Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Yes I could light a car on a set or light a whole room set on my first or second go.

First, I'd look up examples of past work done lighting whole cars and than I'd see how it was done by dissecting the results and go from there.

Lighting both a car or a room set both seem like they would require very large light sources but definitely not too difficult.

Before you tackle cars and rooms maybe you should post one good and well lit image of yours in critique so that everyone is on the same page as to the definitions of good and well lit.

It would definitely be essential to the discussion.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Please don't troll/derail this thread too.

I am simply responding to your ridiculous assertion that lighting is 'easy' and that you can replicate anything you see in a matter of minutes.

I notice you still haven't posted a thread in the critique forum.







Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

favourite? Really? You need to admire someone who knows lighting instead of fixing it with cheap photoshop effects.

I have to go with Natalia here. No way I can this this person is a master of lighting.

Camerosity wrote:
The size of the light source is just part of the equation. The rest of it is the quality (or qualities) of the light - how hard or soft the light is, the shape of the light, whether and to what extent it wraps around the subject, the way it falls off...

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
How hard or soft your light source is, is all dependent on the size of your light source in relation to the distance/size of your subject.......it doesn't get any more complicated or simpler than that.

Actually it doesn't get that simple - unless a Mola Euro with a sllver bowl and a grid looks the same as a 32-inch umbrella (give or take an inch and a half).

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
The way it falls off is going back to the inverse square law (further away the light source is in relation to subject the more gradual the light fall off).

The way it falls off at the edges. Point a fresnel spotlight at a white wall and photograph the wall. Point an umbrella at the wall and shoot it. You’ll see the difference.

Shoot a model with the fresnel spotlight and the umbrella. Look at the shadow edge transfers. There’s a big difference, even if the size and distance are the same.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

No you're coming to false conclusions based on what you think that I would do.

I work and live with a model.

If I need to get a particular lighting I would practice it/chimp with HER and than get it right when out on an actual photoshoot.

Also, nothing wrong with chimping even when shooting a client.

What are you going to do, shoot blind or rely strictly on a light meter (takes about just as much time as chimping to use a light meter and adjust your flashes/strobes/modifiers).

I have been on paid shoots with actual professionals and yes, most do "chimp" I don't know why it has such a bad rep around here but I never heard of a client thinking that he could do just as well as the photographer because the photographer "chimping" was reading his histogram/LCD and adjustng on the fly.

Go tell the pros that make 6 digits and produce excellent results like Joel Grimes/Neil VN/David Holly/Joe Mcnally/etc that chimping is bad and watch how they tell you that you're wrong.

Also, tethering to your computer is a form of chimping as well so I guess you can put Frank Doorhof and the rest that tether in your category as well.

Oh my..you work and live with a model. That's what I've been doing wrong all these years. Secret for ya...that's no great feat.

What is a great feat is learning how to use light to achieve whatever look you want. Nobody said chimping was a bad thing, but most people except GWC's can tell the difference between someone who knows what they are doing and someone who is hoping to get a good result purely by trial and error.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

You must be drunk or something if you think that.
http://www.jamescallaghan.co.uk/portfolio would you care to try ?

I don't have the gear to take those photos but most could be done using large white sheets/anything white & transparent a long with strobes spread out & put far back to eliminate hot spots while being mindful of the angle of incidence to get nice reflections.

A lot of the photos look like composites so this would be easily done in a large enough studio.

My guess is that he gets nice landscape photos (or buys them), takes car photos in a studio with the landscape/environment in mind using the lighting that he wants via a large/small light source (depending on the lighting that he wants, and then he hires a retoucher to finish it up with a composite.

Most of his photos are composites and it's very evident.

In Balance Photography wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Yes I could light a car on a set or light a whole room set on my first or second go.

First, I'd look up examples of past work done lighting whole cars and than I'd see how it was done by dissecting the results and go from there.

Lighting both a car or a room set both seem like they would require very large light sources but definitely not too difficult.

Before you tackle cars and rooms maybe you should post one good and well lit image of yours in critique so that everyone is on the same page as to the definitions of good and well lit.

It would definitely be essential to the discussion.

That Italian Guy wrote:

I am simply responding to your ridiculous assertion that lighting is 'easy' and that you can replicate anything you see in a matter of minutes.

