Lighting

A home for images for discussion and appraisal
Post Reply
Dennis G
Member
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:40 am
Spam Protection: No

Lighting

Post by Dennis G »

Hello all

Would appreciate some feedback, i have been experimenting with a DIY home lighting set up and lighting effects in CS4, although i'm reasonably pleased with the outcome of this image i intended to make the rose base fade even darker to black than what it is, i know where i went wrong and how to maybe compensate next time.

I had every intention of attending the critique night on Tuesday and showing this image and others unfortunately work commitments put paid to that so for my first serious effort please feel free to comment.
Attachments
Studio Rose.jpg
Studio Rose.jpg (60.67 KiB) Viewed 7575 times
Kind Regards

Dennis
User avatar
Tracey McGovern
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Hindley
Contact:

Re: Lighting

Post by Tracey McGovern »

Hi Dennis

It looks like you have used one light here, coming in from the top right, which has lit up that side of the rose nicely but has left the other side quite dark with some contrast being lost. I think if this way my picture I would have tried to use two lights, putting the other on the other side so that both sides were lit up, thereby not losing any detail in the petals. The buds at the bottom are a little distracting in that they are neither in nor out. The smallest one right on the bottom edge of the frame, I would clone out all together. The other one you may have wanted to keep in, in which case I would have either tried to keep the green part of the petal coming down in the frame or cloned that bit out but left the bud itself.

Would you be willing to post the original image (pre photoshop) onto this thread then we can see what others can do with it, myself included, it may be that you have managed to get the best out of the image already but it would be interesting to see what others could do with it.

Regards

Tracey
Dennis G
Member
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:40 am
Spam Protection: No

Re: Lighting

Post by Dennis G »

Hi Tracy

I agree hence my comments, that said my intention was to make the bottom left part of the rose dark almost fading to black which thinking about it would have taken the buds out anyway so yes they could have been cloned out, although the concept of bud against flourishing full rose in bloom was an idea i was playing around with, appreciate your comments and all points well are made and taken as such.

See attached original, used CS4 to reduce the image size feel free to change.

Thanks Again
Attachments
Studio Rose original.jpg
Studio Rose original.jpg (89.78 KiB) Viewed 7566 times
Kind Regards

Dennis
User avatar
Paul Jones
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 2378
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:35 pm
Spam Protection: No
Contact:

Re: Lighting

Post by Paul Jones »

Dennis G wrote: i have been experimenting with a DIY home lighting set up

i know where i went wrong and how to maybe compensate next time
Hi Dennis

I don't know what level of experience you have with using studio lighting, so just have some questions for you...

- What method are you using to calculate exposure? (eg using a lightmeter, going off the histogram, guessing, etc)

- what lighting modifiers do you have available and what, if any, did you use on this shot? (eg umbrella, softbox, snoot, reflector dish, etc)

- how much do you understand the term 'light falloff' with regard to positioning your studio light/s, the subject and the background?

- you say that "you know where you went wrong". What do you think that was?
Paul
================
http://www.PaulJones.org


"As usual Paul is absolutely correct."
"In short, Paul is an absolutely brilliant mentor."
Dennis G
Member
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:40 am
Spam Protection: No

Re: Lighting

Post by Dennis G »

Hi Paul

I have little or rather no experience of studio lighting to be honest just what i have read, so before i spend a considerable sum of money on lighting equipment i prefered to experiment with a DIY set up, in terms of calculating the exposure i was relying a lot on luck and guesswork and this links in to what i was saying about where i think i went wrong, in hindsight more care or time may have been taken on the set up as a whole in particular exposure and the lighting rig.

Considering the set up and it was a very crude set up which consisted of a mag lamp covered to act as a diffuer to soften the light fixed to my tripod and an adjusted wall light to the rear, against a black background, the mag lamp was above as Tracy suggested and to the right of the image pointing nearly vertically down approximately 3ft or so away, the power of the lamp was adjusted due to the battery power draining, i could have used mains but i was after a softer light, so with that in mind the power was lower anyway, i had the background a considerable distance from the object so as not to spill any light on to the background, to be fair i thought it was a reasonable effort with the kit available.

in terms of the light fall off thinking about it maybe i missed a trick i was focused on getting the effect i described in the previous post and the light did not fall off to black as much as i was hoping as it neared the bottom of the image, i was looking for a faster fall off so again a better light source / set up, a closely positioned reflector strategically positioned may have helped, in my defence i was probably running out of equipment and ideas at the time.

