| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/19/2009 04:37:28 PM · #51 |
A few things come to mind after reading this thread...
Ben's subsequent posts (explanations/clarifications) should have been the blog entry in the first place and not the half-baked thing he threw down. I had trouble following it.
Being an internet Photo Guru isn't an easy job as Ken Rockwell and Pro-fate have proven. I'd suggest being The Buddha...more soft sell. Let people come to you. Not something I'm personally good at, I should add...but who's trying?
All for now.
Message edited by author 2009-07-19 20:14:10. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 04:52:14 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Umbrella's are perfectly fine and most certainly have their place. |
You realize he's talking about umbrellas used for lighting and not the ones held by grizzled homeless people and wide-eyed street urchins, right? ;P |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 05:02:04 PM · #53 |
| This is such an exhausting thread... pffffff. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 05:40:52 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by hanneke:
This is such an exhausting thread... pffffff. |
I agree ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/19/2009 06:00:00 PM · #55 |
Okay, I know it's POOR form to reply to your own question and try and change the topic back to something on topic but.... I am interested in anyone's comment on the differences between a large shoot-thru brolly and a panel covered with cloth (scrim?).... Anyone...
Originally posted by robs:
Just a question (serious, I am trying to understand this better)... I see your picture has a largish panel... how would you describe the difference in light from a large shoot-thru brolly to a panel? I would think they are similar... although the panel would spread less light I am guessing.... |
|
|
|
|
07/19/2009 06:30:24 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by robs:
Okay, I know it's POOR form to reply to your own question and try and change the topic back to something on topic but.... I am interested in anyone's comment on the differences between a large shoot-thru brolly and a panel covered with cloth (scrim?).... Anyone...
Originally posted by robs:
Just a question (serious, I am trying to understand this better)... I see your picture has a largish panel... how would you describe the difference in light from a large shoot-thru brolly to a panel? I would think they are similar... although the panel would spread less light I am guessing.... |
|
Well, I use both sometimes separately, sometimes together. It depends on how big your panel is, for one thing. The single most obvious difference in the image itself may simply be the nature and shape of the catchlights in the eyes.
Another big factor is distance from light to subject: equivalent area panel or brolly at a distance probably have a negligible difference, though the brolly by its shape is tending to cast some light to the sides, top, bottom (in shoot thru types).
A big panel is nice for several reasons, too. You can get more even coverage over a given area (if you are shooting full length or 3/4, for example). The most fun with either the brolly or the panel (for me, anyway) is to bring them in CLOSE to the subject, just out of frame: glorious soft, luminous, diffuse light. You can do amazing things with one brolly or panel and a reflector, white foam core. And the classic clamshell beauty light can be an umbrella or panel above, and another below (both in front) or a good reflector below.
I have at home both brollys and brolly-boxes: I like the box versions since they contain the light, and if in a small room/space with colored walls, I can minimize the bounced reflections off the walls, etc. But regular shoot-thru or convertible brollys are more flexible. In the studio we use softboxes, umbrellas, and semi-homemade 8 ft by 4 ft panels--lots of fun with each. I often set up a two or three light set up: brolly as key, panel as fill, then reverse, then turn each off completely one at a time. So with one set-up, I can get several different lighting looks just by changing the model's position, dialing the lights up/down/off.
I guess this is the Why I LIKE Brollys counter-post, eh? ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-07-19 18:34:55. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 06:39:17 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by robs:
Okay, I know it's POOR form to reply to your own question and try and change the topic back to something on topic but.... I am interested in anyone's comment on the differences between a large shoot-thru brolly and a panel covered with cloth (scrim?).... Anyone...
Originally posted by robs:
Just a question (serious, I am trying to understand this better)... I see your picture has a largish panel... how would you describe the difference in light from a large shoot-thru brolly to a panel? I would think they are similar... although the panel would spread less light I am guessing.... |
|
This is a pretty good website and a video: //www.prophotolife.com/2008/06/12/quick-video-2-umbrella-or-softbox/ |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 06:45:02 PM · #58 |
| I like the 50 inch square apollo softbox with a 1600 watt light in it myself... but since I can't afford that yet some vivitar 285hv's and a brolly have kept me going and are fun. Maybe it's not the perfect solution. Maybe it's not the best it could be but I'll take having my strobes and brollies over nothing anyday. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 07:00:46 PM · #59 |
Here is a shoot on You Tube with stylist Sascha Lilic at the beginning of the video. I am using the Bronica ETRSi for this shoot for SPOON magazine. Give you an idea of just one example of lighting I have used. Lit from below the plexi-glass panel plus a variation of this theme:
//www.pbase.com/benjikan/image/82925850
//www.pbase.com/benjikan/image/82926228
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0LFgPJHqhE&feature=related
|
|
|
|
07/19/2009 07:20:28 PM · #60 |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 07:25:12 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by robs:
Okay, I know it's POOR form to reply to your own question and try and change the topic back to something on topic but.... I am interested in anyone's comment on the differences between a large shoot-thru brolly and a panel covered with cloth (scrim?).... Anyone...
