continuing smoke saga

[chauncey]

I adapted Manfred's instructions regarding his lens/lighting technique.
Originally I used my 180 macro lens simply because that's what was mounted on the camera...Dah.

With a series I ran today in a "not dark enough room" using homemade snoots on the three LED lights
aimed at the smoke and a 65mm setting on my 24-105 lens which provided more DOF.

There is no question that to obtain superior smoke images, a strobe/flash unit is necessary, but...
my reason for these images, as Mike surmised, lie in a different direction rendering that strobe/flash unnecessary. Next time will do them in a totally darkened room.

[Shadowman]

Nice formations captured.

[Mike Buckley]

There is no question that to obtain superior smoke images, a strobe/flash unit is necessary

Your image proves to me that your statement is inaccurate. This is an absolutely wonderful image that implies movement in the smoke, whereas using strobes or flashes would have stopped all of the action unless there was sufficient ambient light to record the motion. I also like the romantic, dreamy mood, as opposed to the sharp clarity usually displayed in images captured using flashes or strobes.

This image is an example of the idea that I mentioned in the other thread that lacking the so-called "proper" equipment, you were forced to improvise and experiment and that all of that resulted in a successful image. Well done!

Consider toning down the very brightest light in the top left area, as it pulls my eye out of the frame.

[chauncey]

Thanks Mike, your point is well taken, which is more visually appealing...the acutely sharp or the one
that conveys a misty appearance. The choice is in the eye of the beholder. Here's another...



The background, due to excess room lighting needed to be swapped out.
Was interesting doing a selection of the smoke.

[Mike Buckley]

I like the second composition less because I want the top to be negative space.

Both photos display attractive blue tones. Is that the result of an altered color balance during post-processing, a white balance that is not documentary by design, or something else?

[chauncey]

Color is SOOC.

[Mike Buckley]

Color is SOOC.

I understand. Do the blue tones exist because of a white balance setting that is not capturing the scene accurately? If so, is that unintentional or by design?

[Manfred M]

These do work, but we can always get into the debate regarding how a moving object should be translated in a still image. How much motion blur is "too much"? I'm thinking both from a compositional and interpretive viewpoint.

I personally prefer that "frozen in time" look when doing smoke, but then that is just my taste.

Something else you might want to try is to covert to a B&W image and then apply colours in post. That lets you go totally crazy in your creativity; multi-coloured gradients, etc..

[Stagecoach]

Here's an example Chauncey of the on-camera flash option I found doing a quick search. I can not verify of course.

http://digital-photography-school.co...xtra-gear.html

What is obvious of course is that each method is going to give differing appearances of the smoke.

[Texas Dave]

Excuse me but what does "SOOC" mean?

[Loose Canon]

It means Straight Out of the Camera, David.

[chauncey]

A while back I shot a x-rite card using that same lighting, it coughed out a WB color of 3750, -16, which
is what I routinely use in LR under these circumstances and is what is coughed out.
FWIW, the SS on these was 1/6 sec and f/5.6 while shooting tethered @ 4 ft. (12" DOF).
Going crazy with the colors is what I have in mind