Why I HATE Umbrella Lighting...

<p>This is for <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1880561">George Rollin</a> . You may find samples of my work at the following sites:<br>

http://www.benjaminkanarek.com<br>

http://www.pbase.com/benjikan/publishedworks<br>

http://www.pressbook.com/homebook.asp?langue_id=2&owner_id=5144<br>

http://www.lumas.com/?id=717&artist=616&wid=1339&doc=info&ed=</p>

<p>George... please don't feed the Kanarek!!<br>

<br>

Tom, while obviously I neither prescribe to Ben's manner of thinking, nor his way of expressing himself, I'm sure by "flat" he meant the less esoteric meaning of "boring... no energy", instead of referring to the actual light.<br>

<br>

For George, and someone above that thought we were disregarding Kanarek's skill: he can shoot. I'm also happy that he can shoot and uses Pentax (we need more for our brand that's sadly overlooked). Conversely, it's a tired fashion philosophy that we hear the arguments about all the time.<br>

<br>

Fashion finds mainstream (especially commercial) boring, and almost everyone else thinks that the fashion photographers that shoot w/ blown out highlights, or out of focus, or introduced lens flare are on crack, and producing high school level work to be "daring" or "different", and that the strange illuminati world of fashion somehow sucks from the proverbial tit of oddness and praises it.<br>

<br>

Neither is right nor wrong, and it's really as pointless as "my brand is better than your brand". Frankly, the thread disappoints me most b/c of its lack of need. An umbrella is harder to control, which is why it's limited. To start a thread about its short comings is like pointing out that the new Volkswagen doesn't measure up to the latest BMW. It doesn't mean that the VW isn't a good car-- but really, did you feel the need to tell us that it's not high end? Is this a new revelation to you, or do you think that PN is peopled by troglodytes?</p>

<p>Some of the studio images on my website were shot with umbrella lighting (others were shot with soft boxes and/or beauty dishes). If you can pick out the umbrella shots, you are welcome to hate them. The umbrellas won't mind.</p>

<p>:-D</p>

 

<p>Here's a shot of mine from 1972. I used one of those hateful umbrellas and I remember being sure to use a reflector to kick some light into "That" shadow area to make sure this was a technically good photo!</p>

<p>Back then we didn't know what we do now and we had to make do with what we had....</p><div></div>

<p>Lighting aside, and it's probably my complete lack of interest in fashion photography, but so far I haven't been inspired by anything I've seen in your portfolio. </p>

<p>However, one thing I can say for certain is that your main website is extremely unwieldly, it obnoxiously has audio on the homepage, and has features that completely distract from your images.</p>

<p>Oh Dear Benjamin,<br>

Perhaps umbrellas aren't the problem with what you're seen. Regardless of what the lightsource is, umbrella, softbox, snoot, etc etc, ever picture has a specific point to it that needs to be illustrated.<br>

If you, on the other hand, have a problem with using umbrellas, then <strong>don't</strong> use them. On the other hand if you don't know how to use them, then you should learn the value in this ancient tool and THEN criticise it.<br>

As for WalMart or the Ford Pinto and I'll ad Sears to it style of photography, it isn't an umbrella that's a problem. Lighting in these location is mostly flat and subjects are placed at specific locations since everything is premetered. People working there aren't necessarily photographers either but were simple taught how to do simple poses. I'd agree with you on their lighting style and how horrible it is and at same time you get what you pay for. Therefore a real photographer who understands lighting, will continuesly readjust his or hers <strong>umbrellas</strong> or other light sources according to the pose and/or effect he/she is looking to get.<br>

As for your style of shooting, if you like it, stick with it but again, as you "...fell into photography accidently..." you had to seen images in either magazines, newspapers, wedding albums and most of those were shot <em>with umbrellas </em> .<br>

As many folks here pointed out - you really need to alter your attitude in this industry. Your <em>I AM RIGHT</em> approach will byte you in the ass and you'll undergo another accident with photography.<br>

Adam</p>

<p>In 53 years of photography, I have <strong>never owned</strong> nor shot with, or through-an umbrella.<br>

Reflectors? Yep: bouncing hot shoe light over the shoulder-off the wall? Yep.<br>

