shatterkiss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
adamdewilde wrote:
I think I often forget that most photos these days that I actually like are all DI anyway.
I assume that "DI" means digital imaging or something? If so, then you're wrong...the image you posted in this thread was simply lit like that. I think that the fogging and black point adjustment were done in Photoshop, but the lighting was the lighting. When it's that simple, why is someone going to spend the time faking it in post? That's a look that every agency model has on their comp card and in their books...here in NYC, folks like Eric Fischer are making bank shooting it on paid tests for agencies. It's a look that they can knock out in five minutes...it's not post.
When in reality, I suppose almost most modifiers can be interchangeable when you have DI on your side.
So wrong. Heavy post work might eradicate the nuance of lighting but that's a choice. It doesn't invalidate the reasons for lighting something right in the first place.
Like often when I look at chuck or other photographers side by side BD and Octa comparisons, I think to myself, WTF they're like the same photo with slight differences that I could adjust in my raw file..
That's because, to be honest, Chuck uses them poorly. If you just take a beauty dish and point it at someone it's not going to look like much. If you take a beauty dish, place it at the optimal distance, place it at the optimal angle of incidence (did you even realize how important angle of incidence is?)...the light is stunning, it leaps out of the frame. It gives you luminous skin that, with good makeup, looks like you've already retouched it. You take an octa, put it at the right angle and distance, you get wonderful, flattering light with amazing smooth shadow modeling and dimensionality.
But to see these things, you have to both be interested in the subtlety and nuance of light and you have to put in the time looking at the light. Seriously, just spend a day looking at light from different sources. I've hired models for a day just to sit still and make chitchat while I hang different modifiers, look at them, take sample images, try them from different angles and distances. You have to understand why a light might look like crap at the moment, but would look amazing if you moved it 2' closer and 10 degrees further to the right. With all due respect, Chuck isn't interested in subtlety and nuance...he's got a method, a system, and he feels it works for him.
Often times I know where to put the light and how to light it, but I find that my light fall off isn't what I'm going for, so maybe I need to pay closer attention to that!
If you're getting the wrong light falloff, then remedy that in the moment! If you're using a medium softbox and it's not falling off fast enough for you, then move it way, waaaaay closer. Don't assume that the nature of the light is inherent to the modifiers you're using, understand the relationship between the modifier and how you're using it.
|
