Even better!! Question about photographer's background effects.

[andrew_gale]

<p>Steve C.<br>

You can say a lot of things with almost certainty but that just means that when you are disproved, the credibility of your certainty is reduced more quickly.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Galen, I think that sounds more like a perception than a fact. Has anything I've said been proven as unfactual? I explained that the inconsistency of her exposures led me to believe she was not shooting manual, though the Exif showed otherwise. Still, in my <em>opinion</em>, this photographer was not managing her exposures as I would expect, given the high quality of much of her work. Again, that's my opinion, not a statement of fact, and nothing that has to be defended or proven credible. And within that part of the discussion, my opinion is as credible as yours or anyone else's.</p>

<p>As to the original question, how do you blow out backgrounds, I think it has been answered.</p>

[sam_ellis]

<p>Notice also that the reflection of the sky in the guy's glasses is blue because it's BEHIND her.<br>

Just sayin'<br>

Sam<br>

By the way, nice work Eliza Beth :)</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Well to answer Kay's other questions--whether to use a flash or not is entirely up to you and varies considerably from photographer to photographer. You cannot usually successfully bounce your flash outside unless you have convenient nearby surfaces and aren't trying to go up against bright light.</p>

<p>Usually, the white sky is not something one can deliberately turn off and on, so when you say this or that photographer uses white skies to focus attention on the couple, it may or may not be something deliberately chosen. For instance, if you opt not to use flash, and the sun is behind your subject, you will not be able to have the blue sky and decent exposure (seeing detail) on the subjects at the same time unless you use flash to bring up subject exposure to balance with the sky or bright sun exposure. If the photographer chooses not to use flash, he or she has no choice but to end up with white skies.</p>

<p>Others have answered your question on matrix metering. It is both a specific Nikon term for their metering mode and also has a more general meaning that describes a method of metering. Canon's evaluative metering is a kind of matrix metering (in the larger sense).</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Also, one of those Marc Williams explanations worth re-reading, mentioned by William M., above.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PU6w">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PU6w</a></p>

<p>Obviously--read Marc's post.</p>

<p>Steve--we are splitting hairs here. The sun is more or less behind the photographer in Eliza Beth's blue sky image. As noted in my post, it may have been somewhat more oblique than directly behind, but behind, nonetheless, which is the point to be made in relation to blue sky exposure--the point is not whether or not it was directly behind the photographer. If I were to guess, I'd look at the bride's nose shadow, since she (her face) is basically square to the photographer. You see the 'triangle' of sunlight on her shadow side cheek, which is classic Rembrandt lighting, so the sun was about 45 degrees to the photographer's right, and behind.</p>

<p>As for stating an opinion on the images, I did not get the impression that Kay was holding these images up as perfect or ideal, but as examples to illustrate her question. So when you say something like, "I just want her to have a better understanding of what she's looking at, and ways they could be even better (even though this is all very subjective), before she settles on a style to emulate," the 'better' in the sentence is according to whom? And the 'higher standard' you mention is again, whose higher standard? I'm not defending Ms. Starr's work--I remain neutral. But Kay should be free to emulate her all she wants. </p>

<p>And I'm not criticizing you for stating your opinions. Perhaps I'm suggesting you state them in a less emphatic manner--it sounds like you are the one saying "this is how it should be done," even if it isn't your intent. Because commenting on composition, for instance, is definitely not related to a question about exposure for blue or white skies. However, I do think critiquing Eliza Beth's images was unnecessary. Her examples served to illustrate blue sky/white sky very well, I thought, regardless of content or technique or whether they could have been 'better'. As always, my opinions, stated not to start any trouble, but in the spirit of discussion, as you noted.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PU6w"></a></p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>To the contrary, Nadine, I got the impression that Kay was really wowed by the images on that blog page, and if she wants to emulate them, that's fine. I never said she shouldn't. And some of the images on the blog were quite striking and well done, as I said.</p>

<p>I haven't once stated the shots should be done this way or that, only my opinion on ways they could have been better. I've re-read all my responses here, and can't see how anyone could construe anything other than that. My words have been very clear and leave no room for confusion. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see how one could get the wrong message. I can give my personal opinions without ever saying they should be everyone else's opinions too...and that's exactly what I did.</p>

<p>As for Eliza Beth's images, I was quite surprised that she submitted such a badly overexposed white sky image as an example of white sky, with such a well-exposed blue sky image. Typically, when you blow out the sky in a shot like this, you at least have the foreground subjects well-exposed. Did she submit the images for critique? No. Do I have the right to point out an area for improvement of the image? Sure. I think any seasoned professional here would agree that this shot is overexposed. I'm not being mean or anything, just giving my opinion in an open forum. After all, we're here to teach and learn.</p>

[rick_rothwell]

<p>Listen to most pro commercial and portrait photographers and you'll hear that using a hand-held incident light meter is even more important with digital than is was for film, because of the narrower dynamic range of digital compared to film.</p>

<p>The deal is that whatever mode you're using with in-camera metering relies on the light reflected off the subject, which the color of the subject can affect. That's reflective metering. With an incident meter you actually measure the light falling on the subject, a critical difference and a major improvement over reflective metering.</p>

<p>While you're at it, do a custom white-balance with a grey target made for digital cameras to get the color temp spot-on. Then tweak it later if you like.</p>

 

[nasfuadi]

<p>For that picture with the white sky, I think the photographer uses PS and/or plugin to eliminate the blue of the sky.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p><em><strong>I haven't once stated the shots should be done this way or that, only my opinion on ways they could have been better.</strong> </em></p>

<p>This proves Nadine's point! Your trying to say that the images are inferior to the "better way" you suggest, in your opinion. I think what this is all boiling down to is the new school vs. the old school and their loosing business to said new school or new school making insane amounts of money by spitting all over old school "rules". I'm a gigantic fan of Mr. Hobby and Mr. Ziser, who I will have the pleasure of meeting in September at his workshop, but that is only one way, even he says its only one way. This is not religion, its art. Instead of tearing down, why not try looking for the positives and building up. Again <a href="http://www.chrisorwig.com/">Chris Orwig</a> , check him out, might give you a new clearer on art.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Kay - Jasmine does a very good FAQ post every once in a while describing how she works and answering readers questions. I did a search for you and here is the list of <a href="http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?q=FAQ&x=33&y=23">FAQ posts</a> .</p>

<p>-Enjoy</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Chris, my personal opinion is no more or less valid than your personal opinion. The "better way" as you put it is only "better" to my way of thinking, and anyone here can take that or leave it. If you want to keep defending mediocrity, then go ahead, but to me, the images in question didn't cut it.</p>

<p>I'm envious that you're going to see Ziser though. I must do the same.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Steve - I really can't wait, just wish I could see him before this wedding season starts....first wedding next weekend. Here's the <a href="http://www.digitalwakeupcall.com/event_registration.php">link</a> for his dates. Style rants aside, as a business person keeping my eye on what the bridal and fashion magazines are showing, I'm seeing more images shot in the Strobist/Ziser style. Which means in about 6-12 months, brides are going to be looking for photographers who can shoot in both styles, because we know its never just one style that makes a bride happy. I saw Jerry Ghionis in Detroit last year and have been using, to some success, video lights and whats available for a more dramatic, high fashion look. That's what I love about photography, there is no one way of doing things and I can appreciate all forms of it.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>I really appreciate Ziser's style, and I've adopted the strobist methods he and others are using, so I agree that this look will be in greater demand, once brides see the difference. I plan to be on the cutting edge of that in my area. Best!</p>