RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
1st try @ Kinoflo ... hey, ya gotta start somewhere.
Yes, I'm familiar with the Kinoflo lighting, and I recognized its utilization here. Personally, I'm not a fan for the caveats it presents (color falloff is another issue), but there are those who rave about it because it represents something "stylized".
There will always be the debate between style and technical ... which is why I so strongly lean on message. If the style is helping you deliver your message (which imo is too often times is look at me, I'm different), then it's a good thing. Same thing with technical issues @ directing / detracting from the message = good / not so good.
As to the foreshortening effect, well, here again it comes down to message. If you were shooting a shot for hand cream or nail polish, then the foreshortening effect, coupled with focus on the hand would then provide both increased mass and focus to command our attention to the hand area, as the message would warrant.
However, where our chosen focus point is the eyes, then we are aspiring to direct the viewer there, and now the increased mass of the foreshortening effect with the hand in the forward plane competes with the direction of the focal point @ the face.
The face has a depth to it @ different planes eyes (recessed), nose & lips (forward), chin, forehead (middle), ears (back). When viewed in person at normal viewing distances, those differences are seemingly benign. However, when we come in much closer, those differences reveal themselves in the foreshortening effect, and if our glass has field curvature considerations, that's just another wrinkle to puzzle.
Those same distance relationships that create foreshortening effects with regard to image magnification variance ... they are also responsible for having impact on some lighting issues as well. Part of the design influence behind a beauty dish is to help "equalize" those distances relationships relative to the various portions of the facial terrain. In that regard, the lighting falloff (luminance & color) remains much closer.
The use of Kinoflo style lighting, while popular in certain circles and "stylized" can have drawbacks in this regard. That's not to say that you can't use it well. Rather, to say that you'll need to learn its caveats (which btw, a BD also has its own set of caveats). It's been quite a while since we saw some Kinoflo work come through in years past, but the physics of light, lens, distance hasn't changed.
I don't mean to sound like I'm raining down too hard here, but I'm a Steve fan ... so you get my "nip it in the bud" response to Kinoflo lighting caveats. Personally, I think it teaches bad habits and a poor understanding of lighting and facial portraiture ... in the name of style. That said, as long as you understand what your command & control is achieving ... it's your pic, your call. Personally, I think Steve has his own style that will come through in the form of message delivery, moreover than copying a "stylized" lighting. But, as is so often the case: First we learn to emulate, then we learn to create.
BTW ... transitioning from existing ambient lighting to studio. That's a whole diff matter on learning the nature and caveats of light. I highly recommend getting the book "Light Science and Magic" by Fil Hunter, et al. There is a great section there about "family of angles" that I think will be integral to helping you understand how to achieve more controlled results (even with Kinoflo).
I'd suggest that after you read, Light Science and Magic ... you go back and study the work of Martin and see if you can see the nuance of how he is handling certain aspects, where he is using it for style, how he is avoiding certain issues, and how he is harnessing them. The name of the game will be in your command & control, but I have every confidence you'll raise the bar here just fine.
Imo, it comes down to message as always @ where you want your viewer to look. I mean, we go to great lengths to meticulously do the eyes, makeup, lipstick, nails, etc. ... then we plaster "hot spots" on the forehead, chin, nose, cheekbones. Just seems a bit contradictory to me @ where we are trying to direct the viewer.
Style has its place to be sure, but imo the name of style for namesake, can be a mask for detractions that are not helpful to the viewer, nor the message. Just gotta know if your real message is "look here" vs. "look at what I did different". Just be careful here is all I'm trying to say. Getting caught up in someone else's "look at me, I'm different" isn't always the same as I'm in control and am delivering your intended message.
We've gone through this drill before with regard to message vs. processing decisions vs. style vs. technical, etc. Lighting decisions are but another piece of puzzle that, IMO, also starts with understanding your desired message to be conveyed. From Rembrandt to butterfly to Kinoflo to ring flash ... well, there is no single "perfect" lighting setup for everything. But, it still requires an understanding of those caveats and how their strengths and weaknesses relate to helping your message vs. detracting from your message.
As always, a Steve fan here ... so a BIG +1 @ stepping into the diff genre. It's gonna be fun to watch you grow in this one too.
HTH ... bring on the pics.
|