Secrets revealed.

   I frequently get compliments on my lighting often accompanied by a few questions how I achieved the effect. In this case, I wanted a magenta sky. I don't have a magenta backdrop, but I do have a Thunder Grey one, an so the magenta effect achieved by putting a magenta photographic gel in front of the small Chimera softbox. The other light is unfiltered but has a honeycomb gel in front of the flash head, limiting the spread of light to the general area around the figure, making certain none will spill on the backdrop.

   The lights in this case are Dynalite flash heads, powered by a 1000 Watt-second power pack, on the floor, out of camera view. I am one of a dying breed of photographers who prefers pack and head systems...at least really good ones like the Dynalite system over monolights for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the versatility and in the case of the Dynalite, compactness and weight.

   This being said, everything in this photo can be achieved with hot lights, a diffuser, a grid and a tripod and shutter release. No need to spend thousands of $$$$ on pro lighting systems..

   If you have any questions about how to get this look yourselves with whatever gear you have, just ask me. Real photographers keep no secrets.

Wow! Really cool setup!

After seeing your professional type set up I would be very embarrassed to reveal how most of my shots are made, and just what is pressed into service to get the effects I want......

There is no need to be embarrassed. If it works, it works. I have expensive lighting gear and professional training, but every effect shown here can be achieved at the fraction of the cost. The only reason for the expensive gear is that it facilitates the process.

Your set up sure takes up a lot of space Gary , very professional .

Super cool! Thanks for showing and explaining your process for creating this image!

Thanks for showing your set up KTC. I've never had the chance to work with
Dynalights, they are expensive and the company I worked with wouldn't spend
that kind of money.

I have worked with both pack and head systems, and monolights. Both have strengths
and weaknesses.

For my photos here I have used a "shoebox" system. Bounce flash.

I have a Paul C. Buff monolight, but not enough space to set it up. A ten foot
lightstand has a big footprint.

But really nice to see your set up. Your photos always have great lighting.

TNshooter wrote:

Thanks for showing your set up KTC. I've never had the chance to work with
Dynalights, they are expensive and the company I worked with wouldn't spend
that kind of money.

I have worked with both pack and head systems, and monolights. Both have strengths
and weaknesses.

For my photos here I have used a "shoebox" system. Bounce flash.

I have a Paul C. Buff monolight, but not enough space to set it up. A ten foot
lightstand has a big footprint.

But really nice to see your set up. Your photos always have great lighting.

Unfortunately, Dynalites are only found on ebay anymore; the company went belly-up two years ago, which leaves me effed if any goes wrong with my gear.  I fell in love with it while still in photo school. All of the instructors were working photographers and one brought in his two-pack lighting kit one day for a class and I was amazed at small size and weight of their packs and heads.  Note: Dawson College Photography School uses Speedotron pack and head systems....rugged but heavy.  

The other thing I came to appreciate about the Dynalite system was that the packs had that the individual channels each had their own power selectors; Full, half and one quarter which is usually not the case with most other systems.  I find this is very practical. At the time--I was one of the few students who had invested in lighting equipment while still in school--I had a pair Paul Buff monolights myself along with one of their quick take down softboxes with built in speed ring.  The only thing is that I found this quite heavy to carry around and the light stands take up much more room. I was usually doing location photography, often in cramped spaces, and with no assistant, so when Montreal's main surviving pro photography dealer, Photo Service started carrying them, I splurged the more than two grand for a one pack, two head set, and later bought a third head. I then sold the Paul Buff units, figuring I would not need them any more, not realizing that it might be wise hang on to them as well.  Frankly though, I needed the money to offset the purchase of the Dynalites.  

Today...the younger guys here in Montreal, all they know...all they want to hear is Profoto. Great stuff...I used them myself in Dawson College, but even more expensive than Dynalite and with a huge surplus of unused power whenever you go into multi-light set ups.  Anyway....I love my Dynalite gear, though I rarely use it anymore.

Great work Gary! and such amazing results too! Thanks so much for sharing the behind the scenes shot

I didn't know that Dynalite was no more. That's a shame to hear.
Speedotron is another brand I haven't had the chance to use. I can't say I'm
very familiar with Profoto.

I have used Novatron, the heads had selectable power settings. But you never
knew when the pack would up and spout smoke and catch on fire.
Luckily it didn't happen to me, but did to another photographer I worked with.

I've also used Norman's, the heads were super lightweight but the packs weighed a ton.
The company had a couple of the 2000 watt packs (that cost about the same back
in the day). They had 2000 watts with one head attached. Otherwise, the power
dropped when more heads were attached. As I recall about 800 watts a head. But
the company didn't buy them, they were "inherited" when another paper shut down.

I had one of the original "can" flashes that Buff made in the beginning. The early
'80's. The current ones are a LOT more advanced. I have one of their Alien Bees.
Having Lexan outer casings they are not as heavy as the White Lightnings that have
aluminum casings.

Yeah, I had a pair of Paul Buff White Lightnings. The school actually recommended them as those were the monolights they had for the daytime students who were much younger than the night program students and not allowed to use the Profotos. I liked them...I really did, but they did take up an awful amount of room when set up which is why I eventually sold them, I suppose.

Today, i use off-camera portable flash most of the time, and especially when doing table-top set ups. When I set my camera (Nikon D800) to 400 ISO, they have all the power I really need and take up a fraction of the space of the pack and head system. I'm also not against using hot lights, usually not ones designed for photography when that's practical, though I don't like using tripods give the limited space I have to work with

I hear you on using a tripod. I don't. But my camera isn't full frame like yours.
At the paper I was using a crop frame for the speed. I used to shoot a lot of sports
so I needed a camera with a higher frame rate.

The photos I post here are normally shot at ISO 200, no sharpening in camera or
in post processing. I've thought about getting one of the selfie ring lights for a
different look from bounce flash. I have no problem using hot lights, in fact I
think it might be better for a more natural looking light.

The above photo and several others like it were shot using a pair of $5.00 LED emergency lights bought in a dollar store; one with a blue gel over it, the other a green gel. The main light is LED flashlight hand held, high over the subject's head. Camera was on a tripod, with shutter release cable.

That’s very cool Gary.

I'm more convinced with every photo that the silver after-market bodysuit paired with the belts and helmet looks better on these figs than the original spacesuit. I like the way the thin fabric bunches up "in scale" at the elbows in action poses.

An advantage of studio lights over household lights is the overall intensity, allowing a smaller f/stop and thus a greater depth of field. But... is it a thousand dollar (or more) advantage? Kinda fun figuring out what you can do with ten or fifteen dollars worth of lighting equipment, isn't it?

I have a photographer friend from photo school days who will never by a $50.00 item if there is one out there that does exactly the same job at ten times the price. The lighting in the photo above probably cost me no more than $20.00, including the the coloured gels. I challenge anyone to look at any of my photos and tell me WHAT kind of light I used to light it, and how much I spent.

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

... who will never by a $50.00 item if there is one out there that does exactly the same job at ten times the price.

Ha ha! I love it! If I had the money, I could live like that!

For some people, and I am not immune to this, there is a level of enjoyment that comes from the cachet of brand names and price. And realistically, there is often at least a slight difference; but it's often a difference that is incrementally minuscule in functionality, but in magnitudes in cost.