What is used to achieve this??

[waday]

can someone link back to the actual photo in question?

http://allebachphotography.com/wp-c...rver/uploads/Philadelphia_TattooedBride-2.jpg

 

[Braineack]

This would not look good if it was done combining two shots: one with the couple, then one with lightpaint.

Doing that would definitely be the LQ and longer approach.

 

[Village Idiot]

There's no need to move the couple in or out of the scene during the making of the photo. They're in a good position to be able to sit still and keep their position long enough to quickly light-paint around them and then remote fire a flash to light them up.

As to what was used to paint the light, it could be literally anything that makes light from a flashlight and some paper to a couple of cell phones taped to a stick.

Good reason: Light bleed from LED

Sorry, wrong. You xxcanxx COULD see the light bleed from the LED on the edges of the subjects because they got hit with it from behind/to the side, which looks great because it makes for a nice rim lighting effect. They're not hit from the front because you don't point it at them.

Sorry, wrong.

No, I'm actually quite correct, and that can be verified by simply looking at the photo in question. Further verification can be made by actually doing some light painting photography, as I have, instead of just speculating about it, as you obviously are.

Just because you'll settle for delivering whatever you end up with and not a quality image to your clients

That's an outright lie and a demeaning insult that's completely uncalled for.

doesn't mean everyone's standards are that low.

Shooting light painted images with subjects in the manner I described is quite common and does not at all result in a "low standard" due to shooting with that method. Having a rim light effect doesn't indicate a "low standard" either.

I would deliver a cleaner higher quality image.

Your speculation is noted, though not substantiated. You also now seem to be in the mood to insult and demean the photographer of the image in question. Looking at his web site, I'd say you have very little reason to do so.

So yes, there is a reason to remove the couple from the scene.

No sir, there is not, which is why few photographers who do this sort of work remove them, and why they weren't removed in the photo in question, as the rim light made by the LED indicates.

Sorry, wrong again. I stated that it could be done in one but what I would personally do. Then I stated the reason that I would do it. It's my opinion and it's not wrong. Just because someone does something different for a cleaner image does not make them wrong. This is the second time today I've seen you antagonizing other members and then claiming to be hurt when they fire back. I'm sorry if you feel insulted because someone just didn't bow down and accept what you say as gospel, but if you're going to be hurt so easily, don't dish out what you can't take.

This would not look good if it was done combining two shots: one with the couple, then one with lightpaint.
Doing that would definitely be the LQ and longer approach.

Actually, I think it would and I may try and recreate a similar photo this weekend while shooting a promo video outside, at night, in the cold. The overall red tint just looks messy to me. I'd light the people and scene then add the light ribbons.

 

[photoguy99]

Why does lighting the couple in a way that conflicts with the light painting make the image "cleaner"? What does "cleaner" mean?

 

[astroNikon]

did we answer the OPs question before slugging through this mud we've seem to found ?

 

[Buckster]

...a load of total BS...

You're getting more wrong with each post you make, but go ahead and keep digging deeper in that hole you're in. lol

 

[Village Idiot]

...a load of total BS...

You're getting more wrong with each post you make, but go ahead and keep digging deeper in that hole you're in. lol

And you continue on. Are you going to add anything constructive to the conversation rather than shouting how wrong everyone is and proclaiming your way is the only right way?

 

[photoguy99]

And you continue on. Are you going to add anything constructive to the conversation rather than shouting how wrong everyone is and proclaiming your way is the only right way?

You're mischaracterizing what Buckster is saying. Also, you clearly implied in your first post that it was necessary to move the people in and out, which is simply wrong and also not how the original was done. Since then you've backpedaled to "well, you COULD do it that way but the results are unclean" whatever that even means.

 

[Village Idiot]

And you continue on. Are you going to add anything constructive to the conversation rather than shouting how wrong everyone is and proclaiming your way is the only right way?

You're mischaracterizing what Buckster is saying. Also, you clearly implied in your first post that it was necessary to move the people in and out, which is simply wrong and also not how the original was done. Since then you've backpedaled to "well, you COULD do it that way but the results are unclean" whatever that even means.

OK then, where do I say you have to move people in and out? Please read the first sentence from my post.

This could be done in one shot, but personally I wouldn’t as I wouldn’t want to rush the couple in and out of the frame in the name of getting it done all at once, especially if it’s a paying client.
First things first: Camera on tripod. Frame the scene then take the photo of the couple. Flash, no flash whatever. Then remove them, change the exposure to work for a long exposure with the scene, and do your thing with the light.
In post, as long as the camera was stationary on a steady tripod, it will be easy to put them together in a program light photoshop.

