|
Anyways, not trying to turn this into Wiki Chat, just letting you guys know it's there if you want to look at it or add to it.
|
| # ? Jun 23, 2009 22:03 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:03 |
|
|
pwn posted:Wait, the "creatives" monikor is Goon-created? I always just assumed it was some existing thing CC latched onto. What an arrogant name to give yourself. I agree. The Something Awful Forums Creative Convention Photography Subcommunity Wiki would have been a much better choice. Santa is strapped posted:I'm kind of new to off camera lighting, just wanted to ask you what you guys think are the problems with the lighting. I have some issues with it (mostly that the umbrella apparently throws light in all directions Your light is too hot here. You've got really bright, large specular highlights on the faces and arms, etc. I suggest turning down the light and bringing it closer to your subject to soften it, then try exposing better to get more even light. dakana fucked around with this message at Jun 23, 2009 around 22:14 |
| # ? Jun 23, 2009 22:11 |
|
)
|
dakana posted:I agree. The Something Awful Forums Creative Convention Photography Subcommunity Wiki would have been a much better choice. I think I see what you mean, thanks
|
| # ? Jun 23, 2009 22:48 |
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I think I see what you mean, thanks Yeah keep in mind that specular is constant. Meaning no matter how close or far your light source is, the specular highlights (even on the oil on the skin) will stay the same exposure. It's the diffused highlights that change brightness. So if you bring the light closer, diffused highlights get brighter (inverse square) and you adjust your camera to compensate for the brighter light, and you underexpose those specular highlights. In short, if you get specular hotspots, bring your light closer.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 08:37 |
|
|
I actually quite like the look of that photo the way it is. Overexposing slightly helped give it punch.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 12:30 |
|
|
Has anyone here used one of these? http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,12311.html I am thinking about picking up one or two for evenly lighting my backdrop, though I would use them for other things as well. It's pretty hard to beat the price, that's for sure, and reviews seem mostly positive.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 14:22 |
|
|
Some of you have no idea what a specular highlight is.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 18:03 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Some of you have no idea what a specular highlight is. Yes, those are just blown out spots, not specular highlights. Your suggestions to fix it would work, but you're defining specular highlights completely wrong. Specular highlights are where the reflections from the light are bouncing off the subject at an angle that goes right at the camera. So if they were specular highlights, you'd either turn the subject a bit, or move the angle of the light. Those spots are just over exposed.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 18:44 |
|
|
Looking back, I didn't examine the photo well enough, and took the poster's comment about specular hot spots to be what the photo was suffering from. It does have specular highlights on the skin, but they're not too bright on my monitor, it's just the whole photo looks a bit overexposed. Not blown, just a bit too bright.rockcity posted:Yes, those are just blown out spots, not specular highlights. Your suggestions to fix it would work, but you're defining specular highlights completely wrong. Specular highlights are where the reflections from the light are bouncing off the subject at an angle that goes right at the camera. So if they were specular highlights, you'd either turn the subject a bit, or move the angle of the light. Those spots are just over exposed. This isn't quite right. a face is 3 dimensional enough, that no matter how you rotate the face, if your lights and camera angle stay the same, you're going to get specular reflections just in a new spot. To lessen them, you need brighter diffused lighting, which you can get by either increasing the size of your light at the distance it already is (think bigger softbox/umbrella) or you can take the one you're currently using and just move it closer. This causes the diffuse lighting to get brighter, you adjust camera settings to account for it, and by doing that you take the specular highlight and lesson it's brightness. The short explanations that most photographers parrot is to just make your light size larger, but it's not really the entire story. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 18:56 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 18:49 |
|
|
A specular highlight is a reflection of a light source. You can't have a specular highlight on someone's skin unless they are oiled up like a porn star. The only specular highlights in that image are the catchlights in their eyes. quote:Since this is a knowledge sharing thread, why don't you enlighten us, oh wise one. I was trying to find an example image to make notes on, but since we're all grumpy today just look at this article about controlling them because the example images are pretty good: http://photo.net/photography-lighti...es-forum/007tNJ edit: Increasing the size of your light source will diffuse specular highlights some but you will still have them (they will just be larger). You can't eliminate them without changing the surface of whatever you're shooting. They're also not necessarily a "bad" thing since they define shape on shiny/slick objects. Regardless this doesn't really have anything to do with that image because it's just overexposed. brad industry fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 19:07 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 18:58 |
