Reflectors

[Digital]

Can one take decent portraits indoors using two reflectors, and a speedlight?
Thanks for your assistance.
Bruce

[Manfred M]

Short answer is yes; if you know what you are doing, but there are better approaches. If you have to ask the question, I suspect that might not be the case.

I normally only use a single reflector as a fill light. That is what reflectors are primarily used for.

If it is all I have, I might use the second reflector as my key light by bouncing the speedlight into it to soften and direct the light. My first choice, however, would be a different light modifier like a softbox or and umbrella (so long as there is virtually no wind). Unless it is getting quite dark out, I would tend to use the ambient light as my main light source and soften any shadows with either the reflector or speedlight.

What are you thinking of doing?

[Digital]

Thanks Manfred for the reply. You are right, I do not have a good idea of what I am doing. I had plan to use one reflector for key, and the second reflector for fill.
This is for indoor use only.

Bruce

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred for the reply. You are right, I do not have a good idea of what I am doing. I had plan to use one reflector for key, and the second reflector for fill.
This is for indoor use only.

Bruce

The problem with reflectors is that they are somewhat inefficient light sources, especially if one wants a softer light and uses white (which is what I use most of the time).

In portraiture, the key light is often at least one stop brighter than the fill light and that is challenging to do with a reflector, unless one has multiple light sources to bounce off them.

Regardless. try to keep them very close to your subject to maximize light quality and quantity. In my work they are generally just (barely) out of frame.

[xpatUSA]

The problem with reflectors is that they are somewhat inefficient light sources, especially if one wants a softer light and uses white (which is what I use most of the time).

"inefficient" bothers me a bit from a technical POV, Manfred, although your point is clear enough in context. For example, a Kodak white card is 90% reflective which is quite efficient luminosity-wise.

I would perhaps prefer "ineffective".

[Manfred M]

"inefficient" bothers me a bit from a technical POV, Manfred, although your point is clear enough in context. For example, a Kodak white card is 90% reflective which is quite efficient luminosity-wise.

I would perhaps prefer "ineffective".

Actually, I feel efficiency is the correct wording Ted.

With a "perfect" reflector, I would get 100% of the light falling on it lighting the subject. In reality, standard photographic reflectors are about 50% efficient as I lose around 1 stop of light when using one. If I use a large household mirror, rather than a standard photographic reflector, I suspect if would be somewhat more efficient than your Kodak white card.

"Ineffective" would tend so suggest something that does have the desired effect. An ineffective reflector suggest that the approach is not throwing enough light back at the subject.

[xpatUSA]

Actually, I feel efficiency is the correct wording Ted.

With a "perfect" reflector, I would get 100% of the light falling on it lighting the subject.

I very much doubt it. Introducing "the subject" into the matter overly complicates it to the point of obfuscation.

In reality, standard photographic reflectors are about 50% efficient as I lose around 1 stop of light when using one.

I also doubt that the efficiency of a reflector can be measured in that way. [edit] If you lose that much light then that loss is not caused by reflector efficiency. [/edit]

If I use a large household mirror, rather than a standard photographic reflector, I suspect [it] would be somewhat more efficient than your Kodak white card.

Yes, almost 100% versus 90%, irrespective of the size of the mirror.

"Ineffective" would tend [to] suggest something that does [not] have the desired effect. An ineffective reflector [suggests] that the approach is not throwing enough light back at the subject.

Which now takes us into the realm of solid angles, relative distances, inv.square law, areas, etc., thereby extending the discussion well beyond my original comment.

To my simple mind, the efficiency of a reflector is the fraction (light out)/(light in), no more, no less.

[Manfred M]

Ted - your argument is unconvincing. Efficiency is nothing more output divided by input.

I reflect the light from my key light back at my subject as a fill light and my incident light meter tells me that I am getting 50% less light hitting the subject. That is an efficiency measurement. It takes into account all kinds of things; the amount of light from the key light, the amount of light that is absorbed or scattered by the reflector, the amount of reflected light that misses the subject, etc.

Effectiveness is a very fuzzy term is unhelpful in trying to describe how photographic reflectors work.

Being pedantic is rarely helpful. It is usually viewed as a pejorative term.

