| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2004 09:11:22 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Not everybody has a "B" mode on there camera :( |
I found bulb mode pretty useless on my 300D because you need to press the shutter to start/stop it, and it shook the camera way too much. I tried a number of shots with 15 or 20 sec shutters, but in the end opted for a 30 sec shot. |
If you open the shutter with the lens covered, then remove the cover, you can eliminate the effect of the vibration from mirror slap. |
The problem is that u have to keep the button depressed unless you have a locking cable release.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 09:24:10 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Not everybody has a "B" mode on there camera :( |
I found bulb mode pretty useless on my 300D because you need to press the shutter to start/stop it, and it shook the camera way too much. I tried a number of shots with 15 or 20 sec shutters, but in the end opted for a 30 sec shot. |
You pretty much have to have a remote release to use B mode. For my camera I use the timer remote, where I can set exposures up to about 9 hours. I don't think the complex timer works with the Drebel, but there is a simpler one available that can be used. I use the remote release all the time for macro work as well. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 09:34:49 AM · #28 |
i think the remote for the rebel has a shutter lock, but no timer.
so you can lock it open, check your watch, and come back later...
just as useful really.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:00:22 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Not everybody has a "B" mode on there camera :( |
I found bulb mode pretty useless on my 300D because you need to press the shutter to start/stop it, and it shook the camera way too much. I tried a number of shots with 15 or 20 sec shutters, but in the end opted for a 30 sec shot. |
You pretty much have to have a remote release to use B mode. For my camera I use the timer remote, where I can set exposures up to about 9 hours. I don't think the complex timer works with the Drebel, but there is a simpler one available that can be used. I use the remote release all the time for macro work as well. |
Same pb on my D60. I fixed it with the use of a single rubber pushing a small piece of wood on the shutter button. Same results as a "B" mode. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:24:36 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by eaphelps:
Just stayed up to see the entries for the Painting with Light challenge. I was a little dissappointed that most of the shots were of things illuminated interestingly, but very few that resembled what I took to be the actual point of the challenge... Anyone ever seen that portrait of Picasso painting in the air with a flashlight? I was hoping for some more stuff along those ligns. |
On the contrary, I think both the accepted definition of "painting with light" and the description of the challenge tend to indicate the act of "illuminating a subject interestingly".
Of course, your interpretation is also a pretty interesting way to look at it, so I hope folks don't shoot photos like that down. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:36:03 AM · #31 |
As scab-lab suggested below, you must check out Emil Schildt's gallery. He is truly a modern master, not only of painting with light techniques, but a variety of alternative processing methods. very cool stuff.
Dave
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:39:10 AM · #32 |
I think a great example of being voted down because "it doesnt meet the challenge" is my entry. I have several comments, everyone likes it, they are all compliments...but they dont think it meets the challenge, so my current score is 3.9474. I always keep an open mind when voting because I realize that different people will interpret the same statement in different ways...it's all about perception. I did exactly what the challenge called for...to use a non stationary light source to light your subject. So technically, it does meet the challenge. It might not be the most obvious example of "painted with light", but I definitely "painted it with light"
Good Day,
June
PS. BTW, I think this is one my best "studio" shots and wether I get a sucky score or a great one, I'm happy I learned a new techinique and I'm happy with its result.
