The rule is to encourage extra politeness to the newer people, and forgive their mistakes. Everyone is supposed to be nice to everyone. (Or at the very least, polite.)

Even the ones whose information is flat-out incorrect. Disprove their claims; don't disrespect the individual; that benefits nobody.

Amen

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
You ignored everything I said, didn't even try to debate any of my points. You just covered your ears and repeated your pov again.

I didn't recomend a workshop.

I directly responded to what you said you just failed to connect the dots.

I mentioned that even though someone is the "best" thats still ones opinion.

The photos that I take things from are from photographers whos style that I like.....they might not even be well known but if I like their style I will learn from it.

Ladi Gaga and Niki Minaj are both famous and the top of their ranks but would I want to learn and compare myself to them???

Absolutely not as they are just liked by the majority and we do not share the same vision.

Everything is opinionated when it comes to art.

Arts entirely subjective to ones opinion of what looks good and what does not there is no universal cosmos that directly states that "this is good, this is bad".

One might like photos with terrible lighting and deliberately create harsh lighting with hard shadows and instead of removing blemishes make them appear even more and actually like that style.

There is no universal right or wrong.....that's the beauty of art.

All of this stuff about "this modifier looks vastly than that" and "evidence should be shown to disprove the "noob" has not even been shown.....

I would like to see some direct comparisons of a 32" umbrella with the equivalent softbox & beauty dish and see the results.

I found a link a few weeks ago that someone posted that compared all of these different modifiers and it turned out that the differences were only those of the photographers mistake (some of the photos were under/overexposed) and after I corrected them to match in PP all photos where the same sized modifiers were used produced the same quality of light and the differences even to those with the best eyes could hardly be seen or not seen at all.........

I understand that some modifiers wrap more around the subject, some reflect light more efficiently, some are more focused, but I was primarily stating that if you compare the quality of light (I'm talking about the quality of light primarily throughout all of my posts ion this thread) the quality of light stays around the same when modifiers of the same sizes are compared against each other.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

I directly responded to what you said you just failed to connect the dots.

I mentioned that even though someone is the "best" thats still ones opinion.

The photos that I take things from are from photographers whos style that I like.....they might not even be well known but if I like their style I will learn from it.

Ladi Gaga and Niki Minaj are both famous and the top of their ranks but would I want to learn and compare myself to them???

Absolutely not as they are just liked by the majority and we do not share the same vision.

Everything is opinionated when it comes to art.

Arts entirely subjective to ones opinion of what looks good and what does not there is no universal cosmos that directly states that "this is good, this is bad".

One might like photos with terrible lighting and deliberately create harsh lighting with hard shadows and instead of removing blemishes make them appear even more and actually like that style.

There is no universal right or wrong.....that's the beauty of art.

Which photographers are your inspirations?

In Balance Photography wrote:
Which photographers are your inspirations?

In Balance Photography wrote:
Which photographers are your inspirations?

Neilvn, Peter Hurley, and other photographers that primarily incorporate a style that uses primarily off camera lighting and use the lighting, posing, and environment to connect the dots and make all of those elements combine to create a photo that best represents that person.

What I like/dislike changes often though but lately I've been a big fan of 2 light setups (main/fill) and styles evolved around evoking emotion out of the client/person in an environment that represents what they represent.

I'm always on the look out for new photographers that have styles that I like and I try to incorporate their techniques into my photography.

I'm still a noob though and have a ton to learn and a long ways to go before I get to my "ideal" style and ability but I still love myself, my photos, and where I'm at.

I like Peter's posing for most of his headshot's so I'm looking to incorporate his ability to evoke emotion but I'm not a huge fan of his lighting or choice of backdrop.

I like Neilvn's choice of location and composition ( also learned a lot about him and hes a big influence to me) so I take a lot of different aspects from many photographers and am constantly trying to take the things that I like and incorporate that into my photography on each consecutive photoshoot.

So I pick and choose what I like from each photographers work and try to incorporate it into my photography creating my own "style" in the long run instead of just copying.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

In Balance Photography wrote:
Which photographers are your inspirations?

Neilvn, Peter Hurley, and other photographers that primarily incorporate a style that uses primarily off camera lighting and use the lighting, posing, and environment to connect the dots and make all of those elements combine to create a photo that best represents that person.

