Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Backlit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Backlit

    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.

  • #2
    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

    Comment


    • #3
      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


      • #4
        Oké thanks for answering.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
          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

          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"...

          Click image for larger version

Name:	_MG_0065 copiar.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	912.3 KB
ID:	1031023

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by edilsoncarlos View Post
            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"...

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]19453[/ATTACH]
            Hi, only the top of nose and fuselage is lit (white) - The rest is darker which shows it wasn't exposed to direct light and creates a poor contrast.
            Kind Regards

            Alex

            Comment


            • #7
              another photo that was rejected due backlit...

              Click image for larger version

Name:	_MG_0182 copiar.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,009.2 KB
ID:	1031038

              Please consider reformulating the "UPLOAD GUIDELINES"

              Comment


              • #8
                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


                • #9
                  Having had some rejections for backlit and not really understanding why the explanation given by Alex in this thread now makes it more clear! Thanks Alex

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                    Backlit is a particular argument point with me but with these two shots...
                    Care to elaborate? (just because I'm curious)

                    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


                    • #11
                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        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.
                        I think, when there is disagreement, we should take the positive side.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                          1. 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.
                          Focusing mostly on #3, I guess I'd say it should come down to "does the photo look good" as opposed to "can I find a technical definition in order to reject it".

                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Anyway- sometime, I need to take a class on how to read all of the goofy mode icons on my Cannon
                            I have four Canons within arm's reach, had a look and all four have their mode dials set to Av

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X