Wine Bottle

[Mike Buckley]

This wine label is a favorite of mine, as this is my third photo of it.

The photo was made in a style that is more modern than most of my other images of wine bottles. Its simplicity makes it look easy to make even to me, but it was surprisingly difficult to make the four primary elements happen -- defining the shape of the bottle, separating the bottle from the background, displaying the texture in the background and lighting the corner of the background from top to bottom.

You may need to display the image in the largest size in the Lytebox to view the texture in the background and to see separation between the bottle and the background. Even so, if you aren't using a calibrated monitor and a browser that manages color very well you still may not be able to view those subtleties.

Setup
The tabletop is grey art paper and the background is part of a tri-fold, upright presentation board made of cardboard with a black finish. A medium continuous-light lamp fitted with a diffusion sock is to the right of the camera pointed on an axis that is parallel to the lens. A reflector is on the left side of the bottle adding a reflection to that side of the glass and foil and lifting the shadow on the left side of the label.

I desaturated the image only because the tabletop had a very slight green cast. The rest of the image appeared to be in grey scale so I took the easy way out by making all of the image in grey scale.

[ShaneS]

I can't comment on the technicalities of the shot but I like the background and the way you lit it. Two questions:

Why do I not see a continuous rim around the top edge from the curve of the bottle to the top (label to label on the right)?

Secondly, did you consider showing the bottom of the bottle which would result in seeing more of the angles of the background you chose? I think that may make the image more dynamic.

[Mike Buckley]

Why do I not see a continuous rim around the top edge from the curve of the bottle to the top (label to label on the right)?

I think you mean from label to foil. If so, the easiest way to explain it is to point you toward a more exaggerated example of the reflection in the same area but on the left side of the bottle. Notice that the two parts of that reflection are separated by an area with no reflection. The same is true on the right side, as that is a reflection of the diffusion sock attached to the lamp. That's simply the shape of the reflection.

Secondly, did you consider showing the bottom of the bottle which would result in seeing more of the angles of the background you chose?

That was actually the way I initially planned the shot. The resulting composition seemed too complex in the lower part of the scene so I used the simpler composition shown above.

[TonyW]

Mike, I thought I understood your lighting arrangements but this one has got me beat. The rim light that Shane mentioned looks to me as though it is caused by a light almost behind the bottle but your light is pointing parallel to the lens towards the bottle. It is not clear to me what light the reflector is picking up.

I can see the outline of the bottle on the left had side but it seems to disappear on the right hand side below the label. I can see a vertical strip of light beside the bottle on the left hand side. That doesn't look as though it belongs.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to Tony and John!

The rim light that Shane mentioned looks to me as though it is caused by a light almost behind the bottle but your light is pointing parallel to the lens towards the bottle.

To be technically accurate, the lens is pointed almost directly toward the bottle. Considering that the lamp is pointed parallel to the lens, the lamp is pointed a little to the right of the bottle, actually a little to the right of everything captured by the lens. It's difficult to see at the file's small size shown here but the dead giveaway that the "rim light" you mentioned is not really a rim light is that it does not extend all the way to the edge of the bottle.

It is not clear to me what light the reflector is picking up.

The lamp's reflector allows the light to spread outward to the left and right in the shape of a cone. By the time the light gets to the scene, it is lighting stuff to the left and right of the lamp, not just scenery directly in front of it. The light is striking the reflector positioned on the left side of the scene just beyond the frame. That light is then thrown to the right and is reflected on the bottle.

I can see the outline of the bottle on the left had side but it seems to disappear on the right hand side below the label.

The edge of the bottle is easy to see on my monitor. Notice the slight reflection just below the right side of the label. The edge of the bottle is the darker area to the right of that and of course the background is to the right of that edge.

I can see a vertical strip of light beside the bottle on the left hand side. That doesn't look as though it belongs.

I don't see it unless you are referring to the corner of the background that extends from the top of the frame to the tabletop. If you're referring to that corner, that was most definitely planned from the outset.

[TonyW]

This is getting curiouser and curiouser. Firstly, my monitor is calibrated but I obviously don't see the same as you do.

I downloaded the file and opened it with photoshop. It looked pretty much the same. I used the colour picker to determine the colours on the bottom right hand side of the bottle just inside the edge and just outside and found that the hex code changed from 000000 (that is pure black) to 020202 (almost black but still grey). I could not see the difference.

I then did a levels adjustment of the image and changed the gamma. Things changed dramatically. I could see the texture of the background. The white streak on the left that I referred to was the fold in the background. The hex code for the colour just outside the bottle on the bottom right had values more like 060606 rather than 020202 and this time I could see the difference.

The questions now are whether my eyesight is so defective (which I doubt), whether the calibration of my monitor is correct, whether the monitor is capable of showing such small changes in colour or whether there is something deficient in the way colour is rendered by the graphics software. I don't know how to answer all these questions.

I would like to know what other people see when they look at this image.

[Rita]

For what it is worth I am seeing the same thing as Tony is. The bottle disappears on the right hand side and I also see the white line to the left of the bottle. I moved the image to PS and increased the exposure. Mystery solved. It looks like the line is showing the join in the BG material. I have circled it here so you can see where we are seeing it.

