Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I think it's more than a gimmick and is potentially a technique that might work very well for you.

My problem with it is that it's so terribly slow and that it takes a long time to develop a facility with it and use that to build a vocabulary.

I don't think it is that slow,  we shot 120 frames in  1.5 hours including 3 outfit changes, I agree that it takes time to translate the idea of light in mind to waving of the hand. But building a vocabulary..is there potentially one?

MKPhoto wrote:

I don't think it is that slow,  we shot 120 frames in  1.5 hours including 3 outfit changes, I agree that it takes time to translate the idea of light in mind to waving of the hand. But building a vocabulary..is there potentially one?

There's the heavy shadows and dramatic lights and darks with this technique that seems ideal for some of the looks you get. I'm not as knocked out by these as I am by some of your other work - there's not as much of a tonal range. That's where the time comes in. If you slow the whole process down and spend more time painting with the light you get more control over the range of color and tonality while still maintaining the heavy shadows.

I think potentially it offers a great deal of control and expressiveness. You've added a constantly moving and variable light source with this technique and there are advantages to that. Pushed far enough the technique could be a sort of in-camera dodge and burn.

I don't know if any of the above makes sense or relates to your original question.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
There's the heavy shadows and dramatic lights and darks with this technique that seems ideal for some of the looks you get. I'm not as knocked out by these as I am by some of your other work - there's not as much of a tonal range. That's where the time comes in. If you slow the whole process down and spend more time painting with the light you get more control over the range of color and tonality while still maintaining the heavy shadows.

I think potentially it offers a great deal of control and expressiveness. You've added a constantly moving and variable light source with this technique and there are advantages to that. Pushed far enough the technique could be a sort of in-camera dodge and burn.

I don't know if any of the above makes sense or relates to your original question.

Yes, thanks, it  does relate.

D0127H wrote:
Nothing's valid or not valid...it's just another way of seeing the world.  The motion blur and other unpredictable things are what make the technique cool.  Embrace and enjoy! : )

Emil Schildt does this kind of work a lot, I recommend checking him out

+1
Besides, it's fun and another way to express your creativity and your vision.
Yours are fantastic btw.

Yen Studios wrote:
can u explain to me what you mean painting with light, are shooting on film? are you leaving the shutter open and waving a light around?

Digital, and yes, waving a light around.

MKPhoto wrote:
I like the technique of painting with light,

When I think of painting with light I get something like this.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/terranik/3 … otostream/

Your samples look like a single flash ?/

~ MR

Images by MR wrote:
When I think of painting with light I get something like this.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/terranik/3 … otostream/

Your samples look like a single flash ?/

~ MR

These are 5-10 second exposures with all the lighting provided with a  handheld flashlight e.g. on image 4 you have  "bursts" of light  on face, lingerie, inner right leg, from the right;  and on shoulders from the left. You can see her two shadows and a bit of ghosting on the right side (that's me...).

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you define light painting. 

You need to know Dean Chamberlain, who really paints with light. This is a video he did, his stills are amazing.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … KIqv3kaIB4

light painting can be elevated to high art, the key is to create a world that does not otherwise exist...

Yes, I've seen Dean Chamberlain's photography and the video. Beautiful!

I am "inspired"? by by lighting schemes in classic hollywood portrait and film noir moods..,and am a bit color impaired, it is easier to live in a monochromatic world.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
Many years ago Aaron Jones made a career with his light painting style and the equipment he developed.  It was a look that many art directors wanted and after a while it DID become a bit trendy looking.  But it's still a great tool to have in your arsenal of lighting techniques. 

See if you can find an old Hose Master Flash lighting kit.
I know they are still around (used). 

Jones developed a disk that would spin very fast in front of a stationary camera. 
There were 3 openings in the disk. You could assign a different degree of diffusion to each opening or none at all.  It was developed to spin fast enough to shoot people without the blur being as much of a problem. You'd have to hook up a separate flash for each opening so I think there were a total of 3 separate power packs or monolights, or speedlights you'd use. 

You might be able to control the blurring of people if you painted them with very controlled flash(es). Then the still area of the shot you could paint in the traditional way with continuous lights.

It's a very cool technique.  When done properly, it gives  a very cool look.

$300 on e-bay...

Gabby57 wrote:
As low light performance improves, this should be even more viable.

Actually, I shoot ISO 200 and f/8 and $2 dollar store flashlights with 7 LEDs. It is very easy to blow highlights.

High ISO would help painting large scale objects, though.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
light painting can be elevated to high art, the key is to create a world that does not otherwise exist...

That. Completely valid and potentially powerful technique. I like it.