cgardner
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Its not a trivial undertaking where you can just show up with a camera, tripod and flash and expect results on par with what his clients might see in Architectural Digest. You don't necessarily need to go to the same extremes, but you probably will want to plan to first do a test shoot, evaluate the results after trying to piece together a layer-cake in Photoshop, then adjust the plan as necessary for subsequent scenes.
Since the goal is to show the lighting design you need to understand how to translate what the eye sees perceptionally as it selectively scans the landscape into photo which will evoke the same emotional response. Often creating a similar emotional response to a scene in a photo requires capturing it differently than seen by eye because when looking at a photo the viewer doesn't have the context of what is "outside the frame" and tend to see everything at once rather than selectively adapting to color and brightness as the eye scans the scene. In simpler terms you need to know how to fake it during capture to make it look and more importantly FEEL real in the photo.
In a still photo its eye movement which translates into a sensation of movement. A garden full of bright lights can either cause a viewer's eye to ping-ball randomly around the photo creating a feeling of chaos, or follow a path of clues like breadcrumbs from foreground into background coming to rest on the intended the focal point of the garden at night. Surely the designer had these same concerns when designing the lighting plan, so it just a matter of having the technical skills to translate it into a photograph.
When composing each shot you should have planned focal point where you want the viewer to travel to and come to rest at. For example if there is a feature in the garden like a fountain, pond, gazebo, etc. you'd want to frame the shot so its in the background, and brighter than the foreground so its contrast will pull the viewer over the foreground seeing everything else on the way too it.
Let take a hypothetical example:
A curved path of pavers lined with flower beds with regularly spaced lighting fixtures leading to a white gazebo with an interior light. When looking at that scene in person the eye would follow the path, constantly shifting focus and exposure as it moves until it reaches the gazebo. Even though there is no artificial light on the gazebo, the rod cells of the eyes, which are 3000x more sensitive than the cones, will still allow you to see detail on the exterior.
To duplicate that same visual experience in a photo would first require creating a path of contrast between the foreground and background. The path in the foreground needs to be darker than the path near the gazebo to help pull the eye down the path in the photo and the outside of the gazebo would need to be as visible in the photo, or ideally a bit more contrasting, so it would become the natural focal point where the eye stops moving. To get that effect in a photo you'd need to add light selectively to the outside of the gazebo. Also the light on the path would need to be perceptually the same as the light fixtures. The eye will adapt to the fact they are brighter by closing the pupil but in a photo both can't be captured that way in a single exposure. Creating that realistic look for the lighting alone will require multiple exposures and quite a bit of post-processing layering and blending because the camera records a scene much differently.
In addition to the lighting you'd face a huge technical challenge with DOF and near/far perspective in a shot like that. A wide angle lens will provide greater coverage and DOF at a given distance, but by virtue of the camera being much closer in relative terms to the foreground than the background it would make the first light on the path look huge and the intended focal point, the gazebo in the background, very small by comparison. There would be to solutions to that situation: either reverse the composition and put the gazebo in the foreground and the path in the background leading up to it from the background (not a bad idea if the gazebo is behind the house seen in the background) or alternately move Wa-a-a-a-y back and shoot the scene with a longer lens. Moving back changes the near/far relationship between foreground and background, making the gazebo appear larger in the photo than in the WA shot taken closer. Its the relative distance between foreground/background and camera, not focal length, which controls perspective.
Also when shooting remember to capture wide, medium and close-up views. The wide shots set the context, and the med. and wide shots better reveal the details. Since photo after photo of empty gardens can get pretty boring consider enlisting some models to help frame or add interest to the photos.
|
