D7000 as flash commander, using non-Nikon flash

[Manfred M]

Bruce - if you want black backgrounds, the inverse square law is your friend. If the flash is close (look at one of Terry's setup shots and you see the light modifier crowding the setup). Just move the background further back and less light will hit it (I am assuming limited ambient light where you are shooting).

The further the background is away, the darker it gets. I've seen a studio demonstration where white seamless showed up in the image looking black

[Loose Canon]

You have everything you need covered on your own Bruce!

Now? Let your Imagination run wild!

[Mike Buckley]

I've seen a studio demonstration where white seamless showed up in the image looking black

The background in this image is white foam core positioned about six inches (15 centimeters) behind the subject. The tabletop is a mirror reflecting the background (and of course the subject). The dark tone of the background and tabletop is as captured by the camera, not changed during post-processing.

[inkista]

Kathy - I do have the Witstro 360 and would not put it on this list...
Added note: I just had a look at the Godox site an noticed that they have now introduced two new models (one for Canon and one for Nikon) with built in 2.4GHz wireless. They have also introduced a 600 W-s model. ...

I agree, the Godox flashes are an eccentric and possibly more expensive choice over, say, an AlienBee. But. With the new AD600, being more like a studio strobe you can convert from being a cordless monolight to a pack'n'head, and the stated requirement from the OP for TTL/HSS, the AD600 or the AD360II are a heckuvalot cheaper than a TTL/HSS studio strobe like the Profoto B1 or Phottix Indra.

A lot of folks on POTN are being wowed by the AD600 (particularly since it also comes in a Bowens mount version). And if you're starting out fresh, and your light needs are relatively modest, and you're thinking of shooting on location, then possibly spending US$550 on an AD600 makes as much or more sense than spending US$500 on a Buff Einstein. And another $250 on a Vagabond Mini. It depends.

I have also recently read that the FT-16 radio trigger I have does not support HSS and I should have bought a different one...

Yeah, FT-16 are manual triggers with group/power control, no HSS. I think you need the Cells II or X1 triggers. Although I've heard stacking an FT-16 on a YN-622 (or other TTL/HSS trigger) can work.

[Dave Humphries]

At the risk of hijacking Bruce's thread; I should advise that I decided to 'make the choice' today after further study of all manner of things and I ordered a Godox TT685N (£83) and a X1-N trigger (£30) for easy use off camera via 2.4G RF and Receiver built-in to the flash. They are due in a few days time, along with a few essential extras to support them.

I fully intend to add a second flash/strobe in due course, that might be another TT685N (for consistency/back up), or possibly a (non HSS) TT600 (at £51).

Yeah, I know they have some bugs and even mounting issues, but all of the Chinese 'brands' have issues, at least Godox seem to release firmware updates - and I already have the latest downloaded.

If I get really serious, then I can add an AD360 II-N (or even AD600) later and it should work from the X1-N already on the camera, whether that be the D7100 - or D500 in due course.

Thanks to all who contributed here, you have all played a part in the decision making process.

Thanks, Dave

PS
I'll let you know - and see, how I get on.

[Manfred M]

I agree, the Godox flashes are an eccentric and possibly more expensive choice over, say, an AlienBee. But. With the new AD600, being more like a studio strobe you can convert from being a cordless monolight to a pack'n'head, and the stated requirement from the OP for TTL/HSS, the AD600 or the AD360II are a heckuvalot cheaper than a TTL/HSS studio strobe like the Profoto B1 or Phottix Indra.

A lot of folks on POTN are being wowed by the AD600 (particularly since it also comes in a Bowens mount version). And if you're starting out fresh, and your light needs are relatively modest, and you're thinking of shooting on location, then possibly spending US$550 on an AD600 makes as much or more sense than spending US$500 on a Buff Einstein. And another $250 on a Vagabond Mini. It depends.


Yeah, FT-16 are manual triggers with group/power control, no HSS. I think you need the Cells II or X1 triggers. Although I've heard stacking an FT-16 on a YN-622 (or other TTL/HSS trigger) can work.

