Pixiq

Without doubt the best stylistic route is to determine the audience and end goal before choosing photographic lighting.

LED strip lights and ring lights are all the rage, but just because they’re new and sexy, doesn’t mean they’re a fit for all subjects. Youthful enthusiasm and drive to use the latest devices is fun, but frequently inappropriate. Mismatch between purpose and equipment can be deadly. 

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more futile example of picking an unbecoming lighting tool - and then sticking with it in spite of unsuitable results. Ugly is the word I’d choose...

This is a scan of the actual magazine cover of Colorado Biz’ January 2012 issue. People pictured are the annual inductees of the Colorado Business Hall of Fame. I know these people;  they’re interesting, dynamic and while of older generation, have a certain elegance. 

So why did the photographer choose lighting and postproduction that makes them look like skin cancer has them one tanning salon day away from the hospital? Frightening! The lurid, carbon copy grins and mugshot style don’t help.

OK, so let’s first define the goals, style and purpose of these portraits. Community and people-oriented leaders of a certain age are to be celebrated for their dynamic personas, their staying power and up-to-date approach that belies their years. The job calls for an unusual style, something new and striking, yet at the same time with at least a measure of physical attractiveness and classic feel. As a side note, any business publication wants to attract new, younger readers. The leaders showcased in their pages should not look like old fogies, or readership will suffer right off the bat. Major turn off. 

This does not mean taking Photoshop to the popular extreme of making human skin look like smooth, shiny ceramic. 70 does not look like 30. Age can be beautiful; wrinkles aren’t necessarily bad. Forced ugliness, however, doesn’t cut it in my book - especially not for this purpose. My Dad’s reaction? In his mid 80’s, his comment was that “they look like the Witch of Endor.”

Ansel Adams said, “there’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”

Photographic style is similar to how architecture is a linked endeavor of function, style and materials: total appearance wraps up the sum of the many parts. People also, especially people of function and substance, need to have a strong, positive appearance that befits their value to the community. I can’t be silent when a publisher prints photographs that make good people who have given of themselves to the community, look like they are old to the point of decrepitude, criminally ill or perhaps suffering from cancerous lesions. A huge disservice to these people and the reading public.

When the interior is beautiful, why on earth manipulate the exterior to look ugly and grotesque?  Not only are these pictures a personal affront to these valuable people. These pictures are an insult to our photographic profession, as well as that of publishers. Mike Cote, publisher, and Jeff Nelson, photographer, should rethink their publication! 

My take: what’s right in the pictures

• direct eye contact is very engaging
• close up is modern and appropriate
• flat lighting is contemporary
• flat, side lighting helps hide glasses reflections
• flat lighting can help avoid nasty shadows
• shallow depth of field emphasizes mask of the face
• smiles are good on people-oriented people
• contrast and sharpness evoke keen character

What’s wrong:

• straight-on mug style is impersonal and repetitive
• too wide angle lens emphasizes nose size and neck wattles
• same for low camera angle with eye looking out straight
• very sharp, blotchy skin conflicts stylistically with soft noses and ears
• way high contract emphasizes wrinkles
• contrast makes skin look like thin, flaky, splotchy crepe - sickly
• postproduction (+ clarity? high pass filter?) gives a crusty look
• teeth too white and same color person to person
• carbon copy grins look like kiddie school pictures at best, or carnies at worst
• lack of background separation combined with lens choice make images curiously flat, but with the feel of a plastic mask popping out of the center

Final take:

In photography the means (your equipment and technique) never define or justify the ends (the meaning and purpose of the image). Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Story is everything, not your gear.

Comment to suggest what you might have done with this job.