Back With A Vengence

Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

Caio,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks wrote:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

Caio,
Dudley



Getting better but... I have never bothered much about what some posters
here call "blown highlights" provided the area blown is actually white.

When there is such a large area as the neck of this young fellow blown
totally off the spectrum, It makes the whole shot sort of damages in a
visual sense.

Next time (should there be one) meter for the highlight. You will pick
up specular highlights from the instrument as well and produce an
interesting shot. This one is too "flat". Too evenly lit. Light and
shade make a portrait.

If you get the chance to visit an art (real painting) gallery, you can
see how the past masters knew all about light and shade, many using it
to crate beautiful portraits with nary a blown highlight in sight!

It is often easy to pull detail from shadows. You can never replace
detail lost from blown areas.

Me and Big Squid.

Dudley Hanks schrieb:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

No. Learn more about lightning. Get closer!

Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/

Andreas Gugau wrote:
Dudley Hanks schrieb:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

No. Learn more about lightning. Get closer!

Andreas


You don't want to get too close to 'Lightning'.

John.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

Caio,
Dudley

It's close to a very good shot! First the good:
- the pose is unusual and therefore interesting (funnily enough, you
could have tilted *this* one... (O
- the side lighting is a good idea (but see below!), and the exposure of
*most* of the shot is ok-to-good.

Now the bad:
- the boys neck and elbow are just too far gone... (hmm, I agree with
Douglas - amazing!) You need to balance the lighting better, or perhaps
the sidelighting could have been back- (or 'rim'-) lighting instead?
It's not clear exactly how you lit this shot or what you have available,
so I will refrain from what may be useless advice until we know more..
- way, way too much black space... A tight crop, maybe stopping just
below the guitar, works better, or try an even tighter one where you
take off his elbow, and crop the bottom just above the lower two control
knobs.
(- and a nit-pick - it is courteous to at least rotate the image for us
lazy viewers, if not reduce it to a more friendly size! I know it's
only a click or two away, but the easier you make it the more likely it
is that you will get comments.)

So tell us about your lighting setup and what you have to work with..
(I'm rashly assuming that was a setup image..)
And how is your camera set up, Dudley - are you shooting raw and/or is
it set to minimum contrast?

mt

"2SQUID" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

Caio,
Dudley



Getting better but... I have never bothered much about what some posters
here call "blown highlights" provided the area blown is actually white.

When there is such a large area as the neck of this young fellow blown
totally off the spectrum, It makes the whole shot sort of damages in a
visual sense.

Next time (should there be one) meter for the highlight. You will pick up
specular highlights from the instrument as well and produce an interesting
shot. This one is too "flat". Too evenly lit. Light and shade make a
portrait.

If you get the chance to visit an art (real painting) gallery, you can see
how the past masters knew all about light and shade, many using it to
crate beautiful portraits with nary a blown highlight in sight!

It is often easy to pull detail from shadows. You can never replace detail
lost from blown areas.

Me and Big Squid.


I've always like the blown highlight effect when working with concert type
pics. To me, it ads an element of immediacy, as long as the facial area and
instrument are mainly clean. When taking pictures in a studio, the lighting
can be easily controlled for whatever portrait effects one wants, when
working on other stages, the lighting is too variablle to worry about
specular highlights; I find it works better to use them to add to the shot.

Dudley

"John" wrote in message
...
Andreas Gugau wrote:
Dudley Hanks schrieb:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

No. Learn more about lightning. Get closer!

Andreas


You don't want to get too close to 'Lightning'.

John.

I was thinking the same thing...

If you check the EXIF data on this shot, you'll notice I shot it at 35mm
(35mm equiv). That puts me about two feet in front of the musician. You
can't get much closer than that.

Dudley

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?

Caio,
Dudley

It's close to a very good shot! First the good:
- the pose is unusual and therefore interesting (funnily enough, you could
have tilted *this* one... (O
- the side lighting is a good idea (but see below!), and the exposure of
*most* of the shot is ok-to-good.

Now the bad:
- the boys neck and elbow are just too far gone... (hmm, I agree with
Douglas - amazing!) You need to balance the lighting better, or perhaps
the sidelighting could have been back- (or 'rim'-) lighting instead? It's
not clear exactly how you lit this shot or what you have available, so I
will refrain from what may be useless advice until we know more..
- way, way too much black space... A tight crop, maybe stopping just
below the guitar, works better, or try an even tighter one where you take
off his elbow, and crop the bottom just above the lower two control knobs.
(- and a nit-pick - it is courteous to at least rotate the image for us
lazy viewers, if not reduce it to a more friendly size! I know it's only
a click or two away, but the easier you make it the more likely it is that
you will get comments.)

