[King_Boru]

Look....Nah forget it...

snip...


Does that work for you?

Don't you think it would have been easier to of done this in the first place?

Perhaps following your statement about why you hate umbrella lighting with techniques to overcome pedestrian lighting would have made your point easier.

I understand your point. I feel it could of been brought across a lot more professionally. That's my point.

If I handed in my dissertation written like that I would have failed, simple as. I could only imagine the looks I would have been given.

For the record, your photographic work is stunning. It has the power to provide people with the motivation to achieve better lighting results (and many other subjects) I praise you for that. So don't go thinking this is some kind of personal attack or anything.

Happy new year to you too and I hope it goes extremely well for you.

[a a i b]

^I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels a dissertation is not necessarily the noblest of communications, as they are not necessarily known for being clear, concise, accessible or (dare I say?) even relevant.

Seems pretty obvious to me this thread is about challenging pedestrian ideas of what makes a good photograph -- in this case, challenging the idea that good photographs originate in having the right equipment, or this specific piece of kit. After demolishing the umbrella with some breezy rhetoric (let's just say in OP's case a photograph is definitely worth 1000 words ) he doesn't predictably stake out the opposite, also boring position: that equipment doesn't matter, the artist sees, capture the decisive moment, blah blah. Instead, the OP seems to be suggesting that the umbrella takes away as much as you think it adds.

I'm intrigued. Looking at one of Benjikan's linked blog posts, he writes

In almost every discussion I have had with photographers, the greatest frustration expressed is the lack of control over their light source. There is just too much light going everywhere. It is for this reason that I often opt for the paint with light rather than the sculpt with light approach.

Yes of course -- an umbrella is going to be like using a spray gun for painting. Or, more precisely, the OP's point is that this tool which seems like a fine brush to many folk is instead an indiscriminate machine gun when it comes to the question of being very precise and very deliberate with light.

It's an interesting idea to "build up" the photograph, a point of contrast with the usual paradigm that an photograph is subtraction: sculpting and editing. It's not how I shoot, but it is how I do other things ... so as for OP's objective of "shakin' it up," count me in the "hey I learned something today" camp.

OP's photographs do make me think of one problem ... the relative handicap of being so dark. We're often admonished by the net gurus to expose to the right, preserve the most dynamic range, etc. etc. when I'd rather be making these more murky efforts. But then again I have many times been disappointed by murky photos which glow on the screen, yet are flat and dull printed.

I guess this is in part why OP is so obsessed with the drama and gesture of limited, precise lighting -- without that "well" exposed part, the rest of the murky subtext disappears as a locus of interest. The contrast of a well lit bit activates the dark, makes the dark darker, without actually making it darker, because if you make it too dark, you have no tone or figure, and you end up abandoning the context of the image.

Huh. And they say you can't learn things on the internet.

[benjikan]

Here is a sample of one of my shoots where I use umbrella's almost exclusively and a good old snoot...

[Internetpilot]

I found this thread by searching for noob question of "softbox versus umbrella" and "continuous versus strobe". I'm a hobbyist shooting (apparently boring ) pictures of children for various events, activities, projects, etc., at a local grade school and church. I was thinking one of those two lighting tools could help generate some better results, but now I'm thinking I'd be paying more money to apparently be even more amateur?

Of course, for me and the stuff I do, it might pay for me to go the opposite advice route. If I sent little Johnny or Suzie home to mom & dad with a homemade craft picture frame with a photo of them in it looking like Ben's work (no offense -- it's great work), that would generate quite a few phone calls to the school office. Haha. I think boring yearbook style photos might be better.

Although....attempting to find my answer in this thread hasn't been a total waste, being that I'm always coming up with new excuses to drink more alcohol, I guess an umbrella or softbox can only help in that.

Now, continuous or strobe....

<InternetPilot tries to just fade into the background and sneak away while trying to hide his Gary Fong Lightsphere under his shirt and thanking God above that he took the Better Bounce Card rubberband off his flashgun before entering the forum today...whew...that was a close one!>

[Ira]

Here is a sample of one of my shoots where I use umbrella's almost exclusively and a good old snoot...

Not only can't I believe that this thread with its obnoxious premise was resurrected, but I can't believe I have to look at these obnoxious, depressing photos.

Those photos explain a lot about someone.

The subjects all look bored, the settings are boring, and the lighting doesn't a change a thing about that.

BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet he actually thinks it's art. And that's sad.

[wsunate]

Not only can't I believe that this thread with its obnoxious premise was resurrected, but I can't believe I have to look at these obnoxious, depressing photos.

Those photos explain a lot about someone.

The subjects all look bored, the settings are boring, and the lighting doesn't a change a thing about that.

BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet he actually thinks it's art. And that's sad.

It's very rude to knock somebody's work--especially somebody who probably makes a good living with it. These are French portraits--it's a cultural thing I suspect.

I'm very thankful for his insight and will read the tutorials he posted.

[Digitalis]

I can understand where benjikan is coming from. I personally don't like square light sources in my work with Models, because the highlights in their eyes look square, and i'm not a big fan of that. If I do use a soft box I use a circular mask on it. Umbrellas have a hot spot that i'm not overly fond of, I prefer evenness in my lighting on my models. I use whatever I want on background lights.

studio photographers all have their likes and dislikes. As for me,I prefer round light sources - I recently got a pentax ring flash and I'm really enjoying its quality of light.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 06-15-2010 at 05:25 AM.

[Ash]

This thread has grown considerably since my last post in it, but the more things change the more they stay the same. My initial assertion seems to hold in that Ben wants to go beyond the simple, less controllable methods of commanding light sources to illuminate subjects, and into more creative means to bring uniqueness and flair to the shoots.

These opinions can hardly be directed to the newbie or amateur - perhaps to the enthusiast fashion/model/glamour photographer, but shouldn't be extrapolated much further than that. I too understand Ben's position on the topic, and to me that's pro to pro talk. His results and success speak for themselves, which are far fetched for the typical forum member here - but is still enlightening and educational.

Despite the dichotomy of views concerning your lighting ideas Ben, they're appreciated.

[conordoherty]

someone eariler said: "the problem with umbrellas is controlling light spillage" that's not a problem, that's jsut the way they work/manipulate light, and when you're aware of that you can use it to your advantage.

The fact is there's nothing wrong with the way umbrellas can diffuse/spread/reflect or otherwise manipulate light... the reason they get a bad wrap is that they are one of the cheapest methods of diffusing light and thus one of the first things amateurs start out with... so when you see bad amateur photography where the lighting is bad/uninteresting, it's not because it was lit using an umbella (or umbrellas) it's because it was probably done by someone new to lighting who may not be using the umbrellas to their full potential.

7 of the pictures on my site used one or more umbrellas as part or all of the lighting. Photography by Conor Doherty

If the umbrellas are really what make the lighting [and the photo] so bad then you tell me which ones are the boring, terrible umbrella shots that you hate so much!!

[MrPetkus]

Why I HATE pick bass...
If you want to get me to fall asleep, just play me some music where the bassist uses a pick. Now I am not talking Chris Squire, because Chris Squire did a lot more than plunk a backbeat bass-line with a mere pick, he captured the essence of the blossoming genre of progressive rock with his signature style such that anyone else attempting to copy would fall under the shadow of what Squire accomplished.
Pick bass is the 'Géant Casino' or the 'Peugeot 206' of bass playing for me. It is the horrible gig at the local pub stage, where some balding, ex-poseur is attempting to make a come back playing 'She's my cherry pie' to a bunch of similarly balding rockers congregating for Retro-90's themed Thursdays.
Pick bass is that pretentious European-styled jacket or silly shoes that can only be seen in some depots-vente in St. Germain des Pres. It is that demo tape that we all have grown to, ah, hmmm, Dig?

...

Man, this would be nauseating to read if it wasn't coming from a world-renowned, esteemed professional. When one has been elevated to the upper echelons in their art, it's reasonable to look with disdain at all the little people scrambling about below like mindless drones, automatons, constrained by conservativeness and lack of vision. Someone once said that you need to learn the rules before you can break them, and even though that's what I did, I know now that those were dark years where I was imprisoned in a creative gulag of my own making. But then I realized my folly and, like Martin Luther, I tore away, refusing to let the Church define my Religion.

Oh, and don't regret your umbrella purchase. It's a fine, well-documented tool and a good platform for learning and expansion.

[alohadave]

Man, this would be nauseating to read if it wasn't coming from a world-renowned, esteemed professional. When one has been elevated to the upper echelons in their art, it's reasonable to look with disdain at all the little people scrambling about below like mindless drones, automatons, constrained by conservativeness and lack of vision. Someone once said that you need to learn the rules before you can break them, and even though that's what I did, I know now that those were dark years where I was imprisoned in a creative gulag of my own making. But then I realized my folly and, like Martin Luther, I tore away, refusing to let the Church define my Religion.

Coming from a 'world-renowned, esteemed professional' it is more nauseating. Sneering down your nose at people who have less experience and 'vision' is nothing more than snobbery.

[Blue]

Not only can't I believe that this thread with its obnoxious premise was resurrected, but I can't believe I have to look at these obnoxious, depressing photos.

Those photos explain a lot about someone.

The subjects all look bored, the settings are boring, and the lighting doesn't a change a thing about that.

BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet he actually thinks it's art. And that's sad.

Are you some kind of photographic psychoanalyst for the FBI, CIA, FDLE or INTERPOL?

[philbaum]

Why I HATE Umbrella Lighting...

If you want to get me to fall asleep, just show me some images shot with umbrella lighting. Now I am not talking Richard Avedon, because Richard Avedon did a lot more than capture images with a single umbrella, he captured a moment that is so his signature, that anyone else attempting to copy would be dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of what Avedon accomplished.

Umbrella lighting is the 'WalMart' or the 'Ford Pinto' of lighting for me. It is the horrible gig at the Holiday Inn, where some dried up ex alcoholic is attempting to make a come back singing 'I will Survive" to a bunch of totally miserable accountants congregating for their annual convention.

Umbrella light is that really bad hair do or dress that can only be seen in some totally kitsch boutique in Boise, Idaho. It is that Wedding photo that we have all grown to, ah, hmmm, Love?

It smacks of hey, I am now a photographer because I now own a couple of studio lights and have to have this because if I don't I won't be considered credible and it will impress anyone who doesn't know any better and the bigger the better types...

Ah, give me that umbrella to be very, very safe and to not upset the REAL serious photographers out there that believe that you have to have a reflector to kick in some light in to "THAT" shadow area, otherwise it is NOT a technically good image.

What is even worse is that those who MUST HAVE an umbrella, will almost certainly have a..."Da Da, a Soft-box!!!" Now THAT is really impressive. Every time I see a set up with a soft-box and the "UMBRELLA" I pop the proverbial CHUBBY and have to sit down, as to not expose by excitement.

Now, if somebody were to say to me, "Hey check out what I did with this umbrella!" that would totally blow me away, I would be so F'ing pleased. But at this point in time, I have seen nothing but flat, boring, pedestrian, predictable, unassuming, dull and flat out knock me out with a VALIUM the size of a HOCKEY PUCK images.

Hey, but who knows. Given that surprises do happen, I'm open to the possibilities.

Surprise me.

Benjamin Kanarek Blog Why I HATE Umbrella Lighting…

I was roaming a clinic's halls today and saw this collection of staff photos, made at different times, but all uniformly done with poor umbrella lighting - first thing pops in my mind was - oh damn, this is what benjikan was talking about.

What annoys the heck out of me, is that i just spent $400 for a - wait for it - an umbrella lighting kit.

But the good news is - the other day one of the theatre directors (even before I read benjikans provocative thread) wanted an artsy portrait of the lead for a poster. So a friend and i turned the light around so that it was shining directly on one side of the actresses face, discarded the umbrella, and took a very dramatic image that the director just loved.

I very much appreciate benjikan's remarks on umbrellas, but wish that it had been more timely with regard to my purchase . But i don't take it to mean that one could not ever use umbrellas. Ash's photo was quite nice and far ahead of the hallway staff photos i looked at today.

[Warped]

Unfortunately I don't have the space at home for a studio or regular access to a large space to use as a studio - so I hire a lot of studios and was just thinking (thanks to this thread) that I've yet to see a brolly in the main studio I hire.
I haven't seen a brolly in 2 of the other 3 I hire on a semi-regular basis and in the last studio I hire I remember seeing one in a cupboard, but never out and being used ..... so I'm guessing 4 out 4 pro-studios that I know of must agree with Ben' or have a similar line of thought.

Shooting mostly personal projects and for the odd magazine here and there (but by no means the levels of Vogue and the like) I get the luxury to play and experiment a lot and used to challenge myself and walk in, see what's around and make up a lighting rig as I go. If I spied something new and shiny (like when the studio bought one of those HUGE satelite dish sized reflectors) I'd use it and experiment with it just to see what could be done with the new toy. My personal fave and "go to" set-up is now a mix of beauty dish, softboxes, reflectors and grids - barndoors, coloured gels, rings, snoots and the like don't get along so well with me for some reason

When I bought a twin 500W Bowens kit it came with 2 brolly's, they were the first brollys I ever owned and they sat unused in their wrappers for about a year - but now I use them a lot as I've started doing a fair bit of event photography and shooting portraits at clubs and functions.

As much as I'd like to use something else, when you're in a confined area, limited set-up and pull-down time, lots of people around you drinking and partying (and not watching out for the photographer trying to protect his gear), your subjects are usually "happy" and not prepared to stand still for any length of time ..... brolly's rule!
They take up less space, pack and unpack quickly, give a nice big spread, are usually more durable and take a knock easy and are cheaper to replace if damaged ..... for those reasons alone and in club use, brolly's are an essential piece of kit for me - so had to give them a bit of a defence