Gear, gear, gear

[Garry Edwards]

We get lots of questions about equipment, but as I see it this forum is really about the use of light - or should be.

I've just come across an online article that includes this photo by David Lazar, described as

a stunning girl with green eyes in a Bangladeshi village.

With respect, it isn't a photo of a stunning girl, it's a photo lit to show her beauty.

The photographer used a single light and created shadows that thinned her face, emphasised her cheekbones, eyes and lips.

That's what lighting is all about

 

[adamgasson]

I agree Garry, there's far too much focus on what to buy and not how to use it. It's much better to use a single light source well as this picture proves.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Read my signature.




100% agree.... although it's sometimes fun to chat about gear.

 

[Marcus Geezer]

Nice refresher Garry and a point well made. Possibly this area of the forum could be split to have it's own equipment area?

 

[DpM]

Nice refresher Garry and a point well made. Possibly this area of the forum could be split to have it's own equipment area?

Agreed, great idea.

I often come in here to look for topics on how to light but its clogged up with what to buy threads. Not a bad thing but having sub sections would be much better.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Agreed, great idea.

I often come in here to look for topics on how to light but its clogged up with what to buy threads. Not a bad thing but having sub sections would be much better.

Well, maybe but that isn't really the point I'm trying to make. My point is that lighting is really about technique rather than equipment, and if people have the knowledge they can get good results with minimal equipment or even with the 'wrong' equipment. That photo is a good example - the photographer used a single light, dead square to the direction of the face, to get the effect he wanted. Many (most) people on this forum go for dead flat lighting that hides the shape of the face rather than accentuating it.

I have an example from earlier this week. I was asked to photograph a hydraulic machine that I was told was a bit like a fork lift truck with side lift, and that the machine would be moved outside into their yard for me to photograph it...

So, all that I took with me was a couple of Safari Li-on kits with one 150cm octa box, a high intensity reflector and a standard reflector with a honeycomb - assuming that I would use natural light for fill and just needed to create my own light where needed...

When I got there I found that it was nothing like a fork lift truck and that it couldn't be moved outside, so I had to do the shots inside...
I went for a wander and found a big whiteboard in their canteen, that became my reflector. I also found a chair, that became my higher shooting position. So, knowledge trumped equipment, as it nearly always does.

 

[Phil V]

It's odd. I was out on Saturday talking an assistant around what I was shooting and it struck me itd be a good subject for a thread.

It was 'all about the light' too. Shooting a couple at Dusk and I've a flat shot using just available, an ocf using the sunset as a background a silhouette and a seriously flare ridden backlit shot. I thought it'd be a good example of how we use light rather than just shooting what we see.

The shots aren't awesome but I think itd make a good little tutorial. Can't do it yet though the couple haven't seen them yet.

 

[Cagey75]

I think that image was processed to give the effect as much as the lighting helped it along. I actually think it's over cooked and not very honest/genuine looking. Her eyes look fake almost.

Also, people can talk about gear all they want, you don't have to read it all. People do moan about nothing much on here.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think that image was processed to give the effect as much as the lighting helped it along. I actually think it's over cooked and not very honest/genuine looking. Her eyes look fake almost.

Also, people can talk about gear all they want, you don't have to read it all. People do moan about nothing much on here.

Not so. A normal amount of editing, but it's the lighting that makes the difference

 

[bryan elliott]

totally agree, good use of light, to bring out the beauty in her, also agree that knowledge will always triumph over equipment.

1 speedlight, 1 softbox, cheap yongno trigger, and ambient light, dont believe i could have gotten my image any better using prophoto or bowens or any other more expensive equipment, simply about knowing how to use your equipment.

 

[DizMatt]

the course I went on recently just said...start with one light
make it as large as possible, then learn to use that
nice to know courses are encouraging people to get 14 lights and reflectors for the sake of it
good idea for a thread, this sums up what I'm trying to learn atm

 

[bryan elliott]

the course I went on recently just said...start with one light
make it as large as possible, then learn to use that
nice to know courses are encouraging people to get 14 lights and reflectors for the sake of it
good idea for a thread, this sums up what I'm trying to learn atm

Yeah nothing wrong with that, move it in, move it out see what effects those changes have etc, learn all the lighting patters and take it from there

 

[antihero]

Nice refresher Garry and a point well made. Possibly this area of the forum could be split to have it's own equipment area?

