Lighting Styles

FM Forums \| Lighting & Studio Techniques \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
end

Archive 2008 · Lighting Styles

jscoby05
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Lighting Styles

This is a subject that could quickly be bumped off the page or last for a long time...I am hoping for the latter. I am, probably what I could consider, a newbie to lighting. I am really overwhelmed by the choices as far as different types of lighting and modifiers out there.

Basically I am interested in what people personal lighting styles are. I understand that different situations call for different tools, but it seems like many people have a particular preference, some people seem to always have a small ringlight on the front of their camera, others seem to swear by huge softboxes.

So which modifiers do you like: rectagular softboxes, octaboxes, umbrellas, ringlights, beauty dishes, reflectors, snoots, bare lights, strip lights, panels, barndoors, gells, ect. Why do you prefer that particular type of lighting modifier and why do you use it?

Which do you like more: hard lighting or soft lighting? Are you always using rimlight on the edges of a subject or do you prefer soft lighting to envelop?

Do you use grids on your softboxes or honeycombs on the front of your reflectors always? If so why or why not?

Also do you use a light directly on a stand for a kicker or do you use a boom to get a hairlight over the top of a subject. Which are better snoots, stripboxes w/ grids or without.

I am not expecting anyone to answer all of these questions, I just want to start a conversation where people can learn from one another. It would be great if people could show some examples of the type of lighting they like and/or examples they have made. I obviously could get a book to show me examples of the above types of lighting and make a decision for myself, but I think it would be great to get other peoples reasoning for the type of lighting they use.

If you have other questions or considerations please add them.

Nov 27, 2008 at 02:58 AM

Tomagado
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Lighting Styles

jscoby05 wrote:
This is a subject that could quickly be bumped off the page or last for a long time...I am hoping for the latter. I am, probably what I could consider, a newbie to lighting. I am really overwhelmed by the choices as far as different types of lighting and modifiers out there.

Basically I am interested in what people personal lighting styles are. I understand that different situations call for different tools, but it seems like many people have a particular preference, some people seem to always have a small ringlight on the front of their camera, others seem to swear by huge softboxes.

You sum it up with "different situations calls for different tools". If you _always_ do something, you are going to greatly limit your creativity.

Or you are going to have a consistent/recognizeable look, like Dave Hill, Jill Greenburg, off the top of my head.

I think that if you're new, trying new things and learning how to shape/control light is much more important than finding something that you can always use.

Or find it and keep it in your backpocket for later. Buy a little notebook and a pen. Sketch what you're doing. Keep notes. I've learned a lot and my little black books are fun for reference.

jscoby05 wrote:
So which modifiers do you like: rectagular softboxes, octaboxes, umbrellas, ringlights, beauty dishes, reflectors, snoots, bare lights, strip lights, panels, barndoors, gells, ect. Why do you prefer that particular type of lighting modifier and why do you use it?

I'd say I like them all, except I don't think I've worked with barndoors yet. Again, every tool has a purpose. I've seen from end of the spectrum to the other, from one light and reflectors to 6+ heads , and they are just different approaches for different goals...and even sometimes for the same goal.

jscoby05 wrote:
Which do you like more: hard lighting or soft lighting? Are you always using rimlight on the edges of a subject or do you prefer soft lighting to envelop?

It changes. Do you have someone that looks better in hard or soft light? Do you want to get every bit of muscle definition? Throw some hard light in there. Want to hide the wrinkles? Soften the crap out of them

Want to create some more dimension? Throw some accent lights out there. Want something dreamy? Soft soft soft. Or, break the rules. Hide the muscles, show the wrinkles, make them flat, or make a dark striking image.

jscoby05 wrote:
Do you use grids on your softboxes or honeycombs on the front of your reflectors always? If so why or why not?

Use grids when you want to limit spill. Don't want any light on the bg? Grid that head !

ALWAYS is a bad word to me.

jscoby05 wrote:
Also do you use a light directly on a stand for a kicker or do you use a boom to get a hairlight over the top of a subject.

That depends on the height of the subject, I suppose.

jscoby05 wrote:
Which are better snoots, stripboxes w/ grids or without.

