# Help dissecting this photographers process?



## BrittneyRose (Jan 10, 2020)

I have been trying to achieve this type of look with my photography for awhile and while I’m aware that composition is very important in establishing the tone of the image like hers do, but I’m still stumbling over how to meter/edit my shots to look like this. I feel like when I am editing my photos, the dynamic range of my images are just too low to pull out that much detail in the shadows and highlights while also maintaining an image that isn’t too dark to see. Is her style of image lighting the result of image stacking? Please help me understand what I need to do to achieve this moody tone with lighting either through my metering process or editing process.

Their website (Our Life In The Shadows — Tania Franco Klein)


----------



## Braineack (Jan 10, 2020)

On phone, so short answer is highlight metering.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 10, 2020)

And projecting light onto part of a scene and leaving the rest dark. Probably editing to adjust contrast and in some, make the color look, well, off... To me some of it looks like editing to try and make it look like old film photos that have been in a shoebox in somebody's hot attic for years/decades... which I've seen done more than enough, but to each his/her own. Some of what was done I like (for Dior, light and shadows, warm color/light).


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Went to the URL.... pathetically slow-loading, did not even see a picture after 1 minute on each of two visits... big waste of my time. I can just imagine what the pictures look like.

What kind of camera do you have? Have you thought about using Lightroom and darkening your exposures by 3.0 EV and then using the adjustment brush to paint on light? That is actually a great way to simulate painterly light or dark shadowy light with glowing highlighted areas. Open an image in raw in Lightroom and set the exposure to -3.0. Then, using the Dodge tool do 3 passes of + 1.0 and you will be well on your way. By doing lightening in multiple passes of less than the initial minus exposure, it is easier to do.


----------



## BrittneyRose (Jan 10, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Went to the URL.... pathetically slow loading oh, did not even see a picture after 1 minute on each of two visits dot-dot-dot big waste of my time. I can just imagine what the pictures look like.
> 
> What kind of camera do you have? Have you thought about using Lightroom and darkening your exposures by 3.0 EB and then using the adjustment brush to paint on light? That is actually a great way to simulate painterly light or dark shadowy light with glowing highlighted areas. Open an image in raw in Lightroom and set the exposure to -3.0. Then, using the Dodge tool do 3 passes of + 1.0 and you will be well on your way. By doing lightening in multiple passes of less than the initial minus exposure, it is easier to do.



I have an xt2 currently.But no I have not tried that yet with Lightroom and will give it a shot now


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Dani Diamond has a good tutorial on YouTube I think it is about how to paint on highlights on the skin. Based upon that I thought a few years ago that maybe I could do some more things using this technique of using a Lightroom adjustment brush and the Dodge tool. About 4 years ago I shot several Christmas sessions, and I was using a medium gray background cloth. I darkened exposures in Lightroom to -3.0 EV , and then painted on small highlights on the arms and on the bridge of the nose and on the forehead of my people, and then I used a larger brush to "paint light onto" selected areas of the photo.

The idea is to paint on small highlights with a relatively small adjustment brush, and then to use a much bigger brush and paint back on the light that you subtracted when you reduced the initial exposure by 3 EV.


----------



## weepete (Jan 11, 2020)

Looks like a lot of shots as the sun is setting in the evening light. Lots of raked directional light through windows or spotlight in the artificially lit. Think there's also some post processing going on with colour grading and darkening of some areas. Colours tend to be on a restricted pallette and on the warm side with gold/turquoise being pretty prominent.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 11, 2020)

I read a lot of these sorts of threads and again I think that the point has been missed here, in this particular instance, relating to this particular style of photography...

Art is about contradictions, not logic, nor absolute values. It is never really about *what is in the image* just as poetry is never about the meaning of the words used.

A photographer and a camera.

The photographer, being human, is highly emotional and irrational. A camera, being a machine, is highly inert and predictable.

So we see emotion in an image and where do we look to understand it?

Emotion exists within out nature as being human, it doesn't exist in the camera. But we still look towards understanding the camera to explain it, to find what drives it rather than looking to ourselves. It seems totally irrational to me and a complete contradiction...

Art is about contradictions...

So we look at an image and see a complete and cohesive whole, (this doesn't happen with every image we view, but when it does...), now is this complete and cohesive whole an absolute property of the image or is it a property of the way we see and process information? It's a very important question because you see a mood in the image and therefore assume that the mood is intrinsic to the absolute properties that are contained within the image. You do not see the image as a series of contradictory statements that you try to understand as a cohesive whole. It's not as odd as it sounds because two contradictory statements often serve to highlight a contrast and create tension because we do tend to view them and understand them as a cohesive whole...

Ask yourself honestly if you really think that there is an absolute lighting setup that when combined with particular camera settings and PP work will always produce *emotion X*, "_move the main light a foot to the left and open the aperture 1/3 of a stop for more pathos..._"??

Yet still we continue to ask that question.

Art is about contradictions...

If you understand that emotion is driven by the memory and experience within us, and that such memory can be triggered by seemingly abstract and often contradictory visual stimuli... Then it make sense to study your own emotion, what makes you feel, what drives you.

I see in the images a lot of abstract and contradictory statements, and not just *visually contradictory with what else is in the image* but contradictory with your memory and emotion as well. You are presented with things that don't make complete sense together and yet you form just one meaning when viewing, you are presented with a series of shots that throws *image IQ* out the window and yet still try to understand them, or define them, by your understanding of image IQ.

They evoke memories of the 50's and yet the subject is as jaded and yellowed as the false colour that evokes the feeling. Trailer trash scum, you see the images as old and faded, you see the reality of now and see it as past, you see through the advertising gloss of the 50's and the reality of life as it was.

Images of now, with the patina of age and the tarnish of unfulfilled promise interpreted as the reality of what was then, the myths are busted and perhaps a truth revealed. Or just an examination of the photographers own emotions and feelings?

Still think there's a camera setting, lighting set up, or PP process that will help you duplicate these particular shots?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 11, 2020)

Tim are you high?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 11, 2020)

I was going to ask if Tim has ever taken any art classes, because that doesn't sound like anything I've ever learned about art.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 11, 2020)

Braineack said:


> Tim are you high?





