would this be classed as natural light

[pgriz]

Perhaps we're overthinking this. Perhaps this is a measure of how much the light looks like that of a "Vanity Light" which usually surrounds a mirror and lets people have a very even light for applying their makeup...

 

[Josh66]

So, a ringlight would be like a 10 on the Vanity Index?

 

[pgriz]

So, a ringlight would be like a 10 on the Vanity Index?

Yes, IF that is what the original reference was refering to. Might be a new way to sell photographic gear. "Oh, megapixels are SO last year. This lens has a vanity index of 10.5 and beats out all the other pretenders who can only muster up a VI of 8.2." Hmmm. Has possibilities.

 

[Josh66]

Perhaps we're overthinking this. Perhaps this is a measure of how much the light looks like that of a "Vanity Light" which usually surrounds a mirror and lets people have a very even light for applying their makeup...

You know, I think this is the only thing that would actually make any sense...

I hope the OP comes back to clarify this whole thing. I really didn't think I was being rude, but I guess it may have seemed that way. Anyway, it seems clear that pretty much nobody is familiar with this term, so at this point I really want to know what it is all about, lol.

Whatever it is, it seems like it has something to do with the lighting, and if that is the case - what you laid out makes the most sense.

 

[sleist]

I found this quote from someone who was taking the course 2 years ago. It appears to be a completely made up term.

I have to agree with what a lot of people have been saying about the 'Vanity Index' here, and after really enjoying the course so far, assignments 5 & 6 are leaving me with a feeling some of these modules were rushed.
To quote from the text in the Vanity Index section, 'Don't take this too seriously as I only just this minute made it up. There is, as far as I know, no such index...'
So basically, it isn't a tried and tested photographic practice, but something he cobbled together for the module? There is getting to be a real feel of laziness about this course.
And as a primarily portrait photographer, I have to question some parts of the 'index'. Have any of you portrait photographers out there ever used 4 flash heads directly on the sitter, and had to add a plethora of reflectors? We haven't even started to light the background! And all this because the sitter is self-concious to level 5? And we have to work out the sitters level based on the course guidelines of, and pardon the paraphrasing, 'confident' to 'neurotic'? In 6 easy steps? I'm sorry, but it is utter nonsense, and our assignment seems to be based not on tried and trusted practices when photographing people, but something the author 'just made up'.

 

[leala]

i don't scare easy. and i now get that you's are all just taking the mickey out of me. Anyway after talking to people doing the same course its made up to act as a guide for you to decide on the type of lighting to use if the sitter is calling the shots.


The index runs from zero to five, with zero representing someone who has complete confidence with their looks and will accept any lighting treatment, to level five where they are on tablets to calm their nerves because they thought that they saw a wrinkle the other day.
Below is a lighting guide to help you to determine the appropriate lighting on the subject for each level. This assumes that you are trying to please them and not yourself, or others. We are talking about flattery here!

VANITY INDEX
LIGHTING CRITERIA

5
* Use softboxes or umbrellas, one on either side of the lens and one above it (at equal power) as close to the lens as possible.
* Place large reflectors on either side of sitter, just out of the shot.
* Place a medium size reflector beneath sitter, just out of shot to fill shadows from beneath.
* Bounce light off the ceiling to light the hair or use an additional softbox on a boom over the sitter.
* Keep your lights above the sitter’s eye level to avoid up-lighting (causes strange and unnatural facial shadows particularly below the eyes and above the nose).
* Possible backlight as well to give the hair a glowing look (not really recommended).

4
* Same as in Vanity Index 5 but exclude the box or umbrella above the lens as well as the large reflectors on the side. Definitely remove the backlight.


3
* Same as in Vanity Index 4 but allow one of the front lights to be one stop greater than the other. This will give the face a slight amount of modelling with quite good filling of shadows.
* Lights can be moved away from the lens a bit, but not more than one meter. They can also be raised slightly.
* Retain the ceiling bounce only to light the hair.


2
* Light the face with one umbrella only, a bit to the side and above the lens, or bounce a light off one of the near sidewalls or a large flat at a height that is slightly higher than the sitters face.
* Remove the polyboard from beneath the sitter.
* Fill the unlit side of the sitter with a medium sized reflector just out of shot.
* The ceiling light is now optional.


1
* Light with one soft light or bounced light only at an angle of up to 45 without filling the opposite side.
* The ceiling light is optional and if used should only give shape of the head against the background if needed.

