Compositing for Lighting

[phedge]

It's a useful tool that becomes heavy handed and obvious when used as a crutch.

I've worked with several young art directors that expect the photographer to work this way. Lighting one plane of the subject at a time, often with multiple lightings applied per plane, then the final look was arrived at in Photoshop. To me the final looks inorganic, sort of a super hero version of reality. I personally dislike this approach but I suspect we'll see more of it as time goes on.

The other end of the curve is problem solving. Where we used to use a liberal application of dulling spray to a particular surface to allow it to catch light now we hold a dull silver card close to the surface and composite that piece in post.

In between these two is the approach shown here . Tool or crutch? A bit of both I suppose but I certainly get better results this way then the single shot approach.

 

[Landscrape]

Very interesting, I might just read "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of The Creative Eye" . Thanks for mentioning it flyinglentris

 

[flyinglentris]

Very interesting, I might just read "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of The Creative Eye" . Thanks for mentioning it flyinglentris

I found the Kepes Book to touch more frequently on photography and applies concepts at a more integral level. The other book which you have chosen deals with very fundamental concepts and if I remember, analyzes those fundamentals from the primal perspective of the art and drawings of children and grows from there to embrace the adult and trained perceptions of art ... all very interesting. Both books address active visual forces which form a gestalt integration of image elements into a balanced and moving whole.

https://monoskop.org/images/e/e7/Arnheim_Rudolf_Art_and_Visual_Perception_1974.pdf

https://monoskop.org/images/a/af/Kepes_Gyorgy_Language_of_Vision.pdf

--
"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

 

[Currantos]

Agree, what's boring old hat to someone who uses it everyday it totally new and full of discovery for others and it is great that it is brought up and refreshed from time to time.

I was only pointing out that it is not a new branch or style or type of photography, not saying it's boring or need not be discussed. Just stating that it has been around for a while and some have practiced it for many many years. Obviously it is niche type photography because it is complex and involved and most amateurs and semi pros would not undertake it due to time and equipment and team/labor commitment needed.

It's like Fresnels. I just discovered them recently and they are super "hot and new" in my book but have actually been around probably for over 100 years and super extensively used in the 20's and 30's. They fell out, now they are back and are all the rage. Someone pointed me to how they have been used in the past, all that good info.

Everything old becomes new again. Compositing lighting might catch on as a rage too soon, never know.

Glad you brought it out, it's a fun area.

 

[Ed Shapiro]

Many years ago I had a client that manufactured audio turntables and big vertical tape decks used in early Univac computers. All of this equipment was covered in glass and plexiglass to keep the dust out. I would make an exposure with a cover on and a second exposure with the cover off on the same negative or transparency. I use the same method for foodstuffs and other products that are packaged in various transparent containers and special sealed packaging. I don't vary the lighting direction but adjust the exposures. I do the same thing in digital work with very little post-processing manipulation,

This results in a very natural rendition of the product- the detail of the product is not distorted or interfered with because of the coverings. I do not apply this to other kinds of work at the present time.

 

[flyinglentris]

Many years ago I had a client that manufactured audio turntables and big vertical tape decks used in early Univac computers. All of this equipment was covered in glass and plexiglass to keep the dust out. I would make an exposure with a cover on and a second exposure with the cover off on the same negative or transparency. I use the same method for foodstuffs and other products that are packaged in various transparent containers and special sealed packaging. I don't vary the lighting direction but adjust the exposures. I do the same thing in digital work with very little post-processing manipulation,

This results in a very natural rendition of the product- the detail of the product is not distorted or interfered with because of the coverings. I do not apply this to other kinds of work at the present time.

I have already been wondering how many different ways composite lighting may be applied, not just by mask layering, but perhaps by stacked merges, blends and opacity, etc.

I suppose being new to composite lighting, I will have to experiment and try different methods and perhaps, discard some of them as not feasible.

--
"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

 

[Ed Shapiro]

Problem is, too many photographers opine in the extreme as to various techniques, polarize the conversation, and "punch" at each other, go back to their corners, and nothing is learned or accomplished. There are may lighting techniques that bring about the disunity of lighting that would be perfectly OK if there were two or more suns in the sky! Many of these methods are nonetheless useful for certain effects and challenges in applied photography. Things lie multiple exposures, painting with light, various forms of "stacking" and multi-layered post-processing applications. If over-used or poorly crafted they can call attention to themselves and distract for the effectiveness or motif of an image,

Personally, I like to try new things out and see if they jibe with my routine methods and if the extend or enhance my capabilities. Sometimes I find it confusing that new terminology or buzzwords are replacements for older or time-honored methodologies- but that's OK- lingo, photo-slang, and new words are ever-changing.

I am a commercial photographer and my theory that commercial photography is at least 50% problem solving so anything I can add to my toolbox or arsenal of problem-solving weapons is a plus.

