Photographer
photographybyfrank
Posts: 455
Clearwater, Florida, US
Hey, did the modern day digital photographer for get how to use hair lighting in the studio? or in fact out doors too
Photographer
ThefStopsHere
Posts: 2387
Olympia, Washington, US
i'd use one but most of the models i shoot are shaved clean in that region. 
Photographer
Lens N Light
Posts: 16341
Bradford, Vermont, US
Hairlight is considered by many to be so . . .yesterday. I still use them, but not always.
Photographer
photographybyfrank
Posts: 455
Clearwater, Florida, US
Ian that wasn't to bright
hair light gives depth to a photo esp. with dark back grounds
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
photographybyfrank wrote:
Ian that wasn't to bright
hair light gives depth to a photo esp. with dark back grounds I like my pictures flat as a pan cake.
Photographer
C R Photography
Posts: 3594
Pleasanton, California, US
Snoot's are still sell'n so someone's use'n them 
Photographer
David Linke
Posts: 488
Woodville, Ohio, US
photographybyfrank wrote:
Hey, did the modern day digital photographer for get how to use hair lighting in the studio? or in fact out doors too A lot of photographers are too lazey to deal with a light on a boom. Then again, alot are too lazey to pick up a reflector to open the shadows so there is detail.
Photographer
Merlinpix
Posts: 7118
Farmingdale, New York, US
Hell, I bet more than half the guys on here never used one ever, not just digital shooters either.
There's nothing like hair that looks like it was applied with a magic-marker to enhance an image.
Paul
Photographer
Yuriy
Posts: 1000
Gillette, New Jersey, US
David Linke wrote:
A lot of photographers are too lazey to deal with a light on a boom. Then again, alot are too lazey to pick up a reflector to open the shadows so there is detail. That or they don't feel like dealing with trying to balance the light and weight while getting it into position. Booms are a pain in the ass!
I still use 'em though.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Hair light..Boob light..Light it all baby...
Photographer
Craig Thomson
Posts: 13462
Tacoma, Washington, US
photographybyfrank wrote:
Hey, did the modern day digital photographer for get how to use hair lighting in the studio? or in fact out doors too Examples please?
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
It's not "Hair Lighting" per se, but anyone who does not use an edge light or back light to separate the model from the background is a winner in my book! Who needs a "Hair Light"? It's so "Old School"! All you need is one strobe, as a matter of fact the one that comes with that Point And Shoot will do just fine! I use it all the time!
Digital is the answer to all of life's lighting problems we don't need no fucking Hair Light!!!
Photographer
RED Photographic
Posts: 1458
For most purposes you need to give the viewer a clue as to where the head ends and the background begins, and there are lots of ways to achieve this, including image manipulation after the event. Digital has a lot more 'latitude' than film, and, often, there isn't any need to artificially highlight the hair.
But I suppose, like car mechanics, it would be nice to know how to do it, just in case...
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
RED Photographic wrote:
Digital has a lot more 'latitude' than film, and, often, there isn't any need to artificially highlight the hair. Wrong!
Haven't shot much film have you?
Film will give you at least 5 stops while Digital will give you 3 at best!
Shoot more film and use the zone system, you'll undertand what I mean...
No backlight, hairlight, edge light, I don't care what you call it, then there is NO separation from the subject and the model and it looks amatuerish and F L A T !
Photographer
RED Photographic
Posts: 1458
Hamza wrote:
Wrong!
Haven't shot much film have you?
Film will give you at least 5 stops while Digital will give you 3 at best!
Shoot more film and use the zone system, you'll undertand what I mean...
No backlight, hairlight, edge light, I don't care what you call it, then there is NO separation from the subject and the model and it looks amatuerish and F L A T ! Well, actually, my old Rolleiflex T and I have shot quite a few rolls of film between us, and I used to do my own processing. My books on the zonal system have been consigned to the loft, together with my enlarger and stuff, and my Rollei sits on the shelf in my studio, forlornly gathering dust.
I used 'latitude' in quotes because the characteristics of the digital image are completely different from the chemical derived image, and you can't compare the two.
Other posters have commented that heavy backlighting is now considered old fashioned, which I agree with. However, I did comment that some separation between the model and background is necessary.
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
RED Photographic wrote:
Well, actually, my old Rolleiflex T and I have shot quite a few rolls of film between us, and I used to do my own processing. My books on the zonal system have been consigned to the loft, together with my enlarger and stuff, and my Rollei sits on the shelf in my studio, forlornly gathering dust.
I used 'latitude' in quotes because the characteristics of the digital image are completely different from the chemical derived image, and you can't compare the two.
Other posters have commented that heavy backlighting is now considered old fashioned, which I agree with. However, I did comment that some separation between the model and background is necessary. The characteristics of digital are similar enough to film...
