Lighting Bootcamp - harsh light C&C welcome

[Manfred M]

Used matrix metering and I shot in manual (which he wanted us to do for a good portion of the session).

I guess that is something I don't quite understand. I fully support knowing how to shoot on manual as there are certain shooting conditions where there are no alternatives, but I'm not sure as to why he would push for this, other than that this is what works for him. I know a number of old film shooters that still prefer to shoot this way, but don't count myself as one of them.

I took a photographic lighting course a few years back and the instructor insisted that we shoot jpeg only and could never quite figure out why. I got to know him better in the mean time, and finally figured out why. He is a commercial product and event photographer and that is the way he works. He does little to no PP work on any of his completed images, so he produces good, usable SOOC images all the time. In a business where time is money, that does make sense.

I'm not in the business, so I don't see things the same way as he does.

[KimC]

Thank you Dan!

Nos 2 and 3 are awesome, Kim. Nice job.

[KimC]

I did :-) Thank you Binnur.

You seem to learn a lot from him Kim, very nice shots

[KimC]

It was such a freeing experience Bill!

You did.

WW

[KimC]

Manfred, I miswrote something in that quote. What I should have said was he "suggested that we shoot manual for certain portions". He repeatedly stated that what he was teaching us was "his way" and he wasn't saying it was the "only way or best way". He was very flexible, and bottom line was, if we produced an image we liked, it didn't really matter how we got it. He was a very humble man, and my admiration for him is greater even after boot camp.

I guess that is something I don't quite understand. I fully support knowing how to shoot on manual as there are certain shooting conditions where there are no alternatives, but I'm not sure as to why he would push for this, other than that this is what works for him. I know a number of old film shooters that still prefer to shoot this way, but don't count myself as one of them.

I took a photographic lighting course a few years back and the instructor insisted that we shoot jpeg only and could never quite figure out why. I got to know him better in the mean time, and finally figured out why. He is a commercial product and event photographer and that is the way he works. He does little to no PP work on any of his completed images, so he produces good, usable SOOC images all the time. In a business where time is money, that does make sense.

I'm not in the business, so I don't see things the same way as he does.

[Mike Buckley]

looking at what you have just as your camera would, in a 3D way.

Considering that Bill highlighted that, I'll pile on by doing the same.

Most of the subjects I photograph in my makeshift are made of materials that produce mostly direct reflections (mirror-like reflections of the light source). When photographing subjects that have that characteristic, changing the relationship between the physical position of the light source, the subject or the camera ever so slightly can result in profound, dramatic changes in what the camera sees. Those changes can be so dramatic that there are only two ways to have a remotely accurate understanding of what the camera is seeing: I must either remove the camera from the tripod and place my face where the camera was or I must view the image of the scene being displayed by the camera itself (using its viewfinder, its LCD or another digital device that is displaying the image). Clearly, the latter method is preferable for obvious reasons.

When I'm in my makeshift studio, I'm so envious of handheld shooting of subjects that don't produce such a large amount of direct reflections, such as Kim's images in this thread for two reasons. The first reason is that a such a slight change in the relationship between the physical position of the light source, subject or camera doesn't result in such profound changes in the overall appearance of the subject. The other reason is that handheld shooting makes it so easy to temporarily remove the camera from in front of one's face to assess in a bit more of a relaxed, natural manner what the camera is really seeing.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I miswrote something in that quote. What I should have said was he "suggested that we shoot manual for certain portions". He repeatedly stated that what he was teaching us was "his way" and he wasn't saying it was the "only way or best way". He was very flexible, and bottom line was, if we produced an image we liked, it didn't really matter how we got it. He was a very humble man, and my admiration for him is greater even after boot camp.

Now that makes much more sense to me.

Checking out different workflows / shooting methods under expert guidance is a great way of learning, and you can get any questions or issues resolved quite quickly. I find understanding why someone would use a particular method or approach is really useful. I suspect that this is why he won't give you his settings; copying what he is doing is not nearly as effective as you figuring this out on your own. After all, he has his "style" and that won't necessarily be your style.

[ionian]

...He was more about us using our eyes and back of the camera display... then asking do you like it? What do you think needs adjusting? It was a very supportive environment.

