Stump Ed (S)

I tried this along time ago, on an old forum, and it worked well- lots of folks got a kick out of it and so did I.  Here's the deal;  I have a wealth of photographic technical knowledge most of which is esoteric, old, useless to anyone with a normal mind or unheard of in the first place.  Every now and again some of this information actually serves a useful purpose in trouble shooting and problem solving but is certainly not the fodder of popular photo magazines or web sites on this side of the moon. 

Throw what ever you have at me and I will see if I can think of something- anything!  Photomicrography, surgical photography, old cameras, defunct companies, antique equipment, weired photographers or even normal ones  from a different age or different planet.  How about photographic, old methods, strange chemistry, bizarre photographic inventions, flashbulbs, major technical problems, wild clients, how to make things, 3-D photography.  Oh- where to buy uncommon photographic things and just about anything you can think of!  If you know the answer you can test me- if you don't know the answer or solution, who knows?- I may actually help you out! 

OK- who's first?

Ed Shapiro

Hey Bob-  Great question. 
Photographers, for years, have been emulating the work of other visual artists of the past and present.  Some photographic terminology and techniques in common usage clearly  reflects this; terms such as "Rembrandt" lighting, "Vermeer" lighting, Monet and Renoir backgrounds and texture screens that create painterly, etching-like and crackled patterns on photographs.  The early work of William Mortensen is a classic example of photography emulating paintings and other graphics.  Many of theses techniques were done in the traditional  wet darkroom environment by sandwiching tecture screens with negatives during the printing stage,  Many of the other methods were the results of re-exposing the printing paper to controlled light sources after printing and during development- those methods were known as solorizations and pasteurizations.  More involved precesses such as paper negatives and broil techniques were also part of the repertoire of creative photographers and printers.

So why not Andy Warhol?  If you look at Warhol's illustration (portrait) of Marilyn Monroe- it looks like a solarized photographic color portrait.  The textures and lines that Warhol created were emulated by many photographers using screens and posterization effects. 

Nowadays, what with digital post production taking over for the traditional darkroom, none of the old effects are lost.  My Photoshop 7.0 program has many filters that when use artfully, can easily echo a Warhol piece.  The current Painter programs are something else along those lines. I an sure the latest CS versions of Photoshop and the so many plug-ins that are out there will offer  an endless supply of tool that are artistically oriented.

In answer to you question- I think all the visual artist and creators of the past and present influences photographers in general and since electronic imaging is now THE post-production methodology- why not and why not Warhol!   YES!

Warhol was a great illustrator and influence during his time.  I think his work had messages way beyond the "Campbell's Soup" cans. 

Ed Shapiro 

So called Rembrandt lighting and closed loop lighting are really one in the same.  The classic triangular highlight in the shadow side of the lighting is the defining feature. 

Finny thing is- if you look at the paintings or Rembrandt you will find very little of this.  Somebody hung that name on low key photographic images where shadows are rich and establish the mood.  Rembrandt saw the light and painted what he perceived as light and shadow and as a result his works possessed much dimensionally. 

Ed Shapiro

Travis, you are making a big mistake, due to a lack of experience. Real world photographers don't think of Rembrandt lighting, closed loop etc. They place their lighting the way it looks good and that is it. later, when they want to explain the way they work, they use Rembrandt etc. as a way to describe how it is done. That is all. Rembrandt didnot work that way, as Ed describes, it looks like Rembrandt, that is all.
In photography you cannot use theory as a recipe; theory is a way to describe a general situation.

Leen
(from the same country as Rembrandt  )

I hate books on lighting!  Well, not really- I just dislike the way some of the authors concentrate so much on creating various lighting patterns in a mechanical or predetermined way without factoring in the important application of what any lighting is doing, aesthetically speaking, to the subjective.  Oftentimes an experienced portrait photographer will select a certain lighting to flatter the subject and correct or deemphasize certain features or irregularities which the client may find objectionable.  There is also the issues of pose, camera angle, lens choice and the usage of props that go into making a totally masterful portrait.

The diagrams and descriptions of lighting patterns are good basic learning tools and as Leen so aptly pointed out a good method of creating nomenclature- a way to verbaly describe a lighting.  Lighting, however, is a visual art and once the basics are explained,  practice will make theses technicalities a mater of instinct. 

