I'm late to the game but I agree with D'Buggs that a reflector is a light source, yet it can change direction but it is a light source. This guy, http://www.duenkel.com/, is know for his use of reflectors. And I mean he will put the reflector outside of your house to redirect the sun into your house to become a light source.
Sorry Hackbone. A reflector is not a source of light. It is a light modifier. A source of light generates the light and reflector does just that. Reflects the source of light. Sure you can have a subject lit with only reflected light but the reflected light is not its source.
If I redirect a source of light into an area that does not have light doesn't it become a source of light for that area? To my way of thinking (which might very possibly be totally convoluted) that makes sense or am I just messing with semantics?
If I redirect a source of light into an area that does not have light doesn't it become a source of light for that area? To my way of thinking (which might very possibly be totally convoluted) that makes sense or am I just messing with semantics?
No. The source is always a generator of light. Reflectors do not generate light they modify or in your case move it.
In your example if we reflect daylight into the area the area isthen lit with refelcted daylight. If we took away the first source of light (daylight) we would have no light in the area.
No. The source is always a generator of light. Reflectors do not generate light they modify or in your case move it.
In your example if we reflect daylight into the area the area isthen lit with refelcted daylight. If we took away the first source of light (daylight) we would have no light in the area.
This is also my understanding. A reflector is taking another source of light and moving it around; it isnt the *actual* source of light. Just like a mirror isn't the *actual* thing, but essentially an "optical illusion" of sorts. Take away the original, and you don't have anything left. (Oh dear.... this is now going to get terribly through-the-looking-glass. Sorry!)
Since we are kicking the semantic argument around, then there are no light sources, as the sun is diffused through our atmosphere at the minimum and perhaps through scrims and other modifiers after that, and flashes and strobes are diffused through the plastic and glass that surrounds the bulbs and further diffused through soft boxes, beauty dishes and so on. Every form of light that we have ever experienced (unless we have been in the vacuum of space without a space suit) is shaped light, not unlike what a reflector does. We even acknowledge this is our terminology - "golden hour", "blue hour" etc. Ever hear of a shot lit by moon light? I suppose there is really no such thing since it is really just a big reflector.
BTW Weedinner... Your pics look much cleaner now that you are linking them. Good Job!
Since we are kicking the semantic argument around, then there are no light sources, as the sun is diffused through our atmosphere at the minimum and perhaps through scrims and other modifiers after that, and flashes and strobes are diffused through the plastic and glass that surrounds the bulbs and further diffused through soft boxes, beauty dishes and so on. Every form of light that we have ever experienced (unless we have been in the vacuum of space without a space suit) is shaped light, not unlike what a reflector does. We even acknowledge this is our terminology - "golden hour", "blue hour" etc. Ever hear of a shot lit by moon light? I suppose there is really no such thing since it is really just a big reflector.
BTW Weedinner... Your pics look much cleaner now that you are linking them. Good Job!
Love the way you think.....lmao. Just opinions for sure
I created this thread because I think we can get a bit to much gear orientated and not use and manipulate the greatest light source we have for whatever photography we are in to. If you don't understand how to use daylight then I think this seriously limits you in the way that you 'see' light. And if you can't see quality of light then you are pretty much dead in the water when it comes to most forms of photography.
I've never understood why post-processing is made out to be this horrible thing, like you're cheating if you do it. And if you do, you should never reveal how much you do.
IMO, post processing is PART of being a photographer. You have to master the technicals in camera but you also have to master the techniques of good post processing. It was no different in the film days. I don't know why people pretend it wasn't. It's not like a professional portrait photographer dropped his film canister off at the local Thrifty film processing counter after a session and ordered a bunch of 8x10's for his clients. He processed the film and paper in the darkroom or hired someone to do it.
I am positive that the OP did post work on every single one of the shots he's posted. I would expect it. I doubt the images SOOC were horrible. I'm sure the technicals were good. But lets say they were not. Lets imagine the SOOC shots were all underexposed and flat, OOF, etc. Does it really matter? Does it lessen the quality of the finished product?
