DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> What's your opinion: lighting
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/31/2009 09:02:01 PM · #1
I came across this article about lighting. Unfortunately I did not get the site or the author in my 'copy to clipboard' but I did get this:

"Funny you should ask about lighting. I know the trend is for the 'strobist' approach and that a lot of new photographers tend to lean towards what is talked about most. But I prefer a constant light source. Some refer to it as hot lights and some refer to it as a pain in the a$$. But I prefer to think of it as a more natural approach. If you shoot someone using the Strobist ideals (techniques) then the person is cold and shocked when the flash appears. Even the most seasoned models cannot get away from this. The hair sticks up more and is more prominent. The person is on the verge of tenseness all the time anticipating the flash. With a constant light source, sure the room may be warmer and the air a bit thicker. But the model is relaxed. The skin is more relaxed. There is definitely a lot less time spent in post trying to correct things like skin hair and shadows - especially on the face. You let a person relax under the lights for a bit and talk to them about feeling the sunshine on a beach and their expression is much more relaxed. Use flashes and attempt the same thing and I bet I can tell you which is which every time."

How do you feel?

NOTE: I wish I knew who said this. If someone read the same article as I did I would appreciate a citation to the original. I know this was 'clipped' within the last two weeks. Just did not get enough to remind me where I got it from or who said it.
12/31/2009 09:26:37 PM · #2
I would expect a professional model, or anyone that works in such an environment, would be completely used to strobes. There could be some validity to the theory, however.
01/01/2010 01:09:40 AM · #3
I don't buy into that at all. Not that there is anything wrong with constant lighting, in fact the contrary. But they are hot and make models very uncomfortable because to get the output of a strobe without sacrificing f-stops, they have to be very close. Another thing that is a negative for me is the model's pupils are smaller due to the brightness in the room. Personally, I prefer larger pupils and keep my studio lit dimly during shoots. I have not worked with the new cool florescent lights so I don't know how bright they are but the eye thing doesn't change.

As for the strobist style, I like that for some subjects. Seniors love it. Hard rim lighting, multi-directional strobes, dramatic highlights, etc. all have their place. But I still prefer more traditional softbox lighting.
01/01/2010 01:46:54 AM · #4
I have worked for a very very long time using hot-lights. Hated them. I now use strobes and if I can help it never go back. Hot-lights can be useful, but they suck to use. I shot about 10X more images using hot-lights to capture what I wanted then i do with strobes. I maybe even shoot less with strobes then that.

Point is though, everything has their place. For me, hot-lights will remain in the garage to work on the truck.
01/01/2010 02:38:19 AM · #5
Interesting comments. I haven't got enough experience to say true or false. I would think that 'strobist' flash strobes lacking modelling lights would be harder to work with, because you don't get to see the shadows before they happen, and they require lots more chimping to get the adjustment right. As for models, perhaps the strobist setups are the cheap way to do things, and more often done with cheap/free models. If you are comparing high-end strobe results, you are probably also comparing to high-end expensive models and photographers, who are more able to get the right look from the model.
01/01/2010 03:36:55 AM · #6
Originally posted by surfdabbler:

Interesting comments. I haven't got enough experience to say true or false. I would think that 'strobist' flash strobes lacking modelling lights would be harder to work with, because you don't get to see the shadows before they happen, and they require lots more chimping to get the adjustment right. As for models, perhaps the strobist setups are the cheap way to do things, and more often done with cheap/free models. If you are comparing high-end strobe results, you are probably also comparing to high-end expensive models and photographers, who are more able to get the right look from the model.


I don't use strobist stuff, I use AlienBee's 800 so I cannot say nuffin about strobist stuff exactly.
01/01/2010 09:43:39 AM · #7
I'm not a lighting expert but i think the strobist way is the way to start out weather its the best way or not. A flash on or off camera is better than the built in flash so in my opinion every one should have 1 and learn how to use it,so since we have 1 to start why not expand on that to start in lighting?they are very portable and easy to carry around which means you use them more. learn more. as for bothering the model and not being able to see the light before hand by the time you fire the flash 10 or so times to see the results i think the model will be getting used to it? Every tool has its place but you need to use it and learn how to use it well for it to be of any use.
01/01/2010 11:09:54 AM · #8
Originally posted by surfdabbler:

Interesting comments. I haven't got enough experience to say true or false. I would think that 'strobist' flash strobes lacking modelling lights would be harder to work with, because you don't get to see the shadows before they happen, and they require lots more chimping to get the adjustment right. As for models, perhaps the strobist setups are the cheap way to do things, and more often done with cheap/free models. If you are comparing high-end strobe results, you are probably also comparing to high-end expensive models and photographers, who are more able to get the right look from the model.


