pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: how to get soft lightig like this???  (Read 17888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2009, 16:50 »
0

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.  ;D
(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  ;)

how many buyers really care if there is odd blown highlight at points or whether there are artifacts at 200%? :)

Probably not how it happens but I think if I was a reviewer and paid by the number of images reviewed there is a number of people including Yuri, Andres, iofoto etc for whom I would be very tempted to just hit accept for every image in the submission as fast as I could make the money :)   

(thats is meant as a compliment to those people).

Phil








« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2009, 16:51 »
0
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 :)

good point :)

hali

« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2009, 08:47 »
0
I suppose it's like who sells more records... britney spears or billie holliday?
robert johnson or gnr?
microstock is fast food , not the classic restaurant where you get the best meal from the best chef. no wine, just sugar water.  ;)

« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2009, 10:58 »
0
Hali said: "microstock is fast food.."

Which even can taste good and not always has to be unhealthy....in my experience  ;D ;D ;)

« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2009, 11:58 »
0
Yes exactly. I've never meant to "devalue" microstock. At the end of the day we would all like to be "best sellers" if we could.

Being a "best seller" is a very hard job...

Tuilay

« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2009, 13:34 »
0
Yes exactly. I've never meant to "devalue" microstock. At the end of the day we would all like to be "best sellers" if we could.
Being a "best seller" is a very hard job...

Well said, the bottom line is still what fills your wallet. Nobody needs to be the immortal great artist who died a pauper  ;)
If the masses having been weaned on tasteless minced meat, why bother to serve them cordon bleu  8)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 13:40 by Tuilay »

« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2009, 20:32 »
0
To answer the original question... neustock put it quite short and simple. Three (or more if you can afford it) powerful lightsources set in relation to each other and either bounce them around or apply huge sofboxes. Nuke the studio ;)

What you think about the style, yuri, the tendencies of buyers and so on answers nothing to the orignal post...

hali

« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2009, 18:07 »
0
EDITED
What you think about the style, yuri, the tendencies of buyers and so on answers nothing to the orignal post...

Very true. Seems like the name Yuri gets a lot of us to get personal. Must be the terrible winter that gets us cranky.  Point well taken JBe.

tan510jomast

« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2009, 18:26 »
0
Hello there.
Another way to get this effect is to use the gradient white layer. This would reduce the overall contrast, filling in the shadows (notice there is hardly any grey or black).
Everything is mostly to the right of the Level histogram.

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2009, 15:45 »
0
To be honest. This is not great lighting. Easy o make: Lots of overhead diffused light and a white floor! There you go :)

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2009, 15:56 »
0
I am learning a lot about lighting right now because it is an area that I need much improving in, and I do believe that exceptional lighting is one of the main necessities to achieving a beautiful image. I have found that diffused lighting, and bouncing from overhead and off a bright floor achieves that fresh stock look. it is fairly unique to stock.

I also love high key in fine art prints, but I wouldn't call these examples high key necessarily. brightly lit, but not high key.

I like a bit of shadow to preserve depth. but it always depends on the context of the shot.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 13:24 by yecatsdoherty »

jim_h

« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2009, 20:57 »
0
I'm no expert on these kinds of shots , obviously there are some well diffused light sources in use, but I think the main 'trick' to the first 2 shots is simply that there are so many white objects in the photos.  That also helps bounce the light around.  I agree with previous posters that they aren't great photos, they have blown-out areas which sort of hurt my eyes. But high-key looks happy, and the stocks want happy. 



« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2009, 22:48 »
0
I'm no expert on these kinds of shots , obviously there are some well diffused light sources in use, but I think the main 'trick' to the first 2 shots is simply that there are so many white objects in the photos.  That also helps bounce the light around.  I agree with previous posters that they aren't great photos, they have blown-out areas which sort of hurt my eyes. But high-key looks happy, and the stocks want happy. 

Your funny!!

« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2009, 05:44 »
0
To be honest. This is not great lighting. Easy o make: Lots of overhead diffused light and a white floor! There you go :)

Thanks for honesty Yuri.
You are a wise man... which is not easy while being a superstar :)

« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2009, 12:59 »
0
 It is the use of the lights and there is absolutely no need to post process for color or anything. You can get this look straight off your file with zero post manipulation. Study as much lighting as you can. Yuri's lighting is no secret it is very simple you just need the equipment. Large soft box behind photographer to set the base, it needs to be right behind you and the broader the better to avoid any drop shadows that will conflict with your main. If you don't have a giant soft box bounce it off of two 4x8 foam core panels made into a V flat.
 Then add the main light from the angle that best suits your needs for contrast. Not much higher than your original fill on power. I would also say to place the mains back off to the side and slightly behind and coming down from a slightly higher angle than your subject to keep the light looking real.
 if you want a bit of separation from the background. Then the background needs lighting of its own to take away any dark spots. It is really lighting 101 in any good photo school. Education is the key. Start with the fill, set your base exposure and shape from there. Actually there are a number of lighting scenarios that will create this look. I think the examples shown are a touch flat and the main should be turned up or the fill turned down a bit.

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2009, 13:44 »
0
Excellent explanation Nero. 

Love you screen name too, BTW.  Hoping Rome is not the stock industry though ;)

tan510jomast

« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2009, 14:13 »
0
double post
« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 14:22 by tan510jomast »

tan510jomast

« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2009, 14:22 »
0
To be honest. This is not great lighting. Easy o make: Lots of overhead diffused light and a white floor! There you go :)

I respect Yuri for his honesty. sometimes the simple lighting (that which we learn in Photo 101) is better than complex. like the great painter with their skylight.
as Stevie Wonder once said of his music, "you can sounds complicated AND IMPRESSIVE with simple chords. or you can use complicated chords and sound trite!".
It's like Nero mentioned, a case of knowing how to see the light (no pun intended).

« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2009, 15:33 »
0
Hi Lisa,

 No it's more about the state of the economy not stock. I am fiddling away as I watch the flames.

lisafx

« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2009, 16:07 »
0
Ah yes, the economy - that makes sense. 

The news is scary these days!  I find myself turning it off.  Maybe I should change my avatar to an ostrich ;)

batman

« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2009, 16:13 »
0
Ah yes, the economy - that makes sense. 

The news is scary these days!  I find myself turning it off.  Maybe I should change my avatar to an ostrich ;)


LISAFX, if u r going to dump the cutie pie for a chick(en) with long boney legs and oversized feather duster for a tail , at least keep her shades  8)

« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2009, 16:37 »
0
Ah yes, the economy - that makes sense. 

The news is scary these days!  I find myself turning it off.  Maybe I should change my avatar to an ostrich ;)



An ostrich, great idea Lisa.
I find myself reading, watching and listening to all the dour news even as I try not to.
Its sorta like seeing a train wreck. You don't want to look, but there is not denying the fascination of of all.

I think I'll go in my back yard and start digging a hole to put my head in. That may be the best escape available!  :-\



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4042 Views
Last post November 26, 2007, 01:07
by digiology
3 Replies
2939 Views
Last post January 03, 2008, 07:54
by Void
6 Replies
2162 Views
Last post April 21, 2013, 17:00
by Leo Blanchette
58 Replies
10683 Views
Last post February 27, 2015, 02:54
by Phadrea
Soft Rejection on 123RF

Started by Bad Company 123RF

3 Replies
3157 Views
Last post September 04, 2017, 09:06
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results