DOMINICAN BLAZE

Idunno if you answer these kinds of questions, but I'm glad you're on tumblr doing your thing!! Thank you for your time!!

Sorry for the delayed response. I hope you don't mind, but I looked at some of the free photos on your Fansly. It looks like you have some really nice window light at your place.

You can actually leverage that as a light source. If you were to hang tracing paper in front of one or both of those windows, you'd essentially have two giant softboxes. The tracing paper would help give you some privacy and allow you to get closer to the light. You can also layer it if you need more diffusion. And tracing paper rolls are fairly inexpensive.

You could also use a white bedsheet or maybe a translucent shower curtain. I've also seen photographers use sheer curtains. You might even be able to make those look attractive and a permanent, convenient lighting tool.

I prefer tracing paper because it diffuses the light very uniformly while not knocking down the intensity a great deal. You can also DIY it into a frame that is easy to take on and off your window.

Then you can experiment with angling yourself towards and away from the window light, and I'm betting you could get some beautiful results. You could even use those windows as nice backlights.

I think the big mistake people make is that they don't realize how close lights need to be in order to look their best. Ring lights look best at only a foot or two away from the face. Their entire design philosophy was created because it was hard to get a camera close to something without it blocking the light. If the camera isn't in the way of the lighting, then you no longer need a ring light.

Even with the window light, you need to be as close as possible. Lights almost always need to be uncomfortably close.

The ring light is still useful. As long as it is close enough you can do some nice head and chest shots. But you can also modify the ring light to work as a normal photo light. A white shoot through umbrella can do wonders.

I literally just taped it to my ring light and got a much softer light.

As far as the smaller lamp, that probably isn't going to be great for a main light, but it could work as a backlight or an accent light. Regular light bulbs, even really bright ones, are nowhere near as powerful as video and photo lights (or the sun). So even if you bounce them off a wall or put diffusion near them, you'd have to be super duper close for them to do much. The little reflector will help concentrate and focus the light, giving it more power, but it will still be underpowered for good photos. You could try the umbrella trick and see if it gives you good results, but it might be hard to keep it attached. Especially when the lamp heats up.

However, if you use the lamp behind or off to the side of you, it could act as a nice warm rim light. Putting a nice highlight on the edge of your shoulders and hair. I still think it might be underpowered though. Which is why using it as an accent light in the background might be its best function.

I think people often neglect their backgrounds. But using lights to highlight shelves and cool objects is a great way to create a vibe with your background.

Gerald has some soft light coming in from the left and right of his background. He has some orange accent lights for his shelves. Thinking about your scene holistically can really elevate your photos.

I think the window lights with diffusion in front would give you the highest quality results with what you have now. But you can't take photos/videos at night.

I think if you are going to keep making photo and video content regularly, the best thing you could do is invest in a proper video light.

This is going to be a mouthful...

A COB LED continuous video light with a Bowens mount.

Because of the mount, you can turn this single light into any kind of light source you need. You can put an umbrella on it. You can put a softbox on it. It comes with a reflector that you can use to bounce it into the ceiling or off a wall.

The only downside is it can take up a bit of space when a modifier is attached. If you use an umbrella modifier, you can easily break it down when you aren't using it. But if you get a softbox, you will basically have this big light taking up space in the corner.

This one by Newwer is probably the cheapest that is still good quality.

It is a budget brand, but they have a decent reputation. If you are willing to spend a little more, you can get a Godox. The light will look the same, but they are a more mainstream brand. And if you want to make sure the light is dependable and long lasting, Amaran makes very high quality lights with solid components.

So, good, better, best as far as reliability. But the quality of the light will be about the same.

I think the Newwer is a good "first" video light. It is bright. It has a Bowens mount. And it is "bi-color." This means you can change the warmth of the light to match the other lights in your room. So if you have a lamp in the shot and it looks blue, you can choose a warmer color temp to match the lamp and make it look warm again. Or if you have sunlight streaming in through the windows, you can match the light to that as well.

You will need to do some learning for a light like this. But if you put a big umbrella or softbox in front of it, you will get nice, soft light without much effort. If you have the space, there is no more versatile light for your purposes.

As far as modifier options, since you probably want to do full body photos, the bigger the better.

If it were me, I'd get this one.

(You shouldn't get this one. I am a crazy lighting guy who likes crazy lighting stuff.)

The product photo gives no sense of scale, but it's literally the size of a mattress. You could light 2 people, head to toe, with nice soft light.

This one is a more reasonable size. It would be nice and soft for one person, but still acceptable for two people. It's still quite huge, but not "mattress" huge.

But most softboxes do not break down easily like umbrellas. While they are more suited for lighting entire bodies than a circular umbrella (they have less spill and more control), the big and unwieldy nature is not something everyone wants to deal with.

So a simple shoot through umbrella that breaks down easily is where I would recommend you start. And then you can upgrade to a softbox later on as you learn how to use the light more proficiently.

You can find umbrellas for 10-15 bucks on Amazon, but a high quality one isn't much more expensive.

And if you want to get something a little bigger...

This reverse umbrella is a very reasonable price for 7 feet of soft light goodness. It's nearly mattress size, but it breaks down for easier storage.

Oh and you'll need a light stand. Don't forget the light stand.

AND... then you can use your ring light for other things. It can be a hair light, or an edge light. You can do that cool halo effect I did.

So you'd have a 2 light setup with a lot of room to grow with various modifiers.

To review...

Window light with tracing paper or sheer curtains can give you beautiful light without much expense.

If you want to make use of your ring light, just add an umbrella to get soft light.

Use your lamp as an edge light or accent light in the background.

And if you want to invest in a powerful, versatile light, there is no better start than a COB LED continuous video light with a Bowens mount.

I'm also working on a post about why everyone should get a continuous video light.

And I mean *everyone*.

There is a crazy story by Vanity Fair about Trump staffers.

And some of the photography was... interesting.

Including these wild facial close ups.

There is ZERO retouching done on these. Which is very unusual for photos taken this close up. The expressions chosen are very odd. The lighting is a ring flash very far away (probably to create a catchlight in the eyes) and then another diffused light source from the side. The ring flash was placed below their eye line, so you get a tiny bit of that creepy uplighting like in a Frankenstein movie. And neither light source was placed very close so the harder light really shows every pore and wrinkle and lip filler injection site. (See: why hard light is bad for porn.)

Basically, he used the opposite of every technique one would employ to create a flattering photo.

But the reason I think this photographer twisted the knife to make these photos look worse was his use of white balance on Karoline Leavitt and Susie Wiles.

If you want to make someone look sickly and demonic, you make their skin tone less warm and add green. When I corrected the white balance on the photos, I discovered the photographer reduced warmth by about 15% and increased green by about 45%.

This is not a camera setting oopsie.

This is not artistic color grading.

This is a photographer thinking, "I'm gonna make these bitches green."

And when you see the photos adjusted to a neutral white balance, this act of photographic sabotage becomes clear.

The only other explanation would be that this photographer is incompetent. But when you look at his other portraits of them, they are quite well done and properly color graded.

His book was called "Stump" and he extensively used this close up style of photo with no retouching and unflattering light.

His photo of Hillary was... intense.

Everyone is talking about the extreme, crunchy detail but no one is talking about the green. I have searched a great deal of his portfolio and I could not find a single example of him making people green.

I think his book gave him the precedent to say, "This is just my thing!" But I do think there is subtext where he is like, "I made these fascist bitches green."

His quote about Steven Miller was very telling.