Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 > From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> > Use one less light. You are using two. You only need one. > In real life there is one sun in the sky. One moon at night. > One light in your eye. One shadow below. > > Having a light on each side of the camera as you are doing is how you light > a map. > It's not the way you light people. ................................................................................ I agree you shouldn't use copy lighting for people, but don't agree that one light is best. I can't stand having parts of the picture blend together. Hurrell, Archer and many others used multiple lights to get separation of planes. I think using multiple light sources skillfully is a real test of skill. Any extra catchlights in the eyes can be taken out of the finished picture. .............................................................................. > Use one main light. > Just like God. >...... > That's two light sources again as far as I am concerned. > And not natural. .............................................................................. What does it matter if it's natural or not if the image looks good? Here is some text from Lotte H. Eisner's book "The Haunted Screen": "The double lighting is definitely a violation - a violation of nature, if you like. But if it is a violation of nature, I add immediately that it is superior to nature. I say that this is a master stroke, and proves that with genius art is not entirely subject to the necessities imposed by nature but has laws of its own." -- Goethe, during a discussion on a Rubens landscape in which two sources of light can be seen: Eckermann"s Conversations, 1827. Alan Alan Magayne-Roshak Senior Photographer Visual Imaging Univ. of Wis.- Milwaukee Information & Media Technologies amr3@uwm.edu (414) 229-4282/6525