128. Shadow - November22-28, 2015
Kevin-
You know what it’s like when you have a song lyric in your head, constantly repeating itself over and over? The same sort of thing has been happening to me, only with an image of an artist and a canvas that keeps inserting itself into my mind. So I decided that for this week's theme, shadow, I would try in some way to illustrate the scene.
Of course, not having an actual, artist to photograph, I had to be both the photographer and the subject. I quickly tested the light from a single studio strobe shining from max distance onto a white background the other day and knew that it would provide the type of shadow that could properly illustrate the idea. So I went back with a few simple props on Wednesday to capture the image.
Byron loaned me an easel that he had. Since it was only about 3’ tall I put it up on a platform to make it look full height. A piece of blank 16”x20” card was placed on the easel to make a “canvas”. A piece of foam core was traced and then cut to create a painter’s "palette”. Finally I grabbed a brush that I had.
Understand that my skills as an artist are very limited. I can’t sing, I can’t play a musical instrument, I can’t draw, and no one has ever suggested that I should paint, sculpt or try any other type of fine art endeavor. Plus every time I imagine that I can write (even a little), reading a single paragraph of Paul’s text makes me realize, once again, that my writing craft is pedestrian at best. So basically photography is the only creative talent that I can occasionally exhibit some skill doing. And even then it’s more about learning how I would do it better the next time, rather than thinking that any effort I put out is perfect.
Oh, back to the image. Nikon D4s, tripod mounted, 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens set to 66mm. One studio strobe, with a snoot on it to keep the strobe light from bouncing off the floor, ceiling and walls and making the shadows look less shadowy. ISO 100, f/8 @ 1/250th of a second (flash sync). Thank goodness for remote triggers and the Nikon's self timer, allowing me to get into a good enough pose for each frame.
And of course, like nearly all photographs I take, I would love to do this again. But next time in a real setting. Nt a simple white background, but in some sort of real artist studio space, whether large or small. Still as a shadow image, but with all the typical and wonderful studio clutter serving as a background. Like tubes of paint, jars filled with brushes, sketches and illustrations laying around, plus easels, pallets, half-started framed canvas, all with the shadow of an artist, perhaps looking like the shadow was created by late afternoon sun, falling across the scene. So the image would have real color and texture to it, but with an anonymous shadow. Perhaps some day…
You know what it’s like when you have a song lyric in your head, constantly repeating itself over and over? The same sort of thing has been happening to me, only with an image of an artist and a canvas that keeps inserting itself into my mind. So I decided that for this week's theme, shadow, I would try in some way to illustrate the scene.
Of course, not having an actual, artist to photograph, I had to be both the photographer and the subject. I quickly tested the light from a single studio strobe shining from max distance onto a white background the other day and knew that it would provide the type of shadow that could properly illustrate the idea. So I went back with a few simple props on Wednesday to capture the image.
Byron loaned me an easel that he had. Since it was only about 3’ tall I put it up on a platform to make it look full height. A piece of blank 16”x20” card was placed on the easel to make a “canvas”. A piece of foam core was traced and then cut to create a painter’s "palette”. Finally I grabbed a brush that I had.
Understand that my skills as an artist are very limited. I can’t sing, I can’t play a musical instrument, I can’t draw, and no one has ever suggested that I should paint, sculpt or try any other type of fine art endeavor. Plus every time I imagine that I can write (even a little), reading a single paragraph of Paul’s text makes me realize, once again, that my writing craft is pedestrian at best. So basically photography is the only creative talent that I can occasionally exhibit some skill doing. And even then it’s more about learning how I would do it better the next time, rather than thinking that any effort I put out is perfect.
Oh, back to the image. Nikon D4s, tripod mounted, 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens set to 66mm. One studio strobe, with a snoot on it to keep the strobe light from bouncing off the floor, ceiling and walls and making the shadows look less shadowy. ISO 100, f/8 @ 1/250th of a second (flash sync). Thank goodness for remote triggers and the Nikon's self timer, allowing me to get into a good enough pose for each frame.
