Is the most simplistic form of lighting the most effective

Old-N-Feeble · May 8, 2016

My 1 yr/o old son once yelled at me when I was trying to discipline him from doing something naughty. He looked me with all his heart and soul and yelled, "I am... I AM". I knew what he meant.

Gerald C Koch · May 8, 2016

Old-N-Feeble said:
My 1 yr/o old son once yelled at me when I was trying to discipline him from doing something naughty. He looked me with all his heart and soul and yelled, "I am... I AM". I knew what he meant.

Or as Popeye put it "I yam what I yam."

RalphLambrecht · May 8, 2016

cliveh said:
I would suggest it is.

No;the purpose of good lighting is to highlight and model the subject;If it does that, it is effective.For example,Hollywood or Playboy-style lighting can be very complex but it is very effectiveIMO.

Soeren · May 9, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
One really cannot make a categorical statement like the title of this thread. There was a time when Hollywood released stills of famous movie stars as promotion items. The photographers who took these photos were masters with lighting. The human face is hard to light evenly without harsh shadows. So not only was a main light used but also several other lights. So I would say that for many subjects a single light is not very effective. Anyone interested in portraiture should really study the techniques used.

http://portrait-photographer.blogspot.com/2009/07/hollywood-style-glamour-lighting.html

To borrow the famous line, "Just one more thing." Rembrandt lighting may not be as simple as some would suggest. Besides the main light there may be others.

http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/rembrandt-lighting-in-photography/

Id look at this
http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208

M Carter · May 14, 2016

The answer is "whatever works for what you see in your head"… digging through my portfolio, these were all shots where I had a very specific feel in mind and was able to translate it to film or digital - I really don't think "simple or complex", I think about what I want to see and if I want it to look real or very-not-real-at-all:

1 soft light, very simple, polagraph film:

Really insanely complicated, Ektachrome 320T, no retouch, probably surrounded with a dozen light stands, 2 layers of glass sheets, etc:

Fairly complicated, strobes with full CTO and tungsten fresnels, 320t as well:

Kinda complicated, shot in a very busy nightclub, CTO-strobe clamped to ceiling, tungsten BG:

Is the most simplistic form of lighting the most effective

Old-N-Feeble

Gerald C Koch

RalphLambrecht

Soeren

M Carter

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency