DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> forcing you to appreciate this d@*it ;)
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 74 of 74, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/02/2013 11:30:17 AM · #51
Jen, were you going for the ghosting effect or did it just end up that way?
05/02/2013 11:32:11 AM · #52
Originally posted by Alexkc:

I was wondering: why did you choose to move the flowers? You could get the same result (and it would have been pretty easier) having all the flowers (10-15) you needed and expose them only for, I'd say, 60 seconds.


I think it was because I saw a photo on 1x and I was so intrigued by it that I wanted to see if I could do something similar. It was obvious that they only used a couple flowers and did a much better job of it than I did. In the end mine looked quite different from theirs but I was still pleased with the results.

Here is the example on 1x of what I was trying to accomplish. Maybe this will give everyone a better idea of the final goal, of course with 1x there is no limit to editing so I'm not even sure this was done in a single exposure, it could be a composite. And after my experimenting I am starting to think it was:

tulips in vase on 1x
05/02/2013 11:34:20 AM · #53
Did that 1x image use a long exposure, or overlay multiple exposures?
05/02/2013 11:36:48 AM · #54
Originally posted by Garry:

Did that 1x image use a long exposure, or overlay multiple exposures?


I don't know, I couldn't find any info when looking at the photo. I am starting to think it was multiple exposures which wouldn't have been legal for this challenge.

Message edited by author 2013-05-02 11:37:14.
05/02/2013 11:39:13 AM · #55
Originally posted by sjhuls:

Originally posted by Garry:

Did that 1x image use a long exposure, or overlay multiple exposures?


I don't know, I couldn't find any info when looking at the photo. I am starting to think it was multiple exposures which wouldn't have been legal for this challenge.


The result is pretty similar to yours and IMO it's something not very difficult to get with a single shot. Of course putting all the flowers for less seconds than the overall exposure would be easier.
05/02/2013 11:39:36 AM · #56
It's good to see the discussion coming back to image & technique :-)
05/02/2013 11:39:43 AM · #57
Jen did you try dong this in a dark room and firing the lights with flowers in multiple positions?
05/02/2013 11:42:13 AM · #58
Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by sjhuls:

Originally posted by Garry:

Did that 1x image use a long exposure, or overlay multiple exposures?


I don't know, I couldn't find any info when looking at the photo. I am starting to think it was multiple exposures which wouldn't have been legal for this challenge.


The result is pretty similar to yours and IMO it's something not very difficult to get with a single shot. Of course putting all the flowers for less seconds than the overall exposure would be easier.


but I just don't think it would have the same overall effect. I like how some are just a little more exposed than others. And how you can see the stems overlapping each other in the vase. Mine didn't do that but it could have been the way I was arranging them.
05/02/2013 11:43:26 AM · #59
Originally posted by Mike:

Jen did you try dong this in a dark room and firing the lights with flowers in multiple positions?


I thought about it but never tried it. In my head it wouldn't have worked because the first set of flowers would have disappeared by the end. But it is probably worth trying just to see if I am wrong.
05/02/2013 11:59:16 AM · #60
Originally posted by Mike:

Jen did you try dong this in a dark room and firing the lights with flowers in multiple positions?


This would result in the flowers completely visible except for the flowers that overlap each others.
05/02/2013 12:56:59 PM · #61
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Garry:

As with most things, I suspect its not the message so much as the delivery.


Or the sensitivity of the receiver.


Sensitivity of the receiver notwithstanding, it ought be the responsibility of the person making the comment to formulate an opinion in such a manner that the message can be transmitted without causing a negative reaction.

There exists a monumental amount of difference between calling something a "spade" as opposed to say "a f@$&$#g shovel".

Therein lies the difference... and NO this is directed to anyone in particular.

Ray


But if you call something a "spade" and someone takes offense, seeing that as a derogatory term for an African American...
05/02/2013 01:11:25 PM · #62
Sour, that's how I sometimes feel this place has become, why can't we just appreciate everyone's effort, try hard to improve our own work, be skillful in how we communicate with others, be honest in how we vote and most importantly enjoy the experience. Lets turn our tongues several times before replying in the forums and ask ourselves if what we are trying to convery is helpful or pleasant to others or are we just doing it to feed our already big enough ego's.
05/02/2013 01:15:44 PM · #63
Originally posted by jagar:

Sour, that's how I sometimes feel this place has become, why can't we just appreciate everyone's effort, try hard to improve our own work, be skillful in how we communicate with others, be honest in how we vote and most importantly enjoy the experience. Lets turn our tongues several times before replying in the forums and ask ourselves if what we are trying to convery is helpful or pleasant to others or are we just doing it to feed our already big enough ego's.


