Because of my interest in photography, there is a motto I tend to live by (and I even have a bumper sticker on my truck with this phrase on it): “I stop for photographs.”

Guest author: Jaron Schneider

When I see a beautiful setting or that perfect light while driving somewhere and I have my camera with me, odds are that I’ll stop. And if you happen to be in the car, you’re going to be modeling for me. It is during these spur-of-the-moment photo-shoots that I tend to get some of my more memorable photographs. The fact of the matter is, however, no one likes to be remembered as the center of an unflattering photo.

In this lesson, I will demonstrate how to use a lightweight lighting setup that works well to accentuate natural light, and that you can keep with you at all times. Rather than fighting bad, continually changing, or harsh light as many complain about, try and use it to your advantage. Be ready so that when the perfect situation presents itself, you will be prepared.

What’s in the bag?

Camera/Lens
•    Canon Rebel XTi
•    Canon L-Series 24-70mm Lens

Lighting Equipment
•    Photoflex FlashFire™ wireless kit
•    Photoflex  StarFire ShoeMount Digital Flash
•    Photoflex XS OctoDome nxt Kit

New to Light

Though I’ve been behind the lens for the better part of ten years, most of my work has been documentary/journalistic in style. My early years were spent on the sidelines of football and basketball games, struggling to make due with ambient light (they didn’t let me bring flashes). Later, while traveling, I took my experiences of using natural light with me and never thought to expand my camera bag to include lighting equipment for one simple reason: I had never used it before.

More recently, I’ve decided to work up the nerve to bring controlled lighting into my repertoire. I’ve been told time and again that it’s not as complicated as people say, so I’m willing to give it a shot.

So, with all that in mind, let’s see what a novice can do with some basic techniques and some quality gear.

 Arriving at the Winery

I consider myself lucky because the beautiful landscape of the Santa Lucia Highlands, one of California’s more well-known wine producing areas outside of Napa Valley, is but a short drive from where I live. My favorite place to visit while traveling wine country is Hahn Vineyards. Its tasting room and surrounding buildings are built on the side of a mountain that overlooks the Salinas Valley. It is quite the view, especially with a glass of 2004 Petit Syrah in hand!

On this particular occasion, my friend David (who I normally assist on other photo-shoots), my girlfriend Andi and I came to Hahn to take part in a yearly event where they allow patrons to make crafts from their old vines. While Andi was busy making a wreath, I seized the opportunity to shoot a portrait.

The Equipment

Because I rarely leave the house without some photo gear, I was able to grab my camera and, a big/new step for me, a shoe mount (speedlight) kit: The OctoDome® Studio Kit from out of the trunk (see image above).

Despite its name, the OctoDome® Studio Kit works just as well on location as it does in the studio. It’s lightweight, easy to set up, and inexpensive. It can be used with a shoe mount flash like the Photoflex® StarFire™, a studio strobe like the Photoflex® StarFlash®, and even a continuous light like the Photoflex® StarLite® for times when you need to diffuse constant light for video purposes. Because it can be attached to so many different light sources, it is quickly becoming one of my favorite photographic accessories.

Getting started, I opened up the LiteStand and attached both the ShoeMount MultiClamp and the Adjustable ShoeMount Hardware to it (above).

Next, I pulled the OctoDome®: extra small out of the carry case and attached it to the basic OctoConnector. This process can be challenging for beginners with the larger SoftBoxes, but the size of the OctoDome®: extra small makes this a pretty seamless process for a newbie like myself (below).

The next step was to attach the OctoDome® to the LiteStand and mount the StarFire™: digital flash and the FlashFire™: wireless receiver to the Adjustable ShoeMount Hardware (see below). Quick and simple!

With that, I was ready to start shooting.

Positioning and Shooting

In my experience, a really easy way to get the most flattering headshots or three-quarter lenth body shots of females who aren’t used to modeling, one needs to try and shoot at either eye level or from above them. Such a position forces the model to raise her chin and therefore results in a more flattering image. Certainly there are numerous exceptions to this philosophy, especially if you have the ability to work with a talented model, but it is difficult to not get a good shot from such a position (above).

I instructed Andi to point her shoulders forward while she turned her head to face me. This is a popular angle from which to shoot because it adds dimension to the shot and makes for a particularly natural-looking pose.

For the sake of comparison, I took two preliminary shots: one with only ambient light from the sun as it peeked through the clouds, and the other using the built-in flash of my camera (below)

In the first shot above, we can see that with her placement under a tree, and the fact that the clouds were busily moving above us, I could not properly expose for her face as well as her body. The best I could achieve without overexposing her white shirt resulted with her face being rendered in shadow.