If you shoot a Digital Pic and it's more than 3 stops off of "Optimum Exposure" it will look like shit! When using film, you have at least 5 stops.
I never have agreed with "Heavy" back lighting, but you do need separation as you stated. To not separate your subject from your back ground is just bad flat photography.
Photographer
RED Photographic
Posts: 1458
Hamza wrote:
The characteristics of digital are similar enough to film...
If you shoot a Digital Pic and it's more than 3 stops off of "Optimum Exposure" it will look like shit! When using film, you have at least 5 stops.
I never have agreed with "Heavy" back lighting, but you do need separation as you stated. To not separate your subject from your back ground is just bad flat photography. We agree on most of this, but I may not be explaing the 'latitiude' thing properly. I want to use the word 'softer' as well, but, since we speak different versions of English, I fear it might not help. Digital renders tones differently, notably black skin tones, and wedding photography, especially, due to digital's ability to render detail in dark suits and white dresses, has become much easier.
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
RED Photographic wrote:
We agree on most of this, but I may not be explaing the 'latitiude' thing properly. I want to use the word 'softer' as well, but, since we speak different versions of English, I fear it might not help. Digital renders tones differently, notably black skin tones, and wedding photography, especially, due to digital's ability to render detail in dark suits and white dresses, has become much easier. Dude, ain't nothin wrong wit ma American English! LMAO
Could you be talking about contrast?
Digital uses SQUARE PIXELS, very well...Digital looking.
Film uses random grain...? Looks more pleasing to the eye.
What do you think?
Photographer
RED Photographic
Posts: 1458
I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this one...
Photographer
Special Ed
Posts: 3545
New York, New York, US
photographybyfrank wrote:
Hey, did the modern day digital photographer for get how to use hair lighting in the studio? or in fact out doors too Forget nothing...Didn't you know that once you bought a digital camera you are instantly enrolled into the professional photographers club? Lighting is unnecessary, all you have to do figure out a way to find the best spot amongst the other "pro" photographers that are semi-circled around the ex porn star (Ooops...I meant model) This of course enables you to get the best possible image of the porn st...*model* while she is looking at the other "pro" photographers new point and shoot.. I meant Professional digital camera! 
Photographer
S
Posts: 21678
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Every time I read a thread like this, it saddens me a little more. Is mockery really the best way to convey something that you've learned to people who are newer and don't know it yet?
Photographer
RnL Photography
Posts: 254
Cocoa, Florida, US
i did a "seinor" shoot the other day. for some unknown reason my NOVATRON craped out on me. would not flash. I turned the head light and back light up to 1250 and left them on.No flash just light on those two. I still had my soft box and reflector and shot any way.I did get some seperation between the person and the back drop but not up to what I like. It look very flat to me.
So, yes I still know what a head(hair)light is I know what a back light is and yes I still balance my lighting etc. And I can not get the quality out a digital that I can out of my medium or even 35mm cameras. But I shoot both.
Photographer
Jay Bowman
Posts: 6511
Los Angeles, California, US
Ed Remington wrote:
Forget nothing...Didn't you know that once you bought a digital camera you are instantly enrolled into the professional photographers club? Lighting is unnecessary, all you have to do figure out a way to find the best spot amongst the other "pro" photographers that are semi-circled around the ex porn star (Ooops...I meant model) This of course enables you to get the best possible image of the porn st...*model* while she is looking at the other "pro" photographers new point and shoot.. I meant Professional digital camera! I take it all this takes place at the "gang bang" more commonly known as the "group shoot," correct?
Photographer
MarkMarek
Posts: 2211
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
photographybyfrank wrote:
Hey, did the modern day digital photographer for get how to use hair lighting in the studio? or in fact out doors too What? It bothers you becasue not all photographers follow your definition of correct lighting?
Photographer
luciano Mello
Posts: 684
São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
I used before , but the Last time I tried to Lighten up a model's hair, pluging the hair directly to the electric power... well that didn't went very well I can say that ![https://www.hvfx.co.uk/images/vandegraaff.jpg]()
Photographer
photographybyfrank
Posts: 455
Clearwater, Florida, US
MarkMarek wrote:
What? It bothers you becasue not all photographers follow your definition of correct lighting? I never said any thing about it being correct, and it was just a question,so why go on the defensive
Photographer
photographybyfrank
Posts: 455
Clearwater, Florida, US
I see many of you photographers have a problem with a simple question.Why not just answer it in your own way, instead of going on the defensive
Photographer
MikeyBoy
Posts: 633
Milltown, Wisconsin, US
Craig Thomson wrote:
Examples please? see my port for a few
using hair light which really is nothing more than just good lighting in general and properly editing a pic so hair has definition and texture is what separates the men from the OneLight Wallshooters... "OLW" 
there are ad nauseum threads about maintaining skin texture from the anti-photoshop skin pore freaks....
how about a thread decrying the lack of hair detail in most pics here... how many pics of brunettes do you see here with hair that is a solid black blob. ?
these girls obsess and fuss withtheir hair for hours and they get pics back where their 2 hour hairdo is rendered a solid single color blob.. how sad..