What I like/dislike changes often though but lately I've been a big fan of 2 light setups (main/fill) and styles evolved around evoking emotion out of the client/person in an environment that represents what they represent.

I'm always on the look out for new photographers that have styles that I like and I try to incorporate their techniques into my photography.

I'm still a noob though and have a ton to learn and a long ways to go before I get to my "ideal" style and ability but I still love myself, my photos, and where I'm at.

I like Peter's posing for most of his headshot's so I'm looking to incorporate his ability to evoke emotion but I'm not a huge fan of his lighting or choice of backdrop.

I like Neilvn's choice of location and composition ( also learned a lot about him and hes a big influence to me) so I take a lot of different aspects from many photographers and am constantly trying to take the things that I like and incorporate that into my photography on each consecutive photoshoot.

So I pick and choose what I like from each photographers work and try to incorporate it into my photography creating my own "style" in the long run instead of just copying.

Cut your losses...

You are right. The way you shoot, the tools you use to capture your vision is perfectly fine.

All that is only in danger when you start comparing what you do with the work of others who perhaps have more experience, greater skill and let's face it..talent.

I'm NOT saying that you don't have talent either so please don't fixate on that.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

In Balance Photography wrote:
Which photographers are your inspirations?

I'm always on the look out for new photographers that have styles that I like and I try to incorporate their techniques into my photography.

I'm still a noob though and have a ton to learn and a long ways to go before I get to my "ideal" style and ability but I still love myself, my photos, and where I'm at.

I like Peter's posing for most of his headshot's so I'm looking to incorporate his ability to evoke emotion but I'm not a huge fan of his lighting or choice of backdrop.

I like Neilvn's choice of location and composition ( also learned a lot about him and hes a big influence to me) so I take a lot of different aspects from many photographers and am constantly trying to take the things that I like and incorporate that into my photography on each consecutive photoshoot.

So I pick and choose what I like from each photographers work and try to incorporate it into my photography creating my own "style" in the long run instead of just copying.

So you are comparing yourself with others, would this be a contradiction ?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 923&page=1

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If I took one of your Mantti's and compared it to an umbrella that bounced the light around about the same area than the differences would be very minor when it comes to the quality of the light (that's what we're talking about here, the quality of the light).

Please stop.

This is an industry forum and you're not supposed to post nonsense and misinformation here.

Tier 3 Forums: For serious industry discussion. Positive contributions are welcomed and encouraged. Nonsense and attempts at misinformation are not.

You have been posting this shit for weeks now and your "newbie" licence has pretty much expired.

Please, just desist. I can't make you as I'm not a mod, but you're making yourself look mighty foolish by posting all this nonsense and you're pissing off a load of people in the process.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually are as clueless as you appear to be or whether in fact you're simply trolling because you have nothing better to do.

Either way, I'm sick of it and if you carry on posting this shit I will CAM every nonsensical post you make until somebody gets the message.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
I'm currently offering a lighting workshop for free as I like to do things for free and love teaching.

Well at least you've got the price right



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Bernadette Newberry wrote:
While sometimes I like to play with (often unconventional) lighting, I always love working with natural light. Doesn't matter the position of the sun - I am comfortable with available light. I've seen a few times models who post about photographers who are obvs amateurs because they didn't bring lighting to a location shoot. Haha.

tim walker:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Then I urge you to try the experiment I suggested above. Use a Euro, a Beamm, and a 32" umbrella. Mask down the beauty dishes to be the same size as the umbrella, and light something like a human being, doing your best to make the lights the same distance and brightness.

Or try the Mantti and a 45" umbrella.

In post, correct the colors if they're different.

LOOK at the results. Not what you expect to see based on your understanding of the physics of light, but what is actually there.

Actually I went to an online light modifier comparison website and compared various modifiers that were the same size and the differences in lighting were practically ZERO.
[...]
I'm not going to "cringe" either because like you said, I compared pretty much all of the standard modifiers of the same size and the results were nearly all the same (minor variations due to diffusion & light scattering properties of say white cloth vs polished steel.)

My earlier suggestion was to come back in a few years. I may have been optimistic.

