More from past weekend model shoot.

[jaredcrean]

Another one form this past weekend thought I would share it with you guys.

 

[tirediron]

Do me a favour, go out and reshoot this with ONE LIGHT AND A REFLECTOR. NOTHING ELSE!!! You've got an awesome model, great locations, and clearly an excellent sylist and MUA, but WTF are you doing with your lighting? I'm sorry, but this is the worst of them so far (in terms of lighting). It looks like you've snooted a 2500w/s strobe against her right (image left) temple, another over-bright low and on her cheek... Do yourself a HUGE favour; buy some of the Dean Collins lighting tutorials. They're older stuff, but it will help you a LOT!

 

[jaredcrean]

I would rather be creative.

 

[amolitor]

I like the first one more. More contrast, more darkness - more drama.

tirediron has a point, you're pretty much squirting light in all over the place and it frankly looks a little odd to me. That said, the fashion these days among amateurs (and I mean that not as a dig, but simply as a descriptor -- people who are not getting paid to make photographs) is for various techniques that render the apparent lighting either meaningless or confusing (HDR being the chief technique here). The goal is, generally, to reveal as much of the subject as possible in detail. It's especially confusing for outdoor shots, where we're "expecting" a single major light source in the sun.

The fact that I don't like it is irrelevant, it's definitely a thing, a style, a trend. If you like it, great. There's lots of people that like it.

You should understand, though, that squirting light all over the place has the effect of rendering the light confusing.

 

[SCraig]

I would rather be creative.

The goal behind creative lighting is normally to make it look like you used no additional light.

 

[tirediron]

I would rather be creative.

Well, you're certainly doing that! I am not trying to belittle your efforts, but it really looks to me like you've got more gear than you know what to do wtih.

Explain to me what your lighting set-up was here and what your thought process was in setting it up the way you did.

As Scott alludes to, photographic lighting is like a woman's make-up. Hours of work and planning go into a project with the end goal of making it look like nothing was done at all.

 

[rexbobcat]

I would rather be creative.

That's the universal cop-out of the art world.

Creativity ≠ Good end results.

I don't think this is the worst of them, but it's not really...that...good...

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I would rather be creative.

Flat lighted images are creative? Or is it because she looks nuclear

keep that up and you may be sued for skin cancer

 

[kundalini]

I would rather be creative.

Do you mind if I add your comment to this thread? Anonymously, of course.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/297275-photography-terminology-pet-peeves.html


:er:

 

[Derrel]

I would rather be creative.

Yes, being creative would be nice, but you failed at that. Instead, to me it looks like raw, hot light, blasted at the subject, newbie-style. If you want to edge-light a subject, put a FRICKING GRID on the reflector. RAW, white-hot light says "newbie" lighting quite loudly among people who know photography. This lighting scheme is in no way "creative"...it looks utterly beginnerish. The way you responded to Tirediron above is about what I've come to expect. In your last post, the one before this, you also came off as very smart-alecky when we did not fall down and worship at your feet over a beginner-level lighting scheme of a shot that had been done with a stylist and a MUA...as if listing "stylist" and "MUA" under a web-posted photo somehow elevated the photography.

The idea of using studio lighting is CONTROL of the light. As amolitor noted, "squirting light all over the place" creates a bad impression on the viewer. To a visually-sophisticated viewer who can see for himself how this shot was "lighted", it is a mile from "Creative".

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I would rather be creative.

Yes, being creative would be nice, but you failed at that. Instead, to me it looks like raw, hot light, blasted at the subject, newbie-style. If you want to edge-light a subject, put a FRICKING GRID on the reflector. RAW, white-hot light says "newbie" lighting quite loudly among people who know photography. This lighting scheme is in no way "creative"...it looks utterly beginnerish. The way you responded to Tirediron above is about what I've come to expect. In your last post, the one before this, you also came off as very smart-alecky when we did not fall down and worship at your feet over a beginner-level lighting scheme of a shot that had been done with a stylist and a MUA...as if listing "stylist" and "MUA" under a web-posted photo somehow elevated the photography.

The idea of using studio lighting is CONTROL of the light. As amolitor noted, "squirting light all over the place" creates a bad impression on the viewer. To a visually-sophisticated viewer who can see for himself how this shot was "lighted", it is a mile from "Creative".

keyword "thats hot!"

 

[amolitor]

I have this theory, based on conversations with people who literally seem to be UNABLE to see that the light in an HDR (for instance) looks all weird and wrong, that video games and animation have created a new norm for lighting. In video games and animation frequently everything is "lit from nowhere" although there may also be some light sources in play layered over the bizarro-world lighting.

Kids these days! Get off my lawn!

 

[jowensphoto]

In addition to what the others have said, honestly, my eye grows straight to her crotch.

It's just a big, black hole pulling my eye in.


I know, horrible wording with regard to what I'm referring too.

Normally, the brightest parts of the photo draw the eye. The big, dark mass is realllly consuming here though... I noticed that first before I noticed the blown highlight on her right temple.

I think, as I believe tirediron alluded too, you're doing too much too quickly with too much equipment. Slow down, learn to use the basics of what you have, then move on to the bigger stuff.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

In addition to what the others have said, honestly, my eye grows straight to her crotch.

It's just a big, black hole pulling my eye in.


I know, horrible wording with regard to what I'm referring too.

Normally, the brightest parts of the photo draw the eye. The big, dark mass is realllly consuming here though... I noticed that first before I noticed the blown highlight on her right temple.

I think, as I believe tirediron alluded too, you're doing too much too quickly with too much equipment. Slow down, learn to use the basics of what you have, then move on to the bigger stuff.

psssst... pic of that phenomena please =)

 

[jowensphoto]

Lmao!!! Damn this auto correct.

Goes! Not grows!

I shouldn't blame the phone, definitely the beer.