f/2.0
The second issue of The FStop (an online photo magazine) has been posted. It features four more images, with the same how-to's, diagrams and photographer interviews as the first issue.I liked the lighting setup in the Levi's ad, which was done in camera. The fisherman shot, at left, was decidedly not done in camera.
I love this publication already. I think he should publish an issue every day.
What do you guys think of this stuff? I know it is a little outside of the economic box for many of us, but I really like reading about what creative people outside of my sphere are doing.
(Nice work, Zack.)
__________
New to Strobist, or lighting? Start here.
Now shipping, in DVD box set or download: Lighting in Layers
Connect: Discussion Threads | Reader Photos | Twitter
Posted at 1:25 PM.
17 Comments:
The only thing i dont like about this site, is that they do so much post processing stuff... Shoot it in the camera and move on. Too much photoshop for me.
Tom-
This is the Big Leagues - advertising stuff. Lotta money at stake. That's how it is done.
The main reason I like reading about this knd of thing is that it expands my boundaries as to what is possible with still photos.
Not that I have the finances to incorporate this stuff, or even the ethical leeway to do it for PJ stuff, but I want to know about it.
Rather like an ethical acid trip for a PJ.
But hey, I am shooting or the web now, for demonstration purposes. So I have to re-examine every self-imposed limitation tat I am working under.
-D
Hey man!
Here is a ghetto no cost rig to get a softbox to attach to a flash and a light stand with nothing but a few hair elastics and some carefull planning.
cheers
Josh
http://flickr.com/photos/7739352@N07/976312455/
I personally love the site. If nothing else, it gives a lot of inspiration. It really is a testament though to the changing face of art and photography. Photoshop has really changed how we approach a photo and what we view as reality. Images are created all of the time with impossible lighting, DOF, etc. and we largely view them as "real" photos. It's forcing us to push the boundries ever further. 15 years ago an image featuring a floating cell phone was impressive because of the amount of physical work involved in and out of the camera. Now, images like that are commonplace.
I would like to explore that site more...but I can't get past the gray on white look to the website. I find it tiring to read...and I just had my eyes checked yesterday.... 20/15 in both eyes.
Not the feedback you wanted, I know, but there ya go!
Eric
Anything these guys are doing in Fstop can be done here in the real world... just have to find or jimmy the right rig.
Ha!! I've just discovered that when I subscribe to Fstop in my Google Reader, it changes the look to black text on white.
I'm happy now. Carry on.
Eric
david, you're the man! i love how you post often several times a day, not just the great long articles like the lighting 102 series, but also this kind of stuff, short comments about things you pick up on the web or neat tricks like how to detach a lens.
thanks!!!!!
Not to be too much the math geek, but shouldn't this blog entry be titled "f/1.4" :)
I don't know how someone can have a negative reaction to amazing pieces of artwork like that fisherman image. I see that image and I immediately want to try something like it myself.
So what if there's a lot of Photoshop? Some images that come out of a camera are great art. Some great art is made from images that came out of a camera. It's all good.
I wonder if any of the Photoshop nay-sayers are at all competent with Photoshop, or do they just resent something that they can't do themselves?
David- I'm with you, but coming from the opposite perspective: I'm an advertising photographer who uses exactly the same process to create my own images. But I love reading Strobist for the same reason you love reading things like the f/stop articles: it expands my horizons and sense of what's possible. I'm currently working on a series of portraits using the very techniques you advocate-- off-camera, small strobes with DIY modifiers and techniques. It all works together in the end and can be very complimentary.
-Tim
http://gasperak.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/bigempty/
Wow! That is some really amazing stuff!! I do not have any problem with all the post-processing -- I think a camera is just one tool for creating art, and photoshop is another. Just my opinion! :-)
David et al
I find it interesting that this article brings up the whole question of image manipulation (particularly via photoshop or other digital means) again. I have a somewhat bipolar view of all this, but here are a few thoughts and a story:)
- I have a strong view that my photographs should have some sense of veracity
- I don't clone litter or power lines from landscapes, or add different skys etc
- I do clone sensor dust
- I do use photoshop to achieve the print I want, and it is not a literal interpretation of the scene in front of the lens
- I haven't had need to make a composite image, but I don't view advertising a having any veracity or truth in it - it is simply a means of getting a message over in the most striking and effective manner. So I don't mind and it is really clever.
- journalism needs a much higher ethical standard (allowing for some bias), otherwise it's just propaganda. Propoganda has no sense of veracity.
- I am of the view that the extensive use of image manipulation to make people (or even tings) appear 'more attractive', usually to sell tings, has very real and significant negative impacts on most of us and probably generates or contributes to a lot of unhappiness and disatisfaction.
A story - last night i was asked if I manipulate my pictures. The case in point was a night shot of a beach with an intensely dark blue sky. Of course, but the blue was already there, you just can't see it when the light levels are low. I increased saturation (a bit) and the photographic approach made it visible. Is that acceptable...
A friend once suggested that such exageration is a part of the artistic process used to make known/obvious some truth about the underlying subject that is often missed.
Sorry it's a long post.
Cheers
Mike.
I like the in camera work myself. But what this site captures really well is the working of a real commercial photographers. The way they plan their shots, from the idea to how they achieve it, whether its in camera or through post processing. Big clients need the big wow factor for their campaigns to be success. This site shows a complete behind the scenes view of how photographers give this which should be aspiring to anyone creative.
This stuff is GREAT!
I "walk the line" between studio stobes had portable systems, and having such diverse inspiration accessable "all in one place" is fantastic.
Thank you, David!
I don't have a problem with pictures that are heavily processed, as long as they are labeled as such.
What bothers me are pictures on Strobist that purport to be out of the camera, look at what I did, and upon closer inspection are found to have all kinds of compositing and such things.
This site is about how to light, not how to photoshop.
Again, it comes down to the label. If it's labeled as heavily manipulated then you can study it as such.
If you are trying to figure out how it was lit, and you find out it was lit in 11 different images, it's a whole different thing.
IMHO, of course.
I agree, too much post processing for me but a good read and very educational.
Post a Comment
<< Home