An observation (discussion)

GDHphotography

GDHphotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
141
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
not been here long but had a good old look around the portraits and nude/glamour section.

One thing I am seeing time and time again is subjects lit with the keylight too low. Often it is at head height with a little direction causing a nose shadow to go straight onto the cheek and effectively double the thickness of the nose. Now that in itself can never be an attractive quality in a portrait and when the keylight is on axis it results in totally flat facial light with no sculptural capability at all. I wonder where this notion of the light being so low has come from??

the reason the main lighting traditional patterns work is because they create depth and interest to the face. The resultant shadows appear natural and the subject has 3d depth in a 2d image. The other reason is that they all originate from natural light, the sun is in the sky above us so we spend our lives seeing shadows on the face etc coming downwards. Hence when keylights are too low the shadow straight away looks wrong and the face is incorrectly lit. Now I know horror lighting is deliberately done this way ( uplighting) but the reason it is horror is because it looks 'wrong'....

Now I know one very well known site ( not this) in it's training videos often lazy lights without the key being put in the right place and I wonder if that is helping to perpetuate this notion...


Anyway just an observation to open up some discussion...
 
I don't feel that there is any 'right' place for a key light, other than that the right place is the place where it produces the effect that you want.

I agree though that lighting from higher than the subject looks natural, and the reason for this of course is that pretty well all 'normal' lighting, such as daylight and interior lighting, comes from more or less above.

Certainly, high lighting, and especially when it's in line with the subject, defines the shape of the face, places emphasis on high cheekbones and creates those sharply defined shadows that pull the viewers eye.
This shot (not mine but I have permission to show it)
jewellery.jpg

is a fairly typical, if extreme example.

So why do so many people ignore these 'rules'? Here are some possibilities
1. They don't know any better. They watch free Youtube videos produced, in many cases, by complete ignorami, they read free tutorials that are equally worthless and they look at example photos on the net, millions of them, that have absolutely no merit whatever. Before the net, people had to either buy books, pay for training from real photographers or just experiment - but because they had to pay for film and printing, they tended to actually learn something from the experimentation.
2. The vast majority of the portrait and glamour shots on the net are absolute rubbish that belong in the trash folder. Pre internet, the only way of getting those shots published would be vanity publishing (which the net is now) but they would have had to pay a lot of money to see their photos published. Now, it costs nothing to publish and there are always people who will make very complimentary comments about shots which, in my far from humble opinion, have no qualities whatever.
3. I'm guessing that most people start their photography with no lighting whatever. Then they progress to a hotshoe flashgun, then they move it off camera (and off camera brackets put the light slightly above and to the side) and then they add umbrellas or softboxes to overcome the hard shadows created by the small flashgun. They think it looks better and so they move to larger and larger diffusers to make the light bigger and bigger, because they believe that shadowless equates to professional (although of course the opposite is true). You're new to this forum, but you must have seen a lot of people who ask "How can I get rid of shadows?" And you must have seen a lot of people praising dead flat photos too - and the value of everyone on the net is equal!
4. Striving to get bigger and bigger softboxes to get softer and softer 'professional' lighting may end up with a lot of people buying softboxes that need MUCH higher ceilings than they have available in their living room, with the result that although the softbox may be actually touching the ceiling, the centre of the light may be lower than the subject.

Just some thoughts...
 
I would agree about it being the right place for the effect you want but most people actually do not think about that and point it in the general direction rather than crafting some pleasant light.

I do agree about the plethora of crap lighting videos on YouTube etc and also one of the main trainers in the industry often uses a reflector to light a subject from the low position when shooting contre jour and in effect making the reflector the key for the front of the subject, appalling.
 
Gary, maybe it might be worth asking that question in the threads with the images you think are lit incorrectly, you may get more response.

FWIW I agree with what Garry has said, Though I've seen you say before about lack of shadows is unacceptable to you, and I meant to ask isn't that just called 'High Key' and therefore just a style? Admittedly it maybe one you don't like, but surely it shouldn't be ruled out altogether?