|
|
RangerScum posted:Has anyone here used one of these? http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,12311.html I have one. Its the only flash I've ever owned (well, besides an SB400 that has never seen the outside of a drawer.) I like it, though.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:13 |
|
|
brad industry posted:A specular highlight is a reflection of a light source. You can't have a specular highlight on someone's skin unless they are oiled up like a porn star. Turns out you're the one that doesn't know what a specular highlight is. Everyone's skin has oil on it, they don't need to be sweaty or greasy. Just blast them with a hard light source from far away, and even the driest skin will show specular hotspots. The skin on everyone has oil, and micro facets. Only a mummy won't exhibit hot spots if your lighting is wrong. And all those facets, pores, and tiny drops of oil reflect the light source. The brightest points on their nose, and cheek bone facing the light source, are definitely specular hotspots. Those examples are of shiny surfaces, the facets on a tomato's skin are nowhere near the size of the facets on a person's skin. They might represent how to treat human eyes, but they have almost no relevance to human skin. Increasing the size of the light source doesn't diffuse the specular highlights at all, it increases the NON specular light reaching the skin, which lets you close down aperture or ISO, which underexposes the specular highlights. Specular highlights are the same brightness no matter the distance the light source, they just change in size. I will agree with you that this debate doesn't apply to the image, it's just overexposed. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 19:17 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:14 |
|
|
brad industry posted:A specular highlight is a reflection of a light source. You can't have a specular highlight on someone's skin unless they are oiled up like a porn star. If there's one thing Strobist taught me, it's that if you can see something, it can reflect light. So by your definition of specular highlight, of course skin can have them.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:26 |
|
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specularquote:spec⋅u⋅lar The photos discussed have them only on the sole perfectly reflective surface: the eyes. The subjects have highlights of the vanilla variety on their skin. Those highlights are blown out ever so slightly. Sometimes the look is desired.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:40 |
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Skin doesn't have specular highlights unless, as brad industry mentions, it is made to be perfectly reflective. I guess Scott Kelby doesn't know what a specular highlight is either, then. http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/4814 Scroll down until you see "specular highlight on skin".
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:46 |
|
|
well i'm loving confused this is why I don't use a flash
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:48 |
|
|
quote:Turns out you're the one that doesn't know what a specular highlight is. Nah dude I really do, you are making this way more complicated than it is. specular highlight != hot spot specular highlight != reflected light specular highlight != hard light specular highlight != brighter points facing a light source Unless you can pick out someone's lighting setup from the reflections on their skin like you would on something glass or metal or wet we're not talking about the same thing. I know what you are saying, but saying every bright area of reflected light is a specular highlight kind of makes the term meaningless. I don't really care what you want to call a specular highlight, it just seems any time anyone posts anything bright/overexposed people go "SPECULARSSS". There isn't anything close to a specular anywhere in that image. quote:If there's one thing Strobist taught me, it's that if you can see something, it can reflect light. Reflection of a light source, not reflected light in general. brad industry fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 19:54 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:51 |
|
|
Alctel posted:well i'm loving confused If I could somehow bend existing light with my mind, I wouldn't use one either. But since I can't, and because the existing light rarely conforms to my vision, I use artificial lights instead.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:51 |
|
|
That's the first time I've seen another photographer refer to what I've normally referred to and seen other refer to as simply "highlights." I was taught that specular highlights were perfectly reflected, not just blown out highlights. Fair enough. Like a lot of other things in photography, there's not total agreement here. At least no one's calling it a midtone
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:53 |
|
|
