Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Ok , I have a bee in my bonnet. Since I joined Epz I have seen numerous examples of GND filters being used incorrectly. This is of course my opinion and it is an opinion based on the fact that a reflection can never be brighter than its source - this is an opinion which I always thought was generally accepted as true.
The last time I started a thread on this I was informed that it was all a little pointless without examples by a forum guru, so this time i'll use an example - Keithh's shot of Selwick Stack. I am sure he wont mind as he was the Guru that informed me it was pointless without examples in the first place 
Although over a hundred clicks will say I am wrong the first thing I noticed when I looked at it was that the reflection of the sun is brighter than the sun itself, leading to more burnt highlights in the water. I believe that this has occured in an attempt to lighten the attractive f/g rhs rocks.
Of course creative license allows any photographer to alter relative contrast in a scene as they wish but here the artist is argueing that the relative brightness of the reflection and source are 'as were' and furthermore that this is not an unusual state of affairs.
I cannot accept this and feel that a myth that reflections can be brighter than the source ( without the intervention of filters or dual exposures) is just plain wrong and may lead to other people making the same mistake.
Whilst I guess we could all post our 'opinions' as I am doing here it seems that we would need science to intervene to actually provide any truth above and beyond these opinions.
Science isnt one of my strongpoints but ill give it a try. Any light source emits energy in the form of photons. This 'energy' hits a surface and reflects - for the reflection to be brighter than the source then more 'energy' in the form of more photons than were originally present must be omitted in the reflection. Energy cannot just be created or destroyed , it can only be changed from one form to another (first law of thermodynamics) therefore for the reflection to be brighter than the source there would need to be an energy source external to the original system - which there is not,water does not emit light of its own accord. Hopefully we have some physicists members who can correct my clumsy guessworkd above;-O Wont I look the goober if I am wrong....
My rather laboured point?
Well I figured that this is a place where people join because they wish to improve their photography. For me it is fundamental that, for natural looking refelctions, the reflection is never brighter than the source. In changing light conditions it easy to leave the grad you had on when you metered 2 mins ago and assume that it will be right ( I know that I do!) but its always worth double checking. If we wish our images to obey the laws of physics then just make sure that the reflection is in check 
Of course if you wish to have a brigher reflection for whatever creative reason then feel free...
I realise that long drawn out posts are not the norm (....unless they are about clicks ) but if only one person reads this and understands the point then it will be worth the ridicule from others for any typos, minor ommissions and for trying to be serious for a moment
Dons hard hat, gets coat, pours a large glass of jagermeister and prepares for the football.....
....and the sea never looks like mist, and clouds are never blurred and stars never create trails in the sky and waterfalls do not appear like milk and death valley is not a lurid shade of acid and the world is not black and white...
...and I've been waiting for this thread to start up.
...I must remember tomorrow morning that Any light source emits energy in the form of photons. This 'energy' hits a surface and reflects - for the reflection to be brighter than the source then more 'energy' in the form of more photons than were originally present must be omitted in the reflection. Energy cannot just be created or destroyed , it can only be changed from one form to another (first law of thermodynamics) therefore for the reflection to be brighter than the source there would need to be an energy source external to the original system - which there is not,water does not emit light of its own accord.
yeah right
It might be foolish of me to wade into this one but ...
While I would agree that refelected radiation cannot have more energy than the incident radiation, it can easily appear like that in a photograph. The example picture has a small sun area which is 'burnt out' and could easily be be 'burnt out' by a factor of 10 or more but this cannot be recorded by the camera. The reflection of the sun is spread out as is a reflection from a rough surface, so appears larger/brighter even though the burnt out section of reflection may only be burnt out by a factor of 2 ...
Bernard
I don't use a 5D so I don't know.
...I'm not debunking your theory...I'm saying that I don't care.
although water is a light source if the source of the reflection is not included in the photograph...in this case it is....but I repeat...I don't care.
Do you think someone looking at this on a wall, says - 'mmmm...a reflective light source brighter than the original source, I don't think so?'
Do you?...really?
Really?
LOL
g'night...and I'll read between the lines as usual.
...or is that being a smart arse?
Would some moderator pleeeeez turn Keefs picture the right way up so we can unsubscribe safely.
The example picture has a small sun area which is 'burnt out' and could easily be be 'burnt out' by a factor of 10 or more but this cannot be recorded by the camera. The reflection of the sun is spread out as is a reflection from a rough surface,
Well, to a point Berhard but a diffuse surface will decrease reflectance - thats why we all strive after still surfaces isnt it? I would still rely on the original science - it cannot bee brighter.
