Contre-Jour II - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/02/2009 02:07:53 AM · #4

And I can't go back to try again... wah!!

UrfaK

Canon EOS-650/T4i Rebel

12/02/2009 07:51:09 AM · #5

I took so many contre-jours last week I didn't even get time to edit them all :(

SandyP

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 USM

12/02/2009 11:02:51 AM · #6

Ohhhh, I love this type of photography. I just wish I could pull it off as well. Sigh.

UrfaK

Canon EOS-650/T4i Rebel

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/02/2009 01:36:04 PM · #7

I contre-jour a lot..

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

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

12/02/2009 01:44:39 PM · #8

I do too though usually unintentionally.

fldave

Pentax K5II

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

12/02/2009 11:04:40 PM · #9

I get lucky once in a while...

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

12/03/2009 12:15:01 AM · #10

Here is a more complete wiki definition of Contre-Jour:

Contre-jour, French for 'against daylight', refers to photographs taken when the camera is pointing directly toward the source of light. An alternative term is backlighting.

Contre-jour produces backlighting of the subject. This effect usually hides details, causes a stronger contrast between light and dark, creates silhouettes and emphasizes lines and shapes. The sun, or other light source, is often seen as either a bright spot or as a strong glare behind the subject. Fill light may be used to illuminate the side of the subject facing toward the camera.

Not sure anyone else needs it but it helped me decide the shot I thought I would use is now out.

BJokerud

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/04/2009 12:44:38 PM · #11

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

(...) Fill light may be used to illuminate the side of the subject facing toward the camera.

Not sure anyone else needs it but it helped me decide the shot I thought I would use is now out.

I was just going to ask about fill light in this thread. Wohoo! Thanks a bunch!

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

12/04/2009 05:08:25 PM · #12

Anybody feeling constrained by the basic editing? :P

ErikV

Nikon D7000

12/04/2009 06:46:10 PM · #13

Originally posted by BJokerud:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:
(...) Fill light may be used to illuminate the side of the subject facing toward the camera.

Not sure anyone else needs it but it helped me decide the shot I thought I would use is now out.

I was just going to ask about fill light in this thread. Wohoo! Thanks a bunch!

Contre-Jour plus fill light:

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

12/04/2009 06:54:07 PM · #14

Originally posted by ErikV:

Contre-Jour plus fill light:

Hmmm, I'd mildly disagree, but I'd be open to a counter argument. :)

ErikV

Nikon D7000

12/04/2009 07:20:54 PM · #15

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by ErikV:
Contre-Jour plus fill light:

Hmmm, I'd mildly disagree, but I'd be open to a counter argument. :)

In that case, thank goodness it was not entered (and killed by the voters) in a Contre-Jour challenge. Probably the light from behind was not bright enough for your taste.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

12/04/2009 07:25:11 PM · #16

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Anybody feeling constrained by the basic editing? :P

Absolutely.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/04/2009 07:34:30 PM · #17

Originally posted by ErikV:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by ErikV:
Contre-Jour plus fill light:

Hmmm, I'd mildly disagree, but I'd be open to a counter argument. :)

In that case, thank goodness it was not entered (and killed by the voters) in a Contre-Jour challenge. Probably the light from behind was not bright enough for your taste.

Exactly. I'm actually struggling with whether my potential entries qualify enough as the fill light is either too strong or the backlighting is not directly behind the subject. Both qualities lead it away from classic contre-jour, although it doesn't necessarily mean they don't count (the same with your picture).

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/04/2009 07:57:16 PM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by ErikV:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by ErikV:
Contre-Jour plus fill light:

Hmmm, I'd mildly disagree, but I'd be open to a counter argument. :)

In that case, thank goodness it was not entered (and killed by the voters) in a Contre-Jour challenge. Probably the light from behind was not bright enough for your taste.

Exactly. I'm actually struggling with whether my potential entries qualify enough as the fill light is either too strong or the backlighting is not directly behind the subject. Both qualities lead it away from classic contre-jour, although it doesn't necessarily mean they don't count (the same with your picture).

For me, to qualify as contre jour, the main light has to be behind the subject. The fill, if used, should be secondary. In this shot, the "main" light IS the "fill" light, to my way of looking at it.

R.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/04/2009 08:08:12 PM · #19

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Red ribbon last go around?

snaffles

Nikon D7100

12/04/2009 08:25:01 PM · #20

[quote=jbsmithana] ...The sun, or other light source, is often seen as either a bright spot or as a strong glare behind the subject.....[/i]

So this time around commenters and/or voters better not be complaining about glare, right?

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

12/04/2009 09:09:38 PM · #21

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For me, to qualify as contre jour, the main light has to be behind the subject. The fill, if used, should be secondary. In this shot, the "main" light IS the "fill" light, to my way of looking at it.

R.

Red ribbon last go around?

I think he meant it within a backlighting context, something like "the light behind the subject should be the main light, because contre jour requires the main light to be pointed at the camera." Right, Bear?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/04/2009 09:46:39 PM · #22

Originally posted by george917:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For me, to qualify as contre jour, the main light has to be behind the subject. The fill, if used, should be secondary. In this shot, the "main" light IS the "fill" light, to my way of looking at it.

R.

Red ribbon last go around?

I think he meant it within a backlighting context, something like "the light behind the subject should be the main light, because contre jour requires the main light to be pointed at the camera." Right, Bear?

Pretty much. I meant it in an artificial light context. If you're gonna add so much fill, whether with a light or a reflector, that the fill becomes the dominant light, then it doesn't feel like contre jour to me. But that's just my opinion. The referenced snowscape, on the other hand, is a classic contre jour landscape.

By definition, contre jour refers to pointing the camera directly at the light source. It's simple. We're making it complicated.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/04/2009 09:49:30 PM · #23

I seem to get a lot of seagull shots in this manner ...

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D