z-prophoto digest #34
zeitgeist
Community email addresses:
Post message: z-Pro...@onelist.com
Subscribe:
z-ProPhoto...@onelist.com
Unsubscribe:
z-ProPhoto-...@onelist.com
List owner: z-ProPho...@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/z-ProPhoto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in today's digest:
1. Re: Softbox Vs Brollies?
From: Lewis
2. Re: Hollywood style lighting
From: Lewis
3. Re: split light etc
From: Lewisv
4. Re: Re: Hollywood style lighting
From: "zeitgeist"
5. Re: South Lighting
From: "zeitgeist"
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:57:06 EST
From: Lewis
Subject: Re: Softbox Vs Brollies?
In a message dated 3/8/0 12:24:51 PM,
Zeitgeist writes:
<< > >Depth of light deals with the width of
the light effects.
> >The internal baffle will soften light
more by reducing the
> >direct light, but also there is much back
and forth inside
> >(I'm surmissing, ok making this up as I
go) but I would
> >guess that middle layer widens the depth
of the light twice
> >to four times it's own width. This is
sorta like stopping
> >down and getting wider depth to the field
of focus. >>
And writes again:
"I think there is a greater depth to the
light with the
internal baffle, it is like a larger light,
the internal
baffle makes it seem deeper, you know how
some softboxes are
18 inches deep from back pan to front
pannel, or flash tube
to front pannel, some are 24 inches, and you
can get more
shallow ones. A pannel in the middle will
make the light
seem larger both in face area and much
deeper in depth.
But you know, I haven't done any
comparisons.
so refute me. I would like to know.
z-prophoto at onelist.com"
Zeitgeist, et al:
I really don't understand the physics of
what you are saying here. I can see
how having an internal baffle would even out
the overal distribution of
light/make the illumination more even from
one corner/side of the light box
to the other, but I really don't understand
how it would make it like a
"larger light" since the area from w/c the
light exits the softbox would
still be the same size physically. Since it
is size that matters (at least in
terms of a lights softness/hardness), how
could the internal baffle be
affecting this or any other quality of the
lighting so it would seem that the
light was coming from a larger light? Do you
think that the internal baffle
acts as sort of a "mixing chamber" (the
opposite of a "focusing" reflector)
so that the lightings angle of coverage
would be greater once it leaves the
front of the softbox (ie if w/o the internal
baffle the light would cover a
60 degree arc and w/ the baffle the light
would cover a 75 degree arc - I'm
using arbitrary numbers here)? Or do you
think that the light rays would be
more parallel as a result of this internal
baffle/"mixing chamber" so that
illumination would fall off less rapidly
from front to back or "in depth
(lighting)" as you might put it? Are there
other lighting qualities that I'm
not aware of that this internal baffle would
affect? Have you done any tests
on film and/or with a light meter to prove
your assertions (whatever they may
be) regarding this claim (I'm saying this
out of curiosity, not to "slam" you
in any way)?
Zeitgeist also wrote:
"A pannel in the middle will make the light
seem larger both in face area and much
deeper in depth.
But you know, I haven't done any
comparisons."
Where have you heard this, from the
manufacturer or have you dedeuced or
surmized this somehow? If you haven't done
any comparisons, then have you at
least seen its effects (of using the
internal baffle for more "in depth
lighting"/"the look/feel of a larger light)
w/ your own eyes or on film (and
compared it to memory of what the lighting
would look like w/o the internal
baffle)?
Thanks,
Lewis
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:57:01 EST
From: Lewis
Subject: Re: Hollywood style lighting
In a message dated 3/8/0 12:24:51 PM,
z-Pro...@onelist.com writes:
<< >I have been following the discussion on
studio lighting with some
>interest and can see both sides of the
equation. have tried "north
>lighting" -- in a modified form -- and
highly specular lighting, both
>with much trial and error. It's a personal
thing you devlop. The
>worst is a trade-off with shadows
everywhere and neither the soft
>diffusion nor harder lighting fully
working.
shadows are not the problem, the problem is
highlights everywhere. the
biggest problem folks have is their
highlights are to hot and contrasty.
The side effect of that is your shadows
loose detail. The most common fix
isn't to correct the highlight problem, it's
to add more highlights to the
shadow areas. This becomes more obvious
with color and much easier to
ignore in black and white. >>
Zeitgeist:
Could you be a little more specific here?
Are you talking about "adding more
highlights to the shadow area" of the
subject's face, the dark/contrasty
background or both? And what are the best
ways to do this to "add more
highlights to the shadow areas" - in other
words, should the highlights added
to the shadow areas be soft/gradated,
specular, a combination of both, and
why one or the other or both? and w/ what
type of lighting equipment (spots,
soft boxes, pan reflectors, etc.)?
Thanks,
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:57:09 EST
From: Lewis
Subject: Re: split light etc
In a message dated 3/8/0 12:24:51 PM,
z-Pro...@onelist.com writes:
<< A harder light coming
from under a large softbox is a very
intimate light that I call 'south
light' reminiscent of light from a picture
window, open barn doors that
bounces off the floor, you have the
combination of soft window light with
semi hard light coming up from the 'horror'
light position. >>
I have been following this list for a short
while and now its time for
aquestion or two. By the way I really
appreciate your detailed answers on the
finer points of lighting Mr. Zeitgeist!
