But, for us MacGyvers, the meaning is a bit different. To us,  it means using whatever light is “available” — be it the sun or any other source of illumination we can create or put our hands on. It’s a subtle, but fun, difference.

A couple of weeks ago, I got to go “Angus”, and here’s a short note on what I did.

The Challenge:

My friend, Todd Ramos, was producing the fashion shows at the recent Houston Bridal Extravaganza. In the hall were some rather elaborate sets — the creations of some amazing designers who specialize in transforming ordinary rooms into locations for fantasy weddings. Todd, and his gifted photographer Collin Kelly, wanted to use the sets for a shoot with of a couple of Todd’s models. I volunteered to be the grip.

Collin came prepared with a set of Profoto Acute 1200 lights and some Profoto light modifiers — the right gear for the shoot.

But, sometimes the best of plans hit a snag — and Collin’s did.

Through no fault of Todd’s, the fashion show ran a bit late. And, since we were at the end of the last day of the show, the set designers started striking their sets.

We rushed over to our venue, models in tow, and asked for a few minutes to do our shoot. The designers kindly stopped taking things down. But, we knew we had to be quick. There would be no time to set up Collin’s lights. (He didn’t even have time to take the Pocket Wizard he was going to use to fire his lights off his camera.)

So, we had to shoot “available” light — which, at first glance, meant using the overhead lights that were illuminating the convention hall.

Ugh. Dull, flat, non-directional light.

The Solution:

It was at that point that I started to channel MacGyver. No, I didn’t pull out a Swiss Army knife with a built in photo light. But, I did start looking around the set to see if I might find a light I could use to create “directional light” –light that would create depth and dimension in what was, otherwise, a very flat lit scene.

Eureka! I found it. On the wall of the set, was a replica of a “stage spotlight” — a can light that even had a built in gel holder. With the permission of the designer, I took it off the wall and, voila, I had a hand held spot with which I could create depth and dimension on the model’s face. (You can see another of the same light, on a base, behind the model, Allessandria.)

All I had to do was find the right angle and hold it in place. For most of the shots, I tried to use a Butterfly or Paramount Glamour lighting pattern — lighting from above the model to create the butterfly under her nose and a slight specular highlight on her forehead. However, in this shot, I was going for a bit different look — broad lighting the face and trying to get some light on and under the eyes, which were dark sockets when illuminated solely by the overhead, convention hall lights.

When the light proved a bit harsh, I grabbed a piece of white cloth that had been used to wrap a column and used it for diffusion. However, it was thick and we lost probably 2 stops of light. So, I asked one of Todd’s assistants for a piece of white paper which actually worked fairly well; then, a videographer in the crowd that had gathered around us, handed me the ultimate solution, a neutral density gel that also softened the light. After all of that, I decided that I liked the hard light best, and in the shot of the set up you see, I used the light without modification.

I really liked that light. It had a bracket that made it easy to hold and aim. It’s an easy way to manipulate the light in a setting with overhead, tungsten lighting. I’ve been looking to buy one to add to my travel kit. When I find a source, I’ll post it here.

(In this photo: On the left is Todd Ramos. On the floor, Collin Kelly. And, that’s me, Angus MacGyver, holding the light. The model is Allessandria Alamilla; I was very impressed with her — particularly in her ability to hold some very difficult poses while we fiddled with the lights; she’s a gamer. This snapshot came out of Todd’s point and shoot. He can’t remember who was using it at the time so there can be no photographer credit.)

The Result:

Copyright: Colliin Kelly (2010)

Here’s Collin’s final image — a true work of creativity and beauty.

Lesson Learned:

This experience reinforced the mantra of the gurus of guerilla lighting — “available light means whatever light is available”.

And, it brought back lessons from my first two lighting classes. It was Scott Smith who taught me that a classmate in a white t-shirt could serve as a reflector. And, Don Eddy, who taught me that I could light most anything with a tungsten bulb in a cheap Home Depot reflector/holder.

With most of my work done in a studio in which I can control my light down to the smallest detail — I was pleased to learn that with some ingenuity and the general lessons I had learned about lighting, I could help solve the problems we were facing.

Since that shoot, like Michael Weston in Burn Notice, when I enter a room, my eyes do a quick scan for what’s out there. Michael is looking for enemies. I’m looking for friendly lights. I wonder if there’s a TV show concept here.

Many thanks to Todd and Collin for letting me join the team for this shoot.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

Some feel it relaxes the model and helps him or her find a “rhythm” that creates a dance like partnership with the photographer. Others think the music is a distraction and prefer to work with words to get the best from their subjects. And, many do both.

