 |
 | 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 / February 2004reflector type ?
I'm learning portrait photography. I do a lot of black and white work but I also do a lot of beach/bikini color photo shots (seems thats all everybody wants here in Hawaii). I'm about to purchase a reflector to hopefully improve the look of my photos. I'm getting a Lastolite Tri-grip reflector. My question is which colors will work best with the type of photography I'm doing? The sunfire/silver or white/silver? Money is tight so I have to buy one reflector that will adapt to black-n-white and color. Thanks. Sean I always used super silver and sometimes a gold inside a church. But for outside I always wanted as much as possible with the super silver. > I'm learning portrait photography. I do a lot of black and white work but I > also do a lot of beach/bikini color photo shots (seems thats all everybody [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sean B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF SHADOWS! See: http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/gallery.html > B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity > of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF > SHADOWS! The average person can't stand harsh light when it comes to portraiture. And you'll have trouble selling it to them. On the whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft light. > > B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity > > of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft > light. I'm speaking of B&W. And the sharp shadopws are essential to it. It's not a matter of ratios, but of sharp shadows. Show them the Crawford pics and they'll go nuts, and want something similar! > > B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity > > of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft > light. True, but soft-lit photos look dated; harsher light is more in these days. I agree, Randall.... Young, perfect skin and good bone structure can handle fashion lighting. Portraiture for the more typical subject is more appealing (to the subject) with more diffused lighting than overly dramatic light. There's certainly a place for both in the market and simply needs to be tailored to the task and subject at hand. I think that we, as photographers struggle to add some drama or emotion to portraits and the dramatic light is the easy way out and most appealing to us but we need to remember who the work is for.... If us, then feed our own need to express and if for the customer, sensitivity to the subject is what is called for. >> B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity >> of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft >light. > I agree, Randall.... Young, perfect skin and good bone structure can > handle fashion lighting. Portraiture for the more typical subject is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If us, then feed our own need to express and if for the customer, > sensitivity to the subject is what is called for. I agree completely. > I agree, Randall.... Young, perfect skin and good bone structure can > handle fashion lighting. Portraiture for the more typical subject is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft > >light. Soft lighting should be used only for little old ladies. It's a cop-out otherwise. Look at Hurrell's stuff: http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html In particular, note: http://www.lafterhall.com/cagneysm.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/coopersm.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/boyersm.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/johnsm.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/taylorsm.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/rolandsm.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg Not everybody's face can handle Hurrell's lighting. Plus, most people view that kind of thing as dated. > Not everybody's face can handle Hurrell's lighting. True, but many of Hurrell's subjects were far from young. > Plus, most people > view that kind of thing as dated. They would be the unenlightened ones...I think Hurrell's stuff rocks! The problem with Hurrell type hollywood lighting is several: A. you have to have the lights, key light, secondary key, fill, separation effects like hair light, kick light, splash light, skim etc (most times several were used, I've seen as many as four, two were typical) and a background and background effects light (a second spot light blasted through a potted plant, though these days a coat hanger stretched out and wrapped in silk flowers is used, this gives a mottled background highlights) basically a minimum of four lights to 7 or so. B. you need to know what you are doing, there are reasons a light from the left or right is chosen, whether its a 'Rembrandt's or split light, whether you pose the subject straight on, side view, which side? So you either need a lot of natural instinct or learn a lot of rules. C. you need to know your gear very well and can set up quickly, Hurrell had a whole crew to set up lights, lots of modern photogs doing executive portraits would use a stand in, as did hollywood when setting up lights so the star didn't have to stand around for hours while the grips and light techs got it set up. It ain't easy being treated like a piece of meat on a grill for half an hour, then having to emote for the camera? That's the biggest problem is keeping your client/subject's interest in the project over the set up time. I don't for a minute believe that Hurrell and others wouldn't have jumped at the chance of using modern lighting gear. Don't forget, in those days there were no soft lights, you needed a spot light to blast all the wattage power you could get, and focus it into the smallest area, remember a one and two thousand watt spot light was called an ace and baby deuce. A 500 watt thing was called an inky, as in inky dinky little thing. They had slow film, slow lenses and big cameras, 4x5 was a small camera, (roll film like 120 was classified as a miniature camera) they didn't have soft lights cause the fabric at the time would have caught fire. > > >> B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity > > >> of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg > http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg > The problem with Hurrell type hollywood lighting is several: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > silk flowers is used, this gives a mottled background highlights) basically > a minimum of four lights to 7 or so. Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and let 'er rip! > B. you need to know what you are doing, there are reasons a light from the > left or right is chosen, whether its a 'Rembrandt's or split light, whether > you pose the subject straight on, side view, which side? So you either > need a lot of natural instinct or learn a lot of rules. You mean, have skill? I suppose tthat's necessary. Are you implying that a lot of portait guys lack skill? Don't put words in my mouth, BUT.... > C. you need to know your gear very well and can set up quickly, Hurrell had > a whole crew to set up lights, lots of modern photogs doing executive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > biggest problem is keeping your client/subject's interest in the project > over the set up time. I imagine he did have assistants, as MGM was full of lighting experts. > I don't for a minute believe that Hurrell and others wouldn't have jumped at > the chance of using modern lighting gear. I doubt he'd like the effects that most get out of them. His limitations seemed to have forced him to do work of genius. > Don't forget, in those days there > were no soft lights, you needed a spot light to blast all the wattage power [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 120 was classified as a miniature camera) they didn't have soft lights > cause the fabric at the time would have caught fire. When you retouch the way they did, an 11x14 negative was the thing to have. No matter what, an 11x14 camera is going to take tons of light, even today. I stand firm on my criticism of all-soft lighting for B&W. It basically sucks. > > > >> B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity > > > >> of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg > > http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg > Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's > my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and > let 'er rip! Sad but true - but I wouldn't condemn soft lighting just because of crappy work done by hacks. > > Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's > > my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and > > let 'er rip! > > Sad but true - but I wouldn't condemn soft lighting just because of > crappy work done by hacks. But that's 98% of what I see. No 'sculping' at all! B&W DEMANDS this sort of treatment. It's NOT the same as colour! Hurrell had no lighting assistants and from what I have read ( at least none that were mentioned) he had one assistant to change the film holders on his 8x10. And a retoucher of course. MTB Jack > > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >>>http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg >>>http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg > Hurrell had no lighting assistants and from what I have read ( at least > none that were mentioned) he had one assistant to change the film > holders on his 8x10. And a retoucher of course. > MTB > Jack Maybe, I wasn't there. It would not surprise me either way. >> Hurrell had no lighting assistants and from what I have read ( at least >> none that were mentioned) he had one assistant to change the film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Maybe, I wasn't there. It would not surprise me either way. Sorry, I realize this is an old thread but just wanted to comment that a lot of excellent tips for creating the "Hollywood Style" are included in Bob Alexander's videotape if you can still find it. It seems that many if not most of the Hollywood photographers did their work using a similar arrangement, and all used a number of carefully arranged spots. To some extent at least, the use of large hotlights must have also been due to the slow film speeds of the time. Even with these big hotlights, exposures for the pan film (available in 1928) were seldom less than one second. I had thought that Hurrel used spots exclusively, but in rereading "Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits" it says that he did in fact use silk scrims and "broad lights" as early as 1928 or so, and was happy to experiment with new lighting methods. > I'm learning portrait photography. I do a lot of black and white work but I > also do a lot of beach/bikini color photo shots (seems thats all everybody [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sean Silver. |
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.