|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
The Eyelighter reflector.. pretty sweet.
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 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 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 Jeff Mason wrote: It looks like part of a cylinder to me Dec 06 10 05:37 pm Link 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 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 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.  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 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 Jeff Mason wrote: Give me till end of January to make one... Dec 06 10 09:19 pm Link 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 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 Or 10 seconds in photoshop? Dec 06 10 09:51 pm Link 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 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 Bluefin Photography wrote: 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 Very cool! I bet I can make one out of foamcore, duct tape, and some wooden dowels  Dec 07 10 07:44 am Link ContentiousReality wrote: I wanna see it when you finish. I just love to see duct tape holding things together in a studio. Dec 07 10 07:49 am Link Optical Delusions wrote: Beat me to it. Dec 07 10 07:49 am Link Optical Delusions wrote: Pop Pics wrote: 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 Photography by BE wrote: Optical Delusions wrote: 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 Dec 07 10 08:36 am Link Prose Photography wrote: 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 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 Photography by BE wrote: Then definitely swing by if you're ever in the area. I'm a huge fan of DIY Dec 07 10 12:24 pm Link Tog wrote:
Dec 07 10 12:37 pm Link 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 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 Love it! Perfect for an alternative to clamshell lighting. Dec 07 10 01:07 pm Link 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 more shots with the new, and old eyelighter: http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/10275073 http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/18277208 http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/18725902 http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/18495330 http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/18306520 http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/12520243 http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/15489471 Dec 07 10 03:23 pm Link double post Dec 07 10 03:23 pm Link 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 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 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 |
