Toilet paper roll? And there are togs complaining about tobacco odor on their new used purchases j/k (I was going to say what a chittie idea, but don't want to break the joking nature )
Chuck, I had to re-read that 2 more times to get my head around what you were saying. Have you written a book or just have an awesome website?
BrianO, when people call something "too flashy" are they generally talking about hard lighting, or soft? Or is it something to do with the entire scene?
BrianO wrote:
If that were true, then we wouldn't need soft boxes and other large light sources; we could just light everything with dinky little heads and set low key:fill ratios; but that is not soft lighting, that is low contrast lighting.
You are absolutely right that contrast is an imprtant factor in setting the mood of an image, but you can't just go around redefining terms at will.
What are you saying I'm redefining? How is the description of the cause and effect inaccurate with regard to the way the various sources create shadows?
There's no "right" way to do anything just different tools, each with different cause and effect. Its possible to create light shadows by wrapping a single large source around an object and also possible to create equally light shadows with two direct sources.
Why don't you try it both ways in a systematic way and see for yourself? Starting from a baseline of no modification makes it easier to actually understand what progressively larger diffusers do on a cause and effect level. To the extent there are differences in the shadows with the two methods they will be as described: two-toned (umbra / penumbra) when wrapped and more even when a second axis fill is used.
Because the brain is easily fooled it will interpret both similarly. If the brain wasn't easily fooled patterns of contrast in photographs wouldn't be perceived as representing real 3D objects. Our eyes can't track focus to judge space on a photo as in person so most of the clues come from contrast patterns. That is why flat lit objects are perceived as flat in photos and backlit objects look 3D. In person the object would be perceived as 3D in any light because the eyes could track focus over it; even in near darkness.
I learned flash photography with direct flash in an overlapping key over fill patten from a PPofA Master photographer who learned the technique from another older and wiser PPofA Master photographer, so I'm not inventing anything new or redefining any terms. Direct sources and neutral fill where the norm back in the golden age of Hollywood photography. The move to larger and larger modifiers was in large part response to compensate for the shorter and shorter ranges as photography transitioned from B&W to color prints and then even shorter range transparencies. As the dynamic range of the recording medium gets shorter more diffuse light sources are needed to keep the tonal transitions smooth.
Now its a knee-jerk reaction to think bigger is better. People buy stuff without really understanding how it works. Bigger is better for many things, smaller and more controlled is better for others. There's also the consideration of logistics and common sense when it comes to modifying hot shoe flash, the topic here.
At some point the climb is no longer worth the improvement in the view. A point is reached where modifier size negates the logistical advantages of using hot shoe flash. If you want to haul around a huge modifier because you think its necessary to get the results you want then all things considered you've be better off illuminating it with a studio flash unit powered by a battery inverter if a wall socket is not available.
How big of a modifier is big enough for hot shoe flash? The best way to find out is to start with none and try progressively bigger ones. By the time you get one large enough to wrap the light you'll be in the range where the power of the flash becomes a limiting factor and the logistics become unmanageable for anything other than static set-ups. The use of smaller modifiers with two flashes instead of one flash off camera with a big modifier is a viable more energy efficient alternative producing a similar overall perceptual result while at the same time keeping the gear light weight and mobile; the type of situations hot shoe flash was designed for. If hot shoe flash were designed to be used for big modifiers Canon would make them with light stand mounts instead of hot shoe, bare bulb and a speedring
cgardner wrote:
At some point the climb is no longer worth the view. A point is reached where modifier size negates the logistical advantages of using hot shoe flash. If you want to haul around a huge modifier because you think its necessary to get the results you want then all things considered you've be better off illuminating it with a studio flash unit powered by a battery inverter if a wall socket is not available.
How big of a modifier is big enough for hot shoe flash? The best way to find out is to start with none and try progressively bigger ones. By the time you get one large enough to wrap the light you'll be in the range where the power of the flash becomes a limiting factor. The use of smaller modifiers with two flashes instead of one flash off camera with a big modifier is a viable alternative to get a similar perceptual result.
MTBtrials wrote:
When you are talking about using controlled small flashes to get the lighting ratio... what do you have in mind.
Direct flash... manual.
both at 45 degrees out? one at 1/4 power and the other at 1/16 or 1/32?
