Natural Light vs artificial light

[chaman]

I recently got a lightbox portable studio setup in an effort to improve my watch collection photography. I feel that finally am getting the hang of it. These are from my recent acquisition, a Citizen Eco Drive Tsuno Cronograph Racer model which is a modern version of their 70's era mechanical chronograph named by enthusiasts the "Bullhead" due to its curious positions of the chronograph start and stop buttons. The images:

Tsuno New Model
269A2790 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr


1970's Bullhead
269A2786-Edit by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr


Comparisons shots between them:
269A2800 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2802 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2804 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2830 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr


More of the Tsuno Model:
269A2792 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2794 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2798 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2806-Edit by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A2818 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr


I made a similar shoot with other modern Citizen model but in natural light. The backgrounds are different but I feel that the natural light looks somewhat much more attractive and interesting.


269A9252 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr


269A9250 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A9244 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A9242 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

What is your opinion? Im planning of preparing a shoot with all the elements used in the background for the natural light shoots BUT inside the lightbox. Perhaps the most important difference is the background and not the light so much?

[xpatUSA]

I was an active collector and fixer but shaky hands put an end to that.

I ended up with artificial lighting and home-made diffusers rather than the classic soft-box.

Had a good few Citizens in the past: Navitimer, Navisurf, World Timer and an Eco-drive or two.

My favorite from when I could still read a slide-rule:



Photo pre-dates my more serious photographic efforts ...

[Shadowman]

Nice series, with or without shadows would be my query, should you go for a sterile look (sans shadows) or should you go for a 3-dimensional look but subdue the highlights.

[chaman]

Natural light makes images look warmer IMO. Perhaps thats why I like them best. Which one would you prefer?

[William W]

I think that you have too many elements in your question. That’s another way of saying that I think that your question is flawed because there is an assumptive conclusion contained within it. I think that you tried to explain that . . . the contrasts and comparisons between the two sets of images are not about the effects and affects of artificial vs. natural light.

I hope this assists:

The first set of images tends to replicate what we would describe (classify) as “Product Photography”. The particular subset of Product Photography represented is “Catalogue Photography”

The second set of images resemble more a “Collectors’ Study”. They resemble ‘Portraiture of Inanimate Objects’.

Whether or not you realize it, I think that it is almost certain that your initial critique of your work is influenced by Product Photography that you have seen elsewhere. In your first series of images, if one were to critique those images solely as “Product Photography”, there are many flaws – and this might be unconscious on your part - I think you see those flaws.

I think that is a main reason why you think that the second series is more interesting; and I also think that is the origin of your other comment “Natural light makes images look warmer IMO. Perhaps thats why I like them best.”

***

I think that you should choose and then write down HOW you want to present to the viewer your collection of watches.

This is the predicate of the "Artist’s Statement".

There is discussion of this topic on another thread, it used to be a sticky – anyway, in simple terms, I believe that the Artist’s Statement can be as simple as two or three sentences, simply stating: what you want to convey and how you will convey it.

***

As an example, I collect (amongst other things): watches, fountain pens and cameras.

Recently I began photographing my Cameras. My aim was to: photograph each camera cleanly and alone; not use props; show artistic temperament; show technical skill by using natural light and a simple background.

That aim became the basis of my Artist’s Statement and the boundaries or rules that I need to obey: hence joy and stimulation not only from a good result, but also through the ‘doing’ of the task.

***

In the long run, it doesn’t matter who likes what.

A critique is most valuable when it measured against the aims of the exercise.

What are your aims?

WW

[chaman]

I think that you have too many elements in your question. That’s another way of saying that I think that your question is flawed because there is an assumptive conclusion contained within it. I think that you tried to explain that . . . the contrasts and comparisons between the two sets of images are not about the effects and affects of artificial vs. natural light.

I hope this assists:

The first set of images tends to replicate what we would describe (classify) as “Product Photography”. The particular subset of Product Photography represented is “Catalogue Photography”

The second set of images resemble more a “Collectors’ Study”. They resemble ‘Portraiture of Inanimate Objects’.

Whether or not you realize it, I think that it is almost certain that your initial critique of your work is influenced by Product Photography that you have seen elsewhere. In your first series of images, if one were to critique those images solely as “Product Photography”, there are many flaws – and this might be unconscious on your part - I think you see those flaws.

I think that is a main reason why you think that the second series is more interesting; and I also think that is the origin of your other comment “Natural light makes images look warmer IMO. Perhaps thats why I like them best.”

***

I think that you should choose and then write down HOW you want to present to the viewer your collection of watches.

This is the predicate of the "Artist’s Statement".

There is discussion of this topic on another thread, it used to be a sticky – anyway, in simple terms, I believe that the Artist’s Statement can be as simple as two or three sentences, simply stating: what you want to convey and how you will convey it.

***

As an example, I collect (amongst other things): watches, fountain pens and cameras.

Recently I began photographing my Cameras. My aim was to: photograph each camera cleanly and alone; not use props; show artistic temperament; show technical skill by using natural light and a simple background.