Why do you ask, because my answer doesn't fit your definition of logical or rational?

I could easily ask if you've actually looked at the images. Just starting at the top, the first so heavily red but such subdued or darkened appearance. Why, what happens when you darken a blue shifted image? The second with the teeth (once in your mouth) on top of the drink (to be in your mouth), next to the hair, on the cistern. So uncommon a sight? The third, look at it and tell me there isn't a contradiciton between pose and content, in the bath fag in gob and half dressed, on the bog, small bathroom. What is the single meaning?

F8 at 1/80...



I'm just telling what I see, and what I see can't be related to PP or camera settings.



vintagesnaps said:


> I was going to ask if Tim has ever taken any art classes, because that doesn't sound like anything I've ever learned about art.



Which sounds to me, if you will excuse me saying, like someone who has never broken free of their own rationalization or need to create a logic or set of pigeon holes with which to label everything.

How do you create something original, by doing what you've been taught or by understanding the process and following your own interpretation?

These aren't run of the mill wedding portfolio shots.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

These scenes would not look anywhere near the same or have the same emotional meaning if the photographer were to shoot them in a light,and bright and Airy and Overexposed Style. Perhaps the first Moody photographer that I can remember was Sheila Metzner. Around  1978 or so, Modern Photography or Popular Photography published a multi-page portfolio of hers and it was in a dark and moody sort of gum arabic style, very old school and by old school I mean like 1905. Being about 17 at the time I was quite taken by the style of her processing. Fast forward 40  years, and photographers have the ability to finish their images in many different looks.

Tim, I  think that emulating this look would go a long ways toward making photos that carry similar meanings... dark and mysterious, with the important aspects revealed by light. Colors which are not true but which are evocative...

Of course the subject matter is important too. But for a young photographers such as Brittney, who is 22, being able to emulate the processing look is important but you are correct, the subject in each photo are  equally important.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 11, 2020)

Braineack said:


> You didn't answer; you're too drunk.



I did answer, I just didn't fit that answer into your rationale, or the format that makes sense to what you think is correct. And this is the point. On forums we study a common language, that of how a camera functions. And we try to fit how we feel about photographs into that understanding. We don't look outside it.

We are emotional and irrational humans.

Photographs are an inert and unfeeling series of dots on a piece of paper or computer screen.

We are moved by images because of the memory within us and not because of the dots outside us on the paper. Art is about understanding human emotion and not the rational arrangements of dots on a computer screen.

YOur comments often don't make any sense to me. If I wanted to move somebody I would look to what it means to be human, not where to place a light. It seems so obvious and *logical* to me.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 11, 2020)

Derrel said:


> But for a young photographers such as Brittney, who is 22, being able to emulate the processing look is important but you are correct, the subject in each photo are equally important.



I would say that this is where you fail to let go of your grounding in the process of photography. The IQ of the shots is all over the place, it can't be understood on a technical level alone and must also be judged on a purely visual basis. Tania is only 29 and has been doing this for a fair while...

The meaning of an image is decided by the viewers memory and experience and not by r technical process. It is, in my view, illogical to think that the technical process we follow dictates the absolute emotion we experience when we view an image. It's an irrational connection, (the meaning of an image), you can't control it through camera settings and I'm trying to say its exactly the opposite, that visual understanding decides technical process. Therefore understanding the technical process alone is quite meaningless. How many threads do you see on photo forums decrying the sterile and flat nature of modern digital tools? But perhaps it's the way we approach it rather than the tools themselves, perhaps it's the human understanding that is often missing from our *technical* approach.

All I'm saying is that I see a lot more in these images than can ever be explained by a technical assessment. In fact I think such an overview does them a considerable dis-service.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

I think you are clearly overthinking this. Perhaps it is you who is failing to understand something so basic as how to process photos in the style of the linked-to website. I think you might want to re-read the original post and offer something helpful instead of pontificating on issues which are not germane to the question. But then again I could be wrong. Perhaps you have all the wisdom that is needed for this situation. Perhaps your way is the only way of looking at it. But then again I could be wrong.

I would like to point out that just a few posts earlier someone asked if "you are high?" It seems that you have missed the forest for the trees and are offering some kind of defense of the artistic value of the website photographer. I think the reason for the question "are you high? "is referring to your complete (apparent) lack of understanding of what the original poster was asking about.

It is your long and rambling list of comments that don't make any sense here. I believe the original poster might not have your fluency with written language, and perhaps you are taking her use of the word process to include the entire creative scope of making photos for art, whereas I think most of us were attempting to help her with the actual photographic process and not considering the artistic or compositional or thematic elements that the website photographer displays.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

I just reread the original post. I think it is fairly clear that the original poster is asking for technical tips about how to get her photographs to look more like those displayed on the website she linked to. I don't think she needs a lecture about artistry or artistic intent or anything like that and she notes that is aware of the fact that she needs to do something technical to make her photographs appear more like these that she references. So in other words she needs technical advice regarding lighting or exposure or software post-processing... her question was about technical considerations and how she might best modify her working methods to achieve the end result kind of like that demonstrated on the website she linked to.


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2020)

BrittneyRose said:


> Please help me understand what I need to do to achieve this moody tone with lighting either through my metering process or editing process.


The short answer is:

Masterful use of light and dark.

(edit) She set the lighting to highlight what she wanted lighted, and shaped the light to avoid illuminating the darker areas.  She then metered for the light areas by using "spot metering".

Some shots appear to have been illuminated with a very narrow beam or multiple beams.  You might be interested in searching for "light painting".  

Light Painting Part One - the Photography


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

I have never seen photography that is not judged upon the technical basis. No matter the level of artistic sophistication or achievement, the technical details of photography always come to the Forefront. If an image is out of focus, or appears too dark or too bright, the technical e
valuation is always present. Great artistry combined with crappy technical values equals mediocre work. Great technical values combined with crappy artistry, is equally mediocre. To emulate any artistic photographer, one must first understand the technical details that led to that photographer's demonstration of said artistry.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 11, 2020)

@Derrel No, what I'm saying is quite clear.