But, one thing is not open to debate — if we choose to use music, we have to honor the rights of those who created it — just as we expect them to honor ours.

In a past newsletter, “intellectual property attorney”/photographer Jody Goldstein, set forth the general parameters that control when and how we can lawfully use music in our studios. Seen in its most simple light, the general rule is that if we play recorded, copyrighted music, we most likely need  licenses. The most common misunderstanding? That if we own a CD, or have paid for a download, we can play it during a shoot. We can’t, and the article explains why.

That’s why, in December, I wrote a check to ASCAP, one of the two major licensing organizations, so that I could legally play music in my studio. The license lasts for a year. Using a rate established by PPA, my license cost me $152.00. (Just tell them you are a PPA member and they will give you that rate. I’s bet that other organizations have similar deals.)

If you don’t have a license, you might want to consider getting one. You can learn more about ASCAP, here.

Doing so puts us in solidarity with our brothers and sisters of the arts — the musicians with whom we share the task of making sure that our clients respect the laws that protect all of us.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

So, I’m going to try adding something new — something that will accommodate my Restless Mind, something that will let me write what I’m thinking while I’m thinking it.

And, something that might stimulate more contemporaneous feedback and help to create a sense of community.

Here’s the plan: I’m going to use this space to post  ”short” entries, random thoughts, whenever and wherever my restless mind takes me. Some will lead to longer articles, later. Some will just pass in the night. But, all will take a load off my mind.

[Special thanks to my very good friend Jim DiVitale for allowing me to use his brilliant creation as the logo for this column.]

16 Dec 2009: Seminar Manners — “Shooting Along” With the Teacher

Last month, I took my own “busman’s holiday”. I attended a seminar taught by a teacher and photographer for whom I have great respect. I won’t name him, here, because these thoughts are not related solely to his seminar but reflect both my experience and those of some of my friends.

These comments have nothing to do with the teacher and everything to do with the audience. He was perfect. The audience was not.

Throughout the two day seminar, a dozen or so of the two hundred students, without being invited to do so,  ”shot along” with the instructor. Some inadvertently set off his lights — right when he was getting ready to shoot. Others, shot bursts — hoping to catch the moment his lights would fire. Even when the instructor gently let it be known that he was not happy, they did not stop.

The rest of the students were not happy with their behavior, either. I sat one seat away from a woman who fired bursts throughout the seminar making it difficult to hear and follow the teacher.

I think this behavior was rude and disruptive — rude to the teacher and disruptive of the class.

At the time I could not imagine why there was so much shooting going on. I can fully understand if people were quietly and quickly shooting the “lighting set ups” for future reference. One click and done.

But, that’s not what they were doing. They were shooting the models. They were shooting the large screen upon which the instructor’s images were being displayed. They were taking pictures of his pictures!

To what end? I had no idea. To me, it seemed silly that someone would pay tuition to attend a class and then spend that class shooting instead of listening.

Then I got an email from a friend who had attended with me. He told me to go up on Flickr and search on the models’ names. Up came a bunch of the “bootleg” images taken at the seminar.

Perhaps, the students shooters do not understand that using those images is wrong.

It’s wrong because the images were the creation of the teacher — not the person who snapped them. Posing the model and lighting her were his creative work. Holding that work out as one’s own is intellectually dishonest.

And, using those pictures without a release from the model is wrong, too. (Some of the images of the models posted were taken when the models thought they were “off camera” or relaxing. They are less than flattering and it is wrong to post them.) The models have a legal right to control the use of their images; they gave the instructor a release; they did not do the same for the students.

Apparently, people do this at other seminars, too.

Sometimes I graze YouTube looking for good instructional videos. More than once I’ve come across low quality, bootleg videos of part of an instructor’s class — posted by someone who was obviously in the audience.

Perhaps, those student shooters don’t understand that this, too, is wrong.

These teachers make a living going around the country holding seminars. If people tape and “broadcast” those seminars, without the instructor’s permission, they destroy part of the market for the class. And, many of the teachers have their own DVD’s they are selling — again to make a living. I’m pretty sure that many of the YouTube videos were put up without the subjects approval, without a release; this, too, violates the legal rights of the teacher.

The better side of me wants to believe that the few students who disrupt seminars with their cameras are simply oblivious — they don’t understand that they are disrupting the class and that, if they use the stuff they shoot, they may be violating the law.

So, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and use this comment to remind them that unless a seminar is advertised and structured to allow us to “shoot along” with the instructor, we should not.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)