 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / October 2003B&W kids portrait
My first photo on Photosig (a portrait), interested in your remarks: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1027384 Greetings, Maarten > My first photo on Photosig (a portrait), interested in your remarks: > > http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1027384 cute but fuzzy > My first photo on Photosig (a portrait), interested in your remarks: > > http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1027384 Great shot. The style looks a bit like the olden days (50s or 60s), though--is that deliberate or accidental?  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > The style looks a bit like the olden days (50s or 60s), Oh no! My adolescence was in the olden days! Paul B. >though--is that deliberate or accidental? deliberate as far as the "B&W part" contributes to that feeling... ;-) Meaning I shot B&W on purpose, but did not really try to shoot a photo from a past era.. Ciao M > My first photo on Photosig (a portrait), interested in your remarks: > > http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1027384 > > Greetings, > Maarten The moment you captured is quite nice. Technically, however, the photo is deficient on several levels. 1. The lighting is unflattering. 2. The photo is not nearly sharp eneough to pass muster There should be a hair light behind the subject to separate the background and foreground. The predominant light in a portrait should almost always be from the left (as the viewer sees it, or from the right of the person being photographed.) It makes me very irritated to see the light coming from the right. Here, the light is coming from every which way, and the multiplicity of shadows is very confusing. You should use two lights in front (main and fill) and one in back (hair), and that's ALL. >The moment you captured is quite nice. Technically, however, the photo >is deficient on several levels. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >of shadows is very confusing. You should use two lights in front (main >and fill) and one in back (hair), and that's ALL. In the above comments I'd agree that the image is not sharp enough. I would add that part of the reason is that the tonal range is rather short. Though there look like there might be some solid blacks (in the hair there don't look like there are any pure whites (which should be in the highlights of the eyes). This image would benefit from being printed on a higher contract grade of paper. But as for the lighting source, I respectfully disagree with Mike Scarpitti's assessment. None of those things about light direction should be considered hard and fast rules. By the way -- MIKE -- could you post a url to some of your pics. I've read a lot of your posts in this and other groups and would like to see samples of your work. Thanks. -- JC >This image would benefit from being printed on a higher contract grade >of paper. Err, "... higher CONTRAST grade..." -- JC > >The moment you captured is quite nice. Technically, however, the photo > >is deficient on several levels. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > -- JC Here: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/ > >The moment you captured is quite nice. Technically, however, the photo > >is deficient on several levels. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > -- JC Not absolute rules, but the human brain is programmed to see a single shadow from a single light sourse: the sun. It's inherently unflattering to see mutiple light sources that cast multiple shadows of near-equal strength on faces, and that's what I don't like here. Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from the subject's right (viewer's left). It has its origins in the left-to-right writing sytem used in the West since Greek times. >Not absolute rules, but the human brain is programmed to see a single >shadow from a single light sourse: the sun. It's inherently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the subject's right (viewer's left). It has its origins in the >left-to-right writing sytem used in the West since Greek times. Knowing something about the human brain and cognition, I'd have to say that the first paragraph above is probably wrong. I doubt that all the millions of years of evolution would lead to any such "programming" of the brain to prefer light from one direction over another -- particularly since most of that evolution happened in the absence of art and writing. And concerning the second paragraph... a few 1000 years of convention (left to right writing) would not be enough to "program" the brain against all that evolution, so I'd say that your statement is more of a convention than it is a description of the way the brain actually works. And as we all know, conventions are often begging to be broken (impressionism and cubism being just some of the examples that broke from the conventions in art). By the way, took a look at your pics. Aside from the one of the tennis guy, I didn't see much recent stuff. Most was shot 30 years ago when you were a student. Do you have anything more recent? -- JC > Knowing something about the human brain and cognition, I'd have to say > that the first paragraph above is probably wrong. I doubt that all the > millions of years of evolution would lead to any such "programming" of > the brain to prefer light from one direction over another -- > particularly since most of that evolution happened in the absence of > art and writing. It is considered poor lighting to have more than one dominant light source. You can mess with hairlights and kickers and all of that, but there should be one dominant light source...what we call the main light. > >Not absolute rules, but the human brain is programmed to see a single > >shadow from a single light sourse: the sun. It's inherently [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > particularly since most of that evolution happened in the absence of > art and writing. 1. Multiple light sources cause multiple shadows. 2. Unless they're greatly different in intensity, this tends to be unflattering. 