# Lost in the Fog



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

First from a recent shoot.. still a work in progress - C&C appreciated.


----------



## JonA_CT (Nov 4, 2017)

Cool idea...any reason she couldn’t actually hold the lantern though? No one would hold a lantern like that, and it’s what tipped me off immediately that it was a composite.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> Cool idea...any reason she couldn’t actually hold the lantern though? No one would hold a lantern like that, and it’s what tipped me off immediately that it was a composite.



???

This isn't a composite. She was holding the lantern. Only the fog and darkness were added in PS.



And plenty of people hold a lantern like that.


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2017)

It may not be a composite but it does look a bit strange for her not to be using all four fingers to hold a large lantern.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 4, 2017)

Disregarding the way she is holding the lantern (she's a girl maybe she hasn't ever had to hold one), I really like the image. I know from personal experience how hard it is to get fog right in post, yet you've blended it in well.


----------



## Donde (Nov 4, 2017)

Truth be told I like it better with out the fog.


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Disregarding the way she is holding the lantern (*she's a girl maybe she hasn't ever had to hold one*), I really like the image. I know from personal experience how hard it is to get fog right in post, yet you've blended it in well.



I can assure you, women hold lanterns, too.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

Thanks for pointing out that fourth finger thing. I should have noticed it. But the lantern was heavy for her so I had to just take the snap. I will see if I can fix that in PS.


----------



## Donde (Nov 4, 2017)

Maybe she's just too young to have held a lantern. A girl her age would just light her way with her cel phone. But seriously I realize you're trying to be creative and that's a worthy goal however I think this and the apple come off as gimmicks rather than genuinely artistically creative. I don't do any inventive photography myself, just documentary so perhaps the wrong one to speak but I would dig a little deeper for impactful ideas.


----------



## Designer (Nov 4, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Thanks for pointing out that fourth finger thing. I should have noticed it. But the lantern was heavy for her so I had to just take the snap. I will see if I can fix that in PS.


That's not the hugest issue, even though it was mentioned first.  Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with using only three fingers to hold the weight, that's sort of up to whoever is holding it. 

The really BIG issue is the direction, intensity, and color of the light.  I think it would be o.k. to supplement the lantern light just a bit, providing one was skillful at doing so.  This shot might eventually work into something worthwhile, but you'll need to re-shoot it with the correct light.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 4, 2017)

limr said:


> I can assure you, women hold lanterns, too.



Some do some don't, some men would probably fall in that category as well.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

Donde said:


> Maybe she's just too young to have held a lantern. A girl her age would just light her way with her cel phone. But seriously I realize you're trying to be creative and that's a worthy goal however I think this and the apple come off as gimmicks rather than genuinely artistically creative. I don't do any inventive photography myself, just documentary so perhaps the wrong one to speak but I would dig a little deeper for impactful ideas.



What is your issue? 

First off, she's a grown woman of 23 years. Not a girl. 

As for it being a "gimmick," the entire shoot was based on the lantern. It wasn't a random add-on like the apple, and nor do I think it's portrayed that way. I think this image tells a story.


----------



## ceemac (Nov 4, 2017)

It's definitely better with the fog. My first thought is "What's she looking at?". Without the fog, it looks like she's handing it to someone.


----------



## Donde (Nov 4, 2017)

Ha ha well I'm an old guy so 23 is still a "girl". I stand by my comment that the idea is gimmicky but suit yourself.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

Okay, here is a revision. I've fixed the fingers thing, and edited the lighting a bit.


----------



## crimbfighter (Nov 4, 2017)

I think I understand your concept, but where this image falls short for me is that my eye expects the light on her face to he coming from the lantern, not another source. By having the lighting coming from a direction that is flattering for a portrait, it causes a disconnect between the girl and the lantern. I also think that she is too well lit. Again, I would expect the lantern to be the brightest point of light, or at least equally to her face, and that the lantern would be casting the light onto her face. Perhaps if you chose to reshoot the image, either find a way to only supplement the light from the lantern, or maybe a composite where you use a light source from the same direction of where the lantern will be?

I do think the fog looked quite well done! Maybe bringing a little bit of it over her face to add some realism?

