Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Macro 
Thread started 14 Jul 2017 (Friday) 23:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How is the lighting on this shot?

 
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,183 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6643
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jul 14, 2017 23:27 |  #1

I have been striving for soft even lighting. Now I'm wondering if it is too flat. Should there be more pop in this photo? More directionality? Comments appreciated.

Hoverfly washing its hands. Diffused flash.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
LordV
Macro Photo-Lord of the Year 2006
Avatar
59,605 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3167
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Worthing UK
     
Jul 15, 2017 01:14 |  #2

Light looks good to me but it is a matter of personal preference.

Brian V.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lordv/ (external link)
http://www.lordv.smugm​ug.com/ (external link)
Macro Hints and tips
Canon 600D, 40D, 5D mk2, 7D, Tamron 90mm macro, Sigma 105mm OS, Canon MPE-65,18-55 kit lens X2, canon 200mm F2.8 L, Tamron 28-70mm xrdi, Other assorted bits

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Temma
Senior Member
763 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 351
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Rocky River, Ohio
     
Jul 15, 2017 07:43 |  #3

Archibald wrote in post #18402402 (external link)
I have been striving for soft even lighting. Now I'm wondering if it is too flat. Should there be more pop in this photo? More directionality? Comments appreciated.

Hoverfly washing its hands. Diffused flash.

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=184​02402&i=i10261401
forum: Macro

It looks fine to me, plenty of detail, nothing washed out, no harsh shadows.

You're not going to do much better except in a computer graphic.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Avatar
26,464 posts
Gallery: 2291 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 8546
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Post edited 11 months ago by Lester Wareham.
     
Jul 15, 2017 09:41 |  #4

For me perhaps a bit more contrast but it is not a big deal. You could perhaps add in post with the contrast slider, easier to add than take away.

Specular highlights are well controlled though. I worry less about that than some though, because if you photograph the subject in sunlight you often get significant specular highlights, I see them as naturalistic.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
THREAD ­ STARTER
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,183 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6643
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jul 15, 2017 09:59 |  #5

Thanks for the comments. It is sometimes not easy to judge a photo if it is your own, and lighting is hard to assess if it comes from your own creation. Hence the request for opinions.

Here on POTN we have a reluctance to comment on photos, and I understand the reason. But my opinion is that C&C is valuable and helps the makers to improve.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
THREAD ­ STARTER
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,183 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6643
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jul 15, 2017 14:56 |  #6

Redid the processing a bit. Is it better, the same, or worse?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
THREAD ­ STARTER
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,183 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6643
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jul 16, 2017 16:20 |  #7

OK, I realize this forum is not for discussing and learning...


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris.R
Goldmember
2,582 posts
Likes: 73
Joined Jul 2016
     
Jul 16, 2017 18:35 as a reply to  @ Archibald's post |  #8

For me the lighting's fine, in both. A little more unevenness left/right is often more interesting, but then highlights demand a wide dynamic range on the sensor.
It's personal, but I always like to see detail in more of the animal, dof in other words, or stacking ( with a load of retouching, for a washing one of these)
Well done though - they never sit still for me!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,622 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2333
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 16, 2017 19:45 |  #9

Looks fine but I'm not a huge macro person. Bokeh looks good.


My entire hobby of gear lust has temporarily been shifted into overload. Please be patient while my mind tries to get back onto the road to recovery. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause....
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
THREAD ­ STARTER
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,183 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6643
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jul 16, 2017 20:20 |  #10

Thanks for the comments, guys.

The first and second images look very similar. Yet the first didn't look right to me. I didn't know what it was exactly, I thought maybe the flat lighting.

But now I think it was the color balance. The first shot started to look quite yellow to me. So I made an adjustment. In the second, I lowered the temp from about 6600 to 5700K. It is not actually very obvious because of the colors in the shot.

I selected 5700K because a quicky test of the flash/diffuser combo used gave about 5700K light.

So I thought I'd ask here to see if I'm just imagining things or not. It's maybe not fair, because the difference is subtle. A change of 1000K is subtle?? Well, it seems that way in this case.

Chris, interesting point about L-R gradation.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,622 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2333
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 16, 2017 23:42 |  #11

darker background perhaps


My entire hobby of gear lust has temporarily been shifted into overload. Please be patient while my mind tries to get back onto the road to recovery. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause....
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rosh4u
Member
Avatar
136 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Jun 2017
Location: Surat, India
     
Jul 16, 2017 23:59 |  #12

As detailing the work is done in great quantity, lights in this picture seems good to me. I didn't found the images to be in less exposure of lights.


Roshni Patel Co-founder of Auto Stamper (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
THREAD ­ STARTER
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,183 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6643
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jul 17, 2017 01:30 |  #13

Thanks!


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davholla
Senior Member
905 posts
Gallery: 91 photos
Likes: 417
Joined Nov 2014
     
Jul 17, 2017 02:01 |  #14

They both look fine to me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris.R
Goldmember
2,582 posts
Likes: 73
Joined Jul 2016
Post edited 11 months ago by Chris.R.
     
Jul 17, 2017 04:45 |  #15

It's niggling that this isn't as sharp as it should be. I looked at the 1280 pixel version. With that camera, lens, flash, f/11 - why not? Is anything near to pixel-sharp on the original? I would probably show best in the leaf hairs in front of the fly, I think.

https://photography-on-the.net …c8eb08276af6d_8​65386.duck




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,620 views & 8 likes for this thread
How is the lighting on this shot?
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Macro 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lynx36
925 guests, 369 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.