Light Painting Stonehenge

[Kirk Gittings]

for Domenico:

http://ngm.typepad.com/digital_photography/2008/05/shooting-stoneh.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/stonehenge/geiger-photography

[domenico Foschi]

Thank you, Kirk.
Interesting article.
I am really intrigued by Light Painting technique.
Lots of Potential.

[Bruce Watson]

My wife took one look at the Nat. Geo. cover of Stonehenge and asked me what was wrong with the cover shot. I asked her what she meant and she said: "It looks false."

The problem with the paint-by-light crowd is that they typically don't bother to worry about the light coming from different angles. Everywhere you look the shadows are different. Which makes it look "false," because it is false.

I've never actually seen it done well. And by that I mean a print that makes a first impression that does not include the word "false." I suspect that to do it well is similar to doing Photoshop well -- if you are leaving visible artifacts, you aren't doing it well.

But perhaps that's just me.

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree with you in general Bruce except for light painting on modern architecture, which is nearly always lit from multiple sources to begin with.

[Eric James]

I agree Bruce. While they are beautiful images, the chaotic light is unsettling . You've identified the technique's shortcoming and offered a means to remedy it at the same time: single-point-source illumination with with focusable beams of light of varying intensities. And while this may eliminate the chaotic illumination, it still constitutes "false" imagery. I think that this rings true with the Stonehenge subject more than any that come to mind.

[Bruce Watson]

I agree with you in general Bruce except for light painting on modern architecture, which is nearly always lit from multiple sources to begin with.

But those are usually stationary sources that show in the photograph aren't they? Up lights and wall washers, etc. So do people actually use painting with light techniques with architecture? If so, how do they do it? Buildings are often really big...

[domenico Foschi]

Yes, but isn't light apt to light a building also artificial?
It is just that our brains have learned to accept it as normal.

I agree that the lighting in the stonehenge image is a departure, but probably the photographer wanted to convey a feeling of mystery and energy in the inner "core"of the structure....
It is not exactly a photograph by the book.... but not a bad one either.

[domenico Foschi]

Another example of how our brain adapts is the popularity of theJerry Springer show...

[Sideshow Bob]

How about Michael Frye's night work? http://www.michaelfrye.com/port/night/night1.html
It doesn't look real but I think it is done quite well.

Gale

[Kirk Gittings]

But those are usually stationary sources that show in the photograph aren't they? Up lights and wall washers, etc. So do people actually use painting with light techniques with architecture? If so, how do they do it? Buildings are often really big...

Yes, we do it almost every week. Because while most exterior lighting looks good to the eye, it doesn't look so good on film, especially if the facade you are shooting faces away from where the sun set and gets little or no fill from residual sky light. We usually use a couple of Lowell Omni lights on single story building or Totas on bigger buildings and wash the building with light. On really big buildings we just find a way to work with what is there.

[Greg Lockrey]

Another example of how our brain adapts is the popularity of theJerry Springer show...

Who???

[Stephan.in.Belgium]

I'm not a fan of light painting either, it does have that "fake" look to me. But then if that's what you're going for it can be great. I love the work of Tokihiro Sato for example:

http://photoarts.com/gallery/SATO/satoexh.html

It's a vey different take on "light painting", but beautifull :)

[Mark Sampson]

I for one have no problem with light painting- although I didn't really care for the "tungsten-in-daylight" color that the NGM photographer chose to use.
And I also have to say that for capturing the spirit of Stonehenge, give me Caponigro any day.

[Bill_1856]

They could have saved a bundle and gotten a better picture by renting one of Paul Caponigro's B&W images from 30+ years ago.

[harrykauf]

They could have saved a bundle and gotten a better picture by renting one of Paul Caponigro's B&W images from 30+ years ago.

this one?

http://www.photographywest.com/media/images/caponigro/stonehenge%20300.jpg

[Kirk Gittings]

this one?

http://www.photographywest.com/media/images/caponigro/stonehenge%20300.jpg

I had the good fortune to be at the opening of that exhibit, "Megaliths" when it opened first in Santa Fe. It was extraordinary.

[jetcode]

I think the Stones of Avebury are as interesting as StoneHenge. We hired a dowser who took us to a set of stones that had an amazing energy vortex running through them. I held those rods up and they just swirled non stop. I felt this rush of energy coursing through my heart and upper chest for 10 minutes or more. I was letting other people try it and then a stoic british man in a suit cast a look of insult towards me and proclaimed "that's impossible" and the energy just disappeared, the rods stopped spinning. I also thought the dolmens in Ireland were quite impressive too. New Grange is a classic and the ancient fort Dun Aengus in the Aran islands. I always wanted to go back and create a LF portfolio of the stone treasures that exist in the U.K.

[cdholden]

I'm not a fan of light painting either, it does have that "fake" look to me. But then if that's what you're going for it can be great. I love the work of Tokihiro Sato for example:

http://photoarts.com/gallery/SATO/satoexh.html

It's a very different take on "light painting", but beautifull :)

A couple of years late to reply to this thread, but wanted to give a nod to Tokihiro Sato after seeing his work at a local museum:
http://www.fristcenter.org/site/exhibitions/exhibitiondetail.aspx?cid=861

Gallery Guide:
http://www.fristcenter.org/site/files/cm/file/Sato%20guide.pdf

Chris

[dh003i]

I just ran across this technique, it seems very interesting. It certainly has a "surreal" feeling to it. However, that isn't necessarily bad. I'd also note that it is real: you are photographing real things, over time.

