roycebair Loc: Utah, USA

Hi! Until now, I've only been a lurker in this section. I made my first response today on a Mirror lock topic.

Yesterday, I started a regular "photo gallery" discussion on a Night Work tutorial in Zion N.P. Today, I continued that tutorial with a discussion on light painting.

I realized that this part of the discussion might be more appropriate here, where there might be stronger opinions about mixing landscape light painting and astro photography!

Definitions: BTW, I define "NightScapes" as night skies with a landscape feature -- some refer to this style as "astro-landscapes".

My personal opinion is that light painting should only be used in natural NightScape photography if it will enhance the recognition of the land feature and not distract from it. If one just adds light painting as a gimmick to the NightScape, then I feel it is out of place --there are already groups that have a following for splashy, light painting photos.

Still, there are those that feel that any light painting on a natural landscape is distracting and should be avoided. What is your opinion?

You be the judge: In the comparison photo below, I show my NightScape of The Organ with and w/o light painting, and I'll let you judge for yourself: Is it appropriate here? I try to be subtle, and not too over-powering. I feel that the correct light painting provides an opportunity to show the natural landscape in a new "light" (pun intended). For instance, The Organ is facing North. It only gets light on this side during the month of June, when the sun is in its northern-most seasonal cycle. However, because the canyon is so deep here at The Bend, only the tip gets that light, and never the front. Good light paint not only can enhance recognition, but it can show off enhanced texture to a feature never seen by natural man. (For instance, compare the beautiful color and texture of the front sandstone of The Organ in the before and after photo below, to this daylight view.)

Please let me hear your feedback and opinions...

BTW, the photo below is a single exposure of 30 seconds, taken with a Canon 5D Mark III, using a LF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens @ f/3.5 • ISO 6400. (In this extreme wide angle view, the high canyon wall behind me is shown at the top of this image.) Light painting info is scheduled to be discussed next week in this thread.

Before and after light painting of "The Organ" in Zion N.P.

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

No expert here, I like the light painting.
For me, I compliments the overall look of the image. Well, in this case, since you have a lot of ground included.
Pat

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

What is splashy.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.I like both.

Nice work.

Algol Loc: Georgia

I think it adds to the photo, if you prefer a photo without it, then take one without the foreground. Check out Wally Pacholka's photos of Comet Hale-Bopp at: http://www.newcreations.net/comet/page2.htm
Tom Bopp presented on of Wally's photos to me several years ago, they are truly amazing when seen in person.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I love the added light painting. I consider it a "Twofer", doubling the quality of work.

roycebair Loc: Utah, USA

Wally has been doing this style of astro-landscape photography longer than anyone I know. Imagine having Tom Bopp present you with a Hale-Bopp comet photo!

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Again,what did you mean when you wrote "splashy"?

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

Click on the words, "splashy, light painting" for his examples of.
Pat

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Thanx Pat,
I looked at the photos,all were examples of dynamic balance not static balance as demonstrated in his examples.
I guess I should ask"could you expand on your use of the adjective"splashy".
I am taken back that the author has not responded.
Thanx for jumping in though.Cheers.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

If you have something to contribute, do so. If you are looking for an argument, take your comments somewhere else.
Members Algol & Jay Pat understand OP's comment. I understand OP's comment. The problem is not with OP.

roycebair Loc: Utah, USA

By "splashy", I mean "colorful" and drawing attention unto themselves (the technique). I find many of the images in this splashy light painting group, colorful and fun to look at. My type of light painting should not draw a lot of attention to itself and the technique. Instead, it should enhance and draw attention to the landscape. I take great pains to make my technique more subtle and more natural with the landscape. If you're interested in how I do this, follow this thread.

Sorry, I did not respond yesterday, but I usually take Sundays off to be with my family and the friends in front of me --rather than my virtual friends ;-)

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Thanx Royce,
I understand the difference. Beautiful work.

Wheezer1

I think painting light on the foreground just made a great picture better. It adds interest and gives the picture a greater depth.
Please post more.