I've never understood why post-processing is made out to be this horrible thing, like you're cheating if you do it. And if you do, you should never reveal how much you do.
IMO, post processing is PART of being a photographer. You have to master the technicals in camera but you also have to master the techniques of good post processing. It was no different in the film days. I don't know why people pretend it wasn't. It's not like a professional portrait photographer dropped his film canister off at the local Thrifty film processing counter after a session and ordered a bunch of 8x10's for his clients. He processed the film and paper in the darkroom or hired someone to do it.
I am positive that the OP did post work on every single one of the shots he's posted. I would expect it. I doubt the images SOOC were horrible. I'm sure the technicals were good. But lets say they were not. Lets imagine the SOOC shots were all underexposed and flat, OOF, etc. Does it really matter? Does it lessen the quality of the finished product?
I entirely agree with you in principle. In fact I enjoy the PP just as much as I enjoy the actual shooting. However, I think the post processing comments were made within the specific context of this thread, "Can you manipulate God's light". If in fact "God's light" was manipulated in post, it seems a bit disingenuous given the nature of this particular thread, and the comments about being overly gear oriented. Least wise that's how the comments struck me, but perhaps I'm misreading it.
I've never understood why post-processing is made out to be this horrible thing, like you're cheating if you do it. And if you do, you should never reveal how much you do.
IMO, post processing is PART of being a photographer. You have to master the technicals in camera but you also have to master the techniques of good post processing. It was no different in the film days. I don't know why people pretend it wasn't. It's not like a professional portrait photographer dropped his film canister off at the local Thrifty film processing counter after a session and ordered a bunch of 8x10's for his clients. He processed the film and paper in the darkroom or hired someone to do it.
I am positive that the OP did post work on every single one of the shots he's posted. I would expect it. I doubt the images SOOC were horrible. I'm sure the technicals were good. But lets say they were not. Lets imagine the SOOC shots were all underexposed and flat, OOF, etc. Does it really matter? Does it lessen the quality of the finished product?
I have nothing against post processing, it was just the way the thread was titled.
I got the vibe that since it was manipulating "god's light", I figured post processing wasn't a big part of the pictures made.
I enjoy PP thoroughly myself, and have 'saved' quite a few images with PP. I'm not dogging on anyone about it, but it was a little ambiguous(?) in the context of this thread.
I entirely agree with you in principle. In fact I enjoy the PP just as much as I enjoy the actual shooting. However, I think the post processing comments were made within the specific context of this thread, "Can you manipulate God's light". If in fact "God's light" was manipulated in post, it seems a bit disingenuous given the nature of this particular thread, and the comments about being overly gear oriented. Least wise that's how the comments struck me, but perhaps I'm misreading it.
^^^
-Mike Jin
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900. It never gets easier, you just get better.
Sorry guys. I guess I jumped on my soap box too quick. I wasn't really directing my rant at anyone or anything said on this thread. Mike simply triggered that nerve and I went off.
Since we are kicking the semantic argument around, then there are no light sources, as the sun is diffused through our atmosphere !
The sun Is THE light source for daylight (and moonlight as you point out). Everything it passes through or is reflected by is a modifier, atmosphere, clouds, water etc. A strobe is a light source, the soft box or whatever you put in front of it is the modifier.
Enough of semantics.............
I got the vibe that since it was manipulating "god's light", I figured post processing wasn't a big part of the pictures made.
^^^
PP as much as you like within the context of the image you are trying to produce. In other words if its an alien life form then rev it up, if its a soft natural shot then just keep it that way.
Nothing wrong with PP. With film I decided which film and with what developer and manipulated the printing accordingly. Doing it digital has just made that process run on rocket fuel.
I believe in the golden days of Hollywood they employed more retouchers than photographers....
As a pro headshot photographer living in London I would be sunk without trace without PP. I have had crap weather and light for the last 2 1/2 months but my clients dont care about that. They need quality piccies and that s why they come to me. I have to find a way around the conditions.I could not replicate the job on film. Impossible...
How much PP? Here's the before and after of the previous image in crappy OOF cause it aint at Flickr
If you think there is not much difference it s because I got it right and she has fab skin.