Take a look at these links: Tutorial Examples
Here's the entire session: LINK
Less than five minutes to set up.
A shot to set Custom WB
A shot to confirm Custom WB
A shot to check the lighting set up..
2-4 frames per subject
The whole thing took about 15 min. Everything except the one off camera stand packed in this: LINK
Well, my girlfriend is out of town and none of my friends seem too thrilled when I take pictures of them. I have a great shot of a tower speaker, though! I'll post it tomorrow if i don't get something better.
cgardner wrote:
What are you saying I'm redefining?
"Soft light."
You have specifically stated that it is not the softness of the shadow/light boundry that defines "soft light." That is not true.
You are correct that contrast affects the way we perceive the overall mood of a scene, but you go too far in redefining what soft light is. And the way you wrote "Its the overall tone of the shadows, not how fuzzy the edges are, which create the impression...the light is hard or soft" is absolutely contrary to the standard definition.
Go to any standard text on photography, and look up "hard light" and "soft light." You won't find a definition that matches yours; that'd be in the sections on "contrast" and "fill."
Poor man's soft light, is often low contrast light. It's cheaper, quicker to setup etc.
However Brian is absolutely right, it's not soft light, just flat light that gives a soft appearance due to it's flatness.
No one is dissing you Chuch, because you prefer low contrast light techniques. You're just being asked to use the widely accepted terms.
There are some amazing portraits that use soft yet contrasty lighting. The ones I'm thinking of right now were lit with a Big EL Octa, with no fill. There are also world class portraits that were lit with very low contrast lighting (Chuck's preferred method for creating apparent softness.) But until we all use the same terms, it's difficult to be clear about what's going on in each case.
I said "creates the impression...." not defines the terms. Since you are so hung up on syntax you should recognize there is a difference... I'm describing a cause and effect process not trying to define the terms, simply saying there are two ways the >>>impression <<< or if you prefer >>>> the illusion <<<< light is soft can be created in a photograph.
Honestly I don't know if photons are hard or soft, but last time I checked they still traveled in straight vectors from source to object. Its the vectors of the light, relative to source and object, which is the variable underlying the cause and effect of how source size and distance affect shadow characteristics: the relative amounts of umbra / penumbra.
I did however err semantically in not qualifying "not how fuzzy...." I should have said, "not JUST how fuzzy..."
My starting baseline is human perception of the what lighting produces. On the most basic perceptual level photography is magic trick which fools the eye of the viewer into thinking patterns of contrast represent 3D shape. In person we can perceive the shape of objects in any light because the tracking of the eyes and shifting of focus provide clues to the shape independent of the lighting. In a photo the clues about shape come from the contrast created by the tone and color of the objects in the scene.
Put a white ball on a white background in flat light in a photo and perceptually it will disappear. By that I mean the brain of the viewer will have no clues which "create and impression of shape". If we do nothing with the lighting but simply make the background darker and we begin to perceive its overall shape because it contrasts with the background but it will still look like a flat disk. We could also define the basic outline of the ball by keeping the background white and making the ball darker. Which strategy is best will depend on whether the goal is to reproduce the ball or background as white.
Change the direction of the lighting on the ball and and a contrast gradient will be created on the ball which will give the brain of the viewer clues about its shape. Those clues come from memory of seeing 3D objects in various angles of light while handling them. Connecting the patterns of contrast with the shape of objects is an acquired sub-conscious skill which starts at birth. Infants can't recognize shapes or faces in photos because they haven't formed the associations yet. Creating those linkages is the reason behind the basic shapes and colors of infant toys. Kids parked in front of TVs will also learn to make associations between the flat 2D images on the screen of Big Bird and Elmo and the stuffed toy they are hugging.
But we all eventually grow into adults who sometimes can't find our car keys when they are right under our noses because they have fallen at an odd angle. Our eyes see them, but our brains don't perceive them as keys because the pattern of contrast they create doesn't match the stored memory of what keys look light.
Read that again because it reveals one of the most important things about perception as it relates to lighting and what we are discussing here. Human perception is driven by expectation of what our memories tell us an object should look like. The white ball will aways be a white ball, but whether or not our brain perceives it as being 3D in the photo relies on our brain's ability to associate contrast pattern with its shape. Some patterns of contrast create the illusion of shape better than others.
