Compositing for Lighting

[flyinglentris]

I suppose one of the newest tricks to lighting is planning for compositing several shots with different lighting applied.

Yes, it goes against the desire innate in many photographers to get it right the first time, but it is valid as a workflow process and technique. And artistically, it has an open-ended potential for expanding creativity - beyond what is real in a scene. And lets face it, a lot of photography is staged, not serendipitous real world captures. And being staged, posed, rehearsed, etc., reality has already taken an exit.

I can see some benefits and some negatives to compositing lighting, almost immediately.

Certainly, it may be possible to stretch a small amount of lighting gear further by compositing several images, merge in focused lighting on specific areas of a scene, have touch up material readily available to clone in and so forth.

The negatives would be largely in terms of time, time to change setups, time to expend on post-processing, time to plan and time to evaluate. Further, there may be issues aligning shot materials, placement, etc.

Compositing for lighting, is not talked up a lot, not that I have seen, but opinions and experiences are welcome to this thread. Its something new to many photographers who do lighting both in and out of the studio and certainly worth a peek and consideration.

 

[flyinglentris]

Here's an article to help get acquainted with the topic of this thread...

https://layersmagazine.com/visualizing-lighting-for-a-composite-image.html

Note that compositing a subject on a backdrop is simple stuff. Compositing for lighting can get much more detailed, with the camera in one spot, the subject static in one spot, but the lighting being moved about and the images later stitched using mask filters, cloning and so forth.

And you might consider simple filter masks with blends and opacity settings part of the topic, but that is not compositing; it's filter masking.

--
"If you are among those who believe that it has all been done already and nothing new can be achieved, you've murdered your own artistry before ever letting it live. You abort it in its fetal state. There is much that has yet to be spoken in art and composition and it grows with the passage of time. Evolving technologies, world environments and ideologies all drive change in thoughts, passion and expression. There is no way that it can all ever be done already. And therein lies the venue for the creative artist, a venue that is as diverse as the universe is unmapped and unexplored." - Quote from FlyingLentris
~
flyinglentris in LLOMA

 

[Ellis Vener]

This technique has been extremely common in advertising photography, especially for still life work, since at least the early 1980s which is when I learned how to do it. I am positive it predates that period as well.



A common use of the technique is for photographing bottles with labels on them. With bottles At a minimum, the product is lit first for the bottle and then for the label.

Leon Bliss used that technique for his ultra large scale macro photographs of insect photography:

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 

[flyinglentris]

This technique has been extremely common in advertising photography, especially for still life work, since at least the early 1980s which is when I learned how to do it, and I am positive it predates that period as well.

Leon Bliss used that technique for his ultra large scale macro photographs of insect photography:

Actually, it has been a common usage for animation sequences.

 

[Ellis Vener]

That too.



But we were talking about photography.

 

[flyinglentris]

That too.

But we were talking about photography.

Yes, and with advances in affordable budget post-processing software, the photographer has access to techniques that allow compositing for lighting, just like improvements made available HDR merges, focus stacking, stitching, etc.

 

[ashleymorrison]

This technique has been extremely common in advertising photography...

Yes - commonly used when Selling the dream ...

.. or when you need to create The Money Shot as we would sometimes call it.

--
Cheers
Ashley

www.ashleymorrison.com

 

[Landscrape]

I think it can be a legitimate technique to use... Actually I thought about asking what other photographers think of it!

Because the scene and the camera do not move, I think it's still OK. When is a photo too much artificial? What if it's done in such a way that you can't tell? (as a regular viewer!) Is it still cheating? Does the viewer enjoy the picture any less because of it, if they can't tell?

Often photographers who like this technique work with pen tablets/wacom. Do you guy's like to use that for composite lighting and layer masks? I mean, I can see why it matches well...

I have seen guy's using portable flashlights on sticks to light out an entire villa with swimming pool in many shots and at different times of the day (including sunset). Even over the course of more then one day (to wait for a spectacular sunset). I can appreciate those shots if they are done well. I will notice that it's too perfect to be true, but still I appreciate the shot and the work that has gone into it! Night time shots of villa's can be beautiful too sometimes. Every window can be "painted in" separately with artificial light. Yeah I like composite shots...

 

[flyinglentris]

I think it can be a legitimate technique to use... Actually I thought about asking what other photographers think of it!

Because the scene and the camera do not move, I think it's still OK. When is a photo too much artificial? What if it's done in such a way that you can't tell? (as a regular viewer!) Is it still cheating? Does the viewer enjoy the picture any less because of it, if they can't tell?

