Translucent leaves photos

[tclune]

I have been trying to capture a look that captivates me, and failing miserably. Now that the season is over, I figured I'd ask for suggestions. When tree leaves are side-lit or back lit, they will sometimes have a translucent appearance that I would like to capture. I never seem to be able to do it -- the photos always end up looking like the leaves are opaque. I have adjusted exposure compensation up and down to no avail. Does anyone know how to capture that appearance in a photograph?

[Mike Buckley]

Responses will be more helpful if you post a photo that exemplifies the problem you're having. My experience is that checking the histogram after capturing the image and changing the exposure for another capture if the histogram isn't ideal works like a charm.

[DanK]

I agree, it would be helpful if you posted an image.

If you mean that you want something like the image below, exposure compensation won't help. It will just brighten or darken the image. The key is backlighting--having light shining from behind the leaf and less (or none) from in front of it.

[tclune]

Dan, that's the sort of thing I'm interested in capturing, although in a more subdued way. What I'd like to compose into a photo is the kind of thing that I can see with my eye. The composition I would like to achieve would be side-lit, but with enough back light to get the translucence without blowing out the background. I don't have any example of the composition I'm interested in as I haven't been able to master the settings to get the effect at all. The photo below is about as close as I've been able to come to getting the effect. It also shows roughly the kind of distance that I'd like to be (probably a bit further -- perhaps getting an entire small tree in the scene.) It would be ideal if it were in autumn. I'd like the stained glass effect of the autumn leaves with the translucence in clear evidence. Anyway, here's the example, showing too much blown out and too little translucence fwiw:

[Mike Buckley]

Tom,

You mentioned that too much is blown out in your image. Nothing in it indicates that to my eye and a review of the histogram confirms it. If you're referring to the glare, using a polarizer would have minimized or eliminated it and made for a more attractive image.

I suspect that your major issue is that you haven't come across the kind of light that you imagine. When the scene is side lit, very few of the leaves are going to be back lit. If you do come across such a scene and then expose for it as well as you exposed for your above image, you'll likely be very satisfied with the results.

[DanK]

I suspect that your major issue is that you haven't come across the kind of light that you imagine.

Beat me to it. The key is lighting: having the right balance of front- and backlight. If you are going to do this in the wild, you have to hunt for appropriate lighting. These are situations where is it easy to get the exposure wrong, but changing exposure won't compensate for having the wrong balance of front- to backlighting.

[Shadowman]

Try putting the leaf on a scanner, pull the image into your computer and then try to replicate it with your camera.

[Manfred M]

The other issue is that many leaves are surprisingly opaque, due to the chlorophyll in them. Dying leaves, especially in the fall, is where the translucence becomes noticeable as the chlorophyll production stops.

[tao2]

Hi Tom,

As said before by Mike and Dan - it's the lighting. Whether back lit or side lit, ye want the available light tae stream through the leaf from behind it or from the side and not be reflected back, as it will be if the light is from over yer shoulder or in front of the leaf. Ideally, get below a leaf canopy and use the shadows, tree trunks or any shady areas tae get close tae the subject and block extraneous light. Ah prefer shooting upward at the subject or at least on the same level..Some examples (view in lightbox)....

This last one breaks the rules by using direct light but it's so diffuse that ah got away with it.

[Mike Buckley]

Based on the artistry of those images, Boab, I hope I can convince you to post your photos on a more regular basis.

[tao2]

Thank you, Mike.

[Dave Humphries]

Tom,

With a single leaf, we can model it with light and play with ratios of back vs side lighting.

With a whole tree's worth of leaves (as per your shot in post #4), you have to bear in mind that, with respect to the camera, they are at all sorts of angles, so if the (sun) light is coming from anywhere other than directly the far side of the tree (e.g. from the side), many of the leaves will be front lit by the sun, seen directly by the camera and these will obviously be much brighter than the ones angled so the sun passes through them before it reaches the camera.

So (if you want to shoot a whole tree) you have to use back-lighting only, make sure the tree is between you and the sun, then we can be sure that almost all light must have passed through a leaf to reach the camera. That said, if the leaves are particularly curly, like Boab's third one, there will still be areas that blow out because they are reflecting sunlight straight at you.

Have another go and show us the results?

TIA, Dave

[tclune]

Tom,

With a single leaf, we can model it with light and play with ratios of back vs side lighting.

With a whole tree's worth of leaves (as per your shot in post #4), you have to bear in mind that, with respect to the camera, they are at all sorts of angles...

Have another go and show us the results?

Hi, Dave. Yes, I agree that it is a bit of a different problem when shooting a scene than when shooting a single leaf (BTW, Robert, those are lovely examples you posted.) What I have been trying to capture, and what I apparently failed to adequately communicate, is an effect that I can see with my eyes before I bother trying to capture it with my camera. It is noticeably less visible in a photo than in real life. I was hoping to get suggestions on how to accentuate the effect in-camera to better reflect what is there in nature. I will try again next year -- it's past peak around here now.

I have also started printing a few shots on metal, and wonder if that medium might be better at holding the dynamic range of the image better than other media. But I hate to spend the money on something that I'm not seeing on my computer screen in the hope that it will magically appear there. I have had that experience with being able to see the range of structures in metallic print that I can't see without zooming up and down on a computer screen, but I doubt that the range of colors is better on metal than on a screen. But I could be wrong.

[tao2]

Hi Tom,

Having reread yer initial post, ah'm wondering if yer looking for something like this...









Tinypic packed up again...These two shots are on film and were a test run of a lens, so mebbe could be sharper on digital.

The problem seems tae me tae be unsolvable. e.g. If ye want a whole tree, in-shot, with sharp, fine detailed leaves, then the lens's ability tae resolve that fine detail - at a distance, will be greatly reduced, even using a wide angle lens. The second shot above only shows around a quarter of that tree and even then the detail is becoming obscured. Small objects at long (er) distances cannot be resolved in detail, as well as larger objects , which is why close ups of leaves are so much easier. That's a lens limitation which really can't be overcome IMO.

If ye change tae a long lens then the problem of opacity arises. Can't put up any examples at the moment...tinypic...

[tclune]

Hi, Robert. Yes, that is much more along the lines of what I'm trying to do. My photos just don't quite manage to luminesce as well. Are there particular things you do maximize how you capture that, or am I just a klutz?