3. Light from the viewer's left is conventional and is to be prefered. I looked at paintings the Columbus Museum of Art a few years ago precisly on this matter, and confirmed the overwhelming majority of classical painters (1450-1900±) use light from the left, especially when people are in the paintings. > And concerning the second paragraph... a few 1000 years of convention > (left to right writing) would not be enough to "program" the brain [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -- JC 1. I was never a 'photo student', by the way. I'm self-taught. 2. I'll be doing some more soon. It seems as though all I want to do is play tennis. > 1. Multiple light sources cause multiple shadows. > 2. Unless they're greatly different in intensity, this tends to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > classical painters (1450-1900±) use light from the left, especially > when people are in the paintings. Left...right...doesn't really matter although I tended to light from the left in the studio. What's more important is an understanding of how to use the light to create that 3-D effect on a flat piece of paper. > Left...right...doesn't really matter although I tended to light from >the left in the studio. What's more important is an understanding of >how to use the light to create that 3-D effect on a flat piece of >paper. Agreed. I was ranting against the guy that claimed the brain worked a certain way. People should not make scientific claims that simply are not supported by evidence. .... because those arguments sound, well, just silly. -- JC > > 1. Multiple light sources cause multiple shadows. > > 2. Unless they're greatly different in intensity, this tends to be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > how to use the light to create that 3-D effect on a flat piece of > paper. Then why do I feel ___really____ uncomfortable looking at portaits when the light comes from **my** right? Take the time to look at portaits and other painings of the classical period. In the overwhelming majority of instances, the light comes from the viewer's left. Whenever I see portraits lit from the viewer's right, I cringe. >Then why do I feel ___really____ uncomfortable looking at portaits >when the light comes from **my** right? Not sure. Have you consulted a trained psychotherapist? -- JC > > Left...right...doesn't really matter although I tended to light from > > the left in the studio. What's more important is an understanding of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then why do I feel ___really____ uncomfortable looking at portaits > when the light comes from **my** right? I suspect that it is a response to seeing the classic paintings your describe. I wonder, though, why the first two photos on your website have pronounced lighting from the right. It is a nice B&W collection. Thad >Whenever I see portraits lit from the viewer's >right, I cringe. Conditioning. Neither left nor right is "right" - what is right (for lighting direction) is what works best for the subject being photographed at hand. Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply SNIP >3. Light from the viewer's left is conventional and is to be prefered. >I looked at paintings the Columbus Museum of Art a few years ago >precisly on this matter, and confirmed the overwhelming majority of >classical painters (1450-1900±) use light from the left, especially >when people are in the paintings. Why emulate dead painters and the conventional - we are live photographers, aren't we? There's no need to fossilize a lighting approach, conventional or otherwise. "One size doesn't have to fit all" ;-) Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply > >Not absolute rules, but the human brain is programmed to see a single > >shadow from a single light sourse: the sun. It's inherently [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > particularly since most of that evolution happened in the absence of > art and writing. But if we evolved on a planet with two or three suns, it would seem more natural to us, no? >But if we evolved on a planet with two or three suns, it would seem >more natural to us, no? Good question Mike. But in the realm of science you need to test a hypothesis, collect the data, and report your results. AND your results need to be testable and repeatable by other observers. So in this case you'd need to compare two exactly similar organisms that have envolved on different planets -- one planet with one sun and the other with multiple suns. And further, in the case of the planet with multiple suns you'd have to prove that light from those suns, the cycle of the day, and everything else directly related to your hypothesis of multiple light sources and you'd have to weight the effect or totally remove from your experiement any confounding factors -- for example, planets with two suns, but upon which those two suns are only visible in the sky for partial day. Good luck. Your hypothesis in this case is untestable. Therefore the statement is in the realm of fancy, not fact. What some people don't realize is that you can "suppose" and "conjecture" all you want, but that does not make the statements FACT. To state facts, you need a supporting body of evidence to back them up. -- JC >Subject: Re: B&W kids portrait >From: J C null@nowhere.net [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >that have envolved on different planets -- one planet with one sun and >the other with multiple suns. SNIP First you'd have to invent warp drive, though, and "live long and prosper" enough in order to have the funds to get there. Then there's the matter of finding life on other planets, which, if there are doing a quite well job of avoiding our detection. If they were smart, they'd move to another unkown planet/star system before all the Earth photographers arrived to test out their hypotheses. First comes the scientists, then comes marketing, then comes demographics, bill boards, strip malls and before you know it Alpha Centauri IV is starting to look a lot like El Paso, Texas but w/ less Chevy dealers. Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply >Subject: Re: B&W kids portrait >From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >But if we evolved on a planet with two or three suns, it would seem >more natural to us, no? Which brings up a tangential but related subject, catchlights in the eyes. Common wisdom says only one catchlight for each eye since we have only one sun. But we also have windows and water and mirrors and chrome from cars/etc. that reflect that sun so it seems more logical to me to have as many catchlights as one wants _provided_ it works with the overall subject and mood of the photograph. This is especially true for studio fashion photography where it is obvious that the subject was photographed in a studio (seemless paper in the background may give it away as a studio ;-)) in which, to me anyway, it would seem more "natural" to allow each eaye to have as many catchlights as there are lights being used w/i range/angle of incidence on the subject in the studio - only changing though amount/type of lights used or later in Photoshop how many catchlights (reflections of the light source) appear in each eye. This is not to say that if there was a cafe set in a studio in which the subject sits next to a mock window (let's say to set a romantic mood or sense of place, ie. a cafe) that using a rectangular vertical soft box to get a fake'/faux window light reflection in that person's eyes wouldn't be a good move. Speaking of moving, whether catchlights or lighting direction, convention(s) should only be used when it fits the subject/mood of the photograph and virtually never for their own sake lest you want to emulate a past/conventional style of lighting for some odd (or even ;-)) reason. Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > the subject's right (viewer's left). This is simply not true. A broad survey of western painting shows only a slight bias toward portraits lit from the left (about a 55/45 split), with some painters favoring left, some right and some exhibiting no preference. Even more interesting is photographic portraiture, which shows a virtually even 50/50 distribution of left-right preference in a survey of fine art and commercial portraiture over the last 100 years. The only exceptions are certain amateurs and camera-club members who are unduly influenced by dogmatic rules telling them that the light must come from the left. James Meckley > > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > > the subject's right (viewer's left). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > James Meckley In my review of painings in the museum, I found an overwhelming preference for left-side lighting. >In my review of painings in the museum, I found an overwhelming >preference for left-side lighting. Huh, In my recent visit to the National Gallery I found an overwhelming preference for the use of flesh toned paint in portraits. I guess Picasso had it all wrong. Doh! -- JC > In my review of painings in the museum, I found an overwhelming > preference for left-side lighting. Just one museum??? Increase your sample size to a statistically significant level and you'll have a clearer understanding of what's going on. James Meckley > > In my review of painings in the museum, I found an overwhelming > > preference for left-side lighting. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > James Meckley I did that too, on the interent, at the same time. This was a couple of years ago. I had been in a discussion with a portrait photographer I know, and I had asked him why he was using light from the right side. He was unaware of the left-side 'rule' (I hate to cal it that). Look here: http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/s/sanchez/coello/index.html http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/r/raphael/2firenze/1/index.html http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/r/raphael/2firenze/2/index.html The main page is here: http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/tours/spain/p_16.html#portrait The overwhelming majority show light from the viewer's left. I hope you all don't mind, only i'm doing a dissertation this year on "Portrait Psychology" and some of this is interesting... it's also interesting to see the vehemence of some to stick to these alleged rules, and the vehemence of others that there are no rules. So i've saved some posts to a folder. Conclusions remain to be drawn. -- Martin Staring at C:\ prompts since 1993 > I hope you all don't mind, only i'm doing a dissertation this year on > "Portrait Psychology" and some of this is interesting... it's also > interesting to see the vehemence of some to stick to these alleged rules, > and the vehemence of others that there are no rules. So i've saved some > posts to a folder. > Conclusions remain to be drawn. Did you look at the portraits by these painters? > I hope you all don't mind, only i'm doing a dissertation this year on > "Portrait Psychology" and some of this is interesting... it's also > interesting to see the vehemence of some to stick to these alleged rules, > and the vehemence of others that there are no rules. So i've saved some > posts to a folder. Martin, Good luck with your dissertation; I'll be most interested to read it when you're finished. Please advise. James Meckley >Subject: Re: B&W kids portrait >From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >In my review of painings in the museum, I found an overwhelming >preference for left-side lighting. Perhaps your sample is not representative of the whole of all fine art paintings from the Renaissance till now? They call New Jersey the Garden State, but just viewing it in the Northeast section one might think they wrongly named it and should have called it "The Asphalt Bungle" ;-) Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply > > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > > the subject's right (viewer's left). > > This is simply not true. A broad survey of western painting shows only > a slight bias toward portraits lit from the left (about a 55/45 split), > with some painters favoring left, some right and some exhibiting no preference. In the early days before people read as much as we do these