DPC Mentorship - Natural Light - DPChallenge Forums

07/25/2005 03:31:17 PM · #151

Originally posted by suprada:

Can this be an example of raking light (on the petal behind the pistils?)

The overall sense of that picture is "flat" light, albeit I cans ee a hint of what you are talking about. Nice shot though :-)

R.

07/27/2005 10:05:50 AM · #152

I have no idea where we are at in here anymore. So will just continue to post stuff.

07/27/2005 11:29:33 AM · #153

I don't have much of an idea where we're at either. Folks eem to be opting not to participate as far as discussion goes, so there's not much to be done until they do. It's not so much about shooting the pictures as it is getting dialogue going about why some work and some don't. I'm not particularly interested in setting myself up as the final arbiter making pronouncements from on high, but it's starting to look that way.

From my perspective, I'd expected to be a "moderator" and a "guide" to help give shape to peoples' interactions.

Robt.

07/27/2005 11:53:24 AM · #154

Me personally I am afraid to say anything about other peoples images. I just find I don't know enough about natural lighting to know if it works or doesn't work. I am afraid I would just ruffle someones feathers the wrong way.

07/27/2005 01:13:52 PM · #155

Originally posted by DustDevil:

I know what you mean. I don't feel particularly qualified, either. However, I'll take a stab at it with respect to your last photo. I admire the glow of the lighting in the background. I think the light on the fence and the bushes on the right side of the path shows raking light because there's both shadow and highlights present, and the light behind the trees on the left is backlighting, with the leaves showing detail and the lower parts in more silhouette. I think your photo is nicely lit.

Message edited by author 2005-07-27 13:24:29.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/27/2005 01:18:21 PM · #156

Originally posted by suprada:

Can this be an example of raking light (on the petal behind the pistils?)

I have to agree with Rober on this one. It seems very flat to me...

07/27/2005 01:32:08 PM · #157

DustDevil...a follow-up point. I think the bushes on the right side of the path in your photo display luminance, and I think that's the neatest quality in your photo. I also think the light on the fence is very, very appealing.

07/27/2005 01:35:42 PM · #158

Originally posted by Evaan:

Thanks Evaan. I am just trying to get the lighting correct. Just happened to get a chance and took a shot. I dont mind elements in the photo but it was just their. The sun "spot" disturbs me a bit in the photo. I may play around with it.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/27/2005 01:38:35 PM · #159

Robert, I have a question, when shooting backlit subjects in landscapes or otherwise. What do you normally meter off of? Do you expose for a non blown out sky, or for shadow areas with the most detail not worrying about the sky?

xuan768

Casio Exilim EX-Z750

07/27/2005 02:00:39 PM · #160

Here are a couple backlit subjects...

Larger Image
A little bit soft, but backlighting nonetheless.

Larger image
I have a modified pic that makes it more of a sillhouette which I like better.

By the way, sorry for not participating a lot. I've been kind of busy lately and I haven't had a lot of room for photography.

Message edited by author 2005-07-27 14:04:11.

07/27/2005 03:21:39 PM · #161

Originally posted by TooCool:

In general, I meter for the luminous part of the backlit subject if it is translucent, as in the leaf photo below, and set exposure to plus one EV, so it is distinctly luminous, and PP from there. If the scene is extremely contrasty, I'll bracket the exposures for safety.

If it is backlighting with a solid subject (a backlit building, say) I'll meter for the backlit portion of the building and give minus one EV, so it is a little darker than middle gray in value. Again, I'll bracket.

If a scene is generally backlit, a lot of small details luminous but none large enough to meter (a hedgerow of backlit trees, a meadow of backlit grass) then the camera's metering works pretty well in the matrix or scene averaging mode, with no compensation, usually.

As a loose rule, backlit shots with lots of bright sky something has to "give", and it's up to you to decide what is most important; shadow detail or sky detail. If it's the sky, meter for the sky and give plus one EV, the rest will be darker than usual. If it's the backlit portion, meter for that and minus one EV, let the sky fend for itself. In each case, bracket.

Robt.

07/27/2005 03:22:57 PM · #162

XUAN,

sharpness issues aside, the leaf is excellent, luminous backlighting.

Robt.

07/27/2005 03:24:48 PM · #163

EVERYONE,

It's wonderful to see people decideding to pitch in and respond to images. You will leran more by analyzing and responding than you will by me (or anyone) spoon-feeding you "solutions".

In general, the responses to dustdevil's latest shot are spot-on. See, nothing to be afraid of! Isn't that a NICE, luminous little scene? I think he did very well with this one.

Robt.

07/28/2005 01:45:50 PM · #164

[/quote]

The sun "spot" disturbs me a bit in the photo. I may play around with it. [/quote]

So, DustDevil, were you successful in toning down your sun spot? If so, I'd love to know what method you used. I have only rudimentary skills in phototshop, and would love to be able to correct select areas better.

07/28/2005 03:01:30 PM · #165

Originally posted by Evaan:

The sun "spot" disturbs me a bit in the photo. I may play around with it.

So, DustDevil, were you successful in toning down your sun spot? If so, I'd love to know what method you used. I have only rudimentary skills in phototshop, and would love to be able to correct select areas better.

I have tried several different ways Evaan. The problem I am finding is that the luminance in the leaves above the opening get lost when I subdue the sun spot.