An excellent approach and a key mantra for any photography. I find in unhurried situations that this is exactly what I do, but I struggle with it in more pressured situations and that is definitely something for me to work on.

No.3 is also excellent, you've done a great job with these. If I was nitpicking I'd be tempted to have a quick look at the bridge of no.3s nose, as I feel it it is too light (slight specular highlight maybe) that I personally would try to minimise.

I wonder if he wants to come to my club in the uk!

[William W]

...He was more about us using our eyes and back of the camera display... then asking do you like it? What do you think needs adjusting?

. . I find in unhurried situations that this is exactly what I do, but I struggle with it in more pressured situations and that is definitely something for me to work on.

The more you review the image in unhurried situations with the purpose of analysis and fine tuning and with a view to hitting the note correctly the next time, the more often you will hit the note correctly the first time.

It is then a matter of breaking a routine of habitual reviewing by knowing when you have hit the note correctly, or not, in situations when there is no time to review but only time to correct and make the next shot better.

WW

[KimC]

Oh but it does Mike when you are in the harsh light... that's what I learned over the 2.5 days.

Considering that Bill highlighted that, I'll pile on by doing the same.

I'm so envious of handheld shooting of subjects that don't produce such a large amount of direct reflections, such as Kim's images in this thread for two reasons. The first reason is that a such a slight change in the relationship between the physical position of the light source, subject or camera doesn't result in such profound changes in the overall appearance of the subject.

[Mike Buckley]

Kim,

If your model turns 1/16th of an inch, the appearance doesn't change nearly so much as when you turn a shiny, metallic object the same amount. That's because the model produces so much less direct reflection than the metallic object. As an example, such a slight adjustment can cause the appearance of the metal to change from essentially black to white or vice versa.

[Manfred M]

The more you review the image in unhurried situations with the purpose of analysis and fine tuning and with a view to hitting the note correctly the next time, the more often you will hit the note correctly the first time.

Excellent analysis, Bill. I personally find that the slowing down and thinking about things is where I make the noticeable improvements in my work, especially when I am exploring new ground. I also wondered if one reason that Mautner asked the workshop participants to switch over to shooting in manual mode might have been to get them to slow down.

[KimC]

Thank you Simon. I did see that highlight in the 3rd and decided that I liked it.

Many of the photographers mentioned their challenges when shooting under pressure. His response to them was similar to Bill stated below.

He really stressed being one with your camera. Which to me meant, thinking like your camera at all times, then when you put it up to your face, it's just an extension of you. The flow for the EXERCISE during the class was - look at subject, see how the light is hitting them, experiment ... move them around so you can see how either moving them OR moving yourself changes the lighting. Think about how the camera will see what you are seeing... think about the "whole picture" in a 3D manner (what's behind them, how will your F stop impact that, what lens are you using - would compression help, etc)... with practice this whole flow would occur as you are looking thru the viewfinder. Take the picture, check your display -- do you like it or not? It's funny, last night i was looking in the bathroom mirror and I noticed hot spots on my face... I started to move around to see how I could affect them... I was working on seeing as my camera

An excellent approach and a key mantra for any photography. I find in unhurried situations that this is exactly what I do, but I struggle with it in more pressured situations and that is definitely something for me to work on.

No.3 is also excellent, you've done a great job with these. If I was nitpicking I'd be tempted to have a quick look at the bridge of no.3s nose, as I feel it it is too light (slight specular highlight maybe) that I personally would try to minimise.

I wonder if he wants to come to my club in the uk!

[Mike Buckley]

Think about how the camera will see what you are seeing...i was looking in the bathroom mirror and I noticed hot spots on my face

You've probably seen the same hot spots a million times. The difference now is that when you see them, you also think about them.

When I first began outdoor photography in the early 1980s, I noticed one clear evening at dusk that the sky became dark blue before changing to black. I asked a friend if that happens every clear evening because I truly didn'tknow. I'm sure I had seen that characteristic countless times but had never thought about it enough for it to register in my mind.

[William W]

Totally off-topic question

Many of the photographers mentioned their challenges when shooting under pressure. His response to them was similar to Bill stated below.

Hi Kim,

Is your view of CiC Forum pages arranged such that the latest entry appears at the top of your screen?

