RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote:
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice.
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
So, what was your light setup?
Are you really this dense?
Thank you for the kind words of regard for your fellow FM members.
The light falloff didn't match (imo) the description you gave ... just checking to make sure that was really a "hole in the sky" providing the key light, as your description suggested.
Anything you can offer to explain the light falloff to make it seem congruous with your description?
Time of day, Time of year, direction of view (N / E / S / W) would be helpful info. It just seems that something "wasn't right" with what I'm seeing in the lighting and your "special situation" (yet, being suggested as being commonplace / similar to others) description.
Simply asking for clarification ... hopefully, that isn't too "dense".
RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote:
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice.
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
So, what was your light setup?
Are you really this dense?
Thank you for the kind words of regard for your fellow FM members.
The light falloff didn't match (imo) the description you gave ... just checking to make sure that was really a "hole in the sky" providing the key light, as your description suggested.
Anything you can offer to explain the light falloff to make it seem congruous with your description?
Time of day, direction of view (N / E / S / W) would be helpful info. It just seems that something "wasn't right" with what I'm seeing in the lighting and your "special situation" (yet, being suggested as being commonplace / similar to others) description.
Simply asking for clarification ... hopefully, that isn't too "dense".
RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote:
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice.
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
So, what was your light setup?
Are you really this dense?
Thank you for the kind words of regard for your fellow FM members.
The light falloff didn't match (imo) the description you gave ... just checking to make sure that was really a "hole in the sky" providing the key light, as your description suggested.
Anything you can offer to explain the light falloff to make it seem congruous with your description?
Time of day, direction of view (N / E / S / W) would be helpful info. It just seems that something "wasn't right" with what I'm seeing in the lighting and your "special situation" (yet, being suggested as being commonplace / similar to others) description.
Simply asking for clarification ... hopefully, that isn't too "dense".
RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote:
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice.
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
So, what was your light setup?
Are you really this dense?
Thank you for the kind words of regard for your fellow FM members.
The light falloff didn't match (imo) the description you gave ... just checking to make sure that was really a "hole in the sky" providing the key light, as your description suggested.
Anything you can offer to explain the light falloff to make it seem congruous with your description?
Time of day, direction of view (N / E / S / W) would be helpful info. It just seems that something "wasn't right" with what I'm seeing in the lighting and your "special situation" (yet, being suggested as being commonplace / similar to others) description.
RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote: RoamingScott wrote: RustyBug wrote:
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice.
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
So, what was your light setup?
Are you really this dense?
Thank you for the kind words of regard for your fellow FM members.
The light falloff didn't match (imo) the description you gave ... just checking to make sure that was really a "hole in the sky" providing the key light, as your description suggested.
Anything you can offer to explain the light falloff to make it seem congruous with your description?
Nov 19, 2025 at 11:01 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16931958 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
