Re: Christina in the Field
Beautiful! Reminds me of "300", the movie.
Re: Christina in the Field
Sean, since your subject was backlit, would you have gotten a similar light on her if you just used a large silver reflector, rather than an umbrella/flash?
Re: Christina in the Field
Great shot, Sean!
Great colours, composition, lighting setup... I'm liking it[:)]
Re: Christina in the Field
Very nice, Sean. It doesn't remind me of 300 the movie (you'd have to chop off the model's head or stab her with a greatsword for that, unless I'm thinking of a different 300 movie).
The lighting & composition are great.
Re: Christina in the Field
To Alan-
Technically, yes, I could have gotten similar results using a reflector. However, using a reflector brings on a couple of problems. First, how to position the reflector to provide light that points downward (a natural looking light) means I need not only a stand but a boom arm and clamps to hold everything in place. Of course, that's not all that hard. But second, the light from a reflector tends to blind the subject. Of course, with this pose that wouldn't be much of an issue. But we did many poses in the series, some where she was looking at or near the light source. The thing I like about using strobes is that they only light up for a split second, not long enough to cause the squinting that you sometimes get with reflectors. In my personal experience, reflectors are best used with strobes to provide fill--not used as a primary light by themselves.
As far as 300 goes...I don't know. It does remind me of a scene in Gladiator where the main character walks through a wheat field with while grazing the top of the wheat with his hands. She's a little easier on the eyes than he was, though... :-)
Re: Christina in the Field
I'm not a fan of this lighting to be honest. The picture looks 'flat'. And the girl is almost grey-ish here and there.
I don't mind postprocessing and stylising (at all) nor am I a good photographer so I do not mean this in a bad way but this is not an image that appeals to me much, if I may be honest. (Sorry!!!!).
Re: Christina in the Field
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison
The picture looks 'flat'.
To balance Madison's point of view (and with respect intended), I'll mention that I forgot to say earlier that I actually thought the picture had a nice sense of depth due to the strip of in focus grass (with blurred background and foreground). I quite like the effect.
We all see things differently, it seems. They say that's a good thing. [:)]
Re: Christina in the Field
In regard to Madison's comments, I welcome the criticism (even though this wasn't posted in the "Image Critique" section). When I read the post, I thought Madison was referring to the lighting being flat (almost likethe light you'd get from an on-camera flash).But I wasn't sure. Maybe your interpretation is of the statement is more correct, Jon...My choice of a relatively thin depth of field was motivated by the technical challenge it presents as well as my own creativity. With abundant daylight, it's very difficult to use off-camera flash with wide apertures as you quickly reach your max flash sync speed. The CPL acted like an ND filter blocking some light hitting the sensor, and the use of the 70-200mm lens magnified the ability to blur the foreground and background (even though I used it much closer to 70mm than 200mm). However,using a telephoto lensdoes tend to compress the scene a bit. Maybe that's what Madison means by "flat."
As far as the girl being grey-ish, again, I honestly don't know. I am colorblind. I am quite limited in my color balancing because of it. The flash itself is balanced to daylight (roughly), so there shouldn't be too much of a (colorcast) difference there. However, as I said, I personally didn't like the picture balanced to 5500 Kelvin so I opted for a cooler white balance. I liked it muted rather than vivid. The way it looks to me is quite different than it looks to most people, I'm sure. It wouldn't be the first time I've missed the mark, but I generally get in the ballpark. At least one person on flickr commented on how he wished for more saturation and contrast in the scene..but others disagreed. It might just be a matter of personal taste...or it mightbe that Ireally do need to use a gray card on every shoot! :-)
Re: Christina in the Field
I should have elaborated more. Yes I meant in terms of lighting. Depth of field is also very narrow but it is an artistic choice. Not one I am particularly fond of in this image either but it does all come down to taste, not to excellence. There is no 'truth' in my remarks.
I apologise for posting critique. I overlooked the fact that it was Show & Tell. Oops.
