Actually running the workshop provided lots of insight as to where and how photographers can improve their images. I'll borrow basketball analogies and call these two things, "court vision" and "watching the tapes".
In some of our two-light setups, I watched photographers completely forget the second light (in this case a rim light) to the point where they'd position the model so far away from the rim light that the photographer should have found that they were now the subject of the rim light. And yet, they'd keep shooting... totally unaware that their rim light was not only not helping but probably also creating flaring in their lenses.
Better court-vision will help that.
This also goes for the main light but less so because the photographers were able to mind their main light enough because they would see their exposure change drastically when they moved or when the model moved.
But perhaps court-vision isn't really the problem? Perhaps the "intent" is the issue... or in basketball terms "what play are we running?" I think what happens is that photographers set some static lighting and then start shooting but get totally caught up in the moment... much like "streetball" is to college basketball, stylistically very "run-and-gun", shoot by the seat-of-your-pants type photography... almost event-photography-ish.
The intent/vision must be present before shooting. What kind of look are you trying to achieve? Where do you want the shadows? What kind of shadows are you looking to create? What is the ratio of power between the highlights and shadows? What is the range of motion that the model is allowed? What angle of her head/body is best for this lighting setup?
Intent provides court-vision.
Secondly, reviewing the tapes is important to all great basketball players. One of the things we did in the workshop was sit down and analyze what we literally just shot. I asked the following questions:
-How did you set your lighting and why? i.e. what was your thought process?
-What did you like about these pictures and why?
-What did you feel you did well in this set?
-Where could you have improved in this set?
Along with pointing out the issues that I would see (good and bad), I think the immediate review of the images captured provided a lot of insight on a photographer's style and also raised relevant questions that could immediately improve technique and style. The feedback loop didn't end there either! Within 20 minutes of reviewing the frames, I had photographers back out in the field shooting again. This is how you learn. Shoot, review, shoot, review but with a compressed life-cycle. Too often we shoot and say "I'm tired, I'll look at the pictures later". Then months later we review the tapes only to forget what we even did to begin with. This will probably spurn a full-fledged post about how you should review your images immediately after shooting and make notes about what you want to improve upon next time.
So I guess the question is, when are we having another workshop? :)
You might have posted already about modelling lamps, but this is why they're going to prove critical for learning to "be the light" - without them the curve is almost so steep as to be laughable since minute differences in positioning have dramatic and varying shadow responses.
ReplyDelete1/10,000s isn't really enough to process what's going on and a 2.5" LCD doesn't reveal our errors until it's too late.
I suppose nowadays the entry into lighting is a two-ladder affair: 1) strobism and 2) studio.
I say two ladders because once the steps of the first have been climbed, there's a jump to be made to the second higher ladder of studio lights with modelling lamps.
The gap between them is one of cost, commitment and faith.
Faith is interesting, because one needs to have it in order to rationalise the other two factors of cost and commitment. One has to jump almost blindly from speedlights to Alienbees with the faith that once the modelling lamps arrive, THEN you will really learn to light - so in this way it's an investment into something you haven't learnt yet but must imagine you will.
The strobist phase is the apprenticeship where you learn whether you have the aptitude, stomach and desire to continue onwards - but I believe it's the big second ladder when things really get moving.
This isn't to be overlooked - where lights with modelling lamps are concerned, they're not JUST more powerful lights, but fundamentally better learning tools.
And that's worth remembering for anyone struggling to commit to the faith!
--
(Author's note - I'm still waiting to afford my first ABs but I recognise already the value in getting away from strobism for learning and development)
"You might have posted already about modelling lamps, but this is why they're going to prove critical for learning to "be the light" - without them the curve is almost so steep as to be laughable since minute differences in positioning have dramatic and varying shadow responses."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why I think David Hobby overestimates the importance of modeling lamps. He forgets that we don't all have 20 years of experience with speedlights like he does! LOL! :)
Reminds me of my flashlight lessons... when I first started out, I used a flashlight to "see the light". It was my first introduction into how light changes with different modifiers and angles. Hot lights for that reason are very cool to have :)
I couldn't agree with you more. You said it best with this line!
"This isn't to be overlooked - where lights with modelling lamps are concerned, they're not JUST more powerful lights, but fundamentally better learning tools."
/applause!
Howdy Charles,
ReplyDeleteOne way to truncate the shoot/ review cycle is to bring a laptop with to the shoot. I stumbled into this the hard way. I was shooting some product jewelry on a mannequin on my first paid gig. I set my f-stop between 5.6 and 8 throughout the shoot (mostly 5.6) since I figured that would be adequate dof to capture all the jewelry and the mannequinn.
Boy, was I wrong. When I uploaded the images to my laptop at home, I noticed the jewelry blurring right at the base of the neck. Doggoneit!
Ever since then when I'm at a shoot, I got my laptop with me. I'd take a few test shots and then immediately review them in Lightroom to see if everything's square before I start a set.
I know you won't be able to review every shot as you take them but I'd definitely try to review a couple test shots first.
Hey Tommy,
ReplyDeleteThat's a keen observation. I shot tethered once and I didn't like it. I've also done what you've done with the reviewing on the computer... but while I always have my computer at the studio, I don't feel the need to review anymore. I feel the D3's screen is adequate for me to make sure WYSIWYG is working ;)
I think part of the problem with the reviewing thing is that with real people I'm making someone (the model) wait. The more experienced the model, the less experienced you start to look with the whole computer thing.
That being said, I do know some professional photographers that employ the reviewing process. I feel that this might work well if you have an art director that wants to ensure and see detail on set BUT if you're just working with the model, I'd vote against the review on screen... ;P
Sometimes though, if I get really curious, I'll review between sets (during makeup/wardrobe changes)! :P
Howdy Charles,
ReplyDeleteI think you make a very good point. I can see it a little abstractly because I don't normally shoot models (that's something I'm hoping to change by this time next year though :) ... it's good to have goals, no?
I can see that you don't want to make your model wait because a) it seems a bit amateurish b)it kills the mood and c) interrupts the momentum and flow.
What's more, you and the model are not the only two people at the shoot. The make artist/hair is there and the stylist, and you will also be making them wait-- which isn't good if you got yourself a diva stylist ;P
Thanks Charles for the input!