Wine Pour -- Take 2

[Mike Buckley]

None of us were satisfied with the results of Take 1, so I remade the shot with several changes. As a reminder, we're comparing my image to this full-page magazine and website ad. The ad has a great concept (I wish I had thought of it!) but in my opinion is so good that it deserves better execution.

The most significant changes compared to my first image are that the angle of the bottle is different, a reflection has been added to the wine glass and the wine pour, a larger depth of field was used (it keeps all of the wine sharp), the wine inside the bottle can now be seen, and the action of the wine was stopped using a faster shutter speed. All of that adds up to lots more pop and pizzazz!

Setup
A halogen continuous-light lamp on the left side of the camera is flagged to prevent reflections of the light source in the bowl of the glass. (This lamp is 600 watts, which made it possible to use a faster shutter speed of 1/500 even though I was also using a smaller aperture.) A small continuous-light flourescent lamp lights the background made of blue presentation paper from below. A white reflector placed on the right side of the glass adds the reflection to that side of the bowl of the glass, to the left rear rim and to the right side of the upper wine pour.

EDIT: A revised image inspired by Dave's suggestion is posted later in the thread.

[mknittle]

Aww, that is it.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[Donald]

All of that adds up to lots more pop and pizzazz!

It does indeed.

[Manfred M]

Now you're getting back into the swing of it! No issues with this version.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mike,

Yes, that's a lot better.

I think the shape of the wine pour is fundamental to the action feel - the initial 'glug' is receding - I think. Well anyway, it clearly isn't a steady trickle.

Looking at it again, the 'receding glug' might have been the case in Take 1 also, just that we couldn't see that so well from head-on.

My only minor suggestion here is that if mine; I would have had a few less pixels of glass at the bottom of frame - I'm not talking much, < 5% height crop off the lower edge.

Hope that helps, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, everyone!

Manfred and Dave: You might remember helping me with details about my purchase of a used halogen lamp awhile back. This is the second time I have used it but it's only the first time I have used it to produce a keeper. The little handle on the back that Manfred and I suspected was way too small is actually sufficiently large; it maneuvers the lamp just fine and surprisingly doesn't get hot.

I would have had a few less pixels of glass at the bottom of frame - I'm not talking much, < 5% height crop off the lower edge.

Thanks for the suggestion, Dave. I decided to crop quite a bit more off the bottom. That's because the more I studied the image, I realized the diffraction created by the glass made the bottom of the wine pour appear as if it suddenly changed direction a little. Even though the mind might tell the eye that that's due to diffraction, I decided to eliminate the issue altogether by cropping just above where the pour "takes that turn."

[flashback]

As a few people are oft to point out, our eyes are drawn to bright areas in an image. This being the case in this image, my eye goes directly to what I assume is your (a) hand holding the bottle. Since it is bright but formless, in other words that it's a hand is an assumption but there are no details to that hand so to me it's superfluous. Can the bottle be held further down towards the bottom? Or some other method? Other than that I'd say you kinda nailed it.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the idea, Jack!

The hand is actually far from the brightest area of the image. The tones in that area of the image have a luminosity value of about 175, which is also the same brightness as the brightest area of the background. That part of the background is its brightest area to attract the eye to the wine pour. The white reflections in the wine glass are quire a bit brighter with luminosity values ranging from about 200 to a few small reflections that are about 255.

I think the reasons the hand stands out is because it lacks detail (due to lighting and being so out of focus) and because the hand and its reflection in the bottle provide the only warm tones in the image. Even so, the hand provides nice context and for me doesn't detract from the subject.

I actually tried a version that kept the hand out of the lens's field of view and didn't like it because it lacked the context of the hand. That might be my perspective only because I have perhaps become bored with making several other images of a bottle of wine being poured in which the hand isn't included.

If you dislike the hand in my image, you probably dislike it even more in the ad because the ad displays a far brighter hand that is also far more prominent though with slightly more detail.

[RBSinTo]

As a few people are oft to point out, our eyes are drawn to bright areas in an image. This being the case in this image, my eye goes directly to what I assume is your (a) hand holding the bottle. Since it is bright but formless, in other words that it's a hand is an assumption but there are no details to that hand so to me it's superfluous. Can the bottle be held further down towards the bottom? Or some other method? Other than that I'd say you kinda nailed it.

Very first thing I thought of when I saw the photo.
Either use more depth of field to include detail in the hand and make the necessary adjustments to control the light falling on it, remove it from the shot entirely by holding the bottle further back, or change the angle of the bottle so the hand is out of frame.
Also, as I recall from books on Food Photography, to better control the pour and so eliminate the "glug", the bottom of the bottle is usually removed.

[Mike Buckley]

eliminate the "glug"

Thanks for the idea but I wouldn't want to eliminate it. I absolutely love the sound of the glug and any visual detail that reminds me of it is welcome.

You and I were writing posts at the same time, so you might have missed my response to Jack about your concerns regarding the hand.

[IzzieK]

I like this one better than the first one...more clearer and at least I know what I am really looking at.

[RBSinTo]

Thanks for the idea but I wouldn't want to eliminate it. I absolutely love the sound of the glug and any visual detail that reminds me of it is welcome.

You and I were writing posts at the same time, so you might have missed my response to Jack about your concerns regarding the hand.

Mike,
Yes, I saw your reply, but it didn't change my thoughts on how in my opinion this image could be improved.
In the end, you, or your client are the only people whose opinions matter.
Robert

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to Izzie and Robert!

[bnnrcn]

Certainly better than the first one Mike. Very nice and I prefer the cropped version