Want to improve your photography? You're in the right place! Subscribe for updates on my latest tutorials, behind-the-scenes videos, gear reviews, and everything else you need to take your photography to the next level.
Miguel Quiles is a Florida-based commercial portrait photographer & Sony Artisan Of Imagery. He's taught on a variety of platforms including Adorama TV & Creative Live, and has appeared at major photography conferences such as WPPI, Shutterfest, Imaging USA, PPE, and many others.
You didn't watch the entire video clearly. Watch the first 4 minutes as that is the entire point of the video. This isn't about Trump, it's about the effects of catchlights.
@@MiguelQuilesJr I did and I kind of liked it. It's just happens that I don't agree with your premise, smells like a conspiracy "They put bad lighting on Trump to make him look evil"
Regardless of which side one believes regarding politics, we can all agree that the left wing media is playing with some ugly propaganda tactics. And people are falling for it.
Not sure about the Vance interview but I believe during the debate they had to shoot with a wider aperture so to the dramatic lighting on set. That would likely cause the shot to appear blurry, and with a higher ISO to compensate it will make the overall image grainy. Still looking into that part of it.
Well said. The media have a clear biased narrative against Trump. They're pulling all possible strings to influence this election in favour of Kamala Harris, and against the working-middle class people of the US.
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I have been a studio photographer for over three decades with experience as a lighting director for film and video projects. The catch light details you're pointing out are due to the differences in the individuals faces more than lighting. Trump and Vance both have larger, more protruding brows, as well as smaller eyes, while the also tend to keep their chins down in comparison to Harris or Bash. If what you are claiming were true the shadows under the nose and chin would be different between the two, and they aren't. The shadows more accurately tell the story in lighting, not necessarily the catch lights, for the reasons I gave. Trump's hair, white shirt and dark blue suit are all perfectly exposed, yet, we are to believe his face is dimly/poorly lit? Comparing the skin tone of his face to his white shirt it is obvious he has a generous amount of tanner applied. That is not the fault of the lighting, or the people in charge of it.
What exactly do you disagree with? That catchlights aren't important? That's the cornerstone of my entire argument. If it's not up to the lighting techs to ensure he has them, who's job is it? With your decades of experience, do you use lighting setups that don't move and expect everyone to have features that conform to them or do you customize it for who is in front of your lens?
@@MiguelQuilesJr I disagree with your premise that catch lights are of paramount importance to illustrate a bias in the lighting. Examining shadows and exposure in the debate, its obvious that the lighting was applied equally to both candidates. Lighting a portrait subject for a still image is drastically different than lighting for a live event, so the way I approach each is very much dependent on the task and the environment. Could the lighting for this debate have been better? Sure, they could have used the LED strip lights for the candidates you pointed out were being used for the moderators. However, the point you're attempting to make is the lighting is different for each candidate, but the shadows and exposure tell a different story. If they were trying to make Trump look menacing there would be harsher and longer shadows under his nose and chin, which we simply don't see. If I were trying to light that set with an unlimited budget I would have probably opted for a massive scrim and lots of reflective surfaces to reduce shadows and very flat, flattering lighting for both. However, the important fact is that the lighting here, for better or worse, was equal for both candidates according to the shadows and exposure on each of them.
@LTrain1971 Put the bias part of your first sentence aside. You disagree that catchlights are important in general? The other points you made are secondary to this main argument I'm making. If you can't agree that catchlights are an important aspect when you're lighting someone's face then the rest of the conversation is a moot point.
@@MiguelQuilesJr For live event filming in particular, no, I do not believe catch lights are critical. Every person's face and eyes are unique, and its not realistic to get catchlights to be the same for everyone in such a setting without the aid of some sort of uplighting/reflector. The debate stage used traditional light rigging, not large, soft diffused softboxes, and that is the standard for such televised events.
You're adding some things that I'm not saying. I am not arguing that the catchlights need to be "the same". I'm saying that they should appear in each person's eyes in some way, shape, or form. It's not much to ask when 3 of the 4 people that were part of the broadcast had them. This is basic lighting 101 level stuff that somehow gets muddy when political bias gets involved.
