|
In response to
"ps I love reading ZG's photo advice. painting is way different, but some things still apply. -- nm"
by
loosi at home
|
I learned more photography from painters than i did from photographers...at least in portraiture, really the average studio photog used the worst...
Posted by
zeitgeist
Oct 13 '13, 20:11
|
possible lighting. you've all seen it, the two umbrellas, one on either side of the camera.
honestly there is no worse way to light a subject, even the so called 'horror' light ( spot light directly under the chin) is at least an honest way, (and if you use a soft light source, it becomes a very sensual light)
in the old days of flood lights it was often necessary as expedient, but at least they called it for what it was, mug shot lighting (literally, police used it for that) and kiddie pix (htey used it because , a, if a parent or assistant blocked one side the other would light the kid and b. even in those days kiddie pix photogs were the cheapest and uneducated, heck good portrait photogs made a point of pride that they only did adults (uh many also made a point of pride that they only photographed men, but that was the days of plate film and minute long exposures and it took a few minutes under the dark cloth to focus the damn camera.)
light coming from both sides is NOT a key and fill, (fill by defintion must light equally both sides) but instead two competing keys, which means two sets of highlights and often two sets of shadows,
this is why you often see deep fred flintstone groves from the smile lines, those weird dirty shadows next to both nostrils. every freaking line, pore and wrinkle ...you see double lighting ensures there will not only be a shadow in the low points of facial texture but there will certainly be a highlight on one side or the other and sometimes both
|
Responses:
|
