Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Lighting => Topic started by: Mglover92 on June 06, 2017, 01:32:06 am
-
I was readings Annie's book 'At Work' and I had a question about her lighting. Regarding light meters she said quote
"A light meter is only a guide. It shouldnt be used literally. When I decided to tone down the strobe, we made it even with the natural light rather than being a stop over. Then we went a stop or two under the natural light. I liked the way things looked when they were barely lit. The darker pictures seemed refined, mysterious."
Now in terms of lighting, I learned that you basically stop your camera down then add flash to fill in the shadows on the face or body. Can somebody tell me what she means by saying we made it 'even' with the natural light? Does she mean she would get a basic exposure with no flash, then add flash in to help shape the face? Or meter the light hitting her face and simply adjust her flash to the same power as the aperture she is shooting at? She then goes on to say she went a stop or two under the natural light. Does this simply mean she stopped her camera down a stop or two and simply filled the flash in? (i assume this would be a more dramatic photograph) Or is she pretty much referring to a lower power setting on the flash that is less than what aperture she is shooting at. This would of course make the flash less noticeable. Sorry if this is confusing! I'm sure somebody here can help explain to me what she meant. Thanks!
-
Well Annie probably should tell you what she meant.
Being a "stop over" does not necessarily mean that the aperture is one stop over, it just means that there is twice as much exposure. This could be through any combination of aperture, shutter and ISO
Ambient light is affected by shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Flash is only affected by aperture and ISO because it is considered instantaneous.
So (assuming you are not going to change the ISO) you set the shutter and aperture for the natural light and adjust the flash power as required for that aperture.
If you need more flash power than the flash unit has then you can increase the shutter and open the aperture to make the flash effectively more powerful (but only up the flash sync speed)
Flash units units used to be marked in f stops so that is probably what she is meaning by a stop under. If the light meter said f4 you made it f2.8 for stop under (half power).
-
Well Annie probably should tell you what she meant.
Being a "stop over" does not necessarily mean that the aperture is one stop over, it just means that there is twice as much exposure. This could be through any combination of aperture, shutter and ISO
Ambient light is affected by shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Flash is only affected by aperture and ISO because it is considered instantaneous.
So (assuming you are not going to change the ISO) you set the shutter and aperture for the natural light and adjust the flash power as required for that aperture.
If you need more flash power than the flash unit has then you can increase the shutter and open the aperture to make the flash effectively more powerful (but only up the flash sync speed)
Flash units units used to be marked in f stops so that is probably what she is meaning by a stop under. If the light meter said f4 you made it f2.8 for stop under (half power).
Thanks for the reply! I really appreciate it. Couple quick questions. When you said to "adjust flash power as required to that aperture" do you mean meter it to that exact aperture or adjust it accordingly to whatever suits your image whether its less or more?
-
Thanks for the reply! I really appreciate it. Couple quick questions. When you said to "adjust flash power as required to that aperture" do you mean meter it to that exact aperture or adjust it accordingly to whatever suits your image whether its less or more?
To quote a well known photographer, "A light meter is only a guide." :)
Yeah, you have it right with the second part of your question. If I set my aperture to f/5.6 and adjust my flash until the flash meter reads "f/5.6" then I will probably get a "correct" exposure but it's unlikely to render the scene the way I want to see it in the final image.
-
Basically what it means is that Annie Liebovitz drags the shutter to let ambient light in, and then fills in shadows with the flash by basically looking at the result. The light meter is used to get to a starting position, and then the experimenting kicks in.
-
Thank you guys! I really appreciate it! Very helpful folks on this forum. Im digging it :)
-
Let me clarify something the assistants do the work. They set it up and she takes the credit. Annie just clicks the shutter. I've been there and seen it with my own eyes.
-
Let me clarify something the assistants do the work. They set it up and she takes the credit. Annie just clicks the shutter. I've been there and seen it with my own eyes.
That's one way to put it Tim. She approves of the setup. Same went for Avedon and his assistants.
-
It means she uses only minimal flash on set.
-
Let me clarify something the assistants do the work. They set it up and she takes the credit. Annie just clicks the shutter. I've been there and seen it with my own eyes.
Lol, I know this is a technical forum but still: Photography is 95% camera work and communication, and 5% tech stuff. It´s the way a lot of photographers work, letting the assistants do the tech stuff to keep a free mind and concentrate on the real thing. Pretty sure Annie would present better images just using her phone than her assistants would using the camera after "doing all the work". YMMV.
-
Let's be honest here, I've read the same thing about Annie Leibovitz. "Assistants do everything, all she does is click the shutter". You can recognize her photographs across time, and she's gone through many assistants who are now high level photographers on their own. She knows how she wants her lighting to be, and somehow all her assistants can light it the way she wants.
Coincidence? I think not. Clearly she must be skilled at communicating how she wants everything to be and her assistants are not doing a trial and error run on their own on an important set. When they're trained, they work as a team to get things done.
