Sunbeam

[Round Tuit]

Last night as the sun was setting, A beam of light hit a hyperion daylilly in my backyard. It made it look as if the blooms were glowing with most of the surroundings in shadows. I would have to say that the lighting conditions were as close to ideal as could be. Unfortunately, my skills at capturing the view were not up to the task. What should I have done differently from a capture point of view?

This is a view of the complete plant.



A single bloom.



A couple of potted roses that also got nicely lit.



Andre

[xpatUSA]

Last night as the sun was setting, A beam of light hit a hyperion daylilly in my backyard. It made it look as if the blooms were glowing with most of the surroundings in shadows. I would have to say that the lighting conditions were as close to ideal as could be. Unfortunately, my skills at capturing the view were not up to the task. What should I have done differently from a capture point of view?

A single bloom.




Andre

Thanks André for the chance to study another flower shot. Nicely exposed.

There is some color-bottoming in the less bright parts of the petals. The blue channel being bottomed out at zero:



See the blue in the histogram, crammed up to the left. This in turn causes the saturation to be "blown" in those areas, see the HSV numbers below the histogram.

Here's a saturation map of your flower:



Notice that the over-saturation is not in the brighter petal parts, it is in the shadows - opposite to what many people think.

Here's the value map:



Posted just for your information, the shot itself is fine - only a purist would worry about the saturation aspect

[IzzieK]

What should I have done differently from a capture point of view?

Get closer. If you are not getting what you want, you're not close enough...I've read that somewhere here at CiC...so I am not taking credit for this quote...But in my opinion, you should have been on the right away from the sun so you still get the sun shining on the petals. Just look at your capture...it was taken at the front...why not find another angled location at the right side? Just a thought..

[Shadowman]

Change your position relative to the sun if possible. Sometimes it's all about direction of light.

[Manfred M]

You are using side lighting in these images, which is okay, but I find I almost always prefer back lighting when it comes to flower shots. That way you are getting a very translucent look to the flowers which I find to be very beautiful.

[bnnrcn]

IMO you did your best for those shots, they all look beautiful Andre

[Round Tuit]

Thanks André for the chance to study another flower shot. Nicely exposed.

There is some color-bottoming in the less bright parts of the petals. The blue channel being bottomed out at zero:



See the blue in the histogram, crammed up to the left. This in turn causes the saturation to be "blown" in those areas, see the HSV numbers below the histogram.

Here's a saturation map of your flower:



Notice that the over-saturation is not in the brighter petal parts, it is in the shadows - opposite to what many people think.

Here's the value map:



Posted just for your information, the shot itself is fine - only a purist would worry about the saturation aspect

Interesting info for technically minded folks like you and me. Not sure how relevant to photographers.
I wonder if the bottoming of the blue channel is due to the small gamut of the sRGB color space? Could be interesting to repeat the analysis with the ProPhoto version of the photo. You can find it here: http://web.ncf.ca/fl653/CiC/FlowersProPhoto.jpg

Thanks for your interest,
Andre

[Round Tuit]

Get closer. If you are not getting what you want, you're not close enough...I've read that somewhere here at CiC...so I am not taking credit for this quote...But in my opinion, you should have been on the right away from the sun so you still get the sun shining on the petals. Just look at your capture...it was taken at the front...why not find another angled location at the right side? Just a thought..

Izzie,

I presume that you are talking about the second shot which I took head on. I have others taken from the side but they did not turn out. I will try again if the light cooperates.

Andre

[Round Tuit]

Change your position relative to the sun if possible. Sometimes it's all about direction of light.

John,

I'll try that.

Thanks

Andre

[Round Tuit]

You are using side lighting in these images, which is okay, but I find I almost always prefer back lighting when it comes to flower shots. That way you are getting a very translucent look to the flowers which I find to be very beautiful.

This is where I need help. I have no idea on how to do that. When I tried to get the flower between me and the sun, all I got was massive glare and a totally washed out photo.
Any advice that you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Andre

P.S. This is as close to backlit as I can get

[Round Tuit]

IMO you did your best for those shots, they all look beautiful Andre

Thank you Binnur.
I was disappointed with the first shot not because it is not nice on its own but because it does not convey what I saw when I took it. The yellow blooms looked much more flamboyant than they are in the photo. I think I might have solved that problem by reducing the overall exposure.

Andre

[xpatUSA]

Interesting info for technically minded folks like you and me. Not sure how relevant to photographers.

I suppose it depends on how concerned they are about color accuracy, Andre. There's lots written about recovering blown highlights especially if only one channel is blown and that is considered important but, on the other hand, little consideration is given to bottomed-out channels. Probably because such false color is less obvious to the eye.

I wonder if the bottoming of the blue channel is due to the small gamut of the sRGB color space?

Exactly. Saturated yellows, when rendered into sRGB, are reduced to the sRGB gamut boundary because the rendering intent is normally 'relative colorimetric' (irrespective of what is selected in your editor, another can of worms). For yellows this means reds and greens are reduced (towards neutral) and blues are reduced by some amount and usually end up bottomed out.

Could be interesting to repeat the analysis with the ProPhoto version of the photo. You can find it here: http://web.ncf.ca/fl653/CiC/FlowersProPhoto.jpg

Tried that and it turns out that my utility is not color-managed. That is to say, it showed low saturation well below 100% (HSV model) - and the RGB rendering was classically washed out in spite of the image's embedded profile. So I learned something from that. It can only analyze sRGB images

Doesn't bother me, I stay in sRGB most of the time (shock, horror) unless I'm exporting from Sigma Photo Pro to RawTherapee for "important" work (ProPhoto is RawTherapee's native working space).