There is also the matter of practical working methodologies.  When making a portrait sitting, one can't fuss with the lighting to create a book learned pattern while the subject languishes away under the lights.  My method is to put the lighting generally where I think I will work best, refine the pose- quickly correct fine detail- refine the lighting and shoot- all of this within seconds.  If it looks good shoot when the expression is there- don't wait and mess around the lights at that point!  If you want to refine the lighting a little more, make another shot.  The important goal in studying lighting is to SEE light and comprehend what the lighting is doing when it strikes the subject.

Here's an example-  The Rembrandt lighting that you describe was a very popular lighting used by the theatrical (Hollywood) photographer of the 30s and 40s.  One has to remember that many of those images were made on 8X10 negatives and retouched to the highest degree.  Heavy makeup was also applied by expert artists.  Some of the images were made by the official stills photographer on actual movie  sets and sound stages with unlimited lighting resources.  The basic 45 degree lighting was supplied by a Fresnel spotlight and the fill was supplied by a soft diffused and large light called a cine-broad in a loop light position but it was feathered off in such a way that its lighting pattern was invisible.  This kind of fill modifies the effect of the Rembrandt so there is detail in the eye on the shadow side of the face- as if the spotlight was wrapping itself around the face.  One of the shortcomings if Rembrandt lighting is, in some subjects, the nose is nor pronounced enough to help create the classic triangular highlight and the photographer, mistakenly, raises the light in order to obtain this pattern without regard for what is happening in the eyes- a lack of detail and the absence of catch lights.

Regarding the retouching- When those large format negatives were heavily retouched, other lighting deficiencies were corrected.  It is also interesting to note that many of theses Hollywood photographers had their favorite soft focus prime lenses.  Theses would blend the highlights into the shadows or create a secondary image which in turn imparts a shimmering sparkle to further glamorize the subject.

All of this can be done with todays equipment but when the aforementioned fine techniques are not applied, harsh unflattering images can result.

NEXT CASE-  When does a photograph become a non-photograph or something like that.  Well-  If photography is a true are then we must all be willing to embrace both new and old ideas and concepts. If everyone is doing the same thing or if there is some kind of specifications or exacting rules that would signal the end of creativity and self expression- the very basis of art.  Methodoligies are much the same- there are probably dozens of ways to skin the preverbial cat and everyone has to work within in their own comfort zone.  When I judge any given image, I do that based on what I see in the final print, transparency or electronic image- I don't really care how it got there as long as does not show signs of over manipulation that becomes a distraction by calling attention to itself. 

As for myself- I prefer to put the image on the negative, transparency or or card so that it needs little or no enhancement except if I am planing to include a special effect.  This is the way I was trained and taught.  From a business and processing point of view this method makes for better production and work flow management.  Fact is- I don't enjoy RE_SHOOTING the job over again in the darkroom or on the computer.  Today there is a trend for photographer to shoot sloppy and fix everything in Photoshop.  The problem is that everything can't be fixed such as totally burned out detail in wedding dresses.  This is not only and issue of overexposure bit of lighting and posing to assure that the detail is preserved thought the finishing process.  Extreme cropping, endless burning and dodging and layers and layers of corrective post production application are bound to minimize quality or become evident in the final product.  In this sense- I am a bit of a purest but I am also in business to pleas my clients and have to produce work, on a commercial level, that p;eases them.  I don't like over-retouching but some clients simply don't want to have wrinkles and facial lines- they expect me to retouch theses features.  As a long time analog custom printer, I know that even the most finely crafted negative will benefit from fine printing techniques to tweak up the quality.

I have seen colorized images, photographers tinted or painted with transparent oil paints and dyes, images printed with texture screens or with lacquers and textures applied to their surfaces.  When masterfully done- they are beautiful but when poorly done they were tacky and looked overdone.  It's all a matter of taste and talent.

Ed
 

Hay Travis!

I think we are having a communications problem here.  I love tweaky little technical problems- in fact I live for them!  That's why I started this kind of thread.  When I reply to questions on this forum, I usually go into technical detail to a great degree because I am trying to give the whys and wherefores for every comment I make and every bit of advice I give. 

