Available Light Portraits

[Hacker]

Some shots from today:

 

[waileong]

These don't stretch your available light capabilities.

 

[Hacker]

These don't stretch your available light capabilities.

Available light DOES NOT equate to low light. No flash .

 

[waileong]

Available light DOES NOT equate to low light. No flash .

Doesn't make sense. If so, any shot at 1/500 at f16 in full sunlight can also be called "Available Light" shot.

 

[Hacker]

Doesn't make sense. If so, any shot at 1/500 at f16 in full sunlight can also be called "Available Light" shot.

You don't make any sense also, if I have a 500mm lens and speed is 1/250. Everything has a context. You have a single dimension, shuter speed.

 

[Hacker]

Here is one shot where the shutter speed is lower than the focal length. In fact, if the 1.33x is included...anyway, everyone knows what I mean. So I'm terribly flattered where these photos are not considered "stretched".

 

[Anjinnete Ross]

I think it was Eugene Smith who said that "Available light" is "Any light that is available".

If I had given the wrong words, I apologise. But I think that the essence is correct.

I do not recall Gene Smith saying anything about shutter speed or aperture.

 

[night86mare]

These don't stretch your available light capabilities.

Doesn't make sense. If so, any shot at 1/500 at f16 in full sunlight can also be called "Available Light" shot.

catch no ball here

What is available light photography? The title actually tells it all, available light photography (whether film or digital) simply means using whatever light is present on the scene to take the picture. Whenever you snap a picture outdoors of a sunset or of your annual family get-together, you're involved in available light photography. Normally, however, 'available light' usually refers to taking photos indoors, with only the normal room lighting used to take the shot. Now that doesn't mean that you can't take advantage of daylight coming in through your windows or glass doors, in fact, outdoor light coming into a room can make some of the best available light photos. It also doesn't mean that you can't help the situation a bit by reflecting some of that available light onto the right spots in your photographs.

from here

Available light. A general term implying relatively dim light that already exists where a photograph is to be made.

from here

in any case, it's just a term, i have no idea why you choose to whack a photograph series based on the thread title; if i want to call a horse a duck, and post the photo in a thread saying "the duck" because i am reminded of a duck by the horse, it is up to me; in my view being constructive would be offering improvement on composition, and even suggestion on how to improve the idea of the duck in the horse etc instead of bustling and hustling over technicalities

for example, what sort of photograph do you consider night photo? just after sunset when there is still some glow in the sky considered night or not? no one really knows, opinions differ, so TERMINOLOGIES, where subjective should not be disputed, else one would appear to be not just nitpicking, but raring for a flame war

cheers

anyways, ts - nice photographs, extremely sharp

 

[waileong]

You don't make any sense also, if I have a 500mm lens and speed is 1/250. Everything has a context. You have a single dimension, shuter speed.

I don't think you get the spirit of the term. Esp. in the context of rangefinder photography.

PS I pointed out more than one dimension.

 

[waileong]

This is not "whacking". I'm not interested in his composition, or indeed, in the pictures themselves, which are just kids pix.

This is not about being pedantic. Words and phrases exist for a reason, they have a meaning that is generally understood, and to use them in ways other than how they are generally understood can causes confusion and misunderstanding.

You can do what you want (ie call a horse a duck) but if other people don't agree with you and they point that out, that's not "whacking", it's simply that people find your usage of terms funny. And no, I have no intention of giving you advice on how to make a picture of a horse more like a duck.

Flame wars do not start until people become personally insulting or make derogatory comments ("sucks", "should be trashed", etc). I haven't insulted anyone yet, and I don't intend to unless I have to do so in retaliation.

But that doesn't mean that I cannot point out what I feel to be an inappropriate usage of the term "available light". As one of your references pointed out, the spirit of "available light" is to take photos in dim light. The term came about as an anthithesis to assisted light photography, ie flash photography. Full sunlight at high noon is not "dim" by any reasonable definition, so it doesn't matter if you're using a 1000 mm lens at 1/125, that cannot be reasonably termed "available" light photography in the spirit of the term.