Happy Holidays !
Photographer
S
Posts: 21678
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
photographybyfrank wrote:
I see many of you photographers have a problem with a simple question.Why not just answer it in your own way, instead of going on the defensive Because the way you worded it, it wasn't a simple question, Frank. Marcus had a great response in another thread that elaborates, so I'm just going to quote him. It's close enough to be a response to this:
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
There's always a few trolls on MM who want to start a thread that pretends to be reasonable but - if you look at the OP's choice of words - it's full of subtle value judgements. Value judgements are something people make all the time, it's unavoidable, but when someone leads off as if they're pretending to have a friendly conversation and slants it toward ..."and people doing X have no taste" or whatever, it just gets on my nerves. Artistic creativity - of which there is no lack, here - is something to be enjoyed and fostered, and I see comments like the OP's as aimed more at creating some kind of division between "good art" and "bothersome art" (or whatever) - which is fundamentally a silly activity. Because everyone who is part of the creative scene understands that tastes vary widely between people and there is no absolute yardstick of artistic quality.
Put differently, if someone walks into a room and says "everyone who wears a white shirt is a d0rk" - sure - you're gonna get a reaction out of the folks who are wearing white shirts. But you're also going to get a number of people who don't even bother looking at their own shirt before they immediately ask, "who's the d0rk here?"
Photographer
Hoodlum
Posts: 10254
Sacramento, California, US
Hamza wrote:
Film will give you at least 5 stops while Digital will give you 3 at best! Nope!
Photographer
Special Ed
Posts: 3545
New York, New York, US
Jay Bowman wrote:
I take it all this takes place at the "gang bang" more commonly known as the "group shoot," correct? Well, some like to call it an "excellent oppurtunity to build your portfolio" but yeah, it's a gang ba...I mean group shoot!!!
Photographer
dysclover
Posts: 272
Merlinpix wrote:
There's nothing like hair that looks like it was applied with a magic-marker to enhance an image. do you get this excited over back hair as well? lol
Photographer
oldguysrule
Posts: 6129
i use many old fashioned techniques, but then i'm old.
i'm sure you all have a better idea by now doncha?
Photographer
Bay Photo
Posts: 734
Marseille, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur, France
digital WILL give you more latitude then film, but that does not mean poo about not using a light? that is a whole other matter. apples n oranges.
an edge or rim light can be great, especially with a grid in some uses, but the term "hair light" gives me the creeps
Photographer
Black Ricco
Posts: 3486
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Interesting how a proper and proven lighting technique is written off as "old school" to rationalize laziness and a lack of talent.
Photographer
Mark J. Sebastian
Posts: 1530
San Francisco, California, US
Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Every time I read a thread like this, it saddens me a little more. Is mockery really the best way to convey something that you've learned to people who are newer and don't know it yet? I agree. People of knowledge should be lead the way rather than glorify themselves.
Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
Black Ricco wrote:
Interesting how a proper and proven lighting technique is written off as "old school" to rationalize laziness and a lack of talent. LOL.....you're right on spot!
Been doing this a long and hopefully doing it right. Guess I'm old school too. I tried out all the techniques and learned them before moving on to the next one. But I guess with digital everyone becomes a master overnight. Not that I have anything against digital, I use it myself but it doesn't change the fact that basics are still needed.
Photographer
Done and Gone
Posts: 7650
Chiredzi, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Last time I had access to studio lighting, I bounced a big fluffy light off of 2 copper metallic pieces of fome-cor and the light on the hair and shoulders was very nice. Currently I only have available light to work with so I always look for a place where the light is coming from the angles that I want. Light is my friend.
Photographer
David Allen Smith
Posts: 3055
Fayetteville, North Carolina, US
Hamza wrote:
The characteristics of digital are similar enough to film...
If you shoot a Digital Pic and it's more than 3 stops off of "Optimum Exposure" it will look like shit! When using film, you have at least 5 stops. say what?!?
are you suggesting that if your incident meter reads f 8.0 you can shoot f 45 with film or f 22 with digital and you'll still get an "acceptable image"?
that's what it sounds like you said...
digital shoots like transparency... your exposure needs to be dead on, much more than a 1/3 stop off and its going bad.
you can push/pull neg film a couple of stops at the most.
5 stops! good lord man...
Hair Light = Sometimes
I like to call it the "kick light"... picked that up from an old school guy I worked with.
anyway there is no "right way" to do lighting... but there are plenty or wrong ways.
There are endless styles of lighting, the main thing is that you look at the light, see how it falls on the subject, and sculpt it to your liking.
|