I notice you still haven't posted a thread in the critique forum.







Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I don't post a photo in the critique photo because I have learned and am continuing to learn to become my own best "critic" and am constantly learning, improving, and experimenting based around MY own style and not what the other photographers on here thing is "wrong or right".

Not to mention that photography is an art and there is no right/wrong and some of the best photographers/artists would say the same thing and tell most not to ask for critique as each photographer has their own style a long with what looks right or wrong.

Case in point, someone could post a photo taken by Frank Doorhof or Joel Grimes and say it was their own or they themselves could post the photo under another alias and people would tell jeol grimes that "composites are a joke" and that his colors are "too desaturated" and that is colors look "off" or that they don't like his lighting.

They would also probably say that Frank's photo suck because the light source is too hard and the photo is too dark. He even said that, people would probably say that if he went ahead and posted his photos under a fake alias.



So with that said, I could care less about what others think about my photos as what matters most is that:

1. I am able to critique my own best photos.

2. I like my photos.

3. I know where I want to improve/experiment on next.

So in my opinion critique is borderline useless when it comes to photography (unless you're a beginner or want to copy another photographers style...not original I know but that is what critique is there for).

So no, I do not want you or anyone's else s critique as I'm happy where I'm at right now and am happy where my photography is going and I do not care about the opinions of other photographers.

All the best.

Camerosity wrote:
Actually it doesn't get that simple - unless a Mola Euro with a sllver bowl and a grid looks the same as a 32-inch umbrella (give or take an inch and a half).


The way it falls off at the edges. Point a fresnel spotlight at a white wall and photograph the wall. Point an umbrella at the wall and shoot it. You’ll see the difference.

Shoot a model with the fresnel spotlight and the umbrella. Look at the shadow edge transfers. There’s a big difference, even if the size and distance are the same.

Again, you're coming back to a basic concept.

You're going back to the larger the light source = softer the light & shadows rule.

If you use a hard bare flash to light someone than of course the shadow/ shadow transfer is going to be harder.....it's a hard & small light source.

A hard light source creates hard shadows.

So the softness and what you're calling "shadow quality" is directly related to the size of your light source in relation to the size of your subject.

However, if you use a larger light source like an umbrella than the shadow becomes softer thus creating a softer transfer zone because your light source is much larger than the previous light source creating softer light which creates......soft shadows.

If the flash was as big as the umbrella than the shadows would be the same softness wise because the light sources would be similar in size in relation to the subject so you contradicted yourself when you said "Shoot a model with the fresnel spotlight and the umbrella. Look at the shadow edge transfers. There’s a big difference, even if the size and distance are the same."

as a freshnal spotlight and an umbrella will never be close to the same size.

There may be minor differeces in light falloff when say, using a grid vs not using a grid but again, it all comes back to physics.

The way the light fall off works is in direct relation with the size/shape of the light source.

Light & how everything works is basic physics.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

In Balance Photography wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Yes I could light a car on a set or light a whole room set on my first or second go.

First, I'd look up examples of past work done lighting whole cars and than I'd see how it was done by dissecting the results and go from there.

Lighting both a car or a room set both seem like they would require very large light sources but definitely not too difficult.

Before you tackle cars and rooms maybe you should post one good and well lit image of yours in critique so that everyone is on the same page as to the definitions of good and well lit.

It would definitely be essential to the discussion.

I don't post a photo in the critique photo because I have learned and am continuing to learn to become my own best "critic" and am constantly learning, improving, and experimenting based around MY own style and not what the other photographers on here thing is "wrong or right".

Not to mention that photography is an art and there is no right/wrong and some of the best photographers/artists would say the same thing and tell most not to ask for critique as each photographer has their own style a long with what looks right or wrong.

Case in point, someone could post a photo taken by Frank Doorhof or Joel Grimes and say it was their own or they themselves could post the photo under another alias and people would tell jeol grimes that "composites are a joke" and that his colors are "too desaturated" and that is colors look "off" or that they don't like his lighting.

They would also probably say that Frank's photo suck because the light source is too hard and the photo is too dark. He even said that, people would probably say that if he went ahead and posted his photos under a fake alias.



So with that said, I could care less about what others think about my photos as what matters most is that:

1. I am able to critique my own best photos.

2. I like my photos.

3. I know where I want to improve/experiment on next.

So in my opinion critique is borderline useless when it comes to photography (unless you're a beginner or want to copy another photographers style...not original I know but that is what critique is there for).

So no, I do not want you or anyone's else s critique as I'm happy where I'm at right now and am happy where my photography is going and I do not care about the opinions of other photographers.

All the best.

Given your reasoning - that you are the sole judge of good and well lit - you will always have good and well lit photos, at least by your standards.

You are your own audience.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

In Balance Photography wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Yes I could light a car on a set or light a whole room set on my first or second go.

First, I'd look up examples of past work done lighting whole cars and than I'd see how it was done by dissecting the results and go from there.

Lighting both a car or a room set both seem like they would require very large light sources but definitely not too difficult.

Before you tackle cars and rooms maybe you should post one good and well lit image of yours in critique so that everyone is on the same page as to the definitions of good and well lit.

It would definitely be essential to the discussion.

I don't post a photo in the critique photo because I have learned and am continuing to learn to become my own best "critic" and am constantly learning, improving, and experimenting based around MY own style and not what the other photographers on here thing is "wrong or right".

Not to mention that photography is an art and there is no right/wrong and some of the best photographers/artists would say the same thing and tell most not to ask for critique as each photographer has their own style a long with what looks right or wrong.

Case in point, someone could post a photo taken by Frank Doorhof or Joel Grimes and say it was their own or they themselves could post the photo under another alias and people would tell jeol grimes that "composites are a joke" and that his colors are "too desaturated" and that is colors look "off" or that they don't like his lighting.

They would also probably say that Frank's photo suck because the light source is too hard and the photo is too dark. He even said that, people would probably say that if he went ahead and posted his photos under a fake alias.



So with that said, I could care less about what others think about my photos as what matters most is that:

1. I am able to critique my own best photos.

2. I like my photos.

3. I know where I want to improve/experiment on next.

So in my opinion critique is borderline useless when it comes to photography (unless you're a beginner or want to copy another photographers style...not original I know but that is what critique is there for).

So no, I do not want you or anyone's else s critique as I'm happy where I'm at right now and am happy where my photography is going and I do not care about the opinions of other photographers.

All the best.

Well, isn't that convenient.
Personally, I find value in many critiques on MM. Some are from experienced photographers who see certain aspects and some are from people who don't necessarily have the technical expertise, but have a good eye. Of course there's also a smattering of completely worthless ones.

But I'm guessing from your refusal to accept technical truths from a number of talented photographers in this thread, that a critique would be of little value to you in terms of growth.

In Balance Photography wrote:

Given your reasoning - that you are the sole judge of good and well lit - you will always have good and well lit photos, at least by your standards.

You are your own audience.

If you know what you're shooting for and how to compare your photos and what you see in your mind eye you learn to become your own best critic as you know what you're going for and what you're not going for.

Asking for opinions in any art is in my opinion somewhat stupid as everyone has their own styles and likes/dislikes.

Ever watch Ironchef?

Cooking is like photography, someone's golden meal that look beautiful and tastes amazing is another ones disgusting meal because the meat is "too rare" he doesn't like greens, doesn't like spicy foods, and dislikes chocolate.

See where I'm going here?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Well, isn't that convenient.
Personally, I find value in many critiques on MM. Some are from experienced photographers who see certain aspects and some are from people who don't necessarily have the technical expertise, but have a good eye. Of course there's also a smattering of completely worthless ones.

But I'm guessing from your refusal to accept technical truths from a number of talented photographers in this thread, that a critique would be of little value to you in terms of growth.

You're right in that I would not value the critique of others.

I am constantly improving my lighting, my composition, my planning, my techniques, even going as far as figuring out better ways to hand hold a camera, scouting out locations, looking at other photographers work, seeing what I like/dislike about it and incorporating what I like and see ijn my own minds eye (my own golden meal) into my photography and continuing to evolve.

Taking someone elses opinion would be like if I made a delicious meal and told someone to judge it and they told me that they don't like pepper and than they went ahead and told me to eliminate the pepper & other spices that they don't like from the meal because it tasted bad......it's pointless.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
You're right in that I would not value the critique of others.