So tell us about your lighting setup and what you have to work with.. (I'm
rashly assuming that was a setup image..)
And how is your camera set up, Dudley - are you shooting raw and/or is it
set to minimum contrast?

mt

Sorry, Mark. I usually either rotate shots or resize to smaller images
(sometimes even both). However, I posted this one at about 1:30 in the
morning and was a bit tired. I'll try to rotate it for others who might
want to take a look.

Regarding what I have available, a lot actually. From my earlier days, I
have several light stands, tripods, umbrellas, reflectors, flashes,
defusers, optical slaves, etc. What I don't have is a studio...

Regarding the setup of the camera, it was my trusty A720 in Vivid mode,
shooting in shutter priority. This camera does not have the RAW format as
an option.

You are correct in assuming it is a staged image. As pointed out by
Douglas, the lighting is too flat. It would neverr be shot like this on a
stage.

My son, Robert and I were bored watching television, so we packed up a light
stand and a remote flash, the camera, his guitar and headed over to a local
greenspace. We shot for about an hour in total darkness; well, nearly
total darkness, and tried a few different effects.

What I wanted to do was to shoot a picture that mimicked what would be
captured by most cheap ps cameras at a concert; hence, the blown highlight
areas.

Regarding the dark area, I like your ideas for cropping, and I will get
Robert to try them out. But, darkness is a big part of my world, so it
tends to creep into my shots whether or not I want it there. Many people
have observed that the majority of my colour pictures look more like black
and white pics than colour. I think this is because I need high contrast in
order to see. A more moderately shaded image doesn't attract my attention
because it pretty much comes across as the old 18% grey that our photometers
use.

Theoretically, if I had a good studio, I could stage a more traditional
shot, light it traditionally, and shoot it in a way that nobody would know a
blind photographer took the shot. But, what would it prove? It would
simply show that I know what I'm doing, in a traditional sense, and that I
have the same equipment other pros are using.

For me, the challenge is to share a part of my world with others -- to show
that a blind person can appreciate graphical beauty even if it isn't
perceived in the traditional fashion. Part of that world is dark, high
contrast, distorted perspective images that I find interesting. Obviously,
fully sighted viewers of my pics will not (cannnot) see what I am seeing,
but at least we are working from some sort of a common starting point. If I
shift the playing field in favour of a sighted audience, I would only do
that for some sort of financial gain or ego boost (to sell pics or obtain a
patron, or to increase my self esteem by competing with the best even though
the field isn't level); it would do nothing intellectually, emotionally or
spiritually for me because I wouldn't be able to see anything from my very
own images, myself. From my own personal point of view, I would find it
more depressing to shoot a perfect paramount portrait, or a Rembrandtesque
portrait with the shadow of the nose nearly approching the eye, but not
quite reaching it. To have the umbra of my key light set so that the light
falls off appropriately, rounding the features and giving nice depth, and
adding that nice little twinkle to the eye. I have the parabolic
reflecters, blue lights, flashes and defusers needed. I've used them, but
that is no longer my world. I left it behind many years ago.

Now, if you can appreciate the flatly lit image of a young man against a
black background playing his guitar, and if you can appreciate the pride it
brings in a blind father's heart to view this image, you have entered my
world, or at least you have shared a small part of it.

This is not to say that I cannot, or do not want to, learn from other
photographers. Quite the opposite. Especially in the area of digital
imagery, I have much to learn, and I relish the feedback, positive or
negative, I receive each time I post an image.

I hope I am progressing; I think I am; and I hope to reach a place where
most people will actually be interested by shots I post. I just hope that
people don't want me to imitate professional portraits, landdscapes,
advertising shots, etc. I doubt very much I will ever have a paying
customer who commissions me to take their picture or cover an event they are
associated with. Instead, if I sell future shots it will be because the
purchaser knows why I am shooting and understands the limitations I maneuver
within. They would most likely also understand the symbollism inherent
within most (but not all) of my work.

BTW, no symbollism in the guitar shot. We were just fooling around trying
to immitate a concert pic.

Take Care,
dudley

Dudley Hanks schrieb:
"John" wrote in message
...
Andreas Gugau wrote:
Dudley Hanks schrieb:
Well, sort of ...

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks....ht/guitar1.jpg

I had a blast, and hope it turned out. What do you think?
No. Learn more about lightning. Get closer!

You don't want to get too close to 'Lightning'.

Your point...

If you check the EXIF data on this shot, you'll notice I shot it at 35mm
(35mm equiv). That puts me about two feet in front of the musician. You
can't get much closer than that.

Hmmm... I do not like the distance in this picture.

Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/