Professional Photographers of America and....standards

[Derrel]

I expect more than generic three point lighting in front of a fake backdrop.

I stopped by your website and looked at how you are lighting people. You could use some lessons in generic three point lighting. You've posed and lighted two men in feminine styles. One of them looks to be gay, in real life, while the other looks 'accidentally' gay. I read your "about section", talking about the awesome responsibility you feel when representing people, photgraphically. There's a huge disconnect in there.

Your lack of understanding of what you call "three-point lighting" (WTF is that anyway? there's no such thing...) and "fake backgrounds" demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the basics of lighting and photographing people with professional methods.

If by "innovation" you mean of-the-moment, trendy backgrounds and ridiculous haute couture clothing, then I understand. But there really has been no "innovation" in how to light or pose people for well over fifty years. A well-lighted photo from the 1920's looks like a well-lighted photo from the 1930's or 1960;'s or 2010's...but the CLOTHING and hair styles change....basic body posing, and basic lighting strategies have remained the same since...the 1920's.

If you want to talk chit about the PPA, and "standards", well...I'm bringing up the issue of "standards", and you're violating a number of long-term "standards" regarding the accepted and well-understood (by professionals at least) ways of showing men as "men".

 

[Ilovemycam]

I can't say OP. I've never been much of a joiner. I just put my pride in the best pix I can make.

 

[Derrel]

When one looks up the term "three point lighting", the first result is a 2008 Wikipedia article, written in 2008, with ZERO references, written by some nobody. Subsequent entries, like the YouTube videos I just watched, show similar parroting of the nonsense in the Wikipedia entry. The so-called "lighting diagram" in the Wiki article shown as "typical three-point lighting" is a joke! The position of the fill will overlap the main or key light! The light is not main and fill, but is actually cross-lighting! Complete with competing shadows from a so-called fill positioned at the same angle as the main light. Oh-My-gawd, this is so,so,so off-base it's ridiculous. And so far off the camera axis that the "fill" light's output will spill all over the entire near side of the person's head!!! So, essentially, the person who wroter and diagrammed this "thrre point lighting" WIki article is..an utter newbie who knows squat about how lighting is done.

The Wikipedia entry shows a subject, and then a key light (also called the main light) on one side, and an equidistant fill light, aimed in from the exact, same angle as the main, but from the opposite side! "Do'ah!" The same, idiotic, nonsensical lighting pattern is followed by the two subsequent newbie-created YouTube videos I just watched! Cross-lighting that will look like utter CRAP! OMG! This is the blind, leading the blind.

This is a case of beginners making Wiki entries without knowing the first thing about real lighting basics, and the same,erroneous, dumb information,and diagrams, being parroted across the internet. Lighting has for literally decades, being described by its shadow pattern. NOT BY simple diagrams that pay absolutely no heed to actual, real-world methods of lighting. Butterfly, loop,modified loop, and Rembrandt lighting are very common ways to light people. Simple phrases like "three-point lighting" are a new invention, spawned by people who obviously have no grounding in the field, whatsoever. Again--the WIkipedia article is from 2008, and has ZERO sources. NONE. It's a terrible article. And so are the videos that talk about "three point lighting".

 

[Steve5D]

I stopped by your website and looked at how you are lighting people. You could use some lessons in generic three point lighting. You've posed and lighted two men in feminine styles. One of them looks to be gay, in real life, while the other looks 'accidentally' gay. I read your "about section", talking about the awesome responsibility you feel when representing people, photgraphically. There's a huge disconnect in there.

Your lack of understanding of what you call "three-point lighting" (WTF is that anyway? there's no such thing...) and "fake backgrounds" demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the basics of lighting and photographing people with professional methods.

If by "innovation" you mean of-the-moment, trendy backgrounds and ridiculous haute couture clothing, then I understand. But there really has been no "innovation" in how to light or pose people for well over fifty years. A well-lighted photo from the 1920's looks like a well-lighted photo from the 1930's or 1960;'s or 2010's...but the CLOTHING and hair styles change....basic body posing, and basic lighting strategies have remained the same since...the 1920's.

If you want to talk chit about the PPA, and "standards", well...I'm bringing up the issue of "standards", and you're violating a number of long-term "standards" regarding the accepted and well-understood (by professionals at least) ways of showing men as "men".