These images explore the photographer's own emotions and feelings, not their understanding of lighting. I see the photos, they evoke emotion, I feel moody. Do I:

a) Learn everything I can about cameras and how they work?

b) Try to examine why I'm a moody bugger?

c) Pour another belt of scotch and put "Dark Side" on for another play?

You bet I've overthought this, you should see the library at my fingertips, my reference. Lordy. But it always comes back to the same thing, if you want to produce images that evoke a mood then you have to look to understand moods and not camera settings.

The images linked to show such a clear exploration of the photographers feelings and thoughts to the point that she's embraced a purely visual understanding and so let go of the idea that the technical should place any restrains on the outcome. I see it so clearly, that Tania has so put her soul into this that it's almost an insult to think we can learn how to do this by examining the lighting or the PP. I can point to dozens of visual points in the images that make the technical seem irrelevant. It's an odd idea on photo forums, but if you want to project emotion and get it to shine through your work you need to feel and surrender to emotion, not rationalize to logic. That, in the world of art is a *buzzkill*.

It's a simple idea, but an abstract one that's against our nature to accept.



The OP can phrase the question in any way, and even with knowledge of what format the acceptable answer should be in, but it still doesn't change what I think the answer really is or the one I will give. Yes, on a photo forum we try to condense what we see into an understanding we know and are familiar with, it's human nature. But if we always condense what we don't understand into the knowledge we are familiar with then what do we actually learn other than to do the same again and again?

On Tania Franco Klein’s “Our Life in the Shadows”

Tania Franco Klein’s best photograph: lost in the California desert

Now where did I put that CD??


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 11, 2020)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> ll I'm saying is that I see a lot more in these images than can ever be explained by a technical assessment. In fact I think such an overview does them a considerable dis-service.



While I don't disagree with some of your rather lengthy discourse, it did bring back memories of the part I hated about art appreciation in college. It took me many years to learn that if I wasn't interested in something more then a few seconds, I really didn't give a rat's patootie as to what the artist was trying to say, because if it was that hidden, chances are the artist didn't know themselves.  Painting lipstick on a pig still doesn't change it from being a pig. At my age the last thing I care to do is spend valuable time trying to dissect an image only to find out it's still not worth my time at the end. Unfortunately the naivete of so many who have the money to invest in art are easily swayed by the flowery BS of an art critic. There was a sale not that long ago https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/ or even better this one Why Pay $15 Million for a White Canvas?  that illustrates my point. There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, I have to wonder if he wouldn't have made an excellent art critic. In the case of the OP's link the artist spells it out very concisely in her Bio and Overview, even in her title, her direction, which frankly borders on grandiose narcissism,and takes  a sophomoric approach to visually explain that direction. However, despite the obvious, I did find a couple of the images interesting, but the rest crap, like the pig in lipstick. 

As to the technical process @Derrel mentioned a technique that I also use both in Lr and Ps. I've come to favor lighting in an image more like you  might see in real life, where things are not always even or equal. There's another process in Ps that I prefer, sometimes referred to as "Cookie Cutter" lighting in which a curve adjustment layer is used to pull down the exposure of an image either in general or selectively, then adding a white mask, and using a black brush (which you can also vary the opacity on) to punch holes that block  out the darkening effect.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

I am all for the  belts of scotch...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

People used to ridicule Andy Warhol. Manet and Monet were  regarded as no-talent artists when they were alive.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

If you want to be a winning race car driver, you need to know how to drive. If you want to be a decent photographer, you need to know how to do your job. It's that simple. Without technical proficiency you will never get your photos to look the way you want to.

No amount of Scotch whiskey or Pink Floyd or photo reference books can make that basic truth go away.


----------



## Overread (Jan 11, 2020)

MODERATOR NOTICE - Tim and others - if you want to discuss the inner meanings of art and humanity and whatever please START A NEW THREAD on the topic. 

Leave this thread to aiding the OP in their technical and artistic/creative emulation of the photographs that they've linked too in the first post. 

BrittneyRose - it might help to show some of your own experiments and detail the settings and setup you used for them. This could help identify where you're not connecting the dots in how to emulate the photos (accepting that there are several ways you can achieve a similar effect). This will help in feedback and advice as it means people can focus in on where you're having problems and address them. It might also be that you're making mistakes or lacking a comprehensive understanding of the subject which means that your making logical conclusions from an incomplete perspective (sending you down the wrong path).


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 11, 2020)

Shoot in raw. Covert in camera with velvia and raise shadow and color in camera +1 or 2.  Or shoot just raw and add the velvia treatment in post, saturated, vibrant color, specifically on the orange, red, and yellow channel. When shooting the raw image, spot meter bright light on floor or front edge of bed spread, to aid in contrasty dramtic look and feel. This person was very specific in her composition by using the rule of thirds to keep the viewer inside her vision. She took a previous model image and transferred it on 70's TV screen, I assume she edited the raw file and softened it, plus gave it a blue cast and she also dodged the blue shadow of TV on wall. Looks like she also bumped the clarity prior to TV image... Brilliant photo.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 11, 2020)

Actually I thought I did, it's not my fault that the OP linked to and artist's gallery rather than a wedding photographer's portfolio. Of course my answer would be different if it were a wedding portfolio, and of course it would've been ask somebody with more experience than me.

It's a valid answer and if you don't like it then delete my account. I have nothing more to offer you.

Ciao


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2020)

You need to shoot in raw so that you have the most editing leeway in post. As was mentioned above, it would be useful if you were to post some more information and a detail or two, as well as a sample photo or two so that we might better be able to judge what it is that you might be able to improve upon.

What are you using to edit your photos with? Affinity photo? Photoshop? Lightroom? Capture One? Are you familiar with masking? Do you have any lighting equipment even as rudimentary as reflectors or silks?


----------



## BrittneyRose (Jan 11, 2020)

Thank you all for the responses.... even the long ones ha. I have always shot in RAW so I have the most information to edit later on, and I previously used LR to edit photos but am currently switching over to Capture One. I am not familiar with masking or anything like that (have honestly been afraid to since I didn't know what I was doing). I do own a handful of lights but have not been sure what kind of modifiers I needed to buy for the look I was going for.

