Thats OK, I dont use style of shooting either, because my approach is always to light to suit the subject, not to light to any particular style.
But, we all tend to develop our own style, although it should really be a style of photography rather than just a style of lighting, and certainly not to a lighting formulae (i.e. key light goes here, fill light goes here, hairlight goes here, ratios are A4:B3:C1).
I think that what happens with a lot of togging types is that they go out and buy a hotshoe flashgun, stick it on the camera and discover that they can suddenly take photos that they couldnt take before. OK, the photos are terrible, with harsh shadows, no sculpting etc. Then they discover that they can bounce that light off the ceiling, and suddenly the lighting has become much softer, much more flattering, so they adopt the mantra of Soft light good, hard light bad.
Then they buy one or two extra flashes, or a studio flash kit, they now have lighting stands and umbrellas, so they can get the lights away from the camera and produce really soft lighting. Theyre really happy with the improvement, so they stop experimenting and stop learning. They think that all that really matters about lighting is avoiding shadows and having enough light to shoot at f/11. They look on tinterweb at tutorials on lighting from people who know no more than they do, they read camera magazines written by people who often just regurgitate an old article by someone else who doesnt know better, they read books on posing and so on, and most of that info is telling them to use a formulaic approach to lighting that always produces an acceptable result but which will very rarely produce a good one.
A limited number of people go beyond that, and experiment to see exactly what can be done when the light is harder. They think about where most light comes from in the natural world, they realise that they can use backlighting in the studio as well as outdoors, they realise that soft lighting produces bland results, makes everyone look fat and so their lighting becomes progressively harder, when they have a subject who has qualities that benefit from that kind of treatment.
The come to realise that good lighting is really about creating the right shadows in the right places.
They come to realise that the Soft light good, hard light bad mantra is just as flawed as the 4 legs good, 2 legs bad mantra of Animal Farm.
ANY method or system is inherently flawed. My model Dani is outstanding, in terms of facial (and body) shape but her eyes didnt photograph well (contact lenses?) so the shots of her that really work are when she is looking down. Soft lighting on her would have been a total waste of her qualities, but if I was photographing her mother then of course soft(er) lighting would have been a much better choice - but it would still be harder than most.
Add into the mix the fact that the harder the lighting, the greater the failure rate, because a slightly wrongly positioned light, a slightly wrong shooting position or a slight movement of the model will usually ruin the shot.
And, for those who were at my studio last Sunday, and who found this out for themselves, bear in mind that the harder the lighting, the more difficult it is. Dont be deceived by the speed at which I personally work, Ive been doing it a long time and can usually get 90% of the way there with my first attempt. I dont need to meter lighting ratios, I KNOW what will work, and I can just adjust the power of a flash head by twiddling the knob as I walk past it, without even looking at it. For most people, its a slow and frustrating process, but my view is that its well worth it.
Discuss.
[/URL]
[/URL]
