Two skulls.

craig · Oct 31, 2007

This is my second attempt at this subject. The larger bottom skull was the original. On closer inspection I found the second skull and eventually placed it as you see here. Not a fan of vertical shots, but this one seemed to put things in perspective. As opposed to a random skull shot. If you have time let me know what you think. 6.3 @ 1/90 ISO 100. Lens = 17mm.

Love & Bass

2Skulls

Sideburns · Oct 31, 2007

I personally would have opened up the aperture all the way to get some buttery background goin on...it's pretty distracting with those trees and whatnot.

But I like the skulls and the metal pole.

Alpha · Oct 31, 2007

1) The bottom skull has lighting issues. It's both blown out and has an odd shadow. A scrim could have really come in handy here.
2) The pole occupying this much space in the frame doesn't quite work when you're this close to the subject. To be more specific, I'm not sure that it adds anything.
3) Underexposing the skulls by a good stop or so would have given you a lot more detail to work with in PP. It also would have given you more exposure control in PP, which could have allowed you to keep most of the highlights out of Zone 9.
4) As for overall composition, I think that a much tighter shot of the skulls could work really well. Alternatively, a shot from further away showing the two skulls on the pole in the middle of an empty field could have been very cool as well.
5) I think that too much of the grass is in focus. Perhaps a wider aperture would be more suitable.

craig · Oct 31, 2007

Thanks! I knew something was not right. There is a lot going on. I see my self revisiting this subject often.

Love & Bass

craig · Nov 1, 2007

Thanks Max! This subject is in a tough position as far as light goes. My next attempt will be with a piece of foamcore. Maybe open up the shadows? Not sure yet.

I like your idea of a scrim.

Love & Bass

Alpha · Nov 1, 2007

Yeah, this will make for really good practice in PP. I know this is a pretty common style for this subject, but I also think it could look really good in black and white.

As for the shadows and highlights, try bracketing the underexposure in 1/2 stop increments. Your goal should be to preserve as much detail as possible in the highlights of the skull while keeping the interior (mouth and eye sockets) shadows from blocking up (turning completely black). Good luck. I'll be interested to see the results.

craig · Nov 1, 2007

The highlights were not there. Which is why I think your scrim approach may be the way to go.

Love & Bass

Alpha · Nov 1, 2007

The highlights are always there. Parts of the photo get blown out because there is too much light bouncing off them that is exposing the film/sensor. As such, underexposing is a surefire way to prevent them from becoming blown out.

The caveat is that when you have hot spots, which you do in this case, and/or cold spots (areas in heavy shadow), underexposing can allow you to reveal detail but the contrast ratios will for the most part be proportionate. That is to say, if you had underexposed that particular shot, you could have gotten lots of detail in the highlights on the skulls, but relative to the rest of the shot you'd still have a hot spot and an awkward shadow. So yes, the scrim is a good idea either way.