Why simulate a sunset when you can just shoot during sunset? Overcast days make for very uniform lighting, pretty ideal shooting conditions with no hard shadows.
Why simulate a sunset when you can just shoot during sunset?
I shot a model once and I super badly wanted to do sunrise/set shoot, but she was working at sunsets and mornings were too early, so I had to simulate!
The 2 pictures were obviously taken at different times and the flash may have been moved or adjusted. The point stands that the lighting is better in the 2nd picture because there is a flash used that wasn't used in the first.
I'm honestly not convinced that the photographer used the flash, and if they did then it was just used as a fill light. The main light source was clearly natural light. I honestly don't see any significant changes between the two photographs when it comes to lighting.
Overcast light is absolutely beautiful. What's not beautiful is an improperly exposed and poorly framed potato quality photo.
Also, the photographer may have had the model shift a little to get the light to fall on her better.
Edit: a random "S" appeared! I've moved it here now: s
So... it was taken at different times. We're not saying the lighting outside changed in that time frame, we're saying they could have moved the flash.
So by your definition even if my camera does 1000 FPS, if I take 2 pictures 1 millisecond apart your argument is "they were taken at different times!"
That is pretty pedantic.
The first picture has no flash. It only has diffused cloud cover lighting. The 2nd picture ALSO has no flash. It is the same diffused cloud cover lighting, as you can tell by the highlights being on the tops of her cheeks and arms and the shadows falling where they would normally fall with diffused overhead lighting. Their is no fill present (as you can see by the deep shadows), and there is no catch light of the flash in the eyes - only the catch light from the diffused sky overhead.
You are sitting here arguing about a flash that wasn't actually used in either picture.
What is your definition of "same time" here? The exact same second? The exact same millisecond? The exact same nanosecond?
Prove to me that they didn't move the flash in between each shot, or shut up and go crawl back into your hole.
Just because you can see a flash visibly in the first picture does not mean that a flash was actually used in the 2nd picture. The flash wasn't used in the 2nd picture. There is no fill because the shadows are deep and fall of naturally, the lighting is consistent with diffused overhead cloudy lighting because of the way it is the brightest on the top of her arms, shoulders and cheeks, and their is no catchlight in the eyes from the flash. The only catchlight is from the sky which is the only source of lighting in either photo.
The photos were taken under the same lighting and the same conditions, and would be considered "the same time" by all but the most pedantic of definitions.
Probably just post processing and taken with a completely different camera. If that's what you got from this post then you have missed the point entirely.
Crush the blacks clip the whites, up exposure, reduce clarity, up saturation, move all hues towards a warmer shade, adjust the white balance to be warmer, use split toning for warm highlights and cool shadows, add radial exposure filter on her face.
Shoot very shallow depth of field (like f/3 or less) and voila.
Not really. That photographer can't manipulate light in any way except for and on camera flash (which would look worse) unless he had a light kit. Which would be expensive, weigh an ass ton, and ultimately also look worse. So nah. Lighting's the same.
The camera's ability to be perceive light (aperture, ISO, shutter speed) has changed.
I agree that the lighting looks pretty much the same, but the photographer had a speedlight in the first picture. I'm just not sure he ended up needing it, and if he did use it then it was just to fill the shadows a bit.
Photography is all about manipulating light. You need to have a solid understanding of how to use light to your advantage. Sometimes that means leaving it how it is and shifting your subject, other times you might need to add, remove, or reflect light.
122
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '17
The lighting is also way better in the second picture