You're arguing with a guy trained in 3d, who specializes in creating faces and skin for characters in 3d. I have to create specular maps to properly emulate skin. Skin has specular, unless you cover it in powder makeup, or the person is dead. Period. If you call it something else, that's ok, but don't pretend it's correct. Do you think that materials have both reflectiveness AND shinyness? All specularity is reflection, it's just that rough surfaces break up the reflections, and it looks more like a white sheen, than a perfect mirror image of the light source, but it's exactly the same thing. Everything that's even the tinyest bit shiny shows reflections. It has to be glass smooth for you to make out the exact shape of the object, because when you have a rough surface, it breaks up the reflections. Think about it like this. One bowling ball shows one reflection. A bowling ball with glass marbles glued to it, shows one reflection per glass marble. Any rough surface that has even the slightest reflectance (skin, leather, plastic, glass, metal, etc) will have tons of those tiny reflections. The one's disagreeing are confused because you can't see the exact shape of the object on the skin, but if you had a 5,000 megapixel sensor, you'd be able to zoom in on every drop of oil, and you'd see a reflection of the scene. It's just the light sources that make a bright enough reflection to be seen by the human eye and camera sensors. I typed this out for the Creatives Wiki, and it goes well here: Specular highlights are also controlled by distance. The specular will stay consistent regardless of distance, so you have to underexpose them, by getting more diffuse lighting on the subject. You do this by getting the soft light source closer, increasing it's brightness. As an example, take a photo of a billiard ball, where a candle flame is visible in the reflection on the ball. Move the candle as close as possible to the ball, take a photo. Now move it as far away as you can, while keeping the candle flame reflection visible, take a photo, keeping all settings on the camera the same. Measure in photoshop. The brightness of the center of the reflection of the flame, it will be the same in both. However the rest of the lighting on the ball, will be much dimmer in the image where the candle is far away. If you changed the camera settings to allow the ball to be properly exposed, now the candle reflection will be a glaringly white, ultra bright highlight. What this means, is if you take a photo of a person, with your light source 2 meters away, and you get specular hotspots, move the light source to just 1 meter away. Now the light is 4x brighter, because you halved the distance. So adjust your camera settings 1 stop lower, and you will have underexposed the specular hotspots by 1 stop. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 20:06 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 19:54 |
|
|
I understand the physics of it and what you're saying, but we're not rendering poo poo here we're lighting photographs. Yes, if we could zoom in to every microscopic pore or tiny droplet of oil on someone's skin you could at some point see the specular highlight on it. Definitely. For the purposes of an image that is a really dumb and obtuse way of defining it though and defeats the whole point of making a distinction between a normal highlight and a specular one. I'm not talking about hypothetical specular highlights we could see with a magic camera, I'm talking about the ones you can actually see in an image from polished surfaces.
brad industry fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 20:08 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:01 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I understand the physics of it and what you're saying, but we're not rendering poo poo here we're lighting photographs. Yes, if we could zoom in to every microscopic pore or tiny droplet of oil on someone's skin you could at some point see the specular highlight on it. Definitely. For the purposes of an image that is a really dumb and obtuse way of defining it though. I'm not talking about hypothetical specular highlights we could see with a magic camera, I'm talking about the ones you can actually see in an image from polished surfaces. It's absolutely specular, and it's the hotspot, because that's what photographers refer to the specularity as. The brightest parts of the image are the SPECULAR HOTSPOTS on their skin. You can see it plain as day with your bare eyes in these images. They're not blown out, but they are clearly, and plainly visible. I said if you could zoom in you could see the *entirety* of the reflection, but it's only the reflection of the lightsource itself that we see on our current cameras, no magic camera required. You're the one confused, and your normal smarminess was not only unwarranted, but it made you look extra dumb now that I've proved you wrong and you have to backpeddle. We're all trying to get better at photography together here, so drop the attitude.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:09 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You're arguing with a guy trained in 3d, who specializes in creating faces and skin for characters in 3d. I have to create specular maps to properly emulate skin. Skin has specular, unless you cover it in powder makeup, or the person is dead. Period. If you call it something else, that's ok, but don't pretend it's correct. Do you think that materials have both reflectiveness AND shinyness? All specularity is reflection, it's just that rough surfaces break up the reflections, and it looks more like a white sheen, than a perfect mirror image of the light source, but it's exactly the same thing. What an odd and needlessly verbose thing to say.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:09 |
