Author Topic: how to get soft lightig like this??? (Read 8850 times)

.shock · « **on:** January 15, 2009, 19:15 »

Hi,

can someone help me to figure out how to get so soft morning light like this samples of Yuri's images...

This is one example, but whole Yuri's portfolio is full of examples of great light mastering... congratulations...

huuh, nowhere any shadow... $:-\$ $:-\$ $:-\$

nexusseven · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2009, 19:23 »

These are very mediocre lighting examples. Are you sure you want to achieve this effect?

.shock · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2009, 19:35 »

yes, can you help?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2009, 19:45 »

Yuri said once lighting is his secret...
nexusseven, why you say this lighting is mediocre? Can you explain it to us please?

dbajurin · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2009, 21:18 »

There is no secret about this kind of lightning. Just look at Crestok -Yuri YouTube channel and you will get all answers. Lot of ProFoto softboxes. And off course lot of color post processing witch isn't in fact very much of work when you made your own workflow.

Tuilay · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2009, 21:49 »

are you sure you want to submit this sort of high key lighting?
Just don't submit them to Istock. You will get rejection reasons such as:
"lens flare,...clipped highlight... please use Levels to correct loss of color saturation
... use of lens hood will help with lens flare".

Vonkara · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2009, 22:11 »

LOL I thought all this time that even a 10x10 pixels blown highlight will get me a rejection. Long life to blown highlights

Perry · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:02 »

Quote from: .shock on January 15, 2009, 19:15

huuh, nowhere any shadow... $:-\$ $:-\$ $:-\$

Why does everyone hate shadows? Many times it's the shadows that are interesting and makes the image...
Without shadows, there is no form and everything looks flat and dull.

The light in these doesn't look "soft morning light" to me at all, more like "a large bank of fluorescent light in the ceiling in a white room"

I guess these could be shot in a room painted white and the light bounced off walls/ceiling. Or using large/many softboxes.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:55 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 15, 2009, 21:49

are you sure you want to submit this sort of high key lighting?
Just don't submit them to Istock. You will get rejection reasons such as:
"lens flare,...clipped highlight... please use Levels to correct loss of color saturation
... use of lens hood will help with lens flare".

This is not so at all. Look at Yuri's portfolio on iStock, there are many similarly lit images. Most of it in fact!

iStock will accept high key lighting, it just has to be done well.

e-person · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:34 »

You need big softbox, multiple ones. With powerful strobes.

araminta · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:48 »

Quote from: nexusseven on January 15, 2009, 19:23

These are very mediocre lighting examples. Are you sure you want to achieve this effect?

Huh...

We are in the microstock business and this is the kind of lighting buyers want.

But I'm interested in knowing the difference you see between Yuri's "mediocre" lighting and your supposedly a lot better lighting you use for your isolations.

ljupco · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2009, 06:11 »

As others have said, lots of lights from various directions are used in making those photos. Pretty time consuming setting up all the lights. Very often, photographing just a regular everyday scene requires more lights and effort than a visually more interesting portrait.

Neustock Media · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2009, 09:26 »

3 or so studio lights with reflectors on and bounce them off the ceiling.

Cheers

NS

weknow · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2009, 10:37 »

In the seventies (when that was needed to start as a professional photog in The Netherlands) I worked hard to have a degree as photographer and got it. For all of these 3 photo's I should have been declined, indeed for overexposure. "No details and real information in the lights".
But at first sight these look pretty and light and many people would choose them before a bit darker and technical flawless version of the same scenes. It's often difficult for me to look at pictures with fresh eyes (leaving the skills behind) and just look if they are pretty to many. I really have to learn that since I'm into selling stock!

Stock agencies seem to have their own idea's of quality. It doesn't have to be good and marveless, but nice and clean and attractive at 100 or 200% (in which size a picture never is used). I had a 25 year reputation as weddingphotographer...selling good and personal and (for my clients) amazing photo's...and the freedom of rejecting clients because there were to many...but I'm sure that perhaps even not a few of these pictures (with a model-release) would become accepted for stock.

So what is quality?