days, heck, before it was common for people to read, it didn't matter which side you placed the light. Today, since most all readers have a natural tendency to enter an image from the left side (this has been shown in studies were they use a laser to map where the eye is directed as it moves across a page. painters and early photographers used northlight studios and I would imagine the side it was placed depended on the shape of the room. > Even more interesting is photographic portraiture, which shows a > virtually even 50/50 distribution of left-right preference in a survey > of fine art and commercial portraiture over the last 100 years. The > only exceptions are certain amateurs and camera-club members who are > unduly influenced by dogmatic rules telling them that the light must > come from the left. use of right light in a commercial image is often a deliberate rule break to cause the eye to stop, commercial imagery often uses deliberately bad composition to cause the viewer to stop and mentally try and balance the composition, usually implanting the item in your brain. the use of a strong or contrasty right light can slow the eye down like a speed bump. at least for me > > > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > > > the subject's right (viewer's left). [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the use of a strong or contrasty right light can slow the eye down like a > speed bump. My point in making the above comments was that this "rule" has been broken so many times (fully half the time in photographic portraiture and 40% of the time in painting) that it can no longer be considered a rule, if it ever was. Of course, I admit to being skeptical of aesthetic rules, anyway. The most-often-proposed explanation for this "rule", the fact that we read from left to right and therefore our eyes enter an image from the left, has never been very convincing to me. I don't disagree with the perceptual principle involved; I just have no difficulty entering a darkened image that gradually becomes lighter and more revealing as I scan it. Rather like a fade-in in film. James Meckley > > > > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > > > > the subject's right (viewer's left). [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > James Meckley How do you account for my extreme discomfort looking at images where the light comes from my right side? > > > > > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > > > > > the subject's right (viewer's left). [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > How do you account for my extreme discomfort looking at images where > the light comes from my right side? Why do you assume your "extreme discomfort" is indicative of anyone else? > > > > > > Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from > > > > > > the subject's right (viewer's left). [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Why do you assume your "extreme discomfort" is indicative of anyone > else? I seem to recall talking to a portrait photographer, many years ago, and I remember him turning puple at the sight of light from the right. When? I cannot remember. Maybe it was one of the Makio yearbook portrait photographers. The yearbook would have a photographer available for senior portraits for about 3 weeks in the fall and winter quarters. We would reserve a suite in the Ohio Union, and advertise in the school rag, and announce at football games. Needless to say, even so some students never got the word. One mother wrote to me when I became editor and asked why her son's picture wasn't in the Makio. I told her that this wasn't high school, and that students were 'on their own', that no-one is going door-to-door looking for seniors, and ushering them in to getting their picture taken for the yearbook. We didn't have the time. SNIPS >I seem to recall talking to a portrait photographer, many years ago, >and I remember him turning puple at the sight of light from the right. Early beta trials of Viagra? ;-) Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply > How do you account for my extreme discomfort looking at images where > the light comes from my right side? Have you considered the fact that classrooms, in wich most of us have spent a considerable amount of time, have the windows on the left ? (Supposedly because the majority uses their right hand to hold their pen en so as not be in one's own shadow when writing.) After ten to 15 years light from the left would seem natural... grtz rob I had never noticed that! Now I think about it, you are spot on. Funny how this sort of thing can slip by unnoticed through 14 years at school! > > How do you account for my extreme discomfort looking at images where > > the light comes from my right side? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > grtz rob > > How do you account for my extreme discomfort looking at images where > > the light comes from my right side? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > grtz rob Damn! That's it! > How do you account for my extreme discomfort looking at images where > the light comes from my right side? A brain tumor, perhaps? James Meckley SNIP >Almost all Renaissance and later portraiture uses light coming from >the subject's right (viewer's left). It has its origins in the >left-to-right writing sytem used in the West since Greek times. Hi Mike: Since I last checked my watch, this is no longer the Renaissance (not since 3:30 PM, atleast ;-)) and no photographer in any age is limited by the habits, styles, or mannerisms of painters of past ages. Use the lighting direction that works best with the subject. (Blind following) Rules are for fools. As photographers we should observe, intuit, reason, feel and make our own best judgement calls as to lighting direction and how/whether its appropriate for each and every different subject. This reminds me of some studio photographers who virtualy, if not literally have their fill lights (and key lights?) nailed into the floor/ceiling/etc. When you have two eyes and a mind you no longer need rules - vision "rules". Regards, Lewis Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.