stanton
Senior Member
I can see how you might say that, but I see it in a different way. If you choose to refute something someone says, it is much more effective if you address the points of contention rather than addressing the poster himself.
I didn't read all the other stuff into Paul's post that you did. Here's what I read:
outdoors because you don't have as much control over the lighting. The main thing is to get your subjects under cover. You don't want natural light hitting them from the top. The ideal location would have light blocked from all sides but the front. You can use panels and reflectors to do this and it's referred to as subtractive lighting.> >
He states up front that he's not an expert in outdoor photography. Then he goes on to give a cursory introduction to his approach to subtractive lighting. I don't see anything technically wrong...What's wrong with what he said from a technical standpoint? I use that technique all the time.
I WOULD, however, disagree with Paul's statement about it being harder to get really good portraits outdoors. With a little training, that just isn't so. But I'm not going to beat him to a pulp for that. And he might have installed a disclaimer that his explanation is but one technique for some, but not all cirucumstances. But this is the internet and we all forget to dot our i's and cross our t's.
Yes, I know that almost all topics on all forums suffer from some topic drift. But inflamatory responses are largely unnecessary. Again, I think that the thread and the forum would be better served if we addressed the issues, even correcting a response that we think missed the mark. If Paul, or I say something that needs to be challenged, there is a way that we ALL can learn from a pleasant, well meaning response. No one is open to remarks when they're given with a frown and a finger.
Sincerely,
Stanton
