Author Topic: Why are we pleased by unnatural lighting (Read 7009 times)

malamus · « **on:** August 02, 2012, 03:41 »

Hi.

From what I have learned, shooting below/facing up an object/person makes it/them look like the hero/strong. shooting down gives the opposite. low key = moodie. I understand these concepts

But I was looking at FTs newsletter at some cherries. It was a great shot and then I saw the two softbox reflections either side of every cherry and now I'm finding myself asking Why this shot works with such unnatural lighting. I realise this is somewhat a subjective question but I imagine there is phsycology/schema involved, At least the answer I am looking for.

Any ideas, (I would like to post the image but there are so many similar i won't).

bunhill · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2012, 04:37 »

Quote from: malamus on August 02, 2012, 03:41

From what I have learned, shooting below/facing up an object/person makes it/them look like the hero/strong.

Often it makes them look fat in the face. It depends but you have to be careful when your camera is looking up people's noses via their double chins. eg bread and butter work like, say, corporate portraits tends to often be about trying to make middle aged men look slightly less heavy.

Wim · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2012, 04:44 »

Artificial lighting makes an image look properly exposed, fresh and attractive.
But this can be done with natural lighting too, and I prefer it that way, if one has the skills, especially in PP.
Many photographers think those two blobs make them a professional

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2012, 05:46 »

Quote from: Wim on August 02, 2012, 04:44

Artificial lighting makes an image look properly exposed, fresh and attractive.
But this can be done with natural lighting too, and I prefer it that way, if one has the skills, especially in PP.
Many photographers think those two blobs make them a professional

Trying to decide if your 'two blobs' are the softbox highlights or P and P ('PP').

rubyroo · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2012, 06:14 »

Maybe it's the same reason we polish apples before we eat them? If a surface can shine, we want to see it shine?

Not sure why... perhaps it's just the human habit of wanting to control everything.

I'm inspired by Wim to take an easier road through life and set up the 'Two Blobs' Photography Studio...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2012, 12:33 »

People looking at the cherries don't see soft box reflections, they see shiny cherries. Photographers see lights, reflections, focus, depth, colors, minute imperfections and shadows... and for some reason might not even notice the cherries?

But honest, car guys look at wheels and tires and chrome and paint, most other people just see "a nice shiny car".

Does that make sense?

Oh and I'm also pleased by natural lighting, it depends. Most of the time I shoot without lights or a flash. It's just that artificial lights give the artist more control. Sometimes the difference between an average shot and a great shot is, the lighting. Exposure and focus are kind of obvious and self-evident, while lighting is a subtle art.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2012, 15:01 »

When I first got into photography I wondered why nothing I photographed looked like I perceived it in real life. Our eyes seem to have a selective ability to enhance what we are interested in. The camera doesn't have this ability.

For example, our eyes can perceive detail in a backlit subject, and also in the bright background. With a camera, if you expose for a backlighted subject, the background blows out. If you expose for the background, the foreground subject is in darkness. You need fill flash to equal everything out. (or you can go other routes like HDR to combine multiple exposures in post - I find lighting offers results that look more "natural" to me)

I found that I needed artificial, or at least modified lighting just to make things look like they appeared to my naked eye.

malamus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2012, 03:13 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 02, 2012, 12:33

People looking at the cherries don't see soft box reflections, they see shiny cherries. Photographers see lights, reflections, focus, depth, colors, minute imperfections and shadows... and for some reason might not even notice the cherries?

I'm very interested in what we assume we see, so not only can we work out how the eye travells through an image, but also how we see (perceive) the image. The image I'm refering to looked like it was shot outside on a grainy table, sunlight shining through light lime coloured leaves etc. 5 seconds later I'm like, hold on this is a studio shot, white background, no folage what so ever.

I understand why we assume (to much information to process and the danger would be upon us if we did etc) But I'd like to learn more about what we assume.

rubyroo · « **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2012, 04:33 »

Surely our assumptions are based entirely on what is familar to us. Even if a psychologist answered the question, they could only join the dots according to which books/lectures they absorbed and what their subsequent experience might inspire in them.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question though.

malamus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:44 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 03, 2012, 04:33

Surely our assumptions are based entirely on what is familiar to us. Even if a psychologist answered the question, they could only join the dots according to which books/lectures they absorbed and what their subsequent experience might inspire in them.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question though.

I'm looking for the assumptions that are hard wired into us. like colour. red is warm because for the last 7 million years it signifies the sun rising and blue as cold as the sun has gone down (BBCs horizon)

To go back to my post title "Why are we pleased by unnatural lighting" I'm trying to gain a better understanding why some unnatural lighting, light coming from below on a portrait, which is the opposite direction of sun light for example is not attractive/pleasing/flattering etc while light coming from two sides (just as unnatural) can be more pleasing.

