Forums > Photography Talk > Photographers worrying about lighting setup.

Photographer

GM Photography

Posts: 6100

Olympia, Washington, US

L Bass wrote:

Actually, you are right. In this day and age, it's all about the computer. When I learned 'photography'... it was all about the 'camera.'

The great thing about 'photography' these days... you can screw up a whole batch of images (from total lack of knowhow)... send them to someone proficient in post photo manipulation.... and end up with some pretty nice stuff. And 'PRESTO!'.... you're a great photographer!

In the 'camera' days, you didn't have that option.

You might want to read up a little on a fellow named Ansel Adams.  He did a lot of "photo manipulation" in the darkroom.  What he did with his images after they came out of the camera was a huge part of what made his work so powerful.

Jul 12 13 06:13 am Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

GM Photography wrote:
You might want to read up a little on a fellow named Ansel Adams.  He did a lot of "photo manipulation" in the darkroom.  What he did with his images after they came out of the camera was a huge part of what made his work so powerful.

My bad entirely. Now... what type of computer did Mr. Adams use? I must have missed that.

I believe you missed the point.

Jul 12 13 06:53 am Link

Photographer

GM Photography

Posts: 6100

Olympia, Washington, US

L Bass wrote:

My bad entirely. Now... what type of computer did Mr. Adams use? I must have missed that.

I believe you missed the point.

Clearly, someone missed the point.

Jul 12 13 06:55 am Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

GM Photography wrote:

Clearly, someone missed the point.

lol... yes they did.

Jul 12 13 06:58 am Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8857

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

MMR Digital wrote:
DEJA VU MM?

I could swear I have seen this comment before?

Jul 13 13 10:44 am Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

GM Photography wrote:
Clearly, someone missed the point.

L Bass wrote:
lol... yes they did.

Not they.  You.

People have been using post production work to either enhance an already good image (Adams) or try to salvage a poor one since before the development of Photoshop.  Know what a computer and a dark room have in common?  Nether one is a camera.  So, despite your previous assertion that it used to be all about the camera, it wasn't.  However, don't give up all hope.  Given the rate at which post production tools are being incorporated into image capture devices, the day may yet come when your mistaken statement might be true.

Jul 13 13 02:26 pm Link

Photographer

PhotosbyChuck

Posts: 2222

Glen Ellyn, Illinois, US

L Bass wrote:

My bad entirely. Now... what type of computer did Mr. Adams use? I must have missed that.

I believe you missed the point.

Many tools like dodge and burn are called that because they are modeled after enlarger tricks being done long before computers came into the....uh...picture.

Jul 13 13 03:51 pm Link

Photographer

udor

Posts: 22368

New York, New York, US

L Bass wrote:

My bad entirely. Now... what type of computer did Mr. Adams use? I must have missed that.

Darkroom = Lightroom... wink

Jul 13 13 03:56 pm Link

Photographer

udor

Posts: 22368

New York, New York, US

Robert Lynch wrote:
People have been using post production work to either enhance an already good image (Adams) or try to salvage a poor one since before the development of Photoshop.  Know what a computer and a dark room have in common?  Nether one is a camera.

I have been a few times to the Met, visiting the After Photoshop - Manipulated Photography in the Digital Age exhibition and they had an annex to this exhibition, showing photo manipulation since the late 19th century... including composits to show dramatic clouds and landscapes, where the cloud formations were chosen from slides, because the emulsion used for landscapes couldn't capture sky and blue tones... so they had other ones that they simply super imposed.

Goes very far back... digital photo manipulation software is just the newest toy in the toolbox...

Jul 13 13 04:06 pm Link

Photographer

Alien LiFe

Posts: 846

San Francisco, California, US

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
Amateurs Worry About Cameras And Lenses
Professionals Worry About Time And Cost
Masters Worry About Light And composition

Based on the above,
I'm an amateurs since I'm worry about my camera & lenses everytime I shoot.
I'm also a professionals because I'm worry about time to shoot & the cost of the shoot (I'm a low budget kinda professional ... lol)
And I'm also master because I'm picky with lighting & composition ...


😀

Jul 13 13 04:59 pm Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

Robert Lynch wrote:

GM Photography wrote:
Clearly, someone missed the point.

Not they.  You.

People have been using post production work to either enhance an already good image (Adams) or try to salvage a poor one since before the development of Photoshop.  Know what a computer and a dark room have in common?  Nether one is a camera.  So, despite your previous assertion that it used to be all about the camera, it wasn't.  However, don't give up all hope.  Given the rate at which post production tools are being incorporated into image capture devices, the day may yet come when your mistaken statement might be true.

It's funny how I can stir up the young'uns with a line or two in a forum. Thank you for your wisdom and outstanding display of intellect on the subject. It's obvious I touched on a sensitive subject with you and for that, I apologize.