Well, then maybe a modeling community is not the best match for you, since you don't value the opinion of others. Because photography (at least at any quasi-professional level) is all about the opinion of others when it comes to your work. Whether models or other creatives will work with you at all for instance, at one extreme. It will effect how much you pay models and team members often also. If you're chasing clients, your success will certainly depend upon other's perception of your work.
Completely discounting other's opinions on anything, is just a slippery slide to living in a delusional bubble.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
I don't have the gear to take those photos but most could be done using large white sheets/anything white & transparent a long with strobes spread out & put far back to eliminate hot spots while being mindful of the angle of incidence to get nice reflections.

A lot of the photos look like composites so this would be easily done in a large enough studio.

My guess is that he gets nice landscape photos (or buys them), takes car photos in a studio with the landscape/environment in mind using the lighting that he wants via a large/small light source (depending on the lighting that he wants, and then he hires a retoucher to finish it up with a composite.

Most of his photos are composites and it's very evident.

All he owns is a camera.
You really have absolutely no idea in fact you couldn't have got it more wrong. But please keep contributing to this forum as you're a great source of amusement.
I really shouldn't laugh but you are funny I apologise and understand your total lack of knowledge and experience which is very limited.
Large white sheet had me on the floor.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Asking for opinions in any art is in my opinion somewhat stupid as everyone has their own styles and likes/dislikes.

There's a huge difference between asking if your 'art' is to somebody else's taste and asking whether your photography is technically good or bad.

And no, by 'technically good or bad' I don't just mean are your photos clear and exposed within a range that most people would consider tolerable.

By refusing to accept any critiques whatsoever you are almost certainly ensuring that your progress towards excellence will be glacially slow at best.

Good luck on what is going to be a long and tedious journey.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If the flash was as big as the umbrella than the shadows would be the same softness wise because the light sources would be similar in size in relation to the subject so you contradicted yourself when you said "Shoot a model with the fresnel spotlight and the umbrella. Look at the shadow edge transfers. There’s a big difference, even if the size and distance are the same."

And...

You're wrong.

He did not contradict himself.  There is more to the quality of light/shadow than the apparent size of the source compared to the subject.  You will never match the output from a focused source (fresnel) with an unfocused source (umbrella) even if they are the exact same size.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
But I'm guessing from your refusal to accept technical truths from a number of talented photographers in this thread, that a critique would be of little value to you in terms of growth.

It is obvious from his posting history over the course of his six weeks here so far that he knows everything and there is nothing that anyone here can offer to him.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
See where I'm going here?

Oh yeah. I see where you are going. I also see where you aren't going.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Well, then maybe a modeling community is not the best match for you, since you don't value the opinion of others. Because photography (at least at any quasi-professional level) is all about the opinion of others when it comes to your work. Whether models or other creatives will work with you at all for instance, at one extreme. It will effect how much you pay models and team members often also. If you're chasing clients, your success will certainly depend upon other's perception of your work.
Completely discounting other's opinions on anything, is just a slippery slide to living in a delusional bubble.

Well I have a lot of models in my area that like my work and I'm booked up as of now.

Like I said why do you think there's so many variations on recipes?

Someone might see one of my photos and say "I don't like the flat loop lighting you should use a beauty dish" or "Composition was off you should have cropped tighter"

its akin to eating a meal after trying their recipe and saying "I don't like the paprika or parsley" or "I would have used less crust as you used too much and I would have used less vegetables as you used too much which is bad".......

Generally speaking, if you like your own photos, know your own style, and know where you're aiming for you will always be improving and you will always find people that like/love your photos just like you will always find people that like/love your recipes yet the chef will always find ways to improve their recipes without needing anyone else's "critique".

Cooking is an art, photography is an art, music is an art, designing games is an art, did Van Gogh or Rebrandt ever have people on the internet to critique their photos?

If not, how did they become so good at their art? (Van Gogh by the way, was self taught)

Now if we were talking about something that is not as artistic such as coding or writing a book than yes critique from actual professionals (not just random people on the internet) can be of great help.

If someone likes my photo, that's fine.