Thanks Kathy - you are right on all counts.

I have the Einsteins and a Vagabond mini, so am set with those if I travel by car. I have a large Pelican case for the heads, so a couple or three light stands, the triggers. the Vagobond mini kit and a couple of light modifiers and the back of the car is pretty full.

I picked up the Wistro 360 because it is much more portable, especially when traveling by air and all I need to do is switch out the Balcar speedring on my Paul C Buff light modifiers and pop on the Bowens one an I am in business in less than a minute. It's small, light and portable. It's small enough that I pop it on a light duty stand and I am in business.

The main downside (other than not being compatible with my PocketWizards for remote control of the light versus just triggering it) is the lack of power. I was shooting with it last weekend and all I was doing was using it as a bounce flash and needed pretty well full power to light things the way I wanted to. I prefer a bit more "headroom", but certainly understood the tradeoff when I bought the unit.

I've never actually used HSS other than in a test situation, so I doubt I'll be running out and upgrading the FT-16.

[brucehughw]

Hi, Mike.

You wrote that white foam core is behind the subject. How did you get it to come out so dark?

The background in this image is white foam core positioned about six inches (15 centimeters) behind the subject. The tabletop is a mirror reflecting the background (and of course the subject). The dark tone of the background and tabletop is as captured by the camera, not changed during post-processing.

[Manfred M]

Hi, Mike.

You wrote that white foam core is behind the subject. How did you get it to come out so dark?

Bruce - let me see how close I come to how Mike will answer this question...

Black is the absence of light. If you prevent light from falling on something; even if something is white, it will look black in the image. In a studio shot like this, all external lights will be turned off, so there is no appreciable ambient light hitting the setup, and if you control how the light falls by directing how the light is shaped (light modifier) or placing an opaque object (usually something black and flat) between the light source an the background to prevent the light from hitting it (this is known as using a "flag", or "flagging the light").

The third piece of the puzzle I've mentioned before, but it likely plays a minor to non-existent role in this image; and that's the inverse square law that tells us that light drop off is inversely proportional to the distance. At one unit distance from the light, you get full intensity, at 2 units, you get 1/4 of the light, at three units 1/9 , four units you get 1/16th, etc. So the further you get away from the light source, the less impact on the image.

[Loose Canon]

Black is the absence of light. If you prevent light from falling on something; even if something is white, it will look black in the image. In a studio shot like this, all external lights will be turned off, so there is no appreciable ambient light hitting the setup, and if you control how the light falls by directing how the light is shaped (light modifier) or placing an opaque object (usually something black and flat) between the light source an the background to prevent the light from hitting it (this is known as using a "flag", or "flagging the light").

In this case the flag is the background itself. The light is behind the background.

Classic dark-field lighting technique of glass.

[brucehughw]

Hi, Terry.

I'd like to learn more about illuminating glass. You mention the "Classic ... technique ..." Can you recommend a good source for me to learn about this? I think it would help with lighting in general.

thanks, Bruce

In this case the flag is the background itself. The light is behind the background.

Classic dark-field lighting technique of glass.

[Manfred M]

Bruce - if you are interested in learning more about lighting, let me recommend two books I refer to all the time (Mike also has them).

1. Light - Science & Magic An introduction to photographic lighting by Hunter, Biver and Fuqua (it is up to the 5th edition) and is published by Focal Press. A lot of photographers refer to it as the "lighting bible".

2. Lighting for Product Photography by Allison Earnest, published by Amhert Media.

If you just want to start with one of these two, I would suggest starting with Light - Science & Magic.

[Mike Buckley]

You wrote that white foam core is behind the subject. How did you get it to come out so dark?

The scene was back lit; there was no direct light and very, very little reflected light if any falling on the background. Two other methods of preventing light from falling on a background is to place it far enough away from the scene (not physically possible in my tiny makeshift studio) or to flag the light sources so they light only the subject and not the background.

