Tools of the Trade

[Mike Buckley]

When lighting a lot of shiny surfaces, one thing I have learned is that the easiest way to render all of the surfaces separated from each other is to begin by using a relatively large light source even if it's an indirect light source. The second thing I have learned is to hope you get really lucky. I certainly did, so much so that even the whisk's three wire bands in front of the flat spatula and the one band slightly behind it are all nicely separated from the spatula. The meat cleaver's three surfaces and the overlapping part of the tongs are also separated from each other. Better yet, the cleaver's tiny edge that is sharpened is its brightest surface. Unbelievably lucky!

By the way, I also learned while looking through my kitchen drawers for candidates for this photo that I have some tools I didn't know I have. Worse yet, it's painfully obvious that I have bought some tools that I had already owned, which I would not want my wife to know.

Setup
The background is black velvet. The subjects are suspended from a boom by gaffer's tape. A medium continuous-light lamp is on the left and a large sheet of translucent vellum is between the lamp and the subjects. That sheet is excellent diffusion material, which spreads the rays of light in many directions to become in effect a much larger light source. A small lamp on the right shining toward a large, white reflector also on the right creates the bright edge on the right side of the pasta ladle's handle and brightens the flat spatula's handle to separate it from the background.

[Shadowman]

Nice display.

[rpcrowe]

Well done...

[skitterbug]

Hi Mike ~ I really like your collection and the way you've displayed it! I also appreciate your explanations about lighting techniques.

May I ask though, how do you keep your black velvet black? No little white specks, etc.? Is it a post processing step or do you have a way of keeping that black velvet from drawing dust, etc.?

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, everyone!

Sandy: For the first time in the five years or so I've been using black velvet in my makeshift studio, I finally figured out how to keep it clean: keep it on a roll and try to never let it become horizontal. If it is used as a tabletop material, it inevitably will become dusty. The only thing that reliably removes the dust is a lint remover. Even after using one, I still have to be prepared for using a cloning tool during post-processing.

This reminds me that I need to roll up the velvet still hanging in my makeshift studio! Thank you for that!

[skitterbug]

Hi Mike ~ I do have a lint remover and I have used cloning tools so I guess I'm on the right track! However, I have mine folded and I'm guessing that storing it in this manner will make wrinkles so I need to follow your example and roll it from now on when I am finished using it. Thank you for replying!

[mugge]

Mike, as you aspire to excellence I have a beef with the illumination of the 'whatsemacallit' on the right.
Cheers Ole

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, as you aspire to excellence I have a beef with the illumination of the 'whatsemacallit' on the right.
Cheers Ole

Ha! Considering that all seven of the tools could be used to prepare a beef dish, that seems reasonable to me!

The tool on the far right is a pasta ladle. What aspect of its lighting do you object to?

[mugge]

Mike, my 'beef' is a small shadow on the bottom of the handle of the ladle (whatsemacallit). Ha! because your work is so good it follows that any criticism must also be 'beefed up' to keep you from falling into the soup like the rest of us.
Cheers Ole

[bje07]

Excellent management of the lights on reflecting surfaces

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, Jean!

Ole: Soup really isn't my thing. That "shadow" that you mentioned is a reflection of a tong on the opposite side of the ladle. I suppose I could have borrowed my neighbor's hack saw and removed that tong. Nah, perhaps a little post-processing would make you happy.

[Rent]

I like the lighting on the pasta ladle. I would like the photo better if the light on the other tools was the same. The pasta ladle has life the others look flat.
Just my thoughts
Roy

[Mike Buckley]

I like the lighting on the pasta ladle. I would like the photo better if the light on the other tools was the same. The pasta ladle has life the others look flat.

Thanks for those comments, Roy! Apologies to you and everyone for the long post in response.

The light falling on all of the tools is actually very similar; it's the reflection of the light that differs primarily with the pasta ladle. That's because that tool is by far the most shiny and has by far the most curves. Another way of putting it is that the five tools on the left have surfaces that are mostly flat and/or produce far less direct reflections. (The whisk's characteristics not yet discussed are discussed below.) Ironically, the pasta ladle has so many curves and is so shiny that it would have been extraordinarily difficult to use a lighting setup that would have produced the same effect as the other tools even if I had wanted to make that happen.

The whisk is also just as shiny as the pasta ladle, though its components are so small that it is not possible to display an equal amount of contrast at this magnification; that degree of contrast could be produced only when making a macro photo of a very tiny portion of the tool.

Due to the physics of light associated with the family of angles, only the pasta ladle can be displayed with so much contrast at this magnification when using primarily just one light source as was done when making this photo. It's important to understand that a lot of bright light was falling on the pasta ladle including the parts that are displayed as black in the photo.

There are only two ways I can think of to display the other tools with similar contrast. One method would be to use a series of many small light sources, such as small flash lights. They would make it possible to brightly light parts of each tool while leaving other parts of each tool lit not at all or lit very little. When using just one capture as was done when making this photo, that method would require far more very small light sources than the four that I own. It would also require rigging a variety of stands and/or clamps to hold those light sources, which would be very impractical if not impossible in my makeshift studio.

The other method would be to use those small light sources when capturing each tool one or two at a time and then merging the images. I certainly could have done that.

I wouldn't use either of those methods because the final product would be more surrealistic than realistic, when my goal was to achieve a strongly realistic look. I can easily imagine making a photo of just one tool lit surrealistically, such as by strongly lighting the sharp edge of a knife while leaving the rest of it very dark. But I can't imagine successfully displaying a group of diverse tools lit that way.

Even so, your comment begs the question of whether it might be a good idea to omit the pasta ladle from the image. That would make for a more uniform look throughout the entire image and would be a good solution for those who would prefer that look. For whatever reason, the dissimilar appearance of the pasta ladle doesn't bother me, so a uniform look isn't important to me.

I could also introduce more contrast during post-processing and I will probably do that at least with the garlic press.

I could also arrive at a very different, somewhat grungy look by introducing more contrast to all of the tools during post-processing. I've tried that, combining that contrast with significant noise or simulated grain, and also adding sepia toning. It looks pretty darn good! However, it's not the image I had in mind from the outset so I will have to wait at least a short while to decide whether I can become totally comfortable with such a different look.