If someone does not like my photo, that's fine.

Personally I only care about MY opinion of a photo the most as I have my own vision and taste of whats good and what I like.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
All he owns is a camera.
You really have absolutely no idea in fact you couldn't have got it more wrong. But please keep contributing to this forum as you're a great source of amusement.
I really shouldn't laugh but you are funny I apologise and understand your total lack of knowledge and experience which is very limited.
Large white sheet had me on the floor.

I wish you all the best to overcome your personal problems.

You must have a lot of issues in life you get kick backs from basically making fun of others or being an online "bully".

All the best to you and your family.

As for him just owning a camera, you're a liar as he has to own a computer & editing software as well. I also never photographed cars (would find it boring anyways) but I made the point that he could tell you that all he owns is a camera but he could also be a liar (some of the photos appear to be composites to me some with a lot of editing done).

Also, some of his photos the car is obviously being lit by soft lighting and this is possible to replicate in a studio with a large white (anything clothe or anything that will diffuse your light) so yes, it's possible to recreate his lighting if it's all available light, in a studio.

That Italian Guy wrote:
There's a huge difference between asking if your 'art' is to somebody else's taste and asking whether your photography is technically good or bad.

And no, by 'technically good or bad' I don't just mean are your photos clear and exposed within a range that most people would consider tolerable.

By refusing to accept any critiques whatsoever you are almost certainly ensuring that your progress towards excellence will be glacially slow at best.

Good luck on what is going to be a long and tedious journey.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Tell that to Van Gogh or the other great artists that could care less about the opinions of others of their art.

I am my own best critic I know what needs work or what I want to add in/take away and my own style and what I want to achieve more than anyone else can tell me.

Just because I don't value the critic of others does not mean that I do not sit down and critic my own photos especially while editing them for sometimes up to 2 hours straight on one photo.

I have my own style that I'm going for if someone doesn't like that, that's fine, but to say that I'm not improving or my improvement is going to be slow is ignorant as I'm actually in the process of working on improving my work/style as of now to what I see in my mind and on every photo shoot I learn something new.

I learn best through hands on experience and self critique some might not learn best that way but than they're just following the trends or styles of others and taking the fun out of experimenting with things themselves.

What do you think is more fun and teaches you more? Having someone tell you that your recipe calls for less crust, vegetables, and parsley or figuring out what tastes good to you via trying hundreds of different things.

It's like when I first got a light to use as a rim/accent. I didn't go on here and ask for critique.

I spent hours practicing it on myself figuring out what looks best to my own eye and how to get it on a consistent basis and add it to my current style.

I probably put more time into practice and figuring out new lighting and how to expand my style than you as I learn via hands on.

Robert Lynch wrote:

And...

You're wrong.

He did not contradict himself.  There is more to the quality of light/shadow than the apparent size of the source compared to the subject.  You will never match the output from a focused source (fresnel) with an unfocused source (umbrella) even if they are the exact same size.

He never mentioned the "output".

He mentioned shadows and the difference in quality.

Of course a strobe or bare fresnal is going to have more output when there's no modifier in front of it.

Common sense there.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

That Italian Guy wrote:
There's a huge difference between asking if your 'art' is to somebody else's taste and asking whether your photography is technically good or bad.

And no, by 'technically good or bad' I don't just mean are your photos clear and exposed within a range that most people would consider tolerable.

By refusing to accept any critiques whatsoever you are almost certainly ensuring that your progress towards excellence will be glacially slow at best.

Good luck on what is going to be a long and tedious journey.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Tell that to Van Gogh or the other great artists that could care less about the opinions of others of their art.

I am my own best critic I know what needs work or what I want to add in/take away and my own style and what I want to achieve more than anyone else can tell me.

Just because I don't value the critic of others does not mean that I do not sit down and critic my own photos especially while editing them for sometimes up to 2 hours straight on one photo.

I have my own style that I'm going for if someone doesn't like that, that's fine, but to say that I'm not improving or my improvement is going to be slow is ignorant as I'm actually in the process of working on improving my work/style as of now to what I see in my mind and on every photo shoot I learn something new.

I learn best through hands on experience and self critique some might not learn best that way but than they're just following the trends or styles of others and taking the fun out of experimenting with things themselves.