And of course, like nearly all photographs I take, I would love to do this again. But next time in a real setting. Nt a simple white background, but in some sort of real artist studio space, whether large or small. Still as a shadow image, but with all the typical and wonderful studio clutter serving as a background. Like tubes of paint, jars filled with brushes, sketches and illustrations laying around, plus easels, pallets, half-started framed canvas, all with the shadow of an artist, perhaps looking like the shadow was created by late afternoon sun, falling across the scene. So the image would have real color and texture to it, but with an anonymous shadow. Perhaps some day…
Paul-
Warning: The following content may contain elements of pedantry, Zen mindfulness, abstruse writing, off-topic commentary, verbosity, and run-on sentences. The author welcomes/expects opposing views, requests for greater lucidity, mild threats, or a majority vote to immediately oust him from the WPOTM. In any event, reader discretion is advised.
As far as I can tell—having made a quick (read: incomplete due to laziness) scan of previous WPOTM themes—this is only the second WPOTM theme* that focuses on something of a transitional (and in many cases, transitory) nature either specific to time, appearance, experience or all combination thereof. That is, the theme references something that cannot be—since we are talking about photography, right?—visualized without reference to its: 1) Opposite; 2) Part in a visual continuum; 3) Dependence on one or both of the first two.
Okay, let me try to clarify that clarification. (See? You shouldn’t have just glossed over that warning at the top of the page.) The things that define “Shadow,” and perhaps make it such a great component for a photograph, are the things it is dependent upon that may or may not need to be part of the photograph. This may be self-evident to you already, but since I am confusing myself I’ll go on. Any conceptualization of shadow (literary, illustrative, optical, metaphoric, etc.) requires a context: Shadow compared to what? Predominantly darker gradation that shows transitional shadow? Predominantly lighter areas that shows transitional shadow? Extremes in brightness and darkness with shadow as a visual middle ground? A visually symbolic reference (e.g. a tombstone, a person in grief, even the funny papers anti-hero “The Shadow”) without a personal understanding on the part of viewer as to some kind of comparison that makes it so? The shadow having meaning in its transition to another state over time? “Brighter” and “Darker” as much defined by shadow as the other way around? And so on. (Ad nauseam.)
It’s hard (at least for me) being in a place like that without being totally focused in the moment and find that both time and extraneous noise have somehow been occluded by a thousand small (even ephemeral) details I take in one-at-a-time without any compulsion to go faster. It’s “being in the moment” and I always experience it in places like this. Maybe it’s just a reminder of personal mortality or the impermanence of things (with a nod to Buddhism’s “Four Noble Truths). ‘Hard to say.
I honestly don’t know why these things take up space in my consciousness when it could be used for more immediate and pedestrian concerns like: “How do I hide the snap, crackle and pop in my knees when I am practicing Tai Chi with the younger members of my class?” Go figure.
Anyway…
Here are two pictures I took at the Wyuka Cemetery—a very ornate, old, and expansive site off of downtown Lincoln. (The first picture is the one I am submitting.) I showcased a photograph from this location to the WPOTM before. [See: “Cemetery” from Year One.] I like this place a lot because irrespective of the time of day, the amazing range of monuments, sepulchers, tombs, and other edifices--that in many cases garishly and ponderously suggest you can take it with you—still produce some interesting shadows.
My wife and daughter liked the second image more than the first, but I opted to go with the first. I like the way shadow is countered by the light on the right, the way the headstones lead into the pictures, other compositional considerations, and the symbolism I see—commentary on which I will spare you out of kindness.
Our story so far: Shot at 1/320 sec.; f/18; ISO 100; 18-55mm lens set at 38mm; aperture priority; center-weighted averaging; -1 2/3 EV; 12:19pm; camera is hand-held.
*The other theme would be Byron’s selection of “Twilight” in Year Two.