That aim became the basis of my Artist’s Statement and the boundaries or rules that I need to obey: hence joy and stimulation not only from a good result, but also through the ‘doing’ of the task.

***

In the long run, it doesn’t matter who likes what.

A critique is most valuable when it measured against the aims of the exercise.

What are your aims?

WW

I cant help but thinking, are you perhaps over analyzing my question? LOL! My aims? Well, that one is easy.....to have a good time photographing my images and see where my creativity comes up with. My purpose to start photographing my collection was simply to keep a pleasing to look at record of my watches. You are right that the first series of images look more like product or catalogue photography. Sterile, cold, rigid are words that come to mind. They concentrate on the design and details of the subject and are a good way of highlighting that.

The second series comes as more creative, interesting, playful to me and that makes them more appealing. I believe that part of it is also the QUALITY of the light used and that was the purpose of my initial question. Thanks for taking your time and getting back to me. I have now quite a few things to think about my process of approaching photography, which is nothing more than a hobby for me. A way to relieve stress and ease my mind...

[William W]

I cant help but thinking, are you perhaps over analyzing my question? LOL!

No. Definitely not.

I wanted more information, before attempting an answer to your question.

I attempted to explain why I wanted that information and gave examples of how you could provide it to me.

***

[my paraphrasing] . . .
My aims [i.e. your Artist's Statement]
> to have a good time photographing my images and see where my creativity comes up with.
> to keep a pleasing to look at record of my watches.
> [to have] my photography . . . nothing more than a hobby . . . A way to relieve stress and ease my mind
[My Outcomes thus far] . . .
> the first series of images . . . Sterile, cold, rigid and concentrate on the design and details of the subject and are a good way of highlighting that.
> The second series . . . more creative, interesting, playful . . . that makes them more appealing [to me].
[Observations] . . .
I believe that part of [the second series] is also the QUALITY of the light used and that was the purpose of my initial question.

Thank you for providing that information.

***

The OP:

I recently got a lightbox portable studio setup in an effort to improve my watch collection photography. I feel that finally am getting the hang of it. . . .
. . . [Examples] . . .
I made a similar shoot with other modern Citizen model but in natural light. The backgrounds are different but I feel that the natural light looks somewhat much more attractive and interesting. . . .
. . . [Examples]. . .
What is your opinion? . . .
Im planning of preparing a shoot with all the elements used in the background for the natural light shoots BUT inside the lightbox. . . .

Perhaps the most important difference is the background and not the light so much? . . . [and] . . . I believe that part of [the second series] is also the QUALITY of the light used and that was the purpose of my initial question.

Addressing these questions in your OP:

I think that you’d be best to pursue using props when photographing your watches; I think that you have flair for that and trying different arrangements of props which suit or juxtapose various watches should extend your talent and give you great fun and be relaxing for you.

I agree that the ‘quality of light in the second series’ (I’d use the phrase ‘type of light used in the second series’) is relevant: and I did understand that to be the basis of the original question.

In this regard, I think that using the light box, in mostly any situation, will mostly always guarantee some tendency toward a ‘clinical’ result.

I think that one question is what marriage of ‘elegant clinical’ with the ‘rough props and some stray light’ will work for you. I think that it is well worth you trying that: you don't know the outcomes possible and advice in this regard, no matter how much experience that advice has behind it, will still be worse than guessing lotto outcomes.

Having said that, I do think that the use of the light box, is absolutely incidental; the aspect of using props is more relevant.

To the implied question of which I like best - it is the second series by far.

The second series of images highlight flair and design capabilities, whereas the first highlight technical flaws. The second series has a passion in their creation.

Concluding, my advice is definitely NOT to chuck out the light box and NOT stop attempting the Product Photography style to record your watch collection: I think that there is an huge capacity for you to utilize both; likely you'll tend toward the more organic approach for most of the shots of one or a series of similar watches and those images could be punctuated with a couple of technically excellent 'clinical' shots showing a design element or special feature of that watch or watches. ( . . .well if you take up that challenge then I think that you'll be busy for a few weekends.)

WW

[William W]

Off topic question to Oscar:

In your account, you have pictures of arms and armory displayed in what appears to be a museum (EXIF records iamges taken November 2018)

Would you please tell me that venue and location where you made those pictures?

Thanks,

WW

[chaman]

Off topic question to Oscar:

In your account, you have pictures of arms and armory displayed in what appears to be a museum (EXIF records iamges taken November 2018)

Would you please tell me that venue and location where you made those pictures?

Thanks,

WW

Those were taken at The Metropolitan Museum Of Art, New York City.

Thanks for your opinion and info!

[William W]

Thank you. I will make sure I visit there.

[russellsnr]

Oscar you may find this worth a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiihXExf5Ss
Russ.

[Manfred M]

Oscar - I agree with Bill's view. The tent is a very sterile shooting tool that works well when shooting small objects for a catalogue.

Your images are really more still-life images of watches and are displayed in a far more creative manner. The flat even light of a tent does not do your creativity justice.