Questions RE: "flat lightening"

[Compaq]

I saw someone mentioning it in the "Toddlers" thread. My brain tells me that it means little detail/shadows on the subject, i.e. two flashes coming at the subject with exactly the same power. But I'm not sure, there may be more to it than that. Also, my brain might be telling me things, and, apparently, I wouldn't be the first one to realise that...

So flat lightening, what exactly is it?

-Anders

 

[tirediron]

You're pretty much right on. "Flat" lighting generally refers to even, relatively shadowless lighting with low contrast & dynamic range. Think "Passport photo".

 

[dallasimagery]

I saw someone mentioning it in the "Toddlers" thread. My brain tells me that it means little detail/shadows on the subject, i.e. two flashes coming at the subject with exactly the same power. But I'm not sure, there may be more to it than that. Also, my brain might be telling me things, and, apparently, I wouldn't be the first one to realise that...

So flat lightening, what exactly is it?

-Anders

It was me, and no that isn't correct. I'd recommend this book: Master lighting guide for portrait photographers

"Flat" simply means the numerical rations of the lights are all roughly equal, therefore producing flat light and light 3-dimensionality, aka "mall lighting." Two flashes can have the same power, but be at different positions or distances, or have different modifiers etc, and not produce the same ratio. The ratio is measure at the SUBJECT...

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

So flat lightening, what exactly is it?

Typically it's boring, think mug shots. Flat lighting does not provide the modeling to create the character of the subject. With creative lighting casting shadows, it will accentuate the 3D effect on a 2D image, be it print or digital display. It seems that fashion and celebrity magazines love this, but I could care less for it.

 

[Compaq]

Thanks!

Of course, all photos are 3D

Physics aside, flat lightening could be flattering to highly wrinkled oldsies?

Setting one flash at apprx 60 degrees would result in some shadows behind nose and chin etc etc. That would then not be flat light? Or setting the flash above making it shoot downwards?

How do you guys avoid flat light? As in concrete examples, if you wouldn't mind. I appreciate the help. Of course, I don't own anything but the poppy flashy thingy, and won't be able to try it out. It's on my never ending wishlist. Darn, photography is an expensive hobby!

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

....... Of course, I don't own anything but the poppy flashy thingy, and won't be able to try it out. It's on my never ending wishlist. Darn, photography is an expensive hobby!

That makes this a pointless thread then. Thanks for waisting our time.

 

[MissCream]

That makes this a pointless thread then. Thanks for waisting our time.

Why was it pointless? He learned something didn't he? Lol don't you research stuff before you buy equipment?

 

[Big Mike]

Setting one flash at apprx 60 degrees would result in some shadows behind nose and chin etc etc. That would then not be flat light? Or setting the flash above making it shoot downwards?

As you move the light source away from the camera, the view that the camera gets will start to change. Keep in mind that we are talking about portraits and heads are basically spheres. If it helps, imagine that the subject is a planet as it rotates around the sun. The further around the light goes, less of the 'front' will be lit and more of it will be in shadow.

The difference between the lit side and the shadow side is the lighting ratio. So in flat lighting, both sides are evenly lit. This could be a result of the light being on the same angle as the camera, or it could be a combination of light sources that equal out to flat lighting.

So when you think about it, an on-camera flash (fired directly) can only give you flat lighting. And flat light usually isn't great for portrait lighting, which is why direct on-camera flash is one of the worst light sources for portraits...at least as the only light.

Flat lighting is actually used a fair bit in glamor/fashion type photography. Check out shots that are lit with a ring flash.

 

[Derrel]

Naw, the thread is not pointless: the camera's on-board pop-up flash can be used as a source of fill-in lighting in many situations, like backlighting and strong sidelighting. The flash that sits in the hot shoe or the camera's own pop-up flash provides what is called on-axis fill lighting. One of the easiest situations to use it as a fill light exists when outdoors, with lots of natural sunlight coming from behind and off to one side of people. It's at such times that a bit of on-axis fill lighting can make pictures much,much better.

 

[KmH]

Thanks!

Of course, all photos are 3D

Nope! All photos are 2-D representations of the real 3-D world.

That's why lighting and lighting ratios are so critical to giving that 2-D image a 3-D look and feel.

One way to get a subject to 'pop' from the background, also known as separation, is to have a higher lighting ratio on the subject than on the background.

That is one of the reasons strobed light (flash) photography is used outside so often by pros, they can use shutter speed to control the ambient (background) light separately from the strobed light that is directed at the subject.

 

[Big Mike]

....... Of course, I don't own anything but the poppy flashy thingy, and won't be able to try it out. It's on my never ending wishlist. Darn, photography is an expensive hobby!

That makes this a pointless thread then. Thanks for waisting our time.

Yours was much more pointless. Watch your step.

 

[Compaq]

Nope! All photos are 2-D representations of the real 3-D world.

A little off topic, but what we're seeing is light, or energy. Just an image in our brain. Photons are mass-less, so I'm not sure how many dimensions humans can perceive. We move in three dimensions.

Thanks again for your help. I may not own a proper flash, but I have learned something. If you don't mind, I'd like to judge the "pointfulness" of my own threads, thank you very much But lets not get another argue thread. Have a nice evening/day depending on your time zone

 

[KmH]

Darn, photography is an expensive hobby!

Photography is actually pretty inexpensive compared to many other common hobbies.

 

[Compaq]

It's expensive compared to my traditional wet shaving hobby I probably could be spending a lot there as well, I've been wanting a new badger brush for quite some time, along with more soaps! Oh, and some single edge blades!

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

Why was it pointless? He learned something didn't he? Lol don't you research stuff before you buy equipment?

After reading my response again, I suppose it could be construed as being somewhat curt. My apologies for the knee-jerk reaction, but I say that the OP seemed to be in the NOW phase of a lighting dilemma with his original post. As in, he's got the gear sitting at the ready and wanting to understand a particular lighting pattern, or in this case, how to avoid it. The OP made a comment about having two lights and I assumed he already had those two lights.

To answer your question, YES, I do extensive research prior to purchasing equipment, to satisfy unknown querries, to be able to ask reasonable questions and to differentiate between fallacy and fact. That is precisely what the OP has done here, although a bit premature. I enjoy passing forward that knowledge that I have attained in my research to deserving folks, but I don't like spinning my wheels either. There are members here that are in a NOW situation with burning questions. The OP, as I have found, is in a "further down the road" position, thus my response. My little quip was entered prematurly as well. Sorry.