Message edited by author 2004-01-26 10:42:23.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 11:05:49 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
I did exactly what the challenge called for...to use a non stationary light source to light your subject. So technically, it does meet the challenge. It might not be the most obvious example of "painted with light", but I definitely "painted it with light"
Good Day,
June
PS. BTW, I think this is one my best "studio" shots and wether I get a sucky score or a great one, I'm happy I learned a new techinique and I'm happy with its result. |
I think people are looking for the moving light to be in the photo which doesn't make sense because the challenge says ..."to light your subject" with a non-stationary light source".... and not the moving light to be the subject. The entries generally complied with the challenge requirements and there are very good entries there.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 11:07:57 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you open the shutter with the lens covered, then remove the cover, you can eliminate the effect of the vibration from mirror slap. |
This is a great bit of advise for anyone who wants to take a long exposure (without a cable release) almost instantly but is worried about camera shake. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 11:13:40 AM · #35 |
| I liked trying to get a decent picture. But, mine is also one of the less obvious ones. No matter. I learned a lot about my camera, a lot about light and had fun too. I was still trying at 10 pm and finally got one I was happy with. What more could I ask? |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 11:17:05 AM · #36 |
| After reading the interesting responces to my statement that generated this discussion I have decided that perhaps voting as to my impressions regarding the artistic integrity of the photo is the best way to entail the many interpretations of this challenge...Of course one can always ask the photographer to explain his or her picture a little more than the title allows if you doubt its pertinance to the challenge description. I guess my point is...please be more open minded in rating this challenge, myself included. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 12:13:30 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I actually think the point of the challenge is to illuminate the subject with a non-static light source (which is actually more difficult) rather than depict the light source. Some of them are very good I think. |
I had a very difficult time knowing what to do with this one. I had to read the details over many time and I think for the most part that information has been overlooked in this thread. The details say - Use a non-stationary light source (for example, a moving flashlight in your hand) as the primary method of illuminating your subject in a creative manner. This implies, to me, that there must be a subject that is illuminated in a creative manner. In my opinion, this eliminates those abstract submissions. If there is an identifiable subject, I think the submission should be rated accordingly. If there is not an identifiable subject, my thought would be that the submission does not fit the challenge. I have yet to start rating the pics. Please, let me know your opinion.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 12:26:31 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Jeileen:
..snip... The details say - Use a non-stationary light source (for example, a moving flashlight in your hand) as the primary method of illuminating your subject in a creative manner. This implies, to me, that there must be a subject that is illuminated in a creative manner. In my opinion, this eliminates those abstract submissions. If there is an identifiable subject, I think the submission should be rated accordingly. If there is not an identifiable subject, my thought would be that the submission does not fit the challenge. I have yet to start rating the pics. Please, let me know your opinion. |
Disagree. Abstracts using a non-stationary light source may be EXACTLY the subject the photographer intends. If it is interesting to look at and is a good photograph, I will not "eliminate" it. Actually, I will not rule out ANY photograph. I may not like some, and may vote them lower, but why "rule out" any of them?
I was surprised to see so many flowers in this challenge. Some of them are terrific, but I had to "reframe" my view of the challenge. I just hadn't thought of painting with light in relation to flowers! I was actually looking for more abstract use of light sources, and was surprised to find so few.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 01:37:15 PM · #39 |
How are the scores going?
Votes: 71
Avg Vote: 5.9296
Comments: 2
Updated: 01/26/04 01:34 pm
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:26:04 PM · #40 |
93 votes
5.350
No comments
It would help to know if I did the exercise right it is my first time at trying this
No feed back is no help at all |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:44:01 PM · #41 |
5.125
88 votes
1 comment
This is discouraging. :(
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 10:47:45 PM · #42 |
The effect of painting with light may resemble any other method of lighting. If I run my (diffused) torch all over a subject for a long time, the photo will look like a softbox has been used. If I turn the torch off and on during the exposure to highlight various parts of the subject, the photo will look like multiple light sources has been used.
Streaking the torch over the exposing frame might be the most obvious pwt, but the effects are rarely pleasing. (2 or 3 really good ones in this challenge, though.)
The confusion about definition seems to be hurting entries. This is a shame. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 11:13:37 PM · #43 |
| I have seen some really great painting with light. Mostly taken outdoors. Too cold for that around here now. But where the exposure is long and a light with a colored gel over it actually illuminates the subject and changes the color of it. A friend of mine John Orr, has some great samples of light painting in his porfolio pages in photo.net the web page is //www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=312890 The light paintings of the Bamboo, and the one of scenery is a great example of what I think of as PWL. By the way, did anyone else get ALOT of noise in their shots if the exposures were too long? |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 11:18:28 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
The effect of painting with light may resemble any other method of lighting. If I run my (diffused) torch all over a subject for a long time, the photo will look like a softbox has been used. If I turn the torch off and on during the exposure to highlight various parts of the subject, the photo will look like multiple light sources has been used.
