Back-lit fantastic, or not?

Back-lighting is an age-old technique in underwater photography and one I thought I'd have a play at last night. I see these images very much as work in progress, but would like to hear what others think and benefit from any suggestions, while I am still in the field.

I did two versions. The first was the unsubtle one. Designed to add a bit of ooomph and impact to some frogfish portraits. After much experimentation I found that the best effects were when the backlighting strobe was about 1 metre behind the subject and several times brighter that the front lighting.

The second version was to shoot corals lit from within - a kind of burning bush or lava effect. These I like and they are much more subtle. The effect is nice and I think that there is an interesting shot in this idea - although I am not yet sure what it is.

Any comments?

Alex

IMHO, frog fish are tough subjects to "see" and I had a little trouble seeing the eye, mouth. Works well with the soft corals and anems.

I like the coral lit from within, I think it has great potential in coral scapes, like halloween lanterns and landscape lighting. Great idea.

The backlit stuff is also a great idea, but at least in these images I think it is a little too much. How about making a cone (snoot) to fit the strobe, and try to give more of a rim light effect(like a hairlight in the studio).

I presume you're just using the strobes as slave setups right?

I took a bunch of back-lit coral shots in Fakfak this past Feb, and ended up with a few nice ones! I'm ... 9 months late in posting trip images, but I'll try to dig this one up and post it when I'm back in Indo. I think there's great potential in the technique and often wonder why we don't see more of it (other than in cave photography, i mean).

I took a bunch of back-lit coral shots in Fakfak this past Feb, and ended up with a few nice ones! I'm ... 9 months late in posting trip images, but I'll try to dig this one up and post it when I'm back in Indo. I think there's great potential in the technique and often wonder why we don't see more of it (other than in cave photography, i mean).

Well, we've all used the sun for back-lit silhouette shots, which is pretty much what I've seen cave-divers use strobes for, but I agree, we could be doing a whole lot more with strobes. Looking forward to seeing your coral shots; I've been thinking about trying the same thing next trip.

What I'd REALLY love to see one of you experts try is the type of long exposure/multiple-strobe pics guys like Wes Skiles have done, firing them all around the cave (like his Diepolder series). Seems like that technique could make some great night-dive reefscapes too, and I've never seen anyone do it. Especially with digital, where it's so easy to overlay shots - with a tripod and patience, you might be able to do it yourself. If someone has tried that, and/or has pics that show it, I'd love to see them.

Hi Alex,

Because you don't see objects lighted this way on a real dive and rarely in UW images it is quite striking and interesting but it can also easily overpower the image. For me the last image works because the effect fills the frame and the shapely, but simple, shapes of the coral get accentuated without lighting and the actual object competing for attention. The "magma boulder" looks just odd to me, interesting when you see it for the first time but I expect it will become kitchy pretty quickly.

I'm not sure what to think of the frogfish, for me the lighting doesn't complement the fish and it makes it harder to see its facial features. However, it does prevent it from being yet another frogfish shot. OK for a change but not for repeated (mis)use. What I actually do like is all the mysis shrimp that light up in the background. Having the frogfish sit in the midst of this cloud of food drives back the message of the richness of the oceans.

Bart

Hi Alex,

 

Because you don't see objects lighted this way on a real dive and rarely in UW images it is quite striking and interesting but it can also easily overpower the image. For me the last image works because the effect fills the frame and the shapely, but simple, shapes of the coral get accentuated without lighting and the actual object competing for attention. The "magma boulder" looks just odd to me, interesting when you see it for the first time but I expect it will become kitchy pretty quickly.

 

I'm not sure what to think of the frogfish, for me the lighting doesn't complement the fish and it makes it harder to see its facial features. However, it does prevent it from being yet another frogfish shot. OK for a change but not for repeated (mis)use. What I actually do like is all the mysis shrimp that light up in the background. Having the frogfish sit in the midst of this cloud of food drives back the message of the richness of the oceans.

 

Bart

Hi Alex,

 

Because you don't see objects lighted this way on a real dive and rarely in UW images it is quite striking and interesting but it can also easily overpower the image. For me the last image works because the effect fills the frame and the shapely, but simple, shapes of the coral get accentuated without lighting and the actual object competing for attention. The "magma boulder" looks just odd to me, interesting when you see it for the first time but I expect it will become kitchy pretty quickly.

 

I'm not sure what to think of the frogfish, for me the lighting doesn't complement the fish and it makes it harder to see its facial features. However, it does prevent it from being yet another frogfish shot. OK for a change but not for repeated (mis)use. What I actually do like is all the mysis shrimp that light up in the background. Having the frogfish sit in the midst of this cloud of food drives back the message of the richness of the oceans.

 

Bart

please delete the above posts. I like to use a front and back light together. The front light makes the subject recognizable, and the back light adds the drama and texture. Ive tryed the technique with a 3rd slave stobe, with even more dramatic effects

Hi Alex,

If you ask me - it didn't work on the frogfish. The half-translucent corals are a much better subject for backlighting. I'd play some more with those....

Always good to play :-)

I tried to backlight the fish but its not very easy. There was small hole at the top of the coral which the strobe in its arm could reach over and fire down through. Not sure if its exactly a backlight technique but its still fun to try new things.

Here's one I shot in Fakfak in February. I like it a lot:

Very nice, Eric. My thoughts after trying it here was to try it with soft corals in the red sea in a few weeks. Now i'm extra motivated.

Alex

The frog fish didn't really work for me but the corals had a great deal of potential. I could see this technique working for alot of underwater subjects, it has made me think about a few local possibilities.

I like Eric's soft coral shot but I would have preferred a tighter crop on the coral.

Martin

Hi There,

i have been thinking about doing something like this for a while but haven't really had the opportunity until I was at Bikini Atoll where I tried back-light on some of the treasures on the flight deck of USS Saratoga. I will definitely give a try from what i have seen on this post.

Matti

http://www.mattiovaska.com/layout/0001/gallery_view.cfm?g=81

http://www.mattiovaska.com

Here is one other try at Bikini

Matti,

Thanks for the picture show! I really enjoyed all the pictures of the ships you took. Its a real treasure house of photos and nice to see that despite all these years and visitors that special pieces of history from the Mark V helmet to the crockery have been left alone. When my kids come home from school I think I will have them look through your photo albums too, well done!