One of the biggest challenges or obstacles when photographers move on to strobe or multiple strobe lighting situations is that often they complicate the matter.  Often when people look at my group portraitures they think it must have been lit with a number of lights in a very complex way.  The truth of the matter is that, it wasn't.  

Lighting should not be viewed in a complex way.  To me there are only three stages of setting up lighting for portraits; Background, subject, and hair/rim lighting and in that order.  No matter what people say, you ALWAYS light the background of any portrait first.  This is a general rule.  Reason being the background is one of the key elements that allows you to shoot your preferred lighting ratio and preferred aperture.  In some scenarios, the background doesn't need to be lit (ex. backlighting by a strong sun).  If this is the case we first meter the background and then adjust the subject lighting/camera setting according to that measurement.

Most of the time when people light and they find the results not to their expectations, they start to add lights and gels and reflectors,etc... The problem is, I would say 90% of the time the problem is that they do not have the right lighting ratio and they are setting up their light by reference to technical data rather than using what is most reliable, their eyes.

When it comes to using a trusty viewfinder, or playback monitor, I can tell you that nothing is more reliable than your own eyes.  The equipment only assists but your eyes should be the deciding factor. I think the problem with a lot of photographers today is that they seem to rely on equipment more than their own judgment.  Lighting, like photography has not changed one bit since the beginning of photography.  All the advance equipment we have today has only made it slightly easier but the science or theory behind making a good portrait has not changed one bit.

I have seen photographers that have simply placed a light because their experience or what they have learned in school told them to do so.  The thing is each photograph is unique and carries it's own characteristics.  Meaning that the lighting setup will be different from one photo to another, and just because in the last portrait photography session the 3 point lighting setup worked out doesn't mean it will in another.

I have seen so many people making the same mistake of metering the subject and lighting for the subject before lighting for the background.  It might work for some people, but for me, I don't really get how can one light for a subject when not knowing the light measurement you are getting in your surrounding environment within your framing? 

At the end if you still find lighting to be complicating and frustrating.  Just take more photographs on location or in studio.  Don't wait for a client to hire you, call out some friends and ask if they would like to have their portraits taken.  The good thing about taking portraits for friends for free is that because they are not paying for your services, they won't mind if you experiment a little, make a few mistakes or take a long time getting your correct exposure (you don't want to do that in front of a client).  Practise is the answer to great lighting in photography.  To add on to what I have just mentioned about simplifying your lighting setup, I have drafted the following guidelines when planning your lighting for a portraiture.

1) Meter Ambient Lighting

Meter for the background and meter for the subject.  Sometimes (outdoors), you may not even need to light the subject.  Find out which direction your ambient lighting is coming from.  Re-position if necessary

2) Light your background

3) Meter for Subject

When metering for subject most likely your light will not be dead center flat.  Meaning that you should always meter left and right side of a subject.

4) Determine whether a rim light/hair light is necessary 

5) If taking a wide group shot you may want to meter for hands, feets and dresses, just to make sure nothing is too underexposed (this is very important if you are using a very soft light with a strong falloff, the exposure can be drastic with very minimal distance).

At the end I will stress on knowing your lighting ratios.  Knowing your cameras is not enough, because without lighting your 4k or 36MP stills or video camera is not different from any low end consumer end camera. 

Tags ( lighting Portrait Photography Fashion Photography Product Photography studio lighting location lighting )

Just this Saturday I had the opportunity to take out my Photek Softlighters for another photo shoot.  The results did not disappoint at all.  The quality of light was simply stunning.  Mind you all studio photographers that with the use of the softlighters I highly recommend a high power strobe, something like a 400W strobe I would say is the minimum. 

The famous Photek Softlighter is used by acclaimed celebrity photography Annie Leibovitz very often and is one of the most effective light shaping tools I have ever used (including Profoto light shaping tools).

The bride and groom was generous enough to allow me to post a pic from the shoot.  This pic has not yet been fully edited and simply just been played around with in Capture One Pro.

