Oranges at mid-day

[Manfred M]

I'm currently taking an 8-week masterclass at the local fine art photography school, so we are looking at doing at least one assignment per week.

This week's assignment was to shoot an orange that was cut in half and light it in such a way that it looks like it was shot outdoors during the early afternoon, using studio lighting techniques. To me that suggests hard light that produces very hard, well defined shadows and specular highlights in the freshly cut orange. The cut orange was to be put on some paper towels and the set could be dressed to help enhance the view; so I included some tiles for the background, an old wooden cutting board and a knife (with an orange handle) that I lit to bring out the reflectiveness of the steel.

My light source was a studio flash and an 8" reflector on a boom arm, simulating the sun.

[xpatUSA]

While the arrangement and the capture are hard to fault, the simulation of sunlight is less than perfect due to the size and distance of the source. In particular, the degree of variability of shadow edge softness is too high although variability itself is inevitable in such a simulation. In particular, the shadow of the blade on the cutting board and the shadow of the handle outside of the cutting board do not bear comparison.

Comment is void if simulation of lighting other than direct sunlight was intended ...

[Manfred M]

While the arrangement and the capture are hard to fault, the simulation of sunlight is less than perfect due to the size and distance of the source. In particular, the degree of variability of shadow edge softness is too high although variability itself is inevitable in such a simulation. In particular, the shadow of the blade on the cutting board and the shadow of the handle outside of the handle outside the cutting board do not bear comparison.

Comment is void if simulation of lighting other than direct sunlight was intended ...

I understand where you are coming from, but don't quite agree with your observation.

I used a small 7" reflector on a studio light and was probably about 10+ feet away from the subject. For all intents and purposes could almost be considered parallel, like direct sunlight would be. The length of the shadows are related to the height of the objects that are hit by the light as well the distance from the surface the shadows are falling on.

[xpatUSA]

I understand where you are coming from, but don't quite agree with your observation.

I used a small 7" reflector on a studio light and was probably about 10+ feet away from the subject. For all intents and purposes, [the rays] could almost be considered parallel, like direct sunlight would be.

So, if I understand correctly, a 7" diameter source of light about 10+ feet away from the subject is equivalent to a point source of light at some greater distance (the sun). Interesting.

Makes one wonder why those almost parallel rays did not produce a 7" circle of illumination on the cutting board?

Perhaps it will be sunny tomorrow and I will be able to shoot a knife on a cutting board with shadow edges just as blurry as yours.

The length of the shadows are related to the height of the objects that are hit by the light as well the distance from the surface the shadows are falling on.

At no time have I talked about the length of the shadows and I wonder what that has to do with the variable softness of your shadow's edges, i.e. lack of hardness.

[Manfred M]

So, if I understand correctly, a 7" diameter source of light about 10+ feet away from the subject is equivalent to a point source of light at some greater distance (the sun). Interesting.

Makes one wonder why those almost parallel rays did not produce a 7" circle of illumination on the cutting board?

Perhaps it will be sunny tomorrow and I will be able to shoot a knife on a cutting board with shadow edges just as blurry as yours.

In a perfect world, I would have used a bare-bulb flash to give me even harder light. If I were shooting in a dark gymnasium rather than my basement, the light could have been a touch harder. Unfortunately, in flash photography, the walls and ceilings are light sources and they will add to the overall light. Even on a sunny day, especially at this time of year there is a lot of haze in the air and there will be a slight softening of the shadows. In the winter, when there is snow on the ground, the effect can be even more pronounced; there is very little humidity in the air to diffuse the light, but the snow acts like a giant reflector and that softens the light a bit.

At no time have I talked about the length of the shadows and I wonder what that has to do with the variable softness of your shadow's edges, i.e. lack of hardness.

I did go outside today to look at the shadows. I was a very bright and sunny day and the shadows in the early afternoon were about the same as in this image.

[xpatUSA]

I did go outside today to look at the shadows. I was a very bright and sunny day and the shadows in the early afternoon were about the same as in this image.

As did I mid-morning in full sun with a slight cloud-level haze:



Kodak R27 "cutting board". I attribute the slight variation in softness as being due to imperfect focus on my part.

Your blade's shadow edge softness on the board on the other hand varies significantly along it's length even though your DOF looks considerably better than mine.

For all intents and purposes, [the rays] could almost be considered parallel, like direct sunlight would be.

The shadow edge softness in your image, especially under the oranges, tells me that the rays can not "almost be considered parallel", unlike direct sunlight.

This comparison shows that, although your image quality is of course very good, your claim that it simulates sunlight remains moot.

It looks like our discussion has become a question of the degree of simulation of sunlight and, with your basement reflections and lack of a perfect point source of light, some might say that the shadows look "real" and others might not. Since I have no idea in this context when a shadow becomes "real" I will stay pat without further argument.

[Manfred M]

Thank you Ted - I now have a better understanding of what you consider what a hard shadow is. Our views are quite different.

Most landscape and portrait photographers will agree that soft light (and therefore soft shadows) can be found at the start of Golden Hour and most will agree that the transition will occur at some point prior to that, although latitude and time of year also play a role in that definition. There is no hard and fast rule, but both the length and transparency of the shadow (i.e. ability to see details in the shadow area) are what most photographers view as being soft. No two photographers are going to completely agree to what a hard shadow is, but most would consider the shadows in my image as being extremely hard.

[xpatUSA]

Thank you Manfred - I had responded more technically but I deleted it.

It appears that the term "hard shadow" lacks sufficient definition to relate it's degree of simulation to direct overhead sunlight.