While I might support specific policies, the candidates themselves are simply terrible. I'm not a fan of this "picking the better of two evils" that we've had going on for several years. Surely we can do better than Trump and Harris....
Interesting! Curious to know if his specific lighting was a coincidence, asked by him or else ;) good point though! Constructive critique: your lighting could improve dramatically if the background weren't that bright. The eye goes naturally to the brightest spot in the screen. your BG is too bright! You'll pop up a lot more, image would look less washed out also would look more "cinematic" if u change that For people that don't know how to do it: If u can lower the background intensity that's it. If you cant, bring down its exposure in-camera then bump a notch the key light or just bring it closer to you.
First comment was interesting, if the lighting WAs correct and the same on both, then it was Trump that should of clamed to be black as Kamala looked like a white woman with a mild tan. Or should I say light colored Hispanic. I know as I am that "light" Hispanic and sadly I have to see my ugly mug in the mirror everyday. Interesting video.
Nah, bro. Trump's lighting wasn't the issue. He is just 78 years old, officially the oldest candidate ever to run now that he's older than Biden was when they ran for 2020. He's also had very big eye bags that don't match the rest of his skin.
@@MiguelQuilesJr No, it's unintentional. Shut up please, you're loosing your own points and I still don't know what side you are on. You all are just trying to shut down Kamala Harris and it's blatantly obvious, but you're also trying to make the media and government seem pro Democratic to confuse us in who we trust and add more chaos to an already peak-chaos life.
One comment do not hear any talking about ...if have watched enough of DJT on video and lived in or near NYC, that is a "game face" a neutral face" like in Poker game to show are not reacting....
It's the simplest way to subconsciously influence people to support one political candidate while making the other appear less appealing thus creating a negative conscious or subconscious perspective of that specific individual. Simple as that. Yet another simple trick to control the masses.
I have a BFA degree, am freelance artist, worked at St Louis Art Museum. This is truth! If people only knew how much manipulation is passive as in lighting! Thank you.
I am a videographer that have shot hundreds of interviews for ABC and CBS. Your video is great with so many wonderful lighting tips. I just can’t imagine that the DP of these interviews you highlight intentionally over lit or under lit their subject. I have never seen this directive from a network producer.
Thank you for your input! I can't say for sure if there was any sort of intent one way or the other, but the result is the result. I have a follow up video that I'm working on but my suspicion is that there were simply too many cooks in the kitchen that day and some that just don't know what they are looking at when it comes to lighting.
Harris’s campaign is particular about the lighting and negotiates that into her TV appearances. You can see based on the shadows that Harris has more front facing light probably coming from behind the moderators. I’m not sure why Trump’s campaign isn’t particular about the lighting, he’s particular about his hair and makeup but not his tailor and i’m only assuming lighting because of how poorly they’re lit in the debates. Might just be one of the benefits of having a diverse campaign, a lot of women in Harris’s campaign who are more likely to know about lighting, and they also consult with experts since of course a woman’s appearance is going to be more scrutinized compared to her opponents’.
Setting aside the toxic politics part, I'm wondering if some candidates don't like the lights. It would explain why the hosts are always lit well -- they are used to them in literally all their work, whereas I can picture a candidate demanding for them to be moved out of their direct line of sight etc if they don't realize the effect that would have.
This is like 5D Intergalactic levels of cope. Lighting was fine for both candidates. That odd feeling people may have felt when looking at Trump? Maybe his terrible fake tan? His overall demeanor? I mean, everything looked pretty standard. This “breakdown” is entering Charlie Day conspiracy meme territory.
They’ll do anything but admit that Trump lost the debate fair and square. No point in arguing with them or trying to leave comments that’ll change their mind mind. I hate that that’s the way it is, but unfortunately, it is.
This is so true. The light made Trump start shouting about people's cats and dogs are being eaten. Light made no difference, but neither will it to point out how crazy the guy is. His cult is much too invested in their leader, they will never admit when he makes insane statement. - Hell, they even think the democrats are the ones using inflammatory language, not Trump 🤣😂🤣🤣😂
@@MiguelQuilesJr I usually associate full catch lights as a modern approach to showcase human people, whereas both Trump and Vance have more of a Georgian aura to there design. Which doesn't look much worse. Seemed Trump toned down on the carrot foundation.
