# First time in a studio, please help me learn from my mistake



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

Hi everyone, 

I had my first shoot in a studio recenelt and on reviewing the images a few more than I would like are not sharp. 

I was using f8 and a 135L lens (my fave lens). I used 1/160th as I was told my the studio manager this was the sync speed for his lights. Hand held in ambient, with a 135L this is a big problem, but I assumed the flash would freeze my subject so I thought I could go down to a slower shutter speed than I would normally use. 

I didn't use a tripod. 

Is the blur I am seeing motion blur from me or the model moving? What could I do next time to get more keepers.

Thanks, 

Craig


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

Post some example images.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

OK, I will in approx 5 hours. I need to wait until I am home again.

Thanks

Craig


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2014)

While we wait to see the photos, I'll clear up a couple of things. Sync speed is based on the camera, not the lights. Most EOS bodies have a X-sync of 1/200s (other than 1D and 7D bodies where it's 1/250s) but most studio shooters like to leave a little buffer, so they shoot at 1/160s. If you go higher, the shutter will leave a black bar in the frame as it closes during the exposure. The way you normally shoot in studio settings is to switch to Manual, set the sync speed as your shutter (normally 1/160s-1/250s) and then adjust your aperture, ISO, and strobe power to reach your desired exposure. The usually means ISO 100 (unless your lights aren't powerful enough) and somewhere between f/8 and f/16 unless you need more or less DOF. From there, you raise and lower the light power to reach your desired exposure/look. If you use a meter, it's a little faster, but I find it easy enough to play with the lighting for a few test shots until I get it right. There are scenarios when you would do it other ways, but this covers the majority of situations.

The 1/160s shutter/sync speed should have been enough to stop motion (yours and the model's) assuming enough light was used, but if the shots are underexposed, you don't have steady hands, or the model was moving a lot, the shots could be blurry. Also, unless you shot in M mode, it's possible that safety shift was turned on and changed your settings when the camera metered in the dim light, which would also have led to overexposed shots.

The photos should tell the story once you post them...also, please try to leave the EXIF in the files if you can.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

Not entirely true, whilst the camera has an inbuilt sync speed, the fastest shutter speed that both curtains are fully open, it isn't true that all studio lights can sync to that speed at all power levels, particularly if triggered wirelessly. You just need a high enough shutter speed and aperture combination to overcome any ambient if that is the look you are after.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Not entirely true, whilst the camera has an inbuilt sync speed, the fastest shutter speed that both curtains are fully open, it isn't true that all studio lights can sync to that speed at all power levels, particularly if triggered wirelessly. You just need a high enough shutter speed and aperture combination to overcome any ambient if that is the look you are after.


You're right, and I guess I was just trying to keep it fairly simple since he said it was his first time in a studio, and I think it covers most general studio shooting. Obviously there are a lot of other ways to use studio lighting like shooting in the dark with low power short duration bursts to achieve high (effective) shutter speeds, which is one way to overcome blurry shots. And like you say, sync speed at high power levels may be limited by the lights, not camera.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 9, 2014)

CJRodgers said:


> Hi everyone,
> I was using f8 and a 135L lens (my fave lens). I used 1/160th as I was told my the studio manager this was the sync speed for his lights. Hand held in ambient, with a 135L this is a big problem, but I assumed the flash would freeze my subject so I thought I could go down to a slower shutter speed than I would normally use.
> 
> I didn't use a tripod.
> ...



It can be a little difficult to tell the difference between blur that is caused by gross movement (camera and/or model) and blur being more apparent by an improper lighting ratio. Both are really caused by the same thing - photons hitting pixel lenses in a way you don't want.

What was your lighting ratio?

If you were shooting a "stationary" model, shooting at 1/160 should not result in any gross model motion blurring. I assume that even though you were shooting handheld that you were holding the camera steady. So absent of any actual pictures to look at, I think we can safely eliminate gross movement induced blurring. 

So what else could it be? It could be  that you had two key lights - one being the ambient lighting and the other being the flash. Normally you only want one key light source. Either flash is a fill and ambient is the key or flash is the key and ambient is the fill. Lighting ratio is one of the hardest parts about learning flash photography. 

If the lighting ratio is too close -- both the ambient and the flash were pretty equal in lighting the scene, what might have happend is that the ambient light was strong enough to record the image of your model on the camera sensor and the flash was strong enough to record the image of your model on the camera sensor.