I've never tried to explain color to a blind man, nor music to a deaf one, but suspect it would be very difficult, and that some of them might be unwilling to accept that reality due to their own perceptions. Some might even become belligerent or hostile at the mere attempt.

I wonder what kind of approach would have even a slight chance of success.

I guess it comes down to reminding people that not all opinions are valid, especially when reality is involved. It's quite easy for someone with no experience, understanding, or knowledge to share their opinion, and that can cause serious problems to those who blindly accept the unsupported claims. (It's one reason I suggest people perform experiments; they're both more convincing and the "lesson" sticks better.)

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If you go around with the attitude of never being happy with your photos and always chasing after better ones than you will never be happy!

So lower the expectations, be happy and love yourself a long with your photos

No, but thank you for the advice.

Best of luck!

That Italian Guy wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If I took one of your Mantti's and compared it to an umbrella that bounced the light around about the same area than the differences would be very minor when it comes to the quality of the light (that's what we're talking about here, the quality of the light).

Please stop.

This is an industry forum and you're not supposed to post nonsense and misinformation here.

Tier 3 Forums: For serious industry discussion. Positive contributions are welcomed and encouraged. Nonsense and attempts at misinformation are not.

You have been posting this shit for weeks now and your "newbie" licence has pretty much expired.

Please, just desist. I can't make you as I'm not a mod, but you're making yourself look mighty foolish by posting all this nonsense and you're pissing off a load of people in the process.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually are as clueless as you appear to be or whether in fact you're simply trolling because you have nothing better to do.

Either way, I'm sick of it and if you carry on posting this shit I will CAM every nonsensical post you make until somebody gets the message.


Well at least you've got the price right



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Quoted for mods.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

In Balance Photography wrote:
Which photographers are your inspirations?

I'm always on the look out for new photographers that have styles that I like and I try to incorporate their techniques into my photography.

I'm still a noob though and have a ton to learn and a long ways to go before I get to my "ideal" style and ability but I still love myself, my photos, and where I'm at.

I like Peter's posing for most of his headshot's so I'm looking to incorporate his ability to evoke emotion but I'm not a huge fan of his lighting or choice of backdrop.

I like Neilvn's choice of location and composition ( also learned a lot about him and hes a big influence to me) so I take a lot of different aspects from many photographers and am constantly trying to take the things that I like and incorporate that into my photography on each consecutive photoshoot.

So I pick and choose what I like from each photographers work and try to incorporate it into my photography creating my own "style" in the long run instead of just copying.

So you are comparing yourself with others, would this be a contradiction ?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 923&page=1

Don't get the contradiction.

I don't ask for critique neither did he (nobody critiqued him either).

Leighthenubian wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

In Balance Photography wrote:
Which photographers are your inspirations?

Neilvn, Peter Hurley, and other photographers that primarily incorporate a style that uses primarily off camera lighting and use the lighting, posing, and environment to connect the dots and make all of those elements combine to create a photo that best represents that person.

What I like/dislike changes often though but lately I've been a big fan of 2 light setups (main/fill) and styles evolved around evoking emotion out of the client/person in an environment that represents what they represent.

I'm always on the look out for new photographers that have styles that I like and I try to incorporate their techniques into my photography.

I'm still a noob though and have a ton to learn and a long ways to go before I get to my "ideal" style and ability but I still love myself, my photos, and where I'm at.

I like Peter's posing for most of his headshot's so I'm looking to incorporate his ability to evoke emotion but I'm not a huge fan of his lighting or choice of backdrop.

I like Neilvn's choice of location and composition ( also learned a lot about him and hes a big influence to me) so I take a lot of different aspects from many photographers and am constantly trying to take the things that I like and incorporate that into my photography on each consecutive photoshoot.

So I pick and choose what I like from each photographers work and try to incorporate it into my photography creating my own "style" in the long run instead of just copying.

Cut your losses...

You are right. The way you shoot, the tools you use to capture your vision is perfectly fine.

All that is only in danger when you start comparing what you do with the work of others who perhaps have more experience, greater skill and let's face it..talent.

I'm NOT saying that you don't have talent either so please don't fixate on that.

I don't understand your "danger" point that you tried to make (it's unclear to me what you mean).