Often photographers who like this technique work with pen tablets/wacom. Do you guy's like to use that for composite lighting and layer masks? I mean, I can see why it matches well...

I have seen guy's using portable flashlights on sticks to light out an entire villa with swimming pool in many shots and at different times of the day (including sunset). Even over the course of more then one day (to wait for a spectacular sunset). I can appreciate those shots if they are done well. I will notice that it's too perfect to be true, but still I appreciate the shot and the work that has gone into it! Night time shots of villa's can be beautiful too sometimes. Every window can be "painted in" separately with artificial light. Yeah I like composite shots...

If we proceed from simple shading, to chiaroscuro volume lighting, to fills, rims, highlights and so forth, composite lighting is yet another advancement in the application of lighting, including color values of hue, tint and saturation, brightness and contrast to bring about expressions in light over the underlying geometries of shape, form and textures. There's much that can be done with the techniques available.

 

[Currantos]

This is SUPER common in complex product photography, such as cars, on locations, reflective shiny objects, etc.

Look up how they shoot car advertisements with lights aimed at different car parts, then they move to a different part, then they light the pavement, then the front seats, then the tree next to the car, then the house on and on and on. Without these "micromanagement" spotlights there would be splashes of light and reflections and everything would look way too contrasty and bland and haphazard, given how much metal and glass there is. Plus you would see light stands with lights everywhere, kinda like a movie set.

Actually, look up how they light movie sets, it has a very similar feel, except compositing out the lights they usually hide them in the scenery or by having the light fairly far from the "stage" or they light one part, shoot one way, then orient the camera another way and rearrange the lights so you don't see them on that other side.

I think it is well known and done routinely.

 

[Landscrape]

This is SUPER common in complex product photography, such as cars, on locations, reflective shiny objects, etc.

Look up how they shoot car advertisements with lights aimed at different car parts, then they move to a different part, then they light the pavement, then the front seats, then the tree next to the car, then the house on and on and on. Without these "micromanagement" spotlights there would be splashes of light and reflections and everything would look way too contrasty and bland and haphazard, given how much metal and glass there is. Plus you would see light stands with lights everywhere, kinda like a movie set.

Actually, look up how they light movie sets, it has a very similar feel, except compositing out the lights they usually hide them in the scenery or by having the light fairly far from the "stage" or they light one part, shoot one way, then orient the camera another way and rearrange the lights so you don't see them on that other side.

I think it is well known and done routinely.

What I personally find interesting is what other photographers think of composite lighting? Do you feel it conflicts too much with the desire to get everything "in camera"? What would be your answer if a client (for example) would criticize the composite lighting and layer masking aspect as "too artificial"?

 

[Ellis Vener]

This is SUPER common in complex product photography, such as cars, on locations, reflective shiny objects, etc.

Look up how they shoot car advertisements with lights aimed at different car parts, then they move to a different part, then they light the pavement, then the front seats, then the tree next to the car, then the house on and on and on. Without these "micromanagement" spotlights there would be splashes of light and reflections and everything would look way too contrasty and bland and haphazard, given how much metal and glass there is. Plus you would see light stands with lights everywhere, kinda like a movie set.

Actually, look up how they light movie sets, it has a very similar feel, except compositing out the lights they usually hide them in the scenery or by having the light fairly far from the "stage" or they light one part, shoot one way, then orient the camera another way and rearrange the lights so you don't see them on that other side.

I think it is well known and done routinely.

What I personally find interesting is what other photographers think of composite lighting?

For commercial work and for some "fine art" work, it is a useful tool set worth mastering.

Do you feel it conflicts too much with the desire to get everything "in camera"?

For commercial work you have to consider cost (time and money) vs. results.

What would be your answer if a client (for example) would criticize the composite lighting and layer masking aspect as "too artificial"?

That should be part of your discussions with your client prior to starting the job. But of course if you do it badly... that is another discussion

.--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 

[flyinglentris]

This is SUPER common in complex product photography, such as cars, on locations, reflective shiny objects, etc.

I had seen examples of this prior to opening this thread.

Look up how they shoot car advertisements with lights aimed at different car parts, then they move to a different part, then they light the pavement, then the front seats, then the tree next to the car, then the house on and on and on. Without these "micromanagement" spotlights there would be splashes of light and reflections and everything would look way too contrasty and bland and haphazard, given how much metal and glass there is. Plus you would see light stands with lights everywhere, kinda like a movie set.

That compositing lighting is today mostly done in advertising, does not surprise me. Many times in the past,, an evolution in lighting, color and artistic composition found its greatest adherents in advertising., while the Masters followed on with their explorations to find balance in their compositions.