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2012, 09:53 »

Quote from: malamus on August 03, 2012, 05:44

To go back to my post title "Why are we pleased by unnatural lighting" I'm trying to gain a better understanding why some unnatural lighting, light coming from below on a portrait, which is the opposite direction of sun light for example is not attractive/pleasing/flattering etc while light coming from two sides (just as unnatural) can be more pleasing.

Light coming from two sides isn't unnatural. If you study basic lighting, the idea is to mimic natural situations. You have a key light on one side, which is supposed to be the brighter of the two, and mimic the sun. Then you have a softer or more diffused fill light on the other side, which is supposed to mimic the ambient light reflecting back onto the subject. That's why light coming from two sides looks natural. Any beginning book on photographic lighting explains these concepts.

malamus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2012, 10:21 »

This question is born from the notion "the idea is to mimic natural situations". So yes I agree and I've read those theory's, however I'm trying to move beyond the safe "the idea is to mimic natural situations" and concentrate on why some unnatural lighting is successful. There must be theory's/ideas that go beyond mimicking and emphasising natural scenarios with light.

rubyroo · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2012, 10:27 »

Does this help?

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/lastword/2007/03/magpies.html

malamus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2012, 11:01 »

yes, that does carry some weight with regards to bright shiny red fruit. I'd like some more of that brain food please.

I found this that I thought interesting web.mit.edu/dick/www/pdf/286.pdf It is called Lighting: Its Effect on
People and Spaces and has the effects of light I'm interested in, but it is more about room lighting than object lighting.

I think our behaviour towards light is a very interesting topic. But do you see what I mean about the psychology behind light particularly how a persons path is controlled, that level of light knowledge applied to photography could prove very beneficial

RacePhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** August 03, 2012, 11:19 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 03, 2012, 10:27

Does this help?

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/lastword/2007/03/magpies.html

Bling!

It's like asking why major chords and music are positive and minor keys are negative? Fast is happy, slow is moving or somber. In fact, music is pretty amazing in itself. We can think it, imagine it, dream it. Another one of those human things. (bird, whale, Etc. "songs" aren't music they are communication)

Many species the males are bright colors or exhibit dancing or something else to attract the females, win their approval. Not the other way around. Take it from there ladies, you have the upper hand.

So we shoot pretty models with products on a bright Sunny beach with make-up and perfect artificial fill lighting, not an old lady in a dungeon with shadows. It's really not all that complicated or scientific.

OM · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2012, 19:56 »

Here's a link to "A year of food photography setups":

http://www.randlkofer.com/microsites/food_photography_setups/index.html

Skip to pic 30+ of 166. Not exactly natural and too time/money consuming for microstock but..........

Some of the final results can be seen on his site: http://www.randlkofer.com

How not to make 50 shots/day for microstock.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** September 06, 2012, 06:25 »

Great link, OM. His food gallery is fabulous. I had to laugh, though, when I realised that a bunch of his work would get "bad lighting" rejections from SS and probably iS because they would think the plate edge and background was blown out.

EmberMike · « **Reply #17 on:** September 06, 2012, 10:00 »

As a species we are often drawn to many unnatural things. Look at how many things are unnaturally "enhanced" in our culture that we are attracted to. Many plastic surgeons make good livings off of our desire for the unnatural.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #18 on:** September 06, 2012, 10:24 »

Quote from: OM on August 07, 2012, 19:56

Here's a link to "A year of food photography setups":

http://www.randlkofer.com/microsites/food_photography_setups/index.html

...

Great link - thanks. I love behind the scenes setup shots. I was amused to see lots of mirrors used as I had done that back in the beginning when I didn't have much in the way of lighting gear. He uses it with lighting gear to get some wonderful shots.

OM · « **Reply #19 on:** September 06, 2012, 20:18 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 06, 2012, 10:24

Quote from: OM on August 07, 2012, 19:56
Here's a link to "A year of food photography setups":

http://www.randlkofer.com/microsites/food_photography_setups/index.html

...

Great link - thanks. I love behind the scenes setup shots. I was amused to see lots of mirrors used as I had done that back in the beginning when I didn't have much in the way of lighting gear. He uses it with lighting gear to get some wonderful shots.

Glad you liked it it. I was most impressed, only owning a couple of mirrors myself!

Somehow I found it looking for Graf Strato studio system (like Foba clamps system). He also has a few more sets of it than I do...........like bloody gold dust they are.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Why are we pleased by unnatural lighting (Read 7009 times)

malamus

bunhill

Wim

ShadySue

rubyroo

RacePhoto

lisafx

malamus

rubyroo

malamus

lisafx

malamus

rubyroo

malamus

RacePhoto

OM

BaldricksTrousers

EmberMike

Jo Ann Snover

OM

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors