Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on June 16, 2014, 04:45:55 am
-
A few days ago I went out at night, under full moon, to shoot one of my favourite locations. These are some of the results of long exposures of around 15 minutes each.
The weather was nice at 3 am... some mist and no wind, full moon, could not see the stars.
Shot with Canon 6D and Zeiss 21 ZE lens.
Regards.
-
Good thing that you got out in the middle of the night! It was well worth it and I like the results.
-
+1 Very beautiful and ethereal images. I also admire your dedication to waking (staying up?) to 3AM and beyond.
Cheers,
Bob
-
Too bright.
-
Nice work, Paulo. I wold be tempted to add some night feeling back into these, perhaps by simply dragging down a global curve.
-
Too bright.
This is what the place looked like under a full moon, and one of the reasons for me to shoot it. I decided not to reduce brightness, but thanks for the comment anyway...
-
Oh, please!
Unless, of course, you are a wolverine ;)
-
Pretty pix!
-
This is what the place looked like under a full moon, and one of the reasons for me to shoot it. I decided not to reduce brightness, but thanks for the comment anyway...
I feel there is two ways to approach this answer...
1. I bet about 1EV less of exposure would be a bit better and set a nicer mood. But that is just me.
2. The part that really bugs me is how bright it is toward the left side of every image. While I think the exposure over the sea is about right, it seems to me that if you had used an ND-grad going to the left with about 1 to 2 stops less light, the image would balance better. Am I right in guessing there is a city/town off to the left?
EDIT: Looking again, I would just adjust the brightness of the sky leading to the left. It just feels way too bright on that left side. The cliffs themselves feel fine.
-
The third image is beautiful.
-
...Am I right in guessing there is a city/town off to the left?
I would guess that light is coming from the moon, scattering in the atmosphere.
-
I would guess that light is coming from the moon, scattering in the atmosphere.
Quite possible. When I wrote that, I didn't think of the moon as a directional point light source, which it is.
-
Very interesting shots. I never would have thought about it in this setting but I agree that a grad ND to push back the direct moonlight might have given better light balance. You've tempted me to give this a try. :)
Chuck
-
It's been too long since I went to the beach on a full moon, but I don't recall it being bright enough to see colours just by moonlight.
I can assure you it was like that, it was so bright I needed no flash light to set up the camera, and my shadow was so strong I had to avoid including it in some shots.
-
I feel there is two ways to approach this answer...
1. I bet about 1EV less of exposure would be a bit better and set a nicer mood. But that is just me.
2. The part that really bugs me is how bright it is toward the left side of every image. While I think the exposure over the sea is about right, it seems to me that if you had used an ND-grad going to the left with about 1 to 2 stops less light, the image would balance better. Am I right in guessing there is a city/town off to the left?
EDIT: Looking again, I would just adjust the brightness of the sky leading to the left. It just feels way too bright on that left side. The cliffs themselves feel fine.
1. Another interpretation, and valid, I prefer it my way.
2. The moon was on the left side, no city or town there. I opted to leave the brightness as it was, after all, that was the reason I was there at 3am, to get this "bright moon-mood".
-
Oh, please!
Unless, of course, you are a wolverine ;)
No need to "please" anyone...
This is what 15 or 20 minutes exposure under a full moon will look like in that place, coupled with a slight to moderate mist/humidity that helped in reflecting some of the light into the scene.
I couldn't care less if you believe it or not.
Kind regards.
-
I should add, your shots have inspired me to consider doing this myself. Thinking I may load up my E-M5 and Bronica and shoot something by moonlight... Just haven't figured out what...
-
It's been too long since I went to the beach on a full moon, but I don't recall it being bright enough to see colours just by moonlight.
Come to the deepest dark desert in Utah on a cloudless night with a full moon. You'd be surprised what you can see.
-
Do you see bright orange rocks by moonlight?
Look, being a biologist training, and having taken human and animal anatomy and physiology courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, I know where you are going with this. You're tying to make the case that since rod cells are primarily responsible for our night vision and aren't sensitive to color that we should never be able to see any color at night. Under most circumstances, your are absolutely correct. However, what I'm telling you, based on personal experience from being in those environments, is that there are places and conditions where the moon is bright enough for eyes to discern shades of color after the sun sets. This is particularly true in the iron oxide sandstone deserts of the SW United States, because close to 70% of our cone cells are sensitive to red light. Given that reds and oranges are the predominate colors in the SW landscape, it makes sense that under some conditions that those color could be perceived by our eyes. Bryce canyon is one place that comes to mind without any hesitation. FWIW, on those types of night I frequently find myself hiking without a headlamp, as I don't find in necessary. Unless you were there, under the exact conditions you cannot dispute it. You can only theorize about it. As someone once said, "There is a difference in knowing where the path goes, and walking down the path."
But none of that matters. The OP is using a tool that is superior to the human eye to capture a scene in an artistic way. This happens all the time in photography. Whether it's a hyper fast shutter speed to stop the motion of a bullet or a super slow shutter speed to blur motion we utilize the abilities of the camera and it's sensor (or film) to transform what our eyes can perceive the way mother nature evolved them. As an artistic endeavor, I have zero problem with how the OP deiced to visualize the scene. Was that the way it appears to the naked eye? No. Do I give a crap? No.
-
And furthermore, for the folks that are saying these are too bright, so what? If you look at the histograms of all of these, none of them have blown highlights, and all of them have most of the information on the left side of the histogram. So certainly, these are exposed correctly and are not OVER exposed (which is what I would call "too bright"). Personally, I find those responses somewhat closed minded artistically, from those that simply expect an image to be presented a certain way, because it's a night time image. But please show the the "rule" where it says that these images should conform to what we THINK they should conform too. The OP had the vision to shoot these this way, and to me, they are refreshingly different.
These images are akin to daytime images of this location with the primary difference is that they are taken under reflected light rather than direct light (moonlight is reflected sunlight). This gives more contrast with less sever shadows than direct light. I also don't think the the OP was trying to deceive anyone and the viewer misunderstood the image, that's their own fault. The OP clearly stated in the thread title that these were "Moonscapes".
-
Does the iron oxide sandstone look bright orange-red by moonlight?
Dull orange. I never said it was bright. I said you can discern CERTAIN COLORS under the full moon in areas without light pollution. You're nitpicking here in an attempt to prove a point of superiority.
Please remember that I haven't questioned Paulo's "artistic endeavor" just his comment "This is what the place looked like under a full moon, ... (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90845.msg739749#msg739749)"
Did he specify if it looked that way to HIM or the Camera? Looks like you are ASSUMING something...
PS Welcome to my ignore list.
-
Dull orange. I never said it was bright.
What had I asked. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90845.msg739969#msg739969)
Did he specify if it looked that way to HIM or the Camera? Looks like you are ASSUMING something...
Language is ambiguous so in general we must assume something, until the intended meaning is made clear.
-
And furthermore, for the folks that are saying these are too bright, so what? If you look at the histograms of all of these, none of them have blown highlights, and all of them have most of the information on the left side of the histogram. So certainly, these are exposed correctly and are not OVER exposed (which is what I would call "too bright"). Personally, I find those responses somewhat closed minded artistically, from those that simply expect an image to be presented a certain way, because it's a night time image. But please show the the "rule" where it says that these images should conform to what we THINK they should conform too. The OP had the vision to shoot these this way, and to me, they are refreshingly different.
These images are akin to daytime images of this location with the primary difference is that they are taken under reflected light rather than direct light (moonlight is reflected sunlight). This gives more contrast with less sever shadows than direct light. I also don't think the the OP was trying to deceive anyone and the viewer misunderstood the image, that's their own fault. The OP clearly stated in the thread title that these were "Moonscapes".
Have you ever taken any fine art classes? In many, not all, you will be told that using your description or statement of an image, plus titling, can have a noticeable effect on the viewer and their perception of your work. In this instance, he came right out and said these were night time landscapes, or "moonscapes" if you prefer, leading to the connotation that they should have some hint of a night time feel. Viewers, such as Isaac, became disillusioned in the image, due to the discrepancy of titling/description and what they perceived. This isn't to say that any of Paulo's choices were wrong, as it is his intent that matters in the images, just to say that the presentation needs further expanded unless he wants this kind of feedback.