The first two photo's you show, may be "not perfect" in many ways...but I can imagine they will sell. And mostly because of they are pretty and light and look "fresh". The third one I wouldn't consider to send it in. It's a bit of a visual mess in my eyes. And the t-shirt-white is blue (which can be cleaned) as a result of how a digital camera translates "too white". But...no matter of what I think of it...the Fotolia-reviewer must have thought there might be a market for it..... (or was more concentrated on grain and sharpness)

I think, we stock-people, are just like chickens. Trying to pick some grains out of the mass. Some pick more than others. They may be "clever" or "smart" or "talented" or "lucky" or "succesfull"..... It even may have something to do with certain qualities....but what and how...I'm not sure.

Tuilay · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2009, 10:45 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 16, 2009, 04:55

Quote from: Tuilay on January 15, 2009, 21:49
are you sure you want to submit this sort of high key lighting?
Just don't submit them to Istock. You will get rejection reasons such as:
"lens flare,...clipped highlight... please use Levels to correct loss of color saturation
... use of lens hood will help with lens flare".

This is not so at all. Look at Yuri's portfolio on iStock, there are many similarly lit images. Most of it in fact!
iStock will accept high key lighting, it just has to be done well.

try it without Yuri's name on it.

(no offence to Yuri, I like him too. It's about a certain reviewer who can't tell the diff between high key and lens flare

nexusseven · « **Reply #15 on:** January 16, 2009, 11:43 »

Quote from: araminta on January 16, 2009, 05:48

Quote from: nexusseven on January 15, 2009, 19:23
These are very mediocre lighting examples. Are you sure you want to achieve this effect?

Huh...

We are in the microstock business and this is the kind of lighting buyers want.

But I'm interested in knowing the difference you see between Yuri's "mediocre" lighting and your supposedly a lot better lighting you use for your isolations.

I didn't like the tone of your comment. I did not say "my" lighting is better than anyone (includes Yuri). Your remark is hostile and counter productive but then again I will try to explain my argument.

This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.

And the lack of these elements generally creates an ineffective image (I say "generally")

Best.

araminta · « **Reply #16 on:** January 16, 2009, 13:13 »

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 11:43

I didn't like the tone of your comment. I did not say "my" lighting is better than anyone (includes Yuri). Your remark is hostile and counter productive but then again I will try to explain my argument.

You said lighting is mediocre: this is an hostile and counter productive judgement because you don't give any argument.

You tell .shock not to achieve this effect... why?

When someone give such a definitive judgement on other's work, I consider it is acceptable if and only if his own work is of higher quality: so I had a look at your portfolio to see what is a good lighting for you. I was expecting a very artistic portfolio with wonderdul lighting: it is not what I saw.

I don't think Yuri will answer to this post because I think he is beyond such comments on this work: he is in the microstock business and his success is sufficient to me to consider that is technique and lighting is what buyers are looking for.

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 11:43

This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.

And the lack of these elements generally creates an ineffective image (I say "generally")

Your are right and I know what is a flat lighting and what is a good lighting I think: but we are talking about microstock, not art or wedding photography or whatever.

You are correct to say "generally", but as you are also a microstocker with many isolations in your portfolio I guess you know that microstock buyers do not look for the same kind of photo as art galleries.

I like myself macro a lot and I've done some nice macro shots I think, but my milk box on white which is just a mediocre piece of art do sell 100x more than my nice macro. Would you tell me to stop shooting milk boxes and go with macro instead?

nexusseven · « **Reply #17 on:** January 16, 2009, 13:45 »

The fact that some mediocre images sell well (including mines and yours and Yuri's) does not make them "good images". You may be right about my "definitive" judgment about the first post and I am ready to apologize if needed but even if you think with Yuri's or microstock standards these samples are not well chosen. I saw many images by Yuri and these are far from being his best (I am almost sure he would agree)

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 11:43

This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.

You are correct to say "generally", but as you are also a microstocker with many isolations in your portfolio I guess you know that microstock buyers do not look for the same kind of photo as art galleries.

I like myself macro a lot and I've done some nice macro shots I think, but my milk box on white which is just a mediocre piece of art do sell 100x more than my nice macro. Would you tell me to stop shooting milk boxes and go with macro instead?

If I am not mistaken the poster said "these are great lighting examples"... but they simply are NOT. This has nothing to do with my portfolio or yours.

