Cut-glass Bowl with Bright Field

[Mike Buckley]

The bowl pictured in this thread using a bright field and a mirror tabletop is also shown here and here using a dark field and a mirror tabletop.

This is the last series of the two bowls that I have recently shot. I hope my friends who loaned them to me like the photos.

C&C encouraged, though I have no questions to ask.


Photo #1





Photo #2





Photo #3





Photo #4





Photo #5

[jeeperman]

Ooh....Paul likes these, Mikey. See what I did there. lol Sure that was a first right... Seriously though Mike, these are really good. Not a bad one in the bunch.

[Mike Buckley]

You're the only person I would allow to get away with that, Paul. If others don't get it, don't explain it.

[jeeperman]

Secret is safe with me.

[Bobobird]

Wow, you have put that new stuff of yours to good use and excellent results. Like them all.

#1 reminds me of something just can't place it atm.

Oh btw, do a very quick scroll up and the shots appear to move. Cool effect placing them in this way.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Mike,

Beautiful work. I admire the time and effort you put into these studio shots; I just read your extensive explanation of the custom studio set up... wow.

Though I like all in this series, I think #3 is the outstanding photo. For me, that photo has everything the others have, but combined perfectly into one photo. It sounds crazy, but for some reason I experience the photo with a feeling of weight- meaning, the thicker outer surface feels heavy, and then by contrast the radiating center area feels lightweight. My eye goes back and forth from the outer ring to center and back out. I think the contrast of these "weights" is what makes the photo so powerful for me (aside from the balanced composition and superb lighting). This kind of reminds me of some photos you'd see in a high-end magazine ad. I thoroughly enjoyed these.

[stanleydegraaf]

wow, that are some amazing pictures, cool idea to. i really like photo's 4 and 5 especially 5 because it is such a different view of the bowl, if i didn't know it was a bowl then i would never gues it.

good work

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, guys! You're making me blush!

Stanley, considering that you especially like the last two photos, I wonder if you saw similarly styled photos of the same object though using a dark field here.

#1 reminds me of something just can't place it atm.

I have had the same feeling ever since I reviewed the image on the camera's LCD before releasing the shutter. I still can't place it exactly, but I'm thinking that it might be a magazine advertisement for something, perhaps crystal.

[Mike Buckley]

Considering that you folks like these images so much, two more are shown below. It seems to be important to view these at the large size, more so than the first group of photos.


Photo #6





Photo #7

[Loose Canon]

Mike, these are all great man.

Very clean and very well lit.

Nice job.

[Mike Buckley]

Glad you like them, Terry!

[jeeperman]

A couple more really nice ones, Mike. Going back through....in the last image of the first group....there is 5-6 small white specks...possible dust/just the way the light came through. I am guessing dust as the light comes through high quality crystal deffect free. The image would I think improve if these were zapped.

[rpcrowe]

Mike, IMO, you are doing some really nice work with the cut glass...

[Loose Canon]

Just curious Mike?

With this style of lighting, are you having any trouble with chromatic aberration rearing its ugly head?

[Mike Buckley]

there is 5-6 small white specks...possible dust/just the way the light came through. I am guessing dust as the light comes through high quality crystal defect free.

Thanks for mentioning that, Paul. I don't know whether it's dust, imperfections in the glass or both. I actually don't know whether it's glass or crystal but it definitely has imperfections.

I assume you are referring to the stuff that appears as small white flecks against the dark background. I considered getting rid of them. I decided not to at least for now because I would also have to get rid of the few remaining splotches of white that are prominent and, in my mind, add character to the image. I could easily change my mind and get rid of all the white flecks to render a really contrasty, simple image.

I try to get rid of all the dark flecks that appear on a white background by reviewing the full-size image throughout at 100%. I can't promise that I didn't miss some of them.

[Mike Buckley]

Terry,

I'm not having any issues with chromatic aberration using the dark field or the bright field method. That may have more to do with the lens than the lighting. I'm using my 35/2 lens and I don't remember ever having that issue with that lens. If I were using my 85/1.8, that would perhaps be a very different story, as I and others definitely experience CA with that lens. Based on my experience, chromatic aberration is worse in areas that are out of focus. So, it's important to note that I almost always try to get everything in focus when photographing glass, even though that's not always possible.

When using the dark field method, flare and, thus, reduced contrast are major issues. To deal with that, I place a piece of foam core with a rectangle cut out of it between the lens and the subject. I position it so it's not photographed but just barely so to ensure that it is blocking as much oncoming light as possible.

[Plumcrak]

Mike, your glass bowls get better very time I look at them...absolutely fabulous!!!!! #1 & #3 are my favorites....closely followed by all rest!

I am in awe.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks much, Jon.

[Loose Canon]

Hokay! Thanks Mike!

The reason I was asking is because I shoot portraits from time to time on a white BG. It has to be white.

Yours is not, but it is "bright field", not "white field". I sometimes find a tiny bit of CA sneaking in if I have the BG too hot and it is sometimes tricky getting the BG to "white", but not so hot to start having CA sneaking in. Was just wondering if there was something that I was missing that you might have noticed Mike.

I hate to even admit this, but I find because of my bald chrome dome, I make a great test subject for checking for CA in portraiture!

[Mike Buckley]

You and your bald chrome dome are too funny, Terry!

You're right that that the field I use is not a true white. It's a piece of white acrylic that might be a true white, though I haven't checked that. It allows 40% of the light to transmit through it when lit from behind. Even so, I tend to light it and post-process it so there are very few areas of the background displayed on the far right side of the histogram. In fact, much of the background area is perhaps best described as a light grey. Most of those grey areas, especially in the center of the images, are that way because of the lighting, not because I darkened them during post-processing.