Lighting Without A Budget For The Indie Film Maker

Written by Fred Ost

You've planned all your shots out torepparttar last detail, everything placed to perfections but something's not quite right. It'srepparttar 149449 lighting of course.

I think one ofrepparttar 149450 largest expenses outside of camera equipment has to be lighting. I've spent many a rainy day staring dreamy eyed atrepparttar 149451 Lowel Light catalogue. After taking stock ofrepparttar 149452 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 ofrepparttar 149453 closeout section revealed a few boxes of halogen work lights that we're either open box returns orrepparttar 149454 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 thatrepparttar 149455 included strap wraps around securingrepparttar 149456 lights torepparttar 149457 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 ofrepparttar 149458 stand,repparttar 149459 halogen lamps have an adjustable output wattage. They can either both be used atrepparttar 149460 same time or you can run only one depending on your lighting needs. The mounts that securerepparttar 149461 lamps torepparttar 149462 crossbar can be adjusted to almost any angle so that kind of compensates forrepparttar 149463 lack of height thatrepparttar 149464 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 usingrepparttar 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 howrepparttar 149346 artist or photographer got torepparttar 149347 finished image? As long as it is thought provoking and pleasing torepparttar 149348 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 thatrepparttar 149349 true image should be made atrepparttar 149350 time of capture, asrepparttar 149351 event happens and that any later enhancements are misleading torepparttar 149352 end viewer. To that I say "poppycock"!

For me,repparttar 149353 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 misleadrepparttar 149354 viewer.

Some ofrepparttar 149355 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 duringrepparttar 149356 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 sincerepparttar 149357 first "Daguerreotypes" were being made. The famous photo ofrepparttar 149358 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 ofrepparttar 149359 most famous images and talked about legends for over a century that will be discussed for centuries more no doubt!

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use