Recent Works

[wilburdl]

This was a test

[dwdallam]

This was a test

Wow nice and those are weird. Very detached feeling. Like human as an inanimate object. Good job.

[Josh-H]

She looks like she's floating. I like that. One thing I don't like is two shadows. Perhaps it could improve with some top cropping? Good shot though. But the double shadow thing is a studio no, no.

Thanks Dwdallam - it was a lot of effort and work to get that floating look. Not an easy brief to meet 'make my daughter look like she is floating like a faerie". It gave me some head scratching I can tell you.....

I tried removing the two shadows, but found it took away the depth to the image, and made her look like a cut out pasted on a white background. I think its a matter of taste as it can work both ways. I showed both to the client, but they didnt seem fussed either way!  

[wilburdl]

Wow nice and those are weird. Very detached feeling. Like human as an inanimate object. Good job.

Lol. Yeah. She has the whole waif thing done.

[dwdallam]

Thanks Dwdallam - it was a lot of effort and work to get that floating look. Not an easy brief to meet 'make my daughter look like she is floating like a faerie". It gave me some head scratching I can tell you.....

I tried removing the two shadows, but found it took away the depth to the image, and made her look like a cut out pasted on a white background. I think its a matter of taste as it can work both ways. I showed both to the client, but they didnt seem fussed either way!

You mean you tried removing one set of shadows right? I can see what you mean since the background is pure white.

[Jeremy Roussak]

She looks like she's floating. I like that. One thing I don't like is two shadows. Perhaps it could improve with some top cropping? Good shot though. But the double shadow thing is a studio no, no.

I think the shadows add to the shot, giving it some depth. Who says they're a "no no"?

Jeremy

[dwdallam]

I think the shadows add to the shot, giving it some depth. Who says they're a "no no"?

Jeremy

It's jsut an accepted rule that you should always only see one set of shadows because that is all you see with the sun. Anything else is like science fiction I guess. It's not natural to see two sets of shadows from two light sources in nature. Which means, I would think, that when we see two sets of shadows, it's not appealing to us as humans living in a one sun world. I think that is how the logic goes.

[boblybill]

These are from a storm chase last year. Same system but about 5-10 mins from each other.

[Jeremy Roussak]

It's jsut an accepted rule that you should always only see one set of shadows because that is all you see with the sun. Anything else is like science fiction I guess. It's not natural to see two sets of shadows from two light sources in nature. Which means, I would think, that when we see two sets of shadows, it's not appealing to us as humans living in a one sun world. I think that is how the logic goes.

I see. I can understand the logic, but as ever there are circumstances where it should apply and others where it should not. My first thought on seeing the shot which provoked this discussion wasn't, "How odd - it's been taken on a world which has two suns". I pretty much immediately leapt to the assumption that someone had been using artificial light, which isn't really a very new concept.

Anyway, rules are made to be broken!

Jeremy

[dwdallam]

I see. I can understand the logic, but as ever there are circumstances where it should apply and others where it should not. My first thought on seeing the shot which provoked this discussion wasn't, "How odd - it's been taken on a world which has two suns". I pretty much immediately leapt to the assumption that someone had been using artificial light, which isn't really a very new concept.

Anyway, rules are made to be broken!

Jeremy

Only if there is a better reason for breaking them than not.

[Josh-H]

Only if there is a better reason for breaking them than not.

And I believe in this case there is - as pointed out the shadows add depth to the image - removing them makes her look like a cardboard cut out pasted on a white background.

Thats my feelings on it anyway.

[Ray]

These are from a storm chase last year. Same system but about 5-10 mins from each other.

Very dramatic! Those are impressive 'sky' shots. I get a sense that the WB is not quite right, though. There seems to be too much blue. I guess we'd all process images slightly differently. I'd raise the deepest shadows in the foreground a bit (the trees are black). Process the sky and foreground separately. With material like this, it's worth experimenting with different renderings.

[joedevico]

It's jsut an accepted rule that you should always only see one set of shadows because that is all you see with the sun. Anything else is like science fiction I guess. It's not natural to see two sets of shadows from two light sources in nature. Which means, I would think, that when we see two sets of shadows, it's not appealing to us as humans living in a one sun world. I think that is how the logic goes.

Not sure how we humans manage to make it through movies, theater, our home interiors or any encounter we have outside at night. I could see your point if the background were of a nature scene and artificial light were used to create un-natural shadows on her face, but even before cameras were invented we humans got used to seeing dual shadows created on faces and objects whenever we worked by multiple candle, oil or firelight. What book did you read that told you about the evils of multiple shadows, obviously the writer never photographed a person lit by a moonlight window and candlelight. I'm lloking at two shadows created by my overhead lights as I type. This reminds me of the time I had a client come into my studio (music) and tell me that we were a perfect match, he was a lyricist and I a composer. "After all," he said, "you can't have music without lyrics."

I proceeded to tell him thanks but no thanks, I felt my creativity being crushed already. DW is right about one thing though. There are plenty of movie posters with shots from different days with shadows in all the wrong places and directions. Average viewer would never know though.

my .02 cents...

[Steph1]

I've noticed that this title in the MF section of the forum is hugely popular, breaking a record for all threads I would estimate.

That disturbs me. I don't think MFDB users should take over this forum.

So I'm going to kick off this thread with a recent shot of the Himalayas, taken shortly after dawn from a 3000m hill, with my Canon 5D.

[attachment=5900:attachment]

How about this thread?

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=33288

[dwdallam]

And I believe in this case there is - as pointed out the shadows add depth to the image - removing them makes her look like a cardboard cut out pasted on a white background.

Thats my feelings on it anyway.

Did you try just removing one set to see how it looks?

[dwdallam]

What book did you read that told you about the evils of multiple shadows, obviously the writer never photographed a person lit by a moonlight window and candlelight.

my .02 cents...

I didn't get that from "a book." You're talking about some of the world's top past and present photographers and other heavy weights of photography. Having a single "key" shadow is very basic information for shooting studio or location strobe photography.  Like I said, it's general knowledge. But please don't argue with me. Take it up with the canons of photography. Maybe they are all wrong?

I mean I really don't care what anyone does. I was just offering what is accepted as a canonical rule, probably about as set as the rule of thirds is.

[Ray]

How about this thread?

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=33288

As an Englishman who emigrated to Australia many years ago, your photos bring back memories of my youthful days in the old country. Everything was green and gray. I think on average it rains 2 days out of 3 in the U.K. I used to cycle a lot in those days and the unpredictable weather was not welcome. It is sometimes said that the ancient Romans never fully conquered England because the weather was so lousy. It didn't seem worth the trouble.  

However, I like your compositions. The grays match the greens, but the occasional patches of blue almost spoil the effect.  

[boblybill]

Very dramatic! Those are impressive 'sky' shots. I get a sense that the WB is not quite right, though. There seems to be too much blue. I guess we'd all process images slightly differently. I'd raise the deepest shadows in the foreground a bit (the trees are black). Process the sky and foreground separately. With material like this, it's worth experimenting with different renderings.

I do proccess the sky and ground separately.
Hmmm... Well here's the original without any post proccessing. It was 12 shots stitched together. The next is a real conservitive edit (i.e. a little contrast, levels, and saturation). Then the last is adds a little more contrast. I'm sorry for the re-edits as this is to show recent works.

Edit: The last picture is the unedited, the conservitive is in the middle, and the first is the edited the most.

[nubins]

Here is one from my first field trip with the G1. I really like this camera.  

[elitegroup]