Hope this makes sense and answers your questions
Kind Regards

Dennis
User avatar
Walter Brooks
Master Photographer
Master Photographer
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Bury, Lancashire

Re: Lighting

Post by Walter Brooks »

A few points from me Dennis -

Tracey's points of - the distracting bud; rather than clone out I would have cut it off if not needed before taking the shot; and the extra light to the left; I would have used a diffuser [a bit of white card or polystyrene works for me, which I salvage from discarded packaging] for a softer and more controllable fill in [where a light might impact on the background].

Whilst there is a place for studio lighting heads, there is nothing wrong in using off camera flash, anglepoise lamps or even a projector as light sources to give the light you need. The use of snoots, barn doors, honeycombs and gobos either dedicated to a studio lighting system or DIY/ custom made will all help towards getting the lighting right. What I would advise though is read, watch DVDs and You Tube and experiment.

Regards

W 8)
“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.”
― Dorothea Lange
User avatar
Paul Jones
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 2378
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:35 pm
Spam Protection: No
Contact:

Re: Lighting

Post by Paul Jones »

Dennis G wrote: in terms of calculating the exposure i was relying a lot on luck and guesswork and this links in to what i was saying about where i think i went wrong, in hindsight more care or time may have been taken on the set up as a whole in particular exposure and the lighting rig.
It's good that you recognise things to improve next time. Trial and error is a good way to learn. :D
Dennis G wrote: the power of the lamp was adjusted due to the battery power draining, i could have used mains but i was after a softer light, so with that in mind the power was lower anyway
I'm going to point out here that the power of the light has nothing to do with how soft it is. The main factor that influences how soft the light is is size and not how bright it is. The general principle says that "the bigger the light source, the softer it is". Think about this - a bare bulb gives much harder light than the same bulb placed behind a large softbox or umbrella.

In a similar vein a large softbox placed one metre away from the subject will give a much softer light than if it was placed three metres away.
Dennis G wrote: i had the background a considerable distance from the object so as not to spill any light on to the background.
Good point.
Dennis G wrote: in terms of the light fall off thinking about it maybe i missed a trick i was focused on getting the effect i described in the previous post and the light did not fall off to black as much as i was hoping
You'll do much better next time. Well done for having a go. ;-]

Walter Brooks wrote: What I would advise though is read, watch DVDs and You Tube and experiment.
Definitely. 8)
Paul
================
http://www.PaulJones.org


"As usual Paul is absolutely correct."
"In short, Paul is an absolutely brilliant mentor."
User avatar
Tracey McGovern
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Hindley
Contact:

Re: Lighting

Post by Tracey McGovern »

Hi Dennis

I think I prefer your "un-edited" rose, the lighting looks better on there than the "edited" version. I have had a play with your image, here is what I have done:
1) Cloned out the lowest bud, green petal from the higher bud and a pink petal in between
2) Altered the contrast and brightness a bit to bring a bit more detail out of the petals
3) Tried playing with the levels and curves but binned the layers because they didn't improve it any
4) Changed the hue slightly to make it look a bit redder
5) Cropped a bit of black around the sides and top
6) Added a thin pink border to hold the image in, some people don't like coloured borders, it's down to personal taste, I quite like them.
Rose-Edited.jpg
Rose-Edited.jpg (113.04 KiB) Viewed 7513 times
Not sure if any of this is what you were aiming for, photography is very subjective, but as long as you enjoyed experimenting then that's the main thing. Keep it up.

Regards

Tracey
Dennis G
Member
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:40 am
Spam Protection: No

Re: Lighting

Post by Dennis G »

Walter, Paul, Tracy

Thanks for the Critique, i did ask and that's fair enough, Walter that's exactly what i'm doing experimenting with lighting which is on the back of reading dozen or so Scott Kelby books and his Kelby training site, plus other learning avenues.

Walter your comment Re: diffuser i was using tracing paper as a diffuser.

That said i still think it was a reasonable first effort with a lighting rig albeit as crude as it was.

Cheers Guys
Kind Regards

Dennis
User avatar
Walter Brooks
Master Photographer
Master Photographer
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Bury, Lancashire

Re: Lighting

Post by Walter Brooks »

I would have used a diffuser [a bit of white card or polystyrene works for me
Apologies Dennis - what I really meant to say was a reflector :(
- don't want to confuse you!

W 8)
“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.”
― Dorothea Lange
Dennis G
Member
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:40 am
Spam Protection: No

Re: Lighting

Post by Dennis G »

Hi Walter

Thanks for your constructive views they're really appreciated, i sort of worked out what you meant after reading your post anyway so it wasn't an issue.
Kind Regards

Dennis
Post Reply