<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Contre-jour</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wongablog.co.uk/2007/09/12/contre-jour/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2007/09/12/contre-jour/</link>
	<description>like balloons, only with dancing</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:48:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: PooterGeek</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2007/09/12/contre-jour/#comment-6260</link>
		<dc:creator>PooterGeek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=2649#comment-6260</guid>
		<description>Thank you.

Everyone was lovely and the day went smoothly, but that wedding was difficult, solely because of lighting. Very little of it took place outside and what did was under intense sunshine in a treeless part of central London---with no usable architectural shade. White human faces don't look good in strong summer afternoon sunlight. Who wants to be photographed squinting while downward-cast shadows are pick out every wrinkle?

Indoors, the light was either low tungsten or stark sidelight so I used far more flash than I wanted to and the reception rooms were small so the results included a lot of stark shadows on walls, which I hate, even when I used bounce and/or a flash diffuser. This week I bought yet another diffuser in the hope of reducing this in future.

So it was nice to take advantage of one of the disadvantages when I could. That set includes a handful of backlit shots. When I got the one you link to, I'm pretty sure I took an exposure lock on a dark grey wall the same colour as those in the shot, but outside the frame-of-view. The wall in question was lit by daylight coming through open patio windows on the right-hand side of the room. I wanted the details of the Globe theatre to be visible, but I didn't want all the colour from the balloon and the girl to be lost to silhouette. If I could do it again I might have let a little more light in, but otherwise I'm pleased. (If I can find the exact settings for that frame on the relevant databack I'll post them here.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>Everyone was lovely and the day went smoothly, but that wedding was difficult, solely because of lighting. Very little of it took place outside and what did was under intense sunshine in a treeless part of central London&#8212;with no usable architectural shade. White human faces don&#8217;t look good in strong summer afternoon sunlight. Who wants to be photographed squinting while downward-cast shadows are pick out every wrinkle?</p>
<p>Indoors, the light was either low tungsten or stark sidelight so I used far more flash than I wanted to and the reception rooms were small so the results included a lot of stark shadows on walls, which I hate, even when I used bounce and/or a flash diffuser. This week I bought yet another diffuser in the hope of reducing this in future.</p>
<p>So it was nice to take advantage of one of the disadvantages when I could. That set includes a handful of backlit shots. When I got the one you link to, I&#8217;m pretty sure I took an exposure lock on a dark grey wall the same colour as those in the shot, but outside the frame-of-view. The wall in question was lit by daylight coming through open patio windows on the right-hand side of the room. I wanted the details of the Globe theatre to be visible, but I didn&#8217;t want all the colour from the balloon and the girl to be lost to silhouette. If I could do it again I might have let a little more light in, but otherwise I&#8217;m pleased. (If I can find the exact settings for that frame on the relevant databack I&#8217;ll post them here.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