Seeing as there is already a "Talk Equipment" section of the forum, wouldn't it be better if that was split into subsections?

Talk Equipment
*DSLR's and Lenses
*Compacts
*Studio and Lighting
*Film and conventional
*Accessories

or something similar?

I'm extremely interested in learning lighting and studio techniques, but this forum does tend to get swamped with "which softbox/flash/triggers/etc" questions. If a piece of equipment is directly related to a particular technique or effect, then fine it should be in here, but agree that general equipment questions shouldn't be taking up threadspace in here I want to read threads on technique!

 

[jacob12_1993]

I think that image was processed to give the effect as much as the lighting helped it along. I actually think it's over cooked and not very honest/genuine looking. Her eyes look fake almost.

Also, people can talk about gear all they want, you don't have to read it all. People do moan about nothing much on here.

I slightly agree with the comment on post processing...for me the image is a little desaturated and the skin colour is a little out (for my liking and everything is subjective). However, and a big however, the lighting in this shot is, as Garry said, what makes this image what it is. The lighting is wonderful and the shadows really do give the face great structure without being too strong. For me the lighting is near enough perfect. Great idea for a thread Garry (even if you should be pushing equipment )

 

[Garry Edwards]

I slightly agree with the comment on post processing...for me the image is a little desaturated and the skin colour is a little out (for my liking and everything is subjective). However, and a big however, the lighting in this shot is, as Garry said, what makes this image what it is. The lighting is wonderful and the shadows really do give the face great structure without being too strong. For me the lighting is near enough perfect. Great idea for a thread Garry (even if you should be pushing equipment )

Well, regardless of what some people may imagine my motives to be, the simple fact of the matter is that I'm just a photographer who is passionate about lighting - I'm not on this forum to promote a particular brand of equipment, or to encourage people to buy more equipment.

A lot of forum members will confirm, when they ring for advice on lighting they get honest advice that often results in them spending less than they thought they needed to.

Lencarta can like it or lump it, that's the way it is, but I suspect that they do like it, because this is yet another record year, so encouraging good lighting does seem to work for them...

People who have been to my studio know that I have a massive investment in lighting, it amounts to about 4x the value of all my cameras and lenses, because lighting makes far more difference to the finished result than anything else - but, with the range or work that I do, and for the type of clients that I have, that kind of investment is needed. Most people can manage with a modest investment of lighting, especially if they learn to use it well.

 

[cosmicma]

that photo looks uncannily like a photo a took last week of my daughter
it was a grab shot to try out a new ( to me ) macro lens i had bought of a fellow member on here
alas the photo is no where near as good as the one posted but the one i took was just using a 550ex on camera pointing left to bounce the flash
unfortunately the aperture was set at f2.8 so DOF was far too shallow
like i said it was just a grab shot whil'st trying out the new lens

i love the idea of simple setups it's all very well having a full studio but i simply havn't got the space to set one up even if i had all the equipment to do so

 

[artona]

Gary is correct that lighting can be used to create illusions but in this instance the single light source was available light and the sculpting was created in photoshop

 

[Garry Edwards]

Gary is correct that lighting can be used to create illusions but in this instance the single light source was available light and the sculpting was created in photoshop

The catchlights say otherwise. But even if you were right, it makes no difference, it's the final result, and the understanding of the need to create the right shadows in the right places, that matters.

 

[artona]

As you will know too Gary you cant believe everything you see. The image in the opening post is gorgeous but it is not lit with flash. I suspected as much before I researched it. The photographer cleverly poses subjects to make it look like she has been lit with a softbox but she hasn't.

He has done some clever post production work to bring out the gorgeous colours and tones. A superb find, thanks for posting it.

 

[mike weeks]

Having read his write up and viewed his declared original I find the catchlights just too strong to feel that I have read the full story - would like to have been able to see that gap in the roof.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Having read his write up and viewed his declared original I find the catchlights just too strong to feel that I have read the full story - would like to have been able to see that gap in the roof.

It doesn't matter, or at least not to me.
Whether the whole think is a complete fake, lighting wise and he created the finished result purely on computer, whether it is 100% genuine and the light came from the broken roof, or whether it was a combination of the two, what matters to me is the final result.