I don't need you or the TS to agree with me on anything. But how you react shows how you take feedback. If this is the reaction to a simple and modest clarification on my part, I think it's not worthwhile for me to give any feedback on any other aspects of the pix. It will be a waste of my time.

in any case, it's just a term, i have no idea why you choose to whack a photograph series based on the thread title; if i want to call a horse a duck, and post the photo in a thread saying "the duck" because i am reminded of a duck by the horse, it is up to me; in my view being constructive would be offering improvement on composition, and even suggestion on how to improve the idea of the duck in the horse etc instead of bustling and hustling over technicalities

for example, what sort of photograph do you consider night photo? just after sunset when there is still some glow in the sky considered night or not? no one really knows, opinions differ, so TERMINOLOGIES, where subjective should not be disputed, else one would appear to be not just nitpicking, but raring for a flame war

 

[cocoa]

What waileong said.

(But heh, don't rain his parade lah. If wat a summilux produced is not "available light portarits". wat is:bsmilie:
After all, "-lux" stands for "light" ma )

cocoa

 

[night86mare]

I don't need you or the TS to agree with me on anything. But how you react shows how you take feedback. If this is the reaction to a simple and modest clarification on my part, I think it's not worthwhile for me to give any feedback on any other aspects of the pix. It will be a waste of my time.

it is the tone and nature of your posting that i do not agree with, one liners without much explanation seem very condescending, in my book

if you must comment, at least elaborate, it is only polite, so that people do not go one whole round due to misunderstanding, if you look, most of the misunderstandings in cs occur precisely because of that

note that i'm not talking about sugar-coating your comments, by all means be brutal, but at least be brutal with reason; even comment like "i do not see the duck in the horse, because there is no link - but blah blah blah" is superior to "this is not a duck, this is a horse" - both are polite and surgical, perhaps, but definitely my feel is that the first will be more-received than the second because of this small thing called "effort"

and btw, "how i react to your feedback"? these are not my photos, just thought i'd post something up to clarify the definition, i am a literal person, so to me available light simply means, using whatever light is available - which is also the case mentioned in some sources, cheers

 

[waileong]

it is the tone and nature of your posting that i do not agree with, one liners without much explanation seem very condescending, in my book

What tone? What nature? My first post-- "these do not stretch your available light capabilities"-- how is that condescending? I think it would be more condescending if I wrote "you don't know what's available light".

I've moved from writing long, meandering posts to writing short, incisive sentences. I don't want to be lor sor. And for now I intend to stay that way.

 

[Hacker]

What tone? What nature? My first post-- "these do not stretch your available light capabilities"-- how is that condescending?

Whatever it is, it does not seem to be working from the PMs that I have received and the posts here. Your remarks definitely sound disparaging and belittling to me as the TS, not only here, but elsewhere.

 

[waileong]

Whatever it is, it does not seem to be working from the PMs that I have received and the posts here. Your remarks definitely sound disparaging and belittling to ne as the TS, not only here, but elsewhere.

As you wish.

 

[chiif]

Cool guys... let's look at pictures and not nick pick on grammar and words.

Hacker, I must say that your kids are really sporting. Especially your eldest daughter. Is your wife looking at the pictures? My wife would definitely frown when she sees my boy lying on the floor and both hands flat on the ground...

 

[Hacker]

Hacker, I must say that your kids are really sporting. Especially your eldest daughter. Is your wife looking at the pictures? My wife would definitely frown when she sees my boy lying on the floor and both hands flat on the ground...

The two girls are actually my nieces. The one in pink is the younger sister. For seeing my boy with his hands on the floor, we have all but given up. Used to take out the antiseptic wash and the anti-bacteria wipes . Now, even he eats non-organic food and is recently weaned off his mother. And yes, he gets the occasional biscuit, chocolate and ice cream treat ;p.

The girls are sporting, but the boy, that is a different story altogether. Look at him here:

If he would only sit still like his cousins....

 

[grainpixel]

thou, not perfect shots...but good shots, nevertheless..:thumbsup:
love the warmness of the images that i am seeing...
there will always be some who will put others down...
guess ignoring them seems like the best option, as least in clubsnap...