I have tried PS and PSP9. I used selective color in PS as well and Highlight/Midtone and Levels. Pretty much the same thing in PSP 9 except no selective coloring. I am sure I could select it and get rid of it but I am trying to stay within limited constrants of basic editing.

I have a simular shot but the sun spot is worse. I have been playing with this as well.

07/28/2005 04:27:57 PM · #166

It may just be me, but I believe there's very little point in working to the basic ruleset in this thread. Take dustdevil's image; the sunspot may bother him a little bit, but it's not a major flaw. I don't know offhand of any way to fix it in basic editing, because of spillover effect on other bright areas.

The basic rules are EXTREMELY basic in what they allow you to do with images that have an extreme tonal range like this one. It's probably best not even attempt to enter such images in basic challenges, and if you DO enter them because you really like them, you are going to have to compromise. In the world of compromises, the image as posted is probably fairly close to dieal, at least as far as toning down the brigt spot while allowing luminance in the leaves and on the fenceposts.

If perfection is what you're after, use the tools the program gives you to attain it, would be my approach. Dustdevil, what can you do with this one if you free yourself of those constraints? Have a whack at it!

Incidentally, the "best" way to deal with this problem within basic rules is to shoot RAW, watch the histogram while shooting, and process the capture carefully.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-07-28 16:28:11.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/28/2005 06:04:45 PM · #167

Originally posted by qmdi:

You can use your levels to add pixel information where there is none..."in this case your highlights"
If you make a new "Levels" adjustment layer and then double click on the "set white point" eye dropper a new dialog box will appear. I usually start with adding 2% to the CMYK fields and click O.K.

Next, with the same eye dropper tool selected, click on your photo in the area where there is no pixel information. You will now notice you have added pixels.

At this point you can play with your levels. Or, what I like to do is, burn the highlight area where I added the pixels.

DustDevil, the above is from the Q & A forum's thread on "overblown highlights." Thought you might find it useful. It's a bit beyond me, but I hope to try it soon. Also, there are many other posts there that might prove useful, including a couple by our fearless leader. You might want to check them out.

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

07/28/2005 06:47:01 PM · #168

I've been following along, but have not been posting as I am having a bit of a battle with my equipment and myself. I just cannot seem to shoot worth a crap lately - not even for examples here. I am getting more and more frustrated. Yesterday for example - I went out to shoot some pics at a scenic mountain. Out of 118 shots, only a handful are worth keeping, and even then nothing special. Heck - even using a tripod I can't seem to keep things sharp - and yes I am paying attention to shutter speed, and ISO. My attempt at a backlit tree is pretty lame as it has none of the appeal that I saw right there in person. The tree and rocky mountain it is growing out of do not have much detail. I feel like crawling under one of the rocks and just staying there a while. :-(

here's my poor example of a backlit tree

- Linda

Edited for typos as I battle my keyboard also

Message edited by author 2005-07-28 18:49:45.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/28/2005 09:40:08 PM · #169

Originally posted by ShutterPug:

ShutterPug, I'm no technician, but I don't think your photo's so bad except that it's a little dark. Maybe highlight/shadows would help. I've just been looking at it and trying to identify the types of light there. The photo reads to me as if it's an evening shot with the sun low in the sky, and the light is coming from a combination of the back and also from the side. Looks like raking light on the lower leaves of the tree in the foreground, the trunk and one of the boulders, and back lighting on the trees in the background and upper foreground tree that is more silhouetted.

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

07/28/2005 09:56:08 PM · #170

Evaan: what do you think of the re-work? Is this pretty much what you were suggesting? It does help in my opinion.

- Linda

Edited as I forgot to insert the thumbnail, duh!

Message edited by author 2005-07-28 21:57:37.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/28/2005 11:19:59 PM · #171

Originally posted by ShutterPug:

Evaan: what do you think of the re-work? Is this pretty much what you were suggesting? It does help in my opinion.

ShutterPug, I think your photo is definitely lit better now. The part I'm not sure about anymore is if it still looks back lit, but, then I'm struggling with the different kinds of lighting. When the subject is translucent and is back lit, I can easily tell it's back lit, but when it isn't tanslucent, it's harder for me to tell. This is one of those instances where from the highlights, the lighting looks to be coming more from the side than the back, so it looks more like raking light to me. Somebody, help.

rblanton

Canon EOS-10D

07/29/2005 12:32:11 AM · #172

Adjusted levels, you have a lot to work with here, I would say jump into PS and make this what you saw... : )

Remember, you do not have to make it a silhouette for it to be backlit, light up that foreground and make it a subject with perhaps a bit of raked lighting on it from the backlighting, can't tell if that is what is going on with the photo I worked with, but there is a lot of detail you can uncover here and still show off some very nice backlighting.

Yup, I played with it some more in PS, you definately have some rake lighting on those rocks.. nice combination.

Message edited by author 2005-07-29 00:44:19.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

07/29/2005 01:21:28 AM · #173

Don't make the mistake of trying to make your interpretation of the photo meet your preconceived notion of what the light "is". No matter how you process it, it's basically a backlit shot. There's no rule that says a backlit ahot has to be a silhouette. Rblanton's approach is definitely the direction you want to go in, IMO. Make it be what you want it to be, regardless. You own the image; the image doesn't own you :-)

Incidentally, it's very well exposed, that all these options are open to you.

Robt.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

07/29/2005 10:37:16 AM · #174

An article that may be of interest to this group (or others)

//www.garryblack.com/lighttips.htm