In person we sense shape and space subconsciously but to do it in a photo we must consciously learn how to do it with the clues provided with contrast: tone, color, relative size of recognizable things in the photo, etc. Learning how to define shape with contrast is the essence of learning lighting. Learning to lead the viewer around the photo with contrasting tone, color, sharpness and space is the essence of learning composition and effective delivery of the message of the photo.
Contrast patterns consist of highlights and shadows. Which are more important to the perceptual process? To get a clue to the answer find a sheet of paper and a pencil and without drawing an outline create a 3D likeness of a white ball. Drawing the shadows a directional light source will create will define the shape on part of the ball which is shaded but there will be nothing to define the shape on the highlight side. If you look at just the shadows you have drawn your brain will tell you its a grey banana. Now take your masterpiece, tape it to the wall and take a few steps back and admire it. More than likely what will happen it that your brain, seeing the crescent shape from a wider context will tell you is a representation of a white ball on a white background.
The same perceptual dynamic occurs with the definition of shape in photos with lighting. In the end it comes down to tricking the brain of the viewer into thinking a pattern of contrast created with the lighting is something three-dimensional and real. Having used direct light sources for 30+ years before ever using diffused sources other than the soft light of a north window I learned how to create the perceptual illusion of softness and flattering lighting on faces with direct sources. Its actually quite simple:
1) Start with flat light. White ball on white background for example, illuminated with a light source above the lens.
2) Add a second light with a different vector. The angle of the second light creates the illusion of shape.
3) Modulate the tone of the shadows with the light on the camera to change the PERCEPTION of the shape of the ball in the photo.
4) Manipulate the perception of the shape and brightness of the ball by changing the background tone, either with the naturally occurring fall off of the light or by changing the background.
I'm not trying to re-define what "Soft" and "Hard" mean, only open people's brains to the fact there is more than one way to achieve that perceptual illusion in a photograph with lighting due to the way the brain interprets basic shapes from contrast patterns.
The only way to see how direct light can work is to try it, but many self-taught photographer thinking direct light or any light near the camera is somehow "bad" or "old-fashioned" never try it. The knee-jerk reaction is "I want to move my flash off camera - is a 7' octobox big enough?" and they remain ignorant of how to control contrast and the IMPRESSION of softness with small sources such as speedlights.
I said "creates the impression...." not defines the terms. Since you are so hung up on syntax you should recognize there is a difference... I'm describing a cause and effect process not trying to define the terms, simply saying there are two ways the >>>impression <<< or if you prefer >>>> the illusion <<<< light is soft can be created in a photograph. ...I'm not trying to re-define what "Soft" and "Hard" mean, only open people's brains to the fact there is more than one way to achieve that perceptual illusion in a photograph with lighting due to the way the brain interprets basic shapes from contrast patterns. ...Show more →
Okay, this I can agree with.
The problem I see with some of your previous posts is that newcomers to photography, and especially those who are trying to self-teach, will not understand the true cause and effect of lightscapes. Without an understanding of what hard and soft light is -- what types of sources create what types of light -- they'll not understand that creating an impression of a type is not the same as the type itself. Then they'll run out and buy a Sto-Fen or a Fong Dong and be frustrated when it doesn't work for something it was never intended to do.
I'm all for the experimental model; I've done a lot of it in many fields. But I, like you, had some good teachers who laid a solid foundation on which I could build my experiments. I try to be consistant and factual in my writing -- hung up on syntax, if you will -- so that others who may be following what I've written won't be lead astray.
All fields of endeavor have jargon that has specific meaning within those fields, and for communication to be most effective, it is paramount that everyone joining the discussion use the terminology accurately.
Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to put you down. You've gone out of your way to try to help a lot of people with your detailed explanations, and I applaud that. I'm just trying to do my part as well.
Understanding how perception works before tackling lighting problems is like seeing a completed puzzle, deconstructing it, then putting it back together with an idea of how the pieces need to fit together. But the way most beginners approach learning lighting is just move around pieces of the puzzle without any clear understanding what the finished product is supposed look like. Noobs would learn more about how lighting works using a blank sheet of paper and pencil as I suggested to draw a 3D object than they would randomly throwing equipment at problems without an understanding of what the goals of the exercise are: trick the brain and make it seem real
j/k (I was going to say what a chittie idea, but don't want to break the joking nature 
)