If I reject or decide not to employ any method, that's not to stunt my creativity or artistic approach to my work- it's just that it may be impracticable or as the say- too far above my paygrade. In the BUSINESS of photography, things that are too time-consuming, may delay meeting a deadline, or is not cost-effective is a no-no! I will usually try this at least once before I adopt it or pack it in- or reserve it for a better time.

Learning new stuff or new/old stuff keeps the mind working. Take it from this old man with a gray beard with 58 years in the biz. Stop fighting- use the energy to take pictures and try new stuff! When I see an image that I like or dislike, my favorite question is"how did you do dat"? It's surprising what you can learn- both what to do and what NOT to do.

 

[flyinglentris]

Good aptitude.

Problem is, too many photographers opine in the extreme as to various techniques, polarize the conversation, and "punch" at each other, go back to their corners, and nothing is learned or accomplished. There are may lighting techniques that bring about the disunity of lighting that would be perfectly OK if there were two or more suns in the sky! Many of these methods are nonetheless useful for certain effects and challenges in applied photography. Things lie multiple exposures, painting with light, various forms of "stacking" and multi-layered post-processing applications. If over-used or poorly crafted they can call attention to themselves and distract for the effectiveness or motif of an image,

It only requires one photographer to make a decision when only one photographer is the crux of the shots being captured, with no supporting team. Critics can be ignored and certainly, they are often overly emotional and trying to promote some personal lust for recognition and not a sincere reproach or applause.

Personally, I like to try new things out and see if they jibe with my routine methods and if the extend or enhance my capabilities. Sometimes I find it confusing that new terminology or buzzwords are replacements for older or time-honored methodologies- but that's OK- lingo, photo-slang, and new words are ever-changing.

New things are a dynamic of creativity, especially, if you find them as a self discovery, whether they have been around for eons of history or not. Discovery is a fantastic dynamic and new things and their discovery are central to creative expression that is not coerced or gathered in as a duplication of previous efforts. It may wind up as a duplicated effort, but if you stumbled upon it without being told about it as a recipe, it's likely to be more genuine.

I am a commercial photographer and my theory that commercial photography is at least 50% problem solving so anything I can add to my toolbox or arsenal of problem-solving weapons is a plus.

I was never a pro photographer, always an amateur with an artist's vein. I am an analytic by nature and solving problems is a discipline and that means things are not done from recipes.

If I reject or decide not to employ any method, that's not to stunt my creativity or artistic approach to my work- it's just that it may be impracticable or as the say- too far above my paygrade. In the BUSINESS of photography, things that are too time-consuming, may delay meeting a deadline, or is not cost-effective is a no-no! I will usually try this at least once before I adopt it or pack it in- or reserve it for a better time.

Being an amateur photographic artist, is to be free of restraints, especially if one is financially solvent without getting paid for such output. Exploration and facilitation of any technique, including being novel and inventive is open ground. Finding something new in technique or technology stimulates a fundamental creative verve.

Learning new stuff or new/old stuff keeps the mind working. Take it from this old man with a gray beard with 58 years in the biz. Stop fighting- use the energy to take pictures and try new stuff! When I see an image that I like or dislike, my favorite question is"how did you do dat"? It's surprising what you can learn- both what to do and what NOT to do.

At 64 going 65 and already retired for some six years, keeping the mind and body busy is what its all about. No commitments, but to personal spirit, intellect and physical health.

Sharing ideas and concepts is another avenue of stimulus. So Composite Lighting is both something new and a sharable concept, as it has been around for a spin.

 

[Ellis Vener]

Ed,

As the kids say: “Right On!”

 

[phedge]

Well, that's the beauty of commercial photography isn't it? There is no opining or whining, no rejecting or fighting, that's strictly for forums. Since the early 90's it's been an absolute requirement of adapt and adopt or perish.

The trick was to be in front of the client while letting them lead.


1992

4 images shot on 8x10 transparency, scanned, composited (saves took around 5 minutes) and re-output to 8x10 transparency, which was then re-scanned and separated. We offered going straight to separations but that was a leap too far for the client at that time.


1993

Nuns shot with the Leaf DCBI (the brick) in studio. Church shot on 4x5 trans. Composited and output digitally. Almost completely digital but still no good location high rez back option.


2000

Bike shot in studio with Leaf Volare. 4 background images shot on 4x5 trans, merged and output digital.


2006

Shot on Leaf Aptus. Stunning files from this camera. Doable on location if you wanted to haul a large tower PC and monitor.


2008

Finally a portable system that could get commercial quality on location. Nikon D300, barely. Exposure had to be spot on and not much cropping available but it worked admirably.

You're right Ed, problem solving is at least 50% of commercial photography. Technology gave us more opportunity as well as more responsibility. How we balance those two, along with luck and hard work, decides success.