Warning: The following content may contain elements of pedantry, Zen mindfulness, abstruse writing, off-topic commentary, verbosity, and run-on sentences. The author welcomes/expects opposing views, requests for greater lucidity, mild threats, or a majority vote to immediately oust him from the WPOTM. In any event, reader discretion is advised.
As far as I can tell—having made a quick (read: incomplete due to laziness) scan of previous WPOTM themes—this is only the second WPOTM theme* that focuses on something of a transitional (and in many cases, transitory) nature either specific to time, appearance, experience or all combination thereof. That is, the theme references something that cannot be—since we are talking about photography, right?—visualized without reference to its: 1) Opposite; 2) Part in a visual continuum; 3) Dependence on one or both of the first two.
Okay, let me try to clarify that clarification. (See? You shouldn’t have just glossed over that warning at the top of the page.) The things that define “Shadow,” and perhaps make it such a great component for a photograph, are the things it is dependent upon that may or may not need to be part of the photograph. This may be self-evident to you already, but since I am confusing myself I’ll go on. Any conceptualization of shadow (literary, illustrative, optical, metaphoric, etc.) requires a context: Shadow compared to what? Predominantly darker gradation that shows transitional shadow? Predominantly lighter areas that shows transitional shadow? Extremes in brightness and darkness with shadow as a visual middle ground? A visually symbolic reference (e.g. a tombstone, a person in grief, even the funny papers anti-hero “The Shadow”) without a personal understanding on the part of viewer as to some kind of comparison that makes it so? The shadow having meaning in its transition to another state over time? “Brighter” and “Darker” as much defined by shadow as the other way around? And so on. (Ad nauseam.)
It’s hard (at least for me) being in a place like that without being totally focused in the moment and find that both time and extraneous noise have somehow been occluded by a thousand small (even ephemeral) details I take in one-at-a-time without any compulsion to go faster. It’s “being in the moment” and I always experience it in places like this. Maybe it’s just a reminder of personal mortality or the impermanence of things (with a nod to Buddhism’s “Four Noble Truths). ‘Hard to say.
I honestly don’t know why these things take up space in my consciousness when it could be used for more immediate and pedestrian concerns like: “How do I hide the snap, crackle and pop in my knees when I am practicing Tai Chi with the younger members of my class?” Go figure.
Anyway…
Here are two pictures I took at the Wyuka Cemetery—a very ornate, old, and expansive site off of downtown Lincoln. (The first picture is the one I am submitting.) I showcased a photograph from this location to the WPOTM before. [See: “Cemetery” from Year One.] I like this place a lot because irrespective of the time of day, the amazing range of monuments, sepulchers, tombs, and other edifices--that in many cases garishly and ponderously suggest you can take it with you—still produce some interesting shadows.
My wife and daughter liked the second image more than the first, but I opted to go with the first. I like the way shadow is countered by the light on the right, the way the headstones lead into the pictures, other compositional considerations, and the symbolism I see—commentary on which I will spare you out of kindness.
Our story so far: Shot at 1/320 sec.; f/18; ISO 100; 18-55mm lens set at 38mm; aperture priority; center-weighted averaging; -1 2/3 EV; 12:19pm; camera is hand-held.
*The other theme would be Byron’s selection of “Twilight” in Year Two.
Jerry-
I managed to get my daughter Kathryn to pose next to a small soft box (fluorescent bulbs) and moved the light to put her face half in shadow. She's raising her eyebrow, wondering what the heck I'm up to. This was my favorite pose and I changed it to black and white. The color version is fine, her warm Colombian skin tones are very pretty. But I think black & white simplifies things and makes a more graphic image.
My lens was an old 105mm F4 Micro-Nikkor, this was a cool item back in the late 70's. It's very sharp if you focus carefully and don't shake too much. It was on my D750, 1/125 @ F8, ISO 4000.
I managed to get my daughter Kathryn to pose next to a small soft box (fluorescent bulbs) and moved the light to put her face half in shadow. She's raising her eyebrow, wondering what the heck I'm up to. This was my favorite pose and I changed it to black and white. The color version is fine, her warm Colombian skin tones are very pretty. But I think black & white simplifies things and makes a more graphic image.
My lens was an old 105mm F4 Micro-Nikkor, this was a cool item back in the late 70's. It's very sharp if you focus carefully and don't shake too much. It was on my D750, 1/125 @ F8, ISO 4000.
Don-
I love the shadows in the canyons. As you walk through you can sweat one moment and then as you pass through the shadow you cool off. The rocks, sand and dirt stand out because of the contrast the shadows provide. So here is my submission "Shadow" shooting with my D810 and the 24-70 lens. Exposure s 1/200 sec, f/9, ISO 100 and I prefer to shoot in Aperture Priority.
I love the shadows in the canyons. As you walk through you can sweat one moment and then as you pass through the shadow you cool off. The rocks, sand and dirt stand out because of the contrast the shadows provide. So here is my submission "Shadow" shooting with my D810 and the 24-70 lens. Exposure s 1/200 sec, f/9, ISO 100 and I prefer to shoot in Aperture Priority.
Byron-
I was happy to see this theme. For a long time I wanted an excuse to photograph the shadow of the window blinds in the upstairs room of our house. The ceiling is level in the middle of the room then it angles down to match the roof line. I enjoy how the shadows, late in the day, look when they hit the ceiling and appear to turn. Why do I enjoy that? Occasionally, I will go to youtube and type in "Hoax". It's very interesting to see what comes up. There are many common things that someone somewhere will claim as a hoax. Here is a short list. Satellites, the Moon, Lunar and Solar eclipses, near space travel, any of the bombings or shootings and the granddaddy (to me) is the Moon landing. One guy claimed it was easy to prove the Moon landings are fake by looking at the pictures. He shows how the shadows go in different directions. He claims, if there was one light source all the shadows would point the same way. He forgets that when you take a 3D object and squeeze it into a 2D medium sometimes things don't look right. That leads to my submission. It appears that the shadows are pointed in 2 directions. They all come from 1 light source, I assure you. I thought I'd throw in my head with a highlight from my glasses just to add interest.
A couple of these numbers will look odd because I wanted a really wide angle so I used my GoPro camera. ISO 183, focal length 3mm, f 2.8, 1/60
I was happy to see this theme. For a long time I wanted an excuse to photograph the shadow of the window blinds in the upstairs room of our house. The ceiling is level in the middle of the room then it angles down to match the roof line. I enjoy how the shadows, late in the day, look when they hit the ceiling and appear to turn. Why do I enjoy that? Occasionally, I will go to youtube and type in "Hoax". It's very interesting to see what comes up. There are many common things that someone somewhere will claim as a hoax. Here is a short list. Satellites, the Moon, Lunar and Solar eclipses, near space travel, any of the bombings or shootings and the granddaddy (to me) is the Moon landing. One guy claimed it was easy to prove the Moon landings are fake by looking at the pictures. He shows how the shadows go in different directions. He claims, if there was one light source all the shadows would point the same way. He forgets that when you take a 3D object and squeeze it into a 2D medium sometimes things don't look right. That leads to my submission. It appears that the shadows are pointed in 2 directions. They all come from 1 light source, I assure you. I thought I'd throw in my head with a highlight from my glasses just to add interest.
A couple of these numbers will look odd because I wanted a really wide angle so I used my GoPro camera. ISO 183, focal length 3mm, f 2.8, 1/60
Deron-
Okay, I didn't do some special effects. I didn't go anywhere exotic. I was just sitting on my couch, watching the pathetic Vikings (by pathetic, I mean beloved.) take on the hated Packers (by hated, I mean hated.), when I glanced to my left and saw what you see.
Nothing special and very subtle. I just like it.
Okay, I didn't do some special effects. I didn't go anywhere exotic. I was just sitting on my couch, watching the pathetic Vikings (by pathetic, I mean beloved.) take on the hated Packers (by hated, I mean hated.), when I glanced to my left and saw what you see.
Nothing special and very subtle. I just like it.