What equipment would I need to set up a studio?

[Gray_T]

I am wanting to set up a room as a little studio.
As I am very new to all this I would appreciate some advice on how to go about it and what equipment I would need.
Any Ideas, information, do's and dont's, brands to aviod ect would be Greatly appreciated.
Cheers

[jdear]

What do you want to photograph in the studio? People, products, cars, dogs, bats etc?

Are you looking for a system you can grow into (heads that also run off battery packs for mobile operation etc) or just a cheaper system to learn the basics?

[Gray_T]

I am wanting to do portraits. And I think I would be better with some thing to grow with/into..I have learnt one big lesson so far that good exuipment eg tripod makes photos much better. I was told by a APP photographer that its all about the light and after that chatt I am so aware of light and how it is an essential part of photoraphy. I am currently using no flash just natural light an enjoying the challenge but would like to have the ability to photograph no matter what mother nature is up to for the day.
Cheers

[gstark]

I have learnt one big lesson so far that good exuipment eg tripod makes photos much better.

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. Your photographic equipment is merely a kit oftools, and better tools may help, but a shitty photographer with great gear will still be a shitty photographer.

And a good photographer with shitty gear will still be a good photographer, and will make way better images than the shitty photographer with the good gear.

I was told by a APP photographer that its all about the light

Yep. Consider that the word "photography" literally means "painting with light".

How long have you been making images? How well do you understand exposure? The relationship between ISO, shutter speeds and aperture? How apertures work? Depth of field? Depth of focus? Composition? Posing? Lens usage? How comfy are you with the functionality of your camera. In M mode?

I'm not suggesting that you need to know all about all of these (and more) but it will certainly help.

That said, I would probably start looking at a small lighting kit which will be enough to get you started, and let you experiment and learn, without burying too much of your bank balance.

[Glen]

Gray, I would agree with Gary, you don't say what you have at all, but assuming you have a digital slr camera, flash and tripod I would suggest a very modest lighting kit and practice, practice, practice. That will let you know what extra gear your need if any. With the advent of digital slr, practice is quite inexpensive on materials. As Henri Catrier-Bresson said "your first 10,000 photos are your worst". (or in my case the first 100,000! )

[Gray_T]

I agree that they are only tools however good tools enable good work, I brought a cheap tripod and it was very infexible and would wobble, that my reasoning behind buying good exuipment.Bit like a chef using blunt knifes,
I did a yr a tafe did not get to comlete the second due to having babies (for 4 yrs) not long completed a short course to refresh. I use a Nikon d50 that I have had for the past 3yrs. I only shoot in manual with the exception of the first photo being in p. I have a good knowledge of my camera and the settings, but as always there is more to learn evey time you take a photograph. Thanks for your help will look at a cheapy and go from there.
Thanks for your ideas.Cheers

[gstark]

I agree that they are only tools however good tools enable good work,

Well, no.

They can certainly help one to produce good work more easily, but its one's technique one's skills, one's understanding of light, that is of primary importance here.

I brought a cheap tripod and it was very infexible and would wobble,

I might contend that that tripod was too flexible, which is why it would wobble.

that my reasoning behind buying good exuipment.Bit like a chef using blunt knifes,

Yes, but please do not lose sight of the objective. You have a D50. These days it's viewed as an older generation camera, but in which way does that diminish its capabilities? it is still a very competent camera with heaps of features.

Sure, it may be nicer to use a D300 or a D700, but in which way would changing the camera make you take better images? Please read those words very carefully before you answer.

Let's get back to the poor quality tripod: by all means replace it. Maybe with a better tripod. Maybe with a monopod. Maybe with a beanbag. Maybe with good handholding technique.

There you have four different answers to the same problem. Each of those answers is correct within the context I have presented them, but here's a thought: you could be using a $1500 tripod with a great ballhead, and you can, through poor technique, still screw up your image: I'm confident I could induce camera shake into any camera on any tripod setup through the use of poor technique. And I'm equally confident that, by using good technique, I can shoot, handheld, and get an image free of camera shake using a shutter speed of 1/15. I've handheld at a half second using VR, but that's a different game again.

I have a good knowledge of my camera and the settings,

Ok, good.

What about lenses? Fields of view? The impact of the crop sensor on how the lenses work?

In your initial post, you made reference to a discussion you'd had with somebody, who made mention of the fact that it's all about the light. Did your TAFE course cover any aspects of that? I would have thought that to be a rather high priority, but from reading your posts in this thread, it seems to not have been the case.

And finally, please do not get me wrong: I encourage you to get the best equipment that you can justify and afford. But please, do not go around thinking that it's about the equipment. It is not: it's about you.

[DJT]

Geez Gary, you must really be having a bad day.
Gray was asking what seems to be a simple question on wanting to set up a small room as a studio & wants some advice on lights.
Surely with your vast experience you could give a bit more advice on the question being asked instead of going off on a completely different tangent. Sorry if this offends but I odn't feel you are giving Gray a fair go.

[gstark]

Gray was asking what seems to be a simple question

I'm sorry, but I don't consider it to be a simple question at all.

