A simple composition of a sculpture

[Manfred M]

I'm doing a talk / demonstration for the National Capital Network of Sculptors (NCNS) in three weeks. They want a talk / demonstration on how to improve the images of their works that they send out to galleries and exhibitions in order to get through the curation process.

They are not photographers, so need some basic understanding on how to create strong images that will get the attention of the "gatekeepers" so their works get accepted. I suspect that they are looking for "impact".

I spent a few hours yesterday shooting a statue that we picked up in the Dominican Republic many years ago. I want to show the impact of perspective, positioning and focal length so that they can figure out how they want to showpiece their work.

I used a single light (small rectangular soft box, no reflector for fill light) and shot the statue against a plain black seamless paper background. I've cropped the image but did no other retouching. This is the end result of a simplified process I plan to walk them through.

[Chataignier]

Interesting, nice light on the sculpture.
I wonder if non-photographers will really take on board what you propose ? I've done similar exercises with groups and they mostly seemed to be looking for a magic bullet. For example, after an explanation of how to use shallow depth of field to shoot zoo animals without seeing the wire fences, one chap showed me his result, very disappointed. I checked the settings - nothing like what I had suggested and when challenged he said " Oh, no, I don't do all that stuff, it always works fine on automatic".
Bon courage !!!

[stuck]

That's a very effective photo, it grabs your attention. However, would not a 'gate keeper' want to see more details? Lest there is something hiding in the shadows that would detract from the piece and thus make it unsuitable for the gallery / exhibition?

[Manfred M]

Interesting, nice light on the sculpture.
I wonder if non-photographers will really take on board what you propose ? I've done similar exercises with groups and they mostly seemed to be looking for a magic bullet. For example, after an explanation of how to use shallow depth of field to shoot zoo animals without seeing the wire fences, one chap showed me his result, very disappointed. I checked the settings - nothing like what I had suggested and when challenged he said " Oh, no, I don't do all that stuff, it always works fine on automatic".
Bon courage !!!

I agree and share the same concerns. I had the same issue at the last few workshops I put on for photographers at one of my photo clubs on still life photography. I warned all of the landscape and wildlife photographers that in addition to planning the shoot and processing the images, they would also have to figure out how to light the subjects, after they dressed the set. They now realize the level of effort involved and only one of the 20+ people that I taught actually started doing some work on their own.

These people are all accomplished sculptors and have a good sense of aesthetics and artistry. I've set up the talk / demo where I am very light on the technical details and start with photographing their works by natural light before I get into slightly more challenging approaches.

[Manfred M]

That's a very effective photo, it grabs your attention. However, would not a 'gate keeper' want to see more details? Lest there is something hiding in the shadows that would detract from the piece and thus make it unsuitable for the gallery / exhibition?

I have been shown the quality of the images that they submit. The shadows and dropoff will not cause any issues for them. I feel sorry for the "gate keepers" right now as they have to figure out what to let in based on some pretty mediocre photographs.

Many years ago, one of my profs had a contract from a major trucking firm to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleet. His comment was along the lines of "anything I recommend will improve what they are currently doing". I feel much the same way...

[tclune]

I'm doing a talk / demonstration for the National Capital Network of Sculptors (NCNS) in three weeks. They want a talk / demonstration on how to improve the images of their works that they send out to galleries and exhibitions in order to get through the curation process.
<snip>
I used a single light (small rectangular soft box, no reflector for fill light) and shot the statue against a plain black seamless paper background. I've cropped the image but did no other retouching. This is the end result of a simplified process I plan to walk them through.

Do you expect the sculptors to have or acquire a soft box? It occurs to me that teaching them how to bounce flash would be more likely to actually be of use to them. Neil van Niekerk has a very nice tutorial along those lines that might actually connect with your audience. And I would imagine that treating sculpture photos as a variation on portrait photography might help them get their minds around what they are trying to do. FWIW

[DanK]

I want to show the impact of perspective, positioning and focal length

Speaking pedagogically, not photographically, you can't demonstrate the impact of three variables with one constant (one photograph). There is no way for a novice to see the effect of even one of these from a single photograph. If the point is to show them variables that matter, I think you need to show pairs of photographs, or even larger sets, for each variable. To demonstrate the effect of focal length, for example, requires showing the same framing of the same image with different focal lengths.

Also, I was puzzled by your omission of lighting. When I looked at the image before reading your text carefully, I assumed you were focusing (no pun intended) on that variable.

Providing sets that vary along one variable has a benefit above and beyond demonstrating the impact of that variable. It also allows them to think about their own choices for presentation, which might differ from yours or mine.

[Manfred M]

Do you expect the sculptors to have or acquire a soft box? It occurs to me that teaching them how to bounce flash would be more likely to actually be of use to them. Neil van Niekerk has a very nice tutorial along those lines that might actually connect with your audience. And I would imagine that treating sculpture photos as a variation on portrait photography might help them get their minds around what they are trying to do. FWIW

I use bounce light a lot in my still-life work, primarily when I do flat-lay work. Van Niekirk is a portrait photographer and his techniques do not translate well for use in product photography. He uses bounce in situations where on-camera bounce is the best option because the subject is moving around a lot in an uncontrolled environment. It's pretty well the opposite end of how things are lit in product photography.

From what I can tell, most of the group I will be talking to are using their phones to take the shots and I want to show them why this approach is not used in product photography. At least one of them has a light tent. I start off my talk by showing work done on my kitchen table using just window light.

Unfortunately, I will be speaking in an industrial building that I have not visited before. I'm speaking in the evening, so demonstrating natural light will not be possible. The room has very high ceilings, so not very conducive to bouncing the light. I'm also going to show a very basic setup using (shoot through) umbrellas, before I go to the softbox with light modifiers.

[billtils]

From what I can tell, most of the group I will be talking to are using their phones to take the shots and I want to show them why this approach is not used in product photography. At least one of them has a light tent. I start off my talk by showing work done on my kitchen table using just window light.

Unfortunately, I will be speaking in an industrial building that I have not visited before. I'm speaking in the evening, so demonstrating natural light will not be possible. The room has very high ceilings, so not very conducive to bouncing the light. I'm also going to show a very basic setup using (shoot through) umbrellas, before I go to the softbox with light modifiers.

I know "luck" is not involved but given what you say about the brief and setting - good luck Manfred!

[Manfred M]

Speaking pedagogically, not photographically, you can't demonstrate the impact of three variables with one constant (one photograph). There is no way for a novice to see the effect of even one of these from a single photograph. If the point is to show them variables that matter, I think you need to show pairs of photographs, or even larger sets, for each variable. To demonstrate the effect of focal length, for example, requires showing the same framing of the same image with different focal lengths.

Also, I was puzzled by your omission of lighting. When I looked at the image before reading your text carefully, I assumed you were focusing (no pun intended) on that variable.

Providing sets that vary along one variable has a benefit above and beyond demonstrating the impact of that variable. It also allows them to think about their own choices for presentation, which might differ from yours or mine.

Dan - that is precisely how I am going to handle my talk. I have examples of some of the images that they are currently using, that unfortunately, I cannot share here and frankly just about anything will work better than what they are doing now. I am going to address a few key variables (in isolation) and then combine them to make a decent shot.

I am going to concentrate on the three basics of lighting (quality, quantity and direction) through a series of shots. The shots are quite clear that even a non-photographer can pick out what works and doesn't. I go from shooting in daylight, through continuous light and onto flash; single light source and fill card is as complicated as I go. The demo will be artificial light only.

As I will be demonstrating and talking in the evening in an industrial building (the facility used by a commercial stone cutter who primarily does restorative work on old architecture), I have very limited options on what I can demonstrate. The one reason I am taking my studio lights along is that they have a 250W modeling light, so I can show the positives and negatives of using a continuous light source as well as small flash (no modeling light) and studio light (flash + modeling light).

I go through a fairly basic exercise on focal length (wide angle, normal lens and telephoto) to cover how they impact how the image looks. A lot of the images they have shown me are shot with a wide angle and that ends up including things in the background that should not be in the shot.

I also look at shooting position; all the images I have been shown are with the photographer in a standing position, with the camera held at eye level. I'm going to show how the image looks different, depending on where the camera is located; again the results are fairly obvious to even a non-photographer. I start from shooting from below and work my way to shooting down from the top.

The last thing I am going to cover is how to figure out the position of the work to the camera (I rotate it 180 degrees over 5 shots).

I also shoot against a number of backgrounds from a wooden table top, to a busy kitchen and finally to a plain unobtrusive background, primarily white seamless, except for the shot I have shown here, where I switch to black purely for the dramatic look.

I've also been asked to do a very basic demonstration of post-processing and I will concentrate on formats and cropping with some other very minor tweaks (exposure and contrast) and a quick demonstration of white balance.

I have tried to make this as non-technical as possible. Ultimately I want to show them that there is no "magic bullet" and having me talk to them will enable them to quickly make high end product photos.

[Manfred M]

I plan to end my talk with a very simple setup. I use a background stand with a roll of black seamless paper and a cell phone with light coming from some north-facing windows. Even this setup is overkill, but as I already have the equipment, I use it.

A piece of black bristol board from my local Staples store and some painters tape to position it on a chair and hold the "sweep" in place would have been just as effective.



Here is the setup:





Here is the image, with some minor cropping and global exposure adjustment (the cell phone's metering system overexposed the scene).






Not as dramatic as what can be done with studio gear, but a lot stronger than the work that I have seen from some of these folks.