# how NOT to use studio lighting



## Aglet (Oct 28, 2014)

Is there a thread here somewhere about how to apply horrible lighting?
If not, whenever I see this guy's work I feel a bit bad for the young ladies who are his subjects.

There are other shooters who contribute to this chain's particular subject here, and IMO, many of them do a much better job of lighting than this Mr B, who seems to like hot spots, gross underexposures and everything possible to make a less than flattering image of otherwise fine subjects.
The only time I see consistently decent lighting in a set of shots is when it's outdoors, and even then it's often underexposed.

What do you think, art, or ignorance?
I think he thinks it's art by the way he likes to brand at least one of the shots with his name on it.
I certainly don't appreciate his style. ???

EDIT: the link would be helpful..

www.calgarysun.com/sunshine-girl/2014/10/28/michelle


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 28, 2014)

The one of she on the floor in the fishnets is the only one which I would even bother importing into LR. Perhaps there is some difference between his intent and what we see?

Jim


----------



## Aglet (Oct 29, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Perhaps there is some difference between his intent and what we see?
> 
> Jim



Or we can generously allow that he's got his monitor set with some crazy gamma curve?... (doubt it)


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 29, 2014)

Yeah... that was unpleasant... there was potential there... but not really the execution. Maybe he doesn't use modifier because he really likes shadows...


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> What do you think, art, or ignorance?



The standard advice: use the histogram instead of a light meter. Paired with the joys of picture styles being applied instead of using actual sensor data and not using PP to get everything back on track.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 24, 2014)

I think the guy is just too lazy to get the flash off his camera, set up properly, or fix anything in post.

shot #17 from this batch

www.calgarysun.com/sunshine-girl/2014/11/24/mallory

... is just a lesson on how to make an unattractive shot of an attractive model. The rest of the set is sub-par too.
The few other 'togs who do these shoots do a FAR better job of lighting than this ego-maniac.

IMO, JACK BOLAND, your lighting technique blows chunks.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 24, 2014)

He got the light off the camera and left it at that. Not good at all. The biggest errors are in this order I'm my mind.

1. Subject to BG distance. 
2. Flash exposure.
3. Flash direction.
4. Flash WB. 

He got a few decent frames in that slideshow but some were atrocious to be called a professional product. He likely doesn't understand flash enough to work around those issues.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Nov 27, 2014)

I normally use non flash lighting. and I looked at the 20 photos and found the shadows way to harsh no soft box? model too close to the walls. but then I only use flash as fill some on and off camera.

also it looks like a series for the pre shoot. to get the lighting right?


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 27, 2014)

Just 'cause you charged someone money for a pic doesn't make you a professional.

If you are going to charge people money, in the promise to do something that would improve THEIR career, then by God you owe it to them to do it well. Otherwise you are some long string of deserved invectives targeting your genealogy. 

The human form is a work of art granted to our presence by God. I so pray that God will do as much with all the brains put into the large cavern at the top of the work of art. Not all my prayers have been answered in the way I understand.

It seems to me there are two basic elements to an image - lighting (or lack there of) and subject matter. The photographer can choose the subject matter, certainly in studio - they control the light. 

A light behind the model and pointing in almost any direction, left, back, forward, would have changed the image, perhaps this would have caused them to change the exposure a bit. 

I agree this is an example of being "out of control" of the light.


----------



## zim (Nov 27, 2014)

tacky

I don't think he's appealing to or interested in photographers therefor the quality is irrelevant if you get my drift


----------



## gregorywood (Nov 27, 2014)

Maybe he has no idea what he's doing. Maybe he is marching to the beat of his own drummer. Maybe he's not even a photographer. Who knows?

Without him engaged in a conversation to answer the questions of the gallery here, it just seems sort of like he's getting attacked unprovoked. It's not like he come to the forum and said "What do you all think of my photography?" That would of course be a whole different situation. ;-)

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Tsuru (Nov 27, 2014)

Whenever I see these sorts of pictures in the Sun I've always wondered if it was poor translation into printed newsprint or the original photo. Now I know.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 16, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> Maybe he has no idea what he's doing. Maybe he is marching to the beat of his own drummer. Maybe he's not even a photographer. Who knows?
> 
> Without him engaged in a conversation to answer the questions of the gallery here, it just seems sort of like he's getting attacked unprovoked. It's not like he come to the forum and said "What do you all think of my photography?" That would of course be a whole different situation. ;-)
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



You are a smart and compassionate man. Good for you! There should be more like you in the world.


----------



## DRR (Feb 16, 2015)

A cursory google search reveals he's primarily a sports shooter. He's not a studio guy. Of course when it comes to taking photos of these girls I bet the conversation went something like this:

"Hey, we need to take some photos of Chrissy for Page 6. What's the budget for hiring a fashion photographer?"
(group laughter)
"Just call Jack. He''s at the Leafs game but he knows how to take a picture. Give him 5 minutes. I mean how do you screw up a shoot with Chrissy? She's gorgeous."

I can't really fault the guy because I guarantee he was put in a position to take these photos, and no, he isn't good at studio lighting. But his bosses told him to so he's trying to accommodate. It's not like photojournalists are in high demand these days, the guy just wants to keep his job.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 16, 2015)

I'm not sure most people will be looking at the lighting  but it is quite bad. I think an on-camera flash would have delivered far better results from ETTL alone.

As others have said, a lot of photographers get pushed out of their comfort zone by a client, especially these days. If you browse the websites of some of the greatest photographers out there, you'll see some really bad work. It's usually in their "personal work" gallery or galleries featuring work outside their specialty. A wedding photographer doing landscapes, a portrait photographer shooting sports, etc.


----------