0
* Light with bare spotlight or small softbox at an angle to the sitter and at a further distance away.
* Experiment with your own methods. I suggest avoiding theatrics, but to each his own.

 

[Josh66]

Interesting, thanks for explaining. I think it really is pretty much what pgriz said. The more similar to the lighting on a vanity, the higher the score.

 

[Overread19 7]

It seems like an odd index to use though.

On the one hand it means that you'll have a wide variety in the finished product that out output, and no matter how "confident" your client is they'll generally expect a product that is in-line with what they saw in your portfolio (and if they were more serious a client than a simple sit and shoot affair then chances are they've already had a discussion with you on the look of the photo).

If this is just for sit and shoot affairs it seems complex to be changing your lighting arrangement so heavily inbetween shoots where the clients are just after a faster shot or just a "standard" from your advertised (again we are back to the variety in product).

The other factor is that it relies on you to work out what kind of client you have, now whilst this is always going to be a part of serving a clients needs it seems odd that you'd define the type of photo you take based upon an estimated degree of self confidence on the part of the client.



In the end it just seems odd, something that in the wider scope of things that doesn't seem to be much in practice nor much use. Experienced shooters with years on the clock might be able to use a similar method to classify how they work with certain clients, but I'd wager they'd avoid the extremes (esp the lower end lighting wise). They'd also have experience to help them, which is something you can't teach; and I'd suspect that they'd never formally or strictly use a guide like this (it would be more going with their "gut" or experienced feeling rather than following strict rules - which would likely be very complex to put onto paper)

 

[pgriz]

Leala, thanks for the information. It is definitely something that is not the usual practice among portrait photographers, so perhaps the author had an idea in mind and needed some kind of label for it. The idea of varying the lighting according to the degree of comfort of the sitter, is as Overread noted, somewhat strange. I would have expected the lighting to be independent of the sitter's mood or comfort level, and related to the photographic objective. I am sure that there are techniques for reducing a sitter's stress level, but I don't think they involve moving lighting equipment around.

 

[Josh66]

I think the idea is that 'confident, sure' people won't be so preoccupied with how flattering the light is, where more self-conscience people will want the most flattering light possible.

 

[Derrel]

Good post leala!!! You came back with guns blazing!!! "Loaded for bear," as we say here in the American west. Thumb up!

 

[vintagesnaps]

Thanks for explaining what the term means, but I'd think instead of the photographer trying to determine how much lighting the subject might want/need to have used to hide imperfections etc., wouldn't it make more sense for a photographer to determine what looks best and what's needed to create that look? (Unless I misread the explanation which is possible, it seems rather complicated for what it is.)

What I'd be thinking about more in the photo is the strip of lighter background that's behind the subject's head as it seems distracting; it might have worked better to change your vantage point so that was out of the picture. I think it's a nice photo of the little guy himself smiling at you, it just could use a more even background. The vanity index being apparently something the instructor developed is hard to gauge; maybe with having used minimal light beyond the existing light, would it put it at 0-1?? This subject obviously wouldn't be worrying yet about his wrinkles!

 

[Pallycow]

I wanted to read it all, but I ultimately had to skim.

wether this is relevant or not, I don't really care.

however, I am tired of people trying to "classify" what kind of light they are using. as if it makes them better or something. It's F'ing stupid.

Image A was "natural light" tell me now, what dost though thinkest?

I think you're a moron.

I especially think it's dumb to title a thread or photo "x or z in natural light" when you obviously used flash. I don't even wanna get into what is natural and not. Headache. but for sake of argument, that is like saying "how do you like my INK drawing" when you used pencil.

You make yourself look stupid. Very stupid.

If your goal is to learn, start by learning to preface your questions with what you are undertaking and why you want to know. That way if you ask and it sounds silly, someone will try to clarify to help you. Instead of trying to cover a dumb ass post with something later after the fact.

If anyone cares...my opinion....you have ambient light (any light that is not strobed triggered by you or your assistant), and you have strobe. That's it. Stop trying to label chit. It's annoying. Labeling something does not make you instantly accepted...in my book...it makes you instantly ignored.

/rant


This was not directed at OP, just felt the need to rant. It is directed at anyone who fits the description. If it offends...then you are most likely the ones needing a lesson or two. Oh well...free will and all.......

 

[TATTRAT]

I'm so vain, I think I thought this thread was about me.





sorry...and now I'm gonna have that damn song stuck in my head, all for the price of some silly net humor.