Which is better, a hammer or a screwdriver?

jscoby05 wrote:
I am not expecting anyone to answer all of these questions, I just want to start a conversation where people can learn from one another. It would be great if people could show some examples of the type of lighting they like and/or examples they have made. I obviously could get a book to show me examples of the above types of lighting and make a decision for myself, but I think it would be great to get other peoples reasoning for the type of lighting they use.

If you have other questions or considerations please add them.

Don't worry though, I thought like this before, I thought there was a best, a go-to setup. And you can learn about light in books or class. Then you can emulate light (would he/she look better with butterfly lighting, or rembrandt lighting?), but more importantly you will learn how to see the light for yourself and make adjustments until you aren't in the mindset of what style you should use, but instead just think "ok, I want to do this" and can throw the lights up accordingly.

Cheers,
Thomas

Nov 27, 2008 at 05:29 AM

jscoby05
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Lighting Styles

I really appreciate your insight Thomas, also enjoyed looking at your portfolio. I definitely agree with you every modifier has its purpose just like a hammer or screwdriver. I guess I am at the stage of trying to know when to use which one(that sounds dumb). lol, I agree, Always is definitely a bad word when it comes to photography.

Nov 27, 2008 at 06:25 AM

Tomagado
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Lighting Styles

As far as what I've found as my preference, I find myself using larger boxes when I'm in new territory (and on a job) because they are, to me (YMMV), forgiving. When I want to play around with light, I'm finding i like the large dish. Lately I've been playing with the dish and shot these :

This image is copyrighted by the owner

and

I wanted something darker and a bit more moody, and while I'm not happy with the second (I want more light on my hands, and the desat on my face leaves me looking sallow,intended, but a bit too much), so thinking that catch lights show the life in the eyes, and the subject, I moved the light to where i shaped my face and got rid of the catch lights.

And if you're in digital, it never hurts (and always helps) to know what you have in mind so you can light for the goal. With some dodging and burning I brought the shirt out some more. I'm happy with that aspect.

Anyway, I'm rambling about my own stuff which isn't that great

FM is a friendly (and sometimes hostile) place, keep your chin up, google all your questions first, and have fun

Nov 27, 2008 at 06:49 AM

jscoby05
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Lighting Styles

No, don't worry about rambling, I do a bit of that too. I really like what you did with the first one, though it looks like you did a lot of it in photoshop. Is that correct? I am assuming that is the same wall and person in both pictures and that it is really red. What size dish are you using in these photos if I may ask and did you only use one light on the first one?

Nov 27, 2008 at 06:58 AM

Tomagado
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Lighting Styles

jscoby05 wrote:
No, don't worry about rambling, I do a bit of that too. I really like what you did with the first one, though it looks like you did a lot of it in photoshop. Is that correct? I am assuming that is the same wall and person in both pictures and that it is really red. What size dish are you using in these photos if I may ask and did you only use one light on the first one?

Yes, mostly lightroom tweaking and then some dodging and burning in PS.

Same wall, same person indeed. And it is really really red.

It's a 27" silver dish, and yes, only one light in the first.

Cheers,
Thomas

Nov 27, 2008 at 07:59 AM

cgardner
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Lighting Styles

All of the above....

A photo is a visual narrative and the story you want to convey dictates the choice of lighting style. So the first step in taking a photo which delivers your intended message is having a clear goal in mind what you want that message to be. Once you have a clear goal in mind you can evaluate all the different strategies you have tried previously to find the one most effective at delivering that message.

In a portrait message is conveyed by a combination of context, content, and the way the mood and emotion are rendered and conveyed by the body language of the pose and the lighting style. Its possible to make someone appear distant and aloof or warm and engaging in the same light with just a change of pose and also possible to do it with the same pose by changing the lighting on the face. In either case you would first need to understand a bit about human psychology: what causes a person to seem detached or warm and engaging? Eye contact and expression. So the goal would be the mood you wanted the person to convey, the strategy would involve showing the eyes or not in the photo. They can be shown or hidden with the pose or with the lighting. Which strategy you felt would be more effective would dictate which tool would be best for the job.

