# Heat Wave! 100 Liters of water + model + sunshine....



## SandyP (Jul 29, 2012)

Did two of these last year, this one though, from a few weeks back, was really difficult because of the shifting clouds that kept ruining the sunshine. Just a big ass reflector to the camera right, and 4 people slamming/throwing/blasting water across the frame in MASSIVE buckets. Fun. But stressful! 





HEAT WAVE by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr


----------



## Northstar (Jul 29, 2012)

SandyP said:


> Did two of these last year, this one though, from a few weeks back, was really difficult because of the shifting clouds that kept ruining the sunshine. Just a big ass reflector to the camera right, and 4 people slamming/throwing/blasting water across the frame in MASSIVE buckets. Fun. But stressful!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Love it!


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 29, 2012)

looks kind of overexposed to me


----------



## preppyak (Jul 29, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> looks kind of overexposed to me


I was thinking the same thing, but, my guess is that its just the reflector side being very bright compared to the other side. The concept is great, just seems like you lost some face detail with the reflector light being bright.

Not the easiest conditions to nail exposure though, and the overexposure is only there when you look closer


----------



## canon816 (Jul 29, 2012)

If you dodge her right side and burn her left side (face) then it would even it out a lot. It doesn't look like there are any blown highlights... just a bit over/under exposure nits.

I think its a really cool concept and you did a good job.


----------



## SandyP (Jul 30, 2012)

I assure you,  it's supposed to be very bright. The original shot was borderline underexpose so I can get as much detail as possible across the frame. But I then raised it across, and then masked in extra brightness. It just looks super bright, but I've always had a habit of liking really bright photos.


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 30, 2012)

mmm i really like b&w photos with hardcore contrasts  

anyway do u got a darker version of this photo too? mind sharing?


----------



## Murdy (Jul 30, 2012)

Let's not beat around the bush. It IS overexposed. Justifying that by saying you like bright images doesn't alter the fact that you went to all that trouble and got it wrong. 
No problem though, you learnt for next time.


----------



## SandyP (Jul 30, 2012)

Murdy said:


> Let's not beat around the bush. It IS overexposed. Justifying that by saying you like bright images doesn't alter the fact that you went to all that trouble and got it wrong.
> No problem though, you learnt for next time.



No, it's not. Haha, the very idea that exposure is a set rule and that it belongs dead in the center is a joke, so don't try to sell me such fabricated nonsense. It's exposed perfectly for the desired effect. If you believe that is too much, then I'm happy that you feel it's too much, however it was decided ahead of time, it was edited and shot as such, and published as such. 

It's exactly how it was meant to be. The only thing that was "learnt" (not actually a word, by the way) was that I should bring more water for next time.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 30, 2012)

SandyP said:


> Murdy said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not beat around the bush. It IS overexposed. Justifying that by saying you like bright images doesn't alter the fact that you went to all that trouble and got it wrong.
> ...


+10! I expose to my liking, if a stupid Sekonic plastic box tells me it was over I throw it away.. Hm, oh, that's right, I in fact did that with mine after three days of using it...

Keep up the good work and break the rules!


----------



## canon816 (Jul 30, 2012)

SandyP said:


> It's exactly how it was meant to be. The only thing that was "learnt" (not actually a word, by the way) was that I should bring more water for next time.


Actually "learnt" is a word. It's interchangeable with "learned" to be used as the past tense of learn. Learnt is the UK English version of the word... 

On my monitor it looks overexposed. Perhaps printed it is not. I have no problem with breaking the "rules" and straying from the norm... and I expose all of my images based on how they look to my eye (using the histogram as a guide while shooting in the field). To my eye this would look better if it was not overexposed... even if it was intentional. 

You did post this image expecting critique I assume? Otherwise you would not have posted it. These critiques are intended to be constructive and I doubt Viggo meant to come across as rude.


----------



## friedmud (Jul 30, 2012)

I think sometimes that people forget that not all photography is the same and that some people use cameras to create art instead of "just" capturing a scene (don't be thrown off by the "just", capturing a scene perfectly is definitely art as well, but it should also be clear that there are uses of cameras beyond capturing all available detail in a subject).

just as an abstract artist might represent a mountain wIth two slashes of color on a blank canvas, photographers have the freedom to manipulate reality in order to achieve a desired emotional response.

This is a long way toward saying: Great photo! I appreciate you pushing the bounds of what can be done.... we all need to remember to be creative and use our imagination with our images instead of "just" capturing what we see... You never know what might be possible!


----------



## Murdy (Jul 30, 2012)

Ha ha. Your reply suggests that it IS overexposed. Lol Ha ha.
Just because you shot it that way doesn't mean it's not overexposed lol.

'Learnt' IS a word. You should have checked before you replied lol. Ha ha.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 30, 2012)

IMO, It's a little over exposed. :-X


----------



## Wilmark (Jul 30, 2012)

Thats what art is ... One mans perfection is another mans crap. I really find this picture unappealing and cant see myself taking a picture with these conditions. But the OP says it came out the way he intended. Ever heard fashion designers say ugly is the new beautiful?


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 30, 2012)

I think it's pretty rad. The title is "Heat Wave". To me, it completely captures that feeling even if I didn't see the title. It's almost like looking directly into the sun. I also love the model's non-flinching stance in the middle of all the chaos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2012)

Murdy said:


> Your reply suggests that it IS overexposed.
> Just because you shot it that way doesn't mean it's not overexposed lol.



Because it was shot that way, by choice, means that in the opinion of the photographer, it is _properly_ exposed. We're free to disagree with that decision, of course. But saying a shot is over- or underexposed implies an error or undesired result, and that's not the case here.


----------



## NormanBates (Jul 30, 2012)

What Neuro said.

And I wouldn't have added so much brightness in post, but I still think it's a great photo.
Plus: if we all did the same, photography would be very very very boring.


----------



## SandyP (Jul 30, 2012)

It's exposed how it's supposed to be. I'm not sure I understand the childish way you keep batting this around. If the choice was made before hand, during, and after, then it's a choice, not a mistake, which you are tying to imply. And your total condescending tone of saying that it was a mistake I "learnt" for next time, is just trying to be a total dick. Which, of course, is completely transparent. And hilarious. Better luck next time. It's exposed 100% properly. Haha. 

The internet is a funny place sometimes. Why do some of the mouthiest people have nothing to back it up with, no work to show, and no actual reasoning behind their "arguments" that are being made, you can't explain anything, but you can be argumentative with no substance or reasonsing. Sure, if some people disagree and can say it properly, then that's cool and of course I accept that. 

But if not, then it's just a petty, hilarious and obvious attempt at being a little troll.


I tried this sort of technique a few times in other ways, most notably was these other ones: 




SUMMER PT. 3 by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr




SUMMER PT. 4 by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr




SUMMER PT. 2 by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr




WALK THROUGH WALLS 2 by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr



They all had the same lesson of being rushed with the last minute light, except the one with the ribbons, that was almost TOO windy, and had the beauty dish knocked over twice, but I had an assistant with me, and we both caught it once each before hitting the ground. Haha.


----------



## canon816 (Jul 31, 2012)

SandyP said:


> It's exposed how it's supposed to be. I'm not sure I understand the childish way you keep batting this around. If the choice was made before hand, during, and after, then it's a choice, not a mistake, which you are tying to imply. And your total condescending tone of saying that it was a mistake I "learnt" for next time, is just trying to be a total dick. Which, of course, is completely transparent. And hilarious. Better luck next time. It's exposed 100% properly. Haha.



Really... You get a little criticism and this is how you take it?? :'( :'( :'(


----------



## SandyP (Jul 31, 2012)

canon816 said:


> SandyP said:
> 
> 
> > It's exposed how it's supposed to be. I'm not sure I understand the childish way you keep batting this around. If the choice was made before hand, during, and after, then it's a choice, not a mistake, which you are tying to imply. And your total condescending tone of saying that it was a mistake I "learnt" for next time, is just trying to be a total dick. Which, of course, is completely transparent. And hilarious. Better luck next time. It's exposed 100% properly. Haha.
> ...




Are you kidding me? Intelligent criticism is when people take into account the intent of the person presenting the piece of work. Unintelligent criticism is the opposite. 

If someone took a photo of a silhouette, and told me, this is a photo I took, of a silhouette, because that was the plan, then I would go and criticize the fact that it was chosen to be shot as a silhouette, that would be pretty stupid. Same thing. It's one thing to say "I think it's too bright", but it's a completely different story to suggest that it's an error. 

How absurd.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 31, 2012)

Personally I like contre jour pictures and I think these are fine examples of the techniques that can be used.

Thank you for posting them


----------



## Northstar (Jul 31, 2012)

canon816 said:


> SandyP said:
> 
> 
> > It's exposed how it's supposed to be. I'm not sure I understand the childish way you keep batting this around. If the choice was made before hand, during, and after, then it's a choice, not a mistake, which you are tying to imply. And your total condescending tone of saying that it was a mistake I "learnt" for next time, is just trying to be a total dick. Which, of course, is completely transparent. And hilarious. Better luck next time. It's exposed 100% properly. Haha.
> ...



Canon816... I think the OP was referring to murdy's two childish/rude comments.


----------



## canon816 (Jul 31, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Canon816... I think the OP was referring to murdy's two childish/rude comments.



I don't disagree that murdy's comments were childish/rude. But when the OP starts calling people a "dick".... that's when all credibility is lost. Obviously Sandyp is a top notch photographer, it's just too bad Sandyp doesn't act like one too. Who cares if someone doesn't like it... not everyone will. I am not drawn to it. As the OP alluded to his/her images are an artistic rendition of the scene and his/her target audience or client's opinion on it is really what matters.

If you are going to post images on a critique/sharing forum... expect opinions that may not always be in line with your own. Just because someone else comes off as rude/curt doesn't mean that subsequent posts need to deteriorate to childish name calling. 

Be the bigger person here. You can defend your style without calling someone a "dick"... This sort of behavior is what really chips away at the quality and credibility of CR forums. Whatever... this is my last post. Call each other names if it makes you feel better.....


----------



## Northstar (Jul 31, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Canon816... I think the OP was referring to murdy's two childish/rude comments.
> ...



canon816....I noticed that murdy followed sandyp into a different post/subject that sandyp had started and continued "heckling" him in the same chidish fashion. This I suspect, is the reason why he reacted as he did to murdy. You can't let someone follow you around and pick on you without doing/saying something about it....totally justified in my opinion. 

I think you got unknowingly caught up in their interaction.....just my two cents.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 31, 2012)

friedmud said:


> I think sometimes that people forget that not all photography is the same and that some people use cameras to create art instead of "just" capturing a scene (don't be thrown off by the "just", capturing a scene perfectly is definitely art as well, but it should also be clear that there are uses of cameras beyond capturing all available detail in a subject).
> 
> just as an abstract artist might represent a mountain wIth two slashes of color on a blank canvas, photographers have the freedom to manipulate reality in order to achieve a desired emotional response.
> 
> This is a long way toward saying: Great photo! I appreciate you pushing the bounds of what can be done.... we all need to remember to be creative and use our imagination with our images instead of "just" capturing what we see... You never know what might be possible!



I think your point is valid. Photography threw the shackles of resemblance to suject away in art painting. One could actually argue that photography liberated painting. Today with photoshop and other programs (I do not know enough about the alterations that could be done in shooting and post-processing in analog times) has liberated photography from being a documentarian device. Although the latter exists and is important in its given task, photography is much more than this, and can rightfully be used for art representative of the ideas in the photographers mind. Look at Joe McNally and many of his images... they are not only representations of a defacto stasis. Photographers are social material constructivists, divided only by the degree in which they tamper with 'reality'.


----------



## rcarca (Jul 31, 2012)

To get back to the photographs: I like them. I like the atmosphere they create. Who doesn't use exposure to create an effect they like. Good stuff!


----------



## gary (Jul 31, 2012)

Turner a rather well know English painter when he produced a number of paintings studying light was also heavily critisized, they now sell for many millions. A prize is awarded annually in his name, many of the winners especially in recent years have been heavily critisized. Your photographs are what art is supposed to be, something to like or dislike or leave you ambivalent, but always make you think. In light of the responses its clear you have done your work well.


----------



## agierke (Jul 31, 2012)

interesting thread....and a bit spicy too!

i'm drawn to the notion that photoshop has liberated photography from being a documentary device. the "liberation" actually happened well over 100 years ago with the work of Edward Steichen and Alfred Stieglitz as well as many of their contemporaries. 

at that time, photography was widely criticized as too technical and precise to be considered a true artform by many in the fine art establishment. these men and many others vehemently disagreed with this notion and set out to prove photography's virtues as a valid form of expressive art. Stieglitz published many photographers works in a periodical called Camera Notes starting in 1902. the prevailing movement in art was Pictorialism and many of these photographers experimented with their techniques to mimic the look of Pictorialist paintings. there are some really phenomenal photographs that came out of these efforts.

painters were deviating from the establishment as well but were spurned on mostly by the expressionist movement and the efforts of Cezanne. Braque and Picasso essentially blew the wheels off the notions of the old standard in art with their Cubist style and paved the way for Futurism, Surrealism, and the Dadaist movements. by that point, photography was well represented in the Surrealist culture with the works of Man Ray and others. 

i know that the digital age to many seems to be the pinnacle of photography's innovation but there is a very rich history in photography that includes experimentation, manipulation and efforts to express creatively from nearly its inception back in the 1840's.

as far as the OP's images go....i think they are successful in that they fulfill the intent of the photographer and the invoke emotion in the viewer. 

to those who feel the "exposure is incorrect", please define what "correct" exposure is. and please don't say when the camera's meter is centered....because that is just foolish and narrow minded.


----------



## kennephoto (Aug 1, 2012)

SandyP I love these photos! dont let people tell you otherwise! If the picture turned out the way you wanted it to then you did perfect! I think everyone has photos that friends and family love but the photographer doesnt enjoy and vice versa. To each their own right! So SandyP awesome photos well done and good show keep it up!


----------



## 7enderbender (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm a little sad to see some of the altercations above. Hope this is all based on misunderstandings since this is rather untypical for this specific forum. But hey, we're all sensitive artist types here and passionate on top of that - so things happen.

In any case, I was intrigued by the discussion in a way and checked out the flickr page. In context this makes sense now to me. There are some outstanding shots there in my opinion and to my taste. The OP obviously has excellent control over exposure and contrast. By itself, I personally thought also that the posted first photo was overexposed (that's not a bad thing) and low in contrast (not bad either). So that didn't work for me really either, which is again taste not criticism of skill set. But in context with a bunch of the other shots it started to make more sense to me and it actually creates a certain mood that is tangible.


----------

