Lighting

[polarwoc]

This thread is a discussion/critique on a request from a new member which can be found here. In question is the lighting. I show the full background picture and the portion of it that I used while giving background scenery for the requester. The pic shown here does not show all enhancement effects I made on the face.

Should I have chosen a different portion of the picture? Or should I have chosen a different picture altogether? Do the shadows correspond to the sun? Does the evening afterglow on the face look unnatural given the sun is diagonally behind to the left?

 

[IamSam]

Do the shadows correspond to the sun?

They do on the rocks of course but not to the shadows on the subject.

Does the evening afterglow on the face look unnatural given the sun is diagonally behind to the left?

The glow looks pretty good, the lighting of the subject is inconsistent with the lighting of the BG.

From what direction is the lighting coming from that's shining on the subject? The shadow of the sunshades offer a clue.

From what direction is the lighting coming from sun? Is it coming from the back of the subject or the front of the subject?

 

[IamSam]

In this image, the subject is completely front lit. Notice the rocks behind her also have the same lighting.



Here the subject is lit from the front and the background is backlit. Notice the backlit rocks with shadows in the front.

 

[Argos]

And not only have to consider the direction of the light, you need to know the differents tipes of light, for example in that background being a sunset, the light is soft and red.

As iamsam said with that background the guy would be completly dark/orange except maybe for small zone of his right side.

Of course you can try to recreate a flashlight from the camera or a complet photography set with reflectors etc..so you can see the guy's face, but it would be a mayor task and usually more you touch up the light, more chance to look fake.

Cheers!

 

[JazzyScotsman]

Personally, I thought Polarwoc's composition was spot-on! Light falls in a certain way, that is true. However, I don't think the lighting in this picture was really the issue. It was a great bit of work. I don't think many would have found fault, except for diehard professionals, like us, who are in this field. *^_^* I always find these discussions interesting; old pros splitting hairs over something that the client will probably just discard once the novelty has worn off.

 

[polarwoc]

@IamSam In the 2nd post of this thread, all the pics were against a very bright sun in the background coupled WITH the absence of a secondary light on the subject, leaving a bright yellow halo around a subject deluged in shadows. The 3rd post of this thread shows a lady with sun almost at 11-12 O'clock time AND lack of secondary source of lighting on the subject.

When I posted this picture, I had reasoned that the position of the sun has corresponding shadows in the pic,
1) on the right side of the neck with chin's shadow
2) on the right cheek almost entirely from top to down
3) under the right shade
as can be seen below


If sun was the only source of light, you can expect the existing shadow to be stronger in the areas mentioned above plus casting itself on the rest of the face, almost making it silhouetted. Given the pic in its frame within the blue marking guide lines, what factor of the photo can deny the presence of a secondary ambient light falling on the face thus removing the light shadows but still allowing the stronger natural shadows formed by the sun as enlisted above to still form? This soft ambient (possibly reflected) light would not produce a flare in the sun glasses - which is the reasoning behind removing the reflection of light source on the left shade as shown from original photo:


In a beach setting, this secondary light source could have been a street light or a shop light which would be on at that time of the day as it is getting dark. The following image, which was my final submission with all lighting effects illustrates and summarises what I explained above.

Your inputs would assist me in changing the way I see things for any future designs involving light and shadows.

 

[polarwoc]

In support of the above arguments I made, I present this photograph below:

that shows a sunset in the background showing the reddish dusky sun still a little above the horizon being a light source, casting shadows on the lady's neck of her curly hair and a very faint shadow on her upper arm which contrasts itself with her forearm.
It is but obvious that the pic does not have the sun as its only light source. There is another light source that is not obvious or seen, but without which her back and the shoulder closest to the edge would not be so much lit.

 

[Argos]

Its hard for me to understand so much text in english so not sure what are really your questions, so better i let iamsam answer XD.
But I dont think that second image you post have a second light source. and you're comparing two completly diferent images, one is a backlightning photo and the other is not.

 

[IamSam]

all the pics were against a very bright sun in the background coupled WITH the absence of a secondary light on the subject, leaving a bright yellow halo around a subject deluged in shadows. The 3rd post of this thread shows a lady with sun almost at 11-12 O'clock time AND lack of secondary source of lighting on the subject.

A secondary light source is usually described as a light source which is not self-luminous but receives light and redirects it by reflection or transmission. There are of course artificially created secondary light sources as you mention below.

In a beach setting, this secondary light source could have been a street light or a shop light which would be on at that time of the day as it is getting dark.

No, not at that ambient light level. He would have to be standing only about a foot away. Remember, artificial light dissipates with distance. Artificial light would normally be on a different spectrum. Your edit is suggesting it's the glow of the sun light. Perhaps he was holding a large mirror?

The question is more about the likelihood of you explanation being the case. I do see your point but. If we view it from a logical standpoint, the lighting of your background choice simply does not make logical sense. The original subject was photographed while clearly facing a strong light source. Would it not make more sense to add in a background that's more consistent with the lighting of the subject?

There is another light source that is not obvious or seen, but without which her back and the shoulder closest to the edge would not be so much lit.

Yes, you could be right in that there could be a secondary light source. But I think it's normal ambient lighting . However, based on your argument for your edit, why is her back not glowing and casting shadows as though it were facing the sun? Secondary lighting, even if it's artificial, is almost always very subtle.

Please..........I'm not trying to "split hairs", I'm just suggesting that the choice of background that you made for this edit contained inconstant lighting to that of the subject. If your going for realism, I'm just asking that you consider the possibility of better options.

 

[IamSam]

Visit this Website, there are many examples of outdoor photos with added artificial secondary lighting.

 

[polarwoc]

Thank you, @IamSam. I get what you are saying. I should have chosen a different background with sun facing the subject rather than it being at the back. At the least, I should have given the face some cool whitish lighting rather than warm sun-ray-yellowish glow.

I appreciate you taking the time out and pointing it out to me.