Going back to the original question, it occurred to me that maybe one reason people set lights low, is that more and more people are using mono blocks and therefore can't be arsed to keep climbing up and down steps to change the power setting. Whereas in the past most images we saw were all shot by professionals who tended to use pack and head systems more, just a thought :shrug:
 
There are a couple of issues here

Especially in nude and glamour areas of photography, there have always been a few subsets of people doing the shooting, each with different motivations, each with different targets for the work and each with different tastes

The out and out professionals, who are trained, photographically and artistically educated and open with everyone about what they do are in a minority. The work they do is specific and aimed at a part of the market and has to stand up

Because of the nature of glamour and nude photography, giving and receiving training to a high standard is out of the reach of most.

At the other end of the scale, people are not worried about shadows, they are just looking at breasts and bums and dont give a stuff. The photography part is often a smokescreen for what is really going on

On a broader note, the whole area of training and the internet and the like needs more discussion

Where a technical subject like lighting collides with art & aesthetics, the issue of rules often flies out of the window, as some of the best shots break the conventional rules.

You cant say

"I approach each subject with a fresh set of eyes and sort my lighting out to bring the best out of the subject on a case by case basis"

And then moan when people break the rules

The bigger issue here is that people dont learn the principles. They dont take the time to study art, portraiture, anatomy, physics... and then they dont take the time to learn about lighting, and camera craft. What a you tube video does do is show you how to do whatever is being been shown in the video, they dont however show the understanding and thought processes that got the whole set up there in the first place. By understanding all of the principles, when you break a rule, you know why you are doing it

Unfortunately, if you take that thought process to the end you find that it leaves virtually all "short term training" methodologies up the creek without a paddle - as whichever way you look at it, something is always going to be missing. If you cherry pick your education, you will be likley missing the underlying principles that underpin things


Being devils advocate here, a question to the OP. Who says that your view is right? A lot of the issues with the Nude and Glamour type shots are beyond lighting, and are about personal taste
 
Can I throw another possible factor into the ring here - lighting diagrams. How often do people ask for them? Quite frequently based on 4 years posting round here [and I include myself in this, I have done it] The problem is that your average lighting diagram is a 2D flat image, that to someone completely new to lighting, would make it appear that all the lights are at the same level around the subject.

BTW, for what its worth, my daughter is doing AS level photography [a curriculum that gives them no technical training at all!], as did her friend last year. They needed to do some portraits 'with shadows' so asked could they use a studio light. Anyway, bear in mind my daughter [who was being model on this occasion] has been photographed by my umpteen times, but didn't have the answers. Here is a rough paraphrase of the conversation, starting from the fact they had one light, in a 28" s/b, which Beth put together and mounted on stand as she has seen me do lots of times.

ME: where are you going to put that
H: Here [and positions it directly in front of model, at eye level]
Me: hmm.. is that going to create any shadows?
H: hmm, no
ME: So where should it be?
H: round here [moves it camera right, in fact so far, it was almost at right angles to model]
ME: okaaayyyy, take some pictures on this camera first [hands her d300 which we were using as 'light meter' for her film camera]
ME: have a look, are they what you want?
H: looks odd
ME: ok, let me do something [lifts light up and back nearer to camera, but still at slight angle]
H: [after taking a few more practice shots] OOHHH, they look really cool.

She had no idea why they looked better and I chose to explain it after they had spent a happy hour playing with moving the light around and even deliberately doing 'horror' type pictures too, just because she had to produce a full films worth of portraits with deep shadows. They then have to explain in their portfolios, which ones they like, what doesn't work, and take the theory and experimentation on to the next lot of pictures.

Anyway, my point is, that with no knowledge at all, only 'influences from anything they have seen/heard elsewhere, is it just natural to have a light at that height? No idea, it is something you would have to try with a 100 people or more to find out. :shrug:
 
treeman said:
Gary, maybe it might be worth asking that question in the threads with the images you think are lit incorrectly, you may get more response.

FWIW I agree with what Garry has said, Though I've seen you say before about lack of shadows is unacceptable to you, and I meant to ask isn't that just called 'High Key' and therefore just a style? Admittedly it maybe one you don't like, but surely it shouldn't be ruled out altogether?