[Round Tuit]

I suppose it depends on how concerned they are about color accuracy, Andre.

It matters little how concerned we are about colour accuracy if our monitors can't display the subtle changes. Take a look at the blue channel of the sRGB and ProPhoto versions of the flower in your editing software. The difference between the two is huge. Yet, on my calibrated wide gamut monitor, I can't tell the difference between the sRGB and ProPhoto version of the flower in a side by side comparison. That is because no monitor can display the ProPhoto color gamut.
I guess my point is: if you can't see the difference then it does not matter.

andre

[xpatUSA]

It matters little how concerned we are about colour accuracy if our monitors can't display the subtle changes. Take a look at the blue channel of the sRGB and ProPhoto versions of the flower in your editing software. The difference between the two is huge.

But of course the blue channel images looked different, assuming they were displayed direct from the image data without color management. Why should they not?

Yet, on my calibrated wide gamut monitor, I can't tell the difference between the sRGB and ProPhoto version of the flower in a side by side comparison. That is because no monitor can display the ProPhoto color gamut.

Sorry again, that is not the reason that you can't tell the difference between the sRGB and ProPhoto version of the flower in a side by side comparison.

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about color management in your comment, if I understand you correctly. Your color management seems to be working quite satisfactorily. That is why the images look the same. Only if it were not would you then see a difference and, yes, it would matter. You would also see a difference if both images had been saved "for the web" but without converting the ProPhoto to sRGB and with no embedded profile (yes, it can be done that way although it is a less and less common mistake these days). Same applies to any other color space, e.g. Adobe RGB (1998).

To help with understanding that, I created two images as you did, one in sRGB the other in ProPhoto.

Here's how my Viewer showed them side-by-side:



Just like your system - no difference.

But then I turned the Viewer's color management off :



Now you can see that "subtle changes" are quite visible in either space using the same monitor and same application.

Do let me know if you get it, or why I'm still wrong, or how I might help you further.

[DanK]

This is where I need help. I have no idea on how to do that. When I tried to get the flower between me and the sun, all I got was massive glare and a totally washed out photo.

I assume this means that you are so close to directly pointed at the sunlight that you are getting lens flare. If so, move a little to one side so that the light, while still coming through the flower, is at enough of an angle to the lens that you don't get flare.

I do this for backlit flowers in my mini-studio. I place a floodlight behind the flower, but usually at quite an angle, I would guess (I have never measured) at least 30 degrees.

[Round Tuit]

Ted,
I don't think that you are wrong and neither am I.

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about color management in your comment, if I understand you correctly. Your color management seems to be working quite satisfactorily. That is why the images look the same. Only if it were not would you then see a difference and, yes, it would matter. You would also see a difference if both images had been saved "for the web" but without converting the ProPhoto to sRGB and with no embedded profile (yes, it can be done that way although it is a less and less common mistake these days). Same applies to any other color space, e.g. Adobe RGB (1998).

My understanding of color management seems to be the same as yours. I might have done a better job of expressing myself in the first place.
Lets look at our scenario:
I have a yellow flower in ProPhoto color space. I convert it to the much smaller sRGB then look at both on my wide screen monitor which has a gamut bigger than sRGB but smaller than ProPhoto. I can't see the full ProPhoto gamut on my monitor but the color management software will map it to the gamut of my monitor. Similarly, it will map the sRGB image to my monitor's gamut and if the yellow flower did not have colors that were out of the sRGB gamut, the two pictures should be identical.
Your analysis showed that in the conversion to sRGB the blue channel bottomed out implying that at least some colors in the original photo could not be mapped to the sRGB gamut. That being the case the two images in the monitor color space must be (and are) different. My original observation was that the difference is so subtle as to be imperceptible in this case. Different images would of course yield different results which could be significant.

I have not had a need to look at images that are in a color space other than sRGB in a non color managed workflow but do understand that they would appear strange indeed!

Thank for your explanations and my apologies for leading you astray.

Andre

[Round Tuit]

Dan,

I assume this means that you are so close to directly pointed at the sunlight that you are getting lens flare. If so, move a little to one side so that the light, while still coming through the flower, is at enough of an angle to the lens that you don't get flare.

I do this for backlit flowers in my mini-studio. I place a floodlight behind the flower, but usually at quite an angle, I would guess (I have never measured) at least 30 degrees.

Would you please look at the image in post #10 of this thread and at this image and tell me if you would consider either one of them backilt.



I may be somewhat confused about terminology.

Andre

[DanK]

Dan,

Would you please look at the image in post #10 of this thread and at this image and tell me if you would consider either one of them backilt.



I may be somewhat confused about terminology.

Andre

Hi Andre,

Backlighting just means having most of the light coming from behind the subject.

I am having a hard time with #10, but this one doesn't look like backlighting to me. Look at the three petals on the left. All have areas that are blown out (overexposed to the point of having no detail) on the top surface but no other surface. That suggests that you had lighting from above. I'm guessing above and slightly to the left of center.

I'll post below a flower that was taken in the way I suggested. The lighting is from behind the flower. I was facing roughly west in late afternoon. However, the sunlight is not within the view of the lens. There is no flare.

Does this help?

Dan

[Round Tuit]

Thank you very much Dan.

You have just clarified thing nicely for me.

Andre

[bnnrcn]

Hi Andre, I'm a bit late for replying and I don't know if it was already suggested but if you take bracketed shots ,then you can choose the most suitable one for your goal

Thank you Binnur.
I was disappointed with the first shot not because it is not nice on its own but because it does not convey what I saw when I took it. The yellow blooms looked much more flamboyant than they are in the photo. I think I might have solved that problem by reducing the overall exposure.

Andre