Now let me upload some of my images...


----------



## BrittneyRose (Jan 11, 2020)

These are all unedited. 


 


Please critique me as much as possible, I need it. I just dove into photography as more than a little hobby about a year ago and have been trying to improve since then in terms of controlling composition and lighting. ALSO, these pictures were taken on a Nikon f3 so I'm not particularly worried about things like grain and dust.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 12, 2020)

BrittneyRose said:


> These are all unedited. View attachment 185041 View attachment 185040
> Please critique me as much as possible, I need it. I just dove into photography as more than a little hobby about a year ago and have been trying to improve since then in terms of controlling composition and lighting. ALSO, these pictures were taken on a Nikon f3 so I'm not particularly worried about things like grain and dust.


Based on that first shot, I see a ton of potential and you seem to be on the right track. The photographer that you're referencing is someone I would consider a master of their craft, and that takes a *lot* of time and never happens overnight or after asking for some advice on a forum. It takes years to develop. You have the vision and the inspiration, just keep putting in the time and work so you can learn and develop a more refined vision and refined technical skillset. As far as Tania's editing goes, it appears to me that most of the editing is subtle color toning and not much more. The rest is done in camera, so start paying extra attention to light and shadow and experiment with how you use them in a photograph. I would recommend setting your camera's white balance to "shade", as this will help you get the rich color toning in Tania's photos too.

As for critique, I'll give some on the first image: details are important, so make sure you are manicuring your location, for example: next time consider moving the TV remote from the bed post so it's out of sight, and tidying up the counter space on top of the dresser and the night stand.

I also want to point out how refreshing it is to see noise in your photos; no matter how much other photographers moan and whine over noise, don't listen to them. You will be far better off as a photographer if you aren't afraid of using ISO settings above 1000.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2020)

The photo of Tania wearing a wig and 1970s style glasses in the bathtub, it hearkens back to Cindy Sherman's work in the1980s. It looks to me like evening sunset with massive reflector fill on the shadow side. The photo is taken from fairly close and shows only a small fragment of the bathroom, the bathtub and the window. A large part of that photo is the lighting.

If we take your bedroom scene we can make a comparison . Your photo is taken from much farther away and shows more of the location. Your light source appears to be the incandescent lamp, which is very different from her evening sunset light .

I think you need to explore lighting. If you have only been involved with photography for 1 year, it is unlikely that you have done that much lighting exploration. A year is not that much time really.

 I really think you should practice your craft with digital and not spend time on film. Digital gives immediate feedback, whereas color film in the Nikon F3 takes at least one day between exposing and seeing what you got. I spent my first 25 years in photography shooting film. I think that digital will up your learning curve progress quite a bit.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2020)

You need more dramatic lighting. Evening Sunset light is quite Orange, at least on certain rare days, and for just a short while. A much easier way to mimic the light would be to place a strobe outside the window and cover the flash with  FULL CTO gel.

I believe that the bathtub shot of Tania was lighted by a studio Flash firing through the window and the backside of the set was illuminated by large white reflector panels which bounced the window light back into the scene.


----------



## Designer (Jan 12, 2020)

BrittneyRose said:


> Please critique me as much as possible, I need it. I just dove into photography as more than a little hobby about a year ago and have been trying to improve since then in terms of controlling composition and lighting. ALSO, these pictures were taken on a Nikon f3 so I'm not particularly worried about things like grain and dust.


These two shots of yours are done with what I would call "general illumination", whereas the photographs in the link are done with very selective lighting.  If you want to get to where that other photographer is, copy what you see in her photos.  When you can get that same effect, then you will know what is needed to get it.  

As to post-capture editing, I'd say do only the absolute minimum, such as; straighten and crop, for instance.  Getting the light where you want is a whole lot easier and more "authentic" by moving and/or modifying your light sources than to try to do it in editing.  Get the shot right in camera, and you won't have to do much editing.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2020)

An excellent summation, general illumination versus very selective lighting.


----------



## BrittneyRose (Jan 12, 2020)

In terms of lights and modifiers, what would be a good list of items to get to start experimenting with lighting in this way?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2020)

As Dan pointed  out....Tania appears to have mastery of her craft.   She is 29 years old. And has quite a bit of photography experience.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2020)

Light sources which can be controlled easily...24×24 inch recessed-face, gridded softboxes.  11.5 inch metal 50 degree reflectors with 10 and 20 and 35 degree grids...snoots. smaller light sources, like 16 and 20 inch beauty dishes...old- school stuff...none of this modern 72- inch umbrella stuff...


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 13, 2020)

I'm not drunk, and I'm not trying to define art for anybody. I'm only trying to answer the original question, how do I make my images more moody like these?

So what mood are you trying to get the viewer to feel, isolation, loneliness, quiet reflection? And what is it in an image that evokes such moodiness in the viewer? The answer, as I tried to communicate in my original post lies along the lines of understanding what you feel and why you feel it.

A musician has learnt to play all the right notes in the right order and now wants to make his music more moody. The teacher says, "play it with feeling, it can be boredom or laziness if you like only play it with that feeling and see what it sounds like."

It is a process and not an absolute answer. The whole idea is that you break out of the idea that there is an absolute answer that you need to find to understand. You are trying not only to teach your ear to listen and hear the subtle differences but also make the more abstract connections directly to how you feel without trying to rationalize them to logic or process.

You can follow a similar process with visual images and a strange thing happens, you change your understanding of how images work and also the language you use to describe them. You begin to see more abstract connections and at some point along the way you will realize that there isn't a logical or technical process with absolute answers that describes why we feel moody when we view an image. Also note the shift in language, I do not talk about images as being moody but the way a viewer feels moody when they look at images.

The fact we search for a logical and absolute answer is hard wired into our thought process and evolution, we see the world as an absolute place and for an absolute understanding because we find it far easier to navigate and survive in, not because everything has an absolute and logical answer. We see an image as being moody and therefore assume the moodiness must be in the image because we view what we see as absolute it rarely occurs to us to think in terms of the image being inert and the mood as just in your head. If you accept that human emotion is irrational, then so to is our desire for moodiness to be in absolute property of an image that can then further be described in technical terms. It's also been proved beyond doubt that the very language we use to rationalize and categorize changes not only the way we view the world, but actually also alters the way we see it. Vision is not absolute, if you feel moody when you view an image it doesn't mean the image is moody, it means that you as a human feel. This all makes perfect and logical sense to me.

And this is half the problem, my language is now so different as to make my ramblings seem as idiotic and incorrect as the technical explanation does to me. Buying a certain kind of light and shooting raw doesn't move me any closer to understanding how to make moody images. But then I've deliberately sought to dismiss and ignore such a way of thinking, so that's no surprise. I can tell you that a technical understanding and equipment never helped me to do anything other than technically competent shots. To understand mood I had to break out of that way of thinking and hence the answer.

Just looking at the first of Tania's shots, it looks like a set as in arranged rather than processed, including the TV which was on and showing the picture. I don't think that there is a lot of equipment used, that it was all a lot more basic than the result suggests, (_but then you may be looking for a complex result because you link moody to technical and so think in terms of more moody/better technical where no such relationship exists, who knows..._). I notice that the light is very red and as Dan indicated quite bold as is the cyan on the TV, so try exactly what he suggests with the WB and see how it makes you feel. But I also look more to the detail, and not just to the absolute as in what is in the image. I compare it to my memory, my experience and so look to see how it differs, to what is missing and how that affects how I feel. The lack of personal items for instance. Also she is half dressed and sitting on the edge of the bed, but only on the TV screen. How does this change the way you interpret the meaning of what this represents, how does it change if she was in the room sitting on the bed.

How do you apply this to your images?

Personally I don't think the answer lies in buying a new light. But it's your photo...

This is nothing personal but I do find that my language is becoming so different from the technical and absolute preferred on forums, I also sense a resistance of many to let go of the technical and absolute and so seem to provoke more confrontation than understanding. So shall keep my thoughts to myself and just post the odd image from now on. Being honest this is not due to my overwhelming humility and respect for your feelings... But actually has more to do with it not helping me, just as my posts are often just about me understanding what I wish to explore. I have chosen this and I find having to justify it in online conversations tiring. It's as though the search for an absolute scientific/technical answer automatically seems to provoke the assumption that there is a right and wrong way, that if there is an absolute answer it simply can't be to do with the abstract relationships that evoke emotion.

But then the original question was how to make an image more moody...



Ciao until I have an interesting image to post, which might be some time the rate I'm going.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 13, 2020)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> But then the original question was how to make an image more moody...



no it wasn't.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 13, 2020)

After considering the responses and looking at the link again, the common threads in producing her images are 1) as @Tim Tucker 2 alluudes to an artistry image actually begins in the mind, with an idea. 2) As you develop that idea you make decisicions on composition and lighting and 3) You execute. If you've planned accordingly then the image represents your vision. 

Scrolling through the images in her link as others have pointed out she has used WB creatively. WB doesn't have to be an absolute, when used creatively either in camera setting, gelled flash, a combination of both, and post it can change the overall feel of the image. IE: By adding a half-strength green gel to your main light and adjusting your camera’s White Balance setting to the Fluorescent Light option, anything lit with the flash will appear neutral, while the ambient light will shift to a magenta tone. 

It appears that at least the few I checked were shot wide open, and likely shot at a slower shutter (shutter info was deleted from metadata). Doing so would have allowed her to use a wide range of simple lighting options from ambient, reflectors, off camera speedlights, even little LED flashlights. When used with a slow shutter LED flashlights can be used like a spotlight or a brush to paint light.

IMO she knew what she wanted and how she would go about achieving the look before she picked up the camera.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 13, 2020)

Braineack said:


> Tim Tucker 2 said:
> 
> 
> > But then the original question was how to make an image more moody...
> ...



The question can be condensed to:

"_Please help me understand what I need to do to achieve this moody tone with lighting either through my metering process or editing process._"

As I said I don't wish to try to justify why I have reached this answer, only state my opinion after looking at the shots in the link. If you wish there to be a technical answer defined by lighting/metering/editing all well and good and you can explain it in those terms.

But you could also surrender control by not post processing, using auto modes even illogical ones, and just one single angle-poise light with different wattage bulbs and perhaps a sheet of red cellophane placed in random positions, then just seeing if any of the images *grab you*, a process and learning continued over many years. It's a perfectly valid approach, and in such a process the actual settings, which of course exist, become a random element rather than the rational one and you simply cease to define the image in those terms because they fail to describe how you create and understand mood in photographs.

Do what works for you. I don't wish to debate it and have no interest in justifying why I think this way.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 13, 2020)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> The question can be condensed to:
> 
> "_Please help me understand what I need to do to achieve this moody tone with lighting either through my metering process or editing process._"
> 
> As I said I don't wish to try to justify why I have reached this answer, only state my opinion after looking at the shots in the link. If you wish there to be a technical answer defined by lighting/metering/editing all well and good and you can explain it in those terms.



The question is literally asking for a technical answer...



> But you could also surrender control by not post processing, using auto modes even illogical ones, and just one single angle-poise light with different wattage bulbs and perhaps a sheet of red cellophane placed in random positions, then just seeing if any of the images *grab you*, a process and learning continued over many years. It's a perfectly valid approach, and in such a process the actual settings, which of course exist, become a random element rather than the rational one and you simply cease to define the image in those terms because they fail to describe how you create and understand mood in photographs.



WTF.

A valid approach to learning how to create moody tones/light in an image, like the photographer linked in the first thread is to:

surrender control,
use randomly set the dial on your camera,
randomly point a desktop lamp in various directions,
hope an image works out?

Riveting.



My suggestion stands at metering for highlights as technical suggestion to help achieve the look.  I'd also add to get up early and shoot during sunrise, and again at sunset -- learning how to deal with and expose for the low directional light -- which many of the Klien's shots are done in front of window lights with various modifiers on them (70s curtains and blackout shades).

I'm absolutely aware these following images do not match the mood, but they get you into the right direction of what Klein is doing with the light.