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:What an odd and needlessly verbose thing to say. And yet, it was an issue that even someone with a photography degree was confused on, so clearly it needed a more in depth explanation. Or should I have just spouted a phizzy one-liner and left everyone ignorant? I can even give examples. Same light source, same exposure, just a distance difference. 3 Meters away, notice the specular hotspot on the cheek (the white shinyness) directly below the eye?  1 meter away. Specular hotspot is still there, but it's much less bright, because the light source was brought closer, the diffuse highlight was way brighter, which turns down the exposure of the specular highlight when you adjust for the brighter diffused highlight.  This is the kind of stuff that I would have loved to have known a year ago when I first got into lighting. How to lessen specular hotspots, so I figured a good discussion on it isn't a waste in a photographic lighting thread. Bottom line, call it whatever you want, sheen, hotspots, specularity, magic white dots, but you can lesson its' brightness by bringing your light source closer, or making it larger. If you only want diffused highlight, and shadow, and no shine, or at least less shine than you're getting currently, use a large, close light source. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 20:20 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:11 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:It's absolutely specular, and it's the hotspot, because that's what photographers refer to the specularity as. The brightest parts of the image are the SPECULAR HOTSPOTS on their skin. You can see it plain as day with your bare eyes in these images. They're not blown out, but they are clearly, and plainly visible. Since I am quite satisfied that I am ignorant in this discussion, I'm a perfect subject to hear this. I had thought that a specular highlight differed from a highlight in that it reflected the shape of the lightsource...so to speak. The highlights we're discussing here just seem to be bright spots. As I'm reading your discussion above, it seems that all highlights are specular. Your technical explanation of how to diminish the impact of specular highlights makes perfect sense to me, but not this one.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:17 |
|
|
so those bright spots were just diffused highlights on an overexposed image? also, are we cool?
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:20 |
|
|
I'm not really going to argue this anymore, I'm not trying to "prove" you wrong because you're not, I'm not either. If your 3D training helps you to think of highlights in this way then awesome, but that has got to be the least helpful way of talking about specular highlights and how to control them I have ever heard. In the photo world a specular highlight = the visible reflection of a light source on something polished ie. metal, glass, water, mirrors, etc. quote:This is the kind of stuff that I would have loved to have known a year ago when I first got into lighting. How to lessen specular hotspots, so I figured a good discussion on it isn't a waste in a photographic lighting thread. Use powder, that is not what a "specular highlight" is when people talk about that term in photography. I understand what you are saying though but drat is that not helpful at all to anyone else but a 3-D person. brad industry fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 20:25 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:23 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:3 Meters away, notice the specular hotspot on the cheek (the white shinyness) directly below the eye? Can't you just accept that the term's de facto meaning is as brad industry described? Otherwise it's pretty much a pointless term. You're just arbitrarily drawing the line of where to differentiate between microscopic droplets of oil reflecting light ends and "the big picture" begins. You prefer to draw the line there, and the rest of the world draws it over there. Since (as you said yourself several times) any skin reflects light like this, what makes your definition any more valid, or brad industry's any less valid? Jesus christ this is such a lovely tear.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:24 |
|
|
dakana posted:so those bright spots were just diffused highlights on an overexposed image? No. (well we're cool, but your first statement is wrong). All objects have: Specular hightlight, diffused light, shadow penumbra, and shadow. Specular highlights are the bright spots. Diffused light is the light illuminating the object itself. Shadow penumbra is where the surface changes from lit to unlit. This can also be called the terminator area. Shadow is of course where the light is blocked. Most people don't want specular highlights, or at least not noticeable ones. They want diffused light, because it illuminates the object smoothly. You can't diffuse a highlight itself. You can make it larger or change it's shape, but to truly make it less noticeable, you have to bring up the exposure of the diffused light, so you can turn down the exposure of the specularity/highlight. Specularity brightness is not affected by distance, only the size of the specular (closer it gets larger, further it gets smaller). Diffused light is affected by distance (inverse square).
