+1 @ understanding light ... i.e. no single use is "best"
I can recall plenty of times that I shot with light that was "too soft" (read as: listening to others exclaim how soft light was "best") rendering the subject flat for my objectives before I came to realize that it isn't "best" for everything. It has a quality that is nice to work with, while other (subjects/tastes) lean toward a higher contrast producing light.
BrianO wrote:
As with all great artists, he knew that one way of lighting a subject wasn't always the right way for every subject.
Along those lines, notice how Vermeer got very different looks and moods from the same source. He used subject orientation and distance to the source for different effects.
You don't even have to light the same subject the same. Consider the photographs of classic beauties of the movies - Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Grace Kelly and Marilyn Monroe. They were photographed by different photographers using different lighting styles, often with very different results. Which one was the "right" way to light them? I'd answer all that produced interesting (and not always the most flattering) images.
Seriously. I wasn't expecting this great of a response from my little question, but there is a TON of great information from all of you and I GREATLY appreciate your taking the time to help me understand this.
BrianO wrote:
I missed that one. Hadn't even heard of it. I'll have to see if it's on DVD.
"Girl With a Pearl Earring" is definately worth a rent. Netflix has it. It has an interesting story, a flight of fantasy around the girl in the painting. The bonus for us is that they worked hard to create the lighting seen in Vermeer's work.
