What do the screeners in jetphotos refere to as backlit? Backlit = source of light at the back of the object. Camera-object-light. Not camera-light-object. When the sun is high in the sky maybe you can say that the back is lit but that is not backlit. Juist let me know so I know what your definition is about backlit.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Backlit
Collapse
X
-
Backlit is all about the main source of light. On an overcast day you might have the covered sun behind you but the white clouds in the background produce more light. So it's not always about the position of the sun only. For reference, JP screeners look at the tail, if it's in its own shadow, then we consider it as backlit
Kind Regards
Alex
-
Usually when the tail of the aircraft is in the shade, we consider that situation backlit. Also, if the light is stronger behind the aircraft due to heavy clouds covering the sun with a clear sky behind the aircraft, that situation would also be considered backlit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View PostBacklit is all about the main source of light. On an overcast day you might have the covered sun behind you but the white clouds in the background produce more light. So it's not always about the position of the sun only. For reference, JP screeners look at the tail, if it's in its own shadow, then we consider it as backlit
Kind Regards
Alex
I'll take this topic to avoid creating another.
This my photo was rejected by "backlit"
She is not backlit! Look at the light on the tail, look at the shadow of the appendix in the tail...
"For reference, JP screeners look at the tail, if it's in its own shadow, then we consider it as backlit"...
Comment
-
Originally posted by edilsoncarlos View PostI'll take this topic to avoid creating another.
This my photo was rejected by "backlit"
She is not backlit! Look at the light on the tail, look at the shadow of the appendix in the tail...
"For reference, JP screeners look at the tail, if it's in its own shadow, then we consider it as backlit"...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]19453[/ATTACH]
Kind Regards
Alex
Comment
-
Backlit is a particular argument point with me but with these two shots I agree that they are backlit. On the Bell the tail rotor transfer shaft cover is in shadow together with the large majority of the fuselage main body and the Cessna fin and body are also in shadow.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostBacklit is a particular argument point with me but with these two shots...
While I claim only small amounts of photography expertise, the photos provided do not appear to be "well lit". We could argue if it's REALLY backlit, or maybe just perfect-straight-down lit, but the aircraft parts that face us (the big Cessna and the chopper) seem underexposed (regardless if you can see a shadow or not).
Do we need a better terminology such as not_front lit?
As to 1/3-2/3 composure...mass failure.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
I have long argued in favour of top lit shots on the grounds that the side closest to the photographer is sufficiently well lit to show clearly visible detail.
However, the two shots in question here have areas closest to the photographer that are in shadow which in Jetphotos terms defines a backlit shot.
It’s a question really of where do you draw the line. The closer you get to the line, the more difficult the decision making becomes.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostI have long argued in favour of top lit shots on the grounds that the side closest to the photographer is sufficiently well lit to show clearly visible detail.
However, the two shots in question here have areas closest to the photographer that are in shadow which in Jetphotos terms defines a backlit shot.
It’s a question really of where do you draw the line. The closer you get to the line, the more difficult the decision making becomes.
Alternatively, you can come up with another/new reason, not backlit, because it is not backlit in the In the clear sense of the word ''backlit''.
I mean especially in the case of the helicopter.
As for the airplane, I also have doubts. I confess.
Just my 2 cents in this issue.
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View Post1. I have long argued in favour of top lit shots on the grounds that the side closest to the photographer is sufficiently well lit to show clearly visible detail.
2. However, the two shots in question here have areas closest to the photographer that are in shadow which in Jetphotos terms defines a backlit shot.
3. It’s a question really of where do you draw the line. The closer you get to the line, the more difficult the decision making becomes.
The two shots (2) do look rather shady / under exposed, even though one might argue that there's no "back light"- "by definition".
Anyway- sometime, I need to take a class on how to read all of the goofy mode icons on my Cannon. The old Pentax 1000 and Black and White ASA-400 didn't have all that modern icon language crap on it.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
Comment