That said, with lighting this flat and this grey you lose detail, and (local) depth and shadow. The girl's skin on her arms looks unhealthy and she as a subject lacks any good shadows or roundness or 3d-stuff. God it is SO hard explaining this in a language that is not my own. You know what I mean right? It' like you light a woman's breasts one way they look round, light them another way and they look flat. So to speak.
That, in terms with the lack of colour, sucks the life out of this picture for me.
Then again I am not a very good photographer myself so this would be an excellent moment for me to shut up again since I am doing critique when I shoudn't have because of the section of the forum. Once again: my sincerest apologies. I've seen some of your other work and that I did like! [:D]
Re: Christina in the Field
Ok Madison, just for you...
I can't do anything about the "flat" lighting in the posted pic. Even if I change the color, it's still going to have the same lighting (unless I did some serious dodging and burning). That said, I can plainly see a gradient of light and shadow on her right arm as well as half her face in shadow (but not enough to lose the detail in those shadows). To me, it's off-camera lighting, and directional...so we'll just chalk it up to taste. ;-)
However, I'll put two pictures in this post. One will be a slightly warmer version of the pic above. The other will be another shot from the same series, warmed to the same tone. Maybe you'll like the second one better--but maybe not, as it was lit very much the same way. :-)
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_4834_5F00_warm-small.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_4831_5F00_2_5F00_warm-small.jpg[/img]
Re: Christina in the Field
Sean, I like the shot. I guess I'm not "seeing" the flatness of lighting. Some people's skin tone are lighter than others (my wife's looks more like Casper the ghost :<).
I took your shot and did a minor curves adjustment in CS4, and it did pretty much what the top photo looks like. I put a bit more contrast in the curve, and it looks a bit warmer once I found the proper midtone, but her skin looks essentially the same.
Honestly, this shot is quite excellent as is.
Re: Christina in the Field
Well done Sean.
Nice subject, background, composition and lighting direction. The CPL was definitely the ND filter to the rescue.
No critique, rather observations:
1)Sun looks a bit high. Speculars off vegetation cause flare and lack of contrast. Not too bad with this series. Thanks L glass!
2)Strobe lightis cool. That's probably the reason why it looks better overall cooled down. Might I suggest trying a 1/4 to 1/2 cto gel on that 285HV next time. Strobist Lighting 102 section 6. You'll like it at 5500!! Summer grass not Winter wheat!
May I do as well when trying out my local hot shot sites!!
Chuck
Re: Christina in the Field
Sean, I mean this with all the respect due to you, my mentor of the off camera flash. I like the composition of the shot. I like the lighting, in terms of proportion. I think what madison might be referring to relates to the character of the lighting. I think there's enough shading for depth, but the color rendition seems to suffer due to the difference in the light, qualitatively, between the sunlight and the flash. All of the grass and environment surrounding the subject is primarily light by sunlight, and has a sense of warm richness. The subject, which is lit primarily by the flash, seems pale and grey in comparison. From my limited experience, I think you did everything right, and I don't know what you could have done differently. I don't know if you can set white balance selectively in Photoshop or anything. That'd be a neat trick. A reflector would conceivably provide a more consistent white balance, though as you pointed out, it might also blind the subject.
I wish I had something constructive to offer. I think there's a lot of good stuff in the shot, and I would have beenproud if Itook it. But I also think Madison is seeing something that's at least worth thinking about.
Re: Christina in the Field
Well, I, think they're awesome. Of course I'm just beginning to tinker with flash portraits.
I can see a slight grayness to her arm but to me it appears to be a refection off her dress and until it was pointed out I didn't notice.
Re: Christina in the Field
I could have gelled the flash with a CTO filter to give the light a warm color. I guess because it was later in the evening the light had changed from a daylight color (which the flash is balanced to) to a warmer sunset color (even though it wasn't sunset yet). Warming the flash would have probably balanced the flash with the ambient light a bit better than it did bare. Being colorblind, I didn't see the problem at the time and didn't realize the imbalance until it was brought to my attention. I guess I'll know for next time.... ;-)
