| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2003 09:13:42 PM · #1 |
What does it mean?
I've seen it used in a number of contexts, not only here. It seems to have a precise definition. Or is it just a joke on the etymology of the term photography?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 09:15:57 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
What does it mean?
I've seen it used in a number of contexts, not only here. It seems to have a precise definition. Or is it just a joke on the etymology of the term photography? |
I used this technique with my Macintosh entry in Still Life. Basically you set your camera to Bulb, or in my case, I used a 30 second exposure. I then used a small flashlight to paint light on the apples where I wanted it during the exposure.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 09:16:52 PM · #3 |
both, is my understanding.
When I do it, it's in a dark or darkened room. Long exposure and use of a hand held light.
Usually a flashlight of some sort, or small halogen lamp.
You play the light over the object(s) being shot and illuminate the areas that you want to expose.
It's a great way to get what would be impossible to light with stationary lamps.
My still life entry was done that way.
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 21:17:17. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 09:21:30 PM · #4 |
I think I first heard it in the context of Ansel Adams describing his photographic esthetic and printing technique.
He felt that that the final image was to be his artistic interpretation of the scene as he would want it to appear, not an evidentiary archive of "reality." Thus, his final result was every bit as "real" as a painting of the scene would be, whether or not it "looked like that" when he exposed the negative.
In his printing he used a lot of dodging and burning, literally "painting" the light onto the photo-sensitive paper to control the appearance of the final image. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 09:37:59 PM · #5 |
Thanks for your quick replies.
I'll have a go at that technique myself soon. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 09:54:29 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
I used this technique with my Macintosh entry in Still Life. Basically you set your camera to Bulb, or in my case, I used a 30 second exposure. I then used a small flashlight to paint light on the apples where I wanted it during the exposure. |
Wow, I am muchly impressed. I loved the lighting in that shot, I had imagined some elaborate and clever set up, rather than just a clever one. Will have to have a play with that technique.
Out of interest, how many times did it take to get it right?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 09:58:01 PM · #7 |
From the Light Source challenge in October, 2002:
You might also be interested in this thread and also this thread.
and this more recent entry 
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 21:59:46. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:01:45 PM · #8 |
I have the photo of the lady painted in red as my wallpaper at home. I hadn't realised how it was taken. I am even more in awe of that shot now than I was originally.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:08:53 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by scab-lab:
I used this technique with my Macintosh entry in Still Life. Basically you set your camera to Bulb, or in my case, I used a 30 second exposure. I then used a small flashlight to paint light on the apples where I wanted it during the exposure. |
Wow, I am muchly impressed. I loved the lighting in that shot, I had imagined some elaborate and clever set up, rather than just a clever one. Will have to have a play with that technique.Out of interest, how many times did it take to get it right |
It took 8 shots, till I settled for the one posted. Ive used this technique before, its pretty fun.
Message edited by author 2003-11-12 22:12:31.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:21:54 PM · #10 |
I have tried the technique twice. One just for fun, the other with a challenge shot in mind. This was the crappy shot I entered. It could've been a lot better. Unfortunately I got rained out. I wanted to give Jesus a ghostly aura with the light. I'd have been better served if I had a little less powerful light. This was not a good picture, but I did learn that a 500,000 candlepower spotlight from 12-15 feet away is not the best light source. I guess it wasn't a total waste of time.
Bob
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:29:07 PM · #11 |
This is from a recent shoot. I'm still processing the images.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:49:15 PM · #12 |
That light on the body looks sooooo like it was added in Photoshop JC. I know it wasn't, just saying that is how it looks and had I seen it in a challenge.
That is quite an amazing effect, that it is real yet looks so faked is wonderful :)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:50:51 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:52:53 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Natator:
That light on the body looks sooooo like it was added in Photoshop JC. I know it wasn't, just saying that is how it looks and had I seen it in a challenge.
That is quite an amazing effect, that it is real yet looks so faked is wonderful :) |
Interesting isn't it??
Which means that because these techniques are becoming more widespread. And,,, many times you really can't tell if they are PS after effects or are actually done for the camera we must reconsider how we view images.
This shot is not entirely DPC legal. There is some dogging and burning to even some areas out and bring out some detail.
But that is all, the rest is done with levels, saturation, median and USM adjustments. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:11:23 AM · #15 |
Did anyone else ask Seeker how much this was altered? I PMd him a while back (as I wanted to do something similar for Shadows II and came across his shot by coincidence) and he said this was the result of around 23 hours' effort and hundreds of takes.
He did around 4-5 hours of post editing apparently. It doesn't look obviously PSd to me though - more like a slick, carefully taken shot.
Anyone thinking of doing similar stuff will need to shoot in almost complete darkness and sweep the laser pen very slowly and steadily in order to pick up the tracks without over/underexposure.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 05:49:21 AM · #16 |
I used "painting with light" on this one a few years ago. Taken 25 miles down the Grand Gulch in Utah in complete darkness, with a headlamp moved around to illuminate the ruin. 16 sec exposure.
Fun to do, but hard to expose. Have one of those new Petzl led/spotlight headlamps that should make for some new interesting shots.
Message edited by author 2003-11-13 05:51:11.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:28:00 AM · #17 |
Xmas balls
Painted using a similar technique to scab's.
A dark room, a long exposure (about 4 minutes or so) and a maglight flashlight/torch. I use my hand and a small aluminium/aluminum snood to control the light direction and diffusion and just 'paint' the areas I want to appear in the exposure.
Another example, shot in the complete darkness:
|
|
|
|
11/13/2003 09:59:47 AM · #18 |
| I came accross this DPReview Forums a while ago. |
|
|
|
11/13/2003 11:01:17 AM · #19 |
| If you are on Photopoints, theres a very good thread in the forum by Emil Schilt on how to do this. Unfortunately, it's not directly linkable. Look under the Craftsmanship forum. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:51:42 PM EDT.