That said, for the National Geographic, I think it is inappropriate. Were I buying it, I would expect some effort to actually give a sense of how things could appear someplace if you actually looked at them from a certain angle at a certain time of day. I wonder if similar "creative" techniques are used to enhance the appearance of the plight of people in the third world?

In any event, I'd also say that our perception of "reality" is strongly biased by what we actually experience...but that needn't be reality everywhere in the universe. I suspect some interesting photographs could be made by taking wide-angle shots with the sun at two markedly different points in the sky during sunrise or sunset and combining them. This would create the appearance of "two suns". Not reality on Earth, but it certainly is reality on some planets in the universe.

[Wayne Crider]

View Camera J/F issue had some work by Berthold Steinhilber that was nice looking.

[Emil Schildt]

My wife took one look at the Nat. Geo. cover of Stonehenge and asked me what was wrong with the cover shot. I asked her what she meant and she said: "It looks false."

The problem with the paint-by-light crowd is that they typically don't bother to worry about the light coming from different angles. Everywhere you look the shadows are different. Which makes it look "false," because it is false.

I've never actually seen it done well. And by that I mean a print that makes a first impression that does not include the word "false." I suspect that to do it well is similar to doing Photoshop well -- if you are leaving visible artifacts, you aren't doing it well.

But perhaps that's just me.

just stumpled over this thread, and found this quote interesting.

I would like to know when "done well" is in order....

this for example:
http://www.seeingwithphotography.com/swpc_contact_sheet.html

In my book theese images are painted really really well... by blind people.....

does it look "false"? Yes, of course: they are painted!

Painting with light gives you the option to... yes, "paint" your image. To do exactely as painters do; just using light.
Painters "cheat" all the time - because they can.
PWL gives you the same option.

Is it possible to paint with light, so you "don't see it"? So you just see a well lit image?
Of course it is - it takes practice, but it is not that difficult.

but the question then arises: why use the technique?

I have been painting with light for about 25 years. My favourite technique for these reasons:
It is a cheap way of making grand light.
you can do it everywhere as long as it can be dark around you.
Using people (as I mostly do), it is much more fun and interesting for the model, which gives you the best chance to make good pictures.

when I teach my students in using the light, I stress that almost always, when talking to another person, the light comes from all over the place....
We try to correct this with flash and so on.

So for me the painting with light often comes closer to reality (lightwise) than a controlled flash light does.

so we "do bother about the light".

Or maybe I am not a member of the "paint-by-light crowd"....
(hate to be a member of a crowd....:o )

I have NOT been doing lightpainting on big buildings and Stonehenge's and such, I admit.
Maybe the different light/shadows show more there?

Finally I will use your comparison with Photoshop.
The problem with PS is, that only a few know when to stop!
maybe "lightpainters" are so in love with their technique, so they want it to really show in their images?
the technique becomes the important thing - not the subject (?)

[rguinter]

My wife took one look at the Nat. Geo. cover of Stonehenge and asked me what was wrong with the cover shot. I asked her what she meant and she said: "It looks false."

The problem with the paint-by-light crowd is that they typically don't bother to worry about the light coming from different angles. Everywhere you look the shadows are different. Which makes it look "false," because it is false.

I've never actually seen it done well. And by that I mean a print that makes a first impression that does not include the word "false." I suspect that to do it well is similar to doing Photoshop well -- if you are leaving visible artifacts, you aren't doing it well.

But perhaps that's just me.

Bruce:

Yes perhaps.

I looked at the photos and the word false never crossed my mind. I really liked them. "But perhaps that's just me."

Anyway to me photography is a hobby and something I do that I consider "art." In another thread where I've been active recently someone posted a photo and pointed out how the film she selected gave the scene a different blue-cast than she recalled seeing with her eyes at the time. She seemed disappointed in that.

But to me I really liked her photo with the "bluer than normal" highlights and I would have been proud to have made the image myself.

Anyway, my point is that it doesn't matter if the image is not a true rendition of reality. Art is like that... it doesn't have to be true to reality and perhaps it shouldn't even try. True artistic images capture your attention and hold it for an extended time. That is what good art is supposed to do.

Now I've seen the light painting technique done over the years many times and often I've thought about trying it myself... running around at night in a ninja suit with a bunch of colored flashlights while the shutter remains open. Someday perhaps I will follow through.

But about the only criticism of the National Geographic Stonehenge "cover art" that I would make is that it took $60,000 worth of equipment to make the images.

I think most of the members here could make equivalent "light painting" artistic photos with a lot less investment.

Bob G

[Steven Tribe]

Years ago, I took a series of photographs of church ship models. Fortunately, most churches have big step ladders hidden away for changing bulbs/dusting! Comparing with early images of the same models, I found that the background of the church interior was always well illuminated in these shots. An early, and effective use of light painting.