When you gain more experience, you will instinctively know where the shadows will be. Until then, a few activations with the flash will show them to you. When I use portable flashes, my Nikon SB-800s have a modeling light that is activated by pressing a button - I don't know about other brands. I never use it unless I need an emergency flashlight though - and then only for a short time as they will get hot.

I would have to disagree with your assessment that models and photographers who are involved with strobist setups are cheap/inexperienced, not true at all. It's all about the look the photographer wants to achieve. There are many well known and "high end" photographers who regularly go out with portable strobes. Google Joe McNally for just one example.
01/01/2010 11:55:16 AM · #9
Originally posted by Gatorguy:

Originally posted by surfdabbler:

Interesting comments. I haven't got enough experience to say true or false. I would think that 'strobist' flash strobes lacking modelling lights would be harder to work with, because you don't get to see the shadows before they happen, and they require lots more chimping to get the adjustment right. As for models, perhaps the strobist setups are the cheap way to do things, and more often done with cheap/free models. If you are comparing high-end strobe results, you are probably also comparing to high-end expensive models and photographers, who are more able to get the right look from the model.


When you gain more experience, you will instinctively know where the shadows will be. Until then, a few activations with the flash will show them to you. When I use portable flashes, my Nikon SB-800s have a modeling light that is activated by pressing a button - I don't know about other brands. I never use it unless I need an emergency flashlight though - and then only for a short time as they will get hot.

I would have to disagree with your assessment that models and photographers who are involved with strobist setups are cheap/inexperienced, not true at all. It's all about the look the photographer wants to achieve. There are many well known and "high end" photographers who regularly go out with portable strobes. Google Joe McNally for just one example.


When I was in photo school, I took classes from Mark Kauffman, a long time photographer for Life and Sports Illustrated magazine. His approach was to use what works, including a wired/wireless triggers & Vivitar 285's etc waaaaay before there was a "strobist" or even digital photography for that matter.
01/01/2010 12:15:29 PM · #10
Originally posted by rider:

I'm not a lighting expert but i think the strobist way is the way to start out weather its the best way or not. A flash on or off camera is better than the built in flash so in my opinion every one should have 1 and learn how to use it,so since we have 1 to start why not expand on that to start in lighting?they are very portable and easy to carry around which means you use them more. learn more. as for bothering the model and not being able to see the light before hand by the time you fire the flash 10 or so times to see the results i think the model will be getting used to it? Every tool has its place but you need to use it and learn how to use it well for it to be of any use.


ridiculous!
01/01/2010 12:24:37 PM · #11
I think it's odd to suggest that the 'strobist' movement is what's pulling people from continuous light. I would say that the standard for many years has been traditional studio strobes and the strobist movement is simply making those capabilities more accessible and much more portable. All the concerns with strobist style light highlighted in that article would also apply to traditional strobe lighting. Continuous lights have traditionally be used in some aspects of fashion photography, and maybe a few other areas, where the photographer needed to capture movement (some motion blur). Hot lights were fairly impractical for smaller studios because of the heat generated and that risks that creates. I would say that we are now starting to see some movement towards continuous light from full spectrum fluorescent sources. Fluorescents don't put out as much light as some traditional hot lights, but newer digital cameras perform much better at higher ISO that film or older digital equipment. Continuous light can be easier for subjects/models and photographers. Subjects will know where the light is and photographers can look for nuance and detail that can be hard to see with modeling lights. Continuous can also be used for video, which seems to be of growing interest to even the most stubborn still photographers (including me).

