| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Showing your lighting gear in your photo
Andrew Richardson, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 10:18 AM on 05.13.11 |
| ->> I'm just curious as to y'all's opinions on this; I've been noticing lately that some publications, ESPN Magazine in particular, use editorial shots of athletes where the lighting gear is blatantly visible in the photo. I have seen multiple photos over the last few months where there is a clearly visible profoto powerpack or two on the ground and even one where the whole stand and lit beauty dish fill were visible. I guess I understand if this is a particular style that ESPN is going with, but to me it gives their photos this thrown together feeling, like they didn't care to take the time to take a shot where stuff like that was out of the way. Anyone else notice this? Thoughts? |
|
Mike Burley, Photographer
|
Dubuque | IA | USA | Posted: 10:45 AM on 05.13.11 |
->> "to me it gives their photos this thrown together feeling, like they didn't care to take the time to take a shot where stuff like that was out of the way."
Its just a "behind the scenes" type shot.. has nothing to do with "not taking the time". I'm sure it was also shot tighter w/out the lighting gear in view, and the magazine chose to run the looser one. You can debate whether or not you like the style, but I don't think anyone's being lazy ;) |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 10:55 AM on 05.13.11 |
->> It's just a personal/professional preference of the editors at the magazine.
I thought about doing it for some of my youth sports business but the parents would probably think the same way you think and that would result in a) complaints or b) lower revenue.
You also see the same style in several of the business magazine (Forbes, Entrepreneur, Business Week, Inc.) |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 11:41 AM on 05.13.11 |
->> It's like any other shooting technique, if it's done right and new, it can be really cool, and potentially way overused.
The NYT had a photo on the front page the other day that had another photog's strobe lighting the fraud guy and it was pretty neat. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:49 AM on 05.13.11 |
->> As stated, it's just a style thing and has been done for years, but lately, seems to be "the thing."
Shooting through your lighting gear can give some interesting framing and also tends to lend some "importance" or "star power" to the subject because it shows "hey look, all this effort was made for this person's photo."
Pretty soon it will phase out as the latest fad and something else will take over. |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 05.13.11 |
| ->> Peter Lindbergh is the king of this, and it....gets....really.....old. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 12:30 PM on 05.13.11 |
| ->> I used to have a style where I would shoot with really bad lighting, under and over exposed and out of focus a lot. It never really caught on so I had to move on. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:49 PM on 05.13.11 |
->> Throw this in the same category as cross processing, sloppy polaroid borders, ringflash, hipstamatic/instagram, etc.
They come and go every few years in almost predictable cycles. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 12:57 PM on 05.13.11 |
->> Someone needs to invent an APP for iPhone that can remotely trigger those gazillions of dollars of overkill stroberista lighting that's deliberately left in the frame, then hipsta-matize it with EVERY SINGLE 70's style emulator stacked on top of one another, then instantly WUPHF it to each and every person you have ever had contact with whatsoever.
Oh wait, I left out the face/body disorientation detector step, to ensure that it is uploaded 90ยบ counterclockwise to the way it would be viewed were it shot with something so banal as an SLR.
(http://www.wuphf.com/) |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 1:41 PM on 05.13.11 |
->> there was a guy....
did golf course scenics ... and 99% of the time he'd use a COKIN graduated filter... tobacco...smokey... Looked ok till you saw it a second time and discovered everyone was looking at the sky and not the golf course...
when/if the "effect" ( aka gimmick) overpowers the subject...time to move on
my two cents
-- M
ps...yes I know his name and I'll refrain |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:59 PM on 05.13.11 |
| ->> Soon, someone will be fired from their newspaper or stripped of an award following allegations that they used Photoshop to add lighting gear to their photographs. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Southern California | CA | USA | Posted: 3:36 PM on 05.13.11 |
| ->> @nick morris , its back and in a big way...just check out some if the prep work out there. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 4:50 PM on 05.13.11 |
->> Mike Burley is right.. setting it up certainly isn't lazy ... it does convey behind the scenes but really, does the average person REALLY care? It lost it's luster with me the second time I saw it.
What is lazy about it is if you use the same idea over and over time after time. You can't come up with another concept? The portrait workshops I've gone to in the last 90 days also have similar challenges.
The real work isn't making good images - it's staying fresh and current. Several respondents on this thread are good examples of taking older concepts and making them new again.... |
|
Andrew Richardson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 9:18 PM on 05.13.11 |
| ->> On shots like this http://www.bradtrent.com/#/Portfolio/Artificial%20Portraits/1 I understand, appreciate, and enjoy the "behind the scenes" feel. I guess what annoys me sometimes is when all I can see is 3/4 of the power pack in the bottom left corner of the frame, it never really seems to achieve the same effect as the above shot lol |
|
T.J. Hamilton, Photographer
|
Grand Rapids | MI | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Well, unfortunately I did this once, but of course it was Morris...and yes that is cream in the ice bucket for him.
http://www.tjhamiltonphoto.com/portraits/ |
|
Jeff Jones, Photo Editor
|
Gallup | NM | USA | Posted: 12:16 AM on 05.17.11 |
->> Huh. I just thought since Hollywood makes so much money with product placement that the magazines were getting cash from lighting companies to show their stuff being used...
