CC on some outdoor shots

[mjmackinnon]

I finally got my Polarizing filter, and would like to see if this has improved some of the shots that I took a while back.

The first shot I took had the sky totally blown out. I re-took the shot under similar conditions but with the filter, and the sky is much better now. Is there anything else that I should be looking at?

1. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3497453279_e09dd4128f_d.jpg 2. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3498269428_b5a0ca8469_d.jpg

A larger set of imaged can be seen on my flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjmackinnon_photos/)page if these are too small to properly critique.

Thanks for the input.

Matt.

[Robert_Lay]

The polarizing lens is OK, but the real problem in both shots here is that you are shooting into the sun. That is going to give your subjects (the bridge and the girls) a degree of backlighting. If there are any direct rays of the sun falling on your filter/lens, then the resulting glare and forward scatter will reduce the contrast of the scene.

[mjmackinnon]

The polarizing lens is OK, but the real problem in both shots here is that you are shooting into the sun. That is going to give your subjects (the bridge and the girls) a degree of backlighting.

But does not the term BackLighting infer that the light is actually behind the subject. This was shot at around 2-3pm, where the sun it pretty much in the apex of the sky. It can't get much more overhead than it was. Yes, I am in Canada, so the sun is never directly overhead in the sky, but always to some extent in the southern hemisphere. If you look at the shadows of objects around the scene, you will see that only the bridge is casting any relevant shadow and that is due to it's size.

I would have thought this would be more of an overhead lighting as that is where the sun is. Now shooting into the sun at say sunrise or sunset would be a different matter. Is not backlighting more of an issue indoors where the dominant light source is a window, and you are shooting a subject facing that window? So you are getting their silhouette in the brightness.

Do you feel that the images are loosing contrast or definition in some way? I know that photographs in direct sunlight are not always as vivid as in say an overcast day. But this cannot be a steadfast rule. otherwise there would not be many photographs taken in sunny places in the world.

In this case the sun was an important part of the photograph as the two women were enjoying a foot splash in the creek. In your opinion, what could I be doing to improve the story that is being told?

If there are any direct rays of the sun falling on your filter/lens, then the resulting glare and forward scatter will reduce the contrast of the scene.

I can understand the concern for direct rays of light hitting the lens and as a result it adding in artefacts onto the picture. Does a lens hood negate that though? This again would only be a problem is you were actually shooing directly into a light source.

Sorry if I am coming across rather harsh, but I would like to better understand the points that you were making.

Matt.

[tonydee]

The light isn't striking the visible part of most of the important subject matter. Exactly by how much angle it's shadowed doesn't really make much difference (i.e. sunset vs noon). It's not really about the shadows cast by the subjects, but most of the subjects being dull from not having direct lighting. In #2, look at the front lady's thighs: a thin slice is over-bright, the rest over-dull. It's too harsh. Same for the bridge: the top is over-bright, the rest is dull.

I'm not sure if Robert suspected some direct light on your filter/lens... I don't see any obvious evidence of it... he may have been making a general observation provoked by thoughts of things causing poor contrast.

Cheers, Tony

[LeuceDeuce]

But does not the term BackLighting infer that the light is actually behind the subject.

The light is behind the subject. The shadow cast by the women is on the side facing you. That's backlight.

If the sun was behind you, to any degree, you would not see a shadow on the bodies of the women at all because the shadow would be on the back side.

Backlight doesn't mean that the subject intersects the light source and the camera.

[Robert_Lay]

Sorry that I am a little late in getting back to you.

But does not the term BackLighting infer that the light is actually behind the subject. This was shot at around 2-3pm, where the sun it pretty much in the apex of the sky. It can't get much more overhead than it was. Yes, I am in Canada, so the sun is never directly overhead in the sky, but always to some extent in the southern hemisphere. If you look at the shadows of objects around the scene, you will see that only the bridge is casting any relevant shadow and that is due to it's size.


From the shadows I see on the girls and the shadow cast by the bridge and based on your shot time of 2-3 pm, then your shot was pointing more or less West-Southwest and those shadows make the sun more in front of you than behind you.

I would have thought this would be more of an overhead lighting as that is where the sun is. Now shooting into the sun at say sunrise or sunset would be a different matter. Is not backlighting more of an issue indoors where the dominant light source is a window, and you are shooting a subject facing that window? So you are getting their silhouette in the brightness.

None of that matters in that the sun is either in front of you or behind you (excluding the possibility that it is directly overhead). So long as it is in front of you rather than behind you, then you can get direct rays of the sun on your lens (unless you have a lens hood preventing that). It doesn't matter whether it's early in the morning or late in the afternon or somewhere in between - that only changes the length of the shadows and the degree to which the backlighting is of concern.

Do you feel that the images are loosing contrast or definition in some way? I know that photographs in direct sunlight are not always as vivid as in say an overcast day. But this cannot be a steadfast rule. otherwise there would not be many photographs taken in sunny places in the world.

If you are shooting into the sun (rather than with the sun behind you) and if there is no adequate hood in use, then there will be degradation - it's only a matter of degree. Your comment about photos not being as vivid in direct sunlight is certainly one way of describing what happens.

In this case the sun was an important part of the photograph as the two women were enjoying a foot splash in the creek. In your opinion, what could I be doing to improve the story that is being told?

I don't know what you mean by saying that the sun was an important part of the photograph. The sun does not appear in the photograph, but the image will show both the scene and the glare from any sun's rays striking the lens. In other words, with no lens hood, the sun could have rays hitting the surface of the lens even when the sun is 80 or more degrees above the horizon and is well out of the field of view.

I can understand the concern for direct rays of light hitting the lens and as a result it adding in artefacts onto the picture. Does a lens hood negate that though? This again would only be a problem is you were actually shooing directly into a light source.

A lens hood does not completely negate the problem of shooting into the sun, but it does well enough to make it insignificant, unless in some extreme environment.

Unfortunately, the problem exists even when you are not shooting directly into a light source. Unless the rays are blocked by the lens hood, they are falling directly onto the lens surface and will be seriously affecting the scene contrast.

Sorry if I am coming across rather harsh, but I would like to better understand the points that you were making.

Matt.
Naturally, I trust this explains it all to your satisfaction, but if it does not, I will create some example photos illustrating the points.