If you compare your photos and they are not as good as say if I'm going for a certain look such as a neilvn on location casual fashion look than there are actual reasons why my photo would not look as well and it would be evident and solvable (I would learn something) when comparing my photo to his.........

Basically there is no "danger".

Kevin Connery wrote:

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Then I urge you to try the experiment I suggested above. Use a Euro, a Beamm, and a 32" umbrella. Mask down the beauty dishes to be the same size as the umbrella, and light something like a human being, doing your best to make the lights the same distance and brightness.

Or try the Mantti and a 45" umbrella.

In post, correct the colors if they're different.

LOOK at the results. Not what you expect to see based on your understanding of the physics of light, but what is actually there.

Actually I went to an online light modifier comparison website and compared various modifiers that were the same size and the differences in lighting were practically ZERO.
[...]
I'm not going to "cringe" either because like you said, I compared pretty much all of the standard modifiers of the same size and the results were nearly all the same (minor variations due to diffusion & light scattering properties of say white cloth vs polished steel.)

My earlier suggestion was to come back in a few years. I may have been optimistic.

I've never tried to explain color to a blind man, nor music to a deaf one, but suspect it would be very difficult, and that some of them might be unwilling to accept that reality due to their own perceptions. Some might even become belligerent or hostile at the mere attempt.

I wonder what kind of approach would have even a slight chance of success.

I guess it comes down to reminding people that not all opinions are valid, especially when reality is involved. It's quite easy for someone with no experience, understanding, or knowledge to share their opinion, and that can cause serious problems to those who blindly accept the unsupported claims. (It's one reason I suggest people perform experiments; they're both more convincing and the "lesson" sticks better.)

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If you go around with the attitude of never being happy with your photos and always chasing after better ones than you will never be happy!

So lower the expectations, be happy and love yourself a long with your photos

No, but thank you for the advice.

Best of luck!

I don't understand where you're coming from....all opinions are valid thats why they're "opinions" and not facts.

I have compared tons of modifiers for hours at a time even and have compared modifiers online and the relations are still the same.....light isn;t some magical non physical entity......read any lighting book and they will simplify it for everyone and say "the larger the light source in relation to the subject the softer the lighting and shadows will be".

That is a fact. Not an opinion but a fact.

I don't care if it's a "matte" or a "euro" or w/e I don't even care if it's a piece of glossed up plywood in the shape of an umbrella that is the color white.

If it returns the same amount of light as a similar modifier such as a softbox, umbrella, or beauty dish by being around the same size than the softness of the light & shadows will be the same.

Also, you have no idea how long that I have been shooting for so when you talk of "explaining color to a blind man" does not apply to me as the date that I signed up on MM is not the same date that I started shooting portrait photography.

I admit that some modifiers might have certain characteristics such as beauty dishes you can produce harder light with round catchlights but this is because it is smaller than the average umbrella/softbox and because you can get in close with it easily and it's round so it produces round catchlight......

If you took a 5 foot umbrella, 5 foot beauty dish, a 5 foot octabox, a 5 foot white circular sheet, all would produce around the same softness of light and thus same quality of shadow.....

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Quoted for mods.

Quoted for mother fucking irony!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

That Italian Guy wrote:

Quoted for mother fucking irony!

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
I guess it comes down to reminding people that not all opinions are valid, especially when reality is involved. It's quite easy for someone with no experience, understanding, or knowledge to share their opinion, and that can cause serious problems to those who blindly accept the unsupported claims. (It's one reason I suggest people perform experiments; they're both more convincing and the "lesson" sticks better.)

I don't understand where you're coming from....

That is evident.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
all opinions are valid thats why they're "opinions" and not facts.

Were someone to engage me in a "debate" about the shape of the earth, and insisted their opinion that the world was flat was valid, I'd have difficulty not laughing out loud.

Yes, it's their opinion; in that light, it's valid. In the light of reality, however, it's laughable.

Your opinion about lighting falls into that category. I believe it's your opinion. I've seen a bleepload of evidence contradicting your opinion. In the light of reality, therefore, I find it laughable.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
.light isn;t some magical non physical entity......read any lighting book and they will simplify it for everyone and say "the larger the light source in relation to the subject the softer the lighting and shadows will be".

That is a fact. Not an opinion but a fact.

True.