There was no mention at all in the original post of the word "lights", but there was mention of the word "studio" and also of the term "new to all this". There was no mention of any equipment already on hand, nor any other mention of any level of understanding or knowledge already acquired, and without that sort of data, it is not possible to say "get this" or "get that", as we don't have any knowledge of the individual's starting point.

In their second post in this thread, the OP makes mention of "tripod", "no flash" and "natural light". Your presumption that this is simply about wanting advices on lights is, I believe, misplaced.

Surely with your vast experience you could give a bit more advice on the question being asked instead of going off on a completely different tangent.

In fact, that is precisely what I have done. Setting up a studio is not about simply buying a light or three, and throwing them into a room. The sad fact is that today, with the advent of quality DSLRs at very inexpensive price points, every man and his dog thinks that because they can make an image that is in focus and somewhat correctly exposed, that means that they're a photographer. The OP's statements "that good exuipment eg tripod makes photos much better" seems to me to reflect this point of view, and if they hold this perception, it needs to be nipped in the bud. Seriously.

I'm not suggesting that they do, in fact, hold that PoV; their statements, taken in context, do not indicate this to me, but the fact remains that this is a widespread belief, and it would be remiss of me to permit them to think that setting up a studio means buying a good tripod and away they go!

That is simply not the case, and there are many diverse skills that need to be learned.

Further: the statement is made that he (or she) owns a D50, but we have no knowledge of what glass is owned. With that knowledge, what glass would you suggest they acquire for use in the studio?

I simply cannot answer that question, and even with the knowledge of the glass that they currently have, I would also like to know the size of the room - the space available - to offer meaningful advice on this, as some lenses may simply be too long to be of any practical use within smaller spaces.

Sorry if this offends but I odn't feel you are giving Gray a fair go.

it doesn't offend me at all: many people have tried, and failed. But it is you whom I believe has misread this post, and my responses. I simply don't want people to think that they need to buy some lights or a better camera or a netter tripod to make them a better photographer. Do you believe they should?

[aim54x]

I'm with Gary on this one, good equipment only makes the job easier (really only if you know how to use it). As for a studio setup for a small room for portraiture, can I ask a few questions that will make it easier for all involved?

-you have a D50, dont use flash, what lenses do you have?
-you mention that you like available light photography, how well lit is this room?
-are you thinking of a lighting kit?

If I was to start from scratch with glass I would look at fast prime for portraiture, 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 and a good zoom (my 24-70mm f/2.8 or something similar) if the room is small then the longer lenses (70-200mm f/2. will be too long to be useful most of the time.

On the topic of lights, I have no clue, but I do use a few flashes (SB-800 and SB-600) which I connect wirelessly (some people find Nikon CLS troublesome, but I do not have any issues with it other than range) have you considered this solution? If the room is well lit then maybe a good reflector or two may be all you need unless you want to shoot after dark.

Cheers

[DJT]

There was no mention at all in the original post of the word "lights",

You are correct, that's what I get for speed reading while at work. and I made an assumption, because Gray mentioned that the studio would be used when natural lighting was not adequate(my interpretation)


However, as with written comments interpretation can be misunderstood (i am a perfectly good example), i just don't get the direction you have taken, when I feel you (and others) have the experience to offer suggetions for and against of what a beginner could use in setting up a studio (Lights, Tripod, whatever), then they could hopefully use their better judgement as to what they require and how much $$$ they can or can't spend.

Further: the statement is made that he (or she) owns a D50, but we have no knowledge of what glass is owned. With that knowledge, what glass would you suggest they acquire for use in the studio?

I simply cannot answer that question, and even with the knowledge of the glass that they currently have, I would also like to know the size of the room - the space available - to offer meaningful advice on this, as some lenses may simply be too long to be of any practical use within smaller spaces.

Wouldn't it have been better to ask these questions earlier on in the piece then

I simply don't want people to think that they need to buy some lights or a better camera or a netter tripod to make them a better photographer. Do you believe they should?

Not at all, I find it hard to believe that people would do that, but I guess some do

[ATJ]

However, as with written comments interpretation can be misunderstood (i am a perfectly good example), i just don't get the direction you have taken, when I feel you (and others) have the experience to offer suggetions for and against of what a beginner could use in setting up a studio (Lights, Tripod, whatever), then they could hopefully use their better judgement as to what they require and how much $$$ they can or can't spend.

I believe the tack that Gary is taking here fits with the old adage: "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a meal, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" (of course until he's exhausted the fish stock ).

It is better to make sure people understand the basic principles involved and so they can make logical decisions based on those principles than just giving them advice which may be valid for this very moment but loses its relevance very quickly.

Wouldn't it have been better to ask these questions earlier on in the piece then

Um, check Gary's first post. He did ask a bunch of questions.

[gstark]

There was no mention at all in the original post of the word "lights",

You are correct, that's what I get for speed reading while at work. and I made an assumption, because Gray mentioned that the studio would be used when natural lighting was not adequate(my interpretation)

And actually, that's also not quite what was said. The interpretation I took was that they wanted to make images regardless of whatever the natural light might be. But within any room, the "natural" light might include window light, which might include direct sunlight, or a nicely diffused southlight, and may or may not be supplemented by roomlighting. While the term "mother nature"was specifically mentioned, we often, within the context of indoors shooting, forget to realise that there are some internal lights that may be affecting what we're actually seeing and recording.

We haven't yet taken the discussion down that path (or at least I haven't) and for a very good reason; I'll come to that later in this post.

i just don't get the direction you have taken, when I feel you (and others) have the experience to offer suggetions for and against of what a beginner could use in setting up a studio (Lights, Tripod, whatever), then they could hopefully use their better judgement as to what they require and how much $$$ they can or can't spend.

Ok, it's later now.

I'm not a salesperson, and I refuse to simply go down the typical sales oriented path of trying to tell a person what I think they need. Not without doing a little bit of digging first. I like to understand the real problem first, and it's the real problem that I try to address, rather than the problem a person thinks they might be facing.

We see that frequently here, where people ask questions about a solution they're trying to find. Sometimes, we can address that and no worries, but too often we need to take a step back and look at the fundamental problem, rather than a pre-conceived solution. This is one such case.

But there's more; I see myself as an educator as well. I know a few others here also see themselves in a similar manner, and that is good. Within that context, any education being proferred needs to be done, IMHO, in smallish chunks, a little at a time, and especially so via a medium such as this. I need to know that the message I'm offering is being understood by the intended recipient, and that means that I need to go perhaps a little more slowly than might seem reasonable. I try very hard to tread a line between not being condescending towards that intended recipient, but I still need to know where they're at.

The underlying precept though is that to give the best advice, I need to know certain items, but I am of the opinion that the recipient needs to be able to understand where I'm coming from when I ask my questions. That might mean that I may ask some pointed questions, but I've not asked anything in this thread that I would not ask of a person directly to their face. The difference though is that, if I asked these questions directly, we'd be done in less than two minutes. The nature of the forums, and individuals' access to them, says that sometimes this two minute dialogue will take three days or a even a week. That's not an issue for me. I can wait.

If you look carefully at the questions, you might observe that I'm trying to direct thoughts on the part of the recipient: I want them - I need them - to seriously think about where they want to take their photography. This adds value and depth to the discussion, rather than detracts from it, IMHO.

Further: the statement is made that he (or she) owns a D50, but we have no knowledge of what glass is owned. With that knowledge, what glass would you suggest they acquire for use in the studio?

I simply cannot answer that question, and even with the knowledge of the glass that they currently have, I would also like to know the size of the room - the space available - to offer meaningful advice on this, as some lenses may simply be too long to be of any practical use within smaller spaces.

Wouldn't it have been better to ask these questions earlier on in the piece then

No, not really. Again, the underlying "problem" hasn't yet been fully identified. I still don't fully understand the question, and I don't think that gray_t does either. We have yet, for instance, to understand why they want to set up a small studio: what's their motivation for this?

And no, I don't think that's me being disrespectful towards anyone either. I do accept that many people would like to have a small "studio" in their home, whatever that might mean. I do also believe that many people would also like to be professional photographers. I also happen to believe that many people are of the belief that they're far better photographers than they actually are, and that is what leads to the two former points in this paragraph.

I'm perfectly happy to answer the questions, but I do like to try to answer the correct questions.

I simply don't want people to think that they need to buy some lights or a better camera or a netter tripod to make them a better photographer. Do you believe they should?

Not at all, I find it hard to believe that people would do that, but I guess some do

More than you might believe.

[gstark]

However, as with written comments interpretation can be misunderstood (i am a perfectly good example), i just don't get the direction you have taken, when I feel you (and others) have the experience to offer suggetions for and against of what a beginner could use in setting up a studio (Lights, Tripod, whatever), then they could hopefully use their better judgement as to what they require and how much $$$ they can or can't spend.

I believe the tack that Gary is taking here fits with the old adage: "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a meal, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" (of course until he's exhausted the fish stock ).

Exactly.

Mind you, the fish stock is very useful as a base for making miso soup.

It is better to make sure people understand the basic principles involved and so they can make logical decisions based on those principles than just giving them advice which may be valid for this very moment but loses its relevance very quickly.

Wouldn't it have been better to ask these questions earlier on in the piece then

Um, check Gary's first post. He did ask a bunch of questions.

I believe I did. Too many questions at once only leads to overload, too. It's often better to take these things a little slowly. Drip feed, as it were.

[DJT]

But there's more; I see myself as an educator as well. I know a few others here also see themselves in a similar manner, and that is good. Within that context, any education being proferred needs to be done, IMHO, in smallish chunks, a little at a time, and especially so via a medium such as this. I need to know that the message I'm offering is being understood by the intended recipient, and that means that I need to go perhaps a little more slowly than might seem reasonable. I try very hard to tread a line between not being condescending towards that intended recipient, but I still need to know where they're at.

Fair enough, i guess i'm just tired & impatient today
our daughter has been crook & not sleeping (my problem not yours) so I will try tyo refrain from posting when in this condition from now on