Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: kevs on May 29, 2013, 04:35:41 pm
-
here is a nice new shot by Chris Anderson.
what do you think the light scheme used it?
-
here is a nice new shot by Chris Anderson.
what do you think the light scheme used it?
Don't know. Don't care, save to avoid it.
Jeremy
-
Looks like someone dug that one out of a trash bin?
-
Could be a single light and reflector(s), or a key and a strip box placed low and slightly camera left for fill. Simple and effective.
-
It could also be natural light. If you look in Al's eyes, it appears to be a sunlit room. The other thing that may be part of the quality is the process. It could an old wet/dry plate process which would mean the spectral sensitivity of the image is very limited and confined to the blue.
-
It could also be natural light. If you look in Al's eyes, it appears to be a sunlit room. The other thing that may be part of the quality is the process. It could an old wet/dry plate process which would mean the spectral sensitivity of the image is very limited and confined to the blue.
It may be the sub, but it would have to be really bright. It looks to me like strobe, but it certainly could be daylight. It seems stopped down, which is one reason I guessed strobe. I would have lit it with a big key high and camera right, boomed over the subject, reflectors or a strip light for fill. Bam. Bob's your uncle.
-
I agree, it could be done in a studio with strobes. I was just adding some possibilities. Although it was hard to top the great advice in the first two posts.
-
I agree, it could be done in a studio with strobes. I was just adding some possibilities. Although it was hard to top the great advice in the first two posts.
I dig it, although it looks like a proof from a laser printer used at a magazine for rough proofs.
-
I an not sure of the printing. There is something going on there--the example looks like a scanned magazine page because of the text bleed through. The skin however has that blue-only "tintype" quality of very textured. And that could have come filtration or some work with channel mixing.
-
Why are you posting a pdf that we have to download? Come on, learn how the forum works! And, what the hell is a "light scheme?"
-
Peter, another insightful comment. Very helpful. No one every accused LuLa of being friendly and supportive. ???
-
Peter, another insightful comment. Very helpful. No one every accused LuLa of being friendly and supportive. ???
God helps those who help themselves. ;)
-
You mean like going out and asking questions to people who might know?
-
You mean like going out and asking questions to people who might know?
No, learning how to post an image in a thread after almost 300 posts.
-
No, learning how to post an image in a thread after almost 300 posts.
Didn't know we had to apply for planning permission from you. Guess what, people don't need or care what you think might be minimum requirements to join this group. When everyone thinks the same, then no one thinks.
-
It may be the sub, but it would have to be really bright. It looks to me like strobe, but it certainly could be daylight. It seems stopped down, which is one reason I guessed strobe. I would have lit it with a big key high and camera right, boomed over the subject, reflectors or a strip light for fill. Bam. Bob's your uncle.
+1
Definitely a fairly large key camera right. I first thought natural light, but the windows would have to be above the subject, plus the above.
The reproduction looks like a scan from a magazine to me.
Also, seriously, what is wrong with you people? Someone asks a questions and all he gets is smart ass comments (TMARK an 645d guy excepted). And the question was not even about Digital MF :D
-
... Someone asks a questions and all he gets is smart ass comments...
In addition to a question, the OP actually started with a statement ("nice shot"). I am certainly entitled to debate statements and opinions in a public forum, no?
Since I think it is actually a crappy shot (whether due to poor photocopying or photographer's intent), and its "effects" do not seem to stem from a particular lighting setup, but from some form of HDR (or photocopier running out of toner), I did not see the point in debating the lighting.
-
I like it. Looks to be a proof of some sort. All the better...anything that bugs the "photos must look real" dogma peddlers gets my Thumbs-Up.
-Dave-
-
I am certainly entitled to debate statements and opinions in a public forum, no?
I don't recall anyone suggeting otherwise.
Since I think it is actually a crappy shot (whether due to poor photocopying or photographer's intent), and its "effects" do not seem to stem from a particular lighting setup, but from some form of HDR (or photocopier running out of toner), I did not see the point in debating the lighting.
Photography is all about light, and I do not see how one can argue that the particular lighting setup does not influence the look of an image, irrespective of the post-processing. In this case, the lighting setup leads to the far side of the face being brighter than the closer side. If the photographer had taken the photo into the lighter side of the face, the result would have been completely different. Some of the look of the final image may be due to HDR, or local contrast enhancement or rather high levels of sharpening (at least in the digital version of the image), but this is all on top of the lighting setup.
By the way, the pdf seems to be a copy of New York Magazine.
-
THANKS, sorry for delay, did not have email notification checked.
I ripped this from New York Mag, and scanned it on a flatbed.