When one looks up the term "three point lighting", the first result is a 2008 Wikipedia article, written in 2008, with ZERO references, written by some nobody. Subsequent entries, like the YouTube videos I just watched, show similar parroting of the nonsense in the Wikipedia entry. The so-called "lighting diagram" in the Wiki article shown as "typical three-point lighting" is a joke! The position of the fill will overlap the main or key light! The light is not main and fill, but is actually cross-lighting! Complete with competing shadows from a so-called fill positioned at the same angle as the main light. Oh-My-gawd, this is so,so,so off-base it's ridiculous. And so far off the camera axis that the "fill" light's output will spill all over the entire near side of the person's head!!! So, essentially, the person who wroter and diagrammed this "thrre point lighting" WIki article is..an utter newbie who knows squat about how lighting is done.

The Wikipedia entry shows a subject, and then a key light (also called the main light) on one side, and an equidistant fill light, aimed in from the exact, same angle as the main, but from the opposite side! "Do'ah!" The same, idiotic, nonsensical lighting pattern is followed by the two subsequent newbie-created YouTube videos I just watched! Cross-lighting that will look like utter CRAP! OMG! This is the blind, leading the blind.

This is a case of beginners making Wiki entries without knowing the first thing about real lighting basics, and the same,erroneous, dumb information,and diagrams, being parroted across the internet. Lighting has for literally decades, being described by its shadow pattern. NOT BY simple diagrams that pay absolutely no heed to actual, real-world methods of lighting. Butterfly, loop,modified loop, and Rembrandt lighting are very common ways to light people. Simple phrases like "three-point lighting" are a new invention, spawned by people who obviously have no grounding in the field, whatsoever. Again--the WIkipedia article is from 2008, and has ZERO sources. NONE. It's a terrible article. And so are the videos that talk about "three point lighting".

Are you just so bent out of shape that he didn't address your initial rambling diatribe that you had to post another rambling diatribe?

 

[pixmedic]

I stopped by your website and looked at how you are lighting people. You could use some lessons in generic three point lighting. You've posed and lighted two men in feminine styles. One of them looks to be gay, in real life, while the other looks 'accidentally' gay. I read your "about section", talking about the awesome responsibility you feel when representing people, photgraphically. There's a huge disconnect in there.

Your lack of understanding of what you call "three-point lighting" (WTF is that anyway? there's no such thing...) and "fake backgrounds" demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the basics of lighting and photographing people with professional methods.

If by "innovation" you mean of-the-moment, trendy backgrounds and ridiculous haute couture clothing, then I understand. But there really has been no "innovation" in how to light or pose people for well over fifty years. A well-lighted photo from the 1920's looks like a well-lighted photo from the 1930's or 1960;'s or 2010's...but the CLOTHING and hair styles change....basic body posing, and basic lighting strategies have remained the same since...the 1920's.

If you want to talk chit about the PPA, and "standards", well...I'm bringing up the issue of "standards", and you're violating a number of long-term "standards" regarding the accepted and well-understood (by professionals at least) ways of showing men as "men".

When one looks up the term "three point lighting", the first result is a 2008 Wikipedia article, written in 2008, with ZERO references, written by some nobody. Subsequent entries, like the YouTube videos I just watched, show similar parroting of the nonsense in the Wikipedia entry. The so-called "lighting diagram" in the Wiki article shown as "typical three-point lighting" is a joke! The position of the fill will overlap the main or key light! The light is not main and fill, but is actually cross-lighting! Complete with competing shadows from a so-called fill positioned at the same angle as the main light. Oh-My-gawd, this is so,so,so off-base it's ridiculous. And so far off the camera axis that the "fill" light's output will spill all over the entire near side of the person's head!!! So, essentially, the person who wroter and diagrammed this "thrre point lighting" WIki article is..an utter newbie who knows squat about how lighting is done.

The Wikipedia entry shows a subject, and then a key light (also called the main light) on one side, and an equidistant fill light, aimed in from the exact, same angle as the main, but from the opposite side! "Do'ah!" The same, idiotic, nonsensical lighting pattern is followed by the two subsequent newbie-created YouTube videos I just watched! Cross-lighting that will look like utter CRAP! OMG! This is the blind, leading the blind.

