# The GOBOIST is up and running!!



## JerryVenz (Feb 17, 2014)

Our new educational BLOG is alive and ongoing; the goal is to have a new blog posted every week.

The first blog is: "CAN YOU SEE THE LIGHT?"

The second blog is: "THE SUBTRACTIVE LIGHT ALTERNATIVE".

The next one follows up this topic and will be posted tomorrow.

Check them out and give me some feedback; questions on the topics, subjects you would like me to write about, etc.

Here's the link: The Goboist


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 17, 2014)

Sounds incredibly like "Stobist". Coincidence?


----------



## JerryVenz (Feb 17, 2014)

Not a coincidence.  This a MY answer to the MANY photographers trying to use flash EVERYWHERE after seeing David Hobby's use of flash on his STROBIST website.  David Hobby knows how and more importantly WHEN and WHERE to use flash outside.

So, I'm offereing the alternative: Proper use of natural light and something rarely talked about these days--SUBTRACTIVE NATURAL LIGHTING.

Wondered how quickly someone would pick-up on my blog title!


----------



## beachrat (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm a fan of anything that involves light.
Adding it,blocking it,diffusing it,coloring it,shaping it,whatever.
Waaaaay more important to me than what kind of camera I use,so I'll be following along.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 17, 2014)

...interesting alternative.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 17, 2014)

Jerry, your ambient light work is great, but...  your anti-speedlight commentary seems a bit over-stated to me.  Granted you don't always need supplemental light as you've very capably proven, but what's wrong with it?  The one thing that almost all ambient light work lacks, that IMO, really detracts from what would otherwise be stellar images are some fill in the eyes and a nice catchlight.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Jerry, your ambient light work is great, but...  your anti-speedlight commentary seems a bit over-stated to me.  Granted you don't always need supplemental light as you've very capably proven, but what's wrong with it?  The one thing that almost all ambient light work lacks, that IMO, really detracts from what would otherwise be stellar images are some fill in the eyes and a nice catchlight.



Well flashes are evil.  I mean it's in the bible somewhere.  At least I'm pretty sure it is, and well if it isn't then it really ought to be.. lol


----------



## JerryVenz (Feb 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Jerry, your ambient light work is great, but...  your anti-speedlight commentary seems a bit over-stated to me.  Granted you don't always need supplemental light as you've very capably proven, but what's wrong with it?  The one thing that almost all ambient light work lacks, that IMO, really detracts from what would otherwise be stellar images are some fill in the eyes and a nice catchlight.



Good point! And what that means is that if the subject does not have catchlights in their eyes then the photographer has not PLACED their subjects WHERE THE LIGHT IS.

It's just that simple.  ALL the images I have shown you and ALL the images I will show you HAVE nice catchlights in their eyes!

As for a my "anti-speedlight commentary", YEP, I'm there BUT NOBODY ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT SUBTRACTIVE NATURAL LIGHTING ON THE PRO-CIRCUIT.  So far everyone is getting in line to drink the SPEEDLIGHT KOOLAID!


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 17, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Jerry, your ambient light work is great, but...  your anti-speedlight commentary seems a bit over-stated to me.  Granted you don't always need supplemental light as you've very capably proven, but what's wrong with it?  The one thing that almost all ambient light work lacks, that IMO, really detracts from what would otherwise be stellar images are some fill in the eyes and a nice catchlight.
> ...



I'm guessing the guys placing there subject like that probably aren't shooting zoo critters like me.. lol.  

Read through the article and you do make some good points.  Most of what I shoot is ambient light, so I understand what you mean about looking for the right lighting situations.  I have to give John a thumbs up here though as well, while using ambient light to your advantage is certainly something you should really strive for as a photographer it's also good to keep your options open and have at least one decent external flash on hand.  Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV.

Also, where is the line for free kool-aid?  You know, just in case I get thirsty or something.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 17, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Jerry, your ambient light work is great, but...  your anti-speedlight commentary seems a bit over-stated to me.  Granted you don't always need supplemental light as you've very capably proven, but what's wrong with it?  The one thing that almost all ambient light work lacks, that IMO, really detracts from what would otherwise be stellar images are some fill in the eyes and a nice catchlight.
> ...



why is it the "speedlight koolaid"? I mean, why does it have to get all derogatory?
you sound just the same as the people that talk about "natural light" photographers like they are some kind of leper. 
light is light. who cares how you get it to the subject as long as the end result is good?
im genuinely saddened to hear that sort of negative propaganda from a talented professional photographer like yourself.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 17, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> ...As for a my "anti-speedlight commentary", YEP, I'm there BUT NOBODY ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT SUBTRACTIVE NATURAL LIGHTING ON THE PRO-CIRCUIT.  So far everyone is getting in line to drink the SPEEDLIGHT KOOLAID!


But why is using one particular tool that's available to you a bad thing?  Granted, there's a LOT of gawd-awful flash work out there, but there's also an equal amount of friggin' horrible ambient light work...  To me this is like saying you shouldn't review your images on your rear LCD as you go.  Hell, my absolute favorite thing about digital photography (aside from the fact that my hands don't stink after processing a batch of images) is that I can review and adjust as I go... I LOVE the 'blinkies'!