Alternately, in the second shot, there was really nothing I could do when I activated the built-in flash. The power output of the flash, which is difficult to adjust on my camera, blew out (overexposed) her complexion and other portions of her body. As you can see, this type of hard, flat lighting is truly unflattering.

With those results behind us, I turned on the StarFire™ and attached the FlashFire™ transmitter to the hot shoe of my camera.

In Manual mode, I set the power level of the StarFire™ to approximately halfway and repositioned myself on the bench.

As you can see, the result now is already so much better! The quality of light here is more flattering, as it illuminated her face and chest beautifully.

For those who are curious, my camera was set to the following:
•    Exposure Mode: Manual
•    Shutter speed: 1/200 of a second
•    Aperture: f/ 4.0
•    ISO: 200
•    Focal length: 40mm
•    File Format: Raw
•    White Balance: 5200K
Below, you can see a side-by-side comparison of our results up to this point.

Use the Natural Light

As much as I was satisfied with the results up to this point, I realized that the position of the OctoDome® wasn’t really “accentuating” natural light as much as it was overpowering it. Sure, the results were good, but I felt that they could be better.

Because the sun was in line with the angle in which I currently had the OctoDome®, I moved it to camera right to allow the sun to do most of the work, while I used the OctoDome® as a fill light.

Due to the repositioning, I did not need the StarFire™ to be powered up as high as it was before. I was able to turn it down close to its lowest power setting (see below).

I also made some minor adjustments to the camera:
•    Shutter speed: 1/160 of a second
•    Focal length: 58mm

With all my settings squared away, I was ready to shoot my final images.
 

In these final two images, you can see that the light on Andi’s face is evenly distributed and looks completely natural. Where before we had a few spots that were a little hot (too bright), with the second lighting setup, we eliminated all hot spots and ended up with a final with which I was more than satisfied. Success!

Lighting can be an intimidating proposition for some (including myself!), but it really doesn’t have to be. By using equipment that you are comfortable with, and experimenting with your lighting setups, you can come away with some great results. Above all, remember to have fun in the process!

Welcome to the first of an ongoing series where we dig deep to answer your questions about photo gear and taking pictures. Today, we’ll look at whether it makes more sense to buy two shorter zooms or a single long zoom lens that covers the entire focal range.

Recently, one of Adorama’s Facebook fans asked a question about lenses that went something like this:

"Last year I bought a starter DSLR with two zoom lenses, an 18-55mm and 55-200mm “kit” zoom. I really like the long range of focal lengths but as I started using my camera I realized that I hated having to constantly switch lenses. I’ve missed shots because I was busy juggling lenses. Dust gets on the sensor  when I change lenses, and I have to clean the sensor frequently. It’s a pain, and I’m thinking about trading the two zoom lenses for a single 18-250mm lens. Is this a good idea, or not? Is there a difference in image quality?"

That’s a great question, and the answer really depends on the needs of each individual, so there’s no “right” answer (although in the case of this particular reader, he may have answered his own question and is simply looking for confirmation). There are several advantages and disadvantages to each approach, but there are also specific, measurable differences in image quality when comparing two short-range zooms with a single long-ranger.

How does this long-range zoom lens compare…

…with these two shorter zoom lenses, which collectively cover approximately the same focal range?

Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony all make low-end zoom lenses that cover both shorter ranges and a long-range zoom. The typical “kit” lens is an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, and a low-cost tele zoom might be a 55-200mm or 55-300mm f/4-5.6. The major camera makers (as well as indie lensmakers such as Sigma, Tamron and Tokina) also make long-range zooms, typically 18-200, 18-250, or 18-300mm that are surprisingly compact. Pricewise, these long range zooms tend to cost approximately what a combination of an 18-55mm and 55-200mm would cost. There are similar focal range breakdowns for enthusiast-level lenses (which feature better quality glass and construction) and pro-level lenses (which feature constant f/2.8 apertures and the best optics and build).

To compare apples to apples, I’m going to focus on kit-grade lenses designed for DSLRs with APS sensors—the least expensive options out there. That’s where the differences are most pronounced, and where the question comes up most frequently, although the test results and other factors can be applied to lenses for full-frame cameras and higher-end models.

Cost
A typical 18-55mm kit lens, when purchased separately, costs in the $100-150 range, while a typical low-end tele zoom will set you back around $200. A long-range zoom of similar construction and quality will cost around $300-400, so when comparing the overall cost of two lenses against one longer one, price is roughly equal.

Weight
The combined weight of two shorter-range zoom is roughly equivalent to that of a single long-range zoom. A Canon 18-55mm kit lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 55-250mm lens weighs 390 grams, for a total of 590 grams. The Canon 18-250mm lens weighs 595 grams—a wash, weightwise. (Specs for other brands work out similarly.) However, you don’t always need to bring both lenses with you at all times, so you have some control over the overall weight of your camera kit; the heavier long-range zoom could be harder to handhold for extended periods, a disadvantage for long zooms.

Convenience
Clearly, the best argument in favor of a single, longer lens is convenience. You don’t have to juggle two lenses.  Your picture-taking kit is self-contained, and if you don’t remove the lens, you avoid the possibility of dust collecting on the sensor and affecting your images. If that’s the most important criteria for you, go for it!

Why, then, is a DSLR with a single superzoom lens a better choice than, say, buying an EVF camera with a built-in long-range zoom lens? The answer is that a DSLR has a larger sensor than any EVF superzoom currently on the market. EVFs tend to have sensors that are the same size as the kind you’d find on a pocket-sized compact, which means they’ll produce inferior overall image quality, especially when you want to shoot in low light using higher ISO settings.

Image quality

Finally, we come to the elephant in the room: Is there a difference in image quality between two shorter zooms and one longer zoom covering the same focal range? The answer is that it’s a mixed bag but that two shorter lenses have an edge.

I ran comparisons of several manufacturers’ short-range zooms against long-range zoom lenses using the lens test result comparison tools provided by our lab partner, DxOLabs. DxOLabs tests for sharpness, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, and optical distortion. I won’t go into any specific comparison, but instead will talk about general patterns that I saw in each of these test results, because the patterns are more or less the same across all manufacturers’ lenses in this specific class and range of focal lengths.

Generally, the 18-55mm lenses delivered the best optical performance overall, with the best sharpness at most apertures in the centers and edges. The 55-200 or 55-250mm lenses delivered less impressive results. The 18-200mm lenses performed similarly to the 55-200mm lenses, but across the longer focal range. So, going head to head, the 18-55mm lens was notably better than the 18-200mm lens in the overlapping focal range, while the 55-200mm lenses delivered a performance that was roughly equal to that of the long-range zoom in its overlapping focal range.

Let’s break it down further:

Above, from left to right: All shot at approximately the same focal length, the 18-55mm showed almost no distortion, the 55-250mm lens had pronounced pillow distortion, and the 18-200mm lens displayed obvious pincussion distortion.

Distortion: All of these lower-cost lenses displayed linear distortion. The long-range zooms tended to have more pronounced pillow distortion at the shortest focal lengths than the shorter zooms, and tended to have distinct pincussion distortion at the full tele extension—more so than the 55-200 or 55-250 at maximum extension.

The curvy lines on the right side of the chart show the range of “fringing” different levels of chromatic aberration can have on a hard, contrasty subject.

Chromatic Aberration: This was a mixed bag. All lenses tested displayed above-average chromatic aberration, which shows up in an image as colored fringing along the edges of contrasty subjects. The degree of aberration varied from lens to lens and brand to brand. The good news? Unless you plan on making enlargements above 11×14 inches, you probably won’t see it.

At widest apertures at 50 or 55mm, vignetting was moderate…although on the 55-250mm lens, it was a bit more noticeable, as illustrated here.

Vignetting: At almost all focal lengths, vignetting (darkening of the images towards the corners) was more pronounced with the long-range zoom at the widest and smallest apertures. Middle apertures (f/8 and f/11) showed virtually no vignetting in any of the lenses.

Sharpness: Sharpness is measured in lines per millimeter based on a standard target shot under consistent light conditions. When shooting at middle aperture settings, the lenses all showed similarly good image quality especially in the middle of the image. The closer you went towards the smallest or largest aperture, the softer image quality got in the corners of the image and to a lesser extent in the middle. This is expected behavior for all lenses, but the long-range zoom showed the most softness at the edges at the longest settings compared to the shorter-range tele zoom. Quality in the 18-55mm range was more or less equal between the short-range zoom and the long-ranger.

The bottom line? If you are going to spend around $300-400 (total) for a focal range of around 18-200mm, you can expect variable apertures and OK, but not stellar performance. And if you split the focal range into two lenses, you’ll get better overall image quality in the 18-55mm range. If you’re planning on making prints 8×10 or smaller, you probably won’t notice a difference.

Software to the rescue?

Many (but not all) of the optical imperfections can be reduced or eliminated via software that compensates for specific lenses’ problems. DxO Optics Pro  has hundreds of downloadable modules that compensate for pincussion and pillow distortion, color fringing, and even vignetting. It can also improve sharpness. If you are willing to pay the expense and put in the post-production time to improve your images, this is an option that can make the differences described above less important.