How do I take photos like this?

[AtuspidsGoddess]

I want to try it out this weekend, but unfortunately we are having storms tomorrow...and Sunday doesn't show any signs of sun so far...meh!

Is it just using off camera flash and a reflector on my end? Or is it camera setting, or what? I want to have some idea of what to do...=)

*EDIT* removed images...posting link:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/kassia/5519074222/#/photos/kassia/5519074222/lightbox/

http://www.photographyreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Portrait-In-The-Bright-Sunlight.jpg

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/c...mer-field-portrait-bright-sunlight-effect.jpg

 

[480sparky67 66]

They're backlit, and you guessed it... either a fill flash or reflector.


BTW, posting images that aren't yours is a TPF violation.

 

[AtuspidsGoddess]

They're backlit, and you guessed it... either a fill flash or reflector.


BTW, posting images that aren't yours is a TPF violation.

What?! Really?....but it's GOOGLE!...ok removing...

 

[Ryan L]

Just post a link to it and you are fine...now no one knows what you are talking about! lol

 

[Raian-san]

Yes it's backlit fill in lights when the sun is behind the subject or on the side. First shot looks like the sun is rising or setting, I think rising.

 

[Robin Usagani]

back lit with light leak

 

[Derrel]

This type of photo has a name. It is called a contre-jour photograph. That means roughly "against the light". It's really a good idea to make sure the front element and rear element of the lens are immaculately clean when shooting this way; a slight haze from cigarette smoke, atmospheric pollution, or airborne cooking oils, dust,etc,etc. really looks horrible when one shoots contre-jour. Fill light is not needed if you wish to let the lighting ratio get really high, and expose for the highlights and let the remainder of the image slip into semi-silhouette or silhouette. Some lenses work really well for this type of shooting, others are not so good. The way the lens handles being shot "against the light" determines if the lens puts much of a visual impression on the image; some lenses will create vivid, obvious images of the diaphragm's actual shape on the image, which is called "ghosting". Think of all those independent films you've seen, shot with cinema zoom lenses...where they show the motorcycle rider moving through the Arizona desert, with 24 progressively smaller, 7-sided iris diaphragm ghost images entertaining the eye...

One of the biggest success/failure areas is whether the sunlight is striking the front element of the lens, or not. With some lenses, when light rakes across the front element, the lens will either flare, or ghost. So, a lens hood can sometimes eliminate this issue; if you WANT the most possible lens flare, or ghosting, then do not use a lens hood. If you do not want a sharp-sided lens diaphragm ghost image, then avoid the smaller f/stops like f/11, which will produce a lot of smaller ghosts, and instead, shoot with a lens that has a perfectly round aperture when wide-open, like say the 18-55 kit lens at f/5.6 wide-open.

A long zoom like Sigma's 100-300 f/4 HSM or Nikon's 100-300mm f/5.6 Ai-S makes a great lens for outdoor portrait work against the light, since each lens has a perfectly round aperture when shot wide open.

 

[AtuspidsGoddess]

This type of photo has a name. It is called a contre-jour photograph. That means roughly "against the light". It's really a good idea to make sure the front element and rear element of the lens are immaculately clean when shooting this way; a slight haze from cigarette smoke, atmospheric pollution, or airborne cooking oils, dust,etc,etc. really looks horrible when one shoots contre-jour. Fill light is not needed if you wish to let the lighting ratio get really high, and expose for the highlights and let the remainder of the image slip into semi-silhouette or silhouette. SOme lenses work really well for this type of shooting, others are not so good. The way the lens handles being shot "against the light" determines if the lens puts much of a visual impression on the image; some lenses will create big, beautiful images of the diaphragm on the image, which is called "ghosting". Think of all those independent films you've seen, shot with cinema zoom lenses...where they show the motorcycle rider moving through the Arizona desert, with 24 progressively smaller, 7-sided iris diaphragm ghost images entertaining the eye...

One of the biggest success/failure areas is whether the sunlight is striking the front element of the lens, or not. With some lenses, when light rakes across the front element, the lens will either flare, or ghost. So, a lens hood can sometimes eliminate this issue; if you WANT flare, or ghosting, then do not use a lens hood. If you do not want a sharp-sided lens diaphragm ghost image, then avoid the smaller f/stops like f/11, which will produce a lot of ghosts, and instead, shoot with a lens that has a perfectly round aperture when wide-open, like say the 18-55 kit lens at f/5.6 wide-open.

Wow...I'm going to have to look up a lot of this stuff and just try it with an inanimate object first.

 

[SrBiscuit]

Thanks D. You done gone learned me sumpin'.

 

[Raian-san]

Watch this, it's similar.

 

[KmH]

BTW, posting images that aren't yours is a TPF violation.

Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum FAQ

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff....

And it could also be copyright infringement, which would make it a federal case since copyright law is federal law.

Posting links is OK.

 

[Kerbouchard]

BTW, posting images that aren't yours is a TPF violation.

Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum FAQ

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff....

And it could also be copyright infringement, which would make it a federal case since copyright law is federal law.

Posting links is OK.

1. The OP had taken the photo down before you had even posted this, so what the heck?
2. You're wrong.
3. Using copyrighted work for editorial purposes is perfectly okay according to federal law, like in this instance where the OP is wondering how to achieve results like this.
4. You're just being rude for no reason.
5. In no way could any reasonable person ever derive a person posting a question about how to achieve certain results and posting an example of those results as a federal case.
6. The issue was addressed and resolved before you gave your .02.
7. It is better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[Ryan L]

1. The OP had taken the photo down before you had even posted this, so what the heck?
2. You're wrong.
3. Using copyrighted work for editorial purposes is perfectly okay according to federal law, like in this instance where the OP is wondering how to achieve results like this.
4. You're just being rude for no reason.
5. In no way could any reasonable person ever derive a person posting a question about how to achieve certain results and posting an example of those results as a federal case.
6. The issue was addressed and resolved before you gave your .02.
7. It is better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Questioning who the fool is here...Where did you receive your legal degree?

 

[480sparky67 66]

.....................
3. Using copyrighted work for editorial purposes is perfectly okay according to federal law, like in this instance where the OP is wondering how to achieve results like this.
................

We're not hawking federal laws here.... we're just mentioning TPF rules.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Questioning who the fool is here...Where did you receive your legal degree?

The Holiday Inn Express...and you?