Shattered Wine Bottle

[Mike Buckley]

This photo displays the same wine bottle pictured in this thread.

Setup
The tabletop is glass and the background is translucent vellum. First capture: Both are lit from behind and partially below by a medium continuous-light lamp. A small continuous-light lamp also lights the foreground entirely from below. Second capture: The foil is lit from the right front by a small continuous-light lamp. The two photos were merged.

[Shadowman]

Very interesting composition, elements of danger and shapes really makes this work. The shards are bottom and sides appear to be converging on centerpiece.

[IzzieK]

Oh, you manage to collect all of them too...I like the description of your setup. I will take note of that when I break Duck Dynasty's wine bottle...

[John 2]

You're a bit hard on your wine cellar Mike. I've heard of hitting the bottle but there is a limit. It's a nice shot and the merging of the images has worked well as a lighting solution. Must remember that.

[Stagecoach]

The first thing that I notice with this one Mike is that the upturned bottle top end seems almost floating and separated from the other fragments. Is this intentional and is it because there is no indication of any shadow around it?

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, everyone!

John 2: Though it has been repeatedly proven that I am hard on glass, it must be noted that this breakage is one of the few that is not my fault. The bottle was broken during shipping.

the upturned bottle top end seems almost floating and separated from the other fragments. Is this intentional and is it because there is no indication of any shadow around it?

That primary subject is intentionally separated from everything except the pieces of glass behind it. Even those pieces appear at least to me not to be touching it. (I can confirm that they aren't touching it.) The same is true for other important pieces of glass in the scene.

However, I think the so-called floating characteristic has to do with a lack of reflection rather than a lack of shadow. I've never noticed a shadow produced on a tabletop made of glass, glossy acrylic or a mirror because those materials instead produce a reflection. However, the brightest areas of the tabletop in this image also display no reflection or at least no strong reflection. Notice that the strongest reflections appear only in the darker areas of the tabletop. (More about that below.)

I still have the camera and the scene set up, so I'll change the lighting to allow reflections to appear on all pieces. That goes against my original vision partly because I wanted an almost surrealistic display of the glass and partly because I wanted the simplistic, minimalist style that comes with reducing the number of reflections and the intensity of the reflections. I'll mention in the thread later today how that works out for me.

More about reflections in the tabletop (probably more than you want to know): A reflection produced by my glass tabletop used here (presumably on all glass tabletops) produces a reflection that is less intense than the source. Reflections produced by a mirror or glossy black acrylic produces reflections that are equal in intensity to the source.

Because glass, unlike a mirror or glossy black acrylic, is transparent, when photographing a direct light source shining through it that is powerful enough, the light source overpowers the reflection. That explains why the strongest reflections appear only in the darker areas of the tabletop.

I don't know the physics of light that scientifically explains this; I only know what happens during my anecdotal observations. My guess is that it's something as simple as understanding that one light source that is more powerful than a second light source will overpower the second light source. The same thing apparently happens when the light source is more powerful than a reflection appearing on a shiny surface.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike, I like the image . Is the FG a bit soft. Today I had my eyes checked and the doctor put some medical drops into my eyes in order to make the pupils bigger so that he could examine the back side of my eyes and that's why I haven't been able to see things properly for about a half day

[Mike Buckley]

Heads up, everyone! Let's all have fun explaining to Binnur that the foreground glass is really sharp.

The foreground glass is intentionally not within the depth of field. I manually focused to ensure that the front and rear of the upside-down shoulder of the bottle are sharp. I used the smallest aperture as my first attempt knowing that the foreground area would be out of focus but not knowing if it would be out of focus enough to meet my vision. Luckily, it was so I didn't even try using a larger aperture.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Mike. Not a good day for me to look at images and make comments

Heads up, everyone! Let's all have fun explaining to Binnur that the foreground glass is really sharp.

The foreground glass is intentionally not within the depth of field. I manually focused to ensure that the front and rear of the upside-down shoulder of the bottle are sharp. I used the smallest aperture as my first attempt knowing that the foreground area would be out of focus but not knowing if it would be out of focus enough to meet my vision. Luckily, it was so I didn't even try using a larger aperture.

[Mike Buckley]

I still have the camera and the scene set up, so I'll change the lighting to allow reflections to appear on all pieces...I'll mention in the thread later today how that works out for me.

I did that and was actually quite optimistic about the overall appearance when reviewing it in the camera's LCD and when directly viewing the physical scene in three dimensions. However, after displaying the image on my computer of course at a far larger size, I don't like the additional complexity brought on by displaying the reflections.

Regardless, thank you to Grahame for the idea. That one didn't work for me but others I've received have, so I'm always open to considering them.

[Dave Humphries]

The first thing that I notice with this one Mike is that the upturned bottle top end seems almost floating and separated from the other fragments. Is this intentional and is it because there is no indication of any shadow around it?

On close examination, I believe that this might be caused by the edges of the inverted bottle top being just a tad softer than the glass pieces immediately surrounding it.

I appreciate that focus seems to be a bit in front of the bottle top itself, yet there's an edge behind, which due to contrast, appears sharper, so I think this may be fooling (some of) us to seeing it as a floating element not part of the picture of broken bits.

Second capture: The foil is lit from the right front by a small continuous-light lamp. The two photos were merged.

I wonder if the cause of the softness (that I perceive) is due to the separate exposure and/or its masking?
Or I may be mistaken.

Just a thought - anyway, I'll stop here, or Mike may take issue with the length of my analysis

[Downrigger]

Really enjoy this image and thread. My theory about why the upturned neck seems to float is that it does not APPEAR to be perpendicular to the plane on which the remainder of the glass is resting - and this appearance is very strong for me. But it must be just that (an appearance) from the description of the set-up and execution of the shot.

[Mike Buckley]

the edges of the inverted bottle top being just a tad softer than the glass pieces immediately surrounding it.

The closest and farthest parts of that piece are tack sharp when displaying the full-size file at 100%. That makes sense considering that I manually focused on those two points.

I appreciate that focus seems to be a bit in front of the bottle top itself, yet there's an edge behind, which due to contrast, appears sharper, so I think this may be fooling (some of) us to seeing it as a floating element not part of the picture of broken bits.

There is no question that different degrees of contrast (dynamic range) within multiple, very small areas of an image can affect the perception of sharpness. That perception can lead to beliefs that are proven inaccurate by examining the sharpness determined by the optics of the lens. Even so, perception is a lot more important than reality, so this is a fascinating discussion for me!

I wonder if the cause of the softness (that I perceive) is due to the separate exposure and/or its masking?

Knowing how I did the masking and knowing the very sharp contrast at the edges of the mask that made the masking unusually easy to do, I'm very certain the masking is not a factor. The exposure was exactly the same in both captures. (Even if the shutter speed and/or ISO had been changed, I don't think that would have caused a change in perception so long as the aperture had remained unchanged.)

Mike may take issue with the length of my analysis

Nothing to take issue with either the quantity or quality of it. Really interesting stuff!

[Dave Humphries]

Nothing to take issue with either the quantity or quality of it. Really interesting stuff!

Don't encourage me!

Thinking (and looking) more at the image, the areas of the bottle top I was specifically looking at are actually 'rounded edges' - the sides of the neck and even the top, which has a (smaller) radius of curvature away from the camera - perhaps this has more to do with the perception than optical 'softness'.

Compared with some of the broken edges of glass which end 'abruptly'.

Interesting indeed Mike

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

My theory about why the upturned neck seems to float is that it does not APPEAR to be perpendicular to the plane on which the remainder of the glass is resting - and this appearance is very strong for me.

I need you to edit all of my photos, Mark. You must have an unbelievably good eye for that.

You're correct that the bottle top is leaning. I didn't realize that until I created the image (never displayed here) that includes the reflections. The reflection of that bottle top makes it apparent that it's leaning just slightly to the left, probably because the very top on which it is standing doesn't allow the bottle to stand straight up. So, does it also appear to be leaning slightly to the left to you? Once I hear from you, I'll try making that change if you'll please bear with me.

Having said that, I wonder if getting the bottle straight is going to affect the perception that it is floating. I actually don't mind that perception because it's part of the somewhat surrealistic style I envisioned but I also don't think I would mind if it didn't appear to float.

EDIT: I added a close-up of the bottle neck just in case it helps you determine which direction it appears to lean.

[Mike Buckley]

Okay, Dave, I'm reasonably confident I can "out bore" you.

the areas of the bottle top I was specifically looking at are actually 'rounded edges' - the sides of the neck and even the top, which has a (smaller) radius of curvature away from the camera - perhaps this has more to do with the perception than optical 'softness'.

Those rounded edges are displaying some very slight direct reflections that create a relatively gradual change in tonal variation despite that it happens in a relatively tiny area. That gradual change can lead to the perception of softness because it reduces the impact that would otherwise be delivered to the eye if there had been a sharp line of demarcation between very dark and very bright.

Ah ha! Now that I have put everyone else to sleep, do I also have to wake up you? Nah, you're a true geek when it comes to this stuff.

[Brownbear]

Beautiful and creative. I think this is my favourite of your broken glass shots, something about the gorgeous green tones and surreal feel appeals to me. Albeit, my favourite images of yours are still your beautifully elegant (not broken) wine bottle and glasses.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Christina!

[marlunn]

Nice, now of to get a plaster as i think I cut myself looking at it

[Downrigger]

So, does it also appear to be leaning slightly to the left to you? I actually don't mind that perception because it's part of the somewhat surrealistic style I envisioned but I also don't think I would mind if it didn't appear to float.

Yes - I like it as is - the neck and shoulders not quite a part of the rest. But no - it's not that it leans left (appreciably to me eye). It's that it looks quite vertical to me ( in the forward/aft - near/far sense ) while the surface the shards rest on seems to be sloping downwards towards the viewer's knees. Absent that effect - if it's based in any reality apart from my tattered old neurons, the neck and shoulders may pop forth a bit because they are more solid - less translucent.