Personally, I would either expand on my intent with this particular processing choice, or remove any mention of "Moonscapes" unless asked how they were achieved.
-
I am not "disillusioned in the image".
I said it was "interesting" and suggested Paulo should "make them as bright as normal daylight (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=post;msg=739510;topic=90845.0;sesc=88c32822aa46d3a13bf0125683a6ceed) scenes and let us misunderstand".
You are disillusioned with his statement and it's conflicting meaning as compared to the image. Same thing, different words.
If you weren't, you wouldn't be putting up such a fuss.
-
Have you ever taken any fine art classes? In many, not all, you will be told that using your description or statement of an image, plus titling, can have a noticeable effect on the viewer and their perception of your work. In this instance, he came right out and said these were night time landscapes, or "moonscapes" if you prefer, leading to the connotation that they should have some hint of a night time feel. Viewers, such as Isaac, became disillusioned in the image, due to the discrepancy of titling/description and what they perceived. This isn't to say that any of Paulo's choices were wrong, as it is his intent that matters in the images, just to say that the presentation needs further expanded unless he wants this kind of feedback.
Personally, I would either expand on my intent with this particular processing choice, or remove any mention of "Moonscapes" unless asked how they were achieved.
I get what you are saying here. It's one reason that I don't like to title my images unless I absolutely have to. I don't want to pre-dispose my viewers by putting "text" to the image.
I'll retort with, and it's not so much of an argument as it is an expanding of the discussion (In other word I don't disagree with your above statement), But isn't the whole point of "art" in this context is to stir emotion, and foster discussion and debate? I would argue that that's exactly what this image is doing here, in part by the way it's presented and in conjunction with the title (as you astutely pointed out). If taken in that context, these are very successful images.
-
I get what you are saying here. It's one reason that I don't like to title my images unless I absolutely have to. I don't want to pre-dispose my viewers by putting "text" to the image.
I'll retort with, and it's not so much of an argument as it is an expanding of the discussion (In other word I don't disagree with your above statement), But isn't the whole point of "art" in this context is to stir emotion, and foster discussion and debate? I would argue that that's exactly what this image is doing here, in part by the way it's presented and in conjunction with the title (as you astutely pointed out). If taken in that context, these are very successful images.
I think titling our work is something many of grapple with. Sometimes, my intent is very much a moment in time, so I will title it with the subject of the photo and the date it was shot. Without that title, people will probably go "it's a pretty picture of a Barn", with it, the viewer is lead, if they so choose to delve deeper, into a question of permanence. This is how the scene appeared at this one time, but if I were to look at it now, the scene would be different. The barn may or may not be there, the weather could be very different, clouds, if present, will be different, and on and on.
The point of "art" is to relay your message to the viewer. This can be debate, it could be conservation, it could be social justice, or a list of almost infinite possibilities. Titles and statements are just one tool to help you convey your message.
And now I am completely off topic. Sorry Paulo.
-
... This is what 15 or 20 minutes exposure under a full moon will look like in that place...
Now, THAT is something I could agree 100% with!*
But it is a quite different statement than: "This is what the place looked like under a full moon.". To the camera, with sufficient exposure, yes; to humans, no.
Cameras are amazing instruments. They can even vary exposure, would you believe it? They can give more exposure or less exposure. Slap a blue filter and underexpose in broad daylight, and you'll get so-called Hollywood Night effect, i.e., turning day into night. Do the opposite, put a black cat into a tunnel, and give your camera sufficient exposure, and you'll get an albino cat on a sandy beach. Or shoot moonlight scene, give your camera sufficient exposure, and you'll get a daylight effect.
There are perfectly acceptable explanations you could have used to describe your pictures. For instance:
- you wanted to intrigue your viewers and make them wonder what it is that they think they are seeing (or "let them misunderstand," as Isaac put it - nothing wrong with that, btw)
- you like it that way
- you wanted to show us how cameras can see things we can not
- you saw it in your mind's eye that way
- etc.
