Wine Glass: broken but still elegant

[Mike Buckley]

Believe it or not, I didn't break this wine glass. My friends did. I love the shape of the bowl so much that I just had to showcase it.

There is one fundamental difference and no other differences between the first two images shown below. (EDIT: There is one additional small difference. Considering that I copied the edit steps from one file to the other, I have no idea how it occurred.) Do you have a strong preference for one over the other? The reason I ask is that the photos represent two different styles and I have no idea which style most people tend to like.


Photo #1: No reflection added to the glass



Photo #2: Reflection added to the glass



My favorite -- Photo #3: Like Photo #1 but post-processed to make the interior of the glass completely black. A return to my initial style.

[Ken Curtis]

Hi Mike. I prefer the first one - less is more. I admire how you are able photograph glass objects, retain the sharpness throughout and have no distracting elements.

[Shadowman]

Is there a correlation between broken glasses and the red or white wines? Nice image.

[Downrigger]

This degree of immaculate sharpness and definition is so remarkable – is present in so many of your others – and it is difficult to conceive of how it is achieved. So they are both quite amazing.

In the second image, additional light is coming from somewhere in the direction of the camera and reflects to add three dimensionality, and it also adds brightness to the light areas.
Adding a near reflection to confer shape appeals to me as a way to show roundness.
But… the near reflection in the second image is complex and has some structure and so I think detracts more than it adds. And further, the extra light takes the bright areas to too bright for my eye and brings out a distracting second lip at about six o’clock on the upper glass. There is a creamy quality to the light areas in the first that is lost with the extra brightness in the second.

So I prefer the lighting concept in the second but feel the first is the more successful image.

[chauncey]

Mike, I can't see that you did anything other than alter the camera position which affected the lighting...that itself is interesting and would give more reason to shoot tethered.
Would make it a lot easier to pick up on those subtle nuances.

You're using your black Plexiglas???...doesn't quite give the mirror reflection that I would have thought.
Oh yeah, like the first one more better.

[flashback]

I prefer the second image. I'm guessing you added some additional light(ing). Regardless there seems to be more 'life' in the second image.

[Rita]

Between the 2 I far prefer #1. It seems more simple yet elegant.

[Stagecoach]

Mike,

I prefer the 1st image that does not have the additional exposure of the 2nd. I feel that the additional information in the 2nd detracts from the 'shapes'.

Grahame

[travis4567]

Nice Mike, I prefer #2. I think its' a standoff between the two.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to all for the interesting responses!

The fundamental difference between the two images is that I used a relatively large reflector in the second image. The reflector provides information that is aesthetically pleasing or not in itself. It also provides additional information whether or not the viewer thinks it is helpful about the shape of the glass. Rather than use a reflector, I could have accomplished a similar look by shining an additional light source through an equally large piece of diffusion material.

Chauncey: Contrary to your thinking, the relationship between the subject, background, tabletop, subject and camera is exactly the same in the two images.

Grahame: Contrary to your thinking, the exposure is exactly the same in the two images. Having said that, there is something I have not figured out yet about my post-processing that might have understandably led you to think otherwise. I was running out of memory in my computer when copying the edit steps from the second image to the first image, and I actually wonder if something didn't get copied accurately. Even so, flipping back and forth between the two images, I would think that you would have thought the first image has more exposure, not the second one. My guess is that there are some optical illusions influencing us.

[Stagecoach]

Mike,

I based my 'guess' upon what I read the exposures as, No 1 - 2.0s f16 and No 2 - 2.5s f16 with same EC on both and that No 2 appears brighter than No 1. Lighting on the rim seemed to support this.

After coming to that conclusion and posting I opened No 1 expecting to be able to get it somewhere nearer to No 2 then realised there was something else that was causing the difference.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

No 1 - 2.0s f16 and No 2 - 2.5s f16

Very interesting, Grahame. The EXIF data of the images on my computer indicated 2.0 seconds for both. After downloading the images displayed here in CiC, the EXIF data on my system indicates the same. I wonder how the EXIF data displayed on your computer indicates different shutter speeds. Don't ya just love technology?!

[Stagecoach]

It certainly is interesting because I get those different speeds showing in, ACR, ViewNX and Opanda

Whilst not particularly significant with this it makes you wonder where else such data errors could throw you totally.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

Grahame,

You're gonna just love this information.