This very effective goal, strategy, tactics/tools problem solving framework has been around about 3,000 years and used very effectively to solve many types of problems. I find it well suited to photographic problems (i.e., "How should I light this") because there are so many variables involved and changing just one of them, such as the color of the clothing, can require an entirely different strategy and set of tools. See this tutorial: LINK

But having a plan an executing it are two different things. But starting with a goal is the first glimmer of a clue for the totally clueless which lifts them from the state of unconscious incompetence (i.e., doing have a clue and but think they know everything based on incorrect assumptions like crossed-lighting) to conscious incompetence (i.e. realizing what you don't know). As you try different stuff by either systematic testing or random trial and error one begins to solve problems based on what worked previously. As we try different things and gain experience we begin to solve problems rationally, considering strategies which worked before (or not) in similar situation and repeating them (or trying something different). Once any skill is mastered it passes from conscious thought to sub-conscious reaction. If you see your shoe lace in hanging out you don't need to think through the steps of tying a shoe the way you'd teach a 3 year-old, you just react to the situation, reach down and tie it. The same thing happens when learning photography and lighting. We go through a "conscious competent" phase where each step must be thought out and weighed against other known strategies to the point of "unconscious competent" to where you are able to apply the best solution to a problem instinctively. Another term for that process is "learning curve" and how fast you climb it is a matter of motivation, temperament, and to some degree intelligence. But this stuff isn't like rocket science...

Picking the best tool for a job requires knowing how each tool works. A chef may have 8-10 different knifes in his kit. They all perform the same basic task, cut stuff, but each by its nature will perform some task better than others. A chef learns which knife is best for each job by chopping up lots of stuff. Lighting is similar. You can read about the characteristics of various light sources but you really need to have them and try them to validate that knowledge and compare results.

This site created by Bron LINK provides the opportunity to see how the same face looks with when lit by different modifiers. Comparison is easy because the test conditions are the same for each light source and the comparison is made side-by-side. Keep that approach in mind when experimenting with whatever tools are at hand. Its easier to see differences in cause and effect when only one variable at a time is changed. Changing two different things at the same time can make it very difficult to make heads or tails out of what caused the changes, leading to incorrect assumptions. That is often the case with light modifiers.

With light modifiers the physical characteristics of the device - size and shape - and the distance at which it is used will both change the character of the light. A small softbox used at 2ft from a face can produce the same angle of light relative to the subject as big one used at a distance of 8ft, but look will be different perceptually due to the way light falls off exponentially: the shadows from a source closer will fall-off more rapidly. So it might be assumed that moving the big softbox in to 2 ft would create the same rapid fall off of shadows. It won't, but the reason isn't obvious. But what needs to be taken into account is the direction of the light relative to what it hits. The entire surface of a small source is a similar distance and direction relative to the object casting the shadow, but when a big modifer is used close the center of the big source winds up close and direct and the edges further away and at a different angle. Diffusion of shadows isn't a function of size and distance it is a function of how many different angles and intensities the light hits the object casting the shadow. So a big source used close will often be too diffuse an omni-directional to the point of obliterating the shadows completely. That can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the goal of the shot, how you want the object or face to appear, and how that appearance will affect the perception of the object or face, and how that perception will affect the overall emotional reaction to the message of the photo.

Perception and emotional reaction to photographic imagery is complex chain reaction of events in the brain of the viewer. Learning how the tools work is just one piece of the puzzle of understanding how to create the desired or intended emotional impact and message in the photos you take. So get as many different tools as you can afford to own and try them many different ways. If you only have direct flash exhaust all the possible ways direct flash can be used. Then add an umbrella and repeat the same tests at various distances with the same subject -- a mannequin or standard self portrait set-up is handy for this part of the learning process -- so its possible to compare the results and clearly see the difference the umbrella makes. Repeat the process with each new tool and soon you will have a good understanding of which of the tools in the kit will be best suited for each task.

But also keep in mind when testing and using the tools that if you don't try different things within a framework of a clear goal for what message you want the tool to help convey is more difficult to evaluate whether a tool works or not for delivering the message effectively.

Chuck

Nov 27, 2008 at 12:58 PM


FM Forums \| Lighting & Studio Techniques \| Join Upload & Sell end