Pookie on Table Looking Outside by Braineack, on Flickr




Belle in Sunlight by Braineack, on Flickr




Pookie Lazy Sunday Morning by Braineack, on Flickr




Pookie in Sun by Braineack, on Flickr




Connie in window Light by Braineack, on Flickr




Sonny under curtain by Braineack, on Flickr




Hobbes Nap by Braineack, on Flickr




This is why we can&#x27;t have fake trees. by Braineack, on Flickr

All these were natural window light images, where I expose for the direct light.  Very much like @Designer was suggesting about selective light, not overall light.   You can see in many of them, the plantation shutters and panes provide interesting shadows.  I believe Klein is shooting in a similar manner, using natural light in many shots, and playing with the drapes/shades in order to light the scene "selectively".  It's really important you expose for the highlights here, making sure to control blow-outs, and then since im shooting RAW I can selectively recovery any shadow detail as needed.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 13, 2020)

See what I mean?

It becomes a confrontation where you believe your ideas and viewpoint are challenged and you feel obliged to defend them. I do not ridicule you, only offer a different viewpoint.

I'm fed up with this, I don't wish to participate, you can win. It applies to all photography at all levels, there is no other way to think or do. I'm an idiot and my gallery just proves this.

I will post when I have an image I feel worth posting, but have no desire to be involved in further discussion because I simply find this destructive.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2020)

BrittneyRose said:


> I have been trying to achieve this type of look with my photography for awhile and while I’m aware that composition is very important in establishing the tone of the image like hers do, but I’m still stumbling over how to meter/edit my shots to look like this. I feel like when I am editing my photos, the dynamic range of my images are just too low to pull out that much detail in the shadows and highlights while also maintaining an image that isn’t too dark to see. Is her style of image lighting the result of image stacking? Please help me understand what I need to do to achieve this moody tone with lighting either through my metering process or editing process.
> 
> Their website (Our Life In The Shadows — Tania Franco Klein)



I think you need to dramatically increase the drama in your lighting. Her photos are more about lighting than they are about editing. She uses a variety of lighting techniques and I think that you will have the most Improvement in your pictures by lighting in a more dramatic style.

Her success is not just about metering or editing.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 13, 2020)

@Tim Tucker 2 I find your posts quite valuable, myself. It is difficult but rewarding to separate the technical from the emotional. I also offer a point for consideration:


Tim Tucker 2 said:


> A musician has learnt to play all the right notes in the right order and now wants to make his music more moody. The teacher says, "play it with feeling, it can be boredom or laziness if you like only play it with that feeling and see what it sounds like."


Musicians and photographers and all artists are trying to emote through a fixed or otherwise limited form. One can't see or  hear "feeling" in an image or piece of music, though. So the musician expresses emotion with technical skill in the use of their instrument. Techniques like subtle vibrato, slight or apparent variations in time and tone, and most obviously the exploitation and expressive use of dynamic range. Technical, quantifiable, shareable skills to enhance the emotive value within the limitations of the medium.

Suggestion or direction to play a certain passage "pianissimo" is a technical direction equivalent to a metering suggestion, and it can make things moody.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2020)

I just spent quite a while at Tania's Instagram, which has over 270 posts.

She is an accomplished art and fashion photographer and it appears to me that a lot of her photos are lighted with artificial light.  It also appears to me that she uses large white reflector Flats for a number of her photos. If I were to direct you I would say to get some gels for warming light : not all of us have the luxury of working in New Mexico or the American southwest where they have gorgeous light. Where I live we only have two or three months a year where the natural light is sweet ,and warm.

I would characterize her style as being mostly sweet,warm light. I would shoot with my white balance set to warm, or as Dan stated above, to Shade. There is a subtle difference between shooting in raw in Auto white balance and shooting in a set white balance.


I would urge you to buy some studio strobes and some large sheets of gel to warm your light substantially. A large percentage of the photos I saw on her Instagram were quite orangey or yellow, or warm. She is not going for technical accuracy, but rather a mood evoked by the warmth of the light.

I can see the obvious influence of Cindy Sherman in her work,as shown by the number of tableau self portraits that she does, but she is also an accomplished fashion photographer, most recently being featured in Vogue magazine.

In quite a few of her photos I see what looks to me like a large amount white reflector fill. Not silver reflective fill, not gold reflector fill,but neutral white. I would say in one word or two that you need to learn how to light. Her work is not so much about processing as it is about using soft and warm light and lighting for dramatic effect.

These are technical observations and technical recommendations. Her degree of artistry and her mastery of ennui and irony are quite amazing. She has a master's degree in photography, and it is clear that she knows her way around a camera.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 13, 2020)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> It becomes a confrontation where you believe your ideas and viewpoint are challenged and you feel obliged to defend them. I do not ridicule you, only offer a different viewpoint.
> 
> I'm fed up with this, I don't wish to participate, you can win. It applies to all photography at all levels, there is no other way to think or do. I'm an idiot and my gallery just proves this.



It's not about winning, I just don't think you're being helpful to someone looking technical answers.

Take your musician analogy, that would be like if I asked: hey guys I'm really into rolling Stones right now, how can I acquire Kieth Richards twangy sound.  And you tell me: first learn to master the guitar, then take cocaine.

I absolutely couldn't do what Klein has done, mostly the subject you touch on, but I do think I have an insight into how the images were created from a technical side.

I'm not judging your work, im just thinking if I was in the OP's shoes I would have hated a reply like your initial.

I'll try to play nicer.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 13, 2020)

BrittneyRose said:


> In terms of lights and modifiers, what would be a good list of items to get to start experimenting with lighting in this way?



@BrittneyRose, FWIW, I'd start with a setup you want to shoot then eliminate all the light, start with one at a time and build from there. Tania's style is 'low key' 'warm' and there are a number of ways to achieve this.

Analyze the photos carefully and you will see the photographer wants them to look like they were lit by one source for the most part, in fact I'd say she was attempting to mimic the sun. Three options are the sun, a tungsten fresnel or a strobe, don't rule out the use of flags to act as cutters to shape your pools of light for a shaft of light look as opposed to a spot of light, grids will control spill too. This will give you the control to have the shadows go dark and pools of light will create the 'low key' narrative. However, more than one light source may be needed depending on your subject and setting but it has to evoke a sense of believability otherwise it will look false.

Depending on the source, manipulation of the WB and/or gelling the source or lens will get you the 'warm' part, there are many ways to accomplish this.

And of course, shoot in Raw which gives you the WB, DR and contrast control you will want in post processing.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2020)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Ask yourself honestly if you really think that there is an absolute lighting setup that when combined with particular camera settings and PP work will always produce *emotion X*, "_move the main light a foot to the left and open the aperture 1/3 of a stop for more pathos..._"??



That is quite a straw man that you have built there, and no one was suggesting such a facile answer. If you go and look at Tania's work it is obvious that she follows a fairly narrow working methodology. I can tell from experience that she does not typically  use large umbrella light modifiers or huge softboxes, and she does not work in a Light & Bright and Airy Style, but rather she specializes in fairly warm photos, many of them quite low-key. Her work does not look like a Better Homes and Gardens advertising photo of a nice, modern California kitchen.

The original poster was asking for guidance, and  not some way to magically create emotion.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 13, 2020)

zulu42 said:


> Musicians and photographers and all artists are trying to emote through a fixed or otherwise limited form. One can't see or hear "feeling" in an image or piece of music, though. So the musician expresses emotion with technical skill in the use of their instrument. Techniques like subtle vibrato, slight or apparent variations in time and tone, and most obviously the exploitation and expressive use of dynamic range. Technical, quantifiable, shareable skills to enhance the emotive value within the limitations of the medium.
> 
> Suggestion or direction to play a certain passage "pianissimo" is a technical direction equivalent to a metering suggestion, and it can make things moody.



It's a process and not a means to an end. Yes you can become a competent technical player. But you will eventually hit a wall because you never learn to associate sound with how you feel. You will inevitable only learn how to reinforce your own rationalizations and logic as to how you think it should work but will always be lost as to how some people can instinctively pick up and instrument and connect emotively.

To do the latter you could let go of the logic and just be angry and play. Essentially what you are doing is introducing a random element, a random movement of hand and listening to how it changes the sound. You are breaking free of the old habits and teaching your hands to move in a different way. Also, by letting go of the logic you are teaching yourself to understand the more abstract and instinctive connections between sounds and feelings, somewhere a logical process can never take you. This is not to say that you can only sound angry by being angry, only that to learn how to connect the sound with the emotion you must break free of the logic and hear what it *sounds like to be angry*.

I see that process in the images in the link. And though I would never suggest you follow such an approach for a wedding it can open your mind to the more abstract connections and understanding that a logical and technical approach necessarily denies you simply because to be logical images must eventually conform with only the process you understand.



Braineack said:


> I'll try to play nicer.



Don't worry, I don't take this personally. I just don't think I'm helping either me or anybody else at the moment, my opinions are too opposed and so seem to challenge peoples fundamental understanding rather than sit alongside them. And as I type this Derrel's off again. It just isn't helping the forum any and my view is the minority...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2020)

Your view happens to be in the minority because you were not paying close enough attention to the actual question asked. The original poster did not ask for a big long diatribe about how to make art but was asking for basic suggestions. I would wager to bet you a large sum of money that she could not achieve Tania's warm and low key lighting effect if she would run out and buy $10,000 worth of large parabolic silver umbrellas. Despite your protestations lighting plays a very key component in the mood of a photograph. If you were to spend just 15 minutes looking through the current issue of Better Homes and Gardens you would see that light and bright and Airy is all the rage in Modern Advertising and that particular genre is filled with cookie cutter photos all lighted with basically the same gear and shot on the same type of camera gear. The original poster was asking a simple question, but there is much more to it than just buying a light. The original poster says that she has been involved in photography for about one year. Tania got into photography about 7 years ago and has therefore quite a bit more experience than the original poster, and she also has a master's degree in photography.

No one and I mean no one was suggesting that there is a magical formula of lighting that will lead to pathos. I think you are tilting at a big windmill here and even though I understand your intention I feel that your answers are extremely misplaced. Your strawman was not really what _anyone_was saying, and that's why it is called a straw man.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2020)

This is the photographic discussions sub-forum. Let's have a discussion. The original post was titled dissecting this photographer's process... I think it is only fair to discuss at least some of the actual process, which does involve quite a few bits of photographic tools...tools such as lighting, a camera and a lens for each photo, and post-processing software and post-processing techniques.

No one is suggesting that there is only one way to arrive at the end goal, but there is an obvious way not to go. If we look at the website reference, it is clear that the artist has a fairly narrow scope with regard to how her images look. She has a defined style. Her look is as much a result of her technique as it is of her intellectual and artistic vision; without either one, technique, or artistic vision, you will just be a camera for hire, as I take it you view wedding photographers.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 13, 2020)

Hard question, two folks look at the same scene and see two different photographs. Which saw the correct photo?


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 14, 2020)

One last post.

@Derrel, this is a discussion and there are no hard feelings.

It is human nature that we try to understand what we see, and it is also self evident that to understand what we see we can only define it by the terms and logic that we understand, and for photographers on forums this is invariably a technical one. It is very rare for photographers to stand in front of an image and be completely lost, they will nearly always try to form an understanding and that understanding will generaly be within their experience and knowledge.

Take another look at the linked to images. They are quite highly abstracted yet still read as both human and consistent rather than random snapshots. The lighting in them is nether logical nor consistent, in fact it's quite random.

So how do you do that? Keep a mood, or human understanding as to meaning, constant through a series of images while almost deliberately masking the technical by making it appear random?

One way is to keep something else constant, besides the basic theme, something far more abstract. It could be as abstract as a balmy summer afternoon and evening, your memory of the touch, smell and look of velvet coloured by time and old photographs. It seems obvious to me that Tania clearly understands that *mood is memory*, and particular patterns of light/dark, specific colour combinations, associations, etc. are what trigger memory and therefore evoke mood. And if you keep this in line with memory rather than reality you can maintain some abstraction. Of course this is highly refined in the linked to images, but the idea is to maintain the abstract idea as the rationale and then the technical becomes both subservient and random to the abstract idea.

