I enjoyed a few nights out in Arches this past weekend. With conditions unfavorable for clouds, I selected Light Painting to practice. And what subject could be better, than Double Arch! This is a very difficult image to shoot and process. For starters, it's a two image stitch, a top and bottom. Both images consist of 3 image blends to match. Both top and bottom images have 20 second starry sky exposures, to reduce star trails, then I blended them into a few 30 second light painting exposures. I punched up the color to my taste.
Light Painting? Not as easy as I thought!
I have a feeling this light painting thing may make Stan's top ten list in the near future.
Comments and bring on the critique.
Posted by Peter Coskun on January 3, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Love it. I'll never tire of night shots from here until I can get my own. I like the subtle lighting towards the top of the arch and that you didn't overdo the light painting. You can tell from under the lower arch however that this was a blend as the stars almost form trails, but are just aligned and separated from each frame. I would imagine the processing would take quite some time for this image, but the effort is definitely worth it.
Posted by Pam Colander on January 3, 2012 at 1:18 AM
This makes me weak in the knees Kane! It loaded in a most unusual fashion too...I swear the rocks and sky showed first and a second later the stars blinked into view. I also swear I haven't been drinking. Gorgeous shot!
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 3, 2012 at 5:32 AM
I really like the composition, Kane, but the broad dark rims around the rock edges look strange. Some kind of blending artifact ?
Bill you are 100% correct. The web version is showing a lot of residual blending issues. I submitted the image too bright as well. I wanted more of a "glow" opposed to a well lit room. I also think I oversharpend the stars, coming across like white dots. Lots to work on here but nothing that I can't fix.
Posted by Todd Caudle on January 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM
This is one of the more subtle light painting examples I've seen, and it works very, very well!
Posted by Laurie Wendt on January 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Kane, thanks for sharing your complicated technique in making this image. With some corrections as stated above it will be a real winner!
Posted by Art Escobado on January 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM
boom!! great shot!!
Posted by Jeremy Week on January 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM
I really like this Kane. The comp you took really works well with the stars.
Posted by Anne K. Rusk on January 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I like this a great deal, Kane. This would make an exceptional print! Wonderful!
Posted by Brian Jackson on January 3, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Great shot!
Posted by David Mayhew on January 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Very Nice. What light did you use for the light painting?
Posted by Paul Wegemann on January 4, 2012 at 2:38 PM
Kane, since you asked for critique...
First off I like your comp and I applaud your efforts. Overall, I like this, but it's not up to your usual standards.
In my light painting experiments, I've found that front lighting just doesn't cut it. You lose all texture and color
and this makes things look really flat. Side and backlighting are the way to go, and if you can get in close with diffused light that's even better, but in a grand landscape shot, as you have here, this is almost impossible without help. I can tell where you were standing when you painted, and you got some nice shadows and texture on the right side. Imagine having that all through the image. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, check out the work of Harold Ross.
Top ten lists notwithstanding. I haven't done much light painting, but i think Paul has the right idea--side lighting.
I still think there's some potential in this shot, if you can get rid of the weird black halos and significantly increase the mid tone contrast in the arch so its all shadow and light--its just too flat there, and that's probably where side-lighting would help. Nice effort though.
I do find the lower right corner to be too dominant because of its lightness, you might want to try a vignette effect in that corner. How big of a light were you using? When I was in Arches a few years ago, I used a 2 million candlepower spotlight to light up Balanced Rock for a star trail shot. I had my camera on Bulb and then ran about 50 feet to the right to apply side lighting which really is the best for light painting as Paul mentioned.
The Double Arch could probably use 4 million candlepower.
Holy smoke there's some killer critique going on here! Thank You. I have no idea what "candlepower" means but that's enough for me to figure it out. I used my headlamp, rated at about 100 lumens. I did the whole running around like a complete idiot thing, to come up with the most even lighting. I figured I could just blend the better lighting of about 4 images to finalize the image.
For x-mas, I picked up a "tractor beam" of a spotlight, rated at 500 lumens. I thought this is what I would need for light painting. Its way too bright for closer subjects, however I did find its overall downside to more immediate subjects a HUGE positive for critical focus, an area of night photography I've struggled with since 2 of my three lenses are not true Infinity glass.
This one needs a lot of work. In time I'll figure it out. Thanks again.
Posted by Joshua Hardin on January 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM
I agree with Don that it appears the foreground was lit too much in relation to the rest of the image. The arch looks too dark for my preferences also. It looks like you could have benefited from a more powerful light source and perhaps one that is adjustable in intensity since Double Arch spans a great distance. It is difficult to compare lumens to candlepower since, in simple terms, lumens measure how much total light is produced by a device while candlepower measures the concentration of a beam of light. Quite an interesting experiment though!
Posted by Jack Brauer on January 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM
My first reaction - Awesome!!!! Your perspective is great here, and I think the front-lighting works fine here. I'm not sure HOW you could side light such a complex inverted double arch, or if it's even possible. I agree with the nits about the black halos from the blending, but like you said with some more work this could be sweet!
Discussion
17 repliesLight Painting? Not as easy as I thought!
I have a feeling this light painting thing may make Stan's top ten list in the near future.
Comments and bring on the critique.
First off I like your comp and I applaud your efforts. Overall, I like this, but it's not up to your usual standards.
In my light painting experiments, I've found that front lighting just doesn't cut it. You lose all texture and color
and this makes things look really flat. Side and backlighting are the way to go, and if you can get in close with diffused light that's even better, but in a grand landscape shot, as you have here, this is almost impossible without help. I can tell where you were standing when you painted, and you got some nice shadows and texture on the right side. Imagine having that all through the image. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, check out the work of Harold Ross.
I still think there's some potential in this shot, if you can get rid of the weird black halos and significantly increase the mid tone contrast in the arch so its all shadow and light--its just too flat there, and that's probably where side-lighting would help. Nice effort though.
I do find the lower right corner to be too dominant because of its lightness, you might want to try a vignette effect in that corner. How big of a light were you using? When I was in Arches a few years ago, I used a 2 million candlepower spotlight to light up Balanced Rock for a star trail shot. I had my camera on Bulb and then ran about 50 feet to the right to apply side lighting which really is the best for light painting as Paul mentioned.
The Double Arch could probably use 4 million candlepower.
For x-mas, I picked up a "tractor beam" of a spotlight, rated at 500 lumens. I thought this is what I would need for light painting. Its way too bright for closer subjects, however I did find its overall downside to more immediate subjects a HUGE positive for critical focus, an area of night photography I've struggled with since 2 of my three lenses are not true Infinity glass.
This one needs a lot of work. In time I'll figure it out. Thanks again.