A photo challenge starting January 5th 2009. One image only, normal size restrictions apply (1000 pixel maximum width or height recommended - if vertical we suggest 700 pixels maximum width). No followup images (comparisons) except by those who have not already posted their one image. Discussion welcome - please only repeat images in discussion posts if absolutely essential. Aster has been appointed moderator of this forum in recognition of her commitment to making it great fun. This does not prevent others from setting challenges!
Forum rules
One image only, normal size restrictions apply (1000 pixel maximum width or height recommended - if vertical we suggest 700 pixels maximum width). No followup images (comparisons) except by those who have not already posted their one image. Discussion welcome - please only repeat images in discussion posts if absolutely essential. Participants should provide basic camera data (body, lens, ISO, mode, exposure over-ride or WB settings), and details of raw processing and subsequent PP.
It appears that more and more of our members are into new tools and strobes and prefer to shoot in an Off-Camera setting and getting very good results too.
This is a special challenge which after concluding can be continued as a thread with submissions of future experimentations and one that has the potential of becoming a learning and discussion platform for many.
We're required to enter with photos taken with the aid of some sort of lighting equipment in natural environments or any specific space we wish to experiment with. The equipment setting can be the most sofisticated of its kind or be the simplest available like a candle lighting. It's the scenario that you're after that will determine how far you'll be taking the lighting experiment.
Specifications:
* Last day for submissions 16 December 2009. * All subjects are welcome. * A little information on what your Off-Camera Lighting procedure was would be a nice addition to the photo entry. *You may enter with both (D)SLRs and Compact Digital cameras. * Creativity and innovative approaches are most welcome. * Please adhere to forum rules for image sizes
Nice and interesting shots, which have special attraction; the first one can be seen as a surreal kind of thing for those not recognizing it (and that's one of the attractive forces of macro photography ) and the second with an ethereal look.
Nice start, Yildiz.
And here's mine, shot with A100 + Sigma 50/2.8 Macro DG EX (exif included)
Table light (tungsten) lit from underneath a glass covered with plain paper.
Dusty, that's generous - not many parents would cut up a fruit bowl for their kids!
I have some interesting LED light sources to hand and may try them for this. The latest one cost me £3.99 with my petrol fillup and it's amazing - daylight colour temp and a very even small patch of light from a tiny source with multiple LEDs.
I like what mildew can do all by itself: turning into a surreal garden of its own creation. And it's fun shooting those specially-designed micro landscapes..
I like your pomegranate seeds. Lots of details of even the tiniest fiber within.
This one should be easy enough to reverse-engineer, and a good example of how off-camera lighting can make a picture pop. The sun was diffused in the sky but coming more from behind me than any other direction. I used the sunlight as fill light with my wife holding my flash gun on a DIY boom off camera left at about 5 feet high. The F56 was firing at full power and zoomed to 85mm behind a white umbrella. I had two options then for adjusting the exposure (well, I probably had about 50 or a billion more than that): the first was to lock exposure and move my wife (and flash) away from or towards my subject, and the second was to dial in exposure compensation. A peek at the EXIF will tell you which one I did.
bakubo wrote:Does the sun qualify as an off-camera light source?
Hi Bakubo,
I would of really liked to say 'yes' but the idea here was to have some kind of artificial source to light the scene besides the Sun when in natural environments.
Kevin's portraiture entry is a good example to the concept of the challenge.
We still would like to see the photo though. Because a photo like Javelin's which is shot indoors while apparently using the daylight as the main light source does make sense.
Just send in the photo you had in mind and let's move on from there. In any case, it's always a good experience to see your photos...
Thanks,
Yildiz
ps. LED lights; spotlights; a photo of a subject taken in front of a movie theatre with bright entrance lighting; light reflected from an other surface to light the subject..etc... are all acceptable.
That was lit with wireless flash bounced off the wall to the left of the scene and sunlight from the right, except it was pretty cloudy, the room was dark which made the light harsh, The sunlight was bounced off the metal building next door (that window faces southeast and this was noonish). the flash made the area behind them very dark. so I took this shot with the flash and set 1/20 F4.5 ISO 640 on the camera to bring out the background and left the flash in place to even out the shadows (it almost burned the pink off the blanket). I took a group shot like this too just as the sun poped out and everything overexposed but I was able to pull the exposures down to save that one (in RAW). and on one of the other group shots the flash went off full blast and caused dark shadows in the opposite direction, thats the first time thats even happened to me with that flash.
Sorry, when I saw the family pic from Kevin I realized the challenge wasn't for totally artificial light (or so I thought). if thats so then mine should be disqualified because it is relying on the sun mostly.
Javelin wrote:That was lit with wireless flash bounced off the wall to the left of the scene and sunlight from the right, except it was pretty cloudy, the room was dark which made the light harsh, The sunlight was bounced off the metal building next door (that window faces southeast and this was noonish). the flash made the area behind them very dark. so I took this shot with the flash and set 1/20 F4.5 ISO 640 on the camera to bring out the background and left the flash in place to even out the shadows (it almost burned the pink off the blanket). I took a group shot like this too just as the sun poped out and everything overexposed but I was able to pull the exposures down to save that one (in RAW). and on one of the other group shots the flash went off full blast and caused dark shadows in the opposite direction, thats the first time thats even happened to me with that flash.
Sorry, when I saw the family pic from Kevin I realized the challenge wasn't for totally artificial light (or so I thought). if thats so then mine should be disqualified because it is relying on the sun mostly.
Hi Javelin,
Please don't worry about disqualification at this point.
Your sample and experimentation on the scene is very important for this concept.
bakubo wrote:Does the sun qualify as an off-camera light source?
I would of really liked to say 'yes' but the idea here was to have some kind of artificial source to light the scene besides the Sun when in natural environments.
Yildiz, I was just joking.
Anyway, here is a photo I made with the KM 7D in Marrakech, Morocco:
I must have gotten carried away and took it literally. Probably was subconsciously alerted that the next step would involve the moon, the planets, the stars and our Solar system as a whole...!
Nice photo by the way. That's a very decorative charred-coal-holder there.
Henry, that's so unusual in the way it has rendered that it could be one of the classic photographs of all time. Not exaggerating here; this kind of result, where light and tonal response combine to create something unique, appealed greatly to photographers like Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and Hugo Van Wadonoyen (not to mention Minor White). This is one of the best images I've seen here for a long time.
) and the second with an ethereal look.
