Creative Photography: Creative Approach to Light

One of the most compelling ideas of mine about photography regards working with light. That idea was to make multiple images of an object or scene, each using different lighting . We could use the same light source. Or, we can use various types of lighting, with varying qualities. Then, we can assign a new "color profile" to each image. We can alter the levels so as to make each one a different color, we can make one red, the other blue, and the third green. Then, once we merge the images together, we will see what it would look like if we were to use lights of various colors. We have effectively created a simulation. The results can differ in more than just color, as we can use lights such as lamps, or bulbs, which can each produce different quality of light. Now, instead of going into levels, we can even change other parameters in order to get more creative. Now, we can alter the levels in such a way as to create a more or less colored image. For instance, we can simulate a light source that is emitting totally red light, but we can also simulate the light as if it were emitting some white light as well, by playing around with the settings. It's interesting for sure, especially given that the options give us the ability to create more than the primary colors. We can also use secondary colors. One of the skills that I've tried to pursue for quite a while now
 is the photography of ice crystals. In this type of photography, this is the secret to obtaining the vividly mezmerizing images you might see in a book or gallery, but without the need for the use of colored LEDs. So this idea may have come to me from the art of light painting, in which you pretty much paint ssomething that already exists, but by using a light instead of a brush. I have yet to try the techniques listed here on this post. I think it would be really compelling if we were to use this on macros. We could theoretically use it on landscapes, if we could find a way to do that. One proposal would be to work at night. The advantage of this is that you don't have to work using sunlight. This means that you can change the quality of light whenever you want, without having to wait for the clouds to create diffused light, or until after sunset for ambiance. If it's already cloudy, well, then you won't have to wait for the sun to come out. The disadvantage would be that you would need a really long time to light the whole scene, especially if the scene is large. If the scene is something like a mountain scape, well... you might want to call off your photo session. And also, it takes lots of skill through experience when it comes to getting the lighting right, or just to your taste. That's because if you'd want to simulate a single point light source, you'd need to make sure that the light is in the same place the whole time. Unless of course that's what you're aiming for. Lighting the night lends itself to pretty much unlimited angles of lighting possible, since you can take a flashlight and move it 360 degrees. And you can also combine multiple angles of light, something that can't be done easily in the daytime without the use of reflections. But again, the sun only give you either sharp, or diffuse light at the same time. Now, there is yet another possibility that you could try out some day (have I said this earlier?). You can set up a camera outside, in the same place, and in the same position. And make sure that there are significant intervals of time between each picture. The intervals need to be long enough so that the angle of lighting is noticeably different between images. You may need to experiment with that. Now, even if you did this same thing, without changing levels, you might still get something pretty compelling results. In fact, I have never even tried this, although I have thought about it before. So; maybe you can try it out yourself sometime and tell me how it goes.
 Let's talk about another interesting approach to images. I have tried simulating longer shutter speeds before by combing multiple images. Does it work? Yes and No. See, what you need for an image like this, without a filter or low aperture setting, is a small time interval between images. This way, you can make for smoother transition of features, and the image will not be as choppy. This works best when using increasingly longer shutter speeds. In fact, the best method for producing these kinds of images would be to use a remote shutter release, and preferably a camera with a fast image processor, as well as a high grade of memory card. You know, that's the great thing about more modern cameras, is that they have faster processors. This is one of the most important features on a camera, IMO. And this means that there is another reason for why high resolution doesn't matter so much. More on that topic in the next discussion.