This is a case of beginners making Wiki entries without knowing the first thing about real lighting basics, and the same,erroneous, dumb information,and diagrams, being parroted across the internet. Lighting has for literally decades, being described by its shadow pattern. NOT BY simple diagrams that pay absolutely no heed to actual, real-world methods of lighting. Butterfly, loop,modified loop, and Rembrandt lighting are very common ways to light people. Simple phrases like "three-point lighting" are a new invention, spawned by people who obviously have no grounding in the field, whatsoever. Again--the WIkipedia article is from 2008, and has ZERO sources. NONE. It's a terrible article. And so are the videos that talk about "three point lighting".

Are you just so bent out of shape that he didn't address your initial rambling diatribe that you had to post another rambling diatribe?

I had to Google "Diatribe"

learned a new word today though...

 

[Steve5D]

While I just don't see the need for the constant attack, I do think it's pretty funny that, upon realizing the first one was ignored, he had to post a second, even longer, blubbering entry...

 

[rexbobcat]

I expect more than generic three point lighting in front of a fake backdrop.

I stopped by your website and looked at how you are lighting people. You could use some lessons in generic three point lighting. You've posed and lighted two men in feminine styles. One of them looks to be gay, in real life, while the other looks 'accidentally' gay. I read your "about section", talking about the awesome responsibility you feel when representing people, photgraphically. There's a huge disconnect in there.

Your lack of understanding of what you call "three-point lighting" (WTF is that anyway? there's no such thing...) and "fake backgrounds" demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the basics of lighting and photographing people with professional methods.

If by "innovation" you mean of-the-moment, trendy backgrounds and ridiculous haute couture clothing, then I understand. But there really has been no "innovation" in how to light or pose people for well over fifty years. A well-lighted photo from the 1920's looks like a well-lighted photo from the 1930's or 1960;'s or 2010's...but the CLOTHING and hair styles change....basic body posing, and basic lighting strategies have remained the same since...the 1920's.

If you want to talk chit about the PPA, and "standards", well...I'm bringing up the issue of "standards", and you're violating a number of long-term "standards" regarding the accepted and well-understood (by professionals at least) ways of showing men as "men".

*Edited

All I'm going to say is that you missed my point.

And you realized you were wrong about three-point lighting so you decided to attack the internet? Real classy. If you'll notice, it is a term more commonly associated with video. (Pssst, your ignorance is showing)

I really was surprised this morning when I woke up to find a random dude on the Internet personally offended because of an opinion that has nothing to do with him.

Oh wait, that's how the Internet works. Way to fulfill the Internet stereotype dude. Keep it up.

 

[rexbobcat]

Oh, and if you're referring to the cowboy, that's how he naturally stands -with his hip cocked out - so maybe before assuming that I didn't notice that, you should ask.

Stop acting like you're obviously the only one aware of certain things. You are not THAT special.

And....scene....

 

[mishele]

Hug it out guys or I'm going to have to shut it down.

 

[runnah]

Hug it out guys or I'm going to have to shut it down.

I am available for hugs. I can't promise there won't be ass grabbing or hip thrusting.

 

[rexbobcat]

Hug it out guys or I'm going to have to shut it down.

Lol You should've seen my post before I edited it.

 

[mishele]

Hug it out guys or I'm going to have to shut it down.

I am available for hugs. I can't promise there won't be ass grabbing or hip thrusting.

The grabbing and hip thrusting never bothered me...it was the monkey sounds that was a little too much.

 

[runnah]

The grabbing and hip thrusting never bothered me...it was the monkey sounds that was a little too much.

Excuse me madam but those where gorilla noises.

 

[Derrel]

The term three-point lighting is newbie-speak. Yes, that new term can be found on the internet.

When a person refers to something like "three-point lighting" I think of Jane Momtographer's pages. She's on the internet too.

Giggles and Cutie Pumpkins Photography

Study up on lighting. What's amusing is we have a college student who knows nothing about studio lighting, criticising others who have developed an entire field of study, over decades. And he's accusing the PP of A, and its members, of lacking in "innovation"...when he can't even light a one-person portrait with anything but a huge wash of soft, undifferentiated light. And he's talking about "standards"? OMG...

There's an old expression, "You don't even know what it is that you don't know." When some college age kid starts talking about "three-point lighting" and says older people lack "innovation", I am amused.

And Steve5D, seems like you're still mad at me for disagreeing with you and your fabulous old, Canon 5D last week! But I do commend you for learning the new word "diatribe". I hope you sell some newbies some $4,000 guitars! Apparently, anything longer than a gutteral sentence or two is a "diatribe", eh Stevie??? Nice try, Mr. Salesman...

 

[mishele]