I think the lighting is quite mysterious and nice, that's why I'm posting it. You all have confirmed we don't know how it's lit. But thanks for the input.
This guy is shooting regularly now for New York.
I do agree that the first commenter, Kikashi, gives a bad vibe to this thread and should not be posting.
PS I don't see a way to add images inline on this forum.
-
THANKS, sorry for delay, did not have email notification checked.
I ripped this from New York Mag, and scanned it on a flatbed.
I think the lighting is quite mysterious and nice, that's why I'm posting it. You all have confirmed we don't know how it's lit. But thanks for the input.
This guy is shooting regularly now for New York.
I do agree that the first commenter, Kikashi, gives a bad vibe to this thread and should not be posting.
PS I don't see a way to add images inline on this forum.
You could contact the photographer directly--he can't be any ruder than we are. Many pros don't mind sharing information about their work. At worst you don't get an answer because he/she is busy.
-
Looks like he applied HDR or just lightened the shadow areas too much.
-
PS I don't see a way to add images inline on this forum.
Everyone else who posts here seems to have managed to find it. Either use links (there's a button, clearly visible onscreen while you're writing a post, which lets you include a link to an image) or attach the image file and upload it to LL (you may need to reveal the necessary buttons by clicking on "Additional Options...", again clearly visible onscreen while you're writing a post.
Jeremy
-
Kevs,
the reason why you cannot find an option to "include" images inline in your post, is because there is none.
You can link to an image inline and the image will appear in you post, but the image obviously need to be on the web somwhere for this to work.
Alternatively you can attach an image file. This is what you seem to have done. If your attached image file had been a jpeg (or some other supported file format) it would have been diplayed as an attachment. Your pdf, however, showed up as a link only because browsers do not display them directly, obviously causing a lot of distress for certain people. So to keep the forum police happy, all you need to do is attach jpegs only :)
-
In addition to a question, the OP actually started with a statement ("nice shot"). I am certainly entitled to debate statements and opinions in a public forum, no?
Since I think it is actually a crappy shot (whether due to poor photocopying or photographer's intent), and its "effects" do not seem to stem from a particular lighting setup, but from some form of HDR (or photocopier running out of toner), I did not see the point in debating the lighting.
Did you even bother to look at the guy's website? I think you are certainly entitled to your own taste, but I dont think it is fair to imply this guy is a hack, which he most certainly is not. In fact, while your work is very capable (from what I can see on Flickr, since you apparently have no website), in my opinion Anderson has a far more original and flexible style than you, and I can see why a lot of major publications use him. Harpers, The New Yorker, National Geographic, Vogue, Vanity Fair.... Also, he lists Rolex and Nike among his commercial clients. Oh, and he is a member of the Magnum Photo Agency. They are usually pretty picky about whom they accept as members.
http://christopherandersonphoto.com/
-
here is a nice new shot by Chris Anderson.
what do you think the light scheme used it?
Look at the catchlights in the eyes. I am going to guess that this was shot indoors, that the key light is daylight, and that the fill is either all daylight or daylight supplemented with a modest amount of artificial light.
Why don't you ask Anderson and let us know?
-
Did you even bother to look at the guy's website? I think you are certainly entitled to your own taste, but I dont think it is fair to imply this guy is a hack, which he most certainly is not.
No, i didn't. I simply commented on the posted photo. And since i didn't know who the guy is, I certainly could not imply he is a hack. Now that you provided a link and I saw his work, I can again say, this time with absolute certainty, the Gore portrait is a pure crap.
Just look, for instance, at that "demon" right eye, which is brighter than the left in spite of being in the shadows. I've never seen Gore with such horrible, dirty, patchy skin. Look at the bridge of the nose, how much darker it is than the right nostril And how that darker part unnaturally splits the nostril. None of those appear to be a result of a particular lighting setup, but rather aggressive post-processing gone wrong.
This does not mean I think he is otherwise a bad photographer, as a matter of fact there are several portraits and other pictures that I quite like, but not the OP photo.
... In fact, while your work is very capable (from what I can see on Flickr, since you apparently have no website), in my opinion Anderson has a far more original and flexible style than you..
I did not know this is a pissing contest, and that I need to be a better photographer than him in order to say something about one of his photographs. But thanks for checking my Flickr and kind words. I am not a pro, therefore I would gladly admit that he might have "a far more original and flexible style " than me.
-
No, i didn't. I simply commented on the posted photo. And since i didn't know who the guy is, I certainly could not imply he is a hack. Now that you provided a link and I saw his work, I can again say, this time with absolute certainty, the Gore portrait is a pure crap.