On the other side of that, before taking offense to something that someone posts, consider the fact that they may not intend to offend, but are simply saying what they feel and that you, the reader may be hypersensitive and tend to over react to anything other than the highest praise.
05/02/2013 01:29:53 PM · #64
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by jagar:

Sour, that's how I sometimes feel this place has become, why can't we just appreciate everyone's effort, try hard to improve our own work, be skillful in how we communicate with others, be honest in how we vote and most importantly enjoy the experience. Lets turn our tongues several times before replying in the forums and ask ourselves if what we are trying to convery is helpful or pleasant to others or are we just doing it to feed our already big enough ego's.


On the other side of that, before taking offense to something that someone posts, consider the fact that they may not intend to offend, but are simply saying what they feel and that you, the reader may be hypersensitive and tend to over react to anything other than the highest praise.


Sure, mindfulness works in all directions.
05/02/2013 01:31:44 PM · #65
9 Guidelines for Giving and Receiving Feedback
05/02/2013 01:46:02 PM · #66
Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by Mike:

Jen did you try dong this in a dark room and firing the lights with flowers in multiple positions?


This would result in the flowers completely visible except for the flowers that overlap each others.


Yes I thought of that too, and it wouldn't give the effect I was looking for either.
05/02/2013 01:48:50 PM · #67
Originally posted by Spork99:


But if you call something a "spade" and someone takes offense, seeing that as a derogatory term for an African American...


so because your attempt to derail the discussion didn't work once you are attempting it again? i admire your perseverance.

Message edited by author 2013-05-02 13:49:03.
05/02/2013 01:55:25 PM · #68
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Spork99:


But if you call something a "spade" and someone takes offense, seeing that as a derogatory term for an African American...


so because your attempt to derail the discussion didn't work once you are attempting it again? i admire your perseverance.

OK -- don't encourage the diversion by responding.

Everbody, please stick to talking about the photo and not each other. Thanks.

NOTE: I'm moving this to the "Individual Photoraph Discussion" section so that it is possible to concentrate on the photo. Having it in "Challenge Results" section simply encourages discussion of placement, score, and other aspects I think were unintended ...
05/02/2013 01:55:38 PM · #69


Now back on track to discussing technique and form.

Originally posted by sjhuls:

Here is the example on 1x of what I was trying to accomplish. Maybe this will give everyone a better idea of the final goal, of course with 1x there is no limit to editing so I'm not even sure this was done in a single exposure, it could be a composite. And after my experimenting I am starting to think it was:

tulips in vase on 1x


I followed the link to 1X and I see now what you were going for. You could be right about it being multiple exposures just stitched together for a final composition. But I had another thought but I might be over-thinking it. Since the colors are so pale in the final result is it possible the color of the actual flowers are more of a deep red so that when you do a long exposure they are paler in the final result? The pale hue in the pink and greens could also just be because of the reflective white....

Or....how about this. You try the technique exactly as you did it but this time use red tulips with the clean white backdrop. Then when editing for Advanced use the alternate layer blend mode of Screen and place a copy of the original in that layer. This will get you brighter whites and it would brighten the reds to a pink and the dark leafy greens to a pale green as you see in the 1X.

Message edited by author 2013-05-02 13:56:07.
05/02/2013 02:29:34 PM · #70
Originally posted by CNovack:

Since the colors are so pale in the final result is it possible the color of the actual flowers are more of a deep red so that when you do a long exposure they are paler in the final result?


In the 1x shot, there the greens cross over each other you get a pretty honest level of saturation, a bit washed out, but still a deep green. So I think where you have double depth on the flowers, you are seeing something like their real color. I am inclined to think this is a composite of 3 shots because of the lack of density of the stems in the vase. In your shot the greatest amount of information on the flowers is in the stems in the water, while in the 1x shot it is up in that fan of green above the vase.
IMHO it is the fact that the density of information, in the 1x version, is greatest up in the area above the vase, with no background information that makes the shot centered.

