Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
What Roy says about light from above. Actually it looks like the light beam is some sort of laser cutting device, and it is carving the front of the stone, especially in the top image. However, you might be able to reduce the flare almost to the point of invisibility in photoshop
How did this happen!!!??? What I learned from shooting large format,mostly, which don't come with lens hoods for the lenses, is always be aware of the sun's angle and wear big hats!!! I always use my hat/cap to shield the sun. Just look through the viewfinder and you'll see it there and then it's not there. Of course, over the years, I've got some good photos of my hat!
If you can do this in Photoshop, then good, but I think it's would be easier to reshoot,
I'll go back later in the year when the light will be different. I visit that cemetery a few times a year. I just added this little memorial section to my shoot list. I often go back to the same places graves and see how it works in different light. I didn't see the lens flare at first. The morning sun broke through the clouds and I was not looking carefully in the viewfinder as I was low to the ground. I got up and "chimped" and saw the beam of light had landed perfectly on the stone. So I shot some more instead of using my hat as a shade as Rich suggested. The afternoon sun will give a new take on it but I will wait until Fall when the sun is lower in the sky at the 5:00 closing hour. I do like the photos that JC and Louise posted. Nice psychedelic effect on the VW.
Thanks for looking and show me some more flares that seem to fit.
I would not throw it away, but I would still (given the opportunity), get more shots of the subject. We usually can do better the more we try and depending on conditions, and composition, get many "different" and interesting "takes" of a subject. When all is said and done, select the best of the bunch and if they're different enough from each other but still worthy, select more than one if you so desire.
Sometimes you get a "happy accident", but more times then not, you get a "happy idea" from an accident. Then you can re-shoot the subject with the new idea in mind and have better control over the outcome. If the idea is good but you can't get back to re-shoot the subject, don't reject the idea of simulating the "effect" through processing. You still have the option to select or not depending on results.
Most inventions happen accidentally, and most good inventions are simply improvements on the original idea. - Brian Wallace
I love it. Genuine optical effects can be far better than Photoshopped imitations.
This is an obvious big seller, and you only need to identify correctly the rare paranormal phenomenon you have fortuitously photographed!
Obviously, it's not an orb, nor a rod, nor an aura, nor a black monolith, nor an alien, nor eldritch energy. It's not specular enough for fairy dust. It doesn't look like most of the transdimensional beings or shadow people that I have (not) seen. It is visually similar to an alien UFO's tractor beam, perhaps... It could be divine radiant glory, perhaps, as someone suggested already. If you can't come up with the right terminology, then be creative, and make it up! You can be the first, and go viral! (Seriously, consider these keyword ideas!) Listening to old Art Bell Shows could supply endless hilarity and potentially profitable proliferation of keywords.
You are one of the best fakers here, Wendy, perhaps because you don't slavishly attempt to simulate realism. Ms. Liberty looks a little grim. Maybe she's PO'd about recent news we cannot really discuss much.