The difference is that one exposure was over a time period of 1/160 (a very long time when light is concerned) and the other exposure was over a time period of a few thousandths of a second.

It would be exactly like taking two hand held photographs of the same scene with one at 1/160 and the other at 1/4000. The 1/4000 will most likely be sharper. That is because at ALL shutter speeds there is some teeny tiny bit of motion induced blur. Teeny Tiny is a photographic technical term by the way. It is just that when viewed individually, most images of stationary subjects, are "pretty sharp" at shutter speeds faster than say 1/100 with the "pretty sharp"-ness improving the faster the shutter goes. But if you take a photograph, handheld at a metric target at 1/4000, you will, if you pixel peep far enough, detect some itty bitty (another technical term) blurring. 

Vibration is not a binary state but a spectum. Unless you in an a special lab environment there is no way to get rid of 100% of all vibration.

Howver, we are not concerned with any absolute blurring, we are concerned with blurring that is apparent to the person looking at the photograph. In other words, we want the photograph to be "sharp enough". 

What you would see if you pixel peeped, your image, is a ghost image very close to the model. This will appear a little differently than actual gross motion induced blurring. For general purposes, you could consider it a multiple exposure photograph. One exposure being ambient and the other exposure flash. There WILL be a difference as both the camera and the model were "hand held". 

The solution is to increase the lighting ratio. Either have the ambient be the key and the flash be the fill or have the flash be the key and the ambient be the "fill". 

The rule is: Aperture controls the flash and shutter speed controls ambient. 

It would be impossible for us to advise you on the lighting ratio without seeing the images.

Flash photography is not especially difficult, but it is especially different from ambient only light

Looking forward to seeing some of the images.

Conga rats for getting into studio flash photography. It will open up a lot of photon doors for you. ;D


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

OK so here is the picture. It isn't horribly blurry, but still not as sharp as I would like, and not as sharp as my 'keepers'.

Thank you all for the replies so far.

Canon 5d mkiii
EF 135L
exposure 1/160
f8
iso 100
spot metering.

I have never noticed my shots feel a little bit blurry with my flash, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough!


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2014)

For your first time in the studio, the lighting looks really nice, so good job there. At the reduced resolution, I'm hard pressed to see any blurring - I can even see flyaway hairs. I'm guessing you see the blur when you zoom in to 50 or 100%. Unless the model was dancing, she looks like she's pretty still, so 1/160s should be plenty fast. Could it be your photo is a little out of focus? Zoom in and if the blur has is uniform on all sides, that's probably the issue. If the blur (like in the hair or shirt straps) appears to be on side as if there's movement in a single direction, that would be you or her moving. If the ambient was low and you weren't using modelling lights (or they were low) it makes AF work harder. In low(er) light, your best bet is to use one-shot AF with the center point and focus-recompose, at least at that aperture. Without seeing the blur, I can't say for sure, but that's a common problem when you're used to shooting in stronger light and switch to a studio.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

Yeah I think it is in one direction. I just went straight to the eyes noticed it doesn't pop quite as much as some. With some high pass sharpening I think it would be fine! Im just wanting to see if my settings where wrong. She was fairly still but moving her head slightly after each shutter click. I will just make sure I take a few extra shots in future, just in case. It was fairly low ambient and no modelling light for focus. I'm not at my computer now, I will post a crop of the eye soon!


----------



## gary samples (Apr 9, 2014)

nice shot 
needs hair lights


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

Maybe to the hair light. I was going for a desatured moody look. I think it suits one light better, I'll post an edit and see what you think.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2014)

CJRodgers said:


> Yeah I think it is in one direction. I just went straight to the eyes noticed it doesn't pop quite as much as some. With some high pass sharpening I think it would be fine! Im just wanting to see if my settings where wrong. She was fairly still but moving her head slightly after each shutter click. I will just make sure I take a few extra shots in future, just in case. It was fairly low ambient and no modelling light for focus. I'm not at my computer now, I will post a crop of the eye soon!


I think that's probably it, then. Anything over 1/100s is usually enough to stop movement from someone who is posing for the shot, and the low ambient probably threw off the focus just enough to look blurry but not out of focus. I've had this issue, too, and it's frustrating. I go back & forth on the use of modelling lights, but if the ambient is low, I usually set them to match the light power so they aren't too hot, but give enough light to get a positive focus.