[Tronhard]

It is probably my engineer's eye, but my first impression is that it is not vertically aligned, and seems to have a slight perspective showing the lens is a bit high relative to the bottle. There also seems to be some barrel distortion. Definitely I can see the line on the left, and the base of the bottle resting on the supporting surface - they are less problematic for me if the the vertical is vertical.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Trev It seems to me that it is not the distortion, I think it is the real shape of the bottle, but of course Mike is the one who knows it best

It is probably my engineer's eye, but my first impression is that it is not vertically aligned, and seems to have a slight perspective showing the lens is a bit high relative to the bottle. There also seems to be some barrel distortion. Definitely I can see the line on the left, and the base of the bottle resting on the supporting surface - they are less problematic for me if the the vertical is vertical.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike I'm happy with the look of the bottle as the white label and the foil stand out very well on the dark bottle.Very elegant looking bottle indeed and I like the delicate logo and writings on the label. I find the BG extraordinary . I like it .

[ShaneS]

Thanks for the explanation Mike! I can see what you mean about showing the bottom of the bottle making the composition too complex and almost didn't ask that question as I know concept and reality often don't work out as planned especially in photography.

The reflection discussion is a bit over my head but I will leave that to you and others to hash out the technicalities as I don't think lighting is in my future except the natural kind

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, all!

Interesting discussion. I can't make an electronic image appear the same on other viewers' computers the way it appears on my computer. I use a profiled, calibrated monitor and Firefox as the browser and that's the maximum control available to me. The image appears exactly the same whether I display it in my post-processing software, my cataloging software or the browser. That's no surprise considering that all are color-managed. On the other hand, it doesn't look at all the same on my television, which is understandable because it's not calibrated.

I also see the white line to the left of the bottle...It looks like the line is showing the join in the BG material.

As I explained in the first post, that corner is one of the four main parts of the image and I intentionally lit it to display from the top of the frame to the tabletop. If you are seeing only the part of the line that is displayed within the circle you drew, be aware that I see that line going from the top of the frame to the tabletop in my version of the image and that is by design. I also see the entire line in your version, not just the part of the line within the circle that you drew.

It is probably my engineer's eye, but my first impression is that it is not vertically aligned

The camera has a built-in electronic level and I used it. However, when examining the photo on my computer, the image seemed ever so slightly tilted to the right, so I made that correction to my eye. Such corrections are needed when there is no imaginary or real line in the image that can be used as a true vertical or horizontal. That's the case in this image because none of the products (the bottle, label or the cardboard background) are made true enough to use that way.

seems to have a slight perspective showing the lens is a bit high relative to the bottle.

It's not possible to know whether there is any perspective distortion unless you know the diameter of the bottle is the same size at the shoulder and the base. A lot of wine bottles are not the same size at the shoulder and base and this wine bottle is an example. Both the wine bottle and the label are narrower at the base than at the top.

I have no idea whether the lens is positioned in the center of the vertical dimension. Knowing that information would not help me make or critique this photograph.

There also seems to be some barrel distortion.

I have absolutely no idea how one can determine barrel distortion considering the subject, background and tabletop in this image. Nikon software was used to convert the Nikon raw file and is configured to automatically adjust for barrel distortion when using the Nikon lens this image was captured with.

Definitely I can see the line on the left, and the base of the bottle resting on the supporting surface

You definitely do not see the base of the bottle resting on the supporting surface. That's because that part of the bottle is not included in the scene. Instead, you see the front of the bottle near its base and you see the tabletop. But you don't see where the bottle is resting on the tabletop.

[Mike Buckley]

almost didn't ask that question as I know concept and reality often don't work out as planned especially in photography.

I hope you and anyone always feels comfortable asking, as no harm can come from it and all of us (especially me) have the potential to gain from it.

[Mike Buckley]

I used the colour picker to determine the colours on the bottom right hand side of the bottle just inside the edge and just outside and found that the hex code changed from 000000 (that is pure black) to 020202 (almost black but still grey). I could not see the difference.

I haven't used a color picker to determine the hex code values. However, I did quickly use one in my post-processing software that I used to convert the raw file to determine that the two areas are essentially as you explained when analyzing the output values on a scale of 0 - 255. It's very easy for me to see the difference in the two areas, which explains why I'm not surprised with your or my quantitative findings.

I then did a levels adjustment of the image and changed the gamma. Things changed dramatically. I could see the texture of the background. The white streak on the left that I referred to was the fold in the background.

It may or may not be of interest to you that I was extremely careful at using the histogram when determining which exposure to use of several that I captured. There was no need to adjust either the black point or the white point, as they were very close to luminosity values of zero and 255, respectively. However, I did need to adjust the gamma to bring out the texture in the background. I could have adjusted it more but doing so would have made the texture appear unattractive to my taste.

The questions now are whether my eyesight is so defective (which I doubt), whether the calibration of my monitor is correct, whether the monitor is capable of showing such small changes in colour or whether there is something deficient in the way colour is rendered by the graphics software. I don't know how to answer all these questions.

I don't know how to answer any much less all of those questions when it comes to my own hardware and software. The best I can do is use widely recognized products as they are designed to be used.

For me, the crux of the matter is that we very rarely view photos where so much of the image is made of such dark tones and when the variation in the tonality of those dark tones is so relatively slight. If I was paying for a print made with similar characteristics, I would require the right to return it if the print isn't satisfactory when viewed in the exact position on the wall where it is to be hung, under the exact lighting to be used at night (because nighttime viewing of art in my home is more important than daytime viewing) and at the exact viewing distance that would be important to me in my home. So, I wouldn't be concerned about any of the issues we're discussing with regard to an electronic display of this particular image, especially when the file being provided is so relatively small.

Just my take on this stuff.