Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
The Dark Side of Photography: Why Bad Light is EVERYWHERE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 авг 2024
- If you want the less youtube serving more pro details then head over to here / tinhouse
There is a lot of talk about how modern photography is pretty rubbish, bad light, i phones instead of DSLRs, the tik tok and insta generation or how ever you define it. But this is my view on the matter.
You can find me on;
Instagram / scottchoucino
Facebook Group / 1893064874281393
Tin House Website and WORKSHOPS www.tinhouse-studio.com/
My Commercial Workscottchoucino.com/
Back in the 70s and 80s we were shooting film with 35 mm cameras. We were reading books and magazines to improve our photography. Good kit was expensive and so was film. Every shot was costing money so we were economical… mistakes were costly…
These photographers were also understanding light; I remember my cousins discussing how to direct the flash head towards the ceiling to diffuse the light and soften the shadows
Photographers look at lighting, consumers look at style. The best lighting is not always the best style, it usually isn't. If you're a commercial photographer, you can't be shooting for photographers, you have to shoot to please consumers. All of my favorite photographers shoot photos that aren't technically correct. Jenn Collins' candid composition, Amy Lombard's lighting and dynamic energy she gets out of her shots, these are the people shooting massive campaigns. Amy literally shoots McDonalds' hero images for advertising and every beauty brand in LA and New York has done work with Jenn. They know the rules and break them in different, unique ways.
Love your style dude. I'm currently doing test shoots for a beer brand and using your techniques. It's so much harder to make it look right than throwing up a softbox. But I'm damn enjoying the process and trial and error. Thanks for all the videos my man! Keep them coming
Thanks for your regular rants + waffling, it makes my day every time... Im looking forward to your next punch of truth, shattering our misconceptions & prejudices
thank you!! because is from the 90's I am waiting for my developing kit to start develop my 120 negatives :)
Right, my art-style for 2024 is to take all my photos with my finger part covering the lens, just like I did as a kid in the 80s.
I did that by mistake last year on my phone and sent it out to my friends on purpose. My friend Dan figured out I was trolling him.
Thank you for these nuggets you have been dishing out, it’s definitely shaping my photography for 2024.
Thank you!
Lovely lighting today Scott!
Dont worry, hearing the word "vibe" in context gave me the shivers, too!
From all the RUclipsrs out there, even the few ones who are also real pro photographers with big jobs, you are the one I almost always agree with. Even though I just discovered you less than a year ago here and my genre is quite different: people / fashion. Gear is a tool, the decision of lighting is a stylistic device, it’s enough when the client / target audience loves it and not when the nerdy photographer sill sees some subjective issues. Might sound heartless for some but it‘s the process and of course the result we love, not the gear. Please keep on with your great videos. Greetz from Germany.
I could listen to you all day!
Interesting, and not what I was expecting, although I don't know why. Of course you are talking about studio lighting, where it's not so much bad lighting as maybe wrong or inappropriate decisions. I have a different take on bad lighting, which is from the perspective of a live music photographer, and more specifically one who shoots in small venues, essentially pubs. Over the last decade it seems to have got worse, with the introduction of RGB LED lights, and operators who don't have a clue what they are doing. Although, to be fair, it is usually left up to the sound engineer to operate the lights as well as the audio. And because they don't know how to light the stage to make the band look good, and definitely for getting good photos, they tend to just put lots of red and green on the stage, and not always on the musicians either. And digital sensors don't really respond well to those LED RGB primaries. Not only are they using red, green or blue, they either make it very dark, or turn them up really bright, so it's all burnt out highlights and darkness and not much in between. And using flash is frowned upon, and generally isn't powerful enough to overcome the LED colour cast without blinding and pissing off the band, and the audience. In the end, I just shot everything in monochrome so the bands didn't look like Hellboy, Hulk or Smurfs, or their mutant offspring. I even started using my old 35mm SLR and HP5 again just to get around the terrible lighting. Working with terrible lighting that you have no control over is really the only time anyone can complain about bad lighting.
I posted a few photos on the FB group yesterday and the day before that did indeed made me feel a bit nostalgic in that I chose harsh lighting for those sessions. It was familiar, and it worked well with those specific subjects. It was fun. The nice thing is that since most of my subject these days are considered Gen Z, to them it's different and retro. For me, it's what I grewnuo with when I was exactly their age.
Your best video yet. Well done.
Thank you!
I've been saying the light has to be in service to the story of the image for years!
What you says make sense, yet hard to digest - prolly might need to keep hearing it many times to get it into my head - this new style of lighting.
But that said, love the line at the end: "good light, bad light; doesn't exist. it's the right light, at the right time for the right purpose".
I am an old photojournalist and my definition of bad light is light that does work. Art is anything you can get away with.
Scott speaks big TRUTH!!! Absolute FACTS!!!!
Mood - yes that's the word. Apart from scientific/product photography where faithful recording of a detailed image is required, all human (if I may use that word) photography is about mood. And mood is heavily influenced, even determined, by the light: it's strength and direction. Perfectly lit photos can be totally devoid of mood. Lighting should be designed to intentionally convey a mood, as for instance cinematic film noir lighting of the 40's and 50's. Perfect lighting is soulless, bad lighting.
Been thinking about Flash a lot this year - only today i've just figured out how I can deal with shooting in manual mid-shoot for my purpose and it felt great when it clicked - been stuck on TTL for my entire career so far.
for my portrait work I want that nostalgic harsh and direct flash that has that dark background and the green tint to it like it's on a point-and-shoot film; as if the film was acidicly burnt into - I've always loved to look of it and more importantly, it stops people from hiding persay. I dont want them to hide, I want them to be the center of my attention.
and for my music work especially in outdoor raves at night - I want to be able to see everything! So I throw on a massive diffuser but STILL treat it like I am using direct light in a way - yes it's still Soft light, but it's a sharp image that holds that energetic feel
Dig your vibe, man 😎
My father brought me a Kodak 124 Instamatic Camera for Christmas that used flash cubes . Harsh light and no adjustments state of the art consumer camera.
Very good.
Totally agree with this. I really like the "bad" light look. It has such a feeling and creates such a great mood in my opinion. I've created a bunch of presents in Capture One with faded blacks, lots of grain, and things like that. They're just for when I want to take those hard-lit photos. Don't get me wrong, I totally love the painterly, soft light too, both are wonderful for the right project. It's just sometimes you want something more gritty. 😈
I have to admit, I am a smidge confused as to the cringe on the word "vibe". But then I'm turning 50 this year and I remember using "vibe" in the same current context back in the 80s/90s. The same old just keeps coming back around. There's JNCOs back, for crying out loud.
How would you go about making your work relevant to the current visual trends while maintaining your own personal take/style?
Almost all my photography over the last 50 years can easily be described as bad. Bad light, bad composition, bad focus. But it’s mine, it was done for me, my family and friends (not a client), and it has a huge value, both personally and as a record of history. I find most photography pre-digital era can be described as such. Take the famous photo if a young boy carrying two bottles of wine, made by Cartier-Bresson. A bad photograph by any technical measure. But what a photo!
In contrast, I find most contemporary photography technically brilliant, but boring and uninspiring.
Interesting video, you got a new sub!
Welcome aboard!
People cross the road when they see me thats brilliant Scott
Ellen Von Unwerth has made a career using only "Bad Lighting". It works when photographing beautiful people with exceptional hair and makeup.
Tell us about that thumbnail, reminds me of a book I read...
I think there is a big difference between bad lighting and style, don’t confuse bad lighting with style!
what if the trend changes, will you keep doing the same 90s light or will you change to more soft light?
Kids now are taking pictures with a poloroid, then taking a picture of the poloroid with a phone to post on social media. 🤯
Scott🌀
Good point about good/bad lighting V creative/subjective lighting to recreate a look.
I hadn’t considered that.
But it’s a valid point. Thanks.
One other thing came to mind on the strength of your reasoning….
How many times did you take a picture of your alphabetti spaghetti at tea time with a
‘Pointy Clicky’ camera when you were a kid 🤪😎
May the Force
be with you.🌀
Jim🌀
(-: :-)
it's not just the topic of light i'm afraid : have you taken a look at the "influent" wedding blogs for the past 10 years ?
there have been no more interest for realistic colors ! most of the high end wedding photography market is reduced to either pink - washed out - Hamilton look (a few years back) or moody - dark - yellowish - brownish (at the moment)...
more and more photographers will deliver the whole wedding just like it was golden hour, from 10am to 11pm !
when i look at those photos, i clearly see what my parents and grandparents washed out photos look like...
i find this pretty depressing, especially as newer photographers dive into those extreme trends solely based on presets, before learning any photography technique, such as composition, posing or lighting (since posing and using a flash are also considered old fashioned, and seem almost as banned as realistic colors rendering...)
to me, there is a dangerous unbalance between the average audience, who wants trendy images, and who are getting more and more capable of producing those pictures themselves thanks to technology, and professional photographers, who deliver no more than those trends, instead of learning the very basics of their art, hoping /praying their natural genius will do all the job...
have you also had your eyebrows done ? :)
Examples ?
I think progress halts when we stop at the norms. Break rules.
Pointed hard light can look stylish good on younger faces but on older faces... if the ad agency asked for it to show the wrinkles to get that vibe I guess that's the style then. But If I shoot business portraits most of them are older they want to look the best with less eyebags and wrinkles. But hey, who knows maybe it gets into the portrait world as well, hard pointed source light from the camera position. Well, a ring flash will get rid of the wrinkles. Maybe it's time for some modern ring flashes...
"..Pointed hard light can look stylish good on younger faces but on older faces.." ... hey, why suddenly I remember Bruce Gilden? :)
@@anta40 He is really up into to the face with that hard light!!
Why this video is changing thumbnails constantly? :D
Terry Richardson
I wonder. 😁Actually, I thought this video would be all about different light spectra. Today's LED rubbish delivers a flickering spectral atrocity. This would make an interesting topic.
Hopefully the fad will end soon. I hated instagram (and still do) for this very reason. All the gymnastics we had to perform to get poor equipment to work properly and people go and put a filter on it to replicate the things that kept us up at night. The light and the styles were awful back then, but we didn't know any better and couldn't afford to fix it if we did. Now we do know better but are still repeating awful trends, that are exponentially worse this time around, because we are choosing them. We're making it easy for AI to overthrow creative industry (all aspects of it) because we are catering to the brands.................or maybe that was their plan along.
Sadly, it feels like many photographers or „content creators“ dont use bad light intentionally, in order to create a „vibe“. They do because it is a trend and because everybody does.
First!
There‘s no such thing as good or bad lighting.
It’s not bad light if it’s the atheistic your after, it’s only bad if it’s not.
Disagree and agree:
1- An average dude with a camera takes better pictures than an average 90s pro-photographer, because they understand better. Sorry, but, that's a feeble statement, moreover wrong. In the 90s you need to know more from taking to developing, how a picture should look by the knowledge of pre-visualisation. There was no instant gratification; nor the feedback to fix your mistakes on premise. Today's kids have a camera in their hands that almost disables taking bad pictures, including the phone cameras. Technology has narrowed down the gap between novice and pro. They are more tech-monkeys (sorry for the expression if it's honestly hard: they are just tech-users, not tech creators) than conscious creators. The media is full of "how to" stuff easily to imitate, if not to emulate. Self-thought is overrated, in addition to the declination of the quality of education. I see more zombies or sleepwalkers rather than high quality, cutting-edge creatives.
2- That's a deeper discussion though to call photography "art", because it is just a tool and a technical discipline that might be subject to being a candidate, being considered as art -if used purposefully and correctly. That's another area where most people are confused about art due to the popular culture wash out and lost the very distinction between art and craft. Even the concept of creativity is so diluted, like the inflation of money, because it gets incrementally scarce to find. All goes towards a level of grey noise.
3- The media dictates how it should look rather than why it should look that way. This is the point where I join you: There is no good or bad, there is the level of relevancy what determines the quality of a work. One is the victim of everything that s/he doesn't know "why" and that s/he cannot explain and account for.
The concept of "old-school" and retro-mimicry have been a band-aid for the creative constipation, because they cut the line between the origin and the surface to keep it under manipulation and control. So, most of the things are floating therefore on the surface (what we call superficial or "like"). I hear a lot "it looks cool". I ask, why is it cool? I could never get even one satisfactory answer by anyone up until today.
Everybody seeks a shortcut, a formula, a secret (one of the most selling social media headline words if you want more clicks), because people are fooled by the social engineering promise/propaganda of "everyone can be anything they want", which was endorsed by the cheap pop-culture celebrities from Britney Spears to Kardashian sisters.
As Bill Bernbach said, nothing that emerges from a formula can be creative.
The irony is your light for this video is awful 🤣
This video is bad lighting.