Help dissecting this photographers process?

[Derrel]

I just spent quite a while at Tania's Instagram, which has over 270 posts.

She is an accomplished art and fashion photographer and it appears to me that a lot of her photos are lighted with artificial light. It also appears to me that she uses large white reflector Flats for a number of her photos. If I were to direct you I would say to get some gels for warming light : not all of us have the luxury of working in New Mexico or the American southwest where they have gorgeous light. Where I live we only have two or three months a year where the natural light is sweet ,and warm.

I would characterize her style as being mostly sweet,warm light. I would shoot with my white balance set to warm, or as Dan stated above, to Shade. There is a subtle difference between shooting in raw in Auto white balance and shooting in a set white balance.


I would urge you to buy some studio strobes and some large sheets of gel to warm your light substantially. A large percentage of the photos I saw on her Instagram were quite orangey or yellow, or warm. She is not going for technical accuracy, but rather a mood evoked by the warmth of the light.

I can see the obvious influence of Cindy Sherman in her work,as shown by the number of tableau self portraits that she does, but she is also an accomplished fashion photographer, most recently being featured in Vogue magazine.

In quite a few of her photos I see what looks to me like a large amount white reflector fill. Not silver reflective fill, not gold reflector fill,but neutral white. I would say in one word or two that you need to learn how to light. Her work is not so much about processing as it is about using soft and warm light and lighting for dramatic effect.

These are technical observations and technical recommendations. Her degree of artistry and her mastery of ennui and irony are quite amazing. She has a master's degree in photography, and it is clear that she knows her way around a camera.

 

[Braineack]

See what I mean?

It becomes a confrontation where you believe your ideas and viewpoint are challenged and you feel obliged to defend them. I do not ridicule you, only offer a different viewpoint.

I'm fed up with this, I don't wish to participate, you can win. It applies to all photography at all levels, there is no other way to think or do. I'm an idiot and my gallery just proves this.

It's not about winning, I just don't think you're being helpful to someone looking technical answers.

Take your musician analogy, that would be like if I asked: hey guys I'm really into rolling Stones right now, how can I acquire Kieth Richards twangy sound. And you tell me: first learn to master the guitar, then take cocaine.

I absolutely couldn't do what Klein has done, mostly the subject you touch on, but I do think I have an insight into how the images were created from a technical side.

I'm not judging your work, im just thinking if I was in the OP's shoes I would have hated a reply like your initial.

I'll try to play nicer.

 

[JBPhotog]

In terms of lights and modifiers, what would be a good list of items to get to start experimenting with lighting in this way?

@BrittneyRose, FWIW, I'd start with a setup you want to shoot then eliminate all the light, start with one at a time and build from there. Tania's style is 'low key' 'warm' and there are a number of ways to achieve this.

Analyze the photos carefully and you will see the photographer wants them to look like they were lit by one source for the most part, in fact I'd say she was attempting to mimic the sun. Three options are the sun, a tungsten fresnel or a strobe, don't rule out the use of flags to act as cutters to shape your pools of light for a shaft of light look as opposed to a spot of light, grids will control spill too. This will give you the control to have the shadows go dark and pools of light will create the 'low key' narrative. However, more than one light source may be needed depending on your subject and setting but it has to evoke a sense of believability otherwise it will look false.

Depending on the source, manipulation of the WB and/or gelling the source or lens will get you the 'warm' part, there are many ways to accomplish this.

And of course, shoot in Raw which gives you the WB, DR and contrast control you will want in post processing.

 

[Derrel]

Ask yourself honestly if you really think that there is an absolute lighting setup that when combined with particular camera settings and PP work will always produce *emotion X*, "move the main light a foot to the left and open the aperture 1/3 of a stop for more pathos..."??

That is quite a straw man that you have built there, and no one was suggesting such a facile answer. If you go and look at Tania's work it is obvious that she follows a fairly narrow working methodology. I can tell from experience that she does not typically use large umbrella light modifiers or huge softboxes, and she does not work in a Light & Bright and Airy Style, but rather she specializes in fairly warm photos, many of them quite low-key. Her work does not look like a Better Homes and Gardens advertising photo of a nice, modern California kitchen.

The original poster was asking for guidance, and not some way to magically create emotion.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Musicians and photographers and all artists are trying to emote through a fixed or otherwise limited form. One can't see or hear "feeling" in an image or piece of music, though. So the musician expresses emotion with technical skill in the use of their instrument. Techniques like subtle vibrato, slight or apparent variations in time and tone, and most obviously the exploitation and expressive use of dynamic range. Technical, quantifiable, shareable skills to enhance the emotive value within the limitations of the medium.

Suggestion or direction to play a certain passage "pianissimo" is a technical direction equivalent to a metering suggestion, and it can make things moody.

It's a process and not a means to an end. Yes you can become a competent technical player. But you will eventually hit a wall because you never learn to associate sound with how you feel. You will inevitable only learn how to reinforce your own rationalizations and logic as to how you think it should work but will always be lost as to how some people can instinctively pick up and instrument and connect emotively.

To do the latter you could let go of the logic and just be angry and play. Essentially what you are doing is introducing a random element, a random movement of hand and listening to how it changes the sound. You are breaking free of the old habits and teaching your hands to move in a different way. Also, by letting go of the logic you are teaching yourself to understand the more abstract and instinctive connections between sounds and feelings, somewhere a logical process can never take you. This is not to say that you can only sound angry by being angry, only that to learn how to connect the sound with the emotion you must break free of the logic and hear what it *sounds like to be angry*.

I see that process in the images in the link. And though I would never suggest you follow such an approach for a wedding it can open your mind to the more abstract connections and understanding that a logical and technical approach necessarily denies you simply because to be logical images must eventually conform with only the process you understand.

I'll try to play nicer.

Don't worry, I don't take this personally. I just don't think I'm helping either me or anybody else at the moment, my opinions are too opposed and so seem to challenge peoples fundamental understanding rather than sit alongside them. And as I type this Derrel's off again. It just isn't helping the forum any and my view is the minority...

 

[Derrel]

Your view happens to be in the minority because you were not paying close enough attention to the actual question asked. The original poster did not ask for a big long diatribe about how to make art but was asking for basic suggestions. I would wager to bet you a large sum of money that she could not achieve Tania's warm and low key lighting effect if she would run out and buy $10,000 worth of large parabolic silver umbrellas. Despite your protestations lighting plays a very key component in the mood of a photograph. If you were to spend just 15 minutes looking through the current issue of Better Homes and Gardens you would see that light and bright and Airy is all the rage in Modern Advertising and that particular genre is filled with cookie cutter photos all lighted with basically the same gear and shot on the same type of camera gear. The original poster was asking a simple question, but there is much more to it than just buying a light. The original poster says that she has been involved in photography for about one year. Tania got into photography about 7 years ago and has therefore quite a bit more experience than the original poster, and she also has a master's degree in photography.

No one and I mean no one was suggesting that there is a magical formula of lighting that will lead to pathos. I think you are tilting at a big windmill here and even though I understand your intention I feel that your answers are extremely misplaced. Your strawman was not really what _anyone_was saying, and that's why it is called a straw man.

 

[Derrel]

This is the photographic discussions sub-forum. Let's have a discussion. The original post was titled dissecting this photographer's process... I think it is only fair to discuss at least some of the actual process, which does involve quite a few bits of photographic tools...tools such as lighting, a camera and a lens for each photo, and post-processing software and post-processing techniques.

No one is suggesting that there is only one way to arrive at the end goal, but there is an obvious way not to go. If we look at the website reference, it is clear that the artist has a fairly narrow scope with regard to how her images look. She has a defined style. Her look is as much a result of her technique as it is of her intellectual and artistic vision; without either one, technique, or artistic vision, you will just be a camera for hire, as I take it you view wedding photographers.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Hard question, two folks look at the same scene and see two different photographs. Which saw the correct photo?

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

One last post.

@Derrel, this is a discussion and there are no hard feelings.

It is human nature that we try to understand what we see, and it is also self evident that to understand what we see we can only define it by the terms and logic that we understand, and for photographers on forums this is invariably a technical one. It is very rare for photographers to stand in front of an image and be completely lost, they will nearly always try to form an understanding and that understanding will generaly be within their experience and knowledge.

Take another look at the linked to images. They are quite highly abstracted yet still read as both human and consistent rather than random snapshots. The lighting in them is nether logical nor consistent, in fact it's quite random.

So how do you do that? Keep a mood, or human understanding as to meaning, constant through a series of images while almost deliberately masking the technical by making it appear random?

One way is to keep something else constant, besides the basic theme, something far more abstract. It could be as abstract as a balmy summer afternoon and evening, your memory of the touch, smell and look of velvet coloured by time and old photographs. It seems obvious to me that Tania clearly understands that *mood is memory*, and particular patterns of light/dark, specific colour combinations, associations, etc. are what trigger memory and therefore evoke mood. And if you keep this in line with memory rather than reality you can maintain some abstraction. Of course this is highly refined in the linked to images, but the idea is to maintain the abstract idea as the rationale and then the technical becomes both subservient and random to the abstract idea.

The trouble with the technical approach is that you always look to the logical process to define how, what is correct, the way to proceed. And this then becomes the rational and becomes visible in the images, the abstract idea becoming *subservient to the histogram*, or what you deem logically and numerically correct. As I indicated I think this is exactly what you are aiming for with wedding photography, (the last thing you need to do is colour someones wedding dress with your own jaded view of humanity).

But in the case of the style of the linked to images then, *in my opinion*, the latter is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. As I said, to understand mood you should be looking at the more irrational process of how visual stimuli trigger memory and the very last thing you should be doing is try to associate it with logic and connect it to technical process.