Message edited by author 2013-05-02 14:33:44.
05/02/2013 02:54:52 PM · #71
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Spork99:


But if you call something a "spade" and someone takes offense, seeing that as a derogatory term for an African American...


so because your attempt to derail the discussion didn't work once you are attempting it again? i admire your perseverance.


I didn't derail the discussion. It fragmented, I was simply replying to another's comment.

As to the photograph(s) in question, I like the setting in OP's version over the image on 1X because the background gives the shot a more interesting context and shows the idea of "age" better than the other image. The 1X image, conveys a greater sense of fading and age in the subject itself as some of the flowers in the 1x image seem to be wilting and sagging to the floor and there are brown spots evident on some of the leaves.

Since the photographer who created the 1X image isn't here to comment, aside from the obvious commonality of using multiple exposures, comparisons of technique can only be based on speculation. I suspect however that the 1X image was created with some less arduous, but non-DPC legal, compositing method in the computer.
05/02/2013 03:00:05 PM · #72
Originally posted by Spork99:

I like the setting in OP's version over the image on 1X because the background gives the shot a more interesting context and shows the idea of "age" better than the other image.


I have an opposite view. The detail and complexity of the aged planks and door in Jen's shot stole the thunder from the flowers. IMHO if your eye spends more time on the background than the subject, you need to rethink the shot.
05/02/2013 03:06:24 PM · #73
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Spork99:

I like the setting in OP's version over the image on 1X because the background gives the shot a more interesting context and shows the idea of "age" better than the other image.


I have an opposite view. The detail and complexity of the aged planks and door in Jen's shot stole the thunder from the flowers. IMHO if your eye spends more time on the background than the subject, you need to rethink the shot.


I see your point. In the same vein, in both images, the vase itself and the darker areas where the stems overlap, creating darker greens also tend to visually outweigh the blossoms.
05/02/2013 04:24:00 PM · #74
Originally posted by sjhuls:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by Mike:

Jen did you try dong this in a dark room and firing the lights with flowers in multiple positions?


This would result in the flowers completely visible except for the flowers that overlap each others.


Yes I thought of that too, and it wouldn't give the effect I was looking for either.


This is true, but it's important to note the "dark room" portion of the comment.
The result that alex speaks of will occur if each time your flash fires it is set to properly expose the shot AND that the total ambient/background light does not wash things out. If you decrease the power or your background adds any light behind your subject (meaning, you have a non-black background), you will indeed have ghost images. In principle, there is zero difference between repeated flashings and a double/triple/quadruple/quintuple exposure. They all depend upon the amount of light that reaches the sensor, but each is better for certain scenarios.

What this means is that you can accomplish the same shot much FASTER with repeated flashings, because you can have a much shorter exposure (1 sec vs 30 seconds, for example). It is useful if you are attempting to get portions (be they fully exposed or not) of a normally fluid movement. Fluid movements are VERY difficult to replicate in slow motion, which is what you need to do if you're not using flashes, plus you need to hold them still. For this, a repeat flash setup is preferable. It should be noted, though, that repeated flashes get difficult because you need to be extremely careful to control where that light goes and you must be ever aware of how bright everything behind your subject is, as well.

For shots where speed is not a factor, like the case in point, it is easier to use a cover and move your subject. This is particularly true here, where moving those flowers 4 times in a second is impossibly difficult. Slowing things down very much aids the production crew. And frankly, the amount of work needed to do this as a repeat flash single image would be maddening.

The important thing when using repeat flash is to understand the impact it is having on your subject AS WELL AS your background. As a result, it is generally preferable to have separate background and foreground lights. Further, the brighter you want your background, the stronger your subject lights have to be in order to still "imprint" the image. At a certain point, your background will be too bright to even use this approach since you will overwhelm the pixels because the light becomes additive. Think of a pixel as a well, and when that well is full, it is blown white. If you expose a specific pixel properly for your subject and then your background is bright, it will continue to fill that well until it overflows. As such, you will need to underexpose your background to keep subject clarity, but that defeats the purpose of a white background, since it won't be white if it's underexposed and if it is white, your subject loses clarity.

This does, of course, happen when you are doing multi-exposure without flash, as well, but it's much more readily controlled by simply altering the duration of exposure since the ambient light on the scene will remain constant and easier to wrangle.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:23:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:23:16 AM EDT.