Anyway, to the question(s)...
Can "South Lighting" be used in any position
around the subject or is usually
used only in Paramount position and why.
What are this lightings
advantages/uses? What portrait/etc.
situations and/or portrait subjects could
it be best applied to (other than perhaps
the cosmetics/beauty ads that I get
the impression it might be used from from
your last response. In other words,
why choose/use this lighting over any other
lighting pattern/technique?
Thanks,
Lewis
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:37:59 -0800
From: "zeitgeist"
Subject: Re: Re: Hollywood style lighting
>
>Could you be a little more specific here?
Are you talking about "adding
more
>highlights to the shadow area" of the
subject's face, the dark/contrasty
>background or both? And what are the best
ways to do this to "add more
>highlights to the shadow areas" - in other
words, should the highlights
added
>to the shadow areas be soft/gradated,
specular, a combination of both, and
>why one or the other or both? and w/ what
type of lighting equipment
(spots,
>soft boxes, pan reflectors, etc.)?
>
Black and white photography has only one
scale to worry about, the gray
scale. If you add light from another
source, the added highlights,even if
noticeably specular don't seem so obvious.
Color images have four scales
or, depending on the theory, six, a
saturation and density for each of the
three primaries. but don' worry about it.
the thing is, an noticeable
specular highlight does some weird things,
it makes skin tones look greasy,
not shiny. Karsh did some preliminary work
in color and it was a disaster.
His work was very specular with spot lights
in what I rant against these
days, crosslight.
A light source adds highlight, period, that
is all it can do. you start
with black and you add light.
so, what I mean by adding more highlights to
the shadow area is adding
another light aimed at the shadow area, aka,
fill lights. the average
amateur photog, possibly cause that's what
the instructions in the 'kit'
says to do, or that's what they saw the
photographer that shot their school
pictures did, or merely cause it seems
logical to do, but they will place
one light on the left side, one light on the
right side.
graphically, highlights advance, shadows
recede. If you know what you are
doing, or have enough rules memorized, you
can alter the perceived shape of
a face by the strength of the light, the
contrast etc. with poorly done
crosslighting, you can make a face seem
fatter.
There should be only direction of light, the
key light. If that one light
doesn't do the job, the answer should be
modify the light till it does. the
old answer of add more lights was a fix of
the old days because they
couldn't use softboxes when they were using
2K watt spot lights to get
enough light thrown at the subject in the
first place. Tradition took over
from there.
anyway, sorry if this seems so rambling and
incoherent, I'm not on top of
things today. but I don't feel like deleting
it since I just spent half an
hour pecking away...
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:09:29 -0800
From: "zeitgeist"
Subject: Re: South Lighting
South Lighting is a word or concept that I
recently made up, (among others I
suppose) for a variation on a theme. North
Light is specific, from the days
of portrait painters, a large window, often
tilted inwards and sometimes
angled into the room. The important part is
that north light was a window
facing the north side of the building so the
quality of the light was fairly
consistent all day long, which meant
painters could work as long as the
subject could sit there.
South Lighting is characteristic of a light
from the south window, which
tends to have some direct sun blazing on the
floor, it moves across the
floor as day wears on.
North light is characterized by smooth large
spread highlights and that ever
so important soft wrap around.
south light has a harder more specular
bounce off the floor added.
both lighting concepts are compelling in
their beauty cause they are are
very resoundingly natural. From the days
cave men stared out the openings
of their rocky dwellings, mud huts, or
thatched huts, this sort of soft
light has been prefered by man for our own
comfort. (I think early man
foraged at dawn and twilight and rested
during the day, and the 9 to 5
routine has only been around since the
industrial revolution.)
South lighting is practical usage is a soft
box on one side as usual, with a
harder, perhaps smaller light under it, from
below the subject. One person
who acts like they invented it, tore the
bottom out of his softbox and
placed a metal pan reflector way down. I
think his url is
www.houseofphotography.com or maybe its
www.house_of_photography.com His
work is rather good and the effect is
subtle.
there is a local chain studio, Yuen Lee in
the Pacific Northwest, he started
out as a premium portrait photographer and
now has a chain of middle class
studios and while I'm not sure how he does
it, its more pronounced.
>Can "South Lighting" be used in any
position around the subject or is
usually
>used only in Paramount position and why.
pretty much the same way you would use a
regular soft light.
What are this lightings
>advantages/uses? What portrait/etc.
situations and/or portrait subjects
could
>it be best applied to (other than perhaps
the cosmetics/beauty ads that I
get
>the impression it might be used from from
your last response. In other
words,
>why choose/use this lighting over any other
lighting pattern/technique?
>
the lighting system creates a rather
intimate feeling, reminiscent of
sitting in the kitchen in the morning, its
more of a feeling sorta thing,
choosing one set up over another, sometimes
its a style thing, an approach
you work on that makes your images
noticeably yours.
I would suppose that the spectrals coming up
from below could handle lines
and pores better.
- Michael Leenheer -
already in the original thread??
zeitgeist <blkhat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38C8A590...@yahoo.com...