The Umbrella Light Controversy
 

The Umbrella Light (Brolly) Controversy

I never would have expected that sharing my "GENERALIST" view of a lighting technique could cause such a stir. In fact it was based on a personal preference only and was NOT written for any other reason but to challenge you to think about the why and how one might consider the tool they wish to employ for a certain effect.

Now in reading many of the responses to my essay, it seems that I could perhaps give greater clarification to what I stated.

When ever there are adverts for lighting kits, they are generally shown sold with a soft box and an umbrella or two. So I can understand where the "Got it with the kit. May as well use it..." conditioning comes from. Personally, I find that rather unfortunate,as this inadvertently sets up a mind set about what studio lighting is and in my opinion falsely represents. I would prefer if flash heads, continuous lighting kits and mono blocks were just sold as is and the client could then be informed of the optional accessories available and what they can produce as a result of using them.

An umbrella is in fact a very interesting utility if understood and applied creatively. Like all light modifiers, they create an ambiance that is unique to the manner it diffuses light. I recently saw an illustration that made me laugh. It was showing how to set up an umbrella and the distance from the light source. It showed the light source close to the center of the umbrella with a "No No" sign next to it and then another far from the center of the light source with another "No No" sign next to it. Finally hey showed what they considered the proper placement of the light source within the umbrella. That was a "Yes Yes" sign. All of that is utter nonsense, as there is NO proper placement. It all depends on how concentrated the light source you want will be.

Lighting is a very complex art form and to master it takes several life times in my opinion. There are absolutely "ZERO" rules about how to light and what is correct or incorrect. If what you are attempting to do or NOT works out as desired or as a pleasant surprise, that is what it is all about. Hopefully you will have logged how you attained that pleasant mistake, so that you can replicate it again.

What is more important than the umbrella, light-box, snoot, bowl, opalite, kino light etc., is the capturing of an image that is poignant, powerful and meaningful. The tool you captured it with is meaningless if what you captured leaves a lasting impression on those viewing it.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1135

Quite agree with the basic idea that you should use the setup that suits what you want to do and what you want to achieve. If moving the brolly relative to the head gives you the effect you want, then go ahead and do it.

I don't share your distaste of brollies, I use mine all the time, but then my subject matter is somewhat different to yours (unfortunately) :( .

Just uploaded an image in to the gallery shot with an umbrella and tungsten light mixed.

Controversy !!!!!! :eek:

With this image headlining in your blog ...... surely not.
If so, then I am truely surprised. Request for you to put this in your gallery so I can add it to my favourites. Inspiring stuff.

Don

Done, Don...:)

I couldn't agree more Benjamin. There are NO hard and fast rules in Photography, they are all there to be broken if it achieves your desired image. Try not to reinvent the wheel by all means - ie if someone explains a set-up you can follow and it helps you achieve your desired result - then use it, but if it does not, then don't ask afterwards why did I not get so and so result like such a body - experiment yourself and learn what works or does not work for you.