Thanks, but while I agree that the folks in the back rows could use a
little more brightening than I already gave them, I prefer my version to
yours. Perhaps LCE would help too but I didn't know about LCE a couple
of years ago when this shot was done. Your landscape bias is showing
here with your attempt to open up the shadows in the background. But
it's a people picture and not a landscape or architectural shot. In a
people picture the people are the subject, not the leaves in the tree
behind them. Brightening and opening up the background attracts
attention away from the people which is the opposite of what I want to do.
As to reflectors or continuous lights, the answer is no; at least not in
any practical sense. The flash usage in this case is not a fill light
but the main light. The light deficit under this tree relative to full
sun is almost 3 stops and the light level must be brought up to the
level of full sun or close to it. A simple reflector couldn't be large
enough to cover the group and, of course, can't be 100% efficient. It
also couldn't see the sun from the position it would need be in due to
other shade in the vicinity. Continuous lights would need to be
extremely powerful and would have color balance problems.
The only significant defect I recognize in the photo is the unnatural
shadow from the flash and that's the part you haven't solved. Fixing or
minimizing that would have required a taller light stand on the main
light and a big fill flash... neither of which I had with me. I did
soften the shadow from the original but it's not bad enough that I'm
willing to try and remove it in post-processing.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>For people shooting it's not only direct sun but any bright sunlight
>>around anywhere. Consider the shady/sunny family photo here:
>><http://www.chucknorcutt.com/family.php> This is one of the hardest
>>things there is to handle and it must be done with flash. (and this one
>>isn't done as well as it might have been)
>>
>
> Couldn't it also be done with reflectors and/or continuous lights?
>
> I've been reading you and Jeff talking about difficulties with getting
> even lighting of home interiors and you on the subject of fill flash.
> And I wonder if the technique I use to even out illumination in post
> would be of use to you. (And I notice Bob W has found it too, from his
> recent post.)
>
> I hope you don't mind my working with your shady/sunny family photo
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/CNorcutt/Family.htm>, as well
> as a couple of shots of mine
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Lighting/Library2.htm>
> & <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Lighting/Kitchen.htm>.
>
> It doesn't remove the shadows you refer to, but is certainly does open
> up the folks in the back while putting some detail into the white shirts
> and light pants in the front. And as usual, one could go anywhere in
> between. (Apologies to those using IE. I don't know how to make the
> family shot example work in IE, even though I used HTML from an MS
> reference.)
>
> I put in all the steps on the family shot, because it's something many
> people wouldn't fall into, as it makes the image look worse in the first
> steps. Details can vary, but in this case:
>
> 1. Shadow/Highlight expands the highlights and shadow in toward the
> middle of the histogram.
>
> 2. Contrast shortens the histogram and Brightness adjusts its location
> relative to the ends. Both are to leave room for the effects of LCE in
> the next step. In this case, I wanted to let the darkest shadow detail
> go, so left room only to the right. By this point, the image looks
> pretty poor.
>
> 3. LCE brings back some of the contrast lost in the last two steps, but
> not globally.
>
> 4. Curves brightens up the mid-tones and adds a little global contrast.
> For a lower key shot, you could skip this step on this shot or try
> varying the curve and/or layer opacity.
>
> The room shots are of a house where we were guests. I had only the
> little on-camera flash, which I thought would be terrible, so I was
> stuck with what light was there. And predictably, I got pretty bad
> images. At least I made sure to hold the important highlights. The
> kitchen is lighted only by indirect sunlight through windows, some
> behind and beside me. The library (yes, it has a secret door!) is
> illuminated with mixed light from the chandelier and window light.
>
> In neither case is he result entirely natural looking, but in each, it's
> a LOT better than the image from the camera. The closer the lighting is
> to even, the better this technique works as it looks more natural.
>
> In retrospect, I should have also tried the flash set to -1.5-2 EV in
> the library for fill. I don't know if it would be better or not, as the
> lighting colors and directions would be even more mixed. In the kitchen,
> flash reflections would have been bad.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|