barker6786
Active member
looking for c&c on my lighting, please.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
C&C please
- Thread starter barker6786
- Start date
P
Peano
Guest
Regarding image 2, main problems I'm seeing:
1. Shadow of ring on background is distracting. Better to lay the ring flat.
2. The yellow background is bad. Use a white background.
3. Loss of shadow detail in the upper right portion of the ring. If the ring is the subject, you need to light it adequately so detail isn't lost.
4. The ring isn't in focus.
--
~ Peano
http://www.radiantpics.com
1. Shadow of ring on background is distracting. Better to lay the ring flat.
2. The yellow background is bad. Use a white background.
3. Loss of shadow detail in the upper right portion of the ring. If the ring is the subject, you need to light it adequately so detail isn't lost.
4. The ring isn't in focus.
--
~ Peano
http://www.radiantpics.com
barker6786
Active member
I found it to be very boring laying it flat, more fill flash to soften the shadow maybe?
Was a white background, was playing around with white balance, I like it. Mainly just looking for suggestions on the lighting, but thanks anyways
Agreed, thanks
Agreed, thanks
Curiously enough, the WB, shadow treatment etc. did not pop out at me when I looked at the ring - what struck me was the dynamic tension of its position - caught in the moment of falling over (no apparent means of support). Was the ring in motion when you shot this (narrow depth of field suggests wide open and fast)? I liked your first photo a lot.
DJB
DJB
barker6786
Active member
It was in motion, however the out of focus parts was just me trying to focus quickly before the ring fell lol. This was at f/36 and 1/250s shutter at iso 100 the only reason some of it is in focus is the very small aperture.
P
Peano
Guest
Prop it up with a toothpick. Get it in focus. Then clone out the toothpick in post.
--
~ Peano
http://www.radiantpics.com
You should read about diffraction. No one uses f/36 if they want a clear image.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml
barker6786
Active member
Thank you, I did not know this. So in what type of situation would you use f/36? I don't see why you would not want a clear image all the time
barker6786
Active member
Thanks, good idea.
DecibelPhoto
Leading Member
That's not true, macro photographers use f/36, that's why it's available on macro lenses. Sometimes depth of field is more important that acuity. Just be aware of the trade offs when using such a small aperture.
Listen, you're asking about lighting, but you're missing some fundamentals here. One shot is overexposed with clipped highlights, and the other is out of focus. These are the glaring mistakes in your photos, not the lighting. Lighting is much more subjective and nuanced, focus is not.
Both shots are lit satisfactorily, in that I can see them. Neither are "bad" lighting, but neither are great. I can't give you much more critique without knowing what your intent was when photographing the objects was. If you were lighting them to sell them in a catalog, it would be far different than if you were lighting them to sell the photographs as fine art. What is your goal here?
Most importantly, get the exposures and focus right. No matter how good your lighting is, if the shot is out of focus, it's completely 100% useless.
I hope I don't sound too harsh, you're on the right path here.
Listen, you're asking about lighting, but you're missing some fundamentals here. One shot is overexposed with clipped highlights, and the other is out of focus. These are the glaring mistakes in your photos, not the lighting. Lighting is much more subjective and nuanced, focus is not.
Both shots are lit satisfactorily, in that I can see them. Neither are "bad" lighting, but neither are great. I can't give you much more critique without knowing what your intent was when photographing the objects was. If you were lighting them to sell them in a catalog, it would be far different than if you were lighting them to sell the photographs as fine art. What is your goal here?
Most importantly, get the exposures and focus right. No matter how good your lighting is, if the shot is out of focus, it's completely 100% useless.
I hope I don't sound too harsh, you're on the right path here.
This is terrible advice and needs correcting. Only bad macro photographers would use f/36 on small format digital.
Good ones stack the focus and combine in Photoshop. It's quite easy.
As Aperture is part of lighting, What on earth are you shooting at f/36 for?
cb
Spooner
Leading Member
How about "inappropriate" lighting, especially the ring? That isn't how you light shiny metal. At least it isn't until you learn the more appropriate way first. The OP should look up "tent lighting" and start experimenting with that for a while before he gets "arty".
Neither shot is good from an exposure, focus or lighting perspective. Get a good book or a good teacher and learn some still-life shooting fundamentals. Sorry, but that's my critique. I don't have the time to be a tutor right now.
John
DecibelPhoto
Leading Member
I disagree, there are excellent macro photographers out there who shoot at f/36. Focus stacking is not always possible.... how about moving or live subjects? Or water drops? I understand that that shooting at f/36 is not always optimal, photography is all about trade-offs. But it certainly gets used, and there are certainly times to use it.
I just don't think that it's right to tell this guy "never shoot at f/36" because of diffraction. There are very good photographers who do. It's like saying to never shoot your lens wide open, because it is not optimally sharp at that aperture. Okay, but what if you care more about shallow depth of field? The opposite is true here.
My two cents.
I just don't think that it's right to tell this guy "never shoot at f/36" because of diffraction. There are very good photographers who do. It's like saying to never shoot your lens wide open, because it is not optimally sharp at that aperture. Okay, but what if you care more about shallow depth of field? The opposite is true here.
My two cents.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, please link a few photographers' galleries with exif info or their blogs indicating how important f/36 is.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum