Forums >
General Industry >
I believe all lighting is the same...
do you? Sep 10 06 01:09 pm Link ..... back away from the mouse and nobody gets bit! ok? ::: get out and shoot something man. or, someone. ::: bt Sep 10 06 01:11 pm Link btw - yes Sep 10 06 01:12 pm Link 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? Sep 10 06 01:16 pm Link i think its all about bending the light you have available it all comes from the sun anyway Sep 10 06 01:18 pm Link John Valdez wrote: 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. Sep 10 06 01:24 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Mr. Rogers is the only man I can honestly say I feel has never lied to me, so I agree with him. Sep 10 06 01:31 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: Yeah. Sep 10 06 01:34 pm Link All light is is the essense of photography...writing with light as the latins would have had it. In that way it is the same. In every other way, light in any situation is like working with a new lover. Unless you own a studio of course, because then your lighting set ups and techniques become as familiar as a long term lover. But just like with any other lover you can always try new things, but if you are trying new things with your studio lighting, it is still like trying new things with an old lover, fascinating and predictable at the same time. Maybe some surprising results, but the base of knowledge is there. If you never do studio and always available light, that becomes your lover. And what a lover is available light. Hotlights have their own eros. (Puts down the Symposium and goes to rotate more files) Sep 10 06 01:34 pm Link Bob, you clearly don't have enough to do. You should call me and teach me more things to keep yourself entertained. What can I say? I'm a giver. Sep 10 06 01:35 pm Link PapaVic Photography wrote: First off, fuck Mr. Rogers, he lied to everyone, especially me. Sep 10 06 01:35 pm Link You must be really bored to make a statement like that. I have seem you work. Sep 10 06 01:35 pm Link Billy Pegram wrote: If you make a statement like that, you have never seen my work. Sep 10 06 01:37 pm Link Ha ha - I don't even know how to interpret this - a bit ambiguous, no? Define 'lighting'.... John Sep 10 06 01:39 pm Link Bob Randall Photography 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. Sep 10 06 01:41 pm Link If all lighting is the same then why the need for White Balance? Doh! Sep 10 06 01:42 pm Link John Allan wrote: Not ambiguous at all, studio light, pan light, softbox, fresnel, sunlight. They're all the same. Sep 10 06 01:42 pm Link Webspinner wrote: If all light travels in a single straight line how do you account for scattering qualities of the penumbra? Sep 10 06 01:44 pm Link GW Burns wrote: 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. Sep 10 06 01:45 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: 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? Sep 10 06 01:51 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: 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. Sep 10 06 01:53 pm Link You probably think all chocolate is the same, too. Sep 10 06 01:56 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: Thank you for teaching me something. Now I am going to have to be more aware of that. Sep 10 06 02:00 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: Style is not a uniform. It's a wardrobe. Sep 10 06 02:14 pm Link Webspinner wrote: Bob Randall Photography wrote: Bumps in the felt. Sep 10 06 02:17 pm Link I agree...its all the same... from the scientists' point of veiw. But I like to bend it once in a while. Sep 10 06 02:21 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: I think a physicist might point to the particle/wave duality. Sep 10 06 02:22 pm Link John Allan wrote: 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. Sep 10 06 02:26 pm Link 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. Soft, hard, warm, cool... lighting is all different... and not just by those qualities with which we've created words to define their differences... I can't see the soft glow of a sunny evening moments before sunset sitting in a hammock and sipping a mint julep on the back bay of Charleston, South Carolina being replicated by any man made snoot and fresnel combination... ever... Sep 10 06 02:29 pm Link James Jackson wrote: You are very close! Sep 10 06 02:33 pm Link My cousin once got hit by lighting while playing golf. Now he talks kinda funny and tends to yell "fore" when it's raining. Wierd. Sep 10 06 02:37 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: See... ambiguous.... 'light' vs. 'lighting' Sep 10 06 02:37 pm Link Bob Randall Photography 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? Sep 10 06 02:41 pm Link All light is the same....in the same way that steak, ribs, liver and tongue are all "beef". Sep 10 06 02:44 pm Link Marcus J. Ranum wrote: 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. Sep 10 06 02:49 pm Link What, are you some kind of recordist? Sep 10 06 02:50 pm Link Marcus J. Ranum wrote: 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. Sep 10 06 02:52 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: Now that's interesting... Sep 10 06 02:54 pm Link Oh! I see, the liiiiiiiiiiight. Sep 10 06 02:56 pm Link nothing that does not emit light has color, nothing has color except light, all we really see is reflective light when we see colored things, and humans we only see in a very narrow band of light, ,for example there is ultra violet light that some insects can see and some flowers that have patterns only in ultra violet light,,,( interestingly if you want to shoot ultra violet light, you need a sapphire filter.) how you use available light or studio light is all the same, you need to understand it, how to record it, how to play with it to get the effects you want etc. and to know where to find it, things like understanding the difference between specular and diffused light and specular and diffused surfaces and what they do is really important. the camera records about 4 stops, the human eye sees nine stops, and a cat sees 22 stops. this is why even though you saw shadow detail, your camera did not record it. knowing how to bring up your lighting ratios into the recordable range is very important. im just rambling... one thing cool about using sun beams, open sky lights, to shoot in , is that they have no fall off, your beam of light is coming from so far away when you think of the inverse square law , you can see why it doesnt fall off. so you can shoot along a beam of light and have the same meter read anywhere along it, try doing that with studio lights, lol now back to boobies and bondage, lol i hear you bob Sep 10 06 04:09 pm Link |