Backlighting is a whole new skill set. Help please and thank-you.

[JBW]

[Stagecoach]

"Back lighting is a whole new skill set"

Yes, and it makes a far more interesting flower shot

It may be worth experimenting with these Brian at different apertures to see the affect on bokeh with your lens.

[JBW]

"Back lighting is a whole new skill set"

Yes, and it makes a far more interesting flower shot

It may be worth experimenting with these Brian at different apertures to see the affect on bokeh with your lens.

That it does. Being as it is the monsoon season it may be a while for favourable conditions but when they show up i shall be out there having fun

[bnnrcn]

Hi Brian. I like the shape and color of the flower. IMO it needs brightening . I would also darken the bright bokeh a bit

[JBW]

Hi Brian. I like the shape and color of the flower. IMO it needs brightening . I would also darken the bright bokeh a bit

I actually did both. I was afraid of moving into the realm of it doesn't look real so i did not take it too far.

[Manfred M]

Brian - backlighting flowers is a technique that I really like. I don't tend to shoot a lot of flowers, but when I do, this is the approach I usually use.

Two things to remember with any backlit shot:

1. You need to get the exposure on the subject correct to give you the translucency and shadow detail in the flower; and

2. You will get a light background.

I agree with what Binnur has said; your exposure on the flower is too dark. You need to brighten things up a bit to introduce that translucent look that backlighting a flower gives you. Bracket your shots; this one is definitely needs to be lightened up.

[bnnrcn]

I have a question Manfred. Wouldn't it be better to use spot metering on the flower?

Brian - backlighting flowers is a technique that I really like. I don't tend to shoot a lot of flowers, but when I do, this is the approach I usually use.

Two things to remember with any backlit shot:

1. You need to get the exposure on the subject correct to give you the translucency and shadow detail in the flower; and

2. You will get a light background.

I agree with what Binnur has said; your exposure on the flower is too dark. You need to brighten things up a bit to introduce that translucent look that backlighting a flower gives you. Bracket your shots; this one is definitely needs to be lightened up.

[Manfred M]

I have a question Manfred. Wouldn't it be better to use spot metering on the flower?

You could try it, but unless the flower is close to what a spot meter would determine to be an "average" scene, the exposure would still be wrong. And even if it were correct, you might want to increase of decrease the exposure on the image to bring out the effects of the light passing through the flower. When I import this image into Photoshop and look at the histogram, it shows a badly underexposed image with blocked shadow detail.

Spot metering a gray card where the flower is and then using those settings on manual would give you the "correct" exposure. Likewise using an incident light meter (my preferred choice for this type of shot), might still not give you the look you want; hence if I were shooting, I would get close on my exposure and bracket so I can get the one I want in for tweaking in post.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks Manfred, I see your point. Bracketed shots might also help to deal with the BG better because it is possible to blend different exposures with PP anyway

You could try it, but unless the flower is close to what a spot meter would determine to be an "average" scene, the exposure would still be wrong. And even if it were correct, you might want to increase of decrease the exposure on the image to bring out the effects of the light passing through the flower. When I import this image into Photoshop and look at the histogram, it shows a badly underexposed image with blocked shadow detail.

Spot metering a gray card where the flower is and then using those settings on manual would give you the "correct" exposure. Likewise using an incident light meter (my preferred choice for this type of shot), might still not give you the look you want; hence if I were shooting, I would get close on my exposure and bracket so I can get the one I want in for tweaking in post.

[DanK]

Brian,

Part of the exposure issue is that the petals on the edge are backlit, but the main body of the flower is not very much backlit,and the bottom isn't at all. It's too opaque to be backlit. This causes a big difference in exposure between the side petals and the rest. You can try to fix this in post, brightening the central part of the image.

2. You will get a light background.

Often, but not always. It depends on what the background is and how it is illuminated. For example, in the image below, most of the background was a row of cedars, which were dense enough that none of the backlighting got through. They were therefore illuminated only by the much lower front lighting.

Wouldn't it be better to use spot metering on the flower?

I do often use spot metering. As in any use of spot metering, you have to be aware of the tonal range in the rest of the image, and if the rest of the image is then too light or too dark, you have to do something to address that. However, the starting point for me is exposure of the flower itself, and spot metering is often an effective way of getting that information. In the case of Brian's image, however, it wouldn't solve the problem, since a spot metering of the main body of the flower would have overexposed the backlight side petals.

Spot metering a gray card where the flower is and then using those settings on manual would give you the "correct" exposure.

Manfred, I am not sure what you are suggesting. If you put a gray card in front of the flower, the backlighting would be blocked, and you would get an overexposure. If you turned around and metered off the card in that direction, you would likely get an underexposure, as you would be adjusting for the amount of light before it is partially blocked by the flower. Or would you try to have the card exposed by light passing through the flower?

Dan

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I am not sure what you are suggesting. If you put a gray card in front of the flower, the backlighting would be blocked, and you would get an overexposure. If you turned around and metered off the card in that direction, you would likely get an underexposure, as you would be adjusting for the amount of light before it is partially blocked by the flower. Or would you try to have the card exposed by light passing through the flower?

Dan

Mostly thinking "aloud" here, Dan. There is no easy answer and the photographer has to start somewhere.

I would consider shooting a gray card to where the flower is to get a starting point for a "properly" exposed scene, a reference, nothing more, plus of course a good reference for white balance setting. If I decide to do something fancy with the bracketed shots to blend to give me a "better" background, I'd at least have a decent starting point.


That's the main reason I said I would prefer to start with an incident meter, but frankly, I'm not totally sure in which direction I would be pointing it either. At the sun? At the camera? Again, a starting point because going into the shot I have would no idea as to what a proper starting point is, so again starting with a familiar workflow.

In all cases, I would be bracketing to get a good shot, because I'd want to see the shadows and translucence on my computer screen to move forward on the shot.

[DanK]

Mostly thinking "aloud" here, Dan. There is no easy answer and the photographer has to start somewhere.

I would consider shooting a gray card to where the flower is to get a starting point for a "properly" exposed scene, a reference, nothing more, plus of course a good reference for white balance setting. If I decide to do something fancy with the bracketed shots to blend to give me a "better" background, I'd at least have a decent starting point.


That's the main reason I said I would prefer to start with an incident meter, but frankly, I'm not totally sure in which direction I would be pointing it either. At the sun? At the camera? Again, a starting point because going into the shot I have would no idea as to what a proper starting point is, so again starting with a familiar workflow.

In all cases, I would be bracketing to get a good shot, because I'd want to see the shadows and translucence on my computer screen to move forward on the shot.

Manfred,

I agree. There is no stock answer for this. The problem as I see it is that you have to meter for two different exposures: the surroundings, which may be largely or entirely front-lit, and the flower, which is likely to be brighter because of the backlighting. Spot metering on the flower is ideal for the second but not necessarily useful at all for the first.

I do a lot of my flowers indoors, and that partially solves the problem, since I generally use a plain black background and want it to be pure black anyway. (I start each of those with a gray card, but for WB rather than exposure.) Outdoors, it's much trickier.

Dan