Rather than bringing complex light shaping tools that are a pain in the ass to setup. I now carry 5 Photek Softlighters on the set or location and that pretty much does it.  I love how the Softlighter has such shallow light falloff which allows me to create these wonderful low key high contrast protraits which brings so much "liveliness" into the portrait. Not to mention, assistants love it too because no longer do they need to setup complicated lighting equipment that takes so much time to assemble.  The versatility of this tool makes it a definite "must own" for a pro.

Tags ( photek softlighter II Capture One Pro )

The following photos were shot with...

100W Continuous Flourescent Light

40 x 60 Softbox

5D Mark II

Both 50mm Carl Zeiss 1.4 and 100mm Carl Zeiss 2.8

Pros

You see what you get

Not as distracting for model (strobing vs. continuous light) 

Cons

Must shoot with a very fast lens due to insufficient power from flourescent lights

Depth of Field is pretty shallow due to use of wide aperture

Very difficult for freeze subject, must as model to be still. 

Tags ( lighting Photography equipment soft box photographers Studio celebrity portraits， Hong Kong )

SAMPLE SOFT BOX PICS

*Shot with a 400W Continuous Flourescent Light

*Shot with a 400W Continuous Flourescent Light

SAMPLE UMBRELLA PICKS 

*Shot with a Profoto Large White umbrella with a Godox EX 600W Compact Monolight.

Both the sample softbox pics and the umbrella pic were shot with the light + light shaping tool up close to the subject.  Which do you prefer? 

Tags ( softboxes Profoto Umbrella susan li Samples Studio )

Well the truth of the matter is that like everything else in Photography there isn't a correct answer.  It's really a preference and although this preference does make the subject look and feel different, you can't really say which is the right way or which method is the correct use of equipment.  It's like lighting, could you say Loop lighting is correct and Rembrandt is wrong?  You can't... it's a style and a method which can be applied in any circumstance.

Even with that said though you could say that there are times when certain equipment is more often used then others (maybe you can consider that to be the reason to consider it to be the correct answer but I wouldn't).

Generally speaking an umbrella has a wider light spread than a softbox, and this is true whether you are choosing to use a shoot through umbrella or a reflective umbrella.  With softboxes, the distance of the light falloff is much shorter.  Umbrellas generally give a greater contrast while softboxes like its name, gives you a softer effect that softens even the shadows.

One general characteristic you will find in umbrellas that is not as problematic compared with softboxes is to do with "hotspots".  With umbrellas you tend to get "hotspots" (where lights concentrate in the middle of the area lit), and with softboxes because the light is more contained by the way it spreads (due to the construction of a softbox and the diffusor), you tend to get a more even light on the lit area (the downside is greater light falloff (meaning greater distances between the light and subject will have significant drop in light).

I have seen people use softboxes to light up a close up portrait and then again I have seen people use an umbrella to do the same with the similar amazing results.  Once you have experience with softboxes and umbrellas you will understand that you can't really categorize one for certain specific scenario because it depends on many variables you are shooting for.

Ex. I would never use umbrellas to shoot products, but I have seen people use umbrellas to shoot products.  I never use a softbox to light a face (mainly because I believe the contrast which an umbrella gives to shadows sculpts a subjects face giving it much more definition than a softbox), but I have seen many great photographers light up a face with a softbox.  The only time I may use a softbox to light up a subject's face is probably during a glamour shot for a cosmetics ad.  In this case I want the skin to be smooth and shadows and dark contrast may not be something the client wants.

In this photograph of Bloomberg Anchor Susan Li, the photo was shot with a Photek Softlighter II.  This umbrella is often used by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz and that especially during the Louis Vuitton Campaign shot by Leibovitz.  The Softlighter II is a bounce shoot through umbrella.  The main reason for it's popularity is due to its short light falloff distance, and the softness it produces while retaining a strong contrast between shadows and highlights. 

Tags ( photek softlighter II umbrellas softboxes bloomberg susan li )