Originally posted by robs:
Just a question (serious, I am trying to understand this better)... I see your picture has a largish panel... how would you describe the difference in light from a large shoot-thru brolly to a panel? I would think they are similar... although the panel would spread less light I am guessing.... |
|
I believe the panels in Ben's diagrams are not reflective or lighting panels but rather light shields (probably black) to actually shield the light units from the camera and avoid spillage, like huge barn doors. Ben may want to correct me if I am wrong on this.
Message edited by author 2009-07-19 19:34:52. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 07:28:41 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by robs:
Okay, I know it's POOR form to reply to your own question and try and change the topic back to something on topic but.... I am interested in anyone's comment on the differences between a large shoot-thru brolly and a panel covered with cloth (scrim?).... Anyone...
Originally posted by robs:
Just a question (serious, I am trying to understand this better)... I see your picture has a largish panel... how would you describe the difference in light from a large shoot-thru brolly to a panel? I would think they are similar... although the panel would spread less light I am guessing.... |
|
I believe the panels in Ben's diagrams are not reflective or lighting panels but rather light shields (probably black) to actually shield the light units from the camera and avoid spillage, like of huge barn doors. Ben may want to correct me if I am wrong on this. |
You are exactly right as seen in the video link I posted.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2009 07:37:38 PM · #63 |
| Innocent question for Ben. Why don't you enter any challenges? I'm just curious. I would like to see some of your work (other than the models, which are very nice). |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 07:58:54 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by benjikan:
Originally posted by hanneke:
This is such an exhausting thread... pffffff. |
I agree ;-) |
Still hit me in the head... |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 08:04:30 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
IMO, this is a perfect example of why we scare some of the best talent away from this site. How is this different than Joey L selling his processing CD on this site? The nice thing here is that he is sticking around to engage into the conversation. Good for you Ben, keep them coming!
I too am no a huge fan of Umbrella's, especially in a non-studio setting. I think they are a pain in the butt from a logistic standpoint and generally offer utilitarian results. They do serve a purpose, without a doubt, but offer little to the creative result.
I look at umbrella's like I would a 20 year old mare. Very predictable and safe. Ride a mustang and you now have to think. It is during those "thinking" moments when some of the most memorable experiences are created.
I think it would be great if Ben would throw a few shots into challenges. It would serve us well to have this experience available to us. After reading some of this close minded garbage in this thread, I doubt he will.
Yeah where is Joey anyhow? I see we offer him an inspiring environment as well. ;-)
Chill out folks nobody is gonna play with you toys, its okay to share. |
I don't know anything about this Joey, but by the gods, I find myself agreeing with you on principle. That shouldn't happen.
Keep your posts going Ben. Who knows what I'll learn down the line, even if I don't agree with them all. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 09:11:22 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
I believe the panels in Ben's diagrams are not reflective or lighting panels but rather light shields (probably black) to actually shield the light units from the camera and avoid spillage, like huge barn doors. Ben may want to correct me if I am wrong on this. |
OIC... Yeah - I read the diag incorrectly as shoot thru which is why I was looking for a difference with someone who was against brollys but using shoot thru panels... because the effect looks similar to me.... but yeah that video shows the panels as flags (pick your words cause we all seem to use different ones) and that makes sense.
I have tried the white bed sheet deal very close and it's nice soft light but I tend top see no huge difference between that and a big shoot thru in close... I can see the full length that Chroma mentioned as obviously a diff for a panel with a couple of strobes behind it and obviously it depends on the size of the panel
Ok... Back to the village burning :-/. |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 09:45:12 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
A few things come to mind after reading this thread...
Ben's subsequent posts (explanations/clarifications) should have been the blog entry in the first place and not the half-baked thing he threw down. I had trouble following it.
Being an internet Photo Guru isn't an easy job as Ken Rockwell and Pro-fate have proven. I'd suggest being The Buddha...more soft sell. Let people come to you. Not something I'm personally good at, I should add...but who's trying?