I have come to the conclusion over time that EXIF information is reliable about 99% of the time and this situation apparently happens to be an example of the 1% when it is not.

Seeing that you used View NX2 as one of the applications to view the EXIF data, I then used Capture NX2. When reviewing the two files uploaded to CiC, it indicates that both images were shot at a shutter speed of 2.0 seconds. I didn't open either photo in the corresponding RAW files because that could literally take 30 minutes each (lots of spot-healing-type cloning inevitably causes that). So, I opened the backups of the unedited RAW files in Capture NX2. Guess what?! It indicates that both were shot at a shutter speed of 2.5 seconds, not 2.0 seconds.

I hadn't deleted the files from my memory card, so I reinserted it in my camera. It indicates the same as your information, that one image was shot at 2.0 seconds and the other at 2.5 seconds.

All I can say is that I made multiple exposures of the two images and realized that both displayed a fingerprint that was so clear and precise that any police department would have given anything to obtain it in a crime scene. After removing the fingerprint from the glass, I shot both compositions again I thought using only one exposure, as I had already determined the ideal exposure in my first set of images displaying the thumbprint.

So, we have one set of EXIF data displayed in your software. We have two sets of EXIF data displayed differently depending on the software that I use (my cataloging software and Capture NX2). We have a third set of EXIF data displayed on my camera. Go figure.

[Loose Canon]

Hi Mike!

Um, #1 for sure for me. Way cleaner and the refractions are much more subtle. While I have no doubt the exposure settings are the same in-camera, it looks to me that the final result (histogram) is a bit different exposure wise. Enough in a low key to make a difference overall.

From the angle you shot it from I can tell the shape by the nicely highlighted rim, side highlights, and even the bottom bowl highlight, though that’s a honker! One issue to my crossed eyes is where the stem meets the bowl. The refractions there don’t seem to match the shape of the rim/bowl and confuses my feeble mind! The highlights on the surface reflection look great and match up better to give a more rounded look to the bottom of the bowl.

I would have cleaned the highlight in the center of the glass and taken it all to black. As it is I have difficulty telling whether that highlight is on the front or the back of the glass. Depending on how you look at it changes the perception.

#2? Same with those reflections. Hard to tell if they are front or back and could be seen as being a glare in conflict with the nice shape of the beautifully lit rim. I have seen you disparage glass lit in just this very way. I wonder why you did it here?

[Mike Buckley]

Hi, Terry!

it looks to me that the final result (histogram) is a bit different exposure wise.

Yes, the histogram indicates that. However, I'm so aware of the problems that I had copying the edit steps from one image to the other that I still think at least one of them didn't copy accurately. Let's assume for the moment that the edit step that adjusted the tone curve didn't copy correctly. If that happened, the histogram would certainly not be the same in the two images. (Nikon Capture NX2 is renowned for other quirks, so I'm not yet willing to believe this situation isn't yet another one.)

I suppose we'll never know the explanation with any degree of certainty.

where the stem meets the bowl. The refractions there don’t seem to match the shape of the rim/bowl

Though I'm not confused by that in this particular situation, I hear you because I've felt that way in other situations. I've actually given up trying to figure out how curved glass refracts light. It's very unpredictable to me, so I take it as it is. I either like the pattern of light that is formed or I don't. In this case, I like it so I felt no need to try something different.

I would have cleaned the highlight in the center of the glass and taken it all to black. As it is I have difficulty telling whether that highlight is on the front or the back of the glass. Depending on how you look at it changes the perception.

Thanks so much for mentioning that. I decided to do something a bit different in this shot than in the past mostly as a stylistic change. I might take all of the center of the glass to black. I might take only the rear part that is exposed to black. I made this image only today and haven't lived with this particular look long enough to know what I like and don't like about it. I tend to like a very simple look, so don't be surprised if I take everything except the mid-tones and bright areas to black.

[Mike Buckley]

For the record, I prefer the simplicity of the first image. I see so many examples that are similar to the second image that I decided to finally make one that way. So, I'm not surprised that some people prefer the second image. To each his or her own.

[flashback]

Now you're just messin' with us. :-)

[Mike Buckley]

Now you're just messin' with us. :-)

As much as I would usually take great pride in doing that, not this time.

[Brownbear]

Beautifully photographed, as always. I prefer the 1st image, for me it is more elegant and beautiful primarily because of the uppermost glass.