Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by bumblepuppy, Apr 2, 2008.
new video on youtube i saw trough the strobist site.
Nice little video, but it didn't really teach us anything, or 'share the knowledge'.
The most critical part was when he was checking his results on the LCD screen and spotting the shadow under the chin. The final results show plenty of shadow under the chin anyway, so perhaps he didn't know how to correct the lighting? Nice photographs. Nice little video, but a distinct lack of sharing any knowledge other than renting a Honda 3K generator for $50 a day. I'd invest in a purchase at that rate. They're tough little generators that last forever.
I suspect if he knew how to use light meter properly he may have been able to correct the shadows under the chins. Digital hasn't made the light meter redundant. It remains a very useful thing for understanding light.
i think you're wrong, there's a ton of info in there for someone whose never used strobes.
and look at his photos...they're amazing.
That video was good, I liked it.
And he just exudes good vibes and karma. I like his philosophy. Help others get ahead and you'll get ahead.
His photos are amazing. I'd say he knows a little about photography.
I'm just 1:53 into it and already learned something... be as self-sufficient as possible. I have a lot to learn... I'll be the first to admit it.
How much of the final image is the lighting vs post production? They almost have an HDR feel to them.
I would LOVE to do this type of work but it seems like it'd be very expensive to get into.
Why aren't there more of these instructional videos available. I mean, I spent a few bucks (quite a few) a couple of years ago to take an online lighting course at BetterPhoto.com and aside from the information that you could pick up in a book I really thought the course was lacking the working end of lighting. Like Prihoda shows the equipment ( he could have been more detailed for my taste, but that could be in lesson 2 ) and where it is set up.
Someone could actually do a whole course on lighting this way. Heck, do a whole series of courses. Does that give anyone who knows something here on this forum some ideas??? Perhaps it should...
Do you guys know what kind of lighting he uses to get the photos?
I'm sure there are already many out on the web. The problem is quality. The link in the opening post is very good in many ways. However, it didn't teach me anything and I would like to have seen the practical solution to the one lighting problem he mentioned (shadows under the chin). He makes a good presenter - very few people do. The production values aren't great, but they're good enough.
It's fairly enjoyable viewing and works well as a self-promotion tool for himself. I think the quality problem isn't going to be easily overcome. We all expect to much for free on the net and quality costs.
I've been trying to find time and money to produce a small travel/photography/art and culture interactive web based magazine programme, but the costs, time and planning are horrendous even if the equipment is dirt cheap these days.
I think we can expect a bulk of rubbish photography video tutorials. Hopefully the good ones won't get drowned in the quagmire of the web.
To put a good tutorial together with people with the necessary skills to make a good production is to cost prohibitive. Being a good photographer and good presenter doesn't make you a good teacher. Knowing how to get impressive location portraits with big lights isn't enough unless you know how to explain why you got the results you got - not just a move them around until it works approach.
That said, the idea of a monthly web magazine featuring a quality video tutorial that manages to attract 10,000 subscribers at $3 an episode, or $30 a year is not unfeasible. Far from it. So why isn't it happening already?
$30,000/month should be more than enough to create a quality 10 minute video tutorial that is both entertaining and educational.
Is it simply because we all expect everything on the net to be for free?
Separate names with a comma.