Thanks for the info, Bear Music. I'm wondering if the colors in question, orange, deep pink and yellow, are more sensitive to light, and if so, is there something I can do when I'm shooting to compensate?
Thanks for the info, Bear Music. I'm wondering if the colors in question, orange, deep pink and yellow, are more sensitive to light, and if so, is there something I can do when I'm shooting to compensate?
I think the lighter the color the more transparent it would be. And hence easier to backlight. But maybe I am wrong in assuming that. I do suppose if you had a yellow or pink petal and it was really backlit it might not show any shadows but just be overexposed looking.
I would try to get a lower or higher angle. Maybe it would produce better results. I will try and find some yello and pink flowers today and see what happens. I have found blue/purple ones to be easily backlit.
It's true that yellow/orange/red tend to produce flatter results in strong natural backlighting than blue/green do. This is because the backlit substance is acting as a filter and only passing light of its own color. Sunlight is very blue light, so the results in green/blue subjects are more complex than what we see with backlit "warm" colors. Youc an compensate to a degree with hue/saturation layers, adjusting the relative density of the yellow and red components vis-a-vis each other.
I'm wondering if the colors in question, orange, deep pink and yellow, are more sensitive to light, and if so, is there something I can do when I'm shooting to compensate?
I think the lighter the color the more transparent it would be. And hence easier to backlight. But maybe I am wrong in assuming that. I do suppose if you had a yellow or pink petal and it was really backlit it might not show any shadows but just be overexposed looking.
I would try to get a lower or higher angle. Maybe it would produce better results. I will try and find some yello and pink flowers today and see what happens. I have found blue/purple ones to be easily backlit.
DustDevil, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that the problem I'm having results in the flowers looking overexposed, and lacking detail. I also think your suggestion to try a lower or higher angle has merit, and I should have thought of that myself, because last week or so when I posted a backlit red leaf here, it had nice luminance and it also had detail, and I remember telling my husband when I got home that I thought the photo had turned out like I wanted because I had shot down at it rather than having the powerful light directly level with my lens. I'm also thinking the thicker leaf helped it from being overpowered by the stong light. Course, we've just heard from Bear Music, too, that the warmer colors are subject to producing flatter results. I do know that purples, blues, whites and greens don't suffer from the "blown out" look, so that would be consistent. Here's my angled shot on the leaf I was talking about...
It's true that yellow/orange/red tend to produce flatter results in strong natural backlighting than blue/green do. This is because the backlit substance is acting as a filter and only passing light of its own color. Sunlight is very blue light, so the results in green/blue subjects are more complex than what we see with backlit "warm" colors. Youc an compensate to a degree with hue/saturation layers, adjusting the relative density of the yellow and red components vis-a-vis each other.
Robt.
Thank you so much for the information about how sunlight is blue, and how it expresses differently in green/blue subjects than in warm colors. Nice to know there actually is a reason why my orange flowers are at higher risk to turn out flatter looking. Will try adjusting the density of the yellow and red components in hue/sat as you suggested, and will let you know. Thanks!
It's true that yellow/orange/red tend to produce flatter results in strong natural backlighting than blue/green do. This is because the backlit substance is acting as a filter and only passing light of its own color. Sunlight is very blue light, so the results in green/blue subjects are more complex than what we see with backlit "warm" colors. Youc an compensate to a degree with hue/saturation layers, adjusting the relative density of the yellow and red components vis-a-vis each other.
Robt.
Well, I think I turned my orange flower into a thirteen year old girl with too much lipstick. Looks different than the original version, but, not any better. Guess there are limits to what you can do in post processing with a bad photo. But, at least I learned about the different color components in hue/saturation and I had never messed with those before, so I count this as a success. If anybody else is interested in adjusting my original flat/overexposed looking orange flower to give it more detail and a better tone, feel free to have a go at it.
Steps on pic, thanks for letting me play with the photo, lovely flower.
rblanton, thanks for re-working my orange flower!, and thanks for including your steps. Good job!! Steps 3 and 4 are things I've never tried before, but, I can see I need to learn. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Here's another reworking of your original. Less extreme crop (I like the leaf).
Selected and saved: flower, leaf, stem, everything-but-those-3 (4 selections total)
Made duplicate layer from BG, loaded the everything-but selection, applied some hue/sat and some gaussian blur.
Loaded the flower, leaf, and stem selections and did a basic hue/sat on those 3 together.
Loaded the flower only and did some more hue/sat, paying close attention to relative tonalities of yellow and red components.
This one is somewhat more delicate in its rendring of the subtle tonalites of the flower, I think.
Robt.
Thanks for reworking it, and thanks for the steps. I'll be trying your steps and rblanton's soon to see if I can do them myself. I'm pretty much a newbie when it comes to post processing. Things that you guys take for granted, I have to figure out, so it takes me awhile. But, I'll get there.
I think I am going to take some time off for a few days. Will try to keep updated so I dont miss anything. If more room is needed you can remove me from the list.
I like the moody feel to this. It is complimented by the harsh rock edges against the soft sky. These muted colors work well to keep the rock against sky from being overpowering. Nicely done.
Just wondering if everybody in this group has been really busy too...Not too much activity in the recent past ...I realize I havent been too active in here either and I apologize and promise to everybody that I will actively participate.
Will our good mentor please continue our education?
Also, I have one suggestion..I guess I need deadlines to function (= move my lazy butt). If everybody agrees, could we have deadlines on the future assignments?
So please please good bear, continue teaching us...
I have been sitting here patiently (or stubbornly) waiting for people to be "involved", which nobody has been of late. My original concept of "mentorship" as to act as a facilitator, an emcee if you will, helping people learn and grow together. It seems to me it is distinctly possible that that the "students", on the other hand, were expecting a teacher, someone to lead them (as it were).
So let's sound off here, folks. Is this what y'all want? Organized lesson plans, deadlines for assignments, etc?
My thinking right now is that we shoul do two things immediately:
1. Merge the Landscape and Natural Light groups into one.
2. Open participation to all DPC members to encourage activity.
Comments? What specific things would you like covered in lessons, for example?
Lessons, deadlines, assignments, sharing & opinions "after" completion. Open or not if we dont have what is mentioned then its another picture sharing forum and we have plenty. My 2c.
