Imaging Metal.

[HaseebM]

Tried my hand with this bronze tea pot. Tried my best to avoid reflections but specular lighting seems unavoidable or is it reflections? I am not sure if my bedrom window though curtained had loosened and daylight reflected on the image. Anyway is there a way to avoid this? I did hold a black flag near the edge of the strobe to avoid side of the light reflecting onto the teapot.

C&C welcomed as usual.





Tried BW though something tells me this object is not the right candidate.

[Shadowman]

Nice efforts, I think the highlighted area of the first image provided more detail in the pot. The second image; while nicely exposed, lacks the same dynamic feel of the first with its strong shadows.

[mknittle]

What John said nice job Haseeb.

[HaseebM]

Thanks for the comments! I should keep the light a bit further away and give it another try to see how the shadows and lighting works. I also want to add more depth if possible, any suggestions welcome.

[Mike Buckley]

Agreed with John, especially that they are very nice photos.

You mentioned specular highlights but I don't see any. There are highlights, which I find attractive because they help define the shape of the subject, but no specular highlights. I agree that specular highlights should be avoided. Control of both kinds of highlights is explained in the fourth edition of Light: Science & Magic.

I also disagree with your assessment that the monochrome doesn't work; it works very well for me.

As for other suggestions, when showing two images that are fundamentally the same except for the position of the top, it's important to use the exact same lighting, exposure, background and everything in both of them. Using light coming through the window prevents total control over the light.

Also consider adding more space to the top in the first one and to both sides in the second one. Better yet, try to find a composition that is made at the time of capture that works for both images. Doing so will make the two images more attractive when presented as a set and will display the subject at the same magnification.

[HaseebM]

Thanks Mike, I will remember this and take another set soon. I am happy you like the BW and the images. I wanted to keep some more space in the second image but was constrained for space with the 85mm. Maybe I should try with a 40mm and see the results. It was Light: Science & Magic which made me do this exercise. Need to re-read that chapter again.

Edit: Btw, meant to ask, I thought the reflection in the first image on top of the teapot is specular highlight? Anyway I am glad to hear it isn't as this makes it easier to take images of such objects.

[Mike Buckley]

I thought the reflection in the first image on top of the teapot is specular highlight?

I just now realized that the terms, specular reflection and specular highlight, mean different things to different people. See the top of page 38 in the book for a detailed explanation.

I think of a specular highlight as a mirror image of the light source; the reflection is the same color as the light source. I don't detect any such highlights in this image.

There are degrees of perfection in all highlights. As an example, the same subject that you used but made of more highly polished metal might produce highlights closer to a mirror image of the light source. If so, I would call them specular highlights even though, technically, they may not be perfect mirror images.

In the end, the only thing that matters is that whatever highlights are displayed in an image are desirable, not what we call them. I like all the highlights displayed in these two images.

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the comments! I should keep the light a bit further away and give it another try to see how the shadows and lighting works. I also want to add more depth if possible, any suggestions welcome.

Any shiny surface, like this subject, will create brighter areas due to the angle of light. Your only real option is to carefully introduce more lighting from various angles or simply to work with those brighter highlights to make more of a feature of them.

You may be able to reduce the brightness level of the highlights but that will make the other areas darker, so there will always be a noticeable difference.

You are rather 'square on' with that camera angle so it will be difficult to create any more apparent focus depth without experimenting with different shooting angles.

The shadows and background are nicely constrained with the second image, although as previously mentioned, the subject is getting a little bit close to the frame edges.

[Mike Buckley]

By the way, when you see highlights that seem to be mirror images of the light source, try using a polarizer filter. It may not work but if it does work it will be the quickest possible fix.

[Loose Canon]

Nice work with this Haseeb. Another difficult (read: fun) subject!

I am not sure if my bedrom window though curtained had loosened and daylight reflected on the image.

If you are unsure about this there is one way to find out. Once you have the subject framed and your camera at the settings at where you are going to shoot (Aperture, ISO, Shutter all set) just take a shot without firing your flash. This shot will tell you if you are getting any ambient light or reflections thereof in your frame. As an example, I typically shoot at 1/200 sec shutter in the studio, which is my camera’s sync speed. I will have some lights on in the studio and it is not totally dark. If I take a shot the frame will be black because my shutter speed is high enough that I won’t pick up any ambient.

Anyway is there a way to avoid this? I did hold a black flag near the edge of the strobe to avoid side of the light reflecting onto the teapot.

Judging by what you are saying I take it you are bouncing your strobe and you flagged it so no light would hit the subject directly? It is sometimes hard to comment on a lighting scenario unless a lighting scheme is provided.

I think you will find that you will not be able to avoid the highlights with which you are concerned. Nor would I think you would want to for reasons already mentioned. The trick is shaping/controlling them. How you want to portray the subject and what aspects of it are important to your vision determines how to light it.