Going back to the original question, it occurred to me that maybe one reason people set lights low, is that more and more people are using mono blocks and therefore can't be arsed to keep climbing up and down steps to change the power setting. Whereas in the past most images we saw were all shot by professionals who tended to use pack and head systems more, just a thought :shrug:
Click to expand...
Yes, high key is just a style, and whether or not I personally like it doesn't matter - but what I think we're talking about here is something different - people thinking that lighting is all about quantity of light, not quality and often just placing lights where they are 'easy' or aren't in the way
 
Jayst84 said:
High key is a technical term, meaning the majority of tones in the image are above mid-grey. It has nothing to do with shadows. At least that's what every photographer I've spoke with uses the term for.
Click to expand...
You're right in a technical sense, although, to keep all the tones above mid grey, the shadows do tend to be weak.

But language changes and a lot of people now seem to think that 'high key' means white background and that 'low key' means black background - largely thanks perhaps to the term being wrongly used on seller websites:'( such as Lastolite. Many people now seem to believe that 'high key' equates to a blown white background, totally flat lighting and a complete absence of shadows. Sad.
 
Yv said:
Can I throw another possible factor into the ring here - lighting diagrams. How often do people ask for them? Quite frequently based on 4 years posting round here [and I include myself in this, I have done it] The problem is that your average lighting diagram is a 2D flat image, that to someone completely new to lighting, would make it appear that all the lights are at the same level around the subject.
Click to expand...


Gary? Why have you started using Yv's loggin? :lol:
 
Originally Posted by Yv
Can I throw another possible factor into the ring here - lighting diagrams. How often do people ask for them? Quite frequently based on 4 years posting round here [and I include myself in this, I have done it] The problem is that your average lighting diagram is a 2D flat image, that to someone completely new to lighting, would make it appear that all the lights are at the same level around the subject.
Click to expand...

I smiled too. like peas from a pod :)
 
treeman said:
I smiled too. like peas from a pod :)
Click to expand...

Probably because most people appreciate the limitations of lighting diagrams.
But in case anyone else is confused, the OP is Gary and I'm Garry
 
This discussion is exactly the reason why I started it. The classics work because the light is correctly placed,creating dimension, pleasing patterns, shadow and highlight detail and an overall aesthetic appearance. I totally agree about breaking the rules, but not for the sake of it, for the sake of creativity.
However until people understand the reasoning behind the so called rules and the technicalities of why things are as they are then to quote 'breaking the rules' as a creative decision has no substance.
Most high end glamour is well above the skillet and affordability of most shooters, to do it well requires a knowledge. The same is to be said of portraiture, I see and come across people who are told to put light 'A' there , 'B' there and when you ask why it is purely because they have been shown to do so.
They take no notice of facial features, hair, feel and mood of shot they just use a set up they know, the fault of a lot of the industry trainers...

In response to the poster who asked why I am right, I never said I was, just see basics being misunderstood and when you ask people why they lit a shot to give a nose shadow which goes half way across a cheek or up lighting they have no idea why. Having shot commercial beauty at a fairly high standard you quickly learn to get things right or not get paid...

Also if people want to progress there photography to a qualification level they will quickly find out their mistakes. I do feel that if I can help someone along their journey by giving a bit of advice and the reasons why then I am fulfilling my role as a trainer. Don't get me wrong, I will not give the level of info or reasoning I would to a customer, but a few helpful words never goes amiss.
 
GDHphotography said:
This discussion is exactly the reason why I started it. The classics work because the light is correctly placed,creating dimension, pleasing patterns, shadow and highlight detail and an overall aesthetic appearance. I totally agree about breaking the rules, but not for the sake of it, for the sake of creativity.
However until people understand the reasoning behind the so called rules and the technicalities of why things are as they are then to quote 'breaking the rules' as a creative decision has no substance.
Most high end glamour is well above the skillet and affordability of most shooters, to do it well requires a knowledge. The same is to be said of portraiture, I see and come across people who are told to put light 'A' there , 'B' there and when you ask why it is purely because they have been shown to do so.
They take no notice of facial features, hair, feel and mood of shot they just use a set up they know, the fault of a lot of the industry trainers...

In response to the poster who asked why I am right, I never said I was, just see basics being misunderstood and when you ask people why they lit a shot to give a nose shadow which goes half way across a cheek or up lighting they have no idea why. Having shot commercial beauty at a fairly high standard you quickly learn to get things right or not get paid...

Also if people want to progress there photography to a qualification level they will quickly find out their mistakes. I do feel that if I can help someone along their journey by giving a bit of advice and the reasons why then I am fulfilling my role as a trainer. Don't get me wrong, I will not give the level of info or reasoning I would to a customer, but a few helpful words never goes amiss.
Click to expand...

Yep, agree, except that it seems that actually doing practical photography, learning about light and optics and physics and the like seems to be pretty much off the agenda on most courses

Interesting you mention "industry trainers" instead of "Uni lecturers"
 
Richard, agree with you there, I speak to so many students from all differing higher education centres and they are being under informed in a lot of cases, almost as if the accessibility that digital has has made delivery of the basics almost unheard of. But, some industry trainers are just after a fast buck ...
 
A large number of people creating their own studios convert a garage. Ceilings are low and so the trend is to light from lower down. Cheap stands and top heavy monoblocs probably also play a part.

These pictures are posted on sharing sites, people rave about them and the cycle repeats reinforcing each time.

It would make a fascinating study for some kind of scientist.

This is (clearly) tongue in cheek but it contains some truths - internet memes can and do change photography.

[YOUTUBE]hK0r5LCs3DY[/YOUTUBE]

I actually believe that the current trend of lighting with two 45 degree soft boxes instead of the "old school" on axis brolly and off axis softbox is due to smaller shooting rooms too.
 
A large number of people creating their own studios convert a garage. Ceilings are low and so the trend is to light from lower down. Cheap stands and top heavy monoblocs probably also play a part.

These pictures are posted on sharing sites, people rave about them and the cycle repeats reinforcing each time.
Click to expand...
That makes sense to me, but I think that the space thing is maybe a red herring.

I can't help thinking that the OP may have a personal agenda here, he certainly doesn't seem to have a high regard for some industry trainers, but that doesn't make him wrong. We all work in an industry in which there are no minimum standards and no meaningful qualifications - I ran a lighting workshop yesterday and one of the people had been on a course where everyone was told just to put a softbox each side of the subject and snap away... Why? Well, apparently the tutor has a degree in photography so he must be an expert...

A long time ago, those of us who wanted to study photography at degree level had to work hard to get A levels. Now, people just have to know how to sign a cheque. Back then, the tutors were mainly pro photographers who couldn't teach, now they are mainly pro teachers who can't photography - which is worse?
 
The dumbing down of degrees isn't just in photography sadly. Course content has been diluted quite far as those coming out of school really just aren't as bright as they used to be as you have to cater for the average student that does a degree rather than the exceptional of the old days. You have to make content easy or they all fail and funding is withdrawn. It is a vicious circle. It devalues a degree to the point where you'd probably take someone with a couple of years practical on the job experience of whatever it was over someone with a degree in it as the latter would often know much less. Even if they did know more, many of them can't even communicate properly or apply any of the knowledge they have gained! It is quite scary reading of some that appear with photography degrees that are completely clueless about shutter speed, iso and aperture. The very basics. I know we're in the digital age where you can do stuff again or use photoshop but really...

Lighting preferences also change over the years. Some styles look old fashioned or of a particular era. Like all the 80s ring flash shots.
 
Garry Edwards said:
A long time ago, those of us who wanted to study photography at degree level had to work hard to get A levels. Now, people just have to know how to sign a cheque. Back then, the tutors were mainly pro photographers who couldn't teach, now they are mainly pro teachers who can't photography - which is worse?
Click to expand...

read my earlier post - at AS level, the current syllabus has NO room for ANY technical training - NONE! My daughter and 30 other class mates are doing a shedload of photographic course work, having been given absolutely no knowledge the very basics, such as aperture, shutter speed and ISO - it makes me fume! Yes, she is lucky, she has a photographer at home who can pass that information on, but otherwise, its is all down to being able to produce a couple folders full of experimental pictures that look 'cool' and 'imaginative' and a final board for each project of equally uninformed lucky pictures. They are told to study the work of other photographers who are known for their efforts in the area of each new project - no prizes for guessing that the final boards end up mainly looking like a mish-mash of the few they look at. The odd few stand out, not for any technical skill, but simply because the student has an obvious flare for the artistic and unusual.