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:25 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I'm not really going to argue this anymore, I'm not trying to "prove" you wrong because you're not, I'm not either. If your 3D training helps you to think of highlights in this way then awesome, but that has got to be the least helpful way of talking about specular highlights and how to control them I have ever heard. Because the term is irrelevant. I'm arguing you don't know what you're talking about when you say that skin doesn't have specular, or whatever you want to call it. You CAN get rid of specular highlights on even a mirror ball if you use a large enough lightsource close enough. That's what I'm discussing. Decreasing the brightness of hotspots, and increasing the brightness of the light falling on the object. You do need to know the science of it to affect it, it just so happens that my field of expertise directly involves this kind of thing, which is why I think it's silly that you're still arguing. It has nothing to do with thinking of the highlights as anything other than if you want them or not. Call them leprechaun kisses for all I care, just no one will know what you're talking about. But if you want to know how to reduce the brightness of the items specularity, you need to know about the difference between specularity and diffused light. You can't put powder on everything. pwn posted:Shininess. Since nitpicking is the name of the game here. He doesn't have a term. He is tryin to claim there were no specular hotspots on skin. There are. Call them what you want, but there are bright spots on the cheeks and noses, coming from the specularity of the skin. The image itself is overexposed, but even if they were brought down to proper exposure, you'd still have that shine/specularity on the skin. If you want to get rid of those hotspots, you could have in the exact same image, by either using a larger light source, or taken the existing one and moved it closer. It's important to differentiate between specular and diffused light, because as I clarified above, one can be affected by distance, the other cannot. I'll paste it again: Increasing the size of the light source doesn't diffuse the specular highlights at all, it increases the NON specular light reaching the skin, which lets you close down aperture or ISO, which underexposes the specular highlights. Specular highlights are the same brightness no matter the distance the light source, they just change in size. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 20:34 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:29 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I'm not really going to argue this anymore, I'm not trying to "prove" you wrong because you're not, I'm not either. If your 3D training helps you to think of highlights in this way then awesome, but that has got to be the least helpful way of talking about specular highlights and how to control them I have ever heard. The bright spots I've highlighted:  Click here for the full 1152x835 image. What are these called, and how does one reduce the brightness/appearance of these in relation to the rest of the subject? My understanding was that you would increase the apparent size of the light source (bringing it closer). Is this correct? Also, the image is, in general, overexposed as well, correct? And even a 'correct' exposure would contain these bright spots?
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:34 |
|
|
dakana posted:The bright spots I've highlighted: Call them what you want. If your intention is to reduce their appearance, either use a larger light mod, or bring your current ones closer, and then stop down for the new brighter light from the fact you brought the light source closer. Either one will reduce the brightness of those areas. You circled some areas that are just bright light, not specular hotspots. The nose, forehead, and cheek of the guy, and just the nose and cheek of the girl, are the areas you could affect this way. The rest you just need to expose properly (increase aperture, lower ISO, or decrease flash power) It's absolutely important to know the difference, the terms don't matter, but the same way you can affect the softness of a shadow edge by using a larger light source, or bringing your existing one closer, you can reduce the apparent shininess of an object by doing the same thing. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 20:45 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 20:38 |
|
|
dakana posted:What are these called, and how does one reduce the brightness/appearance of these in relation to the rest of the subject? My understanding was that you would increase the apparent size of the light source (bringing it closer). Is this correct? Also, the image is, in general, overexposed as well, correct? And even a 'correct' exposure would contain these bright spots? I dealt with this exact same issue on set yesterday (you know, for a job, not some hypothetical e-penis discussion) and the solution was more make-up since we couldn't move the lights. poopinmymouth's overly verbose explanations will work too. My advice to you is to ignore everything on this page and go shoot more, but watch your histogram or at least use a meter next time. Move the lights around, see what happens, experiment. edit: lol at the custom title, I think you mention my degree more than I do. \/ all you need to know about specular highlights brad industry fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 21:14 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 21:03 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I dealt with this exact same issue on set yesterday (you know, for a job, not some hypothetical e-penis discussion) and the solution was more make-up since we couldn't move the lights. poopinmymouth's overly verbose explanations will work too. I don't argue on the internet unless it's with someone who's spouting wrong information in an area that's