Studio Lighting

[christian]

Rolando,

First you piss on Bees... now you're pissing on Mini-Vans? I LOVE THAT VAN.

My only thought regarding the mini vs. the sports car is: Both of your high school friends had bad taste in women. If the cars were the deciding factor... ewwww... skanksville.

You obviously love your Hensels. I think they're wonderful too. In fact, as you know, I almost bought some. I don't see the purpose in belittling any other light - if for no other reason than because it wasn't as expensive. A great butt looks great in Rio Jeans and Guess Jeans. I don't credit the jeans. I credit the butt.

So let's review:

1. Alien Bees are great lights.
2. Hensels are great lights too.
3. I don't depend on brand names to give value to my work.
4. Mini-Vans ARE COOL.
5. Somewhere in Texas, there's at least one girl who will put out for men who have a sports car... because of the car. And one that won't because of a mini-van.
6. Great butts look great in jeans.
7. If you're making great images - who cares what brand you're using.

[rolandogomez]

Hey, I don't piss on anything but fireant piles. (grin) First, let's get the record straight, I can shoot great images with Bees, novas, speeds, etc., while all lights have their pluses and minuses, ultimately it's the photographer and their knowledge of lighting that will show in the end, though I don't like to work any harder at it then I have too.

With that said, let's take your points, one by one.

1. For the money, yes.

2. Extremely great lights.

3. Neither do I, think about your "Bronica" and how you got it.

4. My wife don't think so, so she drives a Suburvan.

5. More than one girl, trust me.

6. Ditto, especially when it belongs to "your" girl.

7. Ditto

Wishing you the best, rg sends!

Re: Studio Lighting 

[jimmyd]

i love threads like this cuz i don't wholly agree with anyone, nor do i wholly disagree with anyone. lights and fast glass-- if you're gonna pretty girl shoot, they're probly more important than camera bodies assuming the camera body is at least at a certain minimal level of sophistication. i don't know much about other makers' stuff but i do know canon and that minimal level probly starts around a 30d or a 20d... altho there's still guys getting good stuff out of a 10D. 1Ds are great, especially if you're a photojournalist or nature photographer working in (un)camera-friendly conditions (cuz of the body's makeup and the seals) or a sports guy cuz of the FPS.

now let's talk modifiers. there's where people should probly be spending some money. for instance, umbrellas ain't gonna do much for you in most situations-- they scatter light everywhere. (unless you're gonna spend on the high-tech ones... like a jumbrella and others.) with most standard umbrellas, lack of light control is gonna bite you on the butt. personally, i think some mid-range lighting instruments coupled with a beauty dish or an octodome is gonna produce some great results for many pretty girl shooters. (i'll leave the ring flash debate to others.) then there's grids, snoots, doors and all that. nobody should be without a roll of cinefoil and a roll of gaffer's tape. how about foam core? yep... white cards and black ones. and the list goes on.

[DDCStudios]

did anyone answer the poor guys question???

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by DDCStudios

did anyone answer the poor guys question???

what's that got to do with anything?

[rolandogomez]

LOL...many resources, books, books, libraries, book stores, and just plain gut instinct...rg sends!

Re: Studio Lighting 

[rolandogomez]

Ah...good ole Cinefoil, which also comes in "photofoil." My fav...good points jd...later dude, oh, I'll be in LA next weekend, let's hook-up again, later, rg sends!

Re: Studio Lighting 

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by DDCStudios

did anyone answer the poor guys question???

I believe the first response he got was an answer to his basic question. What do you think?
Cheers,
rfs

[isaiahbrink]

hey, not to piss on anyone, any brand of equipment, or any style, but I'm wondering what ever happened to the old school style of lighting started by George Hurrell? You know, a four light setup on booms, main, fill, hair, and background? I know these days, we tend to use lights that put out a ton of light and no shadows anywhere, but I've seen some Hurrell's personally, and they had shadows, even on the face! but they looked fantastic!!!!! I remember learning on lights where I didn't know what brand they were, how much power per second they used, but used things like snoops, barn doors, things like that. I don't know, maybe I just want us to think not just of how much light we put out, but the quality of light, direction of light, and if we have a shadow, big deal, as long as the print looks good and the customer is happy.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

hey, not to piss on anyone, any brand of equipment, or any style, but I'm wondering what ever happened to the old school style of lighting started by George Hurrell? You know, a four light setup on booms, main, fill, hair, and background? I know these days, we tend to use lights that put out a ton of light and no shadows anywhere, but I've seen some Hurrell's personally, and they had shadows, even on the face! but they looked fantastic!!!!! I remember learning on lights where I didn't know what brand they were, how much power per second they used, but used things like snoops, barn doors, things like that. I don't know, maybe I just want us to think not just of how much light we put out, but the quality of light, direction of light, and if we have a shadow, big deal, as long as the print looks good and the customer is happy.

I'm quite a Hurrell fan myself, but keep in mind what happened after he took his photo. He and other expert retouchers spent as much as 6 hours retouching a single photo. Virtually all of his photos had this type of retouching. So they definitely were not being "shot in the camera". He was also shooting a much different type of glamour that we shoot now. Modern glamour seems to use a lot of large softboxes (and softer lighting requires less retouching) whereas Hurrell was shooting very hard light. He was also shooting at very long shutter speeds so the model had to be still which means you don't get may of the modern spontaneous type shots. Its almost like a totally different genre. Nowadays, we often try to duplicate it, but using a grid on a flash head and putting a head on a boom. It is definitely fun to play with.

Re: Studio Lighting 

Cheers,
rfs