Top one's better than the bottom one. The top one focuses on the subject and the lenses, which steers from the notion "photographer" which is partly why the second one fails. The grip Logan has on the lenses is wierd in the first one too.
Second one is hamfisted. The pose is wierd. Face is lit well, but the cameras aren't, which adds to the oddness of the shot - a portrait for photographers that's not well lit... kind of an oxymoron...
no offense or anything - I know it's a lighting exercise - but the content is something one should be aware of - for instance, I'm not going to desgin a type/font book and make it with bad typography - in the same way, I wouldn't make a portrait of a photographer, for other photographers to see, and shoot it with wierd/poor lighting. It downplays the audience.
And - there's a lot of cooler subjects to bring into a studio than a dude with camera gear.
notes: the idea is cliche and brought about on a whim - that much I know. But, you say that the lighting is "bad" - in what sense do you think it would be better suited to light the subject of a photographer? Does this mean softbox the hell out of him and shoot away, because the sense I get from you saying "bad" lighting is that there isn't enough of it. Or... it could just mean that what is there is not successful in which case I have no idea how to fix that. I'm just unsure of what needs to be fixed when such broad terms are used?
Take the second shot for example. My goals: make it obvious that the subject is a "photgrapher" - do this by having him hold equipment (as I said its interpreted very litterally). I was also trying to think of more than one angle to shoot the subject, ironically this is not very different (front on) but lighting the face and backlighting the rest makes you draw to his face and still understand that he's holding the prerequisite equipment....
Firstly - I don't have much against the first shot. The one I'm not diggin' is the second one.
"bad lighting" - First: it's too simple - as a photographer and knowing a little about lights, I want to see a photo with some real care put into the lights, some real finesse, and some complexity.
Second: He's a photographer, yet he's holding up two black things that are not shiny. I think the cameras should be lit up more.
Third: Why is he holding the cameras that way? It's so wierd! I don't think I've ever seen a pro photographer hold two cameras like that. He looks like a model, trying to look cool while holding some wierd gadgets he doesn't know what to do with.
Fourth - This kinda goes back to the second comment - Although I suppose the audience for such a shot is photographers, it may not be as easily accessible to non-photographers. Firstly, because the cameras and bags aren't lit much, I have a hard time seeing a photographer in this picture. If I glance at it I almost think he's holding up guns or something.
I see some sort of photo rambo in the 2nd one. The first one, the light I think is kinda nice. It exposes what it needs to expose and lets the rest drop out...which is what it should do.
As for complex lighting, fuck that. The best portraits don't make me notice the lighting, they make me notice the person. The lighting should just be a tool for showing me the person more effectively. Simple lighting is the way to go. And if the lighting is complex, it should look simple.
The first one, though dramatically lit is pretty simple. There's light on the dude and some cameras.
I dunno, I think it's well lit. The 2nd one I just can't get past the fact that I'm looking at photo rambo.
And if it's a lighting exercise, screw the content. You have to focus on the light and get that down so when the content matters you don't have to think about your lighting. You gotta start somewhere with that.
I still get frustrated lighting portraits on location because messing with these things takes away from my experience of getting to know my subject...and if there is already a nice window or some good light, I'll just put them there and talk for awhile. I think you get more character that way.
5 comments:
Top one's better than the bottom one.
The top one focuses on the subject and the lenses, which steers from the notion "photographer" which is partly why the second one fails.
The grip Logan has on the lenses is wierd in the first one too.
Second one is hamfisted. The pose is wierd. Face is lit well, but the cameras aren't, which adds to the oddness of the shot - a portrait for photographers that's not well lit... kind of an oxymoron...
no offense or anything - I know it's a lighting exercise - but the content is something one should be aware of - for instance, I'm not going to desgin a type/font book and make it with bad typography - in the same way, I wouldn't make a portrait of a photographer, for other photographers to see, and shoot it with wierd/poor lighting. It downplays the audience.
And - there's a lot of cooler subjects to bring into a studio than a dude with camera gear.
notes: the idea is cliche and brought about on a whim - that much I know. But, you say that the lighting is "bad" - in what sense do you think it would be better suited to light the subject of a photographer? Does this mean softbox the hell out of him and shoot away, because the sense I get from you saying "bad" lighting is that there isn't enough of it. Or... it could just mean that what is there is not successful in which case I have no idea how to fix that. I'm just unsure of what needs to be fixed when such broad terms are used?
Take the second shot for example. My goals: make it obvious that the subject is a "photgrapher" - do this by having him hold equipment (as I said its interpreted very litterally). I was also trying to think of more than one angle to shoot the subject, ironically this is not very different (front on) but lighting the face and backlighting the rest makes you draw to his face and still understand that he's holding the prerequisite equipment....
Firstly - I don't have much against the first shot. The one I'm not diggin' is the second one.
"bad lighting" - First: it's too simple - as a photographer and knowing a little about lights, I want to see a photo with some real care put into the lights, some real finesse, and some complexity.
Second: He's a photographer, yet he's holding up two black things that are not shiny. I think the cameras should be lit up more.
Third: Why is he holding the cameras that way? It's so wierd! I don't think I've ever seen a pro photographer hold two cameras like that. He looks like a model, trying to look cool while holding some wierd gadgets he doesn't know what to do with.
Fourth - This kinda goes back to the second comment - Although I suppose the audience for such a shot is photographers, it may not be as easily accessible to non-photographers. Firstly, because the cameras and bags aren't lit much, I have a hard time seeing a photographer in this picture. If I glance at it I almost think he's holding up guns or something.
Hope that helps.
I see some sort of photo rambo in the 2nd one. The first one, the light I think is kinda nice. It exposes what it needs to expose and lets the rest drop out...which is what it should do.
As for complex lighting, fuck that.
The best portraits don't make me notice the lighting, they make me notice the person. The lighting should just be a tool for showing me the person more effectively.
Simple lighting is the way to go. And if the lighting is complex, it should look simple.
The first one, though dramatically lit is pretty simple. There's light on the dude and some cameras.
I dunno, I think it's well lit.
The 2nd one I just can't get past the fact that I'm looking at photo rambo.
And if it's a lighting exercise, screw the content. You have to focus on the light and get that down so when the content matters you don't have to think about your lighting. You gotta start somewhere with that.
I still get frustrated lighting portraits on location because messing with these things takes away from my experience of getting to know my subject...and if there is already a nice window or some good light, I'll just put them there and talk for awhile. I think you get more character that way.
And I'm done rambling.
thanks, that was a meaningful and enlightening comment - you too austin.
Post a Comment