Two glass vessels

[Mike Buckley]

One of the aspects of photographing clear glass objects that I enjoy is exploring the relationships between multiple objects. I used a limited depth of field for the first time in this style of photography to speak to the relationship between the two subjects for what I hope are appealing results.

Notice that I didn't achieve total separation between the out-of-focus object and the background. (Terry probably won't like that. ) I decided not to change that because, for me, that characteristic complements the object's secondary role.

The nuances of the out-of-focus object can be seen only when viewing the largest image in the Lytebox.

EDIT: I added the second image, which is a completely different composition and a depth of field that keeps both objects sharp.

[Brownbear]

Amazing image Mike.... I don't know how you did this but I like the DOF, which seems to be different for both objects (focusing point?) and the placement/relationship of the objects.

Am I seeing movement blur confined to the areas detail?

Beautiful image which I'm trying to learn from viewing.

[Mike Buckley]

This post and Christina's post above it addresses only the first photo, as the second photo hadn't been posted when she posted.

the DOF, which seems to be different for both objects (focusing point?)

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning, so I'll explain that it was shot with one exposure using a depth of field that kept the glass object on the right in focus and the one on the left out of focus.

Am I seeing movement blur confined to the areas detail?

There is no motion blur. Both objects were entirely still.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike...

1.Yes, that is what I meant.

2. So in the vase on the right the all the lines of light along the top edges of both sides of the uppermost portion of the vase are simply all the shadow and light details you brought out? Which would explain why the image on the right looks so sharply focused yet somehow looks like it is moving? Is it an optical illusion?

[Mike Buckley]

Christina's question about motion blur gave me the idea to roll the object on the left during the exposure. I like the results, so thank you to Christina!

[Mike Buckley]

2. So in the vase on the right the all the lines of light along the top edges of both sides of the uppermost portion of the vase are simply all the shadow and light details you brought out? Which would explain why the image on the right looks so sharply focused yet somehow looks like it is moving? Is it an optical illusion?

Yes to all of that. For me, the horizontal shapes in the bottom of the vessel on the right make it appear almost as if it is spinning, but the vertical shapes make me realize that it's not. Everyone will probably have their own impressions about that sort of thing, which is exactly one of the reasons I like photographing clear glass.

[Mito]

Mike, superb photos. My preference is the first. It gives a great sense of depth, more so than the "motion blur".
On a lighter note, have you tried exploring the relationship between bottle and glass and the effect it has on depth of focus?

[Brownbear]

Thank you for the explanation, Mike. Truly appreciated.

About that rolling vase, somehow it seems impossible that you could photograph, download and post that image so quickly nevertheless I adore the image...

[Mike Buckley]

On a lighter note, have you tried exploring the relationship between bottle and glass and the effect it has on depth of focus?

Yes, I have explored that extensively though not with regard to photography.

[Mike Buckley]

About that rolling vase, somehow it seems impossible that you could photograph, download and post that image so quickly

The camera position, camera settings, and vessel on the right were exactly the same as in the previous photo. The other vessel was essentially in the same place though rolled in one back and forth motion during the exposure. Almost all of the post-processing adjustments were copied from the second photo to the third photo. Now that you know the details, you realize that the entire process from start to finish isn't particularly impressive.

[Digital]

Mike, you are a master at photographing glass objects.


Bruce

[Mike Buckley]

You are too kind, Bruce.

[Loose Canon]

Notice that I didn't achieve total separation between the out-of-focus object and the background. (Terry probably won't like that. ) I decided not to change that because, for me, that characteristic complements the object's secondary role.

It works for me buddy!

All of your latest glass looks great Mike.

[batmura]

Terrific work!

[teokf]

Mike I like your first pix. I believe you achieved your goal of relating both the glasses with each other. I think the relationship could be accentuated even more if the complete reflection (again about the reflections ) of the background glass could be shown.

[Mike Buckley]

if the complete reflection...of the background glass could be shown.

Thanks for that idea, Steven. I don't think it occurred to me to devise a composition with the background glass being completely reflected but not the main subject. I'll make a point of trying that. Keep those ideas coming!