Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Sat 11/05/24 16:23:05 GMT |
Message # 9179.2.1.1.1.1 Subject: Re: This looks like.. Date: Mon 15/03/04 11:49:15 GMT Name: AnthonyX Email: anthonyx@jowc.net |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
I think I have a pretty good idea now of what leads to the sort of results Sopping was identifying. Bear in mind that this from the perspective of an "armchair" photographer...
1. The photographer isn't aware of the differences in brightness between his subject and the back-lit background. The human eye is capable of compensating for all sorts of things which film, digital imagers, lens systems, and exposure controls cannot. You don't notice the difference in color temperature as you step indoors from natural daylight to incandescent light. You don't notice the enormouse difference in light level between the sky/water surface and the face of your backlit subject. You don't notice the depth of field between your subject and background, or even between different elements of your subject. All because your eye and your brain apply compensations without you even being aware of it. So, the untrained/inexperienced photographer thinks he's got some great stuff in his camera when its really got problems.
2. Not enough "bracketing" raw material. Maybe an expert doesn't need it, but if you're not sure of the conditions, a little fudging could allow you to salvage a shoot (sounds like what Ray was talking about below). Perhaps some amateurs go out, shoot a half-dozen pics, thinks they'll all be good and posts everything regardless of how well (or how poorly) they turned out. At the very least, I'll bet most amateurs aren't aware of how much raw material a pro will often shoot to yield just a handful of "gems".
3. Don't want to get the feet wet. Or... don't want pics of the car/house/parking lot/illegal dump in the background. I can understand the desire to shoot against a clear horizon (or something neutral like trees) if it avoids capturing an eyesore in behind the pretty girl. I can also understand the motive to protect the gear. Maybe wasn't the best choice of location if you don't have the experience and/or gear to cope with a lighting challenge.
4. It's art. If it's shot for art's sake, you can't complain about it making poor wetlook.
That's my 2 cents, anyway... |
In reply to Message (9179.2.1.1.1) This looks like..
By ray - ray_diaz1@yahoo.com Mon 15/03/04 04:05:02 GMT The moonface shot looks like a problem I have at the beach at times... The sun can be so bright, that if you don't go up to within a foot of the subject to get a correct exposure, and/or use fill in flash.. that shadows are overpowering. I submit a hastily found sample from what I remember as a vary sunny windy Sunday morning.. The girls where out quite aways from me because the waves were quite high and I was close to shore (cameras and salt water don't mix). The fuzzyness is from the digital zoom, which I since have learned to disable.
http://www.wetfreespirit.org/tmp/forum/julie3.jpg
|
In reply to Message (9179.2.1.1) Re: Actually...Example
By Sopping - katakai@verizon.net Mon 15/03/04 02:34:07 GMT Look at today's "Moonface" posting to see what I mean.
Moonface/Turtle Farm have taken and posted a lot of wetlook photos. The girl in the water at the beach is one of their primary themes. The post a lot of good stuff, some excellent stuff, and far-too-many backlites, IMHO.
But they are mesmerized by the art aspects of backlighting. Look!
http://www.themoonface.com/information/today.html
I can fix this with my photo program, but "doshite?." [I think that is the way "why" is spelled in Japanese.] If not "Kerry-san" can correct me.
S: |
In reply to Message (9179.2.1) Actually...
By ray - ray_diaz1@yahoo.com Mon 15/03/04 01:53:18 GMT Thanks for the compliment Anthony, but I use quite modest equipment, my current camera is a Kodak 4800, but with a digital camera, you can experiment a lot! And it helps to be close to the beach and have a willing model who loves to get wet.. :-)
I may take 100 to 200 photos to get 20 to 40 useable ones. Some photo sessions turn out to be absolute flops.. as my experimenting failed miserably, while some turn out really great. The two pics here were in a batch of about a hundred photos and only about 5 turned out really good...
I particularly like the definition in the small waves breaking behind Julie in the first photo, this detail would have been lost in a different light.
I'm gonna dig around and see if I can find some other interesting photos as the other the other postings on this forum right now are not being very positive... :-(
|
In reply to Message (9179.2) Re: Back and For lighting
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Mon 15/03/04 01:30:31 GMT Yup... when the backlight turns the subject into a dark silhouette, there's not much wetlook left to appreciate.
I think this is really advice for the novice photographer, or someone with limited equipment, and obviously doesn't apply to Ray, who does excellent work.
|
In reply to Message (9179) Back and For lighting
By ray - ray_diaz1@yahoo.com Sun 14/03/04 23:46:12 GMT Website: www.wetfreespirir.org I have another controversy to add to the forum... Sopping started it... and now I think it is high time we have it out... LOL Backlighting or not... :-)
or
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.035 seconds to generate ]