Jul 13 13 05:12 pm Link

Photographer

Jakov Markovic

Posts: 1128

Belgrade, Central Serbia, Serbia

Either you have the knowledge of light or you don't.

If you don't, learn.

You should do your preparation, as much as you can no matter how good you are, as only way to discover new things is by experimentation.

NOTHING TO DO WITH "PROFESSIONAL" LIGHTING.

God created the Sun, and did a very professional job at that, so you might want to use the Sun. smile

Jul 13 13 07:04 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

L Bass wrote:
It's funny how I can stir up the young'uns with a line or two in a forum. Thank you for your wisdom and outstanding display of intellect on the subject. It's obvious I touched on a sensitive subject with you and for that, I apologize.

I ain't a young'un.  I knew my way around a darkroom before digital was all the rage.  What I find funny is the old guys who conveniently forget the reality of the way things were in order to spin fanciful yarns about a purity that never existed.

Jul 13 13 09:10 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:

Let me ask you this. Who is going to to be further along the curve to attaining excellent photography?

Person A - who has mastered light but has never picked up a dslr? Or, Person B - who has read their manual, "mastered" the technical functions of the camera, but hasn't a clue about using light?

I'm putting my money on Person A.

It doesn't take very long to learn how to use a camera and its functions. Mastering light is far more elusive, something many spend years trying to achieve, and what truly sets apart the great photographers from the "meh."

Bingo!

Jul 13 13 09:13 pm Link

Photographer

907Benjamin

Posts: 1712

Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, US

L Bass wrote:

You might want to tweak that to say... 'and a TON of post.' If you know your camera and light... you don't have to know squat about post, unless you're going after totally unrealistic results.

the first thing that grabbed me as well,  lots of PS that I do not know how to do

Jul 13 13 11:57 pm Link

Photographer

Kool Koncepts

Posts: 888

Saint Louis, Michigan, US

The two are intrinsically connected.

It is necessary to understand and know light in relationship to the camera AND know the camera in relationship to light.

Jul 14 13 06:45 am Link

Photographer

GM Photography

Posts: 6100

Olympia, Washington, US

907Benjamin  wrote:

the first thing that grabbed me as well,  lots of PS that I do not know how to do

Lighting is critical to making good images, however, "developing" your digital images is also part of the photography process, just as developing film was before digital.

You can let your camera make all the choices for you (kind of like sending your film to Fotomat), or learn Photoshop (or one of the many other tools available) to "process" your own images to your taste.  Often the "experienced" photographers that complain about digital editing just couldn't keep up with their craft.  They were either too lazy or too scared to stay current with technology and aren't able to make high quality digital images. 

As a photographer, why wouldn't you make use of all the tools at your disposal? 

I get that in some cases the digital manipulations can go way overboard.  It's funny, because sometimes you'll see examples of that in the same person's portfolio that made the protestations.

At the end of the day, nobody but you (and some corporate clients) cares how long you've been shooting, what gear you use, how you light things, how much Photoshop you do or don't use, whether you shoot RAW or JPG, sRGB or Adobe RGB.  In general, all they care about is the experience they have working with you and the end results you provide.

Jul 14 13 07:42 am Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

Robert Lynch wrote:

I ain't a young'un.  I knew my way around a darkroom before digital was all the rage.  What I find funny is the old guys who conveniently forget the reality of the way things were in order to spin fanciful yarns about a purity that never existed.

As I said... if it's a sensitive subject for you... I apologize. The choice is yours, you can beat a dead horse... or you can give it up. Either way... I will not argue with you. That would put myself on your level, and that's not going to happen wink

Jul 14 13 08:12 am Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 16908

El Segundo, California, US

GM Photography wrote:
You can let your camera make all the choices for you (kind of like sending your film to Fotomat), or learn Photoshop (or one of the many other tools available) to "process" your own images to your taste.  Often the "experienced" photographers that complain about digital editing just couldn't keep up with their craft.  They were either too lazy or too scared to stay current with technology and aren't able to make high quality digital images. 

As a photographer, why wouldn't you make use of all the tools at your disposal?

You answered your own question

Because...

GM Photography wrote:
At the end of the day, nobody but you (and some corporate clients) cares how long you've been shooting, what gear you use, how you light things, how much Photoshop you do or don't use, whether you shoot RAW or JPG, sRGB or Adobe RGB.  In general, all they care about is the experience they have working with you and the end results you provide.

Jul 14 13 10:36 pm Link

Photographer

Shot By Adam

Posts: 5938

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

L Bass wrote:
It's funny how I can stir up the young'uns with a line or two in a forum. Thank you for your wisdom and outstanding display of intellect on the subject. It's obvious I touched on a sensitive subject with you and for that, I apologize.

All you did was issue a public display of your ignorance on this topic and then, when called on it, you swapped ignorance for ego.

Jul 14 13 11:57 pm Link

Photographer

JustTheDarkness

Posts: 59

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Photography's definition is the study of light, not the study of cameras.


"the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays."


Not Best Buy Camera usage

Jul 15 13 12:04 am Link

Photographer

Warrenjrphotography-SJ

Posts: 212

Hammonton, New Jersey, US

Honestly ,lighting was the easiest part of photography for me second to learning the camera.

It all made sense and the physics behinds what gives certain modifiers their "special" look is all simple when you look at it on a deeper level (for example the reason why beauty dishes give their look is because it's typically a light source larger than a speed light, round so that it gives round catch lights, and it can be placed close due to it's design and normal uses giving a soft yet hard (in the middle between bare speed light & umbrella) light that looks most flattering on women.

Using multiple speed lights in unison properly can give you a photograph with lots of hot spots depending on how hot that you set them and due to the separation of the light sources you get hot spots.

The different light modifiers regarding umbrellas (such as octaboxes) give more controllable spill than regular umbrella but it all really comes down to inverse square law + knowing how the characteristics of light works (larger the light source is relative to your subject the softer the light will be) and working around the different various lighting setups and experimenting.

Light at it's most basic form is simple once that you have experimented enough with it and know the physics/theory around it and how it relates to real world usage.

Jul 15 13 12:07 am Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5210

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

L Bass wrote:

It's funny how I can stir up the young'uns with a line or two in a forum. Thank you for your wisdom and outstanding display of intellect on the subject. It's obvious I touched on a sensitive subject with you and for that, I apologize.

Just for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psnp2vXb … gest-vrecs

Jul 15 13 12:22 am Link

Photographer

Hikari Tech Photography

Posts: 791

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Tulack wrote:
Here is one of my favorite photographers.

http://500px.com/89205537525

Only natural light. Know your camera, know light, know post. "Cheap" photoshoot every time. Only camera, sometimes reflector.

but what happens if you're shooting around the golden hour or later?

Jul 15 13 02:02 am Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

Shot By Adam wrote:

All you did was issue a public display of your ignorance on this topic and then, when called on it, you swapped ignorance for ego.

Mr. Shot... if something I said offended you or hit a sensitive spot with you, I'll apologize to you as well. You can call it whatever your level of photographic intellect would like to call it, and make as big a spectacle as you think is necessary in this forum. We can all assume that you are FAR more educated on the subject that I will ever be, so why argue?

BTW... I spent 1/125 of a second producing AND finishing my avatar. And you?

Jul 15 13 06:06 am Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

Drew Smith Photography wrote:

Just for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psnp2vXb … gest-vrecs

Thank you, Drew. I will have a look at that when I get the chance.

Jul 15 13 06:07 am Link

Photographer

Brian Ziff

Posts: 4105

Los Angeles, California, US

Brian Ziff wrote:
Light is light,

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
To me, it's not. 

Natural light is a different animal then artificial or flash.  They differ in color, ability to control, direction of rays, predictability, and probably some stuff I didn't grab off the top of my head just now.

For instance, try to get the same light out of the sun as you get from a 30x40 softbox. Unless you build a room around the subject with a 30x40 window in it, lit by the sun shining straight at it, it won't match.  And even if it did, you couldn't adjust the room or the model as easily as you can adjust a softbox.

Any given source has different properties then other sources.  Understanding that difference and how to apply it per image is WHY lighting probably trumps camera control in some respects (why Gregory Crewdson's pics look the way they do, even though he doesn't actually operate a camera at all).

The fact that you left my comma dangling in the quote should be indicative of the fact that there was more to my sentence--which, if you go back to my post--reflects exactly the point you're trying to make.  I wasn't the camera control guy.  I was the light control guy.

Jul 15 13 02:34 pm Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

L Bass wrote:
BTW... I spent 1/125 of a second producing AND finishing my avatar. And you?

Can't comment here.

Maybe you should post your avatar in the Critique forum to find out whether your statement is as clever as you think it is.





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 15 13 02:43 pm Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

That Italian Guy wrote:

Can't comment here.

Maybe you should post your avatar in the Critique forum to find out whether your statement is as clever as you think it is.





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I didn't indicate that it was 'clever'... I merely stated a fact.

Jul 15 13 02:45 pm Link

Photographer

TrianglePhoto

Posts: 582

Chicago, Illinois, US

According to Weegee - "F/8 and be there" is all you need!

Jul 15 13 02:55 pm Link

Photographer

Kool Koncepts

Posts: 888

Saint Louis, Michigan, US

L Bass wrote:
...BTW... I spent 1/125 of a second producing AND finishing my avatar. And you?