What do you think is more fun and teaches you more? Having someone tell you that your recipe calls for less crust, vegetables, and parsley or figuring out what tastes good to you via trying hundreds of different things.

It's like when I first got a light to use as a rim/accent. I didn't go on here and ask for critique.

I spent hours practicing it on myself figuring out what looks best to my own eye and how to get it on a consistent basis and add it to my current style.

I probably put more time into practice and figuring out new lighting and how to expand my style than you as I learn via hands on.

Robert Lynch wrote:
And...

You're wrong.

He did not contradict himself.  There is more to the quality of light/shadow than the apparent size of the source compared to the subject.  You will never match the output from a focused source (fresnel) with an unfocused source (umbrella) even if they are the exact same size.

He never mentioned the "output".

He mentioned shadows and the difference in quality.

Of course a strobe or bare fresnal is going to have more output when there's no modifier in front of it.

Common sense there.

Robert Lynch wrote:

It is obvious from his posting history over the course of his six weeks here so far that he knows everything and there is nothing that anyone here can offer to him.

Yes, because obviously the time spent on model mayhem on your second account or any account dictates how much you know or how good you are.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
As for him just owning a camera, you're a liar as he has to own a computer & editing software as well.

This is probably going to come as a shock to you, but in the real world, commercial photographers often have other people handle post production, often at the insistence of the client, sometimes just for convenience.

Robert Lynch wrote:

This is probably going to come as a shock to you, but in the real world, commercial photographers often have other people handle post production, often at the insistence of the client, sometimes just for convenience.

That's possible but like I said it's also possible to recreate his lighting on location in a studio with the right set up.

Like I said, some of his photos look like composites and probably are composites.

Also, it's possible that he's lying about only using a camera to hide what he actually does to get those photos in order to reduce competition.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
He never mentioned the "output".

He mentioned shadows and the difference in quality.

Of course a strobe or bare fresnal is going to have more output when there's no modifier in front of it.

Common sense there.

Poor word choice on my part.  I'm having a conversation with someone at the moment and taking shortcuts while typing.  By "output" I was refering to the light/shadow quality that I had already mentioned, not intensity.  You will never match the results from an unfocused and focused source, even of the same size.  Common sense there.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Also, the critique would even have less value as I do not shoot fashion.

I find it boring (even looking at fashion photos) as it's not my "style.

I shoot photos of regular people with regular poses.

What does fashion have to do with the critique?

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Also, the critique would even have less value as I do not shoot fashion.

I find it boring (even looking at fashion photos) as it's not my "style.

I shoot photos of regular people with regular poses.

Because someone who has a fashion portfolio has nothing useful, helpful or insightful to say about other genres or photographing people in general?  What a silly, insular, narrow minded outlook.

Fashion bores the hell out of me, too, but some of the best advice I have ever received came from fashion photographers.

Robert Lynch wrote:

Poor word choice on my part.  I'm having a conversation with someone at the moment and taking shortcuts while typing.  By "output" I was refering to the light/shadow quality that I had already mentioned, not intensity.  You will never match the results from an unfocused and focused source, even of the same size.  Common sense there.

If both are the same size and you flag the umbrella to make it the same size/shape as the freshnal and reduce the power of the freshnal to match that, that's coming through the umbrella the light/shadow quality will be the same.......physics does not lie.

Too many people are trying to over complicate lighting.

Robert Lynch wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Also, the critique would even have less value as I do not shoot fashion.

I find it boring (even looking at fashion photos) as it's not my "style.

I shoot photos of regular people with regular poses.

Because someone who has a fashion portfolio has nothing useful, helpful or insightful to say about other genres or photographing people in general?  What a silly, insular, narrow minded outlook.

Fashion bores the hell out of me, too, but some of the best advice I have ever received came from fashion photographers.

In Balance Photography wrote:

What does fashion have to do with the critique?

Ask yourself this, what does a fine French culinary chef have to offer an Indian food based chef?

Robert Lynch wrote:
Because someone who has a fashion portfolio has nothing useful, helpful or insightful to say about other genres or photographing people in general?  What a silly, insular, narrow minded outlook.

Fashion bores the hell out of me, too, but some of the best advice I have ever received came from fashion photographers.