What is not a fact is that's the only element. You even indicated you were aware it was a simplification.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
I don't care if it's a "matte" or a "euro" or w/e I don't even care if it's a piece of glossed up plywood in the shape of an umbrella that is the color white.

If it returns the same amount of light as a similar modifier such as a softbox, umbrella, or beauty dish by being around the same size than the softness of the light & shadows will be the same.

Yes, the edge transitions and light fall-off will be similar. Those are not the only attributes of "quality of light".

Most books on composition discuss the 'rule of thirds'. As far as it goes, it's a useful 'rule'--but it's not the entirety of good composition. You've taken one aspect of light and have been insisting that it's the only quality.

That opinion is incorrect. False to fact. Untrue.And just plain wrong.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
Also, you have no idea how long that I have been shooting for so when you talk of "explaining color to a blind man" does not apply to me as the date that I signed up on MM is not the same date that I started shooting portrait photography.

Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter. All I'm concerned with is that someone is trying to deny reality by insisting their grossly oversimplified model fully describes the quality of light.

As far as it goes, the ISL+"Larger is softer" model is very useful, and understanding it, even in isolation, is beneficial. Believing that it's the end-all explanation, however, is simply ludicrous to the many many people who have seen on a regular basis that it fails to account for many important factors.

I'm simply inclined to believe my eyes over your opinions. I give full credence that you believe in your opinion, just as I give no credence for it's validity.

Kevin Connery wrote:
...lots of good stuff deleted for brevity...

Give up.
It's hopeless.
Karma will straighten this one out in the end.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If you took a 5 foot umbrella, 5 foot beauty dish, a 5 foot octabox, a 5 foot white circular sheet, all would produce around the same softness of light and thus same quality of shadow.....

The word 'around' is neither here nor there.

Interesting how a reflected/bounced light being a umbrella (translucent) and a octa where the light is direct through whatever material (diffuser) with the interior having a metallic type surface can be the same.

The easy bit; whaterver is placed infront of a light will change it's quality....... I hope this isn't too difficult to understand.

Warrenjrphotography-SJ wrote:
If you go around with the attitude of never being happy with your photos and always chasing after better ones than you will never be happy!

So lower the expectations, be happy and love yourself a long with your photos

WTF!!! That is what drives me to improve and innovate, I am NEVER 100% happy with my photos. I always feel they can be better.

Photographers who are 100% happy with their work never improve, never learn anything new. They play it safe with "what works".

I hope I am NEVER happy with my work. The one thing I don't want is to be complacent with my work.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I hope this isn't too difficult to understand.

Cognitive dissonance.

I just want to point out to anyone reading, you can take this poster's points and invert them and you have the path to success:

Don't rely on what you like, that will change as your eyes get trained

Trust in those who are on the top of the scale in the market you want to be (even if you don't understand why)

Accept criticism from profesionals and grow on it

Before rejecting advice, try it for yourself and study results

Don't ever be happy with your work

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Cognitive dissonance.

Very much what you thought when we met. Perception an image in your mind v reality.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Cognitive dissonance.

I just want to point out to anyone reading, you can take this poster's points and invert them and you have the path to success:

Don't rely on what you like, that will change as your eyes get trained

Trust in those who are on the top of the scale in the market you want to be (even if you don't understand why)

Accept criticism from profesionals and grow on it

Before rejecting advice, try it for yourself and study results

Don't ever be happy with your work

I agree!

PhillipM wrote:
Is this one of those Chicken or the Egg threads?

It kinda started out that way. But it's turned into the guy who thinks he has all the answers talking down to everyone else.

Camerosity wrote:

It kinda started out that way. But it's turned into the guy who thinks he has all the answers talking down to everyone else.

Ahhhhhh

The internet.....

Nut'n like it.

Camerosity wrote:

It kinda started out that way. But it's turned into the guy who thinks he has all the answers talking down to everyone else.

Wait and see what happens when he starts to use two speedlights, he'll have 2x as many answers.

Brian Ziff wrote:

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.

^^ This. Well said.

Gary Melton wrote:
why is this thread still going?

people keep posting, right?

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

people keep posting, right?

Those people. What are we going to do with them?

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

You do realize they both go hand in hand right ..... Or nah