Wine in glass with bottle

[Mike Buckley]

2014 Red Knot "Signature" shiraz from McLaren Vale, Australia, an area noted for its shiraz.

Please click to display the image at a larger size.

Setup
The tabletop is wood. A medium continuous-light lamp is at the right front area of the scene. Another medium continuous-light lamb behind and below the scene is shining toward a white wall that reflects the light toward the scene from the rear. A white reflector adds a reflection to the bottom side of the glass and the top of the bottle.

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed, that white reflection on the glass, lower left; is a bit too stark.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mike,

I agree with John about that reflection lower left - probably wouldn't be so bad if it weren't cropped by the edge of frame, making a visually attention grabbing acute angle.

However, the first thing that struck me was how you'd managed to achieve sufficient Depth of Field, so I peeked at the EXIF data (impressed by its completeness, btw).

Nikon D5100 and 35mm f/2 D lens.
Aperture-priority AE, 6 sec, f/22, ISO 100, Compensation: -2
Focus: Manual, at 45cm, with a depth of field of about 14cm, (from about 5.8cm before the focus point to about 7.9cm after)
AF Area Mode: Single Area

NB the "Focus" bit of the EXIF data may not be accurate.

Cheers, Dave

[John 2]

Agree with John/Dave on the reflection Mike but an interesting view point. The narrow aspect ratio was obviously deliberate. Any particular reason? BTW, there is a bit od a blue/cyan cast in the whites showing on my calibrated monitor (Gotcha) .

[Sergio M.]

Interesting perspective, Mike. I like the circles formed by the top of the wine glass and the wine. Although they are not complete the mind fills in the rest. They really grab the eye. I know how exacting you are so I have to wonder if the reflection was deliberate.

Sergio

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, guys!

My thinking about the reflection all of you mentioned is that it was needed to counterbalance the white label on the other side of the frame. You'll probably be pleased to know that I have other ideas about using the same basic overhead view in other photos without that reflection.

John: The 2:1 aspect ratio was used because the sensor's aspect ratio left too much unhelpful negative space and placed more equal emphasis on the wine glass and the bottle, whereas I wanted the bottle to play more of a supporting role.

John again: You and I see the same blue cast in most parts of the white areas. I have no idea where that is coming from except to mention that I didn't have the scene enclosed in a black tent as when I usually make shots like this. I intentionally left one one side of the scene open to reflecting everything in my tiny makeshift studio. Even so, I don't know of a specific reason that blue tint appears. I considered reshooting the image using a WhiBal card to compare the white balance after making whatever adjustment might have been required with the card in the scene, but it wasn't important enough for me to go to the trouble of doing it. I could have eliminated that blue tint during post-processing (and still might today just in case I like the image more without it).

Dave: Am I right that the depth of field that you determined is an estimate rather than EXIF information? The reason I ask is that I thought my cataloging software displays all EXIF info and I've never seen the data you provided. Considering that you examined the metadata so carefully, I wonder if you noticed the keyword, selective focus. I mention it because I doubt that I have ever shot an image before this one using both selective focus and f/22, which is the smallest aperture on that lens. By the way, the reason I use that lens so much in my studio photography is because it has by far the smallest focusing distance of all my lenses.

EDIT: Sheesh! It just now occurred to me what might have caused the blue cast to appear in the white areas: I was standing about 2 feet (0.6 meters) from the scene wearing blue jeans and a blue sweater. Normally in that situation I would have been separated from the scene by a black curtain, but intentionally not this time.

[John 2]

I was only teasing Mike.

[Mike Buckley]

I was only teasing Mike.

I forgot to mention your cute note about using your calibrated monitor! Darn! I realized that you were only teasing about that comment, but it will still be interesting to determine if it would be nice to at least minimize the blue tint.

[Mike Buckley]

I made the changes to the white tones and prefer them to my original image. The revised version is shown below. If you didn't notice the blue tint when viewing only the original, you'll surely notice it if you're using a calibrated monitor when toggling back and forth between the two images viewed in the Lytebox.

[Dave Humphries]

I (now) see what you mean about the blue tint Mike,

It is still the 'straight on 3 sides' shape that jars my senses most. Possibly a different shaped glass wouldn't have behaved the same way.

Dave: Am I right that the depth of field that you determined is an estimate rather than EXIF information? The reason I ask is that I thought my cataloging software displays all EXIF info and I've never seen the data you provided. Considering that you examined the metadata so carefully, I wonder if you noticed the keyword, selective focus. I mention it because I doubt that I have ever shot an image before this one using both selective focus and f/22, which is the smallest aperture on that lens. By the way, the reason I use that lens so much in my studio photography is because it has by far the smallest focusing distance of all my lenses.

Yes, it is an estimate of DoF, I have PM'd you a link.

[bnnrcn]

It says 'drink me' , very nice !

I made the changes to the white tones and prefer them to my original image. The revised version is shown below. If you didn't notice the blue tint when viewing only the original, you'll surely notice it if you're using a calibrated monitor when toggling back and forth between the two images viewed in the Lytebox.

[Wavelength]

Excellent image; but, ouch, first i thought that white reflection to be the handle of the mug

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to Binnur and Nandakumar.

[george013]

Mike,
It's a D lens. D from distance. Distance info is passed to the camera and I'm quite sure also kept in the exif. I'm sure there are exif viewers that display it. I've seen before. I don't know why Dave is sending you a PM with a link and not just here.

What do you mean with selective focus?

George

[Kaye Leggett]

As ever another interesting photo - love it.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to George and Kaye!

I don't know why Dave is sending you a PM with a link [displaying the metadata] and not just here.

He was very nicely concerned that some information displayed in the metadata was not intended for the viewing public. I explained that it actually is, so I'm happy to provide his link so you can also view the information.

What do you mean with selective focus?

Nothing fancy. Using selective focus is just intentionally making only parts of the image sharply in focus.

[george013]

Thank you to George and Kaye!



He was very nicely concerned that some information displayed in the metadata was not intended for the viewing public. I explained that it actually is, so I'm happy to provide his link so you can also view the information.



Nothing fancy. Using selective focus is just intentionally making only parts of the image sharply in focus.

Jeffrey's, that's the one I meant which shows distance info. If you want to use it in FF, it's a little bit strange to install. It took me some time.

I found out that selective focus is another name for shallow dof. How can people make things difficult.
I just don't see how this is related to your image which has been taken with f22 and is sharp all over.

George

[Mike Buckley]

selective focus is another name for shallow dof. How can people make things difficult.

For me, shallow depth of field is a less accurate description than limited depth of field. That's because, depending on the situation, the depth of field can be quite large even though not everything in the scene is sharply in focus. As for difficulty, I used the term, selective focus, because it has half the number of words as the term, limited depth of field. Brevity is ideal for me when tagging images.

your image...is sharp all over.

If you display the image in the Lytebox and examine the rim of the glass, you'll probably notice that it's not in focus. (That's by design, as I manually focused on the top surface of the wine.) Also, though I would have preferred that everything on the bottle's label had been sharply in focus, it doesn't bother me that that was not possible; all of the words are easily legible even though not entirely in focus.

Though I used f/22 and a focal length of 35mm, the depth of field is relatively small due to the small distance between the camera and subjects. They were so close that I'm not sure it would have been possible to render the rim of the glass sharply in focus even if I had wanted to do so.

[LePetomane]

Mike, Nice shot. How was the wine?

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Paul!

How was the wine?

Good, not great. Fine considering its relatively inexpensive cost.