Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alan Magayne-Roshak Wrote: In response to my writing: > Using two lights is more complicated, because you have to still make it >look > like one light, as in nature. You don't necessarily have to make it look like one light. It is not good to have ugly shadows from poor placement of light sources, but I don't agree that one has to make a photo mimic nature. Look at all the wonderful multiple flash photos from the Milwaukee Journal when they were the leaders in photos for reproduction. Let me offer this quote: "The double lighting is definitely a violation - a violation of nature, if you like. But if it is a violation of nature, I add immediately that it is superior to nature. I say that this is a master stroke, and proves that with genius art is not entirely subject to the necessities imposed by nature but has laws of its own." - - - Goethe, during a discussion on a Rubens landscape in which two sources of light can be seen: Eckermann's Conversations, 1827 Alan, Agreed. But there does need to be some "logic" in the light. When I first started lighting i used large light sources. As I learned more and more I used more and more lights with smaller and smaller sizes til I was often lighting an industrial scene with 8-10 lights, all with grid spots. But you have to work on a logic, a naturalness, to do so. It is not easy, it takes experience to learn how. It is much like movie lighting, especially the churascuro style today. At a certain level you can light so subtley that you can hardly tell where the light sources are, and things just seem to glow from inside. That is far from the documentary style at a certain level, and wonderfully documentary at another. A sort of working through to the other side. Zen Buddhists and Taoist would appreciate such mastery. A sort of Wu-Wei. donal __________ Donal Philby San Diego www.donalphilby.com