Forums > Photography Talk > The Eyelighter reflector.. pretty sweet.

Photographer

Patrick Shipstad

Posts: 4630

Burbank, California, US

I just saw this Eyelighter reflector and it I love the bottom catch light in the eyes.

Apparently this patented design goes back to 2002, but I've never seen anyone use this before. They've recently redesigned it and are shipping by January.

Damn it's expensive ($485), and I know most people will want to try and build their own after seeing it.. It seems to be doing basically what a tri-flector would do (for a lot less) but without the break in the reflector. Damn, I want one for Christmas!

http://www.theeyelighter.com/who_Uses.html

Dec 06 10 03:58 pm Link

Model

Michelle Genevieve

Posts: 1094

Austin, Texas, US

Oh, that IS sweet! But it couldn't be that hard to make one. A segment of a large conical reflector, about 4 feet wide. With a little skill maybe even be able to make one with interchangeable reflecting surfaces (white, silver, gold).

Dec 06 10 04:06 pm Link

Photographer

C. Scott Photography

Posts: 1402

Huntington Beach, California, US

Wow, that is sweet.  A little pricey for my amateur taste, but pros aughta eat it up.

Love me some Joel Grimes btw.  That dude is the man.

Dec 06 10 05:37 pm Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

Jeff Mason wrote:
Oh, that IS sweet! But it couldn't be that hard to make one. A segment of a large conical reflector

It looks like part of a cylinder to me

http://www.customizedsolutions.org/blog/DSC00028.JPG

Cloth between part of two large partial hoops, or even a flat segmented solution might work.

Dec 06 10 05:37 pm Link

Retoucher

James Minshall

Posts: 218

Bedford, Indiana, US

we've used the original eyelighter for years and years.  the new one is extremely rugged and a bit wider, filling in the eye fully.  for our photovision shoot, we took it outside on a fairly windy day.. this thing is strong!

btw, scroll down on the linked page.. thats our studio!  (kev mo)

Dec 06 10 05:54 pm Link

Photographer

Bluefin Photography

Posts: 123

Arlington, Virginia, US

I might be missing something, but the price doesn't seem worth the effect.  Also, the reasoning behind the product doesn't make too much sense.  According to the website, the purported idea behind the product is to create catchlights with the "same curvature as the human eye" because ones created by flat reflectors create "unflattering" catchlights.  But the top catchlight used on the website is going to be rectangular from the softbox (or I guess round if one used an octa).  Seems like you'd get a similar look from a Lastolite Triflector setup, which is portable and not as pricey.

Dec 06 10 07:15 pm Link

Photographer

JWB2

Posts: 5965

Evansville, Indiana, US

Whatever it does people like it.  The picture of the model on that site is from this site.  Not only she is beautiful but the picture won picture of the day. 

http://modelmayhm-4.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/101123/23/4cecc23d7dae2_m.jpg

I agree it is expensive and I am not yet worried about a shape of a catch light but I guess after you master everything else you become more attune to those things.

Dec 06 10 08:05 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Shipstad

Posts: 4630

Burbank, California, US

I'm a lighting modifier addict.. and I really want one of these. But honestly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any photographers out there who wouldn't think this is at least $200 overpriced (it doesn't include the rolling stand for almost $500). If he could find a way to get the price down, it'll open up his target audience, and I'm sure he'd sell a hell of a lot more, and make a lot more $ in the long run.

I love the idea, I wish him luck selling these.

Dec 06 10 08:31 pm Link

Photographer

ScottieC

Posts: 162

Sacramento, California, US

Jeff Mason wrote:
Oh, that IS sweet! But it couldn't be that hard to make one. A segment of a large conical reflector, about 4 feet wide. With a little skill maybe even be able to make one with interchangeable reflecting surfaces (white, silver, gold).

Give me till end of January to make one...

and it's gonna be stupid easy..

Dec 06 10 09:19 pm Link

Photographer

Finale Photography

Posts: 745

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Can you get a similar lighting effect for closeups by asking the model to hold a $0.99 mylar thermal blanket?