IMO the final result shows that, for this type of portrait, light is everything and that the finished result is dependent on a good understanding of the importance of creating the right shadows in the right places, and avoiding flat lighting like the plague when we want to show the natural beauty of a young girl who has high cheekbones.

And of course this isn't any kind of a dig about you or other event photographers who use flat lighting because there's no time to do anything else.

 

[artona]

When I started reading the thread it read to me as though you thought it had been taken using flash Garry, I can see now you were really implying to people that there is no need to buy lots of gear, gear, gear to get great results

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes, I probably expressed myself very badly. What I was trying to say is that it's the good use of light that creates stunning photos, not equipment.

To me (and of course I don't have a monopoly on these things) the outstanding photographers of all time are Ansel Adams, who is famous for his natural light landscapes, and W. Eugene Smith, especially his brilliant chiaroscura images

Edit: Explanation of the shot, lifted from this page

Smith heard about Tomoko’s daily afternoon bath and asked her mother if he could photograph them. He carefully checked the bath’s lighting, which came through a dark window. Smith determined that three in the afternoon would be the best time, and took the famous photo in December 1971.

These people (and many others of course) used their understanding of light, skill and knowledge rather than gear.

Last night, I drove to London for a meeting and then back again (yes, I know...) The meeting was at the house of an incredibly beautiful woman, now aged 80. When she was young she was a fashion editor and, like me, worked with all the greats of the time. Anyway, there was a 'classic beauty' shot of her on her mantlepiece and I asked who had taken it. Apparently it was by a staff photographer on Vogue who worked for her at the time, he, like many others of his day, had been a war photographer who managed to get a fairly lowly job after the 2nd world war. That photo was absolutely brilliant in the style of the Hollywood fresnel shots. Except that he didn't have a fresnel, apparently he used a bowl of some kind and reflected sunlight from it onto her face...

As I say, knowledge and skill, not gear.

 

[The Noir Dude]

And of course this isn't any kind of a dig about you or other event photographers who use flat lighting because there's no time to do anything else.

Who says there isn't time?

 

[mike weeks]

Garry,

there are 2 sides to this, the end product, and like you I find the lighting great and even the un-retouched photograph shows that quality of lighting which has really only been emphasised later in Photoshop.

The second part is the how and that is what interests me as much and usually enjoy finding that out at least as much as the images.

 

[kiteninja]

When I started reading the thread it read to me as though you thought it had been taken using flash Garry, I can see now you were really implying to people that there is no need to buy lots of gear, gear, gear to get great results

That would purely depend on what you want your end result to be.

Horses for courses.

 

[EOS_JD]

that photo looks uncannily like a photo a took last week of my daughter

It doesn't really....

it was a grab shot to try out a new ( to me ) macro lens i had bought of a fellow member on here
alas the photo is no where near as good as the one posted but the one i took was just using a 550ex on camera pointing left to bounce the flash
unfortunately the aperture was set at f2.8 so DOF was far too shallow
like i said it was just a grab shot whil'st trying out the new lens

Why is f2.8 too shallow for a portrait? I suspect the original image from Gary's post isn't far away from that.

i love the idea of simple setups it's all very well having a full studio but i simply havn't got the space to set one up even if i had all the equipment to do so

The first thing that would have helped your shot is getting the flash off the camera - but I appreciate you were just playing

 

[cosmicma]

It doesn't really....
the shadowing is pretty similar

Why is f2.8 too shallow for a portrait? I suspect the original image from Gary's post isn't far away from that.
it is on the photo i posted which is what i was referring to
i'm less than 3 feet ( ish ) from her with a 100mm lens the image is uncropped



The first thing that would have helped your shot is getting the flash off the camera - but I appreciate you were just playing
yup i was
new lens n all you just gotta

 

[EOS_JD]

the shadowing is pretty similar*

I was seeing the underexposed image with a tiny catchlight from on camera flash compared to a perfectly exposed stunning image. It in no way resembles your image other than its a head shot. Look at the light.

it is on the photo i posted which is what i was referring to*i'm less than 3 feet ( ish ) from her with a 100mm lens the image is uncropped

Its down to the angle of the face. Your angle of the head is steeper and has the wrong eye in focus. The top image has turned the head so both eyes are on the same focal plane and perfectly focussed.

*yup i was*new lens n all you just gotta*