Lighting equipment for portraits
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 5 May 2010 19:12 "gumby" <gumby(a)here.com> wrote in message news:hrsqjt$h6c$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 05/05/2010 10:33 AM, George Kerby wrote: > >> Even older: Flash powder. >> > > What's the formula? Google is your friend. -- Peter
From: PaddleHard on 6 May 2010 11:03 On May 4, 10:41 am, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "PaddleHard" <ipaddle4...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1a33659d-2812-4009-8f3c-f67fe9e88a00(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On May 4, 9:18 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5/4/10 7:51 AM, in article hrp58h$pd...(a)news.eternal-september.org, > > "Tim > > > Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > "gumby" <gu...(a)here.com> wrote in message > > >news:hro2v9$bed$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > >> On 03/05/2010 2:43 PM,PaddleHardwrote: > > >>> Hello group, > > > >>> I'm doing some research on buying some lighting equipment for studio > > >>> portraits. There's a ton of gear out there and it's all pretty > > >>> confusing. As I push through some books/vids, I thought I'd ask the > > >>> experts: what's a good way to start with doing some simple portraits? > > >>> I would be taking this on location or setup at home with a background > > >>> (probably white). > > > >> A window and a large piece of white cardboard to reflect light back > > >> into > > >> the shadow side of the face. Cheap and effective and natural light is > > >> preferable to me than man-made light. > > > > I agree. The north side of the house is best. > > > Well, I guess it wouldn't cost too much for the OP to cut out a picture > > window in his living room and have his subjects, mostly strangers, come to > > his home for a sitting, eh? > > > I do not agree... > >Might be cheaper to buy lights. Might. > > If you do, I definitely go the flash & umbrella or softbox route instead of > tungsten lights. Clients generally prefer the flashes rather than sitting > under the hot lights. Thanks, Tim.
From: Mr. Strat on 6 May 2010 22:15 In article <a1ca9007-48ab-4ca2-aa49-d7ecae54f6c3(a)o11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, PaddleHard <ipaddle4fun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks...what do you think of Wescott or Alien Bees? I've heard good things about Alien Bees...don't know about Wescott. I'm old school, so I used Photogenic in the studio and Norman for portable.
From: George Kerby on 7 May 2010 09:55 On 5/6/10 9:15 PM, in article 060520101915335170%rag(a)nospam.techline.com, "Mr. Strat" <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote: > In article > <a1ca9007-48ab-4ca2-aa49-d7ecae54f6c3(a)o11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > PaddleHard <ipaddle4fun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks...what do you think of Wescott or Alien Bees? > > I've heard good things about Alien Bees...don't know about Wescott. I'm > old school, so I used Photogenic in the studio and Norman for portable. Might want to check out Comet (if they are still being produced).
From: gumby on 7 May 2010 22:38
On 05/05/2010 3:45 PM, Gill Collins wrote: > Charcoal > Potassium (or Sodium) nitrate > Sulfur > Magnesium > OK, thnks. I'll try it. |