The whole three fingers thing didn't bother me at all, nor did it look like a composite to me.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

crimbfighter said:


> I think I understand your concept, but where this image falls short for me is that my eye expects the light on her face to he coming from the lantern, not another source. By having the lighting coming from a direction that is flattering for a portrait, it causes a disconnect between the girl and the lantern. I also think that she is too well lit. Again, I would expect the lantern to be the brightest point of light, or at least equally to her face, and that the lantern would be casting the light onto her face. Perhaps if you chose to reshoot the image, either find a way to only supplement the light from the lantern, or maybe a composite where you use a light source from the same direction of where the lantern will be?
> 
> I do think the fog looked quite well done! Maybe bringing a little bit of it over her face to add some realism?
> 
> The whole three fingers thing didn't bother me at all, nor did it look like a composite to me.



You're right. I wish I could have lit it with just the lantern, but it wasn't nearly bright enough.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 4, 2017)

I think I'm getting to the point where I need to start having an assistant for my shoots. 

Between having to fix her hair, hold the light, compose the shot, and everything else, I have less energy to focus on the creative realism of the image, and its finer details. 

This isn't an excuse for my lighting, but something this conversation has made me realize.


----------



## crimbfighter (Nov 4, 2017)

An assistant may certainly be helpful! I really think a few tweaks would really help this image. Perhaps try an edit with bringing the exposure down on her a bit and warm the light so it feels more like the light is coming from the lantern?


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> I think I'm getting to the point where I need to start having an assistant for my shoots.
> 
> Between having to fix her hair, hold the light, compose the shot, and everything else, I have less energy to focus on the creative realism of the image, and its finer details.
> 
> This isn't an excuse for my lighting, but something this conversation has made me realize.



The devil is in the details. Seems like a good idea to have someone with an eye for such details to assist and who could complement your vision.


----------



## crimbfighter (Nov 4, 2017)

limr said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm getting to the point where I need to start having an assistant for my shoots.
> ...


That's a good point. Much like how we all come here, and other places, for C&C, it would be so helpful to have someone in the field with me who could point out some of those things in advance that I just don't see.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 4, 2017)

The fog looks fake to me.  Too many holes and a perfect one right where you need it.  I don’t buy it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Donde said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe she's just too young to have held a lantern. A girl her age would just light her way with her cel phone. But seriously I realize you're trying to be creative and that's a worthy goal however I think this and the apple come off as gimmicks rather than genuinely artistically creative. I don't do any inventive photography myself, just documentary so perhaps the wrong one to speak but I would dig a little deeper for impactful ideas.
> ...


 You should really stop saying you appreciate C&C when you don't.

If you truly think this image tells a story, then what story is it telling? To me it's a bit contrived, and I'm not a fan of the color pallette from your edit; the lighting from this lamp would be orange, so why does her skin have a cold, almost purple tone to it? I would adjust the color a bit more with that in order to get better accuracy to make the light source believable. As well, the skin looks too smooth and perfected to me, to the point of looking like it was done with an automated action that wiped away any skin detail.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 5, 2017)

from a portrait perspective, I like how she is lit. 
from a themed perspective, i think the lighting is over the top. 
I think the issue is that its *too* well lit to be realistic. maybe something closer to low key?
maybe the "fog" is just throwing me off...

perhaps this would work better with heavier shadowing and less fog? i realize the fog might be part of the vision here, but you could do something similar to my shadow shot, but with the lantern instead of the coke can and a little less main light. I think a low power flash angled from the lantern area would give a nice shadowed shot with the lantern appearing to cut through the darkness. you could add in a little fog if you want. i honestly dont mind how you did the fog in this shot, its just the lighting thats throwing me off. 




DSCF5228 by pixmedic, on Flickr


----------



## Designer (Nov 5, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> crimbfighter said:
> 
> 
> > I think I understand your concept, but where this image falls short for me is that my eye expects the light on her face to he coming from the lantern, not another source. By having the lighting coming from a direction that is flattering for a portrait, it causes a disconnect between the girl and the lantern. I also think that she is too well lit. Again, I would expect the lantern to be the brightest point of light, or at least equally to her face, and that the lantern would be casting the light onto her face. Perhaps if you chose to reshoot the image, either find a way to only supplement the light from the lantern, or maybe a composite where you use a light source from the same direction of where the lantern will be?
> ...


Obviously (to some of us, at least) a kerosene lantern is not going to be as bright as a modern electronic flash, or even as bright as a common 60-watt light bulb for that matter.  This is where you have to use your noodle to devise a lighting scheme that lends credulity to the assumed lighting source.  

I wish you hadn't tried to fix the finger.


----------



## gk fotografie (Nov 5, 2017)

When, as you say, the entire image is based on the lantern,  IMO the  next edit gives a much more realistic vision when you know this: candle-light is about 1200°Kelvin and daylight/flashlight about 5000 - 5500°Kelvin!


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> You should really stop saying you appreciate C&C when you don't.



Who are you to tell me what I do and don't appreciate? I obviously do, which is evidenced by the fact that I've already made several changes. I edited the lighting, and I adjusted the finger, and I am still working on other versions. Hop off your high horse. 



Designer said:


> I wish you hadn't tried to fix the finger.



Lol, screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. 


I do agree my lighting should have been more harsh.


----------



## Designer (Nov 5, 2017)

gk fotografie said:


> I do agree my lighting should have been more harsh.


More harsh?  I don't remember anyone making that suggestion.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 5, 2017)

Here is a version with the lighting temperature a little warmer, and with some fog in front of the face.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 5, 2017)

Now it's been a long time since I walked around with a Coleman lantern, or went camping... but holding it up that high in front besides maybe making it harder to hold/carry I don't think you could see anything, you'd be squinting or trying to see around it - it isn't believable. I don't get the facial expression or what she's looking at. 

Maybe go out and try these things before you get out there with someone else, so you know something's not going to work and can come up with another plan to try. She was from what you described struggling to hold it in that position so then you got rushed and ended up with an awkward looking hand position with or without the finger photoshopped in (which didn't seem to be an improvement). 

The fog still looks odd although it's better because it's not a line cutting across her, it's just around the lantern and in front of her which doesn't seem believable that she's really in fog. It's not so noticeable now but at first I wondered why is she carrying a purse if she's out in the woods looking at something eerie? that just takes away the fantasy and brings it back to reality, that's she's posing and it loses the imaginative aspect. The fog does now almost obscure that (but it also may not have helped her in carrying the lantern and keeping her purse on her shoulder). 

Maybe plan these out and write down step by step or in more detail/specifics what you want to do, think thru the process more to help you achieve what you're imagining.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 5, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Now it's been a long time since I walked around with a Coleman lantern, or went camping... but holding it up that high in front besides maybe making it harder to hold/carry I don't think you could see anything, you'd be squinting or trying to see around it - it isn't believable. I don't get the facial expression or what she's looking at.
> 
> Maybe go out and try these things before you get out there with someone else, so you know something's not going to work and can come up with another plan to try. She was from what you described struggling to hold it in that position so then you got rushed and ended up with an awkward looking hand position with or without the finger photoshopped in (which didn't seem to be an improvement).
> 
> ...



The fact that you're asking yourself "why is there a purse," is actually encouraging to me. It has you curious, which was my intention.

That said, I will acknowledge that writing out each step could be helpful.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2017)

gk fotografie said:


> When, as you say, the entire image is based on the lantern,  IMO the  next edit gives a much more realistic vision when you know this: candle-light is about 1200°Kelvin and daylight/flashlight about 5000 - 5500°Kelvin!
> 
> View attachment 149244


This looks great, and to me the coloring really ties the image together and adds depth. This version tells a story, and color is so important when it comes to that.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Who are you to tell me what I do and don't appreciate? I obviously do, which is evidenced by the fact that I've already made several changes. I edited the lighting, and I adjusted the finger, and I am still working on other versions. Hop off your high horse.


Yeah, because this clearly states you take feedback with grace:


DGMPhotography said:


> What is your issue?
> 
> First off, she's a grown woman of 23 years. Not a girl.
> 
> As for it being a "gimmick," the entire shoot was based on the lantern. It wasn't a random add-on like the apple, and nor do I think it's portrayed that way. I think this image tells a story.



Learn to say "thank you" if you actually want people to think you are hearing their feedback. Being this defensive says something completely different.

And no, I like my view from this high horse.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2017)

I have not read the other replies, but my feeling is that *she looks "over-lit"*...too much like daylight-balanced electronic flash.

So, I get here to page 3...and I gee that GK has done what I think looks best: warmed up the light on hr to look like lantern-wick light! Yellow-ish! YES!

I  think most people would hook their thumb under the lantern handle when lifting it in this manner. That looks a bit odd, to me at least. But worse is the shadow placement...the flash is way higher than the lantern...the shadows look "fake"; if the light on her face really came from the lantern, the shadows would not fall where they do.


----------



## Ballistics (Nov 6, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> You're right. I wish I could have lit it with just the lantern, but it wasn't nearly bright enough.



A snoot would fix that issue. It looks like she's holding a lantern up on a cloudy day at 4 in the afternoon.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Nov 6, 2017)

When I see this it reminds me of something an old uni friend of mine did a while back Behance (link is safe).  It shows you the break down of how he and his small team composed the image.

I think there is something there, the idea/execution just needs refined


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 6, 2017)

birdbonkers84 said:


> When I see this it reminds me of something an old uni friend of mine did a while back Behance (link is safe).  It shows you the break down of how he and his small team composed the image.
> 
> I think there is something there, the idea/execution just needs refined



That is a bizarre looking image haha


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 6, 2017)

I've laid back reading the responses and overall I think everyone including the OP is missing something. Taking an image and editing to improve on it and building a composite are two entirely different things that require a different mindset. It requires you to be a "graphic artist" not a photographer.

First of all you have to think of an image file (files) as data you will "mine" to build your composite, nothing more.  Piece here, piece there, lighting, shadows, backgrounds, literally every piece of your composite can be built from the data in your files and the tools in PS,  so if you want to build a good composite quit worrying so much about  your lighting, staging, etc, because that's the wonder of raw files and PS.  Now that doesn't mean it won't help if your ahead of the game with your starting image, but it's only a piece of the final image, that hopefully won't even resemble the original images if you've done your job right.  Frankly you could probably have photographed her and the lantern separately in studio against a green screen and built it easier.

Secondly as others have mentioned the "devil really is in the detail". The human mind will notice little inconsistencies without even looking for them. If you have a finger out of place, a shadow wrong, light direction wrong, even minor discrepancies in tone and the eye will lock on it immediately. Now since "you" are the person "building" this image, and it's under "your" complete control, it's your job, not an "assistant", to build it correctly so those inconsistencies aren't there. You don't like the light on the face - change it, you don't like the background - change it, don't like the lantern - change it. You have complete control over the final product, which is why I said earlier building a composite is not the same as editing an image.

I don't like videos without some verbal instructions along the way (I'm a little dense and need more than visual information),  



   but this explains perfectly what I'm talking about, and is similar to the road you were trying to go down with your lantern. Enjoy


----------



## Designer (Nov 6, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I've laid back reading the responses and overall I think everyone including the OP is missing something. Taking an image and editing to improve on it and building a composite are two entirely different things that require a different mindset. It requires you to be a "graphic artist" not a photographer.


Are you sure he was making a composite?  I thought he was making a photograph all in one shot.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 6, 2017)

Designer said:


> Are you sure he was making a composite? I thought he was making a photograph all in one shot.



In this case with so many features added post, yet much of the original remaining, I would put it in never/never land where it isn't really either one, which is part of the problem most seem to be having with it.

So to correct my earlier post, if your intention is a one shot themed photo, then do it as such, and forget the PS add on features post, that cheapen the original.


----------



## Designer (Nov 6, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> So to correct my earlier post, if your intention is a one shot themed photo, then do it as such, and forget the PS add on features post, that cheapen the original.


There you go!  

I'm not a PS user, and rather old-fashioned in my methods and habits.  I don't see many manipulated photographs that are exemplary.  