As an example? I don’t see the highlight in your shot in any way defining the shape of the body of the pot. It is more a generic “spot” of light toward the front of the pot and doesn’t highlight the curves of the pot. In the highlight itself I think it actually flattens the curve of the pot. So maybe moving the light around more toward the side of the pot to get the highlight more toward the visible “edge” (curve) of the pot might be better for that. If you did that you might want to use another light or reflector on the opposite side so that side wouldn’t go to dark shadow.

However, where you have your light positioned does help show the engraving which I would consider important. I would also want to show the patina/pitting of the pot to show its age. More of a “sidelighting” scheme will bring out textures (engraving/patina) better than a “head-on” lighting set-up.

But maybe you want a lot of the pot in shadow. Again, just depends on how you visualize the subject portrayed as to how best to light it. Best thing to do is decide what you want out of it and experiment until you get what you want.

Tried BW though something tells me this object is not the right candidate.

It looks great converted Haseeb. But, again, whether it’s a good candidate depends on what you want. With the conversion you can’t tell what the pot is. Is it bronze, silver, tin, copper, etc.? At least with the color version it narrows it down a bit.

I think these are very good Haseeb and stand as is. I’m just tossing some ideas out for consideration.

[Mike Buckley]

Great, great post by Terry! However...

I don’t see the highlight in your shot in any way defining the shape of the body of the pot. It is more a generic “spot” of light toward the front of the pot and doesn’t highlight the curves of the pot. In the highlight itself I think it actually flattens the curve of the pot.

Though I defer to Terry's expertise because he has more experience with this stuff than I do, I disagree with him on those points, The highlights as I previously mentioned do help to define the shape for me rather than flatten it. On the other hand, that isn't to say that a different use of the two light sources (the strobe and the sun) wouldn't define the shape even better.

[Loose Canon]

Working on two basic premises:
Light illuminates, shadow defines, and
Frontal lighting is flat. (not necessarily good, not necessarily bad, but flat).

I think there needs to be a differentiation between the highlight itself and the gradient light falloff of said. In the position the light is hitting the subject (fairly straight on), it is this falloff (IMO) that may give any indication of shape and not the highlight itself. Right in line with why frontal lighting looks flat. No doubt in my feeble mind that if the entire subject would have been hit with frontal lighting from a large light source most, if not all shape definition on the front would have been lost due to no shadow whatsoever giving it a two dimensional look. The only indication of shape would have then been the “edges” or “sides”.

Suggesting that the highlight could be placed on the image in a position where the curve is more prominent (a little more toward the side) would allow the highlight to follow more of a visibly prominent curved area of the subject. This would cause it to work to help define shape as a secondary task in addition to the primary task of illumination. Possibly a better option than a frontal "spot" but certainly a much different look. From this shaped illumination following the curvature of the pot getting a gradient falloff would then further define the shape of the pot. Both the shaped illumination and gradient-to-shadow falloff providing a stronger visual cue of the shape.

By way of example, when lighting a cylinder, I find that the cylindrical shape is better defined (and more pleasing to the eye) by a vertical highlight with a gradient falloff (going to shadow from the edge toward center) rather than a hard, defined vertical “stripe” of light, or a "stripe" of light dead center, illustrating both of the above basic premises.

Regardless Haseeb, it’s just some other options and the reasoning behind them. Beauty is in the eye!

[HaseebM]

Thank you Mike, Geoff, Terry for your helpful suggestions and tips.

One clarification regarding lighting Terry, I did not use bounce light, nor was the light source directly pointed towards the pot but rather kept atop angled towards the right. The spill off from the sides was showing up on the image and creating harsh reflections which I used a black flag to block. Other than that I used no other light. FWIW, my lighting was RX-4, just one.

But having read up various points which you folks provided, I will do this exercise again using those points and this time ensure there is no ambient light present.

[Mike Buckley]

Other than that I used no other light. FWIW, my lighting was RX-4, just one.

Your lighting also included the sunlight coming through the window.

[Mike Buckley]

When thinking about how to define the shape of an object, it's always helpful for me to consider the family of angles at least to the point of being aware of it even though I rarely take the time to precisely determine the extent of it. In the case of a flat surface, there are an infinite number of points on the surface and each point has its own family of angles. A curved surface is even more complex because, at least in theory, the curves are made up of an infinite number of flat surfaces with each flat surface having an infinite number of points and each point having its own family of angles.

When we see all of this depicted in a book, we see only the two-dimensional representation of a family of angles. When we are photographing a scene, we are dealing with the family of angles in three dimensions. Anyone who has seen the movie Interstellar knows that there are really five dimensions and that we who are mere humans can only appreciate three of them.

[HaseebM]

Your lighting also included the sunlight coming through the window.

Yes it did though very partially and a bit further away from the object.

On a sidenote I was thinking of photographing glass and applying the principles of lighting and took a look at your site, very well taken images.