Completely agreed with Manfred's previous post.

[brucehughw]

Manfred,

Thanks very much! I've shot w/o flash for, well, decades, and see that there's a lot of science behind artificial lighting. Look forward to learning some of it. Thanks for the references.

Bruce

[Loose Canon]

Well hmmmm Bruce! I was writing a response to the post where you posted your test shots but now I don’t see it so I can’t quote it! Maybe a Gremlin! I’ll post anyway!

I used a 10 gallon aquarium with optically clear glass. It was under $20. Plus it is big enough to keep the splash away from the glass sides so less chance of picking up water hitting the glass for a clean shot. It is also big enough so keep the sides/top/bottom from showing up in the shot. Don’t fill it all the way up so you have some “head room” Depending on your composition some of the shot may be actually shot through clear glass above the water line.

So, some things you are going to have to deal with?

Tiny bubbles forming on the inside of the glass in the water. Just take a clean paint brush or something and run it over the insides of the glass to lose them. They will adversely affect the shot if present. Drops of water on the glass. You will probably have to clean them off after each splash. I use paper towels. For that matter make sure you clean the aquarium or glass container thoroughly before adding water. Its amazing how fingerprints/smudges show up on glass.

Try to keep as much dust and dirt from floating in the water as you can. This will show in the shot.

You may already know this but you can actually get a reflection on the underside of the surface of the water if you use the correct camera angle (a lower angle). This is cool and you can use it to your advantage. Here is an example of that.



Shot in the aquarium from a lower-than-level-with-the-product camera angle. When you get the camera angle right you will see the reflection through the viewfinder, no problem! The bottle was hung upside down in the water. All of it submerged except the lowest camera-left corner. I dropped something into the water to form the bubbles beside the bottle and ripples in the surface. The shot was flipped in post causing it to look like the bottle is actually above the surface with that corner below the surface and the bubbles coming up (instead of down as they were in reality) beside it. The water’s surface is actually the underside of the water’s surface. And I hope this makes sense but this is part the magic of what you are looking to do!

[brucehughw]

Mike,

Since your subject was transparent, how did the backlight not reach the camera (other than via the edges of the glass)?

Bruce

The scene was back lit; there was no direct light and very, very little reflected light if any falling on the background.

[Loose Canon]

Hi, Terry.

I'd like to learn more about illuminating glass. You mention the "Classic ... technique ..." Can you recommend a good source for me to learn about this? I think it would help with lighting in general.

thanks, Bruce

Manfred hit the nail on the head Bruce. These are both excellent. I don't consider Light: Science and Magic the bible. But I definitely consider it the best place to start. Once you absorb what it has to offer you will have the foundation in place for finding those solutions that the book doesn't cover, which can be many.

[Mike Buckley]

Since your subject was transparent, how did the backlight not reach the camera (other than via the edges of the glass)?

The only light that I wanted to reach the camera was via the edges of the glass. If other light does reach the camera, it usually causes flare or at least a lack of contrast. In that case, which is almost always, I use a flag made of a black card with a rectangular hole cut in the center that I place in front of the lens.

All of that is explained in Light: Science and Magic.

[brucehughw]

Hi, Terry.

No Gremlin -- I just thought my questions were a little too basic and that I should spend more time learning the basics of lighting before getting fancy with freezing motion. Freezing motion won't make up for poor lighting technique (my lesson for the day). Thanks so much for your patient, thorough, explanations. Glad to know that I can do a lot with an inexpensive aquarium. So is this bottle (another very cool image) for some commercial work, or just experimenting?

Bruce

Well hmmmm Bruce! I was writing a response to the post where you posted your test shots but now I don’t see it so I can’t quote it! Maybe a Gremlin! I’ll post anyway!

[Loose Canon]

I was just learning the technique for making this kind of shot Bruce.

[brucehughw]

Wow, fooled me! Great shot.

I was just learning the technique for making this kind of shot Bruce.