Actually, look up how they light movie sets, it has a very similar feel, except compositing out the lights they usually hide them in the scenery or by having the light fairly far from the "stage" or they light one part, shoot one way, then orient the camera another way and rearrange the lights so you don't see them on that other side.

I think it is well known and done routinely.

I agree that it is well known by some and used routinely by some. But it is likely, not well known by many photographers, professional and amateur, alike. Certainly, I have only within the past few weeks learned about it. It is worth discussion as a lighting topic and I have no doubt that there are lurkers on this thread, curious to hear more about it, or who have been triggered to do their own research on what to them, is something new and possibly of value to their own photographic intents.

Just because it is well known and done routinely among a certain number of photographers in certain genres, does not make it well known in general.

 

[flyinglentris]

This is SUPER common in complex product photography, such as cars, on locations, reflective shiny objects, etc.

Look up how they shoot car advertisements with lights aimed at different car parts, then they move to a different part, then they light the pavement, then the front seats, then the tree next to the car, then the house on and on and on. Without these "micromanagement" spotlights there would be splashes of light and reflections and everything would look way too contrasty and bland and haphazard, given how much metal and glass there is. Plus you would see light stands with lights everywhere, kinda like a movie set.

Actually, look up how they light movie sets, it has a very similar feel, except compositing out the lights they usually hide them in the scenery or by having the light fairly far from the "stage" or they light one part, shoot one way, then orient the camera another way and rearrange the lights so you don't see them on that other side.

I think it is well known and done routinely.

What I personally find interesting is what other photographers think of composite lighting? Do you feel it conflicts too much with the desire to get everything "in camera"? What would be your answer if a client (for example) would criticize the composite lighting and layer masking aspect as "too artificial"?

Complexity in the two dimensional plane may create a condition where the composition is unbalanced in such a way that it does not lend itself to intentionally sought conflict, but instead, an incompleteness, where the visual effect does not reach a full conclusion and the audience will depart without giving the work any great consideration.

However, a skilled photographic composition ought to be achieved by photographers who understand that and know how to balance the composition so that it does produce a conclusive visual effect and leaves an audience satisfied. And a client is an audience to be satisfied. It is not the use of composite lighting that may cause a bad critique from a client, but poor results from bad application of the techniques. In any 2D art form, a technique is meant to apply properties that imbue what has been called visual forces to attain a good and conclusive composition. It is not the technique that fails, but the skill of the artist or photographer who applies the technique.

 

[Landscrape]

...intentionally sought conflict...

What do you mean with that?

 

[flyinglentris]

...intentionally sought conflict...

What do you mean with that?

There is a difference between chaos in an image and conflict.

In general, an image should be considered for its linguistic values, its meaning to an audience or spectator. But at the same time, the image should be motile in its content, enough to retain the interest and appeal of its audience or spectator. That motile composition has many facets that are, in the 2d picture frame, physiological and connected to human vision, the eye and its neurological connection to the human spirit. Overall, the image should have a fluid motile equilibrium and completeness. The elements of an image may be smoothly integrated or they may compete or conflict. The emotion generated by image elements does not matter so much, so long as the equilibrium of the elements is fostered toward the image's completeness and lack of chaos.

And then, there is the psychological aspect of an image, the message, the connection to real world experience and the statement conceived by the artist or photographer and how that statement may be interpreted by the audience or spectator. Here, conflict has a different meaning an impact, stimulating conscious and subconscious components of human cognition.

A mastery or at least a fluency in composition and a capacity to convey through the language of images, a message, harmonious or conflicting, is the skill of the artist or photographer that makes any technique applicable. Here we are discussing composite lighting.

Intentional conflict in an image is often helpful to peak interest, but chaos and lack of equilibrium, a lack of completeness will make an image next to useless.

To wit then, a client who is on the receiving end of an image or series of images using composite lighting would have no objections, if the technique achieved good equilibrium and completeness, serving the purpose the photographs were sought for.

--
"If you are among those who believe that it has all been done already and nothing new can be achieved, you've murdered your own artistry before ever letting it live. You abort it in its fetal state. There is much that has yet to be spoken in art and composition and it grows with the passage of time. Evolving technologies, world environments and ideologies all drive change in thoughts, passion and expression. There is no way that it can all ever be done already. And therein lies the venue for the creative artist, a venue that is as diverse as the universe is unmapped and unexplored." - Quote from FlyingLentris
~
flyinglentris in LLOMA

 

[ashleymorrison]

An example of how I am able to tell you something without using any words - which is basically what photography is all about.

