Moose wrote
>
> As to #2, Brian, I find your continuing difficulties and many comments on
> the problem of blowing highlights puzzling.
>
> I and others here have commented on the differences between shooting film
> and digital, often giving details and examples. Sure there are are
> circumstances with moving subjects in highly contrasty light where
> controlling for highlights is either impractical, or even undesirable, as
> a matter of artistic choice. With landscapes and still lifes, though,
> there really shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Here are some daffodils intentionally shot in full sun - no blown
> highlights.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=IATMS&image=
> _MG_9062cri a.jpg>
>
> Your camera's meter may not know the correct exposure, assuredly won't in
> some situations. That's what histograms and either EV compensation or
> manual settings are for.
>
> I did have to cheat, in a way.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=IATMS&image=
> _MG_9060cri a.jpg>
>
> No daffodils in the yard or on my street, so I took some off the coffee
> table and out in the sun. Bad bokeh, I know. Like some other macros, this
> 90/2.8 gets ugly at certain combinations of subject and background
> distance.
>
> Here's a landscape where the blown highlights are intentional. Detail in
> the light around the sun would give a different look than I wanted.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneou
> s&image=_MG _9023ia.jpg>
>
> Here, I'd like not to have blown the bright reflection on the tuna's back.
> But capturing the moment of reflection off the surface, the limitations of
> a very dark overall environment (wide open @ 1/40 for a moving animal) and
> the more limited dynamic range at ISO 1600 made it impossible.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneou
> s&image=_MG _8791cria.jpg> Still, I was happy to get the shot at all.
I think part of this "problem" is that I have used the expression "highlights"
when many times I should have used "reflections".
I am a disciple of John Shaw when it comes to flower shots. See his
"Nature Photographers ... " books.
In the predigital age when he was unable to adjust transparencies as we all
do now, he would shoot (prairie) flowers after the sun had gone down.
I don't have his books to hand right now, to quote him, but I think one aspect
that bothered him was uncontrollable reflections from the surfaces of flower
petals (and leaves nearby). However, he would also photograph flowers
when there were no clouds in the sky, and this may also result in a blue cast
on the flower petals.
Here's the first shot of flowers that I took (both Kodachrome, and some print
film) that I was really happy with. A small image that's already online
http://www.brianswale.com/index7.htm
Then, recently, I had a marvellous day with roses when the sun hid behind
clouds from about 4 pm until late; I packed up cameras at 6pm as I was by
that time starving hungry. In that 2 hours duration I took 53 images, and
there's hardly a dud among them. In my opinion :-) There was good diffuse
light most of the time.
See the set in my zuikoholics pages
http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/
that starts with "Yesterday, it was a cloudy (mostly) dull day, little wind,
and I
went to the city Rose Garden for two hours from about 4 pm to 6".
To see the effect of blue sky ( out of the sun) reflected in rose flower
petals,
look at this one
http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/P2200872-Dublin-Bay-900.JPG
And one shot out of the bag; a flower shot in bright sun that I am happy with;
shot with strong backlight, but the saving element is out of the picture behind
my back. A house wall painted in brilliant titanium white and in full sun which
acted as a huge reflector and illuminated the side of the sunflowers facing
the camera. Without that reflected light, the flower would have been
hopelessly too dark.
http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/P2190866-sunflower-900.JPG
I agree with your comment about the sunlight at the shore (your photo)
being blown out. It's not by much and I think is quite OK in that shot.
However, I do think the image has been oversharpened - observe the rim of
white all around the top edge of the dark land on the right. In my
experience, that happens when sharpening is taken too far.
I know it is often not possible to wait for a cloudy sky for photos. Here,
right
now, it is blue with not a cloud in the sky.
For flower photos in such conditions, a white tent (or something similar) over
the flowers is perhaps the only effective solution. These used to be
available commercially for this purpose; maybe they still are. I have a black
and white panelled umbrella which I sometimes use this way. With mixed
success, I hasten to add.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