[xpatUSA]

Ted - your argument is unconvincing. Efficiency is nothing more output divided by input.

Manfred - I think we are losing it somehow.

In response to "The problem with reflectors is that they are somewhat inefficient light sources", I said:

"the efficiency of a reflector is the fraction (light out)/(light in), no more, no less."

You replied that:

"Efficiency is nothing more [than] output divided by input."

Is there some difference between those two statements that makes yours correct but mine somehow "unconvincing"?

I reflect the light from my key light back at my subject as a fill light and my incident light meter tells me that I am getting 50% less light hitting the subject. That is an efficiency measurement. It takes into account all kinds of things; the amount of light from the key light, the amount of light that is absorbed or scattered by the reflector, the amount of reflected light that misses the subject, etc.

Your measurement is invalid with respect to REFLECTOR efficiency - which remains the same even without a subject to meter. The measurement is invalidated by measuring the light incident upon the subject. I wish you could understand that. For the efficiency of a reflector, 'Light out/light in' is properly measured at the surface of the reflector, not at the position of a subject some unspecified distance away.

Effectiveness is a very fuzzy term [and] is unhelpful in trying to describe how photographic reflectors work.

I withdraw the suggested term. Any term other than efficiency would suffice.

Being pedantic is rarely helpful. It is usually viewed as a pejorative term.

With a demeaning statement like that, it is time for me to bow out, as usual. I had no intention to belittle anyone.

[DanK]

Really, folks. Count to 10.

"Pedantry" might often be used pejoratively, but precision in language can help answer questions, which is the point here, no?

So how about this, as an attempt to answer the OP's question? Allow me to plagiarize by paraphrasing too closely.

In portraiture, the key light is often at least one stop brighter than the fill light and that is challenging to do with a reflector, unless one has multiple light sources to bounce off them. This is especially true if one wants a softer light and uses white (which is what I use most of the time). The amount reflectors provide is determined by numerous factors--the efficiency of the reflector used (the proportion of the light it reflects), the distance to the subject, and the degree to which the surface of the reflector scatters the light, but in many cases, it isn't as much as one would want. You can lessen the problem by minimizing the distance between the subject and the reflector, but you may find that you need to aim more than one light source at the reflector.

[xpatUSA]

Really, folks. Count to 10.

"Pedantry" might often be used pejoratively, but precision in language can help answer questions, which is the point here, no?

So how about this, as an attempt to answer the OP's question? Allow me to plagiarize by paraphrasing too closely.

In portraiture, the key light is often at least one stop brighter than the fill light and that is challenging to do with a reflector, unless one has multiple light sources to bounce off them. This is especially true if one wants a softer light and uses white (which is what I use most of the time). The amount reflectors provide [at the subject] is determined by numerous factors--the efficiency of the reflector used (the proportion of the light it reflects), the distance to the subject, and the degree to which the surface of the reflector scatters the light, but in many cases, it isn't as much as one would want. You can lessen the problem by minimizing the distance between the subject and the reflector, but you may find that you need to aim more than one light source at the reflector.

Not bad, Dan. Thanks!

Pardon the pedantic addition and emphasis ...

[pschlute]

Someone called me a pedant once. I argued vehemently that I was not

[xpatUSA]

Someone called me a pedant once. I argued vehemently that I was not ...

... no doubt going into great detail while so doing ...

[Digital]

Short answer is yes; if you know what you are doing, but there are better approaches. If you have to ask the question, I suspect that might not be the case.

I normally only use a single reflector as a fill light. That is what reflectors are primarily used for.

If it is all I have, I might use the second reflector as my key light by bouncing the speedlight into it to soften and direct the light. My first choice, however, would be a different light modifier like a softbox or and umbrella (so long as there is virtually no wind). Unless it is getting quite dark out, I would tend to use the ambient light as my main light source and soften any shadows with either the reflector or speedlight.

What are you thinking of doing?

I plan to use the first reflector as a key, and the second reflector as a fill (to fill in the shadows on the far side of the subject's face). My question is 1) where should the reflectors be placed, and how far the reflectors should be placed from the subject. This may depend on the output from the particular flash used.
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Bruce

[xpatUSA]

I plan to use the first reflector as a key, and the second reflector as a fill (to fill in the shadows on the far side of the subject's face). My question is 1) where should the reflectors be placed, and how far the reflectors should be placed from the subject.