Instead, you chose to stick with one explanation that is highly unlikely.
* Oh, by the way, I agree with Isaac on this thread 100% too, which in itself is as rare as a human capable of seeing moonlight scenes as you presented them :)
-
And furthermore, for the folks that are saying these are too bright, so what? If you look at the histograms of all of these, none of them have blown highlights, and all of them have most of the information on the left side of the histogram. So certainly, these are exposed correctly and are not OVER exposed (which is what I would call "too bright"). Personally, I find those responses somewhat closed minded artistically, from those that simply expect an image to be presented a certain way, because it's a night time image. But please show the the "rule" where it says that these images should conform to what we THINK they should conform too. The OP had the vision to shoot these this way, and to me, they are refreshingly different.
These images are akin to daytime images of this location with the primary difference is that they are taken under reflected light rather than direct light (moonlight is reflected sunlight). This gives more contrast with less sever shadows than direct light. I also don't think the the OP was trying to deceive anyone and the viewer misunderstood the image, that's their own fault. The OP clearly stated in the thread title that these were "Moonscapes".
Lonnie, it seems to me that you are arguing here with a straw man of your own construction, that is, you assumed that (the above) is what I had in mind.
My "too bright" comment had nothing to do with "correct" exposure, histograms, blown highlights, etc. It simply meant too bright for the stated purpose - moonscapes. Once you use such a title, as someone already noted, you set viewers' expectations. You title something "cat," and you show me a cow, you'll let me wonder what is going on there. And unless there is a compelling artistic, or at least humorous, reason for that, I would assume something is wrong and raise my objection.
As for me being "closed minded artistically," I already listed a number of artistic reasons in my previous post that would be a perfectly acceptable retort to my objection, and some of which I would gladly accept. My next reaction was in response to a highly unlikely explanation ("that's how it looked like...")
-
My "too bright" comment had nothing to do with "correct" exposure, histograms, blown highlights, etc. It simply meant too bright for the stated purpose - moonscapes.
Slobodan, I'll preface my remarks with the fact that I personally respect your opinion, your experience and level of expertise here more than almost anyone else on the board (given your accomplishments in photography). When have something to say, I pay attention. But you left off a very important phrase in your above statement, and that is, "in your opinion". Your short and simple critique of "too bright" (and you weren't the only one making that comment so that particular comment was not 100% directed towards you), left much to interpretation. My personal interpretation of your critique was the one I listed. In other words, while a completely accurate description of the photo in your mind, it was not accurate enough a description to provide meaningful critique of the image and what you were actually trying to convey with a term that could have multiple meaning from a photographic standpoint. I, and I'm sure others were as well, were left trying to interpret what you meant when you said, "too bright" and (right or wrong) assumed exposure.
I think part of the issue here the use of the infrequent term "moonscapes" and what it means to each one of us. As a result, each one of us is looking for something different in the image.
-
... you left off a very important phrase in your above statement, and that is, "in your opinion"...
I thought it goes without saying, that almost everything we say is "in our opinion."
... Your short and simple critique...left much to interpretation....
Agreed.
Sometimes, I resort to one-lliners for a lack of time, or lack of patience to elaborate. Sometimes, it is to get the ball rolling, knowing it might provoke a debate. Or I assume people will know what I meant. And finally, sometimes, it is just bad manners, which most likely was the case this time. :)
By the way, since I failed to mention it earlier, I find #3 the least objectionable, and #2 the most (orange rock in particular).
And another by the way, I saw at some point in the past a series of landscapes done under moonlight (mostly lone cabins in a prairie, if I am not mistaken), presented almost as bright as daylight. If I remember correctly, I found them fascinating and not objectionable, probably because either the text or title led me to believe that was how a camera sees those scenes, or how humans might see them (if they could). I think they also had some clues (like the orange glow of incandescent lighting inside) that provoked viewers to explore the image further. In other words, the bright, warm, saturated colors were present, but clearly belonged to manmade objects, leaving everything moonlit as muted and bluish, even if bright.
