Jump to content

Hollywood lighting and Strobists rant


Danny Lachman

Recommended Posts

Everyday I browse on the internet I find a vast amount of photos from the "strobist" movement. These photographers are called strobists because they use primarily flash units to light their photos and the look is very distinctive:

http://flickr.com/search/?q=strobist&w=all

 

The reason I'm irritated with them is because they all think they're artists, but really they are all just xerox machines of a particular style. The mind frame they have is materialistic - they treat strobe lighting in their pictures like an extension of their equipment. I don't know how to explain it exactly, but an analogy might help: In order to make a great film you have to have Hollywood style cinematography. These people think that simply putting clean strobe lights in their photos is the final step in creating great photographs. Not to say strobes are bad, the light quality is very nice and I use them too, but I don't rely on them entirely. What if strobes stopped working all around the earth forever? I bet most of these "photographers" wouldn't know how to continue making good photographs.

 

This makes me think of a particular photographer - Gregory Crewdson - he is in many ways the same as the strobists because he lights everything hollywood style. I find him ultra repulsive because he relies on an entire crew with movie equipment to create his "vision":

 

I've seen his work and I know what he is trying to do. He's trying to create a moment of tension and make it look important. I don't think he really needs that lighting to get the idea across - If anything, the lighting in his stuff is obtrusive and distracting. The photos ideas are vastly overshadowed by their technical perfection. You can tell he's trying to show a deeper frustration but it's more of a side note in the photographs.

 

In all, Strobists and Gregory Crewdson rely heavily on what society deems as good lighting - the hollywood style. It's not creative, it's actually quite limiting to think you have to conform to those standards. These people use lighting as more of a stamp on their images that says: "I'm a good photographer because I know how to give my images stylistic lighting" This frame of mind is what clearly marks posers from the real deal.

 

Of course, if I were to present this idea to a strobist, it would be similar to an Aetheist trying be logical with a Christian. All the strobist thinks about is whether an image looks good or not - they don't like to question things because they have found something that makes them feel secure as photographers. They would probably think I'm some arsty fartsy prick. It's just that I've seen work that is better than what strobists do.

 

Can anyone else describe similar things in the motion picture industry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This is a tough thing; ya know? I think we all have our own "stamps," and "styles." One could argue that even the lack of style is itself a style. The difference is that in those photos I've seen, the style is in the forefront. It reminds me a bit of Jackson Pollock. To me it always seemed the point was in how he made it, not what he made. "Art," in any discernible and definable form, like the notion of "good" and "bad" is purely subjective. We're all not art critics, but we know what we like. I would reason that a good deal of the better strobists could make due without strobes, though their work would suffer, much in the same way as if you took away a painter's brushes and forced him/her to sculpt. At first, it'd be crap, but that doesn't mean it'll always be crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words what I'm saying is that these strobists are slaves to their equipment. They let their tools dictate the look and feel of their photos. Art is definitely subjective, but you can tell when something isn't making sense - For example: Imagine if a strobist were to light the movie Napoleon Dynamite - think of how flashy and dynamic the lighting would be for such an intentionally dull film. It wouldn't look right - these strobists don't have the capacity to think outside of their realm of lighting.

Edited by Danny Lachman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

But we're all slaves to our equipment in a manner of speaking. Without a camera, we can't photograph. I'm sure a photographer/cinematographer, worth their salt can work in adverse situations/work through challenges and the like. Just because one prefers to use x or y, doesn't mean one only can. I find it interesting to see what they're doing with strobes. Not my piece of cake, I like natural lighting in mine [stills]- and if you took that away I probably would suffer a bit.

 

Granted, that "photographer" video was a bit . . . odd. . . . If anything I'd call him more a "director," than a photographer. But that's all semantics.

Edited by Adrian Sierkowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One of the best still photos I've taken was a wedding day photo of my stepdaughter and her new hubby out by my wife's small Koi pond in the back yard. It would have been a pretty routine natural light photo except for one thing: I filled the available light with a Osram strobe that not only was direct from the camera but I also aimed it down a bit and bounced it off the surface of the water somewhat. It gave their faces and clothes a nice glow.

 

So am I a strobist because I relied on a lowly piece of equipment to spruce up a photo? Without the strobe it would have been an okay but not exceptional photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't really see a difference between a still photographer with a favorite strobe versus Storaro and his favorite Jumbos on dimmer boards or Rousselot and his favorite Chinese Lanterns or Khondji and his favorite Kinos.

 

The tool isn't the issue, it's how the artist uses them. I wouldn't make a big deal over what tools an artist chooses to use consistently.

 

Strobes have the advantage of producing a lot of light, allowing the still photographer to use a decent f/stop & shutter speed combo for sharp photos, especially for large formats, unlike the typical levels that movie lights produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying people can't use certain equipment at all - I use strobes too as they are incredibly useful.