To clarify what I said about "Rembrandt Lighting vs. Closed loop lighting" is that there is virtually no easily describable difference because either lighting, regardless of what you wish to call them, is not repeatable, useful or consistent from one subject to another .  The shadows are caused by the landmarks of the face in this case the nose and its relationship to the rest of the facial structure. 

Every now and then, I give a 5 day intensive lighting program where I really get into the nitty-gritty.  It might surprise you to know that I teach a segment called clean and unclean lightings.  Here is an example.  When doing a loop lighting or as some call it a modified butterfly lighting, it is considered by some to be bad form to allow the nose shadow to touch or extend below the upper lip.  In some cases, however, it works perfectly fine when doing that, given a specific facial structure.  I the compare the two form and call the clean and unclean loop lighting.  This does not mean that the latter form is bad but different from the clean or traditional form. 

NOW-  I can talk about this all day and all night but it all makes no sense unless we had a model sitting in front of us and we were moving lights around.  In a situation like that we may accomplish any one of the aforementioned lightings according to form.  When we look at the subject, however, we may find that the lighting is not flattering and have to make modifications to correct that.  We may end up with an unclean version, having to add a form fill light or end up with an entirely different lighting. 

I always teach that lighting with a diagram or a pre-conceived pattern is tantamount to driving your car while looking at a road map- you will crash!  As we know you have to keep your eyes on the road and "drive ahead".  In portraiture we look at the subject and see what the light is doing.  We move the lights vertically, laterally and feather the beams while observing the effects on the subject.  The theory and diagrams get us in the ballpark and the rest is up to the photographer.

When I answer A "Stump Ed" question, all I can do is tell you what I know about the problem or concept you are setting forth.  In lighting there are few pat answers and I hope what I have to say stimulates your mind and gets you thinking. If I say you should lower the main light when photographing a subject with deep set eyes, that basic instruction really means noting until you have such a subject sitting before you with deep set dark eyes.  You will lower the light as I have suggested and when you see the subject's eyes coming to life, emerging from the shadows and reflecting sparkling catch lights toward you- you will never forget that experience and you will automatically do that move when it is needed.  At the point you will not care of the nose shadow is not as long as it shows in an illustration of a particular lighting.  You have perhaps created an unclean version of the lighting that benefits the subject greatly.

The whole idea here is to keep asking all kinds of questions regardless of their nature and keep me feeding back.  That is the way all of us will learn.  When I offer an answer that my seem abrupt you need to remember that I am doing this for a reason.  I want you to stop and think and perhaps approach any give problem in a different way.  If I get you thinking, I am happy. 

Don't waste you time worrying about me- I am an old grouch.  Use that energy to kidnap you favorite subject, drag them into you shooting area and move lights around.

Ed Shapiro

It's good you mentioned the deep socket eyes. I remembered your note on it. A couple of days ago a student asked me to take some head portraits.
I noticed right away he had deep set eyes. I went right up to him to double check, first thing I did, I saw your note in mind, fill the eyes, I lowered the light, from there moved it abit on a lateral to fix the shadow, used the fill for a less harsh shadow.

I may not say much here, as you see, I use your EDucation wisely.
Thanks

Mike

Thanks for clearing up the communication problem Ed.  I felt like I was being told I shouldn't have even asked such a thing.  I do appreciate your feedback and very detailed responses, and I learn from them as well.

Cindy, I understand completely what you are saying about the whole 'painted photograph' thing.  I think I could be all right with a photograph being run through a painter program and being called art; the question is, does it still qualify as a photograph?  Especially in a photography competition.  Apparently, according to many, it does.  My feelings are very mixed in the matter, and I don't have a real strong opinion concerning it.  On one hand, paintings belong in painting competitions, but on the other hand, if I entered one and lost to a photograph that had been painted using Painter, I would freak!  And yet, to lose in a photography contest to a photograph that is no longer just a representation of light, seems wrong as well.  In all reality though, your photos are good enough you won't lose anyway  !  For me personally, I will keep my paintings as pigments spread with brushes, and my photographs as light recorded with a camera.

Here is some information from Wikipedia:

Etymology: Photography
From Greek φωτος (photos), "light", plus γραφειν (graphein), "write".

photograph, plural photographs
A picture created by projecting an image onto a photosensitive surface such as a chemically treated plate or film, CCD receptor, etc.

Travis