 

[Landscrape]

...intentionally sought conflict...

What do you mean with that?

There is a difference between chaos in an image and conflict.

In general, an image should be considered for its linguistic values, its meaning to an audience or spectator. But at the same time, the image should be motile in its content, enough to retain the interest and appeal of its audience or spectator. That motile composition has many facets that are, in the 2d picture frame, physiological and connected to human vision, the eye and its neurological connection to the human spirit. Overall, the image should have a fluid motile equilibrium and completeness. The elements of an image may be smoothly integrated or they may compete or conflict. The emotion generated by image elements does not matter so much, so long as the equilibrium of the elements is fostered toward the image's completeness and lack of chaos.

And then, there is the psychological aspect of an image, the message, the connection to real world experience and the statement conceived by the artist or photographer and how that statement may be interpreted by the audience or spectator. Here, conflict has a different meaning an impact, stimulating conscious and subconscious components of human cognition.

A mastery or at least a fluency in composition and a capacity to convey through the language of images, a message, harmonious or conflicting, is the skill of the artist or photographer that makes any technique applicable. Here we are discussing composite lighting.

Intentional conflict in an image is often helpful to peak interest, but chaos and lack of equilibrium, a lack of completeness will make an image next to useless.

To wit then, a client who is on the receiving end of an image or series of images using composite lighting would have no objections, if the technique achieved good equilibrium and completeness, serving the purpose the photographs were sought for.

Yeah? Why?

 

[Landscrape]

...intentionally sought conflict...

What do you mean with that?

There is a difference between chaos in an image and conflict.

In general, an image should be considered for its linguistic values, its meaning to an audience or spectator. But at the same time, the image should be motile in its content, enough to retain the interest and appeal of its audience or spectator. That motile composition has many facets that are, in the 2d picture frame, physiological and connected to human vision, the eye and its neurological connection to the human spirit. Overall, the image should have a fluid motile equilibrium and completeness. The elements of an image may be smoothly integrated or they may compete or conflict. The emotion generated by image elements does not matter so much, so long as the equilibrium of the elements is fostered toward the image's completeness and lack of chaos.

And then, there is the psychological aspect of an image, the message, the connection to real world experience and the statement conceived by the artist or photographer and how that statement may be interpreted by the audience or spectator. Here, conflict has a different meaning an impact, stimulating conscious and subconscious components of human cognition.

A mastery or at least a fluency in composition and a capacity to convey through the language of images, a message, harmonious or conflicting, is the skill of the artist or photographer that makes any technique applicable. Here we are discussing composite lighting.

Intentional conflict in an image is often helpful to peak interest, but chaos and lack of equilibrium, a lack of completeness will make an image next to useless.

To wit then, a client who is on the receiving end of an image or series of images using composite lighting would have no objections, if the technique achieved good equilibrium and completeness, serving the purpose the photographs were sought for.

Hahaha, no, just kidding. Well formulated. And I agree! Inspiring how you have put it!

 

[flyinglentris]

Yeah? Why?

The question has implications regarding an understanding of composition as I know it.

The best I can do, is offer some source material that I find best for the subject...

Arnheim, Rudolf. "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of The Creative Eye (Revised Edition)." Berkeley, 1974.

Kepes, Gyorgy. "Language of Vision: Painting, Photography, Advertising - Design." Chicago: Paul Theobold Company, 1969.

Note that these authors often foster a belief that Imagery should be used to promote social change and to that I am decidedly antithetical. I would rather imagery and language not be used for manipulation, but at best, influence. For advertising, this can be difficult to differentiate. If you read the above materials, brush off the social manipulation discussions and concentrate on the composition discussions. Those are very valid. The Books have lots of illustrations and photography and cinematography are included in the subject material, especially for Kepes' book.

The material can be dated, going back to the 1920s and earlier, but its all valid.

These two authors have had a strong influence on image composition and you'll find their tenets followed by many others, including Rockefeller and others in their "Famous Artists" course ...

Dorne, Albert, Fred Ludekens, Norman Rockwell, Al Parker, Ben Stahl, Stevan Dohanos, Jon Whitcomb, Robert Fawcett, Peter Helck, George Giusti, et al. "Famous Artists Course (Lesson 3: Composition: How to Make Pictures." Westport, CT: Famous Artists Schools, Inc, 1960.

It is not often that photographers, in particular, hold a belief that they can compose images as well as suggested, because they fall victim to perceptions that a camera's fixed image characteristics prevent it. However, that is a misconception. Good composition starts in visual recognition regarding subject matter, setting, lighting, etc. and is planned for and in part, a photographer must train to visualize.