articles for photographers

Philosophy of a studio photographer/videographer

In this article, I want to talk about the gulf that lies between studio workers and people who shoot anywhere in any conditions.

How and where you shoot determines your perception of the result of the shooting, your vision of the technique and the shooting process. There is a real abyss between people who shoot anything “in the field” and studio workers.

In the course of communication with colleagues and in the course of conducting your Youtube channel about photo / video shooting, I realized that this abyss is insurmountable. People who do not have experience in studios or still shoot there, but cheap commerce (TFP, whatever), sincerely believe in the sanctity of the absolutely coolest lens that will solve everything. People with absolutely no experience also sincerely believe in the coolness of the camera (the latest or some particular brand) to get a good photo.

On YouTube, I often repeat: the main thing is light, everything else comes later. At the same time, I see that someone really understands this, and someone agrees, simply because I repeat it. But to get a good result, it's not just about lighting.

Below I will briefly describe how the thinking of a studio worker differs from that of a wedding/reporter/whatever.

Importance of technique

What camera, which lens. These questions are paramount for beginners and are also of great concern to those who shoot anywhere without controllable light. But for a studio photographer, the choice of camera fades into the background.


For people who shoot anything and anywhere, one of the main criteria is that the pictures do not make noise. The higher the ISO of the camera, the better. For the sake of ISO, you need to upgrade the camera. Although objectively this will not make a photo without normal lighting fundamentally different. To fundamentally change the quality of a photo, you need to work with light, and not with a camera / lens.

Personal achievements

I bought a cool lens. Captured something beautiful. These are the criteria of those who shoot anything, anywhere. The achievement is the technique in the hands and the subject. Here is a logical question, but what is the achievement of the person himself? To maintain the camera and be at the right time in the right place. The element of creativity is minimal. The main task is to document reality.


I do not want to underestimate the ability of reporters, to which I also consider myself. This is the speed of reaction, this is a good command of your technique. Technical skills that not everyone has either. The ability to quickly respond to a situation, communicate with people - not all studio workers can do this. Although a successful photographer is a sociable photographer, regardless of genre and direction.

But for a studio photographer, other skills are needed and they just reveal the creative potential of a person more than the potential of another camera.


The studio is first and foremost control. You have complete control over the scene, lighting, props - everything that will be in the frame.

Shooting anywhere - lack of control and, therefore, a chaotic result.

Light isolation

I used to work a lot with pulsed light, now I deal with constant light much more often. Both types of lighting have their own features, advantages, disadvantages. The disadvantage of constant light is the need to light-proof the room where you are shooting.

The light from the window is evil

For some, this may sound strange, because it's good when there is a lot of light? For a person shooting in a studio with constant light, a good room is a room WITHOUT windows. The light from the window is uncontrollable, it interferes with the management of artificial constant light - we create spurious shades, unnecessary filling, it can change the level of illumination, etc. Dislike for the light from the window comes only with personal experience.

Another statement that will be strange for someone is that studios with huge panoramic windows disgust me. When you are used to controlling the light, then nothing should interfere with this. Option - we’ll shoot at random, the light from the window is flooded - an indicator of a lack of understanding of the principles of working with light and a low level of knowledge. This is not about the predicted result, it's about "as it turns out, so it will turn out."


Before shooting, you think about what will be in the frame, what you need to bring, what to remove. In advance, you mentally not only imagine what will happen, but predict the result of the shooting.

Shooting in the studio

  • It doesn't matter what lens. What matters is the light.
  • We'll fix it in the post - no and no. We will do our best to keep posts to a minimum. Do you want to focus on small details? Let's take another light source. Lots of sources are good. Few sources - limited opportunities.
  • You can't hurry. Measure seven times = install once.
  • Equipment settings - maximum manual, minimum automation.
  • Shooting where the light is not controlled is primitive hack work.
  • Fast optics needed for accents, but is not an end in itself. Too open aperture is evil.
  • New light source better than a new lens. New reflector better than a new lens.
  • Light does not happen much / little, it is uncontrollable. Light without control is the worst of everything else.

Communication with colleagues

People with their studios understand each other perfectly. People who don't work in the studio speak a different language.

Evaluation of the cost of work

Studio shooting can't be cheap.

Reflections about an expensive carcass and lenses have long been outdated. An expensive carcass with lenses does not make the filming process really expensive.

More in the video: