Low light & city lights - what would you have done differently? CC Please.

[JerryW]

When it comes to lighting, I imagine there are hundreds of different things that could have been done here. One person may see this as being underexposed, another may see it as a desired artistic effect. What do you think? What would you have done differently?



Thanks, everyone.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

I would have posed her differently or shoot from different angle? I dont get the shot.

 

[tirediron]

Moved to the People Gallery.

 

[tirediron]

Have to agree with Robin; I don't get this at all.

 

[JerryW]

I edited this post. I responded to the issue of the pose when the original question was lighting. I would like to get back to the lighting question. What would you have done different light-wise? the desire is to capture the model and the city lights.

Thanks.

 

[ManualMode]

I don't get it at all. Would have deleted and then asked her to pose first before pushing the shutter.
The second shot is very uncomfortable to look at.. almost more so than the first

 

[ronlane]

The first one is so dark and under exposed, it's hard to see what she's doing. After increasing the exposure and the fill light, I could see better. I have to agree with the above, I don't understand what's going on here even after doing that.

 

[Vtec44]

First one is a bit dark, but I would had a rim light to separate her from the background better.

 

[dhris]

I agree with the comments above about the awkwardness of pose. It's hard to describe in just one sentence why these poses are both unsettling almost, but I suppose the following test gives you an idea. Imagine if the girl was silhouetted in the images--that is, imagine her filled in as a shape. Now imagine that shape. It's like a blobbed mass with an appendage sticking out here, another sticking down below. The 'base' is a single leg obscured by hair in the bottom shot--leading to an unease in terms of stability.

I think your challenge was to shoot wider and from higher up. Perhaps the idea might have been to get the perspective that shows the city lights best--and THEN fit the model in there in an orientation that shows the natural lines that form her shape.

The above is hurting your image more than the lighting is, but I'll also comment on that. The second looks to be lit fairly well in terms of an ambient: flash ratio as well as the quality of light in the scene. In the first, the primary subject (the girl) is lost in the scene.

 

[Derrel]

Your lighting in the second shot looks pretty good actually! It's low, like the ambient, and yet it shows and reveals. The pose is a bit over-the-top...I can see going for "drama" though, so props on that. I think a wide variety of more-classic poses would look good too. She appears to be a dancer, or athlete, at least from the muscular definition I saw in her back and shoulder areas in shot #1. I dunno...attractive blonde in heels and a red dress with decent light at night...the possibilities seem endless...

 

[Vtec44]

...the possibilities seem endless...

And none has to do with photography... well maybe just a little bit...

 

[Studio7Four]

I generally like the lighting in the first shot. I find it to be appropriately lit with low light, not underexposed (I see good detail in her back, hair, and the lit side of her dress). I think you did a good job balancing the light levels between the model and the background. My gripe is that her lower leg is not lit as much, I think you could have adjusted your lighting to bring this closer to the level on her back which would give her more cohesiveness.

I find the second one to be nicely lit, you've successfully illuminated both the parts of her near the camera and her far-reaching leg. It seems to be exposed well, nothing blown and the shadows aren't too deep. However I feel the light level is too bright for the scene, it clashes with the lights in the background. This shot on seamless would really work for me, but with the brightly lit railing and the dimly lit background it feels off.

(And since it has come up, let me say that I like the posing. It tells a story about her physical prowess, and there's nothing wrong with poses that are unconventional and make the viewer stop and look twice - and maybe even feel a little uncomfortable.)

 

[fjrabon]

you can't unmarry the pose and the lighting. If we don't get the pose, we can't get the lighting. It's literally impossible to give lighting C&C without having an idea of what you were after.

Lighting and form don't make sense without one another.

That being said, I guess you decently balanced ambient night with flash.

 

[jwbryson1]

If you are trying to balance the ambient lighting and flash, and it's THAT dark outside, you will need to drag the shutter significantly in order to get the ambient exposure correct.

 

[JerryW]

Thanks, everyone for the feedback. Greatly appreciated. Here's another one for your comments. Thanks for your help.