Darren, it is _because_ you (and most everyone on the PDML list) is picky that I post here.
Each of us is driven by our own aesthetic. I'm largely unconcerned about what I see as a search for a sort of photographic "purity", something that I label as a photojournalistic ethic. I prefer to control more of the image than many folks. I'm driven to _create_ scenes and shoot them rather than than being satisfied with existing, or "found" scenes. Sometimes I'm more than happy to create a rather artificial looking scene, like the very recent leaping dancer one. But I also understand that viewers looking at my images have expectations and if too many of those are thwarted they will misunderstand or dislike what they see. As you mention, very subtle lighting cues (direction, colour, intensity) mean or imply very different things in an image. So I let the Real World guide my scene creation. Thus I'm not unaware or uncaring of photo "purity", I'm just not a slave to it. So when you notice things askew in this shot I know I can do better. Actually I kew it when I was taking it because conditions weren't ideal -- they rarely are. The light was so low I could just barely see to focus. AF was an impossibility (even for a K-5ii); consider that the sky is underexposed by 2-3 stops yet we're at F:3.2, 1/20th, ISO 400. To avoid blowing out Sophie's face the flash was at 1/64th power and 5 feet away. The softbox loses at least 1-1/3rd stops to the diffuser and internal silver reflector. So mistakes made: shutter too slow. I was hand-holding, so that and slight subject movement appears as a dark outline along the right side of her face. That little effect hints at the fake, composite look. I should have up'ed the ISO 2-3 stops and reduced the flash to compensate. I need some neutral density gels for that. Or I could have used LED lights. colour temp. This is subtle and partly due to post-processing. I gelled the flashes with straw (Rosco #2) and then adjusted the WB to 3800K. That gives true skin tones and makes the sky bluer. But there's so little natural light in the scene, when I warmed her skin a bit in post it created a mix of colour temps. I think her face looks as if it's catching a bit of the sun's last rays, but then highlights on her jacket should reflect that too. Whoops! :-) That said, I must have done something right enough because this shot seems to have struck a chord with a lot of people. (In the day and a half since posting it the shot has attracted nearly 4000 views, neatly eclipsing every other shot I've ever post on Flickr.) I believe I've proved David DuChemin's Rule #10: put a great foreground in front of a great background. :-) [ http://davidduchemin.com/2013/08/ten-yours-free/ ] I learn from every outing and from listening to what you guys say. It's a tough crowd here, but generally thoughtful and fair. I thank you for your critiques, discussion and appreciation. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Darren Addy <[email protected]> wrote: > I wish I had Bruce's chops, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, > but I have a great dislike of lighting that appears artificial. This > is not to say that I condemn artificial lighting. > > It is just that the eye can just tell when something does not look > natural (due to direction(s) or mixings of color temperature or out of > balance exposure of the ambient or flash). This particular image > reminds me of something that was briefly popular in professional > photography studios in the 80's where the studio camera would be > mounted behind a beam splitter (transmissive 45 degree mirror) while a > slide projector was positionsed below and pointing straight up at the > underside of the 45 degree mirror. The result was that the slide image > was projected upon a screen made up of small round glass beads. The > screen image could not be viewed from an angle but would reflect the > image straight back at the camera. Thus you could light your subject > without washing out the projected background on the screen. It was > possible to photograph seniors in front of beaches in Tahiti, or > Vermont barn settings or Iowa covered bridges. But because the studio > lighting of the subject did not match the color temperature of the > light of the projected scene (or the direction of that light) it > looked so obviously "fake". If things weren't aligned properly or you > worked at the wrong distance from the subject, you would also get the > subject's shadow projected on the screen and they would be outlined by > a dark line, separating them from the background which added even more > to the artificiality. That particular technology did not last long, > thank goodness. > > I may be a little weird in this regard, I don't know... but I even > hate flash in macro shots when it is painfully obvious that flash was > used. I think it is much harder to do it well (to diffuse it > properly, or to gel it so it is the right color) and I'm not going to > claim to have mastered any of this stuff yet myself... it is just that > as a consumer of images I'm very picky about the light. (You may not > want to watch a movie with me for similar reasons). > :) > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Zos Xavius <[email protected]> wrote: >> Nice lighting. Good work! >> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Thanks, Dan! >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Nice use of the light, and a lovely, pensive expression. >>>> >>>> Dan Matyola >>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I took this portrait fully 30 minutes after sunset, looking west out >>>>> onto Lake Ontario, with Port Credit's shoreline to the right (you can >>>>> see faint lights from the jetty). >>>>> >>>>> http://flic.kr/p/fuZEPV >>>>> >>>>> I dragged the shutter just at the limit of usefulness: 1/20th >>>>> handheld. I did not amp these colours in Lr or Ps; they are as taken. >>>>> I did gel the flashes; that affected the blues. >>>>> >>>>> K20D, DA* 50-135/2.8 @ 80mm/f3.2, 1/20th sec, ISO 400; fully manual, >>>>> including focus! >>>>> 30" umbrella softbox with AF540FGZ, on monopod right. Bare AF540FGZ, >>>>> handheld left. >>>>> Lr + Ps. >>>>> >>>>> Comments welcome. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -bmw >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -bmw >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > > > > -- > "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" - > Peter Galassi > > -- > 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. -- -bmw -- 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.
