Lighting experts ..

Doesn't look like any natural light I've ever seen.

Because of the crispness of the light projection I'd either say small fresnels capable of very narrow beams (no particular reason to think they are continuous/hot as all high-end flash lighting manufacturers make fresnels that plug straight into their packs). If not, then a focussing spot with a condensing lens could have easily done the job.

The first picture I ever remember from my youth that really grabbed me was the cover from Queen's "The Works".

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/The_Works_(Quee​n_album)

That's a cool shot.
All this stuff is just so subjective. I work for a major corporation that has thousands of pieces of "art" throughout our headquarters....much of it photography. I have to admit that I am underwhelmed by a lot of it, but sometimes I walk by a shot that I had not noticed before, do a double take, and then go, "wow....that is eye-catching".

george m w wrote in post #8892940
....well, it's funny, 'cuz I looked thru a bunch of his stuff, and what I saw were a lot of shots that if posted up to POTN, would be slammed for blown highlights, lack of detail in the blacks, unflattering shadows and backgrounds that need retouching ! In other words....some pretty good stuff....

But the difference is that he knows the rules and learned how to do everything perfectly before her began breaking the rules. Too many people just break the rules haphazardly and they lack technique and an understanding of what they're doing.

Hurrell knew what he was doing and was very creative.

Rob,
Yes, but....let me play devil's advocate here. For instance, I have looked at a lot of Ansel Adams work, I have to say that a lot of it does not appeal to me. Just because a piece of art abides by the rules, that does not automatically make it appealing to every person that looks at it.

Man....I wish you were here....I'd take you on a walk thru our building at work. Like I said above....lot's of art there.....and as always, there is more room for disagreement than there is for concensous when viewing this stuff. I'm lucky that a friend and co-worker is an artist at work....trained/degree​d in it from the KC art institute. He and I have looked at a lot of the work there in the building, and we chuckle about it all the time: there is very little that he likes, that I find appealing, and vice versa. We laugh about it and agree that neither of us is "right nor wrong".
Rules and guidelines are good....and useful to a point, but real creativity often starts at the boundaries of the rules ( IMO ).
As always, I enjoy bantering with you.

george m w wrote in post #8893422
Rob,
Yes, but....let me play devil's advocate here. For instance, I have looked at a lot of Ansel Adams work, I have to say that a lot of it does not appeal to me. Just because a piece of art abides by the rules, that does not automatically make it appealing to every person that looks at it.

Man....I wish you were here....I'd take you on a walk thru our building at work. Like I said above....lot's of art there.....and as always, there is more room for disagreement than there is for concensous when viewing this stuff. I'm lucky that a friend and co-worker is an artist at work....trained/degree​d in it from the KC art institute. He and I have looked at a lot of the work there in the building, and we chuckle about it all the time: there is very little that he likes, that I find appealing, and vice versa. We laugh about it and agree that neither of us is "right nor wrong".
Rules and guidelines are good....and useful to a point, but real creativity often starts at the boundaries of the rules ( IMO ).
As always, I enjoy bantering with you.

I never said you had to or should like it. All I'm saying is that people like George Hurrell and Ansel Adams had a great deal of knowledge and understood light and how to control it. They didn't just spill it everywhere and take what they got.

Not everyone has to be a technical guru but having the knowledge as a base really helps you and gives you a lot of insight into techniques and bow to break the rules while still maintaining control.

I could care less if people break the rules. In the end it all boils down to the whether pleasing images are being created. Sadly, I find that a lot of strobists and people that are just 'winging it' are producing some horrible images and what makes it worse is that since they don't have that base and a working knowledge of light and lighting, they have no clue as to how to correct and overcome problems.

Rob,
And I think part of that is a legacy of the digital age. When I first went digital....my god....I shot like a madman. And for sure, that 'shotgun' approach can sure foster the idea of "winging it" as you so aptly put it. Spray and pray that I'd get a few keepers. Jeeez....it would take me hours to try to plow thru it all. I'm tryin' now brotha....I really am ! I'm trying to get to an understanding of how to get where I want to be, by planning and applying an understanding of what is happening BEFORE I press the shutter button. I have to admit I like my model lights that "track". I've been spending a fair bit of time in the camera room, just observing. Not even taking photos....just moving lights, changing modifiers, changing ratios and trying to fix in my mind where the highlights and shadows are going as a result. It's starting to come together in my mind finally.
For right now....it's back to looking at images. I did in fact shoot a few tonight....playing around with gelling the BG light different colors, angles, power, etc. May not be art....but at least it is ( hopefully ) adding something to the images !