Dec 06 10 09:21 pm Link

Photographer

pH Photo

Posts: 572

Chattanooga, Tennessee, US

Let's see.

Couple fiberglass tent poles from walmers. 15 bucks

Emergency blanket from wlamers. 2 bucks.

Hot glue. Free

Couple chunks of string. Free

Your tripod and reflector holder. Free

Sounds like you can get er done for under 20 bucks.

Just don't sell it or give it away.

I would like to see the patent number on this. Some how it don't pass the smell test.

It is so easy to say somthing is patented. It is so hard to actualy get one.

Dec 06 10 09:34 pm Link

Photographer

T Voye Photography

Posts: 322

Auburn, California, US

Or 10 seconds in photoshop?

Dec 06 10 09:51 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6426

Los Angeles, California, US

When a catch light includes a big ass un naturally shaped
octagonal soft box I think it looks very artificial.
I particularly don't like it when a light cuts into the shape of the pupil.

...According to the website, the purported idea behind the product is to create catchlights with the "same curvature as the human eye" because ones created by flat reflectors create "unflattering" catchlights. .... How did that grusome octagonal light in the top of the eye get passed the "flatter or not flatter police".



I go to great lengths to avoid these artificial reflections.

Personally I don't like the big semi circle swooh in the lower part of the eye either.

I also think that too many times you'll see close up beauty where no one has considered what size the pupil will be based on the intensity of the pilot light.

The eye is a window to the soul.... big reflection on the iris and pupil take that away....

Bit of a rant... but it is something that gets me...

Look at it this way.. whe you look into your boyfriend or girlfriends eyes... do you see a studio reflected in there???

Dec 06 10 09:57 pm Link

Photographer

Tog

Posts: 55204

Birmingham, Alabama, US

I'm amused.  People do that to eyes in photoshop and it's shit, but now you can pay an extra $500 to get it in camera....

Priceless..

Dec 06 10 10:05 pm Link

Photographer

photoimager

Posts: 5151

Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom

Bluefin Photography wrote:
Seems like you'd get a similar look from a Lastolite Triflector setup, which is portable and not as pricey.

Completely agree and the Triflector is somewhat older and probably what influenced the development of this product. I trust Stu Williamson ( ? ) is getting his royalties from the company.

Dec 07 10 07:18 am Link

Photographer

ContentiousReality

Posts: 1094

West Springfield, Massachusetts, US

Very cool!  I bet I can make one out of foamcore, duct tape, and some wooden dowels smile

Dec 07 10 07:44 am Link

Photographer

Photography by BE

Posts: 5652

Midland, Texas, US

ContentiousReality wrote:
Very cool!  I bet I can make one out of foamcore, duct tape, and some wooden dowels smile

I wanna see it when you finish.  I just love to see duct tape holding things together in a studio.  wink

Dec 07 10 07:49 am Link

Photographer

Pop Pics

Posts: 124

Rio Rancho, New Mexico, US

Optical Delusions wrote:
Or 10 seconds in photoshop?

Beat me to it.

Dec 07 10 07:49 am Link

Photographer

Photography by BE

Posts: 5652

Midland, Texas, US

Optical Delusions wrote:
Or 10 seconds in photoshop?

Pop Pics wrote:
Beat me to it.

If you look, there is more to the quality of light than just in the eyes.  The total effect would be difficult to reproduce with Photo Shop.     I agree it is pricey, and with some careful construction a similar reflector, that didn't look like it was put together by some 1st grader, could be made.

Dec 07 10 07:54 am Link

Photographer

Prose Photography

Posts: 1419

Glendale, Arizona, US

Photography by BE wrote:

Optical Delusions wrote:
Or 10 seconds in photoshop?

If you look, there is more to the quality of light than just in the eyes.  The total effect would be difficult to reproduce with Photo Shop.     I agree it is pricey, and with some careful construction a similar reflector, that didn't look like it was put together by some 1st grader, could be made.

+1

It's about the overall light on the face, not just the catch light in the eyes.

Dec 07 10 08:36 am Link

Photographer

Patrick Shipstad

Posts: 4630

Burbank, California, US

Prose Photography wrote:

+1

It's about the overall light on the face, not just the catch light in the eyes.

Exactly. Not everyone does photography that would benefit from this kind of modifier, but for some it would be great. And I'm not about to bring a paying client into the studio and sit them in front of a bent piece of cardboard wrapped in tin foil and duct tape, but that's just me. If that works for some, then awesome. If PhotoShop is a better/cheaper method, then do it. There's options for everyone :-)

Dec 07 10 11:08 am Link

Photographer

Photography by BE

Posts: 5652

Midland, Texas, US

I just realized who makes that product.  After attending one of  Larry's workshops, I realized how much this technique, or something near to it, would add to my head shots.  However I found a reflector that gives me a similar lighting result.  As luck would have it, the reflector and stand was a sort of a forerunner to the new ones (not the same as this product), and had been marked down in price to half the original price of $300.   My avatar was made with the one I have.

I admit it is not the same, but to be honest the Eyelighter is very large and I felt it would difficult to use in my limited space.   But if a photographer has the room and money, it will be a great addition to his reflector systems.

Dec 07 10 12:20 pm Link

Photographer

ContentiousReality

Posts: 1094

West Springfield, Massachusetts, US

Photography by BE wrote:
I wanna see it when you finish.  I just love to see duct tape holding things together in a studio.  wink

Then definitely swing by if you're ever in the area.  I'm a huge fan of DIY big_smile

Dec 07 10 12:24 pm Link

Photographer

Steven Bodo

Posts: 453

Seattle, Washington, US

Tog wrote:
I'm amused.  People do that to eyes in photoshop and it's shit, but now you can pay an extra $500 to get it in camera....

Priceless..

big_smile

Yep demand and supply goes both ways.
If you sell it, they'll buy it.

I personally think the sample images look terrible. That "catchlight" is so unnatural.

Dec 07 10 12:37 pm Link

Photographer

DarkSlide

Posts: 2353

Alexandria, Virginia, US

An eyeline reflector is not new. Many shooters have used mirrors, cut-down foamcore, etc to produce the effect that the EyeLighter does.

Dec 07 10 12:43 pm Link

Photographer

Marco Vallentin

Posts: 1123

Malmö, Skåne, Sweden

I wouldn't pay close to USD 500,- for a passive reflector ...

For that price, I would be looking for something where I could connect a studioflash head to it,
and control it's output ACTIVELY !

Dec 07 10 12:46 pm Link

Photographer

dirk olsen

Posts: 1338

Memphis, Tennessee, US

Love it!   Perfect for an alternative to clamshell lighting.

Dec 07 10 01:07 pm Link

Photographer

LANE STUDIOS

Posts: 18

San Francisco, California, US

complete waste and not very controllable. I've always shot high-key images with a med SB above and below the model. Much better control and way cheaper.


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l128/ … C_6710.jpg
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l128/ … C_6706.jpg

Dec 07 10 01:15 pm Link

Dec 07 10 03:23 pm Link

Retoucher

James Minshall

Posts: 218

Bedford, Indiana, US

double post

Dec 07 10 03:23 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 13048

Atlanta, Georgia, US

The light looks nice in regards to the fill and softness, but its just not doing it for me.  I would sooner use (buy) a ring light for that kind of money, granted I don't get the catch light wars that appear to be more common these days.

I am sure the images in this thread were done by talented photographers that could have produce stunning work with a cheap 5-1 reflector and a speed light.

Dec 07 10 03:31 pm Link

Photographer

Joseph Jason Photograph

Posts: 2653

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, US

This effect is very similar to simply using a long, rectangular mirror underneath. Put white foam core over the mirror and there ya go. I wouldn't pay $400 just to be able to bend the edges upwards, but that's me.

Dec 07 10 03:34 pm Link

Photographer

Tim Little Photography

Posts: 11767

Wilmington, Delaware, US

I may be wrong but it seems like a cheap DIY version could be cobbled together with white poster board or mat board and some curved metal rods. I love the effect but I can't afford it.

The videos on the site are wonderful!

Dec 07 10 05:18 pm Link