Shooting into the sun

*navcom* · 09-06-2008, 08:51 PM

I have a question. Does anyone know how this is done. On Kerrick James' website, he has a fascinating photo of a rock climber descending with the sun directly behind them. Check it out at...

Kerrick James - EXPLORE, BEAUTY, TASTE, ADVENTURE, PEOPLE, COMMERCE, EDITORIAL SAMPLES

Click on "Menu Options" and then the "Adventure" section...it's in the bottom row of thumbnails, second from the right.

How does one take this photo and control exposure properly? Can anyone help me understand the technique he might have used?

Thanks!

*LaRee* · 09-06-2008, 10:19 PM

I can only guess that he had some pretty powerful fill light on location. At the very least a powerful external flash.

graphicgr8s · 09-06-2008, 10:25 PM

2 shots combined in Photoshop?

*Blue* · 09-06-2008, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

2 shots combined in Photoshop?

That would make it a composite. Many people consider that Art which is o.k. However, there's a debate about the ethics of passing composites off as photographs and he has it up for sale. He has some very nice work there though.

*LaRee* · 09-06-2008, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Blue

That would make it a composite. Many people consider that Art which is o.k. However, there's a debate about the ethics of passing composites off as photographs and he has it up for sale. He has some very nice work there though.

So are you saying that IF this is a composite shot that he is being unethical for having it for sale? If it is a composite do you think he is suppose to put a disclaimer saying as much? He's just selling his art after all. If someone likes it, they buy it. Pretty simple.

MrApollinax · 09-06-2008, 11:40 PM

This shot is in his Pentaxian portfolio as well. Here are the details for that photo:

Model: K10D
Metering Mode: Pattern
Exposure Time: 1/500sec
F Number: f/6.7
Focal Length: 10mm
ISO: 100
Flash: Did not fire. No strobe return detection (o). Compulsory flash supression (2). Flash function present. No red-eye reduction.

flyer · 09-07-2008, 05:07 AM

My guess is there was a very light drizzle, and the sun must have been low on the horizon behind him and caused the rainbow. Not to discredit K. J. (he's an outstanding photographer), but there is also quite a bit of luck in that shot for everything to fall into place like that.

TaoMaas · 09-07-2008, 05:34 AM

If there was no fill flash, then the climber was probably picking up a little reflected light from the rock walls and the ground. From the looks of the trees behind the climber, I don't think he was very high up at all. I also don't think it's a composite of 2 shots, although there may have been a little digital "burning in" of the climber to get more detail on the shadowed side.

MRRiley · 09-07-2008, 06:41 AM

So we are talking about the one of the guy hanging from the overhang, right? First I think he is going UP. You don't generally climb "down" those type of overhangs.

Looks like reflected fill light from the rocks to me. Those rocks can reflect a lot more light than you'd think. Also, if you notice, most of the "shadowed" areas are fairly uniform and there are no weird "bidirectional" shadows.

*navcom* · 09-07-2008, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by MRRiley

So we are talking about the one of the guy hanging from the overhang, right? First I think he is going UP. You don't generally climb "down" those type of overhangs.

Looks like reflected fill light from the rocks to me. Those rocks can reflect a lot more light than you'd think. Also, if you notice, most of the "shadowed" areas are fairly uniform and there are no weird "bidirectional" shadows.

Yep, that's the one. That's kind of what I though too, but the fill couldn't possibly reach to the trees and they look way too green and properly exposed. Plus, as was pointed out, flash did not fire.

I can't imagine a composite would work well in this situation (I could definately be wrong) but to get two pictures, even just milliseconds apart from bracketing (which would need one heckuva range!), and not have the climber fuzzy due to movement, would be difficult. Maybe not?

Plus to get the great star formation off the sun with f/6.7....fantastic!

vizjerei · 09-07-2008, 07:25 AM

well i think getting two picture is the way for it. one is the proper exposed for the person,tree and rock, the other for the sky and the sun, where the person doesn't even need to be in the pic, then it is all about masking in PS

flyer · 09-07-2008, 07:42 AM

Forget what I wrote earlier, took second from the left instead of second from the right. I'll punish myself for that mistake.

MRRiley · 09-07-2008, 08:21 AM

I would suspect a "star" filter is behind the look of the sun...

*navcom* · 09-07-2008, 08:35 AM

Well folks....looks like we were all wrong. I decided to send Kerrick an email and get the scoop right from the source. He was kind enough to reply...and QUICKLY I might add!...and allow me to post his response.....

"Thanks for the kind words. I shot the image of the climber with a 10-17mm fisheye zoom and a Pentax K10D. I metered off the sky, away from the sun, to avoid the skewing of the exposure for the extreme brightness of the sun. This lens has very good flare performance, so there was little image cleanup to do in the regard. I did adjust tonality in Photoshop, to bring the climber shadow values up.

Good shooting!

Kerrick"

I know what lens is at the top of my LBA list now....love that flare!

*navcom* · 09-07-2008, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by flyer

Forget what I wrote earlier, took second from the left instead of second from the right. I'll punish myself for that mistake.

Let us know what method you use!