I do shoot outside often but almost never exclusively with natural light. I almost always use a combination of sun and flash, like in the shot below. However, this thread has inspired me to shoot some of my 365 project portraits with number but natural light. I will post some of them in the days to come. Maybe even this afternoon.
I created this thread because I think we can get a bit to much gear orientated and not use and manipulate the greatest light source we have for whatever photography we are in to. If you don't understand how to use daylight then I think this seriously limits you in the way that you 'see' light. And if you can't see quality of light then you are pretty much dead in the water when it comes to most forms of photography. ...
While I can agree that shooting with nothing but natural daylight and a reflector (or several reflectors) is a valuable skill, would you not agree that an ability to shoot a combination of available light "plus" flash (plus as many additional light modifiers as is necessary to produce the desired effect), and to do it naturally (so that the light source is not obvious) is an even more valuable skill?
(After all, multiple light sources and light types is a super-skill-set of shooting with any singular light source.)
... Totally agree with Diva and anonymouscuban, a reflector BTW is not a source of light. It simply modifies the source of the light. ...
On this we are very much in agreement. A reflector is simply another type of light modifier, requiring a light source in order to be valuable.
However, a reflector can still be dominant or "key" in a scene, with other light and modifiers used for fill, rim, hair, etc. To a great degree "any" light available to the scene is light which can either be used or otherwise needs to be controlled.
While I can agree that shooting with nothing but natural daylight and a reflector (or several reflectors) is a valuable skill, would you not agree that an ability to shoot a combination of available light "plus" flash (plus as many additional light modifiers as is necessary to produce the desired effect), and to do it naturally (so that the light source is not obvious) is an even more valuable skill?
(After all, multiple light sources and light types is a super-skill-set of shooting with any singular light source.)
I agree with you Ziggy.
I'd rather master both and everything in-between since there will come a time when you need to use one because the other is not available.
I don't think the OP is arguing that available light is the only way to shoot or the best. I think he's just trying to show that sometimes, using what is supplied for free can yield really beautiful results. It's certainly reminded me I have to do more shooting outside.
I don't think the OP is arguing that available light is the only way to shoot or the best. I think he's just trying to show that sometimes, using what is supplied for free can yield really beautiful results. It's certainly reminded me I have to do more shooting outside.
BTW, I also think he's showing off a bit too.
Your right anonymouscuban I am not saying that available light is the only way to shoot but I dont think young photographers exploit its potential. I had a degree student in the other week assisting and she had NO idea how to see quality of light. Never been taught it, never bothered to find out. I beleive the more you can exploit this source the greater your understanding of light and the more you will be able to do creatively by adding more light sources and modifiers (now we know there is a difference ).
If by showing off a bit I can get people into thinking "Hey, how did he do that" then them having a go at it I have achieved the aim of this post.
Your right anonymouscuban I am not saying that available light is the only way to shoot but I dont think young photographers exploit its potential. I had a degree student in the other week assisting and she had NO idea how to see quality of light. Never been taught it, never bothered to find out. I beleive the more you can exploit this source the greater your understanding of light and the more you will be able to do creatively by adding more light sources and modifiers (now we know there is a difference ).
If by showing off a bit I can get people into thinking "Hey, how did he do that" then them having a go at it I have achieved the aim of this post.
Your images are completely and totally beautiful, and I mean that as an admirer of your work. (I've added you to my links of photographers I recommend to others for study. )
I hope that you also teach others that, to some degree, light is light. Understanding and control of light is ultimately a major goal of photography. The skillful blending of natural sunlight and electronic flash can give you control and results beyond sunlight alone.
I believe that this is a 'very' skillful blending of natural light and electronic flash. (Please check your image EXIF to confirm.) It demonstrates a mastery of illumination levels and directionality of light that would be relatively difficult to produce by sunlight and reflector(s) alone.
I believe that this is a 'very' skillful blending of natural light and electronic flash. (Please check your image EXIF to confirm.) It demonstrates a mastery of illumination levels and directionality of light that would be relatively difficult to produce by sunlight and reflector(s) alone.
I have been found out OH NO....Honest mistake and deep apologies to the forum. There is a small strobe high and left of the model which is on. It is though making NO difference to the picture as this was the way it was illuminated by daylight (honest). The strobe is controlled by a Pocket Wizard with an AC3 controller. (I can use up to 3 of these on pictures to supplement daylight. (thats another thread) The controller is always on the camera and flashes are always in place). The setting for the AC3 controller was -3. The light you see hitting the subject left is diffused sunlight reflected from a large movable diffused plastic curved mirror in the studio. The light through the window can be bounced around the subject who sits on the chair. Light can also be bounced from the mirror next to the client. I can produce this shot with the help of strobes if the daylight is crap or as in this case produce it just with daylight (or not as the case maybe ).
Here is another similar shot. NO flash promise
[IMG][/img] Monika by John_Clark , on Flickr
and a picture of the set up in the studio.
Thank you Ziggy for the praise and the link. Its appreciated and apologies again for the error.
Comments
Sorry Hackbone. A reflector is not a source of light. It is a light modifier. A source of light generates the light and reflector does just that. Reflects the source of light. Sure you can have a subject lit with only reflected light but the reflected light is not its source.
[IMG][/img]
42_ANSI_1414-Edit by John_Clark , on Flickr
www.cameraone.biz
No. The source is always a generator of light. Reflectors do not generate light they modify or in your case move it.
In your example if we reflect daylight into the area the area isthen lit with refelcted daylight. If we took away the first source of light (daylight) we would have no light in the area.
This is also my understanding. A reflector is taking another source of light and moving it around; it isnt the *actual* source of light. Just like a mirror isn't the *actual* thing, but essentially an "optical illusion" of sorts. Take away the original, and you don't have anything left. (Oh dear.... this is now going to get terribly through-the-looking-glass. Sorry!)
www.cameraone.biz
BTW Weedinner... Your pics look much cleaner now that you are linking them. Good Job!
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
Love the way you think.....lmao. Just opinions for sure
www.cameraone.biz
Thanks for responding.
Rather just a device used to manipulate electricity.
Without electricity, there would be no light.
hahahaha. lol
Lottsa fine work here BTW.
You're manipulating the light, but are you also manipulating your shot in post?
Or are these all SOOC? I'm sure not many, if any, are SOOC...
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
DSC_5471-Edit by hipshotphoto, on Flickr
I shoot RAW so technically nothing I do is SOOC but I know exactly what you are inferring to.
Yes I applied some tonal contrast to my submission
IMO, post processing is PART of being a photographer. You have to master the technicals in camera but you also have to master the techniques of good post processing. It was no different in the film days. I don't know why people pretend it wasn't. It's not like a professional portrait photographer dropped his film canister off at the local Thrifty film processing counter after a session and ordered a bunch of 8x10's for his clients. He processed the film and paper in the darkroom or hired someone to do it.
I am positive that the OP did post work on every single one of the shots he's posted. I would expect it. I doubt the images SOOC were horrible. I'm sure the technicals were good. But lets say they were not. Lets imagine the SOOC shots were all underexposed and flat, OOF, etc. Does it really matter? Does it lessen the quality of the finished product?
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
I entirely agree with you in principle. In fact I enjoy the PP just as much as I enjoy the actual shooting. However, I think the post processing comments were made within the specific context of this thread, "Can you manipulate God's light". If in fact "God's light" was manipulated in post, it seems a bit disingenuous given the nature of this particular thread, and the comments about being overly gear oriented. Least wise that's how the comments struck me, but perhaps I'm misreading it.
I have nothing against post processing, it was just the way the thread was titled.
I got the vibe that since it was manipulating "god's light", I figured post processing wasn't a big part of the pictures made.
I enjoy PP thoroughly myself, and have 'saved' quite a few images with PP. I'm not dogging on anyone about it, but it was a little ambiguous(?) in the context of this thread.
But just to be clear, I'm not against PP!
^^^
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
Nothing to see here... Carry on.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
The sun Is THE light source for daylight (and moonlight as you point out). Everything it passes through or is reflected by is a modifier, atmosphere, clouds, water etc. A strobe is a light source, the soft box or whatever you put in front of it is the modifier.
Enough of semantics.............
PP as much as you like within the context of the image you are trying to produce. In other words if its an alien life form then rev it up, if its a soft natural shot then just keep it that way.
Nothing wrong with PP. With film I decided which film and with what developer and manipulated the printing accordingly. Doing it digital has just made that process run on rocket fuel.
I believe in the golden days of Hollywood they employed more retouchers than photographers....
As a pro headshot photographer living in London I would be sunk without trace without PP. I have had crap weather and light for the last 2 1/2 months but my clients dont care about that. They need quality piccies and that s why they come to me. I have to find a way around the conditions.I could not replicate the job on film. Impossible...
How much PP? Here's the before and after of the previous image in crappy OOF cause it aint at Flickr
If you think there is not much difference it s because I got it right and she has fab skin.
BTW I am rather surprised not many images have been posted by members here....do you not use daylight?
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
While I can agree that shooting with nothing but natural daylight and a reflector (or several reflectors) is a valuable skill, would you not agree that an ability to shoot a combination of available light "plus" flash (plus as many additional light modifiers as is necessary to produce the desired effect), and to do it naturally (so that the light source is not obvious) is an even more valuable skill?
(After all, multiple light sources and light types is a super-skill-set of shooting with any singular light source.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
On this we are very much in agreement. A reflector is simply another type of light modifier, requiring a light source in order to be valuable.
However, a reflector can still be dominant or "key" in a scene, with other light and modifiers used for fill, rim, hair, etc. To a great degree "any" light available to the scene is light which can either be used or otherwise needs to be controlled.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I agree with you Ziggy.
I'd rather master both and everything in-between since there will come a time when you need to use one because the other is not available.
I don't think the OP is arguing that available light is the only way to shoot or the best. I think he's just trying to show that sometimes, using what is supplied for free can yield really beautiful results. It's certainly reminded me I have to do more shooting outside.
BTW, I also think he's showing off a bit too.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
Nice examples
Your right anonymouscuban I am not saying that available light is the only way to shoot but I dont think young photographers exploit its potential. I had a degree student in the other week assisting and she had NO idea how to see quality of light. Never been taught it, never bothered to find out. I beleive the more you can exploit this source the greater your understanding of light and the more you will be able to do creatively by adding more light sources and modifiers (now we know there is a difference
If by showing off a bit
Works for me. You've posted a few things in your threads that I'll be incorporating in today's session.
Your images are completely and totally beautiful, and I mean that as an admirer of your work. (I've added you to my links of photographers I recommend to others for study.
I hope that you also teach others that, to some degree, light is light. Understanding and control of light is ultimately a major goal of photography. The skillful blending of natural sunlight and electronic flash can give you control and results beyond sunlight alone.
As a case in point I present your own image:
I believe that this is a 'very' skillful blending of natural light and electronic flash. (Please check your image EXIF to confirm.) It demonstrates a mastery of illumination levels and directionality of light that would be relatively difficult to produce by sunlight and reflector(s) alone.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have been found out OH NO....Honest mistake and deep apologies to the forum. There is a small strobe high and left of the model which is on. It is though making NO difference to the picture as this was the way it was illuminated by daylight (honest). The strobe is controlled by a Pocket Wizard with an AC3 controller. (I can use up to 3 of these on pictures to supplement daylight. (thats another thread) The controller is always on the camera and flashes are always in place). The setting for the AC3 controller was -3. The light you see hitting the subject left is diffused sunlight reflected from a large movable diffused plastic curved mirror in the studio. The light through the window can be bounced around the subject who sits on the chair. Light can also be bounced from the mirror next to the client. I can produce this shot with the help of strobes if the daylight is crap or as in this case produce it just with daylight (or not as the case maybe ).
Here is another similar shot. NO flash promise
[IMG][/img]
Monika by John_Clark , on Flickr
and a picture of the set up in the studio.
Thank you Ziggy for the praise and the link. Its appreciated and apologies again for the error.