If students of the art are left to fend for themselves in terms of gaining technical understanding, then the plethora of internet tutorials will be what they turn to, as so many would not be able to afford or justify a half decent hands on course.

I of course only speak for those doing A/AS levels here, what on earth happens when they get to university is something I am not entirely sure I want to know about, although I suspect the quality and choice of course can vary much more than at the lower level. :shrug:
 
It's really ODD. I did C&G photography a long time ago, and it was very practical, and very technical

I studied physics, and it barley touched optics
I studied medical physics, and learnt a great deal about optics
I studied optics, and what I learnt then, I use now every day in photography

Whilst Optics seems to be the poor relation in science education, specifically for photographers, it is very very useful

A few years ago I was a mentor for a couple of school-kids struggling with science at school. They don't even split physics chemistry and biology any more, and the level for a GCSE is very low. They barley touch basics like Newton, so explaining things like diffraction to your average schoolkid inst going to happen. It all seems to be very "cause and effect" i.e. the polariser gets rid of the reflection, but no exploration of why
 
Sadly, I have to agree. Higher education has become much lower - but it's arguable that higher education in photography isn't very important anyway.

What has really, really changed is work experience, or rather the lack of it. I was lucky in that when I started out there were plenty of jobs in photography, and I could move around from one training job to another with no problems. In fact, I've been sacked by some of the best photographers of all time:) In 1 period of 10 days I had 3 jobs, I was sacked from one, walked out of another and started the third one.

But the jobs have now gone and most pro photographers just pick things up as they go along. Most start off as 'weekend warriors' and eventually become full time (if ever) and lead fairly isolated lives, because unless they show real talent they rarely work with the really experienced photographers who can teach them the more advanced techniques.

Of course, they can go on courses, but my cynical mind wonders whether a lot of the courses are just run by people who can't hack it as photographers and so try to get extra income by passing on their 'knowledge' to others. That just leaves us with the internet, where lost sheep masquerade as sheepdogs and 'teach' people to do things badly.
 
Richard King said:
It's really ODD. I did C&G photography a long time ago, and it was very practical, and very technical

I studied physics, and it barley touched optics
I studied medical physics, and learnt a great deal about optics
I studied optics, and what I learnt then, I use now every day in photography

Whilst Optics seems to be the poor relation in science education, specifically for photographers, it is very very useful

A few years ago I was a mentor for a couple of school-kids struggling with science at school. They don't even split physics chemistry and biology any more, and the level for a GCSE is very low. They barley touch basics like Newton, so explaining things like diffraction to your average schoolkid inst going to happen. It all seems to be very "cause and effect" i.e. the polariser gets rid of the reflection, but no exploration of why
Click to expand...

Yes, I also did C&G photography way back in the early 90's and it was totally practical and technical, absolutely no complaints about that.

I did actually ask my daughters tutor about technical stuff and his response was that he would love to spend the first few weeks of the course teaching them the basics, but there simply wasn't time to do that and squeeze in everything the examination board wanted by way of completed course work. So, whilst a lot of the stuff they are doing IS actually interesting, and has made me stop and look at the requirements and wonder how I would fulfill the briefs, I can't help but feel that as a photographic course, they do too much photography. Yes, I know, sounds an odd comment but I think you will all understand what I mean. ;)
 
Yv said:
Yes, I also did C&G photography way back in the early 90's and it was totally practical and technical, absolutely no complaints about that.

