On Dec 12, 2010, at 9:59 PM, Tanya Love wrote: > > Hey Paul, > > I totally agree, but wanted to give Walt specific instructions that he could > easily replicate. For the examples that he showed, they were most > definitely shot in "available" or "natural" light in late afternoon, and in > open shade (ie. The shadow cast by the buildings that she has her subjects > against). There has been no light modification in these shots except for > the angle of the subject to achieve side/backlighting etc, which is more > what I was trying to emphasise in my explanation.
Possibly. But open shade light is flat if the source is a broad expanse of north light. Some of these have much more texture than would result from that kind of light. I wouldn't be surprised if she;s reflecting sky light on some of these -- or perhaps she was using only a small patch of sky. It's always hard to be sure without seeing the setup. But I just wanted to make the point that the camera doesn't see what the photographer sees. That's key to learning to work with light. > > The contrast that you speak of (ie. How the light differs from shadow to > highlight) as it is seen in those shots, is most easily achieved in the > conditions that I explained above. The textures of the walls, wood etc that > she has used only highlight this contrast which is what gives the "depth" to > these images. Particularly in the shot of the little girl out the window, > you can see there are very subtle catchlights in the top half of her eyes > and dark shadow under her chin/eyes. This is most definitely achieved by > late afternoon light, if there were any fill added to this, the shadows > would have been softer and the catchlights brighter/lower. > > I completely agree with your final sentence - ie. " The most difficult part > of photography is learning what the camera will see and how it will differ > from what you see." Being able to predict the final outcome is the whole > object as far as I am concerned. It is something that has taken me almost > 10 years to get a hold of and I still get curve balls thrown into the mix > that make me think. I am getting much more accurate these days though, and > rarely rely on meters, or numbers to get me my results. I just know now > that I can look at a scene and turn a dial to the left or right a few > notches and it will give me what I want. I hate the techo stuff anyways, I > leave that to you guys on the PDML, so that I can just wave my little > "damsel in distress" flag when I need to and not have to boggle my mind with > more than it can handle! Lol. > > Tan.x. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of paul > stenquist > Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 12:19 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Monique > > It's not about whether the light is "available" or provided by the > photographer. It's about the direction of the light and how much it differs > from shadow to highlight. Subtle shadows and texturing may frequently > require some fill light in addition to what nature or room lighting > provides. The texturing you see is the result of a mix of shadow and > highlight. Getting the right mix takes practice. The camera tends to make > the difference between shadow and highlight much more extreme than does your > eye. That's because your eye and brain combine to balance he difference. The > most difficult part of photography is learning what the camera will see and > how it will differ from what you see. > Paul > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: > >> Thanks so much for the wonderfully informative answer, Tanya! >> >> Not only did it tell me everything I need to know, but everything I wanted > to hear. I much prefer to use available light whenever possible, and I was > afraid it was going to turn out that I'd need to use external flash with a > Fong diffuser, and all manner of gewgaws and whirligigs to fully achieve the > look. And, yes -- the style is really similar to yours, save for Monique's > lower-key rendering. I can see where both would be beneficial, depending > upon the actual skin tone of the subject. >> >> What I loved about the contrast/depth in the third image is that it seemed > to make the shot more expressive by a long shot, and that's a quality I've > noticed in a lot of shots that really "grabbed" me. But, I was never able > to put my finger on the particular quality until now. And, now that I've > discovered the virtues of shooting in RAW, I just might stand a chance of > achieving that quality. >> >> Thanks again for the helpful reply. Now, if I can just get some > cooperative weather and subjects ... >> >> Best, >> >> Walt >> >> >> >> On 12/12/2010 7:23 PM, Tanya Love wrote: >>> Hey there Walt, >>> >>> I know the effect that you mean, and it is very easy to do, in fact, >>> it is almost my style exactly. The key lies in the light and the > texture. >>> >>> Firstly, it must be shot with available light, in full open shade, >>> and late in the afternoon, with the child facing into/toward the sun, >>> or with the sun to the side of the child, depending upon where you want > the shadows to fall. >>> Don't add a reflector to fill shadows. You must also shoot RAW >>> because in the post-processing, you will need to increase the dynamic >>> range by reworking the shadows/highlights to achieve the depth that you > need. >>> >>> Next, you have to make sure that the image contains a good mix of >>> textures, that way, when you do your post on it, it will have a lot >>> of contrast and that "depth" that you speak of. >>> >>> I can only see one shot of Moniques on that page that looks as though >>> she may have added some artificial light to it, and that is the one >>> with the violin, but even it may have been shot with available light >>> too, depending what the original location/backdrop was, it is hard to >>> tell with that shot due to the post production work (btw, I LOVE that > shot!). >>> >>> Here is a quick example that I just did up for you. I processed it >>> to achieve a similar feel in the sepia to the example that you showed >>> (although the skin tones are a bit more high key as I prefer them >>> this way), but also included a colour version as that is how I >>> originally intended it to look when I shot it. >>> >>> http://www.lovebytes.com.au/files/waltsexample.jpg >>> >>> I do all of my main post in Lightroom, and then tweak the final >>> levels/curves in PS CS5. >>> >>> Hope that helps! >>> >>> Tan.x. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mensaje original ---- >>>>> De: Walter Gilbert<[email protected]> >>>>> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List<[email protected]> >>>>> Enviado: dom,12 diciembre, 2010 04:53 >>>>> Asunto: OT: Photographer Monique >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I stumbled across this link the other day looking for something >>>>> interesting to post on my Facebook page, and was just struck by >>>>> some of the images. There are a few that really stood out to me >>>>> and I was hoping someone might be able to tell me how to go about >>> approximating the effect: >>>>> http://smashingpicture.com/photographer-monique/ >>>>> >>>>> Here are the particular images: >>>>> >>>>> http://smashingpicture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/moni4.jpg >>>>> http://smashingpicture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/moni5.jpg >>>>> http://smashingpicture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/moni7.jpg >>>>> >>>>> I just love the overall tone of the images, and especially the >>>>> skin tones -- the third image being the best exemplar of what I'd >>>>> like to accomplish. There just seems to be so much depth to it. >>>>> Any ideas how I might go about achieving that? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Walt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>>> and follow the directions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>> and follow the directions. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