Also, I'd second the hair light, at least a subtle one, but again, you got the essentials (light position, catch lights, ratio, etc.) right, which isn't always the easiest thing when you first shoot in a studio.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

So here is the picture of the eye. I think your right, its just slightly missed focus? What do you think? A bit of sharpening and it would probably be saved!


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

Also, this was the mood I was going for. I think a hair light could have been cool, but Im happy enough with the one light for now! Ill experiment more in the future!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2014)

What was lighting your background?

It looks like camera/subject motion to me, so what was an ambient reading?


----------



## drjlo (Apr 10, 2014)

CJRodgers said:


> Also, this was the mood I was going for. I think a hair light could have been cool, but Im happy enough with the one light for now! Ill experiment more in the future!



With 135 mm without IS, I would try again with tripod and critical focus confirmation with live view magnification to see if the blurring recurs. 

In addition, I far prefer your first "blurred" photo to the second photo, which has WAY too much skin smoothing/blurring/retouching IMO.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 10, 2014)

Skin blurring! What a sin, how dare you lol. The whole point of the shoot was to practise retouching. I agree it's a bit overdone. Dodged too much I think. Skin texture is clearer full res. I have lots of fashion stuff coming up so this is a must but still lots to learn. 


Ambient lighting, not sure. Main light just said f 8 power. Separate background light at f 5.6 I think.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 10, 2014)

I haven't read the replies, so sorry if this has been said.

What iso were you on? If it was 100 that might be the problem. At f/8 those light are really working, so they stay on longer and you might get motion that way. If youre at iso 200 they are open half as long, iso 400 a quarter as long.

Still, I wouldn't think you'd get too many issues at iso 100, but its a strong possibility.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 10, 2014)

Yes it was iso 100. I didn't know this so that's a strong possibility. Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

keithfullermusic said:


> What iso were you on? If it was 100 that might be the problem. At f/8 those light are really working, so they stay on longer and you might get motion that way. If youre at iso 200 they are open half as long, iso 400 a quarter as long.



I don't think that's the case here. Speedlite flashes behave that way – the light output is of a fixed intensity, so when you vary the flash power you are really changing the duration of the flash. However, typical monolights change their output by varying the intensity of the light produced, not the duration. Given that this was a studio setting, most likely the lighting was monolights.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 10, 2014)

Yeah they where monolights. Not a big name brand, can't remember what they where.

So what is the solutions? Use a tripod and try to have a modelling light for focus if ambient is poor?

I have never noticed this problem with my flashes, but should i be careful with my flash and 135L handheld?

Craig


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

CJRodgers said:


> So here is the picture of the eye. I think your right, its just slightly missed focus? What do you think? A bit of sharpening and it would probably be saved!


Even at 100% I can't tell for sure, but I'm still thinking it's a slight mis-focus because I don't see any direction to the blur. 



CJRodgers said:


> Yeah they where monolights. Not a big name brand, can't remember what they where.
> 
> So what is the solutions? Use a tripod and try to have a modelling light for focus if ambient is poor?
> 
> ...


A tripod will ensure you're not introducing your own motion but may limit your creativity if you like to move around while you shoot (it's a personal style thing). I typically use a tripod for most work, especially head shots, but sometimes you want to move around if they model is moving around. A tripod will also help you keep from moving closer or further away after locking focus and is the only way you can be assured of the sharpest possible shot at that focal length, at least without IS. Using the center point and one-shot AF will help lock better focus (make sure it locks, too).

Having the modelling lights on at a low setting will help with the focus, but they can get hot and uncomfortable for the model during longer shoots. If you can raise the ambient a bit that will help with focus, but that may not be an option. Also, if you raise it too much, you'll have to bump up the power on the lights to keep the same look which (depending on the lights) could introduce additional problems with the flash duration as you get near their full power.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2014)

Cheap and older monolights have longer flash durations at lower power. Close the lens down to f16 and move the lights further away to increase their power output to shorten the effective exposure time. It is only on camera flashes and more modern studio lights with IGBT circuitry that have shorter flash times with less power.

But, as I already asked, what was your ambient level and what was illuminating the background?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

CJRodgers said:


> I have never noticed this problem with my flashes, but should i be careful with my flash and 135L handheld?



Probably not. At full power, the flash duration of most Speedlites is 1/300 s or higher.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Cheap and older monolights have longer flash durations at lower power. Close the lens down to f16 and move the lights further away to increase their power output to shorten the effective exposure time. It is only on camera flashes and more modern studio lights with IGBT circuitry that have shorter flash times with less power.


We are spoiled by the newer technology, aren't we?


----------



## frumrk (Apr 10, 2014)

Here is some additional info on Monolights and flash duration here:

http://jerrycentral.com/2008/12/18/flash-duration/

As Neuro... said... the higher the power the shorter the flash duration for Mono's.. So as one may have suggested... backing the lights up and going to a higher power might be a fix.

I can easily introduce blur with a non-IS lens all the way up to shutter speeds of 1/1250th of a second just by panning slowly at 70mm. So I can see where it would be possible to get some motion blur even with a monolight if you introduce a lot of shaking when you push the shutter. So possibly you could work on your technique. I know that I used to have a jerking issue when I pushed the shutter, but have resolved that issue with practice. Otherwise... a "Steady" tripod should also resolve the issue and also a shutter release should make it perfect.

If you look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

it looks like this lens is sharpest around 5.6. I wouldn't go above F8 unless you really needed the additional DOF.

Good Luck


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 10, 2014)

frumrk said:


> If you look here:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
> 
> ...



My 135L is sharpest at F5.0 as per Focal Pro. Is your lens AFMA'd to the body?

For fun you could always try walking up the sync speed too - it is a function of the camera max sync which was talked about earlier along with the trigger max sync. The worst thing that can happen is you will start to see the banding of the shutter creep into the shot - from there back it off a 1/3 of a stop or so.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> frumrk said:
> 
> 
> > If you look here:
> ...


I've never had any issues at 1/200s with the 5DIII, so that could help, too.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 10, 2014)

Awesome, I still need to read all of the information you have all provided in links, but than you so much for the responces. I do like to move around a bit when shooting as I definately don't have a singnature style yet so expermenting is key, although I am sure I am very guilty of moving inwards and outwards after getting focus!

The body is new so I havent AFMA my lens' yet. However id say 80% of shots where fine, and the rest where no worse than this, which with a bit of sharpening would probably still be ok. I do need to get it done though!

Good to hear I dont need to worry about my speedlites! Ill go read up on monolights now! The next studio I might use has elinchroms, which I hear are very good.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > frumrk said:
> ...



+1. I shoot my mk3 at 1/200 triggering wirelessly.

I agree with the misfocused theory. It doesn't look like motion blur, it looks like slight back focusing.


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 10, 2014)

The fun of studio lights at other people's studios. Chances are that the old strobes are the issue - what modifiers were you using? What triggers were you using? Shooting at full power will help, but you may find inconsistency with it (color temp, etc). How long were you pausing between shots?

The Elinchrom setup should be much better. Start by doing what you did in the previous studio, then hit our suggestions for techniques to improve things.


----------



## brett b (Apr 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CJRodgers said:
> 
> 
> > So here is the picture of the eye. I think your right, its just slightly missed focus? What do you think? A bit of sharpening and it would probably be saved!
> ...



I agree with mackguyver...It's probably a focus issue due to moving after focus lock. This happens to me, too. I also like to move around while shooting headshots and I'm certain I occasionally move after focus lock.

I use the 135L and the 85LII at narrower depths of field than what you've stated, so I can't imagine it is a lens issue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 11, 2014)

It is not miss focus, it is motion blur. What was the ambient and what is lighting the background?

How can I be so sure it is motion blur? Put the crop in PS and Smart Sharpen, change Gaussian Blur to Motion Blur and rotate the dial. If it was miss focus the sharpness would be consistent wherever you put the dial, if it is motion blur there are positions that make more difference than others, this image changes as the dial setting does so it is motion blur.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 11, 2014)

*Reading through this thread is why I like Canon Rumors. Good feedback, good knowledge and some good ideas!* 8)


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 11, 2014)

It looks like camera shake. It could be that your mixing too much ambient w/flash. My ancient m500 Novatron's at full power had a duration of 1/300th and any decent strobe should stop camera shake. (provided you cut the ambient.)


----------

