Here we go again.. Flat Stuff Pictures...

There are 4 pictures and I am sorry but they all needed to be here to make my point. I don't like to have so many that it take forever to download them, again I am sorry for the big post.

We have been talking about flat pictures for the last 2 days.
It started with a post by dboogie of a beautiful flower, as they always are.

Well to me it looked flat so that got it started as to what makes a picture flat. It is not just one thing from what I have been seeing and playing around with. I though it was aperture, but that is not the whole story. It will make a difference to control the DOF, but it is not all of it.

The fist picture is a flat picture to me there are 2 peddles that are not bad but the rest is flat. It was taken with the C2100 in Jan. It was taken at F8, but the rest were also taken at F8 so it is not just the aperture that gives it the depth, It has a lot to do with light.

Picture 2 looks better but it still does not have the pop and depth that I like in a picture. It was also take at F8, the only difference was the lighting. The light was moved a little more to one side.

Now Picture 3 is what I like, jumps out of the screen at you, and why, it was just a change in lighting, move to more on the side.

Picture 4 is a FLAT wall, yes it is a flat wall, but the way it was painted with the different shade and tones makes it look like it is 3D. It is the way he worked with the lighting, or the appearances of lighting.
Picture 1



Picture 2



Picture 3, now this pops



Picture 4



--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Bill Huber said:

There are 4 pictures and I am sorry but they all needed to be here
to make my point. I don't like to have so many that it take forever
to download them, again I am sorry for the big post.

We have been talking about flat pictures for the last 2 days.
It started with a post by dboogie of a beautiful flower, as they
always are.

Well to me it looked flat so that got it started as to what makes a
picture flat. It is not just one thing from what I have been seeing
and playing around with. I though it was aperture, but that is not
the whole story. It will make a difference to control the DOF, but
it is not all of it.
The fist picture is a flat picture to me there are 2 peddles that
are not bad but the rest is flat. It was taken with the C2100 in
Jan. It was taken at F8, but the rest were also taken at F8 so it
is not just the aperture that gives it the depth, It has a lot to
do with light.
Picture 2 looks better but it still does not have the pop and depth
that I like in a picture. It was also take at F8, the only
difference was the lighting. The light was moved a little more to
one side.
Now Picture 3 is what I like, jumps out of the screen at you, and
why, it was just a change in lighting, move to more on the side.
Picture 4 is a FLAT wall, yes it is a flat wall, but the way it was
painted with the different shade and tones makes it look like it is
3D. It is the way he worked with the lighting, or the appearances
of lighting.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your work here Bill, don't have anything worthwhile to add, so I add something else instead.
R. C. Johnson

Great illustration of PHOTO-GRAPHY -- making images with light.
In this case, the light really does make the image doesn't it?

Bill Huber said:

There are 4 pictures and I am sorry but they all needed to be here
to make my point. I don't like to have so many that it take forever
to download them, again I am sorry for the big post.

We have been talking about flat pictures for the last 2 days.
It started with a post by dboogie of a beautiful flower, as they
always are.

Well to me it looked flat so that got it started as to what makes a
picture flat. It is not just one thing from what I have been seeing
and playing around with. I though it was aperture, but that is not
the whole story. It will make a difference to control the DOF, but
it is not all of it.
The fist picture is a flat picture to me there are 2 peddles that
are not bad but the rest is flat. It was taken with the C2100 in
Jan. It was taken at F8, but the rest were also taken at F8 so it
is not just the aperture that gives it the depth, It has a lot to
do with light.
Picture 2 looks better but it still does not have the pop and depth
that I like in a picture. It was also take at F8, the only
difference was the lighting. The light was moved a little more to
one side.
Now Picture 3 is what I like, jumps out of the screen at you, and
why, it was just a change in lighting, move to more on the side.
Picture 4 is a FLAT wall, yes it is a flat wall, but the way it was
painted with the different shade and tones makes it look like it is
3D. It is the way he worked with the lighting, or the appearances
of lighting.
Picture 1
http://www.pbase.com/image/21236935.jpg
Picture 2
http://www.pbase.com/image/21236934.jpg
Picture 3, now this pops
http://www.pbase.com/image/21236933.jpg
Picture 4
http://www.pbase.com/image/18142091.jpg

--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Click to expand...