(grin) |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Nacogdoches | TX | United States | Posted: 9:12 AM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> I've included the lighting setup in images a few times. As has been said, it's a personal stylistic preference. In the few I've done, while looking at the final edit, I decided it actually added to the image. It's definitely not something I do every time. It's only been a handful and, each time, it's been a conscious decision of, "Hey, that looks cool." Just another tool in the design box. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:23 PM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> You can gripe all you want about it but they got paid. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Robert Beck, Photographer
 |
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 1:16 PM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> My next portrait will show The King of the K devouring a bag of Twizzlers in the background. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 4:10 PM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> Now that was funny T.J.... |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 4:18 PM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> I think its funny that everyone is against it since we are all photographers. I think it's always great to see other people's lighting setups. Most professionals don't like sharing that info. Photography is probably the #1 non-athletic hobby in the western world. So, people want to see how photos are made. |
|
Scott Evans, Photographer
|
Bay Village | OH | USA | Posted: 5:08 PM on 05.17.11 |
->> While I am not a huge fan of having the lighting in shots not specifically meant to show a lighting setup, I do agree with Brian. Seeing someone else's lighting setup is far more valuable to me than even reading about it since I tend to be a visual person (perhaps correlated to being a photographer?).
Regardless, Chuck makes a great point..if the image = paycheck, we are the dummies for debating it while the shooter counts the Benjamins. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 6:45 PM on 05.17.11 |
->> The client may have wanted the "studio set up" shot. And if the person signing your check says "I want that lighting crap in a few shots, can you make it happen?" Your answer is always: "yes, yes I can...two or three light stands, and how about some grey cords from my Novatron lights I used in college?"
Trends come and go, but photographers second guessing eachother never goes away. |
|
Thomas Boyd, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 7:25 PM on 05.17.11 |
->> Don't ask why.
Ask: Why not?
There are no rules.
Showing the lighting setup can, in some cases, add a layer of meaning, commentary, or context you wouldn't get without it.
It actually transforms a "portrait" into reportage of a portrait being made, yet you still get to see what this person looks like. You may learn more about the person when you see how they react to being photographed.
This is nothing new, by the way. I remember doing it in the early nineties...and I didn't exactly invent the idea. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 1:52 AM on 05.18.11 |
->> B. Dowling, I have actually found the opposite is true during the last 20-30 years I have been taking photos. I have never met any photographer who tried to hide their "secret." Most photographers I know will say, "This is how I did it. Now, go do it better than me." Then maybe I just know cool photographers. And you don't even have to know them. Witness Joey Terrill http://penumbraproject.com/ or Joe McNally http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/ or 100's of other photographers. I am actually the only photographer I know who hasn't given up the secret of the way he made a photograph.
And to prove that Boyd didn't invent the idea (he may have just done it better), here is a photo from the late-1800's: http://www.almahistory.org/images/GESELL_Back_Story_10_--_Night_Hunters.pdf |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:05 PM on 05.20.11 |
->> Folks if you are able to shoot for a top magazine then, while keeping your client happy, do as you please. They are lots of reasons as to why showing power packs and strobes is OK. I had done it in the past but at the same time I make sure that some shoots are totally clean with zero gear sandbags/stands/strobes/cords in sight. Shooting for newspapers is totally different when it comes to magazines.
NOthing in photography is new. It has been done one way or another. And when it comes to no sharing concepts or how-to it usually comes from the lower end of the photo scale. When you are confident of your talent and know who your clients are then there is not reason of secrecy. Knowledge is power but when is shared it helps the whole photo community.
BTW marketing comes in many forms, you never know when you have a great killer shot with a model release while showcasing those Dynalites/Comets strobes in your photo and the phone will RING RING RING "Hi I am Joe a rep for Dynalite I noticed that you work with our strobes. We are doing a national/worldwide adv campaign and your image and your photo set up would be perfect. How does 30K sound and a full set of new gears to you. WE can work on the numbers if they are low."
More 2 Come
Pag
www.ManuelloPaganelli.com
Los Angeles CA |
|
Andrew Richardson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 9:08 PM on 05.20.11 |
->> I guess I should have been clearer in my original post as there seems to be a wide spectrum of understanding of the phrase "including your gear in your photo". I was referencing an ESPN shot like this http://web16.twitpic.com/img/302831334-c2ee4f28ddb928c34eadff189d2d805e.4dd...
Where the gear is barely present yet still there, not a full blown lighting set up shot or using your equipment as a frame or potential product placement.
I do however understand the behind-the-scenes feel that this can give a shot, I was just curious as to others opinions and I'm glad I got them, thanks y'all. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:31 PM on 05.20.11 |
| ->> Bob, you look much better in time lapse than you do in person. Woody looks the same. |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
|
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 9:22 AM on 05.21.11 |
->> Bob,
How did you cast "window" shadows by (apparently) putting strips of tape across a softbox? I wouldn't think the shadows would be so defined. |
|
Robert Deutsch, Photographer
 |
NY | NY | USA | Posted: 9:35 AM on 05.21.11 |
| ->> Dave, if you remove the exterior and interior baffles, it's reasonably defined. Better to use a large cardboard cutout, or a frame with tape strips, so the interior of the softbox doesn't diffuse the light, but that's what I had:) |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> Bob great time lapse thanks for sharing it. But I didnt see you leaving any tip for the hotel maid LOL |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|