About my portfolio (I wouldn't like to discuss it in an open forum but anyway!) I think I have a very mediocre portfolio BUT then again it sells well (from my point of view for sure).

Thanks for clarification and more constructive attitude btw...

best.

hali · « **Reply #18 on:** January 16, 2009, 14:32 »

In fairness, good or bad , it's moot . Or best, purely subjective.
In microstock we throw everything we learn from photography and the great masters out the window.
It's not photographers who buy the picture, it's the art director . Mostly someone with a BA with mostly academic achievement other than photography.
The idea is to put ordinary pictures in flyer, newsletters, magazine,etc.,.
that the general public with (as journalism 101 calls it) standard 5 education.
Yuri and all the successful stock photographers succeed in making these ordinary snapshots. And people buy them.
We don't agree, but people buy them. This , I have come to realize and admit to myself. Be a chicken like weknow says. If you want to succeed, you be a chicken.
The approval is all that counts, and the sales pay for your equipment.

RT · « **Reply #19 on:** January 16, 2009, 15:16 »

I see this thread has turned personal about whether or not you like Yuri's style of photography, I don't think it's fair to select another persons images and pull them apart if they didn't start the thread.

Whether you like that style of photography is subjective, and I imagine the reason Yuri hasn't stepped in and said something is that he probably doesn't give a t**s what anybody here thinks, and quite rightly so.

He sets out to achieve this style, it's not a result of bad exposure or lighting and he pays attention to the way the set is dressed and the same goes for the models, I'm sure he could get a more traditional look if he so desired.

But my answer to the OP's original question is - I'd hazard a guess the majority of this type of lighting is achieved after capture on a computer.

araminta · « **Reply #20 on:** January 16, 2009, 15:22 »

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 13:45

About my portfolio (I wouldn't like to discuss it in an open forum but anyway!) I think I have a very mediocre portfolio BUT then again it sells well (from my point of view for sure).

Now I agree with you almost totally

I also have a quite mediodre portfolio from an artistic point of view, but it sells well too. My two best sellers are a photoshopped gift bow on a white background and a blank chalkboard texture: I'm quite ashamed that such simple images do sell so well while my best macro do not sell at all. But this is microstock and this is the reason why I think it is important not to judge microstocker portfolio from a "classical photography" point of view but from a pure business point of view.

Concerning Yuri portfolio, I must admit that this is not the kind of picture I would like to do myself: they are almost as boring as my isolated objects

Pixart · « **Reply #21 on:** January 16, 2009, 15:57 »

The moral of the story here folks is that there is a big difference between taking photos and shooting stock.

Phil · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2009, 16:34 »

Quote from: araminta on January 16, 2009, 15:22

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 13:45
About my portfolio (I wouldn't like to discuss it in an open forum but anyway!) I think I have a very mediocre portfolio BUT then again it sells well (from my point of view for sure).

Now I agree with you almost totally

I also have a quite mediodre portfolio from an artistic point of view, but it sells well too. My two best sellers are a photoshopped gift bow on a white background and a blank chalkboard texture: I'm quite ashamed that such simple images do sell so well while my best macro do not sell at all. But this is microstock and this is the reason why I think it is important not to judge microstocker portfolio from a "classical photography" point of view but from a pure business point of view.

Concerning Yuri portfolio, I must admit that this is not the kind of picture I would like to do myself: they are almost as boring as my isolated objects

the photographically boring sells well, the brilliant sits and does nothing

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** January 16, 2009, 16:38 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on January 16, 2009, 16:34

the photographically boring sells well, the brilliant sits and does nothing

The photograph that depicts a clear story or message sells well. The brillant is a subset of that

nexusseven · « **Reply #24 on:** January 16, 2009, 16:43 »

Quote from: RT on January 16, 2009, 15:16

I see this thread has turned personal about whether or not you like Yuri's style of photography, I don't think it's fair to select another persons images and pull them apart if they didn't start the thread.

Whether you like that style of photography is subjective, and I imagine the reason Yuri hasn't stepped in and said something is that he probably doesn't give a t**s what anybody here thinks, and quite rightly so.

I think you are being unfair (to me at least:) There is nothing to discuss about Yuri's talents. He IS the number one microstocker: There is nothing to argue about it but the subject is not that.

We were simply talking about lighting. That's all...