More from past weekend model shoot.

[Derrel]

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!

There MIGHT actually BE something to that theory,amolitor...I know from experience that a lot of younger people these days seem to be pretty happy with ANY type of lighting effects that THEY, themselves manage to create. The inability to "see" lighting effects, or lighting direction, or to infer source sizes,etc.,etc., seems to be epidemic among newcomers who have used only limited lighting sources, and a limited range of light modifiers. The "new norm for lighting" seems to be one where any one of a dozen half-baked lighting patterns are thrown against the proverbial wall, ostensibly in an effort to make images that look "different"--but which in reality, are often the result of using young, untrained shooters who work cheap. I've seen a number of advertising campaigns given to people whose work is very newbish...ALL were/are WEB-based companies that sell cheap clothes to young women...

The upmarket companies are still for the most part, using better photographers and AD's who decide what makes it through...the low-rent web companies seem to be hiring people who produce some VERY sketchy results. NONE of these comments are meant to reflect on the OP's post, or work...just commenting on your comment that there is a "new norm for lighting". As digital imaging has become ever more accessible to people with lower and lower budgets, and as lighting "kits" have flooded the market in recent years, I have seen more and more and more self-taught lighting efforts presented by a wide range of shooters. Twenty years ago, off-camera or studio lighting was the LAST REMAINING AREA that the amateur or hobbyist would tackle; I'm not sure that video games are the entire source of the "new norm for lighting"...the presence and prevalence of cheap and readily available studio lighting "kits" seems to have brought an ever-wider number of self-taught shooters into the arena of "studio lighting" shots. MWACS with a monolight or two, college students with a handful of speedlights, the guy with the Alien Bees kit,etc. MOST of whom are learning how to light on their OWN, entirely, with no teacher, no books, no guidance, except for that from others like them, on Flickr groups,etc.

 

[simion]

Okay, now that we have a pageful of "the lighting is awful" replies, can we actually have some constructive critique for the OP? You know, the ones that he can actually learn something from?
PS: I know there are one or two people who gave advice - i'm not pointing at you.

 

[rokvi]

Okay, now that we have a pageful of "the lighting is awful" replies, can we actually have some constructive critique for the OP? You know, the ones that he can actually learn something from?
PS: I know there are one or two people who gave advice - i'm not pointing at you.

I would rather be creative.

He would rather be creative...

 

[amolitor]

Here's the thing. 90 percent of the time when someone posts one of those defensive "I'd rather be creative" things, they're actually listening. Their ego is wounded and they're defending it as best they can. But they've read the thread, and they're internalizing at least some of what's been said.

We ALL do this. It takes a monumental person to not lash out a little when people step all over their party.

Let the guy have his defense and rationalization, and trust him to listen anyways and take some of what's been said to heart. Don't be a dick to him for being human, and being hurt when he's told that his very best effort isn't very good. It ****ing sucks to be told that, you know it, I know it. Just say it with an open heart and a generous spirit, and let the guy be hurt. If you really want him to improve, and you're not just taking delight in bullying, you can let the rationalization go and trust the student. If you want to teach, it's the only way -- you HAVE to trust the student, in the end.

So, do you wanna teach, or do you wanna bully?

 

[jowensphoto]

Okay, now that we have a pageful of "the lighting is awful" replies, can we actually have some constructive critique for the OP? You know, the ones that he can actually learn something from?
PS: I know there are one or two people who gave advice - i'm not pointing at you.

Right, because we all know light isn't important and should therefor not be critiqued,

 

[rokvi]

Here's the thing. 90 percent of the time when someone posts one of those defensive "I'd rather be creative" things, they're actually listening. Their ego is wounded and they're defending it as best they can. But they've read the thread, and they're internalizing at least some of what's been said.

We ALL do this. It takes a monumental person to not lash out a little when people step all over their party.

Let the guy have his defense and rationalization, and trust him to listen anyways and take some of what's been said to heart. Don't be a dick to him for being human, and being hurt when he's told that his very best effort isn't very good. It ****ing sucks to be told that, you know it, I know it. Just say it with an open heart and a generous spirit, and let the guy be hurt. If you really want him to improve, and you're not just taking delight in bullying, you can let the rationalization go and trust the student. If you want to teach, it's the only way -- you HAVE to trust the student, in the end.

So, do you wanna teach, or do you wanna bully?

I understand what you are saying amolitor. I have always liked your comments and consider you to be very considerate. (Most) of the time I am also...But, I would just like to say that the OP started with just wanting to share his images, then when reasonably politely told his lighting could be better he replies with the "creative" comment. Not once did he ask how or what he should do. However I will apologize (OP I am sorry) and I hope for his own sake you are right.

 

[jaicatalano]

Derrel I love your style. It is raw and real. Hats off to you.

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".

 

[simion]

Hahahha! okay, i see all your points.
Yes, that was a really... inane comment -"i'd rather be creative".
@jowensphoto, don't take me in the wrong way what i meant was, a comment on how to improve his lighting would also be good, next to the reply with the awful lighting.

 

[seakritter]

I just want to post a picture that causes this much of a fight, lol you guys are awesome.

 

[rokvi]

I just want to post a picture that causes this much of a fight, lol you guys are awesome.

Ya gotta have attitude!