Do you think someone looking at this on a wall, says - 'mmmm...a reflective light source brighter than the original source, I don't think so?
I know that I would, which is all I can speak for.
and I'll read between the lines as usual.
...or is that being a smart arse
Keith, as you said to me a few months ago - its pointless without an example- you also told me you didnt care then also so theres nothing new there.
Whilst I tried to make the post as friendly as possible it wouldnt have taken a rocket scientist to know how you might respond to any constructive criticism, even when this is really just an example to try and make a broader point which, as I say, I thought was universally accepted. I had actually hoped for a little debate rather than the bog standard defensive scowl which I have seen so often, from day one of me joining. The post makes no reference to the image, apart from being an example of a reflection being brigher than the source - its not like I dissed it, your clicks are still safe and will continue regardless of what is said in here as you know.
I repeat, there are alot of fairly inexperienced photogs on here and the posts intention is to try to help them.
Interesting topic Russ. In general, you are right. A reflection should be a little darker than the source. Any light that makes it underwater can be absorbed, reducing the amount reflected on the surface. It always looks that way to the eye because we see in a series of instants. I have overgradded from time to time and it was an accident, but in the example you gave, I'm sure that Keith decided to make it that way.
Now, on camera exposures longer than the small fraction of a second of a human-eye 'exposure', things change significantly!
Imagine that you have a crystal-clear and somewhat dark blue sky right after sunset and an ocean. You take a 1 minute exposure with no grads at all. What would you get? A soft, bright white ocean that is much brighter than the dark blue sky above it (except for the point where the sun just set). But how can that be, if with your eyes, the water is darker than the sky?
It is because the summation of thousands of waves are reflecting light that originated at the very bright spot where the sun just set, back to the camera from thousands of angles across the surface of the water. And it adds up to the water being brighter than the sky.
To a lesser extent, that is what happened in Keith's photo. Thereby making it just as 'legit' as any other camera or film effect like B&W.
Patrick
Quote: even when this is really just an example to try and make a broader point which, as I say, I thought was universally accepted
By scientists or photographers?
Never in a million years would that have occurred to me and even after reading this, it definately won't influence me to use neutral density filters "properly". Even if I were so inclined.
Quote: ....and the sea never looks like mist, and clouds are never blurred and stars never create trails in the sky and waterfalls do not appear like milk and death valley is not a lurid shade of acid and the world is not black and white...
About sums it up. Beautiful photos are a result of the photographer's vision, not science. You make a photo, you don't take it.
Patrick , thanks for a reasoned and well thought out reply.
>overgradded from time to time and it was an accident, but in the example you gave, I'm sure that Keith decided to make it that way.
As have we all have I am sure. Keiths reply to my original comment to his image stated that the sea was brighter at the time, rather than this being a creative choice on the artists behalf.
The 3rd and 4th paragraphs are points well made, indeed on exposures of just 20 seconds I have recorded the sea as milk but I think that this and what we see in the image discussed is a different thing so we will have to diverge there. The exposure time doesnt seem long enough to me.
Finally the point was never really if the image was legit ( or wasnt supposed to be) You must have seen many many images like me in the galleries where Gnds are over used and reflections are too bright. I was trying to give a friendly nudge to these folks.
>Never in a million years would that have occurred to me and even after reading this, it definately won't influence me to use neutral density filters "properly". Even if I were so inclined.
So how do you meter for grads then? Just stick any old grad on and think 'cool that'll do it!' To not wish to use grads correctly strikes as me strange - why not save yourself the trouble and expense of buying and using them in the first place?
>Beautiful photos are a result of the photographer's vision, not science. You make a photo, you don't take it.
Well its a result of both to be honest, if you dont understand the science how will create the vision you have? Anyway you miss the point - as I stated in the original post 'IF' you want to use grads to create something different feel free.
I have absolutely no objection to constructive criticism..never have, never will have...but I simply don't get the point of this thread..it is a pointless waste of time.
Right..for one..on your example which just so happens to be one of mine (no surprise there then), I used just the right amount of grads on the sky to retain as much detail as I could...not too many - the right amount. Now this may result in the reflection being brighter than the source...but I for one do not care. For one it's a reflection in a moving object and is therefore larger than the source and may or may not be brighter....what does it matter?
Now if you can explain, clearly and sensibly why this should matter and yet long exposures of water shouldn't...then maybe I'll take your bonnet of bees seriously.
...and now suddenly the exposure time is wrong....LOL
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top