When I view a composite photograph, I have to suspend disbelief in the same way as watching a Sci-Fi video.  There is usually something that tips me off right away that what I'm looking at was never real.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 6, 2017)

Hmm, perhaps the green screen route may have worked better for this, now that I think about it.

The reason we went out in the first place was we were hoping there would be actual fog to shoot with. All the weather conditions led us to believe there would be, but unfortunately, there was very little.


----------



## limr (Nov 6, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Hmm, perhaps the green screen route may have worked better for this, now that I think about it.
> 
> The reason we went out in the first place was we were hoping there would be actual fog to shoot with. All the weather conditions led us to believe there would be, but unfortunately, there was very little.



Fog is tricky, though. It doesn't really "curl" around a person when you're that close. So even if you were in thick fog, it would still be difficult to get the effect you were going for. 

I just googled "fog portraits" and in the more natural-looking shots, you'll see the fog/mist around a person, but not _tendrils_ of fog unless they were adding it in post or using dry ice or smoke to create the effect.
fog portraits - Google Search


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 6, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> The reason we went out in the first place was we were hoping there would be actual fog to shoot with. All the weather conditions led us to believe there would be, but unfortunately, there was very little.



I've done several themed shots, and really get into the story line, though only amateur at best, I try to take something from each attempt to use the next time. If you're interested I did a themed shot titled "Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic....", posted here on TPF a while back, there's a story being told (explained further down in that post).  

When I do a themed shot, something first forms as an idea, I then expand on that and do a lot of  research (remember everyone telling you about the details? It starts before you even pickup the camera). Only when the idea is fully formed do I start to fill in the location props, lights, background, etc., I need to get to the point of my theme. If you're going into a themed shot without everything already worked out beforehand in your mind, you're lost before you start. 

Last week we found a little girls hat in an antique vintage clothing store, that little hat is now the cornerstone for my next themed shot of my granddaughter for a Christmas card. I've already  finished the idea stage, and started the research phase of the project, then I'll start bringing the final pieces together for the scene. Once I have everything I'll start to stage it so I can work on the lighting. Once that's done, then and only then will my restless little model come on the scene, and is basically a couple mins, stand here, I snap the shutter, we're done.

I also find it easier to do a themed shot in studio where you can control everything superior to outside where you're subject to the whims of weather. Fog machines are cheap or even available for rent, and like smoke the difference between the real thing and post addition is noticeable. 

Lastly something I've learned about themed shots. Always remember to KISS, when telling your story. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Sadly very few of your viewers will take the time to dig into the "hidden story" behind your image. If it doesn't slap them in the face, it goes over their head.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 6, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > The reason we went out in the first place was we were hoping there would be actual fog to shoot with. All the weather conditions led us to believe there would be, but unfortunately, there was very little.
> ...



Lotta good points there. Thanks for taking the time to explain your process.


----------



## dennybeall (Nov 11, 2017)

This is the "PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM" right??
I would think if there was a women in the fog there would be some fog all over with the light from the lantern perhaps lighting her face. As done there is no fog at all in some areas and that's perhaps not realistic.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2017)

As was mentioned above--the human mind, the human brain, can easily spot small details that do not "ring true" in photos such as the OP's shot. The fact that the photo was flash-lighted, as opposed to lantern-lighted...the hand position on the wire lantern handle...the way the shadows fall on her face, all of that stuff has to be exactly right, or Poof! we immediately suspect or recognize the fakery...fog is unpredictable, and is NOT really visible unless there is at least a few feet of foggy atmosphere between the camera and the subject matter.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 11, 2017)

The link is on snow rather than fog, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BcYQtwIISzAN&usg=AOvVaw1jh7D9Cni65xhg6R16Q1m7 but check out the way she is holding the lantern. Recognize anything?


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Nov 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> The link is on snow rather than fog, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5QU9Jvc7v8&ved=0ahUKEwjZk-OX5LfXAhViw4MKHZjGBcYQtwIISzAN&usg=AOvVaw1jh7D9Cni65xhg6R16Q1m7 but check out the way she is holding the lantern. Recognize anything?


Great link, thanks for sharing


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 13, 2017)

I posted some alternative lantern shots here: Other Lantern Shots


----------