Bill Huber,

Your illustration gave me an idea. Shadow! Yes, shadow!

In the first pic, there is NO shadow, just straight on light. Look particularly at the area around the flower. The green leaves are all visible.



In Picture 2 below, there is some shadow. Not much, but some. And with this shadow comes the ILLUSION of depth.



Now, as you said, Picture 3 really POPS and it does. But look closely at the shadow. Look closely at the green leaf and the surrounding foliage. Since it is lost in shadow, it makes the subject stand out and gives it this "pop."



Now if there were any doubt that it is shadow that is causing this illusion of depth, Picture 4 closes my case! Look at all the shadow the artist used to give the illusion of depth and 3D! Look at the shadow under the bull in the front who's hoof steps off the ledge!



So, there you have it. The shadow knows!

Cheers,

jim
--
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

I think that is a lot of it, if you look at the big peddle on the low right, in each of the first 2 pictures there is just no detail to it, but with the light coming more from an angle in the last shot the detail jumps right out. Because of the shadows of each little vain of the leaf.

--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

......on the third picture it looks like you have added back lighting as well as the side lighting which really highlights the leaf edges - or am I all wet ???
Bob

Bill Huber said:

There are 4 pictures and I am sorry but they all needed to be here
to make my point. I don't like to have so many that it take forever
to download them, again I am sorry for the big post.

We have been talking about flat pictures for the last 2 days.
It started with a post by dboogie of a beautiful flower, as they
always are.

Well to me it looked flat so that got it started as to what makes a
picture flat. It is not just one thing from what I have been seeing
and playing around with. I though it was aperture, but that is not
the whole story. It will make a difference to control the DOF, but
it is not all of it.
The fist picture is a flat picture to me there are 2 peddles that
are not bad but the rest is flat. It was taken with the C2100 in
Jan. It was taken at F8, but the rest were also taken at F8 so it
is not just the aperture that gives it the depth, It has a lot to
do with light.
Picture 2 looks better but it still does not have the pop and depth
that I like in a picture. It was also take at F8, the only
difference was the lighting. The light was moved a little more to
one side.
Now Picture 3 is what I like, jumps out of the screen at you, and
why, it was just a change in lighting, move to more on the side.
Picture 4 is a FLAT wall, yes it is a flat wall, but the way it was
painted with the different shade and tones makes it look like it is
3D. It is the way he worked with the lighting, or the appearances
of lighting.
Picture 1



Picture 2



Picture 3, now this pops



Picture 4



--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Click to expand...

--
Bob Myers WB7SBW
2 - Olympus C21oo 2 - B3oo
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos2/
http://members.cox.net/robert.myers1/
http://members.cox.net/robert.myers2/

I think I was just moving it up, but I may have add another light. I just can't remember.

--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Bill,

This is typically a contrast issue, in this case improved by changing the light source direction on the second and third shots. The first pic can be improved dramatically, however, with just a little Photoshop work.

To bring that first picture to life, try the unsharp mask method of contrast enhancement. In Photoshop I used unsharp mask settings of Amount 20%, Radius 50 pixels, Threshold 0 levels. (In Paint Shop Pro, this is Radius 50, Strength 20, Clipping 0.) I applied this two times and then just a touch of regular sharpening. The picture now "pops."

Rick

A careful reading of Sandman's post and lots of looks at Bill's images make me think that there is more to it than just shadow. What makes a picture pop, at least to my uneducated eye, is the use of composition, light and shadow to frame the subject so that it stands out enough from the background to attract the eye first. I've seen it done with just form, like a picture with lots of lines "aiming" at the subject, I've seen it done with light and shadow, like Bill's pictures 3 & 4, and also with color.

Comments?

Sandman said:

Bill Huber,

Your illustration gave me an idea. Shadow! Yes, shadow!

In the first pic, there is NO shadow, just straight on light. Look
particularly at the area around the flower. The green leaves are
all visible.



In Picture 2 below, there is some shadow. Not much, but some. And
with this shadow comes the ILLUSION of depth.



Now, as you said, Picture 3 really POPS and it does. But look
closely at the shadow. Look closely at the green leaf and the
surrounding foliage. Since it is lost in shadow, it makes the
subject stand out and gives it this "pop."