Reinforcement of my post.

Jul 15 13 02:56 pm Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

Kool Koncepts wrote:

Reinforcement of my post.

And of mine. Good point.

Jul 15 13 02:59 pm Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

L Bass wrote:
In this day and age, it's all about the computer.

Entirely wrong.

Attempting to 'fix' a bad image in Photoshop is akin to polishing a turd.

Model selection, styling, lighting, lens selection, timing, image selection, RAW conversion, retouching/finishing are all integral to producing a final image.

Skimp on any of these and the image is unlikely to be as good as it could have been. Sure, it might still be better than a lot of the shit floating around on the internet, but sometimes turds can float for a while too.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 15 13 03:07 pm Link

Photographer

DBIphotography Toronto

Posts: 3226

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Brian Ziff wrote:
Camera operation isn't very difficult, but most people start off by shooting natural light anyway and more or less figuring out how shutter speed and aperture work, and what's the appropriate ISO (or film speed, if you work with film).

Once you get serious though, there's nothing more important than light and lighting.  Better lighting systems give you more control, more consistency, and open a world of possibilities in terms of modifiers and light shapers.

Light is light, but the way you control it is everything in photography.  And in any case--there's no manual you can read on having a good eye.

I agree, that once one starts getting serious low-light is where it's at. It's nice being able to control the environment and lighting to create what appears to be a low-light image (easy to make a crisp capture as well, and shoot it lighter then lower the lighting while manipulating the image in PP), but personally I like when I can use as minimal a setup as possible and cvreate print-quality images shot under lowered lighting. I started shooted shooting under natural and ambient lighting pretty soon after I began shooting, and grew out of my studio-settings completely yikes  Low-light....no-light....whatever.....

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s8/v76/p1416981200-2.jpg

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s8/v82/p1431174130-2.jpg

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s1/v54/p1150316466-2.jpg

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s4/v63/p1150297142-2.jpg

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s8/v75/p1876341266-2.jpg

That Italian Guy wrote:
Attempting to 'fix' a bad image in Photoshop is akin to polishing a turd.

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

+1. Actually, +1000!!!!!!

Ðaniel A Betts
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

“The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.”
~Oscar Wilde

Jul 15 13 03:17 pm Link

Photographer

Bearz Images

Posts: 816

Asheville, North Carolina, US

As long as there's light, I never worry.

Jul 15 13 03:19 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 10310

Santa Ana, California, US

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Honestly ,lighting was the easiest part of photography for me second to learning the camera.

Interesting comment. I find the exact opposite to be true and I didn't just begin doing this. Real proficiency at lighting is much more difficult to conquer than simply regulating exposure.

Jul 15 13 03:22 pm Link

Photographer

L Bass

Posts: 957

Nacogdoches, Texas, US

That Italian Guy wrote:

Entirely wrong.

Attempting to 'fix' a bad image in Photoshop is akin to polishing a turd.

Model selection, styling, lighting, lens selection, timing, image selection, RAW conversion, retouching/finishing are all integral to producing a final image.

Skimp on any of these and the image is unlikely to be as good as it could have been. Sure, it might still be better than a lot of the shit floating around on the internet, but sometimes turds can float for a while too.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Maybe my first post wasn't clear. Or maybe I used the wrong words. When I made reference to the fact that post production work was done on computers these days, I meant just that. When I said that I was taught how to use a camera and not a computer, I meant just that. When I said that someone can screw up a load of photos and they can all be 'somewhat' corrected via the computer, I meant just that. I didn't think I would have to include my life story about learning darkroom techniques, and what enlargers I'm familiar with, etc.

And in reference to your second line ... Attempting to 'fix' a bad image in Photoshop is akin to polishing a turd.... I completely agree. That was basically my point in the first place. There is a LOT of attempted PS repairs going on here and it makes me laugh at some of the attempts. I will indeed break down and spend some time learning PS one of these days. I just haven't had the time in the last few years.

Jul 15 13 03:28 pm Link

Photographer

Revenge Photography

Posts: 1828

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Alien LiFe wrote:

Based on the above,
I'm an amateurs since I'm worry about my camera & lenses everytime I shoot.
I'm also a professionals because I'm worry about time to shoot & the cost of the shoot (I'm a low budget kinda professional ... lol)
And I'm also master because I'm picky with lighting & composition ...


😀

LOL Sounds more like you just like to worry

Jul 15 13 03:31 pm Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Real proficiency at lighting is much more difficult to conquer than simply regulating exposure.

Steady on there... What kind of heresy is this? lol





Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 15 13 03:36 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 10310

Santa Ana, California, US

That Italian Guy wrote:

Steady on there... What kind of heresy is this? lol





Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

big_smile

Jul 15 13 03:38 pm Link