supposed to be for education. You can keep slathering powder over every surface you want to get rid of reflections rather than understanding how specularity works, but I figured since the thread is for more than just you and me, I'd point out how to have control over specularity for those who are open to learning. You can label it e-penis, while I label it sour-grapes, but it's a good discussion in a lighting thread. You can post that image again, but it's not proving your point, and it's not all you need to know about specularity. If that was a real billiard ball, and a real light source, if you moved the light source away, the hotspot would stay just as bright, just get smaller. The illumated area would get dimmer though. If you increased the light size, or brought the same one closer, you'd be able to under expose that hotspot while keeping that same illumination. If there is a time you can't move the lights, and it's for female models, or men who don't need facial texture, sure, powder em up, but if it's for a product, or someone who's skin features you want to preserve, and you can't move the lights, use a larger light mod. A diffusion panel, a giant softbox, or something. Since it's for PAID WORK (is that like, MY GIRLFRIEND in this thread?) you could just bill the client for the necessary lighting equipment. That is, if you had understood how specularity works before you started the shoot. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 21:15 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 21:12 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I dealt with this exact same issue on set yesterday (you know, for a job, not some hypothetical e-penis discussion) and the solution was more make-up since we couldn't move the lights. poopinmymouth's overly verbose explanations will work too. Well, they weren't my shots (they were Santa_is_strapped's, but I've had the same problem before. I think the biggest issue in the photos is the overexposure, and everything else is icing. Erm, interesting discussion though.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 21:29 |
|
|
brad industry posted:My advice to you is to ignore everything on this page and go shoot more, but watch your histogram or at least use a meter next time. Move the lights around, see what happens, experiment. I know it seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but I want to address this incorrect information too. You can have a properly exposed image with and without specular highlights. They (the highlights) are normally so small, they barely tip the light meter either way. When averaged in, they might make up .1 stops at the most. But if you want a completely matte looking surface, the histogram won't help you, you need to use a larger light mod, or bring your existing one in closer. But do go shoot more. If you notice that your subject (be it a glass vase, a leather belt, a person's face, etc) is shinier appearing than you'd like, think if you could move in the light source. If that's not an option (like if it would move into the fov of the lens) use a larger mod. I keep a 110cm double fold umbrella just for the times when I want crazy soft light, since most of the time I use smaller mods for punchier volume and harder edged shadows. Doing this will leave your histogram or light meter relatively unchanged. It will just subtract out any specularity. The larger you make the mod, and the closer you move it in, the more underexposed you can make the specular highlights. Perfect example images: https://id209.chi.us.securedata.net...loads/38378.jpg pure white bright specular, but properly lit everywhere else. The softbox is probably 1-2 meters away. http://www.barrietucker.com/images/BlueVase.jpg now you can see "into" the specular reflection, it's still there, the vase is still properly lit, but the specular highlight is lessened in brightness. The softbox for this was probably barely outside the camera fov. You can do the same thing with the specularity (or whatever you want to call it) of the skin.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 21:38 |
|
|
Specular highlights are boring here is a really awesomely lit editorial in W this month by Steven Klein http://www.wmagazine.com/celebritie...ss?showall=true probably NSFW brad industry fucked around with this message at Jun 24, 2009 around 21:46 |
| # ? Jun 24, 2009 21:44 |
|
|
If we must pull the 'paid work' card... About a month ago, I was doing a PAID SHOOT (i also have A GIRLFRIEND), and by god it was a nightmare of specularity, both in the poopinmymouth sense and the brad industry sense. It was of someone in a full-face latex prosthesis, so I was dealing with sweaty skin, wet paint on latex, not-quite-dry spirit gum, shiny latex, and probably other poo poo I'm forgetting. I ended up getting a few good frames out of it, but what the hell can I possibly do in this situation? For the record I was using a 45" shoot-through, pretty much touching the subject.
|
| # ? Jun 25, 2009 00:47 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If we must pull the 'paid work' card... Law school?
|
| # ? Jun 25, 2009 00:50 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:03 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Law school? lol. Serious answer: You should have set up a giant bedsheet, if renting or buying other gear wasn't possible. Think in 2x3 meters or larger. Get it almost touching the object, and blast it from behind with a flash, places as far away as possible so that their is not much hotspot in the center. A 2nd one of whatever you're using on the other side, with either a flash also behind it, or as just a reflector.. Ideally you'd have a 2x3 meter white reflector panel on one side, and a 2x3 meter diffusion panel with a frame as the main "light". Then using a strobe with barndoors on it, constrain the light to hit just the diffusion panel. That should have really illuminated the object without making it all shiny white hotspots.
|
| # ? Jun 25, 2009 05:17 |
|