1. Strobist style lighting (compact flash balanced with existing light) is fantastic when working on location.
2. Traditional studio strobes have advantages in a studio. The modeling lights are a huge benefit when there is no directional exiting light to work with and there are more light modifiers to create interesting light and avoid spill.
3. Continuous light from fluorescent has a lot of potential in the studio but it's expensive and much less portable than traditional studio equipment.

There really isn't one lighting technology or approach that's best.
01/01/2010 12:55:06 PM · #12
Originally posted by littlegett:

Originally posted by rider:

I'm not a lighting expert but i think the strobist way is the way to start out weather its the best way or not. A flash on or off camera is better than the built in flash so in my opinion every one should have 1 and learn how to use it,so since we have 1 to start why not expand on that to start in lighting?they are very portable and easy to carry around which means you use them more. learn more. as for bothering the model and not being able to see the light before hand by the time you fire the flash 10 or so times to see the results i think the model will be getting used to it? Every tool has its place but you need to use it and learn how to use it well for it to be of any use.


ridiculous!


and how so? or are you just trolling for a responce?
01/01/2010 04:23:00 PM · #13
Any post with a personal attack will be deleted in a few minutes...so edit them.

And refrain from making them. You can debate an issue without assailing each other's character.
01/01/2010 05:07:15 PM · #14
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Any post with a personal attack will be deleted in a few minutes...so edit them.

And refrain from making them. You can debate an issue without assailing each other's character.


Saying Im Trolling for a response is not an assault on my character? Really? Shezz thanks for nothing.
01/01/2010 05:36:29 PM · #15
To be honest, I didn't see anything that was out of line here except maybe the "trolling for response" comment but even that was pretty benign - IMO. Granted a better choice might have been to explain the why of the "ridiculous" comment and/or the reply to that could be been "explain why you think so". But I can understand why Rider might have had his feathers ruffled a bit by the abruptness of the comment.
01/01/2010 06:56:44 PM · #16
I think whoever wrote the original comment in the OPs first post doesn't really have a clue.

Models worth their salt aren't going to be fazed if you pull out a 1970s Vivitar or a lighting kit made up of 7 Profotos.
01/01/2010 07:49:18 PM · #17
frankly i didn't mean anything other than what was said for someone to make such a comment without any kind of other comment ,to me just seemed like he was trying to stir things up. Wasn't meant to be any kind of personal attack.if you wish you may delete the entire thing if you feel that is the correct thing to do. not a problem
01/01/2010 08:29:49 PM · #18
Originally posted by Tez:

I think whoever wrote the original comment in the OPs first post doesn't really have a clue.

Models worth their salt aren't going to be fazed if you pull out a 1970s Vivitar or a lighting kit made up of 7 Profotos.


That was my first reaction and exactly why I copied the quote. But as I know not much of lighting and I knew this community did, I posted what I salvaged of the article to try and get some opinions and responses. Certainly not meant to pit one group over the over. I have 'hot lights' and it is all I have ever had. From using them even I feel they are not always the best or even close to the best approach for many situations - especially live models. But for tent work they have suited me fine. I posted in hopes of garnering opinions from all sides. In the interest of learning of course.

ETA: Last sentence.

Aslo E'edTA: I love my party hat! (even if only good for today)

Message edited by author 2010-01-01 23:10:14.
01/01/2010 09:23:56 PM · #19
Originally posted by Gatorguy:

To be honest, I didn't see anything that was out of line here except maybe the "trolling for response" comment but even that was pretty benign - IMO. Granted a better choice might have been to explain the why of the "ridiculous" comment and/or the reply to that could be been "explain why you think so". But I can understand why Rider might have had his feathers ruffled a bit by the abruptness of the comment.


No my explanation of my opinion of why I thought what he said was ridiculous was deleted. Simply because in my opinion I felt he was a putz for calling me a troll. I will not rewrite what I wrote because I feel the as though I was dealt with unfairly having the entire post deleted because of my opinion.

(TAKE NOTE, I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE ANY NAMES OR INSULTING ANYONE'S CHARACTER IN THIS POST)
01/01/2010 10:34:08 PM · #20
My advice is to not take everything in a discussion to heart or personally. But if you are inflamed by someone response, the correct response would be to either ignore it or report it. Not to respond in kind or worse.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:42:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 01:42:34 PM EDT.