Bruce, could you tell us what type/make/model of reflectors you plan to use?

This may depend on the output from the particular flash used.

Could you tell us what type/make/model of flash you plan to use and where it will be located with reference to the subject?

[Manfred M]

I plan to use the first reflector as a key, and the second reflector as a fill (to fill in the shadows on the far side of the subject's face). My question is 1) where should the reflectors be placed, and how far the reflectors should be placed from the subject. This may depend on the output from the particular flash used.
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Bruce

Bruce - Ted is right; we need to know a bit more about what you are referring to as a "reflector".

In the studio world we have different tools to modify and shape light. Some of these integrate directly with our flash and these have specific names like soft boxes, umbrellas, beauty dishes and reflectors. These types of reflectors tend to be fairly small; typically 7" or 8" in diameter although there are a few out there that can be significantly larger.

A second kind of reflector is a non-powered light source that is usually a flat surface that is silver, white or gold colours and is used to throw back ambient or flash back at the subject. These tend to be large and can be round, rectangular and even triangular. Commercial ones tend to be quite large and something that is 20" is at the smaller end where larger ones can definitely get quite large. My largest static reflector is 30" wide by 72" high. I also use pieces of white foam core as home-made reflectors.

What type and size of reflectors are you looking at using?

When it comes to flash, the these range all over the place as well. My speedlights are small and are rated by Guide Number (GN). My small SB-600 is rated at 30m/98ft at ISO 100. My larger lights are rated in W-s and one is rated at 360 W-s and my large ones at 640 W-s. What rating does your flash have?

[Digital]

Right now I have three collapsible reflectors: 22", 32", and a 42". I have on hand two speedlights: Nikon SB600, and a Nikon SB910.
I can use a combination of these.
Hope this answers your question.

Bruce

[Manfred M]

The general "rule" for using reflectors is to try to keep about the diameter away from the subject for soft light; certainly no more than 2x diameter. As I wrote before, they are not particularly efficient devices and scatter a lot of light where you don't want it.

If your reflectors are the ones with interchangeable "skins"; my large reflector has white, silver, gold, black and translucent. I do use the translucent configuration and shoot the flash through it to produce nice, soft light. There is a bit of a hot spot, but that is something to play with. Sometimes one wants it to hit the subject and at other times, aim it so that the hot spot does not hit hte subject and lands elsewhere (this is called feathering the light).

The reflector that you use will be dictated by the size of your subject. The 22" is going to be fine for a head shot or a head and shoulder shot. The 42" can cover almost a full body shot.

When I do a head and shoulders shot, I will often get my model to hold the fill light reflector and get them to adjust it so that the light hits them where it needs to fill in. As you are using Speedlights, without modeling lights (I find that the modeling light mode in the Speedlights is a real battery waster), you are going to have to do this by trial and error, unless you have a flash meter.

If you find that you like this, look at investing in some umbrellas. They are easier to use than flat reflectors, at least as a key light. There are several different types; shoot through, reflective (white, silver, gold) and convertible (usually white with a black cover; cover on it is used as a reflective umbrella and with the cover removed, it is a shoot through umbrella).

This recent shot was done with a 37" silver umbrella. Fleshing out the concept

[Digital]

Thank you Manfred.

Bruce

[bhurley]

For video, I have a set of Dedo Lightstream reflectors, which are great for lighting interviews or small music videos: just one light source is needed and then you bounce the light from there using a variety of reflectors with different diffusion levels. The #1 reflector is almost like a mirror and the others get progressively more diffuse and soft as you go up the number scale. The idea is that you take advantage of the inverse square law by effectively increasing the distance from the light source to the subject, providing a much more natural light with better fall-off. I've experimented a few times with using the smaller reflectors as fills for still photography, and they're pretty good for that as well. They can be mounted on a magic arm on a tripod or a C-stand so you can adjust the height and angle. There are some videos on youtube, look up Dedo Lightstream or the competing and very similar products CRLS (Lightbridge) or K-flect. They're really designed for video but work well for still photography.