Lighting Without A Budget For The Indie Film MakerWritten by Fred Ost
You've planned all your shots out to last detail, everything placed to perfections but something's not quite right. It's lighting of course.
I think one of largest expenses outside of camera equipment has to be lighting. I've spent many a rainy day staring dreamy eyed at Lowel Light catalogue. After taking stock of contents of my empty pocket I knew there had to be a cheaper way to start, so it was off to Sears. I'm not saying that Sears is lighting central I just had room on my Sears card to go shopping.
A careful search of closeout section revealed a few boxes of halogen work lights that we're either open box returns or packaging was less than shelf quality. They came with an adjustable height stand which honestly isn't quite high enough but that's a small price to pay. The stand folds into a nice neat little bundle that included strap wraps around securing lights to folded stand making it compact and really easy to carry around. So for forty bucks I added two light sets to my indie arsenal.
There are two lamps that mount to a cross bar that mounts on top of stand, halogen lamps have an adjustable output wattage. They can either both be used at same time or you can run only one depending on your lighting needs. The mounts that secure lamps to crossbar can be adjusted to almost any angle so that kind of compensates for lack of height that stand offers.
Is using Photoshop Cheating?Written by Nick Stubbs
Is Photoshop really cheating when it comes to photography ethics?
I keep coming across people accusing and being accused of "cheating" an image by using wonders of Adobe Photoshop, and that their work isn't really photography at all, but another form of art altogether.
First of all, my opinion is "so what"? What does it really matter how artist or photographer got to finished image? As long as it is thought provoking and pleasing to eye, and as long as it can be used in any necessary context for publication if so desired, do we really need to know how and/or why it was done?
Sure, a hard-core, original style photographer would say that true image should be made at time of capture, as event happens and that any later enhancements are misleading to end viewer. To that I say "poppycock"!
For me, only true and real photography is that of photojournalism, and as I am sure you will agree, photojournalism should not and must not be tampered with for monetary gain or to purposely mislead viewer.
Some of most awesome and thought provoking photojournalistic images have stayed in my mind since I was at primary school. One image that springs to mind is that of a young, naked Vietnamese girl having just been napalmed during war, running down a road.
There would be no reason and no point to further enhance this image, it tells its own horrific story as it is.
When it comes to photographs as an art form, I guess photographers have been "misleading" people since first "Daguerreotypes" were being made. The famous photo of Cottingley Fairies held true for years until being finally exposed as a fake. Does it matter that it was a fake? The authors have created one of most famous images and talked about legends for over a century that will be discussed for centuries more no doubt!