Light Painting or not?

[Jim Dockery]

I think this is one of my better light painting attempts, taken at The Devil's Garden, UT. While I like it, it doesn't feel as real as the non-painted version. Personally I don't like visiting a popular spot where a bunch of people are painting - obviously it intrudes on the experience of others - but I never say anything and figure that's what I should expect close to the road in a national park. For the most part I've decided it isn't worth my effort.

 

[Ben Egbert]

In general I find most night photography basically for web posting as it is generally too dark to print. Also I know from experience that even the milky was is hard to see and the entire scene far darker than our cameras with a long exposure will render.

That said, the second is far more authentic than the first even though it is well done light painting.

 

[AlanLichty]

I am inclined to go for the second image here with the silhouettes.

I have tried light painting and at the time liked the results but after looking at the results it sank in that the light painted versions didn't really look realistic at all. I might try taking multiple exposures to get some light in the ground level scenery next time I go out just to see how well that works for me. It does seem to give some pretty worthwhile results from images I have seen posted on here.

 

[Mike Lewis]

I like both images - but certainly agree that the one without light painting is more realistic to what your eye would record.

For me though personally, I am not sure if that realism is all that important in nightscapes or astrophotography. I shoot a lot of deep sky astrophotography using many multiple exposures to bring out faint objects, most of which that are absolutely never going to be visible to the naked eye. Furthermore, a number of objects are shot through narrowband filters to isolate prominent details of an object that is radiating light at wavelengths that the human eye cannot even detect. And for those images, the color palette used (that is, how one maps images shot with a particular wavelength narrowband filter to the visible spectrum) is completely arbitrary.

So just speaking for me, in a case like the images you have shown above, I have absolutely no problem with the less-realistic light painted version, (and in fact for me I prefer that version), as long as it is made clear that light painting was used, as you have obviously done here.

But it really is a personal preference thing.

As to the impact of light painters on the rest of the observers and photographers that might be arriving at a potential scene, that part is more problematic. If it were me, I would probably try to seek out more deserted areas, or if I wanted to image something more well known/closer to the road, I would not walk up and start light painting if there were others there who would be bothered by it (I would I guess ask first essentially.) Of course, in the real world, I am sure that does not always happen.

Nice set, both are fun, I do like the light painted version better, as it shows a little more context, and the light painting has been done in a very understated way that manages to add instead of detract from the sky scene.

ML

 

[JimFox]

Hey Jim,

As someone who does photograph a lot of night skies, I do prefer #1 over #2. Now #2 does have an appeal, but probably because it's the type of view we don't see much anymore.

I will typically time my shooting at night to go with a phase of the moon that will naturally light up the foreground. But I will use light painting too. When I do light paint if there are others around photographing at night they usually also will want to light paint, so in most of my experiences the light painting becomes a cooperative experience. Now I do have some from Joshua Tree last yea where people were hiking and moving to a new location in the dark with their headlamps on, and from where I was I actually just used their lighting to my advantage as they were too far away to talk with.

I think as Mike very well put it, we do enjoy the views of the night sky even though it's not realistic. We can't see the Nebula's that get captured with sometimes hundreds of images stacked together, but most of us enjoy the end product. And often we can't see the Milky Way as well visually in person as it ends up being captured in the camera. But I will say I have been to dark area's where I have been able to see the Milky Way just as well as my camera captured it. So I know it's possible and can be realistic.

Perhaps it's because I have been taking photos of the night skies for over 45 years now. I have so many fond memories of camping out in Joshua tree as a teenager, and setting up my camera outside my tent and locking the shutter open for 6 or 7 hours to capture the night sky. The results were never realistic, but they were magical.

And excellent comments by Mike in trying to put it all into perspective.

 

[Kyle Jones]

One thing I really like doing when I light paint is to take an exposure without the light painting so I can easily blend in the exact amount of extra light I want in Photoshop. I had fun one night in Yosemite taking separate frames with light painting from different directions so I could blend together just the detail I wanted. Adding some coloring to simulate gels is fun too. Overall I don't aim for realism in night shots. Realism is dark. I see it as a canvas that I can use to create the image I want. To me this is easier at night because my lighting can overpower darkness more easily than it can overpower the sun.

 

[Leslie Hunter]

I like the first one, so I like the light painting.

 

[Jim Dockery]

Thanks for all the comments.

I meant to mention your excellent shots with just the right amount of moonlight Jim (some of the best astro-landscapes I've seen!). That is my new goal to aspire to.

Good advice on doing two exposures for blending Kyle, another thing I often do.

 

[Tom Narwid]

I think this is one of my better light painting attempts, taken at The Devil's Garden, UT. While I like it, it doesn't feel as real as the non-painted version. Personally I don't like visiting a popular spot where a bunch of people are painting - obviously it intrudes on the experience of others - but I never say anything and figure that's what I should expect close to the road in a national park. For the most part I've decided it isn't worth my effort.

View attachment 14068

View attachment 14069

I like them both Jim.....the rock detail has a slight edge !

 

[JimFox]

Thanks for all the comments.

I meant to mention your excellent shots with just the right amount of moonlight Jim (some of the best astro-landscapes I've seen!). That is my new goal to aspire to.

Good advice on doing two exposures for blending Kyle, another thing I often do.

Thank you Jim for those kind words. I have had too many years of following the concept of getting it right in the camera, which with film was pretty much of a necessity. So I always tried to apply that as much as possible with my night sky shooting in trying to get the right amount of light from the moon to just paint the ground layer enough while not washing out the stars. It's a fun balancing act.