Just look, for instance, at that "demon" right eye, which is brighter than the left in spite of being in the shadows. I've never seen Gore with such horrible, dirty, patchy skin. Look at the bridge of the nose, how much darker it is than the right nostril And how that darker part unnaturally splits the nostril. None of those appear to be a result of a particular lighting setup, but rather aggressive post-processing gone wrong.
This does not mean I think he is otherwise a bad photographer, as a matter of fact there are several portraits and other pictures that I quite like, but not the OP photo.
I did not know this is a pissing contest, and that I need to be a better photographer than him in order to say something about one of his photographs. But thanks for checking my Flickr and kind words. I am not a pro, therefore I would gladly admit that he might have "a far more original and flexible style " than me.
You are the one who described the photo in question as pure crap. So who is pissing on whom? It seems quite clear to me that this portrait was not meant to be flattering to the subject's appearance. I think it is insulting to a photographer of this calibre to suggest that he is not in full control of his technique or is just phoning it in. If you don't care for the result of his efforts, that is another matter. You are certainly entitled to your own tastes, but I don't think you are in a position to criticize the technique of someone such as this. Also, when considering work that is being done for editorial or advertising purposes, I think you have to consider the possibility that an art director or editor may have had a considerable amount of input regarding the end result, so it is not always down to just the photographer.
As far as "aggressive post processing," well, of course. If you look at his portfolio, you will see that that he regularly uses that as a part of his style. It is intentional, not a result of him not being in control of his technique.
By the way, I am not even saying that I am necessarily a big fan of much of Anderson's work. However, I do recognize his creativity and photographic abilities and I think I can appreciate why he attracts the kind of clientele that he does. Question is, will he still attract that clientele 5 years from now, and be able to adapt if his current style falls out of fashion?
-
I like the image, yes it's had some post that some might view as OTT but despite this being 'unatural' he's captured a natural looking portrait of somebody at ease, not something you associate with politicians.
Is easy to pick holes in others work but most professionals realise the constraints of time/client/shoot politics/art direction and how a lot of images are compromises to get what a client expects.
Amateurs often don't appreciate this and try to apply their own sensibilities to a situation they will rarely find themselves in.
-
You are the one who described the photo in question as pure crap. So who is pissing on whom?...
I did not. I used the term "pissing contest" in its predominant meaning:
"... a game in which participants compete to see who can urinate the highest, the farthest, or the most accurately... As a metaphor it is used figuratively to characterise ego-driven battling..." (Wikipedia), which I already explained ("...that I need to be a better photographer than him in order to say something about one of his photographs."
... It seems quite clear to me that this portrait was not meant to be flattering to the subject's appearance...
Obviously. But my comments do not have much to do with the "unflattering" treatment, but with the glaring post-processing faults, some of which I pointed clearly in words and arrows. You seem to side step my concrete comments in favor of your position "how dare you criticize photographers more famous than you."
... I think it is insulting to a photographer of this calibre to suggest that he is not in full control of his technique or is just phoning it in...
So be it. I do not idolize celebrities or authorities.
-
... Is easy to pick holes in others work but most professionals realise the constraints of time/client/shoot politics/art direction and how a lot of images are compromises to get what a client expects...
If the client expected to turn Gore into a demonic looking hobo (which would be quite a popular political stand), than I fully release the photographer from any responsibility ;)
-
Looks like someone dug that one out of a trash bin?
Man you guys are tough.
It looks like he emulated a woodcut, great for the WSJ or New Yorker, probably no so great for People magazine, but it's different, I kind of like it.
IMO
BC
-
Now that you provided a link and I saw his work, I can again say, this time with absolute certainty, the Gore portrait is a pure crap.
Now there's the problem: absolute certainty. If you were to say, "I think the Gore portrait is pure crap," that'd be perfectly fine. You'd be stating your rightful opinion. But as soon as you invoke absolutes you're dictating to me what my opinion of the photo should be. Which you have no business doing. This is precisely the sort of thing that leads to heated exchanges and the substitution of emotionalism for rationality.
-Dave-
-
Now there's the problem: absolute certainty. If you were to say, "I think the Gore portrait is pure crap," that'd be perfectly fine. You'd be stating your rightful opinion. But as soon as you invoke absolutes you're dictating to me what my opinion of the photo should be. Which you have no business doing. This is precisely the sort of thing that leads to heated exchanges and the substitution of emotionalism for rationality.
-Dave-
Oh, come on, man! Certainty, absolute or not, refers to MY opinion, and as such can not possibly "dictate" yours. Absulutes refer to my own universe, not yours or anyone else's. It is just an opinion, hyperbolically stated for emphasis, and as such is always, and by definition, subjective. You can agree or disagree.