-
Let me clarify something the assistants do the work. They set it up and she takes the credit. Annie just clicks the shutter. I've been there and seen it with my own eyes.
Not sure what you are clarifying. Assistants do what photographers ask. Some carry the lights, some set them up. Steven Spielberg may never have operated a camera. Photographers can be directors and it is still their work. The work stands or falls on what is produced at the end.
-
It's not the assistants. Shoots of this level are a team production, stylists, hair, makeup. The assistants don't come up with the ideas, the just know how to light how she likes because she's communicated it to them.
-
It means she uses only minimal flash on set.
Oh obviously, and in all of the on set production photos that are out there of her working , the lights and stands are just brought in as props to make the set busier than it actually is.
-
Folks shouldn't forget that she worked as a young photographer... she didn't just arrive on the Rolling Stone scene as a middle-aged woman complete with a team. Avedon didn't work at 'Bazaar in the early days with a massive crew. The whole idea of a big production came into being many years later, just as with the rest of the people that now comprise a gig. Models knew how to do their own hair and makeup right into the mid- or late 60s... That not so subtle change in dynamic that came later (probably earlier in the States because they had more money to throw around and consume) was one reason why Lillian Bassman walked away from it all: it stole a huge part of the creativity from the camera.
It's damned easy to mock success; at times the mockery may be justiied, but not always...
Rob
-
Oh obviously, and in all of the on set production photos that are out there of her working , the lights and stands are just brought in as props to make the set busier than it actually is.
If you look at some of the Peter Lindbergh videos you may actually come to that conclusion in all sincerity. I think it can be a marketing device much of the time, making a mountain out of a simple operation, which a lot of photography has always been. The more difficult and complex things seem, the more value people attach to your work. There's a secret the young must learn! If it looks too easy, then maybe the AD or client has a cousin who has a Canon or two... dangerous thoughts to engender within the money sources!
;-)
Rob
-
"A light meter is only a guide. It shouldnt be used literally. When I decided to tone down the strobe, we made it even with the natural light rather than being a stop over. Then we went a stop or two under the natural light. I liked the way things looked when they were barely lit. The darker pictures seemed refined, mysterious."
If ambient was 1/125 at F/8 then flash was dialed in to the same exposure, ...' we made it even with the natural light..'
Then the flash was dialed down F/5.6 or f/4, '..we went a stop or two under the natural light..'
Let's be honest here, I've read the same thing about Annie Leibovitz. "Assistants do everything, all she does is click the shutter"....
Coincidence? I think not.
You're heard that same comment because it's been witnessed on many occasions and there is no coincidence.
Develop a 'look' = formula to lighting setup = lead assistant learns the look = other assistants set up the look guided by lead assistant = crew see A.L. walk in to click shutter and do little else.
Stylists, camera tech, post production assistants all know the look and repeat the work. Emphasis on post production to maintain look.
Many, many of her assistants could show you her look if you asked because that's all they learned for her. And yes many of them went on to become successful, talented photographers after working for her. That's true for many assistants of damn near every well known photographer.
-
Copying somebody else's lighting isn't enough: you need their people skills as well if you're going to make anything of the opportunity of the shoot.
Rob C
-
Copying somebody else's lighting isn't enough: you need their people skills as well if you're going to make anything of the opportunity of the shoot.
Rob C
Absolutely agree, see my post above...
-
Absolutely agree, see my post above...
Absolutely true. But that has nothing to do with the point being made about who does the lighting/setup/production/post production.
-
Absolutely true. But that has nothing to do with the point being made about who does the lighting/setup/production/post production.
I was refereeing to: "They set it up and she takes the credit." Nothing wrong with splitting up the task in a team, it is mandatory in film productions. Still, it is her approach to light things the way she wants it to be done and direct her assistants to do so. That´s why she takes (and deserves) the credit. YMMV.
-
I was refereeing to: "They set it up and she takes the credit." Nothing wrong with splitting up the task in a team, it is mandatory in film productions. Still, it is her approach to light things the way she wants it to be done and direct her assistants to do so. That´s why she takes (and deserves) the credit. YMMV.
Absolutely right. People know that they live or die by the results - no way that chances get taken unless the photographer is under the influence of whatever. at which point, work vanishes, bit by bit...
(" Posted by: Kirk_C
on: Today at 01:49:36 AM
"Absolutely true. But that has nothing to do with the point being made about who does the lighting/setup/production/post production.")
But that doesn't mean that those doing the setting up are doing their own thing rather than the photographer's thing. Now, if the photographer allows somebody else to print/retouch for him, that's a different question, and a lot of other artistic powers/contributions come into play. Shifting a few lights around isn't such a big deal, especially in today's world where the results are visible at once, and changes made in no time. If the photographer doesn't pick up on something that displeases him or her at that moment, then yeah, the work isn't really his, but the mistakes are.
