Shot From A Glamour Posing & Lighting Workshop

[Chris Stegner]

Lat night I went to a local studio for an "informal" posing & lighting lesson. I'm typically an outdoor shooter, barns, landscapes, covered bridges, outdoor music festivals. I've decided to try to learn some indoor studio type stuff and have a local studio that's really great at helping guys like me out. It's actually pretty cool... almost like a "Cheers" hangout for photogs!

Anyway, I took a few minutes at lunch and reviewed last night's stuff. Here's one that I did a quick edit on. I'm pretty happy with it, although to me the lighting seems "harsh", but I'm told that's because I'm used to seeing light through the "outdoor shooter's" eyes. They said they were teaching me "dramatic", "glamour" techniques. Once I look at it that way, I really do like it.

Any comments?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Lat night I went to a local studio for an "informal" posing & lighting lesson. I'm typically an outdoor shooter, barns, landscapes, covered bridges, outdoor music festivals. I've decided to try to learn some indoor studio type stuff and have a local studio that's really great at helping guys like me out. It's actually pretty cool... almost like a "Cheers" hangout for photogs!

Anyway, I took a few minutes at lunch and reviewed last night's stuff. Here's one that I did a quick edit on. I'm pretty happy with it, although to me the lighting seems "harsh", but I'm told that's because I'm used to seeing light through the "outdoor shooter's" eyes. They said they were teaching me "dramatic", "glamour" techniques. Once I look at it that way, I really do like it.

Any comments?

The photo has several problems. I would argue that the light is too harsh for the kind of subject matter this is. The light is placed too close to the wall, and the left side of the image is too bright for that reason; the wall's texture is also intrusive. The light was also placed too low, creating a projected shadow behind her. If the shadow is your subject matter (yes, it can be) this is fine, but I don't think that's what you had in mind here. So, the left side is too bright, and the right side is too dark.

Being dark-haired, it would have been better to have some light on the back side of her head.

So, all in all I would say it needs to be re-thought.

Also, why not a vertical?

It so happens I took a similar photograph in 1975. If you are thinking more of an abstraction, something like this photograph of mine below would be the result. It is not, however, an attempt at a portrait or glamour shot. I shoukld like to add the shadow was an important part of the composition.

 

[Early]

Lat night I went to a local studio for an "informal" posing & lighting lesson. I'm typically an outdoor shooter, barns, landscapes, covered bridges, outdoor music festivals. I've decided to try to learn some indoor studio type stuff and have a local studio that's really great at helping guys like me out. It's actually pretty cool... almost like a "Cheers" hangout for photogs!

Anyway, I took a few minutes at lunch and reviewed last night's stuff. Here's one that I did a quick edit on. I'm pretty happy with it, although to me the lighting seems "harsh", but I'm told that's because I'm used to seeing light through the "outdoor shooter's" eyes. They said they were teaching me "dramatic", "glamour" techniques. Once I look at it that way, I really do like it.

Any comments?

When you were shooting this, no doubt you could see into the shadows. Film, and apparently digital sensors, cannot do this. That's where fill light comes in.

 

[Derrel]

Lat night I went to a local studio for an "informal" posing & lighting lesson. I'm typically an outdoor shooter, barns, landscapes, covered bridges, outdoor music festivals. I've decided to try to learn some indoor studio type stuff and have a local studio that's really great at helping guys like me out. It's actually pretty cool... almost like a "Cheers" hangout for photogs!

Anyway, I took a few minutes at lunch and reviewed last night's stuff. Here's one that I did a quick edit on. I'm pretty happy with it, although to me the lighting seems "harsh", but I'm told that's because I'm used to seeing light through the "outdoor shooter's" eyes. They said they were teaching me "dramatic", "glamour" techniques. Once I look at it that way, I really do like it.

Any comments?

When you were shooting this, no doubt you could see into the shadows. Film, and apparently digital sensors, cannot do this. That's where fill light comes in.

AS pointed out by Early, there's a need for at least some fill light here. The way her left arm just disappears, abruptly, is not really flattering. This type of very strong sidelighting is causing that concrete wall's texture to show every bump and dimple...but we can't see the model's bumps very well...I have to agree with Petraio Prime that the lighting is emphasizing the concrete wall's texture very well,and is really quite distracting. Not sure if somebody associated with the workshop has given you C&C on this, but trying to convince you that your opinion of the lighting is invalid or ill-informed makes little sense, because even though glamour and boudoir photographers often make use of high ratio lighting, this lighting pattern is simply not working well in this photo,at all. Even an "outdoor shooter" has instincts and opinions, and anybody who tells you that this is good lighting is, IMHO, mistaken....this is like so much Strobist lighting, just aiming a flash in an umbrella at a person, and thinking the lighting is great,when it really is not great at all.

I'm not trying to insult you, but am actually trying to stick up for your opinion,and I concur with what I think is your subtly-stated question, which is, is this lighting actually good,and successful, or is the guy at the seminal full of BS...your instincts are correct Chris...this is unsuccessful lighting for this subject and this set.

 

[Idahophoto]

I also agree, this is not the best lighting for her and does a better job on the brick wall.