I'm sorry you can't understand that. Perhaps the idea is wrong, perhaps I'm not explaining it very well, but equally perhaps your habit of condensing photography into what you understand and do well prevents you from seeing ideas and methods beyond it.

Open your mind to the possibility rather than reject it because it doesn't fit within your logic of how you rationalize the process. If you want to explore the more abstract connections then you absolutely have to release your grip on logical control. It's self evident.

 

[Derrel]

Sure, sure. Tell me about logic.Then tell me about how Tania's photos are the result of random camera settings and celllophane over flashlights. Talk about an "open mind" all you want. The photographic evidence is within the photos. Do you think Brittney would be better off using a 4x5 inch view camera and black and white film? I mean... image quality, right?

Hold on an hour or two while I do a lighting diagram that is guaranteed to create pathos in whatever situation it is deployed. And you have the temerity to tell me about logic? Your spectacular strawman is a good example of losing the forest for the trees.
Take a look at the thread title and try and use a little bit of analysis determining what it is that the original poster was asking about. It is clear that you have completely misunderstood what Brittney was talking about and your answer,as brilliant as it might have seemed to you, clearly missed the mark. Your idea that we're trying to give her a lighting or post processing suggestion which will automatically create pathos is clearly not accurate.

The original poster asked for help in dissecting Tania's process. Just looking at the photos there are quite a few clues as to what the process might be and what the process clearly is not. The photos themselves give us logical clues as to how they were made, and in the same vein they also give us an indication of how they were not made. Tania's photos clearly were not lighted by giant parabolic umbrellas indoors in small rooms. Each photo gives an educated photographer an idea of what type of light source was used. Both directionality of the light and the characteristics of the Shadow transition give you a pretty good idea of what type of light was actually used to make a photo. It's obvious that she is not using a small un-undiffused flash on camera. It is also clear that her work is not lighted by the modern type of huge 6 foot or bigger umbrella or parabolic umbrella. I can see this. I'm surprised that you think it's some kind of undecipherable mystery. If I were to try and replicate these using a speedlight without a diffusing system, I would fail miserably.

I am by the way not a wedding photographer.

 

[Overread]

MODERATOR NOTICE - Tim and others - if you want to discuss the inner meanings of art and humanity and whatever please START A NEW THREAD on the topic.

Leave this thread to aiding the OP in their technical and artistic/creative emulation of the photographs that they've linked too in the first post.

No more replies Tim.
Stick to the technical aspects of the question asked and if you want to further discuss matters relating to the creation of art START A NEW THREAD. If this discussion continues from now on I'm starting with 3 days suspensions for ANYONE. Start a NEW THREAD if you want to discuss the artistic side of this discussion and leave this thread for the technical.

 

[JBPhotog]

Thanks @Overread.

If there ever was a tangent, this thread went on one, on a rocket launched from Cape Tangent headed to planet Tangent in the Galaxy Tangent far far away.

 

[JBPhotog]

To address the OP's query, here's a couple of shots I just did in good faith.

Main: 7" grid reflector with a 30 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject. Note how the specularity is higher due to the smaller light source on the main.
Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85.

Main: 11" 50 reflector with a 40 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject.
Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I agree that a year isn't very long... From the two photos posted Brittney I think you seem to have potential and show awareness of capturing light. You seem to have noticed what was reflected in the mirror, where objects were placed in a scene in relation to your vantage point, etc.

Keep developing skills like that in getting proper exposures in existing light, framing shots, etc. You might benefit from taking a class in lighting. It can be helpful at some point to be able to get feedback from an instructor to get an idea where you are with it and what else to work on.

To me as I said in the site linked I liked the Dior 'tear sheets' but to me some of the other photos appear to be trying to emulate film, but the kind of photos in a box in someone's attic. That may have been a creative technique but I think it's getting tired (at least I'm tired of it!) but I don't know when the photographer linked may have done those photos. It would be fine to try that style with some subjects, but doing just that probably won't get you very far; it isn't to me a 'fresh' idea or look anymore. So keep trying out a variety of techniques and experimenting, while also learning and developing a good solid foundation of skills related to exposure, composition, etc. You can have a great idea but sloppy workmanship can detract from the idea and bring it down.

Keep using your eyes and your brain when you're taking photos. It's fine to learn from others but at some point you need to move beyond copying a style and discover your own way. What your photos made me think of was Hopper's 'Nighthawks' painting. Nighthawks | The Art Institute of Chicago . Try studying past master photographers or painters/artists like Vermeer and see how they captured light in their artwork.

 

[BrittneyRose]

To address the OP's query, here's a couple of shots I just did in good faith.

Main: 7" grid reflector with a 30 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject. Note how the specularity is higher due to the smaller light source on the main.
Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85.

View attachment 185150

Main: 11" 50 reflector with a 40 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject.
Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85.

View attachment 185151

I'm really curious as to where you got the 11" 50 reflector. I have a bowens mount light and an alien bee but I can't find one. I love the spread of that 11