Strong evening light and Olle


I was at my sisters home yesterday (her birthday party) and I was kind of bored so I shot her son outside. It was pretty cold and the sun was just about to go to sleep – but before it did I took these shots using the SD15, 17-50 OS + polarizer and a Sigma 530 on a tripod. The 530 would have been much more useful if it had some colored gel on it but hey, nobody’s perfect. :) LOTS of X3 fill light was used on the three bike shots and well, the fourth on the blue container too.. It was pretty difficult to adjust power of the flash and at the same time make sure that he didn’t fall OR the flash. :)

All Sigma Photo Pro, except for black and white photo which I added some vignetting on in Lightroom.

Anyways, enjoy.

Above: No flash.

All images available in my Fall 2010 set.

About Carl Rytterfalk

Welcome to my blog! I'm Carl Rytterfalk, a swedish photographer who loves everything that is interesting in the world of photography. In 2002 I fell in love with the three layered Foveon sensor and has since then been an addicted user of Sigma cameras. Though I use Canon and Nikon as well. :)
This entry was posted in 17-50 2.8 OS, Flash, Full size, Sigma Photo Pro, Sigma SD15. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Strong evening light and Olle

  1. Bob van Ooik says:

    Ha, Carl is becoming a Strobist :D

  2. Marc says:

    To be honest your latest strobist and polarizer (and wideangle) ventures kinda put me asleep, I much prefer ‘classical’ rytterfalk … the nice people shots, the nice black and white, more natural, less forced, more honest and direct … just my personal opinion.

  3. i find this shoots most honest to other. use of right light (or lightment) be a resource for other person that do pro work of their photo. i think that aren’t a “classical” mode for person that like experiment. i’m really impressed to shoot of child stand up in nature (light are beautiful). great carl.

  4. Marc says:

    I don’t know what you people understand by ‘pro work’ … to me that’s the work of people like Richard Avedon, Peter Lindbergh, Irving Penn, Mario Testino, Solve Sundsbo, Paolo Roversi … that’s what I call a real and accomplished photographer. The rest is all more or less semi-pros and amateurs capturing the occasional flower of wedding shot and posting it on Flickr and if they’re lucky they can live of their craft, but only barely so. And I don’t mean Ken Rockwell either. Maybe look up some of the names and get some kind of photographic culture together … It’s not because your photographs look that little better than your Uncle’s family snapshots or because your lens is a little bigger that you’re automatically a ‘pro photographer’ ; )

  5. @marc – where you come from? i’m really interested to have info about your country. for your interest (if you’ve one, i mean), name that you write maybe don’t touch a camera from many years.

  6. nico says:

    Marc is it that time of the month or do you have any other issues that you would like to share with us???

  7. Ricky says:

    love and piece! that’s art, not engineering!

  8. Bob van Ooik says:

    “Professional” is a term that might imply a certain standard of quality but is only the name for those that earn their living within a certain profession. I know plenty of professionals that do earn a very decent living as a photographer but who’s work will be regarded as very boring, uninteresting by many. They just serve a certain market and are good at that. Amateur photographers have often a fair chance to outdo a pro as they can afford to take the time to produce that masterpiece. Something which is economically uninteresting for the pro. In this light I find it admirable of Carl to still be such an “amateur” (in the literal sense of the word, someone who loves it) while being a “pro”. And not being afraid to share this with us.

  9. thanks to bob that explain better my first comment (excuse me for my english). i would only take a compliment to carl to try “different road” (strobist too) and give a word for any that use this camera for PRO.

  10. marc says:

    To Massimiliano : I work as an Art Director in Paris and work for major luxury brands. I work with ‘big shot’ photographers who charge upwards 50K day-rates (yes thats 50K Euros in just one day and that doesn’t even include rights or any other production costs, sweet isn’t it?) and just came back from a shoot with Scarlett Johansson. As you might guess my job implies to consult clients on which photographer to work with, and I review hundreds of photographers books a year … so I’m pretty sure to know what ‘pro’ implies and how the Industry works.

  11. @marc – only 2 reply.
    1) a photograph that gain 50.000 euros for a work (if i’ve right understand your word), maybe couldn’t be a good photograph
    2) you’re an ART DIRECTOR, make a luxury life and past your week-end with scarlett, then you couldn’t shoot, why you’ve this time to partecipate at this discussion.
    read your book, choose your good photograph and model but don’t talk of world that you don’t know. viewing a photo and shooting them are 2 works separately, i don’t think that 1 is better than other but are different. i’m very happy than your works proceed “alla grande” (great – in italy mean this) but is another things that your work. regards.

  12. Marc says:

    Oh I’m also a hobbyist photographer, a better one than many pros by the way … lol!

  13. Marc says:


  14. Marc, I love the second shot! :D Beautiful!

  15. Marc says:

    Thanks Carl ! … it’s my partner whom I work with on shoots … she’s just test-sitting for a shoot, perfect classical environement it has to be said, and the old ‘light from the window’ thing never fails for portraits and people shots … just like your BW shots from schillerska with the big windows.

  16. Yeah, that’s the environment that you can spend hours in – I wish I had more places like that around me, empty, to be explored – no flash, just natural light and – a SD1. :P

  17. Marc says:

    Yes context and subject is king I guess !

    … I only own the DP1 and DP2s until now, the files blow me away, the depth of information in the files is amazing … if exported in ProPhoto 16bit they hold up to even the roughest post production treatments extremely well, depth of color information is nothing short of amazing … the only thing that was keeping me from investing in a X3 DSLR+Lenses setup was the tiny resolution (interpolation can only take you that far, even tough the files yield superb detail and gradations), with the SD1 the time has finally come to invest into a Foveon imaging system plus a decent kit of lenses, definitely looking forward to it.

    The funny thing is that I got to Foveon only gradually … I bought a DP1, played around with it (you know it’s a slow one) simultaneously I got a 5D Mark II, of course it’s a DSLR , it has a viewfinder, it’s very fast … I eventually ended up taking many pictures with the 5D MKII because of it’s ease of use, not using the DP1. However when I went back to my pics, something about the DP1 files just caught my eye, I loved DP1’s output and so considered buying a Foveon DSLR (to get to a viewfinder, faster operation). However I considered that 5.6MP is a poor option to archive my artistic expression (of sorts ; I’m just an amateur), just not enough resolution, I just didn’t like the idea to create an archive on such a small resolution. What if I ever wanted to print a book? Or make an exhibition ? You kind of want something similar to a good old analog film document, dependable, with enough resolution to pull from should the need arise, something like say 35mm film. I think with the SD1 we finally gonna have that kind of ‘digital document’ … enough resolution, enough ‘information depth’ to be a dependable option for whatever need may arise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Optionally add an image (JPEG only)