photographers versus serious hobbyists, not-so-serious wannabees and GWCs, I'd say the 80/20 rule applies with 20% of those who participate being pros. For the purpose of this update, I'll liberally define pros as being those who earn 25% or more of their total income from modeling or photography, regardless of whether they're any good at what they do.

There are some amazing portfolios on MM. Some truly stellar work! Often, they're stellar due to post-processing, sometimes due to the photography and, least of all, a combination of both. I'm not making any post-prod versus production judgments here. I'm just saying. And, of course, for every stellar port there are 10 or more that suck. Again, I'm just saying.

I don't know how long before my interest in MM wains. I'm easily amused so I might be taking part in the games there for a while. When participating on forums becomes tedious, boring, or sans any real knowledge gains, I usually back off. So, predicting how long I'll remain interested in being an active, participating MM member is difficult.

I'm not on MM, like many, to prospect and mine the TF potential of the many models who are MM's members. TF, of course, means "Trade For." You can fill in the what, e.g., Trade For Pics, prints, CDs, whatever. Anyway, I'm not much of a TF kinda guy. I guess, for me, it's like working in a candy factory: I love candy but, if I made my living making it or selling it, I probably wouldn't be as interested in eating it. The idea of spending my off-work time doing what I do when I'm at work isn't overly appealing to me unless, of course, there's some special reasons to do so... if that makes sense.

The pretty girl at the top is Lupe from two days ago. She is so much fun to shoot! She knows exactly what she's doing and contributes a lot of ideas to the work. She also brings enthusiasm, a winning smile, and an all-purpose positive vibe to a set. Plus, she's beautiful and sexy as hell. It doesn't get much better than that.

Lupe shot with a Canon 5D and a Tamron 28-75: ISO 100, f/8 @ 125. I lit her with two Profoto Acute 2 heads: The key modified with a 42" silver-lined umbrella, just to my right, and the other modified with a small, white, shoot-thru, boomed from behind, up high, angled down, camera left.