Blown glass shot

[mercphoto]

I did this shot (and a few others) for an up and coming glass blower in my town. He wanted a shot highlighting the flower, especially the interior, so I zoomed in some on this vase.

http://mercphoto.smugmug.com/photos/25264513-M.jpg

I can see a few things I would want to change again but was wanting some other feedback as well. I won't discuss what I see wrong just yet. Don't want to taint the jury pool. :) I'm hoping to do more work like this. I really enjoyed it.

20D with a 28-135 lens at 135mm, f/22, 1.3 seconds, ISO 200, tripod, remote shutter release, softbox, two main lights.

Thanks.

[Mike Lane]

My initial reaction is with the composition. IMHO you either need to zoom out to get more of the top or zoom in to focus on the blown glass part and maybe just show a hint of the top and the base. Perhaps a change in perspective would suit this image better?

Also the lighting appears to be a bit harsh to my eyes.

[mercphoto]

I'm actually wondering if a shorter focal length lens would have been better. In that case, a true macro would have been necessary to get close enough to the object. My thinking is the shorter focal length would compress the depth less. I'm heavily considering the EF-S 60mm/2.8 macro, which I've heard very good things about.

Interesting comment about the light. Anything in particular harsh about it? It was rather heavily diffused from two sources. You need a certain amount of shadows and highlights to show any texture in the glass. Diffuse it too much and you lose all that.

[rutt]

This is a great subject, but not really an interesting treatment. The angle is really boring, for one thing. This is just what you'd see if you put the thing on a table and sat down next to it. What about moving the cameara down and shooting more up at the glass?

Look at Penn's idea for this still life:

http://www.meccanica.jp/image6_bsp/b_ip01-02.jpg

Now there's an interesting angle. Look how dynamic it makes this shot. Flowers must be the most "over exposed" subjects in photography, but Penn made this one fresh by finding an unusual way to look at it.

I also agree about the lighting. If you can get some play of light inside the glass, well, that will totally change everything. Maybe some very focused rear or side lighting that only makes the object glow?

[Mike Lane]

I'm actually wondering if a shorter focal length lens would have been better. In that case, a true macro would have been necessary to get close enough to the object. My thinking is the shorter focal length would compress the depth less. I'm heavily considering the EF-S 60mm/2.8 macro, which I've heard very good things about.

Interesting comment about the light. Anything in particular harsh about it? It was rather heavily diffused from two sources. You need a certain amount of shadows and highlights to show any texture in the glass. Diffuse it too much and you lose all that.
Maybe the lighting is just simply difficult to do with highly reflective glass. I can definitely see that it was diffused, I can even see the two (distinct) sources. I don't have much of any experience with lighting (and I'm not sure exactly what your setup was) but it seems that the light source is too small (gah! I don't know how to word that any better). Maybe the distinct reflections would be better if you used one much larger diffuser? What I'm getting at is dealt with a little here: http://www.webphotoschool.com/Lesson_Library/Free_Lessons/Shooting_Great_Portraits_with_Portable_Strobes/index.html

I know this isn't dealing exactly with what we're talking about but I think it may be useful.

Of course, maybe I'm overemphasized the lighting. I should be clear that I don't think it is poorly lighted at all (just want to clarify since it's difficult to convey things accurately on the net).

[mercphoto]

What about moving the cameara down and shooting more up at the glass?
I came to that conclusion after shooting a different piece of glass. I need to work on a new soft box to allow me more camera angles than my current setup allows.

I also agree about the lighting. If you can get some play of light inside the glass, well, that will totally change everything. Maybe some very focused rear or side lighting that only makes the object glow?
Light aimed at the pestil is a good idea. Probably a pen light source? Fiber optic possibly? Need to google some sources to buy such things... And a backlight to add some attractive haloing maybe.

As per the light. I've found it hard, for example, to show the swirl in the base of that vase unless not only the lighting is right, but also the background color. A white background will absolutely ruin this shot, for example, while making no other changes whatsoever. Clear glass on white does not work. Clear glass on black shows detail, texture.

One thing I want to modify on my setup is a transparent bottom from which I can aim lights up from underneath if I want to. Plus to allow more freedom with camera position than I currently have.

[mercphoto]

Maybe the lighting is just simply difficult to do with highly reflective glass. I can definitely see that it was diffused, I can even see the two (distinct) sources. I don't have much of any experience with lighting (and I'm not sure exactly what your setup was) but it seems that the light source is too small

Possibly too small a light source. I used a Magic Box, which is basically a total enclosure of white, semi-transparent cloth that acts as one giant light diffuser. Also blocks line-of-sight of anything in your room (in this case, my garage) that can become reflected in the oject. Don't want to see that power mower reflected in the vase! :)

Outside that was two daylight balanced flourescent screw-type bulbs in Home Depot 6" work reflectors. Probably about 15-18" away from the cloth. Then normal ambient lighting just kinda flooding in elsewhere. A diffuser directly in front of each bulb may have helped, or moving them a bit further away.

So...

1) shorter focal length to aid in depth exaggeration?
2) new angle, lower
3) pin-point lighting of the pestil
4) slightly more diffuse light

To point 3, which is what the guy was really interested in. That flower, and in particular its middle. We played around a little. Direct front-on shots showed great detail of the center part, but flattened the three leaves around it. We had a compromise by moving off center, which hid part of the center, but brought back a sense of depth. There has to be a happier medium somewhere though.