Light Painting Landscapes

eyeguy · November 9, 2009

I was out the other night trying my hand at Light painting Landscapes at Elbow River Waterfall. The first capture was about 1/2 hr after sunset using a 1,000,000 Candle Power flashlight.

The second Capture was taken about one hour after sunset.

Your Comments and suggestions are welcome
Dean

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

56 Views and no one can give C&C ???
Come on people out of 56 views and no one has the time to give there thoughts

if your on this sight to learn and grow as a photographer then you need to contribute more than just looking at photos.

Tango · November 13, 2009

relax, it takes time....

your light painting looks good, but personally I would seekout to do this with some moonlight.

#1 was good beacuse you included the FG with light, #2 does not work for me...

Tango · November 13, 2009

btw, sometimes people like me look at the image and think about it for a day before a reply is produced...

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

Thanks
Thanks for the reply's the photo was up for about a week and the I had to wright a pointed post in order to get a response. Yes I don't respond all the time the first time a see a post but I do try. My point is that there is were 56 views and on one had the time to say HI I like this or that about to photo or I don't like this or that. This was my first attempt at light painting a landscape so I am looking for C&C form other people so I can improve. I would like to than all that post there C&C in advance.:D

Dean

aj986s · November 13, 2009

I'm no expert, but am guilty of lurking on occasions.

But I, too, find the #1 very appealing. You've captured great color in the sky and reflected in the water. The water is nicely exposed to create the soft flow. And the sharp foreground rock works great.

#2 is hurt by the dark foreground. Also, it appears the exposure on the waterfall is much shorter, almost freezing the water. I'm curious if you quickly painted the waterfall in #2, versus the ambient light in #1 maybe helping to create the appearance of a longer exposure.

How long was each actual exposure?

schmoo · November 13, 2009

Dean, don't worry about a thing. There are tons of people who browse Dgrin as guests, but they can't post because you have to register to leave a comment. But their views get counted.

Also, I've noticed that autumn is a busy time in landscapes! So things can fall through the cracks easily. There's no harm in bumping a post if it's been a while, though.

I have very little experience light-painting landscapes because I tend to get too annoyed with the differences in WB between what's happening in the environment and the temperature of the lighting I'm using. We've done this on workshops, however, and there are quite a few Dgrinners around here who have done some fantastic light painting using their strobes (sometimes with colored gels), million-candlepower flashlights, or anything else they have their hands on.

Of your two shots I prefer the first because there's a little more light in the sky, which makes the rest of the scene a little less dark. Again there is a little issue with the WB of the light not quite matching, but this is fixable in post. I think it's a great exercise however and you did a great job!

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

We are all guilty to a point

aj986s wrote:

I'm no expert, but am guilty of lurking on occasions.

But I, too, find the #1 very appealing. You've captured great color in the sky and reflected in the water. The water is nicely exposed to create the soft flow. And the sharp foreground rock works great.

#2 is hurt by the dark foreground. Also, it appears the exposure on the waterfall is much shorter, almost freezing the water. I'm curious if you quickly painted the waterfall in #2, versus the ambient light in #1 maybe helping to create the appearance of a longer exposure.

How long was each actual exposure?

#1 was taken @ f7.1 for 30 seconds using ambient light and a flashlight over the waterfall area moving the flashlight in a circular motion as to not create a hot spot and make the light as even as I could.
#2 was taken later in the shoot and I used a speed-light for more than the flashlight. f10 for 190 seconds
Dean

kdog · November 13, 2009

I suspect folks are also put off by the huge image sizes. Images posted at 1600x1024 pixels are hard to evaluate in front of a screen unless (a) you have a very large monitor, and (b), you step away from it.

Good photographic exercise though. Number one looks most natural to me.

Cheers,
-joel

crow · November 13, 2009

Some CC, I agree with some of the post here:

* the images imbedded are too large for most people to see on their monitor
without having to scroll
*I think moonlight wouldve been your best bet instead of the art. light
*I would crop out the foam on the left

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

Thanks

crow wrote:

Some CC, I agree with some of the post here:

* the images imbedded are too large for most people to see on their monitor
without having to scroll
*I think moonlight wouldve been your best bet instead of the art. light
*I would crop out the foam on the left

Thanks for the C&C. I will use a smaller image size next time. As for the Moonlight it was no wear to be seen behind me and not up high enough in the sky to be used. I don't have a shot of just the moon yet to insert during post processing, It is on my list of things to capture. as for the Foam it is snow a tad blue but better than the yellow kind of snow

Thanks again
Dean

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

Thanks

schmoo wrote:

Dean, don't worry about a thing. There are tons of people who browse Dgrin as guests, but they can't post because you have to register to leave a comment. But their views get counted.

Also, I've noticed that autumn is a busy time in landscapes! So things can fall through the cracks easily. There's no harm in bumping a post if it's been a while, though.

I have very little experience light-painting landscapes because I tend to get too annoyed with the differences in WB between what's happening in the environment and the temperature of the lighting I'm using. We've done this on workshops, however, and there are quite a few Dgrinners around here who have done some fantastic light painting using their strobes (sometimes with colored gels), million-candlepower flashlights, or anything else they have their hands on.

Of your two shots I prefer the first because there's a little more light in the sky, which makes the rest of the scene a little less dark. Again there is a little issue with the WB of the light not quite matching, but this is fixable in post. I think it's a great exercise however and you did a great job!

