Studio Photography Brief: Final 3 still lives and Evaluation.

This post is dedicated to discussing how I made (and selected) my three remaining still life images for submission: flower, glass and jewellery.

Glass

Glass is said to be one of the most difficult things to photograph, and it is said that we are not actually aiming to photograph the glass itself, rather the reflections and the shadows that come from them, to ensure the actual glass stands out. We were shown a number of different techniques (and used a range of different media and props) during this session, but I opted for the simple blue glass bottle and green mottled glass paperweight set against a white background (below).

Camera Settings:  f11, 1/100th, ISO100, 62mm, WB: Flash.
Lighting: two soft boxes directed at subject from either side; one deep reflector underneath subject, at an angle pointing upwards; black card to either side of subjects.

I wasn't able to find an icon for the glass table. My Apologies.

I suppose this set-up is similar to the one for the Action Man 'still life', in that it has one very light aimed at the subject (in this case deep reflector under the glass table), along with two soft boxes. The main use of the soft-boxes here, however, was to provide a soft and even light to the glass from both sides with minimal reflections. Commercial product photographer, Alex Koloshov, suggests using a strip soft box to create a vertical catch-light as opposed to the square we see in my subjects (1). The use of any other modifier would be sure to render the edges and highlights too harsh, which is why the deep reflector is placed under the glass table, directing the light through the whole glass. The black reflectors either

As always, I opened the image in Adobe Camera Raw first to increase the Contrast, Lights and Highlights (keeping an eye on the 'clipping' of these), and also increased Shadows (to make the reflection on the table more prominent) and Darks (the texture of the mottled glass needed accentuating in my view). In Photoshop, I used two Brightness/Contrast layers with black masks (Alt + mask): one to ensure the white background was absolute white- painting in the bottles with a white brush so they wouldn't be too bright- and the other to accentuate the reflection of the bottles in the table. The last thing was convert the colour profile to DS Lustre, and brighten the image by +30, ensuring the correct brightness once printed. 

I did try other subjects/compositions before this one, but they just weren't strong enough. Below are just some of these.

The same subjects shot using a black background didn't have nearly the same effect. For one, the black highlights the dust on the table, and the image lacks the clinical feel.

This was one I began editing, before washing my hands of it and opting for the one I finally chose. It just goes to show you can come back to images and see them in a different light (pardon the pun), for I revisited it just now and finished editing it, darkening the background and revealing the edges of the bottle for definition with the use of a mask. The two soft boxes make for some brilliant catch-lights.

Flowers

  I've already shown some of Mapplethorpe's flowers, and the personality he managed to inject into them via his unique style. We also looked at Irving Penn's (1917-2009) work on the subject, whose work I was familiar with from Level One. Flowers are not something I'm naturally interested in, but once I noticed Penn's concentration on dead and decaying flora (in enlightening compositions), I knew the concept was something I could get my teeth into. I have included some examples below, along with my annotations as a way of 'segwaying' into my own choice.

Much like Mapplethorpe, Penn gave flowers their own unique personalities. Here three dead Gerberas huddle together like models, almost conscious of the process of photography they are subject to.

Again, the dying flowers are almost aware of their certain fate, as they face death, albeit still conscious and bashful as models in front of the lens. They are being subjected to something. Makes me think whether- in photography- there is more life in dead flowers than with those that are alive. In the words of the art critic Rosamund Bernier, Penn brought "poetry to immobility" (2)

One thing present in all the subjects in his seminal book on flowers is the lighting used. He was renowned for using minimal backgrounds, and for me this only serves to highlight the perfect blend of softness, definition and contrast as a way of evoking the splendour of a flower's texture.

  Texture was what I decided most interested me in our flower sessions. It was the texture of a rose I submitted (below), which was shot using one of the college's Medium Format cameras, the Mamiya RZ67 with a 17MP digital Leaf Valeo back, for extra clarity (perfect for highlighting the rose's texture).

Camera Settings:  f5.6, 1/125, ISO50
Lighting:  Light above subject (opposite camera) with barn-doors and honeycomb attached; beauty dish to left of camera to highlight flower; gold reflector to add warmth to the highlights (below).

The barn-doors ensures the light glances over the flower, highlighting its texture; the honeycomb diffuses said light,, preventing it from being too harsh.

It was the spiky death of this flower that so attracted me to it. Death has long been celebrated in art, and here I sought to highlight the beauty of it, reminding us that death is part of life. Looking at the print now, I notice an almost Tim Burton (Nightmare Before Christmas) feel to it, the way the textured green of the main petal (accentuated by increasing Vibrancy and Saturation) seems to be stretching in animated fashion, covering its head to preserve its dignity. There could also be parallels drawn between this and William Blake's illustration that accompanies the poem 'The Sick Rose', included in his Songs of Experience (below). 

I certainly think there is a project in here somewhere:, which would involve layering (read: wrapping) Blake's text around my own rose in Photoshop. A possible contender for the Montage unit.

The only reservation I have about this image is that it is too bright, which I feel detracts the actual matte-like texture. Indeed, upon opening the TIFF in ACR, I noticed there was some clipping of the highlights, specifically in the upper red petal. I did attempt painting this away using the Adjustment Brush with a reduced exposure, but it looked too unnatural. I did take a few shots of this composition (below), but ended-up opting for the a brighter one.