Hot shoe flashes as my main light-ambient light as my fill? Yep. "Hot lights"? Yesiree!<br>

Umbrellas? No!? "Automatic" strobes? No. <br>

Am I with the OP then? Nope, if only because I am "old school" and not one to deny other their guilty pleasures.</p>

<p>Where I do heartily agree with the OP is the total reliance of far too many on umbrellas and worse, automatic anything. </p>

<p>Just wish to reiterate that I used umbrella for several years and have still used them on occasion mixed with other light sources.</p><div></div>

<p>This morning when I read the OP, I was a little put off (I use umbrellas, and only because I've been spending $ on every other hot item that I'm supposed to have, and haven't bought a softbox *yet*). And then I read some more responses. And recently I've read some books, by some supposedly reknowned photographers.</p>

<p>And guess what - there's tons of conflicting information for us beginners to wade through. </p>

<p>And to boot - even though there is all this strong disagreement, you all are better at photography than I am. <br>

Except for one thing.</p>

<p>I'm determined to enjoy it more :)</p>

<p>Life's short people ....</p>

<p>(and Brooks - I love that photo!)</p>

<p>I've never really liked it when people at the top of their game swagger about openly with the radiance of all they know glowing about them, and the sort-of messianic aggressiveness of the initial post certainly got my hackles up on that front. Moreover, as someone who is only now contemplating moving up to a basic umbrella and reflector setup from natural light, it frustrates me from the perspective of someone feeling like he is being shamed prematurely for his decision, and because I have to now wonder if I will be wasting my money and time.<br /> <br /> <br /> That aside, I can't be too hard on the OP because his work is terrific and he *does* get the Pentax brand out there. Plus, as I'd actually like to work with him one day, it seems as a good a time as any to eschew some of the harsher language that I originally thought to use. :)<br /> <br /> <br /> Also. I really like Brooks' portrait from 1972. Wish I could get B&W to look so good...<br /></p>

<p>I suppose what equipment you use depends on what "look" you are going for. So if you are more concerned with obtaining "perfect" lighting than go for all the extras. Unfortunately those tools do not make for an exciting image. I firmly believe that ANYBODY can be a pro photographer. With adequate equipment and a bit of knowledge just about anyone could shoot a wedding, set up a studio shot or pose some kids in front of a backdrop. Does that make any of them intriguing photographers? Emotionally moving photographers? Does this strengthen their ability to "read people" or anticipate a moment? HELL NO! I am, quite obviously, a documentary photographer. I despise studio work. I despise cumbersome equipment. I believe that all you need is a decent camera, knowledge of that camera and the passion to capture life as it happens...unrehearsed. I am a snob. I have never considered most of what I see genuine photography.<br>

Therefore, I agree with Mr. Ben. Impress us with your images not with what overpriced, obnoxious accessories.</p>

<p>Me, I kind of thought that Benjamin was talking about what I have been thinking lately.</p>

<p>The conventional wisdom is that softer is better. The bigger, the closer, the softer the light source the better the photo.</p>

<p>But, that is not so! It works fine for highkey laid back portraits, but is the wrong light for almost anything else. It came about when 35mm became the format of choice. Go back to those lovely Hollywood glamour portraits of the 1930's and 1940's. They were done with big spot lights about he hardest light you could get in the studio. The smooth look of the photos came from heavy makeup and negative retouching. Easy to retouch 8x10 negatives. Not so easy to retouch 35mm negatives, so use lighting that hides everything so you will not have to retouch. The sad thing is that digital is easy to retouch, like those big negatives, but folks are still using lighting for 35mm work.</p>

<p>To reiterate, I did not read Bejamin's post as a tirade against umbrellas, but one against the one type of light fits all situations attitude (note that he extended it to softboxes as well). Of course, if you are doing formula, 30-minute, in and out portraits an umbrella or two is a wonderful tool. However, a string of 50 flashguns with #5 flashbulbs is still a great way to light a train at night.</p>

<p>Benjamin, after looking at the photos in the above links it is clear you are very good at your genre. I'm preparing to post my own rant about 'why I hate fashion photography'...</p>