I did actually ask my daughters tutor about technical stuff and his response was that he would love to spend the first few weeks of the course teaching them the basics, but there simply wasn't time to do that and squeeze in everything the examination board wanted by way of completed course work. So, whilst a lot of the stuff they are doing IS actually interesting, and has made me stop and look at the requirements and wonder how I would fulfill the briefs, I can't help but feel that as a photographic course, they do too much photography. Yes, I know, sounds an odd comment but I think you will all understand what I mean. ;)
Click to expand...
Of course, there are two distinct C&G photography courses, leisure and professional. Some years ago, the art tutor at a college local to here managed to get funding for a C&G leisure course. He knew absolutely nothing about photography but hey, it's just a leisure course - make it up as you go along, it worked for Quentin Crisp:lol:
A couple of years later the college introduced HND photography. Guess who was appointed chief whatsit?:'(

A few years ago I was approached and asked to write a course for a new C&G course on digital photography. I worked on it for a few months but was then taken seriously ill and had to hand it back to them. It was taken over by someone who was a pro tutor, and who is no doubt very good at writing course content...
 
Garry Edwards said:
Of course, they can go on courses, but my cynical mind wonders whether a lot of the courses are just run by people who can't hack it as photographers and so try to get extra income by passing on their 'knowledge' to others.
Click to expand...

Bingo! What's the the saying "those that can't do teach" or something like that :shrug:
 
treeman said:
Bingo! What's the the saying "those that can't do teach" or something like that :shrug:
Click to expand...

Exactly why I'm on a course run by a working photographer! :-)

Apols for the typo in your name Garry!
 
Garry, if you think I have a personal agenda you are wrong....

I am a working photographer, yes I teach but only because I have 20 years of teaching prior to being a photographer. I am honest about things and find that there are some people, not on here who are glorified snake charmers with what is delivered.

I work commercially, in portraiture, a few weddings and shoot a lot of model work. There is good and bad in every industry and certainly in academia, my partner works in that field and also assesses training.

I am not here to engender support for what I do, I have enough of that elsewhere. I am qualified, I have my craftsman from the guild and associateship from Sifgp, the fashion side of swpp.

I am also not here to make enemies but actually offer some help to people. If you don't like what I say, don't read, you have a good following on here, are successful and from what I hear deliver good training I wish you the best . But please don't start commenting about agendas as you really do not know me if you think that. If I had something to say, I would say it...
 
GDHphotography said:
Garry, if you think I have a personal agenda you are wrong....

I am a working photographer, yes I teach but only because I have 20 years of teaching prior to being a photographer. I am honest about things and find that there are some people, not on here who are glorified snake charmers with what is delivered.

I work commercially, in portraiture, a few weddings and shoot a lot of model work. There is good and bad in every industry and certainly in academia, my partner works in that field and also assesses training.

I am not here to engender support for what I do, I have enough of that elsewhere. I am qualified, I have my craftsman from the guild and associateship from Sifgp, the fashion side of swpp.

I am also not here to make enemies but actually offer some help to people. If you don't like what I say, don't read, you have a good following on here, are successful and from what I hear deliver good training I wish you the best . But please don't start commenting about agendas as you really do not know me if you think that. If I had something to say, I would say it...
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting anything sinister, far from it.
It just seems to me that you may have an issue with one particular person or provider, that's all, and I sort of jumped to that conclusion (rightly or wrongly) from your earlier posts...
Now I know one very well known site ( not this) in it's training videos often lazy lights without the key being put in the right place and I wonder if that is helping to perpetuate this notion...
Click to expand...
and also one of the main trainers in the industry often uses a reflector to light a subject from the low position when shooting contre jour and in effect making the reflector the key for the front of the subject, appalling.
Click to expand...

My own views are similar to yours and just as strong.
 
So....you got links to these vids.....?

I'd genuinely like to see some that show correct reflector technique. It can be very tricky.
 
Maybe the OP could point to the videos he feels do teach lighting correctly, otherwise anyone reading this thread and wishing to learn, is still none the wiser :shrug:
 
treeman said:
Maybe the OP could point to the videos he feels do teach lighting correctly, otherwise anyone reading this thread and wishing to learn, is still none the wiser :shrug:
Click to expand...

So you mean essentially nobody's any the wiser, of any actual technical lighting info, but we now know full well that the OP and others are trainers, that offer proper training, that you pay for, that will help you light properly?

Sign me up...pffft.
 