 

[Derrel]

Okay, now that we have a pageful of "the lighting is awful" replies, can we actually have some constructive critique for the OP? You know, the ones that he can actually learn something from?
PS: I know there are one or two people who gave advice - i'm not pointing at you.

Okay: I will REPEAT my advice for the OP. With additional comments. First, additional comment: establish one main light. The main or "KEY" light. Not two, identical-strength lights, which is a not-good-lighting approach that many self-taught shooters fall into. THat creates the lighting from nowhere look that amolitor referenced. Outdoors, on-location, the source of light is almost always a clearly definable "someplace", and so, the lighting in the main, MUST come from "someplace".

As Beyonce sang, "You shoulda put a grid on it." A honeycomb grid. With barn doors. And a mylar diffuser. To tame that blown-out, WHITE-hot, raw light blasting in. The use of a diffused main light source (box,octabox,panel,umbrellas,whatever) paired with a totally unmodified,hot, "raw" light source does not look all that good in this shot. Adding a barn door set to the reflector is a good option, and with "ONE" particular brand of studio lights, using that brand's own barn door set is the only way to add a grid to that system's standard reflector size. Which makes one wonder: why is a barn door attachment needed in order to mount a grid? Hmmmmm. When a side-light or hairlight or separation light is "raked in" from a steep angle, the specularity goes wayyyyyyy up. And the light intensity needs to be dialed wayyyyyyyyy down, in relation to the main light's power level, or else the effect of the hair/separation light becomes exceptionally "fake" and wayyyyy "hot". Using a grid allows the light to be controlled, and softened, and the barn doors allows it to be aimed PRECISELY AND also helps keep the light from flaring the lens. When the light is shined in from off to the SIDE, the light does not appear anywhere near so hot, which makes this type of situation one where light behaves a bit "oddly"...the SAME power of light appears, and is in FACT, much,much "hotter" and more "raw-looking" as the angle it hits becomes steeper. Weird.

In the OP's shot, she appears to be lighted by light that is just coming from no "real" or "defined" location. The light appears to be coming from, as amolitor stated, "from nowhere". The placement of the lights has created odd highlights on those black platform shoes she has...see the highlights on her shoes? They look, for lack of a better term, "wrong" or "weird". Just not "jibing" with the scene the model is in.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Okay, now that we have a pageful of "the lighting is awful" replies, can we actually have some constructive critique for the OP? You know, the ones that he can actually learn something from?
PS: I know there are one or two people who gave advice - i'm not pointing at you.

Okay: I will REPEAT my advice for the OP. With additional comments. First, additional comment: establish one main light. The main or "KEY" light. Not two, identical-strength lights, which is a not-good-lighting approach that many self-taught shooters fall into. THat creates the lighting from nowhere look that amolitor referenced. Outdoors, on-location, the source of light is almost always a clearly definable "someplace", and so, the lighting in the main, MUST come from "someplace".

As Beyonce sang, "You shoulda put a grid on it." A honeycomb grid. With barn doors. And a mylar diffuser. To tame that blown-out, WHITE-hot, raw light blasting in. The use of a diffused main light source (box,octabox,panel,umbrellas,whatever) paired with a totally unmodified,hot, "raw" light source does not look all that good in this shot. Adding a barn door set to the reflector is a good option, and with "ONE" particular brand of studio lights, using that brand's own barn door set is the only way to add a grid to that system's standard reflector size. Which makes one wonder: why is a barn door attachment needed in order to mount a grid? Hmmmmm. When a side-light or hairlight or separation light is "raked in" from a steep angle, the specularity goes wayyyyyyy up. And the light intensity needs to be dialed wayyyyyyyyy down, in relation to the main light's power level, or else the effect of the hair/separation light becomes exceptionally "fake" and wayyyyy "hot". Using a grid allows the light to be controlled, and softened, and the barn doors allows it to be aimed PRECISELY AND also helps keep the light from flaring the lens. When the light is shined in from off to the SIDE, the light does not appear anywhere near so hot, which makes this type of situation one where light behaves a bit "oddly"...the SAME power of light appears, and is in FACT, much,much "hotter" and more "raw-looking" as the angle it hits becomes steeper. Weird.

In the OP's shot, she appears to be lighted by light that is just coming from no "real" or "defined" location. The light appears to be coming from, as amolitor stated, "from nowhere". The placement of the lights has created odd highlights on those black platform shoes she has...see the highlights on her shoes? They look, for lack of a better term, "wrong" or "weird". Just not "jibing" with the scene the model is in.

Derrel has nailed it right on the head here. And in response to other comments as well, I would like to thank Derrel (and others) who have offered solutions to the issue. It seems far too often that C&C consists of a criticism of a particular photography aspect, but then offers no solution to the problem. I don't know about other people, but only saying "the lighting is bad" on a picture does me zero good. If i didn't know what to do with it when I posted, saying how bad it is isn't going to cause me to have an epiphany and suddenly realize the solution. Thanks Derrel for showing us what real C&C looks like.

 

[Tee]

With regards to posing, I think this pose may have been more effective if you were shooting at a slight angle down and not up. If it bends, move it and if there's two, keep them off the same plane. And I agree with Derrel and Tirediron about the honeycomb grid, one light and a reflector. This would've really popped. I did some studio stuff today with 12 & 30 degree grids and being able to control the splash was awesome. Of the two, the first is more pleasing. I'd love to see some headshots of the MUA's work. Looks like it was nice and creative.