This looks better on screen (more like Penn's lighting), but the main reason for upping the lights and highlights of the final (and lowering the shadows and dark points) was to ensure the print didn't come back dark. One day I'll get my screen calibrated. (This is edited by the way).

There were a few I did using a range of different compositions also, but way inferior to the final image (below).

The light seems to have picked-up the texture of the wood here more than the actual flower. The composition is dreadful too. It is pretty much just a dead flower. No poetry or sense of the aesthetic like the final one. Not edited.

Better composition here, but looking at a subject placed to the right of the frame makes me feel uneasy. And I feel the bud of the rose is too close to the camera. Still, at least its blossoming here.

I think I was finally getting somewhere here. A wider shot that includes the whole rose works a lot better. And the petals that have become detached from the stalk also make an extra focal point for the viewer. However, compared to my final one I think it lacks impact and drama. If the one above was too close, then this would be too far away, meaning we cannot engage with it as much.

The second part of our flower sessions were spent experimenting with different coloured gels, which were applied to the main key light (deep reflector) aimed directly at the flower in question. A lot of this stuff was done in the main studio space with my own camera and lenses. The set-up is pictures below.

Shooting table atop an ordinary table against a white backdrop; deep reflector with barn doors and honeycomb to my right; deep reflector with range of coloured gels (blue & green) applied; camera on tripod in centre.

Some of these came out quite well, if a little sparse and lacking in any objects to accompany the flower. Below are some of the ones I felt worthy of editing. Note how narrow the apertures I've used again (more about why this is in my Action Man still life post).

f20, 1/100th, ISO100, 75mm.
The subtle blue gel adds a nice tint to a red rose, possibly because we're dealing with the three main colours of the gamut in one image of an object of natural beauty (Red, Blue, Green). I opened this in ACR to bring out the contrast, shadows and darks (and also warmed the WB so the blue didn't dominate too much), but not much with lights and highlights due to the fact those within the inner petal were clipped to start with. I had the lights too bright. Still, nice image, just not good enough to submit.

f25, 1/100th, ISO100, 75mm.
The green gel doesn't work half as well as the blue gel because of the fact green is prominent in the subject to start with. Adding a blue to a green and red subject was a way of throwing a new colour into the range of colours, making them "gel" together (pardon pun). Way too green this. 

Jewellery

I wasn't exactly frothing at the mouth at the prospect of photographing pieces of jewellery. In fact it was my least favourite of all the still lives. Still, the aim of the unit is was to showcase a range of different media, so photograph jewellery I did. Below is my final choice, although I didn't have much to choose from.

Camera Settings:  f22, 1/160, ISO100, 60mm (on Nikon 60mm f1.8 macro lens). Spot Metering.
Lighting:  Honeycomb with barn doors from back (attached to backdrop); beauty dish from left of camera aimed 45 degrees at subject; gold reflector.    

Like the flower, the barn doors with honeycomb ensured a directional and diffused soft light from the back, whilst the beauty dish (along with its centre diffuser) gave a more prominent light to the subject, helping me to pick up the fine detail with the Nikon Macro lens. 

As with all still life set-ups, the background and any accompanying objects used in the shot were paramount. The first half of the session focussed on us going out into the great outdoors and collecting various bits and pieces that could would make the jewellery stand out. I was lucky enough to find a huge log, full of moss and countless amounts of interesting crevices and protruding bit. For extra interest I also chose some of the tree bark used by the college to decorate its tree-lined areas. This was all well and good, but my only criticism with this in my final shot was the similarity in colour of the log and the earrings I photographed. Below are some that gave a slightly better contrast between subject and background.

 

Note how the silver and stones stand out more against the brown log background.

Although the composition leaves a lot to be desired here, again the pendant stands out a lot more against the background. This was never going to be a final choice, mind, for the subject lacks the warmth of my chosen one. This is because I had not yet brought the gold reflector into the mix.

I think it may just have been the poor choice of subjects that turned me off this particular studio session. I mean it stands to reason that students are not going to leave their best jewellery at college for people to photograph. And so, just as a bad workman blames his tools, I am fully prepared to blame the shoddy subjects for what I deem uninteresting or garish images of jewellery (below). 

Too plain. Can tell its one of my first efforts. Don't think the breeze block does much for the subject either. A breeze block is more associated with 'urban chic' like a modern watch or something.

This is not as bad as I'm making out. If only the edge of the shooting table wasn't in the frame. I think warming the White Balance considerably in ACR does a lot for a jewellery image.

Wow! Where did this one spring from? I certainly hadn't noticed this when I was choosing one to print. Had I my time over again, I would have opted for this instead: there's a lot more going on (with the different shapes and textures), and the composition works on the 'rule of thirds' basis.

Overall, I feel I have learned lot from our studio sessions, but conversely I don't feel I have scratched the surface in things I wouldn't mind trying. I'd like to spend more time in the studio with a range of different subjects, making best use of different lighting techniques. I'd really like to push new ways of doing things, and try different combinations of lights. Its like cookery in this respect: its all well and good following the instructions to the letter, but at the end of the day, the best dishes succeed from bringing one's own flavours to the ingredients. Needless to say, these sessions have really whetted my appetite for more experimentation in the future. 




1) http://www.pixiq.com/article/product-photography-tipstricks-shooting-glass-on-black
2)  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-me-irving-penn8-2009oct08,0,1536282.story?page=2