John Valdez wrote:
i think its all about bending the light you have available


it all comes from the sun anyway

Most of mine comes from Brauncolor, Calumet and Nikon with a Healthy dose of Sunlight! But I think the way each photographer uses the light is his or her most unique trademark. Choice of lens, perspective and croping following right behind. Oh...at least in what I do, then there is the model! And the inrteraction between them and us.
Mike

Brian Diaz wrote:
In the same way that all people are the same.

Mr. Rogers would say that all lighting is unique and special, and who am I to argue with him?

Mr. Rogers is the only man I can honestly say I feel has never lied to me, so I agree with him.

I also agree that all lighting is the same insofar as whether studio lighting or available light, each lighting situation requires adaptaion to it's conditions.

I shoot mostly in available light.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
I believe all lighting is the same... do you?

Yeah.



But that's because at any given moment I either don't know what I'm doing or don't know any better...

PapaVic Photography wrote:

Mr. Rogers is the only man I can honestly say I feel has never lied to me, so I agree with him.

I also agree that all lighting is the same insofar as whether studio lighting or available light, each lighting situation requires adaptaion to it's conditions.

I shoot mostly in available light.

First off, fuck Mr. Rogers, he lied to everyone, especially me.

If each lighting situation requires adaptation to it's condition, how do you enforce your style on it?

Billy Pegram wrote:
You must be really bored to make a statement like that.  I have seem you work.

If you make a statement like that, you have never seen my work.

I'm not bored, I'm rendering files and in between I amuse my self by posterbating. I'm not amused by the threads currently under consideration so I make my own.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
If each lighting situation requires adaptation to it's condition, how do you enforce your style on it?

Back to the Symposium. By learning each situation to the best of your ability, you will learn how to dance with the devil. There is one thing to know about light.....it always travels in a straight line. Photographers should become pool players to learn more about the physics of reflecting light.

John Allan wrote:
Ha ha - I don't even know how to interpret this - a bit ambiguous, no?

Define 'lighting'....

John

Not ambiguous at all, studio light, pan light, softbox, fresnel, sunlight. They're all the same.

Webspinner wrote:

Back to the Symposium. By learning each situation to the best of your ability, you will learn how to dance with the devil. There is one thing to know about light.....it always travels in a straight line. Photographers should become pool players to learn more about the physics of reflecting light.

If all light travels in a single straight line how do you account for scattering qualities of the penumbra?

GW Burns wrote:
If all lighting is the same then why the need for White Balance? Doh!

I don't know what Doh! means but I do know that light doesn't really care if it is white balanced or not, only you do.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
do you?

Can't answer.  Need more data.  All studio lighting or all lighting including the sun, flashes (such as SB800's), studio strobes.....etc?  Or as in AB's, Normans, Novatrons, etc are all the same?

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

Not ambiguous at all, studio light, pan light, softbox, fresnel, sunlight. They're all the same.

In what context do you mean all the same?  The speed that they travel....yes.  Their kelvin temperatures...not at all.  So in what context are you referring?  In many ways, yes they are the same.  In many others, no they are not.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
If all light travels in a single straight line how do you account for scattering qualities of the penumbra?

Thank you for teaching me something. Now I am going to have to be more aware of that.
edit: which books on studio or even natural lighting do you suggest?

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
If each lighting situation requires adaptation to it's condition, how do you enforce your style on it?

Style is not a uniform.  It's a wardrobe.

Webspinner wrote:
Back to the Symposium. By learning each situation to the best of your ability, you will learn how to dance with the devil. There is one thing to know about light.....it always travels in a straight line. Photographers should become pool players to learn more about the physics of reflecting light.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
If all light travels in a single straight line how do you account for scattering qualities of the penumbra?

Bumps in the felt.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
If all light travels in a single straight line how do you account for scattering qualities of the penumbra?

I think a physicist might point to the particle/wave duality.

John

John Allan wrote:

I think a physicist might point to the particle/wave duality.

John

Well personally I believe that there is no inherent contradiction in the way energy behaves. At the turn of the 20th century, it was believed that light was electromagnetic waves and electrons were particles. By the 1930s, it was determined that light behaves as if it were made up of particles (photons) as well as waves, and electrons also behave like waves. This has driven scientists to drink and is one of the most puzzling phenomena in the universe. Therefore I'm with Pixel Fisher, I bend it every now and then.

James Jackson wrote:
I'll just take the opposite tack for sake of conversation.  No, lighting is not all the same.  Each style of lighting has it's own look and feel... qualities that go far beyond white balance and light control.

You are very close!

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

You are very close!

See... ambiguous.... 'light' vs. 'lighting'

John

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
do you?

I've noticed that you've taken to starting a lot of these pointless discussion threads. Have you decided to fill in for BCG now that he's gone?

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

I've noticed that you've taken to starting a lot of these pointless discussion threads. Have you decided to fill in for BCG now that he's gone?

mjr.

Pointless? We finally are talking about photography on a photography forum and you, one of the more learned and moderate members is calling it pointless. I'm so tired of boobie and bondage threads I could tie myself in a knot and die.

In this particular thread I was going to deftly lead everyone into a discussion of photographic style and how it relates to manipulating light to your will. What skill sets you need to accomplish this and what it looks like when you have a body of work that is derived from a myriad of lighting techniques but still exudes a cohesive visual aesthetic. Pointless? You get an F in this class.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

I've noticed that you've taken to starting a lot of these pointless discussion threads. Have you decided to fill in for BCG now that he's gone?

mjr.

Bob actually has many more interesting threads than BCG. Wouldn't mind seeing you start some too....as for me, I am just bumping up old ones today. Lets have some fun. WG, Vivus, Unomundo, D. Brian, where are you? And where are all the smart ass funny women? I can't do this by myself.

BTW, back on topic, I would really like to know about some good books on lighting. Studio or natural, doesn't matter. And if you guys won't tell me I will write a message to alexwh....and I am good to follow up on my threads.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
...and what it looks like when you have a body of work that is derived from a myriad of lighting techniques but still exudes a cohesive visual aesthetic.

Now that's interesting...

John