Now if there were any doubt that it is shadow that is causing this
illusion of depth, Picture 4 closes my case! Look at all the
shadow the artist used to give the illusion of depth and 3D! Look
at the shadow under the bull in the front who's hoof steps off the
ledge!



So, there you have it. The shadow knows!

Cheers,

jim
--
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

Click to expand...

I think that is the point it take more then just one thing to get a picture to pop.
But I do think that shadow do play a big part it.

It looks like it is the way all of it comes together, now it is just making sure you get all the right things in your shots. Getting the right DOF, good exposure for the detail and the lighting and shadows.
If you have only part of the keys it just won't open the door.

--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Bill Rick has touched on it.

All of my life I have looked at flat drawings and I see 3d objects and bevels and curves. I have added 3d sketches to help other people visualize the object of the drawing. I have even taken photos of finished product and added to drawings for the same reason. I wanted to explain because when I look at photos I carry a lot of baggage with me.

I know that composition has a great deal to with a pleasing appearance. I know that a good photographer can pull out a good photo using available light. Artificial placement of light can enhance a photo But....

Bill , I have looked at your photos and they all look good. You may favour one over the other because of slight changes in lighting, composition or DOF. In the old days a picture was said to pop because the main subject was in sharp focus and the rest fell away because of out of focus, depth of field , lighting or an overzealous scrubbing in developer or dodging with enlarger.Nowdays its the last little row of pixels that separates the colors of an object. Visualize 2 white cubes on a light blue background. It will be flat and blah. Now draw a very thin black line at each edge of cube. They will pop, they will be sharp and somebody will even compliment the composition. In digital the rules are slightly changed. The DOF is different, The lenses are smaller , sensors are smaller and the resolution is different. The tools are different too.

You may think some of your shots are flat but I know they are all fantastic and you may like them better if you added a little selective sharpening, or is it unsharpening. Sorry for long post, I get passionate about a subject I am interested in. I keep telling myself not to because most people skip right over my posts and ignore me.

I think there is a lot to it, but what Sandman said about shadows and what you are saying are the same thing. If you do a little sharpening to an image what are you doing but adding a very little shadow.

You talk about the 2 cubes on a blue background, you add to line and now they pop, what are the 2 lines but very small shadows.

Look at the large peddle in the lower right of the shot. Now there is just not much there, it is flat an has very little detail. http://www.pbase.com/image/21236934

Now look at this one, it has a lot if detail and and stands out a lot, and why, it has small shadows that bring out the detail and give it depth.
http://www.pbase.com/image/21236933

So shadows do have a lot to do with depth, and depth is what make a shot stand out and has the 3d look. When you want letters to stand out and look like they are 3d what do you do but add a drop shadow.

I am really enjoying this topic and I think I am learning some things at the same time.

--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Exactly. Shadows, contrast and unsharpen will make a picture pop.

And if you showed the three photos to three people, each person seeing only one, they would all say, that photo was great. Each one can stand on its own. The amount of detail in the background may not be important.

Bill Huber said:

I think there is a lot to it, but what Sandman said about shadows
and what you are saying are the same thing. If you do a little
sharpening to an image what are you doing but adding a very little
shadow.
You talk about the 2 cubes on a blue background, you add to line
and now they pop, what are the 2 lines but very small shadows.
Look at the large peddle in the lower right of the shot. Now there
is just not much there, it is flat an has very little detail.
http://www.pbase.com/image/21236934
Now look at this one, it has a lot if detail and and stands out a
lot, and why, it has small shadows that bring out the detail and
give it depth.
http://www.pbase.com/image/21236933

So shadows do have a lot to do with depth, and depth is what make a
shot stand out and has the 3d look. When you want letters to stand
out and look like they are 3d what do you do but add a drop shadow.

I am really enjoying this topic and I think I am learning some
things at the same time.

--
No, I'm not a Pro, but I did read the Olympus Talk Forum last night.
Bill Huber, Fort Worth, Tx
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber

Click to expand...

.....again you have explained your theory and displayed pictures to make the point, in an easy to understand manner! Kudos!

And Sandman is so right......it's the shadows!

Wonderful learning thread! Thank you.
--
Lucy
Olympus C3020Z
http://www.pbase.com/lucy
'Photography is the art of seeing what others do not.'
...heard on the History Channel