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> JerryVenz said:
> 
> 
> > ...As for a my "anti-speedlight commentary", YEP, I'm there BUT NOBODY ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT SUBTRACTIVE NATURAL LIGHTING ON THE PRO-CIRCUIT.  So far everyone is getting in line to drink the SPEEDLIGHT KOOLAID!
> ...



Ok, so easy to solve.  We sing Kumbayah, have some smores, then we all go out and shoot some HDR which we then overcook until it's ready to explode.  Happy happy joy joy, win win, synergy dance.  Lol


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2014)

Hey Jerry,
 I made you your own cartoon character!! All in fun of course. (You know you're one of the TPF family once you get your own cartoon character!!!)


----------



## JerryVenz (Feb 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Hey Jerry,
> I made you your own cartoon character!! All in fun of course. (You know you're one of the TPF family once you get your own cartoon character!!!)
> 
> View attachment 66948



DERREL! I love the cartoon! Can I use it in my blog and/or my book?  Gladly give you credit!!


----------



## JerryVenz (Feb 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> JerryVenz said:
> 
> 
> > ...As for a my "anti-speedlight commentary", YEP, I'm there BUT NOBODY ELSE IS TALKING ABOUT SUBTRACTIVE NATURAL LIGHTING ON THE PRO-CIRCUIT.  So far everyone is getting in line to drink the SPEEDLIGHT KOOLAID!
> ...




Funny you should mention "chimpin" the LCD on your camera.  That's one of my future topics on my blog! People are going to think you're a shill here to promote my blog!!

One of the methods I endorse when teaching is to require students to TAPE OVER THEIR LCD'S, when outside, to make them look and SEE with their EYES and to TRUST THEIR INCIDENT LIGHT METERS.  Hey, we got along fine for over 100 years in photography without LCD instant previews. 

I photographed HUNDREDS OF WEDDINGS and I don't know how many portrait sessions over the years NEVER SEEING THE RESULTS until the film came back from the lab. I always KNEW the instant I pressed the shutter release when I GOT THE SHOT--I never worried about the exposure because my incident light meter was calibrated to how my lab processed my negs.

And, I love you tirediron, you actually brought up the "blinkies" !!  ( the CLIPPING INDICATOR for you techies ) That's yet another topic already on my sheet of upcoming blogs. STAYED TUNED!!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2014)

Sure Jerry, feel free to use the cartoon. It's your likeness!


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 17, 2014)

I want my own cartoon character.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 17, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> Funny you should mention "chimpin" the LCD on your camera. That's one of my future topics on my blog! People are going to think you're a shill here to promote my blog!!


 Shhh!!!!!  They'll catch on! 



JerryVenz said:


> One of the methods I endorse when teaching is to require students to TAPE OVER THEIR LCD'S, when outside, to make them look and SEE with their EYES and to TRUST THEIR INCIDENT LIGHT METERS. Hey, we got along fine for over 100 years in photography without LCD instant previews.


  Always good to teach the basics; much like teaching children how to do basic multiplication in their head; but even if I can do that, chances are I'm going to have a calculator handy just in case.



JerryVenz said:


> I photographed HUNDREDS OF WEDDINGS and I don't know how many portrait sessions over the years NEVER SEEING THE RESULTS until the film came back from the lab. I always KNEW the instant I pressed the shutter release when I GOT THE SHOT--I never worried about the exposure because my incident light meter was calibrated to how my lab processed my negs.


  Been there...  but having had the preview option, I'm an addict. 



JerryVenz said:


> And, I love you tirediron, you actually brought up the "blinkies" !! ( the CLIPPING INDICATOR for you techies ) That's yet another topic already on my sheet of upcoming blogs. STAYED TUNED!!


 and.... I'm guessing not in the 'For' camp?


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Sure Jerry, feel free to use the cartoon. It's your likeness!



Hey wait.. I don't have a cartoon.  Huh.  Does that mean I can get all offended and stomp off in a huff?  I really enjoy stomping off in a huff and I just don't get the chance to do it all that often..lol


----------



## JerryVenz (Feb 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Jerry, feel free to use the cartoon. It's your likeness!
> ...




I mean we wouldn't want anyone to make a monkey out of you, would we? LOL!!


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 18, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Gorilla.  Not monkey.  Gorilla.  You know what the difference is?

About 300 lbs.. 

Badumpbump... lol


----------



## mmaria (Feb 18, 2014)

I'm with you Jerry... just saying...

I just replied on another post about lighting the food and sorry but my reply here is colored by that one.  I usually restrain from replying to comments "buy this and buy that" that someone makes in order to tell the newbie how to improve their photography skills. I think that no one needs to buy anything to learn! Use what you already have and learn as much as possible with the equipment you already have. The most expensive equipment there is wont save you from making basic mistakes. 

Why don't start from the available and natural light? Why not observing the light all the time and no matter where you are or where you go, with or without the camera, just observe and notice how it behaves. I've already wrote similar post so I feel I'm saying that again, but really...

I appreciate natural light and want to make the best out of it. Others want something different and that's fine, we're different to begin with...


----------



## weepete (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks Jerry! I'll be watching this with interest beacause one thing is sure, you make some damn fine photographs. I really like your use of light in the examples.

I would have liked to have seen a bit more detail or discussion in your articles about what to look for when choosing a location and what the right kind of light is but possibly that's for a future date?

It's also one of the things I struggle with right now is knowing what's not only good light to my eye but one that will translate well to a photo.


----------