 

What I'm trying to communicate is that all the strobist's photos look extremely similar aesthetically, and I don't believe they are capable of doing anything more creative than that aesthetic. When strobes are used bare or with umbrellas they have a very identifiable look, and I feel that these strobists aren't really bothering to put any thought into the way their lights light other than exposure and minimal spill control. They aren't controlling their lighting aesthetically. it'd be the same problem if you used any kind of light just look the way it does because your too lazy to manipulate to make sense in the photo.

 

I'm not trying to bash anyone using strobes or any certain equipment, I'm concerned about the intuition of these photographers to create anything further artistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I am a big fan of Crewdson's work. I think the stuff looks great, and of course thats just one person's opinion. How do we judge anything artistic? All cinematographers use big crews, does that make Conrad Hall's work any less impressive? Why should the HOW a photo was made be a deciding factor on if a photo is impressive or not, for instance, with Crewdson's work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HOW a photo is made isn't important I agree,

it just happens that I find Crewdson's methods a bit obnoxious. It's a common and reasonable idea that art can't be judged. But I honestly don't buy it that Crewdson needs to create the photos the way he does from an artistic stance. I definitely think he has a market and is successful in terms of people being impressed by his work - I just don't really see any thing more than a spectacle in his stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to at least have it understood why I think of his work the way I do.

 

In Crewdson's stuff the first thing that I see is the effort put into the photo over the actual idea. I'm mezmerized by the details and lighting but not really by the actual intellectual content in his stuff. I don't think the tension idea behind his stuff is strong. Like I said it seems to be second in line to the technical perfection of his photos, and my personal belief is that he seeks to impress more than to actually express.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I some what agree with you about Crewdson's work, when I look at his pictures I notice the lighting right away, and I'm hard pressed to see what the image is actually trying to say. As for the strobist, you have to remember most of them are hobbyist whether they like to admit it or not. There are full time pro's that use the technique & understand how it can add to an image and how to control it but for the most part the stuff you see is mostly from hobbyist not pros & there stuff why they think it is great, it is often just ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I suppose the way you talk about the strobists isn't unlike the brief dogma 95 thing. That was a pretty severe case of style over everything else and for no other reason than it was cool and anti-hollywood at the time.

 

I really don't see the big deal with these strobists, though. If you define any style of anything, there are thriving artists with interesting work and there are many more copycats, amateurs, and experimentors with bland, uninteresting work.

 

The equipment thing isn't unique either, really. It's a product of the more wealthy amateurs of any given hobby who try to buy their way. Photography certainly has it; I can't count the 10-thousand dollar DSLRs I've seen shooting soccer games. Film has it; I heard a story recently of a guy who bought an HVX to shoot home movies because he read somewhere online it was the best camera available to amateurs.

 

My suggestion is to ignore it and focus on the artists you like, no matter what their equipment and approach is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

David, you're such a Tunsten-ist.

 

Strobist is doubly a poor description since you can modify a strobe any of a hundred different ways. Umbrellas to bare bulbs to fresnels, they all look different and they're all strobes.

 

Anyway, I wanted to add something about Crewdson. I had never heard of him but I find myself really enjoying his work, both from an artistic standpoint and from a technical. I suspect much of his approach is practical. He either has location fees for these places or sets built that must be housed. I wouldn't be surprised if the crew approach is cheaper than him dinking around all by his lonesome on those big setups. Alternately, perhaps he just likes working with a crew. I do. I like seeing every light turn on and start working from the camera perspective. I have worked both ways and I find working with a crew more like actually painting with light than doing all of the physical work yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Alternately, perhaps he just likes working with a crew. I do. I like seeing every light turn on and start working from the camera perspective. I have worked both ways and I find working with a crew more like actually painting with light than doing all of the physical work yourself.

 

I agree. Half the fun of lighting (and film making in general) is working with a (good) crew/team. A director/photographer friend of mine introduced me to Crewdson quite recently and I really dig his stuff as well. I think he'd be able to make great pictures no matter what.

 

Cheers, Dave

Edited by David Auner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said it seems to be second in line to the technical perfection of his photos, and my personal belief is that he seeks to impress more than to actually express.

 

I understand what you are saying Danny.

I was showed the Crewdson book and my first reaction was WOW!!, I thought his photography was really good, and I still do. Its not doubt the guy can compose, light and utilise his resources. But in photography I'm more into understatement.

As well as liking his work, there is also a side of me that thinks he's just trying to show off how well he can do. But then aren't we all in our own way....

 

Incredibly conflicting thoughts but I just wanted to state that I get you Danny......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

All the strong emotional reactions to Crewdson's photos in this thread, both positive and negative, serve to inform me that he is an artist, just not everyone's cup of tea. I personally think he's over-stylized to the point of being a bit camp, but I also think he's very good at what he's trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I don't really understand the OP's point.

 

"Strobist" isn't an artistic movement or a philosophy, it's a self-description term for still photographers who use mostly small, battery powered flash, mostly off-camera. The word only exists because one of the people who popularised the style (David Hobby) wanted to have a made-up word he could have some ownership and control over.

 

Most people who would describe themselves as 'strobists' might be a bit precocious, but all they're trying to do is learn how to use light to make things look nice. And that's a big part of cinematography too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...