"Not Man Apart" from the Sierra Club. Big Sur photos, many of the "greats" are included. "Summer Island, Penobscot County" from same publisher, Eliot Porter's work. Anything Eliot Porter, anything David Muench, anything Galen Rowell.
Here's a close approximation, though because of the impending storm, I drove over to the bike path with my bike on the rack, and forgot my dRebel XT, so this is the Canon S1:
Here's a close approximation, though because of the impending storm, I drove over to the bike path with my bike on the rack, and forgot my dRebel XT, so this is the Canon S1:
Flat Light ........... versus ......... Backlight
Thanks a lot. People, please feel free to discuss how the vastly different lighting changes the mood of the photo. Please be as specific (and as allegorical) as you can.
In the flat light shot, the path seems an after thought, no intrigue or interest. Perhaps you might wonder what is on the other side of the weeds, or why this shot was taken.
The backlight brings the path alive, colors jump out, dimensions exist and invite and the contrast of dark leading to light adds a touch of mystery.
I like how the backlit one focuses you on the path and the bench, but the uneven light seems just tiny bit distracting for some reason.
The flatlit one is well, a bit flat. The evenness of the light is nice, but the overall impression for me is a bit boring. Having said that it is nice seeing the different shades of green in the flat one.
The focal point of the photo is different--not from composition but from light. In the back light, the focal point is the path, and the people on it (even very small here). In flat light, there really isn't a strong focal point, but the composition kind of points to the foreground bench. The path and fence still provides a leading line, but it is obfuscated by the general scene and especially the foreground trees.
Besides the focal point, the mood of the photos are completely different. One is "warm", and the other is plain, "sterile".
The backlight also gives clues as to time of day--the flat light gives the viewer no such context (other than daylight).
allright guys, I'm back for good now. sorry for the prolonged absecne but trust me I didn't like it anymore than you did.
lets see here,
I have a uber busy schedule now, a lot has changed in the past week. I'm still in school and I work as a graphic designer now(trust me, no one is as suprised about that one than me).
anyway back to landscapes.
I think we are to the point now where we need to learn by example. I love that bear music gives assignments I will be participating in those asap. I am going out shooting tonight, will have work to show for it tomarow. I think I'm going to try to go back and comment on some photos posted here now.
I've taken the backlit shot and processed it (very quick-and-dirty) to a point in between the two shots. Feel free to include this third image in your discussions.
Flat Light ........... versus ......... Backlight versus ......... "merged"
All I can say is wow. I wish I knew how to do it. Despite the obvious roughness of it, you get to see the greens, and also the warmth of the light.
Once again I realise, I need to learn Photoshop better. Hmmm - maybe that's what I should do when awake at 3 in the morning.
Pgatt, go to the "natural light" mentorship thread and look at my mini-tutorial on toocool's backlit tree shot, after seeing his first two versions. That's the basic workflow for luminance. In this case, because the shadows were way DARK (as intended of course) in the backlit shot, I set the shadow layer to screen and the highlight layer to multiply, making this image flatter, where with toocool's I had to make it more contrasty.
Cntrl-alt-tilde is your friend; learn to use it wisely and well. And 3 ayem is a great time to goof with photoshop. I saw you in chat about that time last night (this morning) but you didn't answer; I'd have walked you through it :-)
BTW, cntrl-alt-tilde works in PS 7,0; I don't know if it works in Elements or not, and I don't know (or recall) what you are using to edit with.
I'm a little behind in this group, here's my raking light for landscape...
Here you have decent light but the same overall sense of muddiness and flat color, to a somehwhat lesser degree, like in your backlit shot on the other thread. Read the mini-tutorial over there and try applying it to this shot, ok?
I'm a little behind in this group, here's my raking light for landscape...
Here you have decent light but the same overall sense of muddiness and flat color, to a somehwhat lesser degree, like in your backlit shot on the other thread. Read the mini-tutorial over there and try applying it to this shot, ok?
R.
Thanks Robert, now I'm late for work. :-O
I didn't have time to play, just used your settings from the other forum. How's this?
This is a nice exercise in tones, very subtle. The myrtle trunks are exceptionally well-rendered, the light is pleasing.
If it was posted as an example of "backlight", it isn't, really. The dominant characteristic of this is what we'd call "shooting in open shade"; no direct light has reached the "subject" (the myrtle trunks) so backlighting isn't really in play.
Looking at the title and the subject, you got this one int he right thread?
Robt.
Well I thought the threads were merged and not sure where to put either of them.
It's not important at this point, but instead of merging we decided to have all members of either group as members of the other, for crossover topics. Natural light will eventually deviate away from landscape topics, is the reason. Why not pop this one up over there for now, and we can discuss it there?
Not for an assignment, but on topic, here's a panorama I took on my ride yesterday. This is a really pretty area of the river, and just trying to capture it. Unfortunately, I usually only have my S1 on my bike, but at least it has a panorama mode to make up for the lack of wide angle.
I thought the clouds were pretty, even though a bad time of day!
It has a nice feel to it full size, but loses a bit in the reduction (it's a four image panorama)
