6. I know you were not soliciting advice on lighting but it\'s hard to overstress how important it is, simply put photography is light.
Once you taken your lighting as far as it can go, it then makes sense to make the jump to MFD to push what is a good look a bit further.
+1
Using high contrast light means that you\'ll get a higher contrast image ... I know
Using lower contrast light means that we have to push our PP more to achieve a similarly high contrast image ... more
The relationship of our light through to our processing is significant as how \"baked\" vs. \"natural\" we wind up with. When using glass that has more rapid transitions than glass with slower transitions, the combination of our lighting contrast level ... coupled with, our lens transitions (fast/slow) ... coupled with our aggressive/relaxed PP essentially becomes a math equation @ something like:
.4 * .4 * .4 = .064
.6 * .6 * .6 = .216
I chose +/- .1 from .5 to show how even such a \"subtle\" difference becomes \"not so subtle\" once you start taking those small differences multiplied through multiple process. A further deviation of +/- .2 would yield an even more noticeable final product variance. This is where the differences between a kit lens and a Leica/Zeiss/L/ start to really add up. Same goes for achieving critical WB and/or minimizing/correcting for mixed lighting, consistent light color, etc. ... they all start to add (multiply) up.
.3 * .3 * .3 = .027
.7 * .7 * .7 = .343
Relaxed lighting, relaxed image projection and relaxed processing can all add up to make a noticeable difference. Getting the three pieces of the puzzle dialed in to work together to produce the look we want ... well, that\'s part of the art that goes along with the science, and it starts with the light. Granted, we can choose different glass and perform different processing to adjust/compensate from where we start. But if we know that we want to use nominal/less pp to garner a more natural/less baked look, then our lighting becomes a rather important variable in the process.
AA wrote of \"The Camera\", \"The Negative\" and \"The Print\". Imo, understanding the intertwined relationships of our multi-step process is key to yielding our desired look, whatever that may be. I see it being essentially a four step (sub-steps noted) system. This is how I see the process flow:
How we effect the contrast/transition at each stage of the process then becomes the resultant @ our final product. From that, the light that we start out our process with sets the tone (no pun intended) for how we will progress through to the end. Whether we are pushing/pulling our contrast/transitions or our saturation, the more we manipulate it through the process on the back end, the more \"baked\" it will look. Thus, the closer we get it on the front end tends to yield the more natural look ... and that\'s as much about the \"art\" of doing so, as it is about the science of why it is.
Imo, lighting is much like the slogan for the game Othello:
It takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master.
I figure it\'ll take me a lifetime, so I just keep chippin\' away.
Aug 21, 2013 at 07:41 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11756148 « Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference »
I know
