She called the rim/kick/kicker light a "backlight", which is fine I guess. Her lighting was passable, but not great, though it did get better toward the end (I almost didn't stick around that long), and it could have all been presented with better theory, common and industry terms, and with clearer examples, including long holds on side-by-side comparisons. Since she brought up the backgrounds (a whole discussion), it may have been worth mentioning her depth of field (background out of focus) that was good for dimensionally separating the subject.
Not bad for a beginner/new channel, which IMO should have been mentioned up front. I'm certain there are better lighting videos out there, including budget-lighting videos.
The point of the video was lighting that a complete beginner could pull off. If she had done something better than would be good for an armature then her title and content wouldn't match.
Of course it got better toward the end. That was the structure of the video. Testing each element of improvement and stacking them. Judging the middle and saying pff, your lighting's bad misses the point.
My main point is there are pros as well as amateurs that not only present beginner lighting tips, they present the information better (and shorter). I was glad to see some photography/filmmaking content, even if this video was just okay.
I've not criticized her video structure, nor the stacked elements (though adding side-by-side comparisons would have illustrated it even better). I noted that she started with a 3 light setup that was simply okay, then later she changed things to have a better 3 light setup. This was not stacking, nor informative, because she didn't reveal either of her setups with wide shots that could have illuminated what was actually different.
Log in
Reluctant updoot.
She called the rim/kick/kicker light a "backlight", which is fine I guess. Her lighting was passable, but not great, though it did get better toward the end (I almost didn't stick around that long), and it could have all been presented with better theory, common and industry terms, and with clearer examples, including long holds on side-by-side comparisons. Since she brought up the backgrounds (a whole discussion), it may have been worth mentioning her depth of field (background out of focus) that was good for dimensionally separating the subject.
Not bad for a beginner/new channel, which IMO should have been mentioned up front. I'm certain there are better lighting videos out there, including budget-lighting videos.
I might even have some in my YouTube playlists:
The point of the video was lighting that a complete beginner could pull off. If she had done something better than would be good for an armature then her title and content wouldn't match.
Of course it got better toward the end. That was the structure of the video. Testing each element of improvement and stacking them. Judging the middle and saying pff, your lighting's bad misses the point.
My main point is there are pros as well as amateurs that not only present beginner lighting tips, they present the information better (and shorter). I was glad to see some photography/filmmaking content, even if this video was just okay.
I've not criticized her video structure, nor the stacked elements (though adding side-by-side comparisons would have illustrated it even better). I noted that she started with a 3 light setup that was simply okay, then later she changed things to have a better 3 light setup. This was not stacking, nor informative, because she didn't reveal either of her setups with wide shots that could have illuminated what was actually different.