Call me a contrarian but I really don't see the point of this exercise or the notion that using one light is a purer or simpler form of lighting.
Chuck,
I doubt anyone will disagree with you. In fact the purpose of this exercise is to show that if you think about what you are doing, you can accomplish a great deal with very little. Starting out with photography I thought you needed tons of lighting to get the job done. Instead, I learned that you only need as many lights necessary to accomplish the task at hand. I have much to learn, but threads like this coupled with your comments have really opened my eyes to what can be accomplished when you keep things simple.
cgardner wrote:
Call me a contrarian but I really don't see the point of this exercise or the notion that using one light is a purer or simpler form of lighting.
I agree Chuck. But it is still a great thread. Any excuse for folks to share work is fine, beginners or experts, good or bad, all part of the mix.
mmurph wrote:
I agree Chuck. But it is still a great thread. Any excuse for folks to share work is fine, beginners or experts, good or bad, all part of the mix.
Use the right side of your brain too and enjoy!
Best,
Michael
So who is going to start a TWO light thread? Never hurts to have a different style showcased.
I provided a one light example and examples of light light / multiple sources examples; plus for no extra cost food for thought, which only hurts the narrow minded and wanna-be moderators...
The point was that few of the shots posted in the thread were actually captured using one light SOURCE.
I think the main point of this thread is to show what can be done with just one light. Duh. The fact of the matter is photography equipment is extremely expensive and by the time people get to studio lighting they will probably only buy one light to start off with. Many of these images use the sun and a reflector, but only one studio light. It's nice to know spectacular images can be made with only studio light.
I'd like to see a thread in another forum where people post images taken with crappy lenses. So many people are stuck on getting L lenses and some amazingly fast primes that they forget you can take great images with a point and shoot camera. Sometimes I cringe at the thought of opening another image taken with the 85L where the only dynamic part of the image is the shallow DOF.
cgardner wrote:
Call me a contrarian but I really don't see the point of this exercise or the notion that using one light is a purer or simpler form of lighting.
Chuck
I have watched you give roughly the same piece of advice over and over and over again in countless threads asking about lighting. You point people to your site with a good technical digression about lighting and a lot of rules to follow. You don't post saleable images though. EVER. I want to see the work you give to your clients, I want to be wrong, but from what I have seen, you deliver work that does not impress, does not look high quality, and serves only to elucidate some rule that you think is important.
Show me high quality portraiture, fashion, or beauty work and you will make me a believer. Till then, how about you not rain on other people's parade!
The name of this thread is new one light setup I did not start it, but I have posted pix. I personally like the challenge of making a striking photo with just one light (and maybe or maybe not a reflector). And I will continue to post more to this thread.
I'd like to propose a new thread two light setup Anyone have some two light (plus reflector or not) shots that they are proud off? Then start the new thread. If no-one is interested, then don't start it.
I'll be doing a two light setup about the 1st of Feb. It will be two lights ... but NO fill light, just a black card negative fill. Check-out the work of Bobbi Lane http://www.bobbilane.com/ She does some nice multi light negative fill work. And no, my shots will not look like anything she does.
I am pretty new to studio strobes and off camera flash, so I am far from any kind of technical authority. I also do all my shooting on location, usually with a time limitation. That said, I am pretty sure the one light part is about what you bring, not counting sun, bounce sources, street lights, etc. The thing about bringing and using one light, is that it is very easy for one person to manage, setup, move, carry, etc. And, if you are working with one assistant, having one light is very easy to work with. So, I really like seeing and learning what I can do with just one light, because, 95% of the time, that is all I am going to be bringing with me. If I can use the sun as well, great. But, to me, the whole purpose of the onelight/strobest stuff, isn't always perfect, classic lighting, but very good lighting on the fly, or creating something a bit more artistic then what you would get at the walmart photo studio. I think Zack mentions something along those lines in his DVD - why spend a ton of money, time, and work to end up with a product that looks like it came from a walmart studio?
PS, I love checking in to threads like this - way more info then the usual stuff in the gear forums!
Seriously, I can't believe there's a need to explain the advantage to using only one strobe light!
If you really need to argue this, or don't want to participate, maybe you should stay out of this thread.
As mentioned, start your own, two/three/six/butterfly/white bg/black bg/wallmart-style light setup thread
Justin Berman wrote:
I have watched you give roughly the same piece of advice over and over and over again in countless threads asking about lighting. You point people to your site with a good technical digression about lighting and a lot of rules to follow. You don't post saleable images though. EVER.
Thanks for posting that, Justin. It was starting to feel like the elephant in the room.
shatterkiss wrote:
Thanks for posting that, Justin. It was starting to feel like the elephant in the room.
I was wondering when this was going to come up. This is not a personal attack on Chuck, however as I am strictly into fashion photography (especially the types that push bounds and strays from what is considered the norm) I haven't particularly found Chuck's information useful. Also when looking at his examples I can clearly see it is not how I want my work to look. Again, the point of this isn't to slam Chuck, for me it's clearly a contrast in styles. I am not trying to achieve the looks shown in his examples so I tend to rarely read through his technical postings.
The type of photos that tend to draw me in are the ones where it's obvious the photographer is not all wrapped up in rules and is instead more concerned with creating something artistic. I also felt Zack made some pretty solid points in his DVD about doing your own thing and developing your own style, and if trying to emulate Kiddie Kandids is your bag than that's cool too, it just isn't for everyone.
I too would like to believe Chuck has been holding back some stellar work, so if that's the case Chuck, lay it on us as I for one would love to see more of your work besides what's been posted in your tutorials.
Yes....the Zack Arias One Light DVD is exceptional. His teaching style and the principles he sets forth on the DVD give a person the foundation to really grow in off camera lighting ability. I find Zack's One Light photography brilliant, bold and beautiful. Check out his Flickr Gallery. Most are done with One Light: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79886681@N00/
Also, Neil Turner uses just a basic kit that features one Lumedyne 200 joule pack, one Signature head, two regular batteries, one stand, an umbrella, a Chimera softbox and a Pocket Wizard kit - all in one sling bag. He offers great on-line tutorials and showcases his work as well here: http://www.dg28.com/technique/
Thats Fresh wrote:
cant believe we the forum police came out. chuck, got any pics for the reindeer?
Whoa, if that was directed at me I apologize for any offense to either Chuck or yourself as it was not the intention. To clarify I was simply wondering if there was an outlet for Chuck's photographs besides his tutorials. Something such as an online gallery, Flickr page, personal site, etc. As I would like to view more of his work both commercial and personal. He seems to like sharing his work, so I didn't think it was a rude request. I don't think it is unreasonable that when someone acts like an authority on a subject for people to want to see a body of work to support it, or at least show the theories being "taught" in practice. Again, this is not to sound condescending towards Chuck. If a person is going to post tutorials on how to light a scene then they are by definition making themselves an authority on the subject.