This could be done in one shot, but personally I wouldn’t as I wouldn’t want to rush the couple in and out of the frame in the name of getting it done all at once, especially if it’s a paying client.

This could be done in one shot, but personally I wouldn’t

Does that help you?

 

[Overread]

Buck and VI - stop with the argument and take it to conversations if you really need to continue. Otherwise stop sniping at each other and respect that different photographers will approach a situation differently with different results.

There is no need to get bent out of shape and start making insults just because you'd do things differently (isn't that part and parcel of the joy of photography).

 

[photoguy99]

I'm looking right at the place where you edit out the bit about rushing the couple in and out of the frame.

But I'm done now!

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm looking right at the place where you edit out the bit about rushing the couple in and out of the frame.

But I'm done now!

Of course you are.

How about you claim that I said it was necessary? No where did I claim that. I said personally I wouldn't and offered how I would shoot it. When a person says, "This could be done in one shot, but personally I wouldn't" how does that mean they're saying that it cannot be done in one shot at all. I don't make paying clients jump through hoops to give them a better image. It wouldn't look like someone had a bad day with the color temperature slider in ACR.

 

[Eventer]

Oh lord - You all make my drab morning at work interesting! All i wanted to know is what sort of light that is but I learnt a lot more!! Personally I set up camera with long exposure, jump into frame and manually flash/freeze the couple, then run around them with the sparkler/light source. I hadn't even thought of moving the couple out of the image and haven't needed to so far.
And also agree that Admins should just turn the image into a link rather than removing it! - didn't mean to break any rules

 

[Buckster]

Basic light-painting portrait technique used by pretty much everyone who does this: In a darkened room/environment, camera on tripod, light paint around the subject, then flash the subject at the end, all in one shot. Typical example:



The two main problems with compositing a light painted image with a subject image are:
1. The light from the light painting doesn't match with the light on the subject, so they don't look like they're actually in the light-painted environment together without a LOT of PS work on faux-lighting them. Viewer's brains know something's wrong, even when they can't quite figure out what the problem is. Light and shadow doesn't line up properly, is the problem.

2. It requires good masking techniques, else anything lit by the light painting that's behind the subject shows through them like they're a ghost, which is just more work in post, especially when it's not necessary.

Major benefits of light painting in a single shot while the subject is in the frame while light painting:
1. The subject is lit appropriately by the light painting, mentally placing the two together for the viewer in the image, as they belong.

2. Free-form light-painting in front of, behind, above and all around the subject is done without any need to mask in PS later.

3. With the subject in place during the light painting, there's no guesswork about where the light should be painted in relation to the subject to get the effect one is looking to create.

Contrary to claims made, moving the subject in or out of the scene while the shutter is open is not at all necessary (see video example above), and is not recommended because of the ghosting effect primarily. If they remain in the scene while light painting, they become their own mask.

Also, there was some talk about how not "clear" the photo was, and the red tint. That was most likely done purposefully in post and had nothing to do with the light painting technique at all. In fact, that "look" is very popular these days, and there are literally hundreds of actions and plugins specifically made and sold to achieve that sort of effect with a single click. I've heard it said that it makes the photos it's used on look like they're old or expired film, light leaks, or just "romantic". It's not my thing, but it's a very popular look these days nonetheless.

While there can be many ways to do something, some are considered better and therefore more widely accepted and used than others, based largely on the knowledge and experience gained by those who've done a lot of work with them and then passed it on to others who then try to improve on it. Reinventing the wheel from scratch can be a very good learning process though, and everyone needs to take the path that works best for them.

I myself learned a lot on my path to creating this self portrait in one frame, though I did take the advice of those with more experience than myself before undertaking it:

I've always found it particularly interesting that the trees, ground and leaves in the frame all take on the light from the light-painted orb I made during the exposure. It puts the orb IN the scene with all of it's surroundings, solidifying the image as a whole. As I was the person making the orb in the dark of night, I was unable to take my place the whole time to be similarly lit by it the way the rest of the surroundings were, which puts me slightly out of place because of it.

At the end of the light painting of the orb, I posed in a spot I predetermined so that I could avoid the ghosting effect by not having any of the orb behind me, and lit myself by remote triggering two speedlights.

It's a lot of fun, a great learning opportunity, and well worth the time and effort to try it all for yourselves, whatever methods you undertake to use.

 

[Eventer]

Wow! how did you get a perfectly round orb?! and what sort of lights did you use?