Thanks, Bill

[IzzieK]

Unfortunately, I am far too late to comment on this post so I have not read any comments, especially the long ones, but I did read some quick response and I noticed you said something about not liking the second image. I love that one best. The other two are good ones too, but I gear towards the black and white version more...

[William W]

The more you review the image in unhurried situations with the purpose of analysis and fine tuning and with a view to hitting the note correctly the next time, the more often you will hit the note correctly the first time.

Excellent analysis . . . I personally find that the slowing down and thinking about things is where I make the noticeable improvements in my work, especially when I am exploring new ground. I also wondered if one reason that Mautner asked the workshop participants to switch over to shooting in manual mode might have been to get them to slow down.

Hi Manfred,

After a careful reading of Kim's commentaries on this thread, I think that term "Boot Camp" is a slight misnomer, well at least misnomer on one level of its meaning and the purpose of the Workshop.

I think that the experience predicated by the work performed and the level expected of the Students was more akin to (what I would term) a "Master Class".

But the phrase "Boot Camp" does convey a certain momentum and the phrase has impact - whereas on the other hand "Master Class" could be interpreted by potential participants as having connotation of "Old Fashioned" and thereby not of value to them.

Having stated that above as a preamble and to now answer your question: I think that all the METHODS and PROCEDURES and EXERCISES which were employed by Chris during the workshop, would have been varied and changed and none would have been rigorously enforced and each would have had many purposes.

Reading Kim’s commentary here very carefully, my opinion is the main purpose of asking the Students to use Manual Mode for a while (noted Kim mentioned not M Mode all the time), would be the same purpose of all the procedures and exercises and that would be to bring each Student to their “Light Bulb Moment”.

And clearly Kim attained that.

Because once the Light Bulb goes on for any particular CONCEPT, the CONCEPT is never forgotten and that CONCEPT can then be attained by any number of different methods and procedures.

The key phrases taken from Kim’s commentaries on this thread which lead me to these opinions, are:

> looking at what you have just as your camera would, in a 3D way.
> what he was teaching us was "his way" and he wasn't saying it was the "only way or best way".
> being one with your camera
> a very humble man
> I learned over the 2.5 days

Crikey, I wouldn't be surprised if Chris asked/instructed the Students to NOT to use the Cameras TTL Meter at all, for a period of time during the "harsh light outdoor shots” sessions. I certainly think Kim should be up for that exercise. If my analysis of the main purpose of the 2.5 days training is close to accurate, then the use of a TTL meter for those "Harsh Light outdoor shots”, would be both superfluous and simply wasting time.

But the finer details of what was offered and accepted in that workshop are between Teacher and Student, however we others might like to guess and discuss those matters.

*

Thank you for the kind comment, Manfred, regards,

Bill

[KimC]

Yes, I was backwards - didn't know that was an option - just fixed it - thank you.

Totally off-topic question



Hi Kim,

Is your view of CiC Forum pages arranged such that the latest entry appears at the top of your screen?

Thanks, Bill

[KimC]

Thanks for your comment whether "late"' or "early". You were correct B&W was not one of my favs.

Unfortunately, I am far too late to comment on this post so I have not read any comments, especially the long ones, but I did read some quick response and I noticed you said something about not liking the second image. I love that one best. The other two are good ones too, but I gear towards the black and white version more...

[KimC]

Hi Bill. No flash or reflectors were used for our outside session (only natural light). We didn't use flash/reflectors in the hotel room with a window either. Flash was only used in a very dark ballroom and, you are correct, for on camera flash, he suggested we not use TTL and then he asked us to perform an exercise which showed us why his suggestion worked better. Off camera was another training session and TTL was used for aspects.

Hi Manfred,

Crikey, I wouldn't be surprised if Chris asked/instructed the Students to NOT to use the Cameras TTL Meter at all, for a period of time during the "harsh light outdoor shots” sessions. I certainly think Kim should be up for that exercise. If my analysis of the main purpose of the 2.5 days training is close to accurate, then the use of a TTL meter for those "Harsh Light outdoor shots”, would be both superfluous and simply wasting time.

But the finer details of what was offered and accepted in that workshop are between Teacher and Student, however we others might like to guess and discuss those matters. Bill