Streaking the torch over the exposing frame might be the most obvious pwt, but the effects are rarely pleasing. (2 or 3 really good ones in this challenge, though.)
The confusion about definition seems to be hurting entries. This is a shame. |
XXXXXXXXX
I agree with you 100% and will add that any and all of the different challenges are open to each artist interpretation. Beyond that this thread is harmful to all of us.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2004 12:33:30 AM · #45 |
Votes: 98
Avg Vote: 5.4184
Comments: 4
I really did paint with flashlight one of my best works I feel (a little biased) and still a 5.4 wow some of you guys are mean judges.
one of these days I am gonna figure out what pleases you all. |
|
|
|
01/27/2004 04:22:06 AM · #46 |
I have been accused and voted down for not 'painting with light' and/or that the light I used was stationary. The illumination I was trying to capture was VERY difficult. It took 4 days of shooting and more than 250 photos to get the one that gave me the special colors I wanted. I used a lead crystal prism suspended over the 'environment' that contained my subject and moved a brilliant white light through it at many varied angles to get the 'fleeting' rainbow effect. I had many shots that were more pleasing to the eye yet my goal was to take an object with very little color and paint it with light, I succeeded in doing that yet it is not one that the voters appreciate. I was faced with the dilemma to submit that ‘one lucky shot’ rather than any number of other shots that provided a wealth of additional information about the light source(s) and the spinning crystal that produced the rainbow colors. The subject mater was soo small (less than 4mm) that I had to crop all of that additional ‘information’ out of the photo. I learned much in my quest to get the exact effect I wanted. I had fun and have already traded some of the other photos to artists that are going to use as subject matter to ‘Paint with Oil’
106 votes = 3.8... |
|
|
|
01/27/2004 06:48:35 AM · #47 |
This has got to be the most difficult challenge I have tried next to Soft Focus. I have never done either technique before and it would seem I failed on both. While I have four comments the last one, which is very well received, explained very clearly why my score might be tanking and I understand. Like many others my shot looks like it could have been lighted with a stationery light and not actually painted. I looked at the links, I looked at the other shots and quite frankly I'm still not sure exactly what was expected. You have one shot that was painted with light that wins a ribbon yet in this challenge I have a feeling it would have not done nearly as well because "technically" it isn't a "true" painting with light. So how did I end up voting on this challenge? By the shot itself, was it appealing (to me), was it well composed, is it balanced and well done? It did not and will not matter to me on this particular challenge if I think the person actually painted with light or not since there is so much conterversy on what that exactly is.
Deannda
|
|
|
|
01/27/2004 08:37:46 AM · #48 |
| I'm getting mixed comments on my entry. Some say it's not painting with light and others say it's a nice interpretation of the challenge. I used a flashlight as my primary light source and pointed it at key elements during the exposure. The way I understand the challenge the non stationary light shouldn't be the subject. My interpretation might not be the same as another members. The artistic freedom in this challenge is what makes it so attractive. I'm voting on the quality of work and not on my interpretation. This is one challenge where a short description of the lighting process might help. |
|
|
|
01/27/2004 08:45:55 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you open the shutter with the lens covered, then remove the cover, you can eliminate the effect of the vibration from mirror slap. |
This is a great bit of advise for anyone who wants to take a long exposure (without a cable release) almost instantly but is worried about camera shake. |
It is also a great way to 'layer' firework shots - wait for a burst, uncover the lens, leave it still shooting, cover the lens until the next burst and so on...
A piece of black cardboard works well too and requires less accuracy! |
|
|
|
01/27/2004 09:01:02 AM · #50 |
I wish I had a 5. anything...I'm at 4.9 and one comment!
My opinion is that the majority voting have never tried this technique and do not realize how difficult it is to "paint with light".
I used the self timer to eliminate vibration and then spent the next 15 seconds running around like a....(fill in the blank)...with my mag lites clutched in my hands and strategically pointing them at my subject...over and over..and over... finally achieving a colorful effect almost to my satisfaction. Quite comical, actually. Kept my family entertained for the evening! Maybe I should post a link to all my outtakes and the final photo would be more appreciated. OOps, I guess this is a rant! |
|
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: 07/18/2025 12:23:45 PM EDT.
