Documentary studio shot -- not artistic but challenging

[Mike Buckley]

I rarely show my studio photography that is purely documentary. This shot was so challenging, despite the simplistic look of the scene, that I decided to show what was required to make it. The difficulty was displaying the shape of the frame's edges.

If you are using a 27" monitor with the resolution set at 1920 x 1080, the image of the plaque will be displayed almost exactly at life-size if you click to display the file at its full size. That's just a coincidence but perhaps interesting to anyone wondering about the size of the subject.

There is very little cropping of this image; I could easily print it at 24" x 30," which would render the image of the plaque almost nine times its actual size.

Setup
Though the second photo displays the entire setup, an explanation might be helpful. The tabletop is black textured fabric and the background is black smooth fabric.

The reflectors on the top, bottom and left and right sides cast reflections that display the shape of the edges of the frame. The reflectors on the sides are leaning backward at the same angle that the plaque is leaning. If the reflectors were standing straight up rather than leaning, the pair of reflections on each side of the frame would not be parallel; they would gradually converge near the top and disguise the shape.

The primary purpose of the light hanging above the scene was to light the plaque reasonably evenly and to also light the piece of metal relatively brightly. (Lighting that metal brightly is the first time I've accurately determined on my first try the family of angles relating to a flat, shiny surface.)

The two lamps at the front left and front right of the scene primarily light the stand and tabletop and create a direct reflection on the bottom corners of the plaque. The reflections on those two corners add some interest and anchor the scene. The diffusion socks fitted on those two lamps reduce the brightness of the light.

Unfortunately, the most important parts of the setup aren't displayed -- the pair of wine bottles. The reflectors on the left and right sides are leaning backward against wine bottles.

[Shadowman]

Nice effort and control of the lighting.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for sharing, Mike.

For those that don't do this type of shooting, they will undoubtedly be puzzled as to why this type of shot is so difficult. For those of us that do, thanks for the explanation; that's something to tuck away into the corners of my mind in case I ever run into this type of lighting situation.

The issue, of course is that you need very flat and even light illuminating the artwork itself. That is easy enough. The other part is trying to light the frame so that edges stand out so that they can be seen. Also not all that difficult when done in isolation.

The real issue is of course in blending the two effects at the same time so that the side light does not negatively influence the artwork and of course illuminating the edges (all four sides at the same time). Well done and well explained Mike!

If I had been handed this project, my first inclination would have been to do this as two separate shots, one of the artwork and one of the frame and then combine the two shots in post. But then there is always the risk of having the final product look "faked"; which you have avoided through the clever use of lighting. Experience sure helps in thins type of work,

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to John and Manfred!

Manfred or anyone,

I've got a technical question though its details may be difficult to explain.

Notice the reddish-orange area with lots of small figures. There are two colors in that area -- the lighter color of the various figures and the darker background color. Now notice that the darker background area gradually becomes lighter from top to bottom. The lighter color also becomes brighter but doesn't change as much. The result is that the background color becomes almost as light as the lighter color of the figures at the bottom.

However, that gradual change happens only in the image, not in the physical scene. I even removed the camera from the tripod so I could place my eyes where the camera was. When I did that, I saw no change whatsoever. I also see no change when viewing the scene in the viewfinder. I only see the change when the scene is displayed in Live View or in the electronic file. Ironically, I actually prefer the gradient displayed in this image over the lack of gradient displayed in the physical object.

What would explain that? I'm guessing that it's a particular printing technology that for whatever reason the camera sensor doesn't record the way our eyes see it. (Another example is a camera's problem dealing with the flicker rate of some light sources, but I realize that example isn't analogous to this situation.) However, that part of the plaque doesn't appear to be anything special. When I change the angle of it relative to my eyes, it doesn't display a fake three-dimensional appearance and it doesn't change color any more or in any way that any other everyday object would change.

[chauncey]

From the wisdom of someone that might be FOS...your light source seems to be aiming more
toward the bottom of the picture frame causing a higher exposure/less contrast in that area.

The fact that you cannot visualize it is probably because you handled the frame/looked at it, to the
point that the appearance was imbedded in your brain...you saw what you remembered seeing.

[Mike Buckley]

That doesn't explain it, Chauncey. I can view the change of colors in the Live View display, so that's what is embedded in my brain. I know the change in colors that I'm hoping to identify in the physical scene as seen by the naked eye. It's simply not there. Something is happening at the point of the sensor that changes the appearance.

[chauncey]

That doesn't explain it, Chauncey. I can view the change of colors in the Live View display

I didn't realize that you were shooting tethered and was seeing the different exposure in LV...
it"s gotta be light fall off/angle of reflection/and all of what our handbook talks about.

[Mike Buckley]

I didn't realize that you were shooting tethered and was seeing the different exposure in LV...
it"s gotta be light fall off/angle of reflection/and all of what our handbook talks about.

I'm not shooting tethered but it wouldn't matter if I was. Every characteristic you mentioned should be able to be seen in the physical scene, especially once it has been identified in the electronic image and the photographer knows what to look for. The fact that it's not present in the physical scene proves to me that something else is at play that I've not yet heard about or come upon.

[Loose Canon]

Research "metamerism" Mike and see if that explains what you are seeing.

[Manfred M]

Research "metamerism" Mike and see if that explains what you are seeing.

That would be my first guess too, Terry.

The short and sweet definition of metamerism is that materials look to have different colours, depending on the light source that they are viewed under.

Mike, if you have a chance to look at the area under different light source, is the problem still as apparent?

[Loose Canon]

Keeping in mind that much the same as the camera and the human eye see the same light color differently (say fluorescent for example) material colors can be "seen" differently by the camera and the eye.

[Mike Buckley]

The short and sweet definition of metamerism is that materials look to have different colours, depending on the light source that they are viewed under.

I'm very familiar with that concept even though I had never heard of the term, metamerism. I've demonstrated to customers the difference in the apparent color of floor covering depending on the light source.

In this situation, I'm viewing the image in Live View under the same light source as when I'm viewing the physical scene itself. The lamps lighting the scene are 5500K bulbs and there are no other light sources turned on in the room. There is also no sunlight entering the room. The only other light in the room is the light generated by the camera's LCD when displaying Live View. The scene displayed in Live View is different from the physical scene.

Mike, if you have a chance to look at the area under different light source, is the problem still as apparent?

I turned off the 5500K bulbs and turned on the fluorescent bulbs that light my makeshift studio when I'm not doing any photography. (I don't know their rated temperature.) The colors displayed in Live View are the same as viewing the physical scene with the naked eye and with no change from top to bottom. However, there is only one set of fluorescent bulbs and they are in a completely different position than the three 5500K bulbs used to make the photo.

Does this information tell us anything conclusive?

[Manfred M]

Mike - I suspect without seeing what the materials are and what you are seeing, we are going to get into making some pretty wild guesses and be no closer to figuring out what you are seeing.

I'm not an expert on the printing process used to make the plaque, but have seen some fairly amazing textured effects when the material is debossed or embossed. I suspect there has to be something that changes the direction of the light hitting the lens, but what that might be, ????

[Mike Buckley]

I suspect there has to be something that changes the direction of the light hitting the lens, but what that might be, ????

I don't think it has anything to do with the lens. If it did, I think the change would be noticeable when looking through the viewfinder. It's only noticeable when using Live View or viewing the electronic file. That tells me that the sensor is recording something that the naked eye and lens aren't seeing.

The situation is interesting but only because I've never come across it. It's really bizarre to witness such a huge difference between the physical scene and the camera's recording of it.

Thanks for trying to determine what the cause might be. At this point, I agree that we're only guessing.

[TonyW]

If I am allowed to continue the guess work, I would say the the answer is more likely to be in how the eye and brain work rather than how the camera works. I have noticed many times that what I thought was a uniform light to the eye is not uniform to the camera. And our experience is that the eye is a terrible light metre. It somehow compensates for light variations. The only experiment I can think of would be to get a light metre and test different parts of the scene and compare that with what the eye sees. At least that would eliminate the considerations of lens/camera effects.

[Mike Buckley]

If I am allowed to continue the guess work, I would say the the answer is more likely to be in how the eye and brain work rather than how the camera works.

I've done some more tweaking of the setup and have concluded that, if I had to make a large bet, I would bet that your explanation is correct. When I change the position of the top reflector to allow more light to strike the top part of the plaque, I dramatically minimize the change from top to bottom in the red-orange parts of the plaque. Most important, the physical scene and the image displayed in Live View now seem to be so similar that I detect no appreciable difference between them.

I still can't explain why there was such a large difference so repeatedly between my perception of the electronic image and the physical scene as originally lit, especially taking into account that when making a relatively small change to the lighting renders my perception of the electronic image and physical scene to be the same.

That experience of the different perceptions was unbelievably unusual for me. Now that I've had it and worked through it, I'll be more open in the future to accepting that my brain and eye can work together in a way that can be surprisingly deceiving. Indeed, I need to remain on the lookout for the possibility of that kind of deception taking place and to have more confidence in the camera system to accurately record the scene.

Thanks again to everyone trying to figure this out.

[Manfred M]

Another thought, Mike.

Camera sensors are sensitive to "near" infra-red (IR); whereas our eyes are not. The colours in question have red tones in them, so what you might be seeing is IR frequencies being picked up. Your eyes can't see them, but your camera probably can. To test this, point an IR remote at the camera in live view mode; chances are it will show up on screen, even though it looks black to you.

I just tested this with one of my cameras and one of the remotes shows a violet light; so the near ultra-violet (UV) seems to transmitted as well.

[Mike Buckley]

I used only one remote and the camera didn't capture anything transmitted by the remote.

[FeatherMonkey]

Is this not the black or gold dress problem, and camera picking up a different reflection now you've tweaked. I wonder whether someone else might of seen the live view the same, in the original.

What I find strange is your setup shot seems almost the reverse, brighter figures fading into background whilst it's getting slightly darker and bottom to top. Or is this just me, hell I've still got plenty to learn could just as likely be me, missing something.

[Mike Buckley]

Is this not the black or gold dress problem, and camera picking up a different reflection now you've tweaked.

Though the light falling on the top of the plaque increased when I tweaked the setup, that tweak didn't change any of the reflections.

I wonder whether someone else might of seen the live view the same, in the original.

I considered asking my wife to compare the physical scene and the electronic file but decided against it. That's because her eyes, especially one of them, are so unreliable that I wouldn't have been able to come to any strong conclusion based on her perceptions.

What I find strange is your setup shot seems almost the reverse...Or is this just me

I can appreciate that the relationship that you mention between the figures and the background could play a role that is similar to a Rorschach test. So, I'm not surprised that your perception about that is different from mine.