Anyone can teach these days. Standards are dropping and from what I can tell, it's initiated by lack of money, and continued by ignorance.

Just the other day I was speaking to a photographer that used to make his living from model photography, producing portfolios and the like.
In the last couple of years, this has all but stopped for him. There is a massive increase in wannabe models, which in turn has generated what I will call wannabe photographer.

I can think of a fair few just within my local area, and i reguarly question their motives. No knowledge of kit, no knowledge of lighting, no knowledge of technique, but all that seems to be made up for by a monumental interese in tits and arse and having the gift of the gab.
These people are offering shoots increadibly cheap, somethimes free. The growing number of college girl wannabe models snap up the cheap deals, knowing no better, or being completely ignorant to it, and the next thing you know that sub-standard photographer has a large following.

This then becomes self perpetuating, a photographer with a large following of fans will naturally attract more and more people, the photographer gets a massive ego boost and starts to believe they can then start training other people to be just like them.

One photographer local to me, who I will not name, I have watched take this exact route and is now offering out studio training days to groups of 10-15 at £15 a head.
What do people actually expect to learn as part of a large group for such a small cost? Yet the classes fill up and people are coming away happy with what they have learnt. :shrug:
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Anyone can teach these days. Standards are dropping and from what I can tell, it's initiated by lack of money, and continued by ignorance.

Just the other day I was speaking to a photographer that used to make his living from model photography, producing portfolios and the like.
In the last couple of years, this has all but stopped for him. There is a massive increase in wannabe models, which in turn has generated what I will call wannabe photographer.

I can think of a fair few just within my local area, and i reguarly question their motives. No knowledge of kit, no knowledge of lighting, no knowledge of technique, but all that seems to be made up for by a monumental interese in tits and arse and having the gift of the gab.
These people are offering shoots increadibly cheap, somethimes free. The growing number of college girl wannabe models snap up the cheap deals, knowing no better, or being completely ignorant to it, and the next thing you know that sub-standard photographer has a large following.

This then becomes self perpetuating, a photographer with a large following of fans will naturally attract more and more people, the photographer gets a massive ego boost and starts to believe they can then start training other people to be just like them.

One photographer local to me, who I will not name, I have watched take this exact route and is now offering out studio training days to groups of 10-15 at £15 a head.
What do people actually expect to learn as part of a large group for such a small cost? Yet the classes fill up and people are coming away happy with what they have learnt. :shrug:
Click to expand...


David. You have hit the nail on the head there, especially the bit about motivations

Unfortunately, no one is providing any useful answers to the training issues

On the one hand, you can watch free / paid for video's, go on short courses, download books yada yada, there are lighting diagrams, etc etc.. yet method on method is slated and appears full of holes and problems

On the other you can go down the formal route - a'levels, uni, and that too seems to be oddly very un-oriented to practical photography

So for the 2 subsets of people - the ones who want a formal education, and the ones that want to learn outside of the formal routes, there seems to be little agreement about what is good and bad training

I suppose the best current route is to have formal training, and then serve an apprenticeship with a pro, and then then spend time with other pro's honing the practical skills. Unfortunately, today's instant generation are not really interested in that approach
 
bass_junkie83 said:
offering out studio training days to groups of 10-15 at £15 a head.
What do people actually expect to learn as part of a large group for such a small cost? Yet the classes fill up and people are coming away happy with what they have learnt. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If someone is happy with the knowledge they get for £15, who are we to argue that it isn't good value for that person?

If someone was offering that near me, I'd take a punt on learning £15 worth from the day - even if that knowledge was that photographer-x is at so-and-so particular standard and I'd use it for the opportunity of networking with other local photographers.

It's easy to be judgemental about photographers offering training (and I certainly do NOT offer training and have no plans to do so), but if they're teaching above the level of those who go on the courses, and the delegates learn, then it's wrong for us on the outside to knock them.

If they're teaching things which are just plain wrong, that's a different matter, but without going on one of the days, we don't know that they are....
 
Yes, I agree. Not wanting to get into a name and shame type scenario, I was delibarately vague. But rest assured my comments relating to any one particular person, although not named, is based on my first hand experience of working along side that person. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top