| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2003 01:09:53 PM · #1 |
In my recent Flora entry, Primavera, I tried a technique that I read about on DPC forums. I think it was Bod that started the thread, but I can't find it anymore.
I used very high shutter speed plus the flash to get a black background in bright light setting. Although the light was no so bright, I used 1/10, 000 of a second at F11, and the built in flash a normal intensity. I also used the macro setting on the lens.
I received MANY comments saying that the lighting was too harsh. Here is an altered take on the same pic, plus a little something extra in the border. Any comment would be great!
|
|
|
|
04/28/2003 01:32:53 PM · #2 |
While I've seen this technique done using flash, on a recent course I went on, I learned that the more common way to do this is with a well lit subject and a background that is in the shade - then it is just a case of exposing correctly for the subject and the background will go dark.
This is apparently harder to achieve with digital though, with a wider dynamic range than film (I've seen estimates of 5 stops vs 3 stops for film) |
|
|
|
04/28/2003 01:48:04 PM · #3 |
You can, just do it Photoshop :)
|
|
|
|
04/28/2003 02:44:00 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is apparently harder to achieve with digital though, with a wider dynamic range than film (I've seen estimates of 5 stops vs 3 stops for film) |
I usually see the estimates the other way around. Normal digitals around 3 stops, normal film around 5 (good film=more). That's why Fuji developed the new SR sensor, they want to equal film with that one.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2003 02:55:45 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...I learned that the more common way to do this is with a well lit subject and a background that is in the shade - then it is just a case of exposing correctly for the subject and the background will go dark.... |
That's how this one happened. Actually pleasantly surprised with the result, but it caught me off guard. I hadn't realized that the background was THAT much darker than the dandelion -- my eyes certainly didn't see it that way.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2003 02:58:37 PM · #6 |
More complicated than that -- overall digital has more dynamic range, but film/slidefilms have more dynamic range in the highlights.
Explaination
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is apparently harder to achieve with digital though, with a wider dynamic range than film (I've seen estimates of 5 stops vs 3 stops for film) |
I usually see the estimates the other way around. Normal digitals around 3 stops, normal film around 5 (good film=more). That's why Fuji developed the new SR sensor, they want to equal film with that one |
Message edited by author 2003-04-28 14:58:58.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2003 03:04:08 PM · #7 |
That's because the human eyes can see a lot more stops than film can (Something to the order of a normal working range of 30,000:1 light to dark ratio!). Our eyes also adjust automatically between light and dark, so when we see colors in the dark, it still appears to be the right color. Take a photograph of it and it'll look "unnatural" or it'll be too dark.
Originally posted by Patella:
Originally posted by Gordon:
...I learned that the more common way to do this is with a well lit subject and a background that is in the shade - then it is just a case of exposing correctly for the subject and the background will go dark.... |
That's how this one happened. Actually pleasantly surprised with the result, but it caught me off guard. I hadn't realized that the background was THAT much darker than the dandelion -- my eyes certainly didn't see it that way.
|
|
|
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: 07/25/2025 09:04:54 PM EDT.