I am not getting stressed over it but it is kind if interesting that after I light a fire under some tripods the comments are coming in fast.
I have done some more looking around on the internet for information about Light painting landscapes and found Brent Pearson http://brentbat.wordpress.com/ Brent has published an e-book on the topic with lots of good information and will probably advance my learning curve on Light painting and those of others who may be looking into this form of Photography.
Dean

Tango · November 13, 2009

Your not understanding, its not about a moon in your composition.

Its about subtle lighting to bring out detail that otherwise is Black useless space you're currently presenting....

the painting with light is to enhance your subject....

btw, good luck on bringing a moon into your image on post I doubt it would ever look right..... specifically due to the points I mentioned about subtle lighting... not to mention a handfull of other variables...

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

not understanding

AaronNelson wrote:

Your not understanding, its not about a moon in your composition.

Its about subtle lighting to bring out detail that otherwise is Black useless space you're currently presenting....

the painting with light is to enhance your subject....

btw, good luck on bringing a moon into your image on post I doubt it would ever look right..... specifically due to the points I mentioned about subtle lighting... not to mention a handfull of other variables...

Sorry for not understanding your original post was a bit vague as to having Moonlighting but I do understand where you are going with it now, it would have been nice but the moon was not available to play that night. As for bringing in the moon I have seen it done in Photoshop before with good results, I don't know if I could make it happen but you don't know if you don't try then try again.

Tango · November 13, 2009

yup, my writing is not as expressive as I wish it to be....

good luck, nothing wrong with trying.... but bringing a moon from an entire different shoot and have it look realistic is a feat....

if you want a moon in the comp, your better off shooting when the moon "is" there and expose for the moon individually, and take a second exposure with moonlight & light painting to combine with layers and sell that to the viewer....

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

Thanks

AaronNelson wrote:

yup, my writing is not as expressive as I wish it to be....

good luck, nothing wrong with trying.... but bringing a moon from an entire different shoot and have it look realistic is a feat....

if you want a moon in the comp, your better off shooting when the moon "is" there and expose for the moon individually, and take a second exposure with moonlight & light painting to combine with layers and sell that to the viewer....

I do agree allows better to all the parts of a comp in the same place and the same time.
All the best
Daen

anwmn1 · November 13, 2009

I have looked at these a few times but have no responded for a few reasons. The biggest is that these compositions and lighting just don't do anything for me.

1. The trees on the right side are an important part of the photo being balanced. The tops of the trees would help give this more perspective and depth. With them being cut off it is just lacking in those aspects.

2. The painting with light is too much compared to the rest of the lighting in the image. Good painting with light adds to the image without standing out and looking like a flash.

3. Look at the link you posted and many other good examples of painting with light. One thing they have in common is a focus point. Whether it is a person, a tree, a structure or object- they all have a clear identifiable focus point. The waterfall in your shot is not a strong enough focus point for painting with light.

Personally I would crop all of the bottom and some on each side.
Left side- crop off 2/3 of the large rock on the left frame. Too much deep space on that side.
Right Side- crop in about a 1/3 of the image (to where there is just the first grouping of chopped off trees.
Bottom- crop off all the painted with light area. Leave just a sliver of the start of the falls.

You are left with an image that is more balance, has great lighting on the water which matches the sky and far more natural.

eyeguy · November 13, 2009

Thanks for the help

anwmn1 wrote:

I have looked at these a few times but have no responded for a few reasons. The biggest is that these compositions and lighting just don't do anything for me.

1. The trees on the right side are an important part of the photo being balanced. The tops of the trees would help give this more perspective and depth. With them being cut off it is just lacking in those aspects.

2. The painting with light is too much compared to the rest of the lighting in the image. Good painting with light adds to the image without standing out and looking like a flash.

3. Look at the link you posted and many other good examples of painting with light. One thing they have in common is a focus point. Whether it is a person, a tree, a structure or object- they all have a clear identifiable focus point. The waterfall in your shot is not a strong enough focus point for painting with light.

Personally I would crop all of the bottom and some on each side.
Left side- crop off 2/3 of the large rock on the left frame. Too much deep space on that side.
Right Side- crop in about a 1/3 of the image (to where there is just the first grouping of chopped off trees.
Bottom- crop off all the painted with light area. Leave just a sliver of the start of the falls.

You are left with an image that is more balance, has great lighting on the water which matches the sky and far more natural.

Thanks for the help

torags · November 13, 2009

The images have a flash quality about them, that doesn't benefit the image.

I believe you get away from a intense light in a small area if you move the light over a wide area a couple/few times to broaden the light with less intensity,

Stevemac · November 14, 2009

Hi dean 10/10 for giving it a go i do like the 1st pic
althogh the silkyness of the water looks a little noisy
moonlight is an option but try some experiments
with different lights some are warmer than others i find the new LED style ones
give a nice cool feel to a picture.And experiment with your shutter speeds

steve.

eyeguy · November 14, 2009

Thanks for the help

Stevemac wrote:

Hi dean 10/10 for giving it a go i do like the 1st pic
althogh the silkyness of the water looks a little noisy
moonlight is an option but try some experiments
with different lights some are warmer than others i find the new LED style ones
give a nice cool feel to a picture.And experiment with your shutter speeds

steve.

Thanks for your comments