A Filosophy of Flash

[o hey tyler]

O.K.

My post wasnt directed at you, designer. It was for the OP.

 

[amolitor]

Oh look, tyler's being dismissive again. It must be a day.

ETA: Seriously, this is lame. I post a simple "here's a way to think about flash" post, and I get a depressing number of responses that boil down to "U R DUM". I know TPF is open the "13 and up" but I'm pretty sure it's not the thirteen year olds acting like eight year olds.

 

[Designer]

My post wasnt directed at you, designer. It was for the OP.

O.K.

 

[Designer]

I post a simple "here's a way to think about flash" post, and I get a depressing number of responses

Actually, I wanted to respond yesterday, but I had to think about your OP more. As it is, I don't think I added anything to your hypothesis, just wanted you to know that I didn't simply blow it off completely.

 

[Heitz]

How about this:
All light is a natural phenomenon, but not all light is naturally produced (as in, readily available without human intervention). we can argue semantics for ever.

 

[amolitor]

There were also several responses I appreciated. If you were not actually thinking 'this guy is such a dumb****' when you were typing your reply, you may freely assume your response was in the "appreciated" pile.

Also, I dunno where the heck this business about 'artificial versus natural' came from. I think tirediron threw it in there for reasons beyond my ken. There's simply no explaining Canada.

 

[tirediron]

Light that requires electricity is "artificial" light. If the battery runs dead, and the light no longer comes out, it's artificial light. If electric current is what makes the light, it's artificial light. If the light source being used only became a reality in the 1930's, or the 1950's...it's artificial light. Pretty simple. Semantic games surrounding the idea that "all photos are natural" are tedious. Realllllly tedious. And stupid.

How about this:
All light is a natural phenomenon, but not all light is naturally produced (as in, readily available without human intervention). we can argue semantics for ever.

The reason that I so often stress the "all light is natural light" point (sources can be artificial, but a photon is a photon is a photon...) is because I think that this is one of the main reasons that so many people are apprehensive about learning to work with supplemental light. The term "natural light" just somehow seems to have a softer, kinder and more genteel "ring" to it, while "artificial" assumes an air of complicated and mysterious. We like sunlight because we're familiar with it (except those of us on the Wet Coast and certain parts of the UK - just the ones between Land's End and John O' Groats) so it seems like it should be easier to work with, when in fact that's not really the case.

 

[amolitor]

From the Dictionary of the Algonquin Language: Canada, adj. ​Inexplicable.

 

[tirediron]

From the Dictionary of the Algonquin Language: Canada, adj. ​Inexplicable.

Okay? And? :raisedbrow:

 

[Derrel]

"Artificial light" is a term that Kodak, and the rest of the photo industry has used for decades. The idea that "all light is natural" is idiotic. Facile. Sorry gryphonslair99, but the term artificial light means man-made light. Like "artificial flavoring" in food...if it needs batteries, or electricity to produce, the light is, obviously, artificial. Use a dictionary. Look up the word "artificial". See what it means. Then apply some brainpower, and the thing we call "language".

It's amazing what d**ks some people can be. Oh well, no big deal...I have a nice snack lined up...I plan on drinking a glass of my natural Pepsi~Cola, along with a bag of all-natural, organic Doritos nacho cheese corn chips (invented in the 1970's!), and watching some natural cable television, the way people did back in the Colonial American era. I looooove natural cable television programming!!! It's so....so..organic!!

As far as amolitor's "A filosophy of flash"....mmmm...okay...great...another construct from the man with the hat!! Yippie!!! Let's make some shadows using electronic flash units, the way Rembrandt used to do it!! I know he used the Alien Wasp line of all-natural electronic flash units...might be hard to find those all-natural wasps and to get them up to enough voltage to excite the gas to cause the flash-pop like they did back in the Renaissance period...but, we can give it the all-natural college try!!!

 

[pgriz]

Ok, maybe "artificial" light doesn't quite describe it. How about "machine-made" or "human-made" light? The point is, we need to shlepp some equipment (machines) that give us the light in the way that we can use. So, what do we do with that light? Create highlights, create shadows. We use additional equipment to modify the light - creating broad/soft or narrow/hard shadows. Put a raking hard light against a textured surface, and we create shadows that reveal the texture. Put a broad, soft light on a face, and the "texture" becomes less. What Andrew was pointing out was that the shadows form an important part of lighting - not exactly an original thought, but one worth repeating and thinking about.

Edit: Dang... hate to start writing a response, and by the time I post it there's almost a full page of conversation...

 

[amolitor]

There's actually two ways darkness gets made:

The light we apply casts shadows, and those matter. In many cases more than the light itself, in that what we care about is the shadow more than the highlight.

The light we apply also lifts the brightness of the objects we apply it to, making everything else relatively darker, which can be used (or which can bite you) in a variety of ways.

 

[kundalini]

Images captured by a camera is the result of reflected light.

Shadows provide the illusion of the third dimension (Z axis) on an otherwise two dimensional media.

Go catch some Zees.

 

[ratssass]

There's actually two ways darkness gets made:

The light we apply casts shadows, and those matter. In many cases more than the light itself, in that what we care about is the shadow more than the highlight.

The light we apply also lifts the brightness of the objects we apply it to, making everything else relatively darker, which can be used (or which can bite you) in a variety of ways.

....if anyone can see this,please send help!!Apparently I've fallen through some sort of bunny hole.I understand the concept Amolitor describes.
CHIAROSCURO
watch 13:15-15:00 at least...the whole video is very good....

 

[Derrel]

Here's the key thing about artificial light: It doesn't create lightness, it creates darkness.

To be sure, you can just use it to light stuff up so it's not dark any more, or to permit a usable shutter speed, and that's the original use. There's nothing wrong with that

The important uses are all putting light on one thing, pushing the exposure up, so that another thing appears dark. You're creating shadows. You're losing the background in darkness. By lighting the model up enough, and not lighting the white seamless background, the background goes black. Or grey, if you light it a little. By creating shadows on the model's face you make her look fat, or thin, or terrifying.

Go make some darkness!

I'd like to see some examples of white seamless paper rendered as black through the application of massive amounts of light on a human subject. I do not happen to have ANY such pictures and I do not think I can think of one that I have ever seen where that actually happened. And I only have 2 x2400 W-s, 1x1600 W-S, 1x800W-s,1x600 W-S, and 3 x 400w-s, and 500 W-S in ancillary small packs...and have occasionally used the two 2400's and the 1600 all at once...on the same set...and yet, I cannot recall EVER having been able to push white down to BLACK.

Anybody else been able to get white down to black???