Good job putting words into my mouth and making yourself look ignorant. I stated my opinion on fashion photography, whether you like it or not is up to you but I could care less about your opinion as you're just a random person on the internet that I will never meet.

Read what I just said regarding the French chef and the Indian cook.

Two completely different styles considering everything (posing, lighting, post production, location, etc).

You guys are also undermining what I said prior about how many of the great artists were self taught and that you can learn just as well on your own if not better.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

If both are the same size and you flag the umbrella to make it the same size/shape as the freshnal and reduce the power of the freshnal to match that, that's coming through the umbrella the light/shadow quality will be the same.......physics does not lie.

Too many people are trying to over complicate lighting.

How many is too many?
There's no chance that you are over simplifying it?

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

If both are the same size and you flag the umbrella to make it the same size/shape as the freshnal and reduce the power of the freshnal to match that, that's coming through the umbrella the light/shadow quality will be the same.......physics does not lie.

Too many people are trying to over complicate lighting.

So, so wrong.  Well, you're right about one thing.  Physics doesn't lie.  Do you even know what a Fresnel lens is?  The effect it will have on the light passing through it is completely different than the material of an umbrella.  You're stubborn insistence that relative size and shape are the only things that matter demonstrates your actual lack of knowledge and experience.

But, since you already know everything, I won't waste any more of our time.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
...
Ask yourself this, what does a fine French culinary chef have to offer an Indian food based chef?
...

LOTS!!!!  (and vice-versa!)

Great chefs continually look outside their own "wheelhouses" so to speak. Where do you think we got so many of the spices that we use in western cuisines....India!

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Ask yourself this, what does a fine French culinary chef have to offer an Indian food based chef?

We can add fusion to the list of things you don't understand.

Goodbye.

In Balance Photography wrote:

How many is too many?
There's no chance that you are over simplifying it?

Like I said, the physics does not lie.

A $200 umbrella will serve the same function as a $40 umbrella.

Saying that one has better shadow transfer (whatever that means, better is subjective to ones tastes) is ignoring the physics of why something behaves in a particular matter.

If people took the time out to see and learn why modifiers/lights work the way that they do they would realize that it's not random but actually based around physical laws that all combine together and in it's simplest form....is simple.

An example, someone can say that a beauty dish does this or that with the shadows that is impossible to recreate with an umbrella or softbox but they're forgetting that the way the beauty dish acts in the manner that it does on a physical level is because it is smaller than the regular sized umbrella/softbox but larger than bare strobe......they're forgetting that you can recreate the same lighting with an umbrella the same size/shape as the beauty dish used at the same angle........

Robert Lynch wrote:
So, so wrong.  Well, you're right about one thing.  Physics doesn't lie.  Do you even know what a Fresnel lens is?  The effect it will have on the light passing through it is completely different than the material of an umbrella.  You're stubborn insistence that relative size and shape are the only things that matter demonstrates your actual lack of knowledge and experience.

But, since you already know everything, I won't waste any more of our time.

I'm done with you guys, now you're just disagreeing just to disagree and you're trying to undermine my posts/points.

To think that it's impossible to get the same general effect out of soft white material as that of a freshnal lens means that you do not completely understand the physical nature of lighting.

Go ahead and think that putting a white piece of cloth on your on camera flash will soften it up just like most photographers believe or that a small diffusion box will make your speed light vastly softer on camera.

In Balance Photography wrote:
LOTS!!!!  (and vice-versa!)

Great chefs continually look outside their own "wheelhouses" so to speak. Where do you think we got so many of the spices that we use in western cuisines....India!

Your disagreeing to disagree and trying to undermine (not suprised).

An Indian chef would probably think the french chefs stuffed duck recipe with white wine is disgusting while the French chef would tell the Indian chef that his curry is gross.....they know jack squat about each others cultural foods and even if they did tastes and opinions differ person to person hence why theres so many different music genres and each person has their own favorite color.

I'm done posting in here, if you disagree with that I said good for you but I could care less about anyone's opinions as each persons taste, how they learn, and their own take on things is going to be different so have fun arguing with yourselves if you respond to me.

Best of luck to all of your careers and health/life and I wish you all happiness.