Regarding the rest of the process, I think the time always comes where the photographer has to say okay, that's the best I can do, now you can do what you want with what I just handed over to you. Then whose work is it? - the client's I guess, and he should take responsibility for what he commissioned and subsequently changed.
Rob
-
I was readings Annie's book 'At Work' and I had a question about her lighting. Regarding light meters she said quote
"A light meter is only a guide. It shouldnt be used literally. When I decided to tone down the strobe, we made it even with the natural light rather than being a stop over. Then we went a stop or two under the natural light. I liked the way things looked when they were barely lit. The darker pictures seemed refined, mysterious."
Now in terms of lighting, I learned that you basically stop your camera down then add flash to fill in the shadows on the face or body. Can somebody tell me what she means by saying we made it 'even' with the natural light? Does she mean she would get a basic exposure with no flash, then add flash in to help shape the face? Or meter the light hitting her face and simply adjust her flash to the same power as the aperture she is shooting at? She then goes on to say she went a stop or two under the natural light. Does this simply mean she stopped her camera down a stop or two and simply filled the flash in? (i assume this would be a more dramatic photograph) Or is she pretty much referring to a lower power setting on the flash that is less than what aperture she is shooting at. This would of course make the flash less noticeable. Sorry if this is confusing! I'm sure somebody here can help explain to me what she meant. Thanks!
To explain this briefly, lets say your ambient scene outdoors reads at 100ISO 1/125sec at f8 (Minolta Autometer IV, flat or pointing up the sky or 45/90deg toward camera, depending on scene), now you read in the strobe from the subject toward the light source at 1/500sec at f11 that would be 1 stop over ambient (shorter exposure time cuts ambient for clearer strobe reading). Reducing the strobes power to read f8 makes it even and 5.6 or 4 one /two stops under. At that point you usually run into the problem of ambient light being too strong so you have a cheat sheet on your strobe pack how many clicks you dial it down to achieve that power setting.
You obviously make the creative choice of overall exposure. On the meter is a bit dull, but technically great for digital capture, the strobe is just the effect of giving the image a lighting direction and filing in darker areas. Usually you'll saturate the ambient reading, aka underexpose and have the strobe added, resulting in your mixed exposure reading, aka shoot at 1/125 (from ambient reading) f11 (from strobe +1 reading) for strobe 1 stop over...
and yes, as mentioned along here, assistants change, but not at a turnover rate as with most, and it's a team effort, like the electrics and grips working with the camera department for the DP who in this case is also the Director making all the decisions. That's why it's consistent and well done. Been there, done that.
-
Thank you very much. It’s clearer now.
-
The team behind the photographer is all-important, I've worked for both David Bailey and also his contemporary, Donovan (RIP).
Similarly I been on shoots with Lord Lichfield and Snowdon.
What is important are two aspects, the first one is the client on the second, the creatives from the ad agency.
Very often BIG shoots were designed to be done on Friday mornings and the people from Saatchi& Saatchi would come down mid-morning open the fridge and drink gallons gallons and gallons of champagne. I remember on one shoot Donovan confided in us that about 10:30 in the morning we already had the shot in the bag, but that wasn't the point you had to give the ad agency creatives their moment in the sun, you had to give the client reasons to rebook you, getting a shot in the first hour was not part of the plan.
Having minions rush around with all manner of lighting and flags and bits and pieces, and as many those as you could manage with the budget, the better. One of the well-known photographers doesn't even own his own equipment, it used to come from KJP / Calumet / Wex every shoot-day and was costed out to the client.
-
Having minions rush around with all manner of lighting and flags and bits and pieces, and as many those as you could manage with the budget, the better. One of the well-known photographers doesn't even own his own equipment, it used to come from KJP / Calumet / Wex every shoot-day and was costed out to the client.
I knew of a photographer that would set up the entire shoot with strobes before the client even got there, and set the exposure to the fast possible shutter speed, usually 1/800th.
Then, when the client and ad firm came in, she would start rolling out 2K and 1K Arris, have her assistants run around lighting up the studio all day. Of course none of this mattered for the images; at her exposure, these lights would have no effect. It was just about putting on a show.
Now why would you need to do this? Well, if the client is paying you a $50K+ for a day shoot, simply setting up two or three lights is probably going to make them feel had regardless of how much they like the images.
On ad shoots we think a lot about entertaining the client and ad firm. A shoot is a normal activity for us, but for the clients it is a chance to get out of the office. It's a relief and break from the monotony. So yes, we need to entertain them. Put on some music, bull shit about other projects and life, buy them lunch (which was accounted for in the estimate), get drinks afterwards, etc.
Another photographer I know uses a profile picture that many non-pros don't get, a picture of him standing in Venice with a dozen other people from the ad firm's and client's office who were on that shoot. Now most will look at that and say, that's a bad profile pic, it does not really concentrate on him. But every person in that image has a smile from ear to ear; every prospective client will look at that image and think that he must be a great person to work with.
This is just part of the job.