-
And another by the way, I saw at some point in the past a series of landscapes done under moonlight (mostly lone cabins in a prairie, if I am not mistaken), presented almost as bright as daylight. If I remember correctly, I found them fascinating and not objectionable, probably because either the text or title led me to believe that was how a camera sees those scenes, or how humans might see them (if they could). I think they also had some clues (like the orange glow of incandescent lighting inside) that provoked viewers to explore the image further. In other words, the bright, warm, saturated colors were present, but clearly belonged to manmade objects, leaving everything moonlit as muted and bluish, even if bright.
Not sure, but do you mean this: http://twistedsifter.com/2014/01/long-exposure-landscape-photos-lit-by-full-moon-light-darren-almond/ (http://twistedsifter.com/2014/01/long-exposure-landscape-photos-lit-by-full-moon-light-darren-almond/)
The quote from the photographer is particularly relevant:
"With long exposures, you can never see what you are shooting, but you are giving the landscape longer to express itself.”
-
Paulo - great images, title or not. They are mystifying, even intriguing, title or not. They cause me to think and think again, title or not.
Titles do create impressions and expectations, hence the angst apparent in this thread. If a parallel universe existed, I would love to re-run your original post and photos without the titles and explanations, just to see how different the discussion would be. I imagine more of ”Wow, what kind of lighting/filter/setting did you use?" and "What an interesting colour palette." or "There's a great feel to these photographs; they seem otherworldly."
Thanks for sharing! Keep 'em coming. I'll be experimenting with a similar approach this summer (if I can drag myself out of my sleeping bag at that time!) And don't let the semantics police get you down.
BTW - Small nit pick here, but there is a reflection of something on the horizon in photo 3 that I find distracting. Easy to remove if you, too, find it distracting.
-
Just a few comments:
1. Thanks everybody for the feedback, much appreciated, and civilized too:)
2. I don't think the title is misleading, "moonscapes" are in my understanding, landscapes lit by moonlight, are they not? I could have gone there under a 1/4 or 1/2 moon, they would still be moonscapes, albeit less bright,, probably:)
3. As for the seeing orange rocks, well, that is the colour they are in the region, check this other image made in the same session. I have pictures made during the day that show the same colour...
Kind regards.
-
Paulo, thanks for giving me an excuse to read about colour again, and learn a little more.
We all agree that when you look at those rocks in bright daylight, you see the bright orange colour.
We can still see on an overcast night without moonlight; but we see shades of gray, we don't see colours.
In bright moonlight we start to see some dark colours (red,orange,yellow) while others (blue-green) are seen as brighter shades of gray.
(Incidentally, Why Lime-Yellow Fire Trucks Are Safer Than Red (https://www.apa.org/research/action/lime.aspx).)
I am sorry, but I made a mistake in my bullet #3 above, the shot was taken AT NIGHT during the same session, not during the day. So, under the full moon light, one could see the colours...
Regards,
-
Since this debate is still rumbling on let me add my two pence worth. Shown like this the images look like daylight shots in not the best light. #3 is spoiled, for me, by the bright rectangle. #2 seems to have a sloping horizon. I like the water and rocœk details in #1. I am wondering however why take them in moonlight if you are going to make them look like daylight, apart that is from the challenge of producing such good technical images under these circumstances. I am aware that English is not your first language and my language skills don't go much beyond ordering food and drink but on a point of English, landscapes are shots of the land usually lit by the sun, they are not called sunscapes, therefore calling these moonscapes is not correct. On seeing in colour, the camera detects colour with an exposure if fifteen minutes whether we can SEE colour by moonlight is quite another matter. Using see implies that the human eye actually detects what is shown in the images and that is not so. However I am in the Alpes de Haute Provence and we have a half moon tonight, clear skies and clear air and I will try my colour vision out and may have to come back and apologise.
Ken
-
I am sorry, but I made a mistake in my bullet #3 above, the shot was taken AT NIGHT during the same session, not during the day. So, under the full moon light, one could see the colours...
We all agree that's what your camera recorded.
What we see can be different from what a camera records.