All for now. |
What? |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 10:26:41 PM · #68 |
Sorry to hear about the umbrella lighting thing; but I will let you know that my Ford Pinto was the coolest car I ever owned. Wish I had it now, because it was a fun, little sturdy vehicle and would be a collectible if I still owned it today. Yes, they were produced with a certain number of anticipated deaths; but not more than a typical arthritis medication today.
Back to your regularly scheduled discussion:) |
|
|
|
07/19/2009 11:07:55 PM · #69 |
OP's thread starts to sound a bit Ken Rockwell'ish
or is that Rockwell'esk ...
|
|
|
|
07/20/2009 12:35:16 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by benjikan:
Why I HATE Umbrella Lighting...
If you want to get me to fall a sleep, just show me some images shot with umbrella lighting. Now I am not talking Richard Avedon, because Richard Avedon did a lot more than capture images with a single umbrella, he captured a moment that is so his signature, that anyone else attempting to copy would be dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of what Avedon accomplished.
Umbrella lighting is the 'WalMart' or the 'Ford Pinto' of lighting for me. It is the horrible gig at the Holiday Inn, where some dried up ex alcoholic is attempting to make a come back singing 'I will Survive" to a bunch of totally miserable accountants congregating for their annual convention.
Umbrella light is that really bad hair do or dress that can only be seen in some totally kitsch boutique in Boise, Idaho. It is that Wedding photo that we have all grown to, ah, hmmm, Love?
It smacks of hey, I am now a photographer because I now own a couple of studio lights and have to have this because if I don't I won't be considered credible and it will impress anyone who doesn't know any better and the bigger the better types...
Ah, give me that umbrella to be very, very safe and to not upset the REAL serious photographers out there that believe that you have to have a reflector to kick in some light in to "THAT" shadow area, otherwise it is NOT a technically good image.
What is even worse is that those who MUST HAVE an umbrella, will almost certainly have a..."Da Da, a Soft-box!!!" Now THAT is really impressive. Every time I see a set up with a soft-box and the "UMBRELLA" I pop the proverbial CHUBBY and have to sit down, as to not expose by excitement.
Now, if somebody were to say to me, "Hey check out what I did with this umbrella!" that would totally blow me away, I would be so F'ing pleased. But at this point in time, I have seen nothing but flat, boring, pedestrian, predictable, unassuming, dull and flat out knock me out with a VALIUM the size of a HOCKEY PUCK images.
Hey, but who knows. Given that surprises do happen, I'm open to the possibilities.
Surprise me.
|
I fart in your general direction. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 12:36:24 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by ralph:
OP's thread starts to sound a bit Ken Rockwell'ish
or is that Rockwell'esk ... |
Naw, he doesn't have the talent for Bull@Q#% that
Ken is so endowed with. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 12:56:16 AM · #72 |
I get Ben's point. His presentation may leave something to be desired, but he's right, typical umbrella lighting IS boooorrrring.
I, for one, appreciate his posts.
As for the idea that everyone learns to light with umbrellas, that's bullshit. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 01:31:01 AM · #73 |
maybe it's what people do with the umbrellas that's boring and leaving something to be desired?
A lot of the shots on Strobist are with umbrellas and I think they look cool. Surely it depends on the application and the context you are shooting in that defines somethings use? If you're doing fashion like Ben is then umbrellas might be on the top of his list for go-to equipment but they are useful in that they are portable, quick to set up and their predictability is not necessarily a bad thing- for press photogs it means you can think of the shoot ahead and not waste anyone's time getting the shot done so everyone can get on with their lives. Ergo you get the shots quicker, the paper gets the shot quicker
I read in one of his posts that he doesn't like them because they're predictable? Does that mean you go to shoots with a lighting system you can't predict, then screw about trying to make it predictable? That was a very weak argument in my book.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, but you came across sounding like an egotistical prick, which probably explains the backlash.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2009 01:46:34 AM · #74 |
To be honest the gear in his lighting setup diagrams cost more than what I earn in a few months. Personally I'd like to see what he could do with a single light and a reflector because that's all I have.
eta: Just to add: I've also ran into photogs who did portrait photography who shot with nothing but natural light and did so with incredible results. Now if I can only remember who they are...
Message edited by author 2009-07-20 01:49:54. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 02:56:28 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
....... I've also ran into photogs who did portrait photography who shot with nothing but natural light and did so with incredible results. Now if I can only remember who they are... |
Try  librodo |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/29/2024 07:35:35 AM EDT.
