.......Todays lighting looks much more stripped down, partially due to digital (you can use a lot less power in lighting with dig today vs film) but also due to the evolution of the look of flash photography...even stuff shot around 2005 looks terribly dated.
It would be hard to give you a particular name, but if you look at a particular photographer who is in the mainstream, someone who is in demand and constantly pushing forward....for instance Annie Leibovitz.
Look at the progression of lighting style in her work over the years. As she grows older, her work becomes more refined...the image on the left, is very lit, and there is a considerable underexposure of the ambient. Now, there is a definite fairytale theme in the left image, but it is one I'm using as an example. The image of
DiCaprio on the right is a much more modern look these days...almost natural looking. Ultimately, whether you like her work or not, she sets much of the tone and trend in fashion and portrait photography.
a beauty dish is a good option but not cheap
Most of her work is done by committee and a crew of 10.
And your point is? Do you think she just shows up and clicks the shutter? That is laughable.
She is deeply involved in the lighting of her subjects. I have many close friends I've worked with over the years who were Annie's full time assistants....including Andrew Eccles and Martin Schoeller who I assisted for four years...they all say the same thing. She has the vision, and the understanding.
She sees the light and makes the changes. She decides on the look of the images, both in technical lighting aspects and content of the photo itself. Anyone who has worked on sets such as these (the guy typing here) understands that big shoots with high profile people require a lot of people to make it happen. Assistants, make-up artists, clothing stylists, hair...so making the comment about her "10 assistants" is laughable. One of the things with her, is that when the rest of the folks on set are on page two, shes's already on page ten.
Annie is about a lot more than "throwing up a softbox"....and the shot of DiCaprio is lit....and you are missing the point of my earlier post about currency of style.
And your point is? Do you think she just shows up and clicks the shutter? That is laughable.
She is deeply involved in the lighting of her subjects. I have many close friends I've worked with over the years who were Annie's full time assistants....including Andrew Eccles and Martin Schoeller who I assisted for four years...they all say the same thing. She has the vision, and the understanding.
She sees the light and makes the changes. She decides on the look of the images, both in technical lighting aspects and content of the photo itself. Anyone who has worked on sets such as these (the guy typing here) understands that big shoots with high profile people require a lot of people to make it happen. Assistants, make-up artists, clothing stylists, hair...so making the comment about her "10 assistants" is laughable. One of the things with her, is that when the rest of the folks on set are on page two, shes's already on page ten.
Annie is about a lot more than "throwing up a softbox"....and the shot of DiCaprio is lit....and you are missing the point of my earlier post about currency of style.
I'm sure she didn't mean to tick of the Queen, perhaps she was looking for something less formal from her (it was rather funny though, the Queens reaction)...dang, there sure are a bunch of Annie haters here.I wouldn't call myself a "fan",
just someone who has benefitted from learning from her on a multitude of aspects.
I do have a problem respecting work that is channeled through too many committees of art directors, publicists and a host of hanger ons and "assistants". It just seems to lose the "artist" concept to me.
The stuff is so darned costly, and you always take a hit when re-selling it.
That really does point to buying the highest quality gear, with the most versatility, one can find or afford.
I tell anyone starting out (that wants to primarily use strobes) - look for some basic Speedotron, Norman, Elinchrom, etc. gear. A pack and two heads. Hell, I started with Novatron 1000 pack (actually decent and lasted for years I'd stuff two novatron heads into a softbox on each side of a speedotron for 4x5 jewelry shots - one less pop!). You just really don't want to hang a softbox on a novatron head...
The used market is pretty saturated with Speedo 1201A packs (one for $175 on eBay today) and 820 packs - I bet mine is 35 years old. Norman has similar stuff. A couple 7" reflectors, some ripstop yardage and stands, and you can light a crazy amount of stuff. throw in an 11" or 16" reflector and grid, or a beauty dish and grid, and your available looks increase exponentially. Keep an eye on eBay and Craig's List for used softboxes (I even have some cheap knockoff boxes which have been great for the $$) and so on.
And buy good stands - they'll last through a decade of lighting upgrades.
agreed and the cheapest soft boxes are umbrellas.I actually prefer them over soft boxes;easier and faster to put up ,take down and transport.the look is almost identical to soft boxes!
I like 'em for ease of setup - I don't find them identical for many uses though tabletop, jewelry or reflective stuff, gimme a softbox large sets where I want total control, ditto. Medium setups where I want control of shadows, same. Really hard to do much more than very soft light with fairly open shadows (though that's a look that's often appropriate). Softboxes are great when you need to up the drama. Good products for control freaks! And man, I'm in love with the 48" strip lights with grids yum.
I do like them for lower budget location work though.
I think the expression you are looking for is "catch lights". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catchmentUmbrellas or soft boxes, it depends if you want round or rectangular/square catchment reflections in the eyes.
I think the expression you are looking for is "catch lights". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catchment
I have noticed about flash umbrellas that the light that comes out of them is conical and further you move them away from the subject the more contrasty the light is.
That's right Mr Carter, I discovered it by experience in the studio with my umbrellas about 20 years ago.The farther you get from any light source, the more "contrasty" it gets (IE, soft light gets harder). Set up a small softbox and shoot something right next to it. Then shoot something 15' from it. It becomes a pretty hard light. The size of a diffuse light source, subject size, and distance between the two is all relative when it comes to softness/hardness of light.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?