The trouble with the technical approach is that you always look to the logical process to define how, what is correct, the way to proceed. And this then becomes the rational and becomes visible in the images, the abstract idea becoming *subservient to the histogram*, or what you deem logically and numerically correct. As I indicated I think this is exactly what you are aiming for with wedding photography, (the last thing you need to do is colour someones wedding dress with your own jaded view of humanity).

But in the case of the style of the linked to images then, *in my opinion*, the latter is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. As I said, to understand mood you should be looking at the more irrational process of how visual stimuli trigger memory and the very last thing you should be doing is try to associate it with logic and connect it to technical process.

I'm sorry you can't understand that. Perhaps the idea is wrong, perhaps I'm not explaining it very well, but equally perhaps your habit of condensing photography into what you understand and do well prevents you from seeing ideas and methods beyond it.

Open your mind to the possibility rather than reject it because it doesn't fit within your logic of how you rationalize the process. If you want to explore the more abstract connections then you absolutely have to release your grip on logical control. It's self evident.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 14, 2020)

Sure, sure. Tell me about logic.Then tell me about how Tania's photos are the result of random camera settings and celllophane over flashlights. Talk about an "open mind" all you want. The photographic evidence is within the photos. Do you think Brittney would be better off using a 4x5 inch view camera and black and white film? I mean... image quality, right?

Hold on an hour or two while I do a lighting diagram that is guaranteed to create pathos in whatever situation it is deployed. And you have the temerity to tell me about logic? Your spectacular strawman is a good example of losing the forest for the trees.
     Take a look at the thread title and try and use a little bit of analysis determining what it is that the original poster was asking about. It is clear that you have completely misunderstood what Brittney was talking about and your answer,as brilliant as it might have seemed to you, clearly missed the mark. Your idea that we're trying to give her a lighting or post processing suggestion which will automatically create pathos is clearly not accurate.

The original poster asked for help in dissecting Tania's process. Just looking at the photos there are quite a few clues as to what the process might be and what the process clearly is not. The photos themselves give us logical clues as to how they were made, and in the same vein they also give us an indication of how they were not made. Tania's photos clearly were not lighted by giant parabolic umbrellas indoors in small rooms. Each photo gives an educated photographer an idea of what type of light source was used. Both directionality of the light and the characteristics of the Shadow transition give you a pretty good idea of what type of light was actually used to make a photo. It's obvious that she is not using a small un-undiffused flash on camera.  It is also clear that her work is not lighted by the modern type of huge 6 foot or bigger umbrella or parabolic umbrella. I can see this. I'm surprised that you think it's some kind of undecipherable mystery. If I were to try and replicate these using a speedlight without a diffusing system, I would fail miserably.

I am by the way not a wedding photographer.


----------



## Overread (Jan 14, 2020)

Overread said:


> MODERATOR NOTICE - Tim and others - if you want to discuss the inner meanings of art and humanity and whatever please START A NEW THREAD on the topic.
> 
> Leave this thread to aiding the OP in their technical and artistic/creative emulation of the photographs that they've linked too in the first post.



No more replies Tim.
Stick to the technical aspects of the question asked and if you want to further discuss matters relating to the creation of art START A NEW THREAD. If this discussion continues from now on I'm starting with 3 days suspensions for ANYONE. Start a NEW THREAD if you want to discuss the artistic side of this discussion and leave this thread for the technical.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 14, 2020)

Thanks @Overread.

If there ever was a tangent, this thread went on one, on a rocket launched from Cape Tangent headed to planet Tangent in the Galaxy Tangent far far away.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 14, 2020)

To address the OP's query, here's a couple of shots I just did in good faith.

Main: 7" grid reflector with a 30 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject. Note how the specularity is higher due to the smaller light source on the main.
Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85. 




 

Main: 11" 50 reflector with a 40 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject.
Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 14, 2020)

I agree that a year isn't very long... From the two photos posted Brittney I think you seem to have potential and show awareness of capturing light. You seem to have noticed what was reflected in the mirror, where objects were placed in a scene in relation to your vantage point, etc. 

Keep developing skills like that in getting proper exposures in existing light, framing shots, etc. You might benefit from taking a class in lighting. It can be helpful at some point to be able to get feedback from an instructor to get an idea where you are with it and what else to work on. 

To me as I said in the site linked I liked the Dior 'tear sheets' but to me some of the other photos appear to be trying to emulate film, but the kind of photos in a box in someone's attic. That may have been a creative technique but I think it's getting tired (at least I'm tired of it!) but I don't know when the photographer linked may have done those photos. It would be fine to try that style with some subjects, but doing just that probably won't get you very far; it isn't to me a 'fresh' idea or look anymore. So keep trying out a variety of techniques and experimenting, while also learning and developing a good solid foundation of skills related to exposure, composition, etc. You can have a great idea but sloppy workmanship can detract from the idea and bring it down.

Keep using your eyes and your brain when you're taking photos. It's fine to learn from others but at some point you need to move beyond copying a style and discover your own way. What your photos made me think of was Hopper's 'Nighthawks' painting. Nighthawks | The Art Institute of Chicago . Try studying past master photographers or painters/artists like Vermeer and see how they captured light in their artwork.


----------



## BrittneyRose (Jan 14, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> To address the OP's query, here's a couple of shots I just did in good faith.
> 
> Main: 7" grid reflector with a 30 degree grid, gelled with a full CTO, flagged left and right to allow a shaft of light to hit the subject. Note how the specularity is higher due to the smaller light source on the main.
> Background: is a Small Chimera soft box with a 40 degree egg crate grid for just a tickle of light, no gel. Post processed with a 50% photo filter 85.
> ...


 I'm really curious as to where you got the 11" 50 reflector. I have a bowens mount light and an alien bee but I can't find one. I love the spread of that 11


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 15, 2020)

Sorry 11.5”, I have owned it so long like 30+ years, I forgot the half inch, lol. 

It had a 40 degree honeycomb grid attached and black foamcore as flags cutting the spread on either side of the beam about 3 feet in front it.
11.5 inch 50ø Grid Reflector, Black


----------