<p>You posted this on the Fred Miranda forums as well. I think that you are trying to get people to show off what they can do with umbrella lighting, as well as get people to flock to this to argue. I'm not a guy who has a lot of money at the moment. If I did have some and was interested in studio photography, I would probably get a few. That's just me. I don't need to best studio lighting cause that isn't what I do right now.</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Benjamin, I understand you live in Paris.</p>

<p>I grew up in Boise, but I've been to Paris. I prefer Boise. There's fewer snobby people here (at least one fewer...)</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Benjamin, maybe if you would have started like, "I used umbrella lighting successfully for 10 years and made money but neglected my artistic side and didn't get creative with the umbrella...I highly suggest everyone explore non-traditional ways to use this tool. I have since abandoned the umbrella for lighting that is easier to get creative with..."<br>

Man, did Richard Avedon criticize your early umbrella work for you to get into such a rage against yourself and thrash around?<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>Clever fellow.</p>

"I used umbrella light for over 10 years and if forced to water, I may drink."

<p>

I used to hate when somebody that can't drink in moderation would tell me I shouldn't have a glass of Bushmills now and then. Now I just smile and admire centuries of Irish genius. Somehow this thread reminds me of a cross between that anti-drinker and a Monty Python sketch.

<p>

In most creative work, it seems to me there's step 1, flounder around without information, making random work, step 2, learn the basic way to do things, potentially boring but not terrible, step 3, reject the current way things are done, do things differently and weird just for the sake of doing things differently and weird, step 4, settle down and develop a sense of style. With all due respect, I believe you're at step 3. I mean no offense by that, I'm somewhere in step 1. My point is that right minded people can find interesting work from all four groups.

<p>

Now I'm reminded of when my brother tried to make his own beer. I don't know what step he made it to, but I turn again to the Irish for that smooth, even light - er I mean 'taste'.

<p>Ben,<br>

I'll say one thing, you sure know how to light up the fireworks. I've admired your fashion work for years - as provocative as your posts. However, for portraiture, I much prefer this guy: <a href="http://www.phillipstewartcharis.com/">http://www.phillipstewartcharis.com/</a><br>

His lighting is legendary and he uses the dreaded umbrella (generally two) setup.<br>

Mel</p>

<p>We all need to start some where and seems like an umbrella is the logical way to learn the ABC's of good lighting and move on from there (or not)<br>

I got my first umbrella last week. I'm at the first step of lighting so let's see how far I can push one speedlite 580EX mounted to the umbrella with a second 580EXII as the master, before I feel the need to get other gadgets.<br>

here is my reaction to your umbrella coment's. This picture was inspired by you Benjamin.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p>

<div></div>

<p>Maybe I should begin a counter thread that says I Hate Direct Undiffuse Light. But then again that would be ridiculous. Or perhaps the I Hate Daylight thread! You can see just how much sense any of this makes. I'm really surprised at how much of a wave got churned up from just such a small splash in the pond. Good luck using any form of light; diffuse, daylight, moonlight, tungsten, florescent, or direct light. Any light you want or dont want, this is just a means to an end. Just because manufacturers make nail guns, doesnt mean you have to use one as you can always use a hammer, a rock or your hands. WHatever you prefer? Limitless, boundless, and infinite creativity is the goal...I for one like the part about keeping dry in the occassional shower under an umbrella too. How about you?</p><div></div>

<p>Who cares. Honestly.</p>

<p>Hey Alex your Green Man image is absolutely awesome!!! Well done.</p>

<p>Ben :-)</p><div></div>

<p> So when I first saw this post I thought a)Ugh. This is some bad egotistical know-it-all photography student or b) one really talented, quirky fashion photographer. Well, after reviewing his work and reading his blog(full of tips, advice and great industry info) I realized he is the latter. <br>

I recently put away the umbrella and have been experimenting with other forms of lighting even though I don't really have the cash to buy new fancy stuff. A set of grids under $100, home made reflectors, a pack of unused gels I found on top of a garbage can and antique mirrors have definitely allowed me to get more creative and produce more interesting photos.<br>

I think Benjamin was successful in how he wrote his post, he stirred up the pot and made people think. </p>

<p>I absolutely hate the umbrellas they sell in camera stores myself. Overpriced and don't really do a good job of keeping the rain off. I see others buying them and wonder "am I missing something here?".</p>