Is the most simplistic form of lighting the most effective

[cliveh]

I would suggest it is.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Sometimes (or often)... definitely not always.

 

[frank]

It depends.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

It most absolutely sometimes is.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

It's always a definite possibility, perhaps.

 

[markbarendt]

I would suggest it is.

Do you have to burn or dodge?

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Probably a black light and a black bounce is the best light.

 

[osmeier]

"Effective" is a very broad term. What do you mean exactly?

In my experience I prefer simple setups. Love windows as light sources and what I use the most. If a natural light sources doesn't do the job then one artificial light sources with a reflector keeps things simple and efficient. The max I ever use is two artificial light sources, but that has become very rare.

 

[KidA]

It varies greatly. Watch any colour Kubrick film, for example. Pretty much every lighting sequence is a 'tough' one. The beauty of a talented director of photography, IMO, is that they will make the lighting not feel elaborate or heavily worked. But once one analyzes a bit, they (hopefully) start to get a better sense the precision, time and control required to get that lighting. Photography and film are different you say... ummm not really I don't think. Not enough to say 'hey, it's just photography, not a movie, who cares'. Give a good look to Barry Lyndon or The Shining and you'll know what I mean; what seems to be just simple, natural window lighting is actually hours of preparation with mostly artifical light.

Also, when photographing, especially amateurs like me, we tend to be image 'hunters', meaning the light is already right, or close to it, and we just have to capture it. I'm definitely not saying that all photographers that do this are amateur; one can have a great sense of light, but choose to 'hunt' rather than 'mold'. Some people are better hunters than others.

I'm willing to bet most (good) commercial photographers often do prefer to have more technical lighting control at their fingertips if they find it necessary. I've found that when I do set up my lighting, that I have a fairly simple starting point ('hunted' usually) but use my little knowledge to make the subject pop more using more advanced lighting techniques.

So to the original question, can a window or one simple light source be the strongest lighting for some situation?, Absolutely. Do certain scenarios need more advanced lighting techniques to make the subject shine more? Absolutely.

 

[John Koehrer]

To be contrary, I'd suggest it isn't.

 

[removed account4]

even rembrandt lighting is kind of simple,
i's say yes, simple lighting is very effective

 

[markbarendt]

I agree that Rembrandt light on a face is pretty simple, the "trick" is getting the rest of the frame lit "correctly" to support that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sunlight is very effective and simplistic.

 

[Andre Noble]

No, I would not want a single light, without reflector

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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/

 

[removed account4]

I agree that Rembrandt light on a face is pretty simple, the "trick" is getting the rest of the frame lit "correctly" to support that.

all the rambrandt lit portriats i watched being made, were made with a hair light, background light, key and fill ..
and lights with barn doors .. really simple set up but it wasn't a simple thing to do, but LOOKED simple form doing it for 50 years

 

[markbarendt]

all the rambrandt lit portriats i watched being made, were made with a hair light, background light, key and fill ..
and lights with barn doors .. really simple set up but it wasn't a simple thing to do, but LOOKED simple form doing it for 50 years

Yes, studio sets are sweet. Once designed the sets are easy to setup, refine, and produce accurate, repeatable exposures that straight print beautifully.

Designing the set is where the work is.

 

[cliveh]

For instance, what lighting did Steve use for the Afgan Girl? I would guess it was quite simplistic.

 

[markbarendt]

I know a few people that have shot with Steve and his MO was to typically to put many of his subjects into better lighting and context.

 

[cliveh]

I know a few people that have shot with Steve and his MO was to typically to put many of his subjects into better lighting and context.

Does that mean simplistic or complicated?

 

[markbarendt]

Does that mean simplistic or complicated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl
Afghan Girl is very typical of his portrait style; low contrast lighting, background is typically complimentary in color, there is some direction to the light, backgrounds are typically low key. He does break that rule but that "soft" lighting preference shows in his body of work.

Low contrast, soft, lighting typically means a large indirect light source.
Steve biases that to one side. On Afghan Girl the main light comes in from right of the photographers shoulder and there's enough bounce secondary light coming back from the left to keep her off side from going dark.
Steve finds that balance so regularly that it isn't just a "simple" matter of finding "open shade" it's a matter of getting the direction across the face "just so". Not too complicated there.

Where this gets complicated is getting the main subject right along with a well lit, complimentary, and interesting, background.

 

[cliveh]

How about Migrant mother?

 

[markbarendt]

What about it? What are your thoughts on how Dorothea did that?

 

[Jim Noel]

I

I would suggest it is.

It is ALWAYS the place to start.

 

[cowanw]

let no shadow be unrelieved.