B&W Topless (not what you think)

[Mike Buckley]

I saved the two previously broken wine glasses knowing that eventually another one would become broken. That finally happened.

The two photos don't present well together, so please click either photo and use the Lytebox to view them separately.

C&C encouraged as always, though I have nothing to ask.

Photo #1



Photo #2

[gregj1763]

You're just breaking wine glasses so you can show off your great talent with glass and light aren't you Mike
Both are great images. I like the first image for the balanced and solid feel to it, the bases of the glasses have great contrast and reflection.
The second image softens a bit by the third glass around the base and doesn't appeal to me as much but the angled break on the stem of the first glass really looks good.
Hope that all made sense, sometimes I find it hard to put into words what appeals to me in a photo.
Cheers, Greg

[Donald]

You're just breaking wine glasses so you can show off your great talent with glass and light aren't you Mike

Mmm, I was beginning to wonder as well!!

Compositionally, I'm not sure the second is as strong as the first. Why? I'm not sure. There's something about the the furtehest away glass in #2 that's causing a bit of an unbalance in my mind. But now we're getting down very fine nuances/preferences in terms of discussing two very well-crafted images.

[terrib]

I think both of them are appealing and very well done. But I'm going to be different and say that the second one appeals to me the most. The composition is just more creative and I like that you chose a DOF that softened toward the back. I'm wondering if it would feel better if the whole thing were moved back some - not the focus point but more space in front of the first in focus glass and less space behind the last glass. Looking at it again, maybe just cropping a bit off the top and right side seems to make my eyes land on the focused glass first. I really like the diagonal line of this one.

[jprzybyla]

Very creative, good work Mike.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the great ideas and comments, everyone! By the way, Greg, you always seem to do a very nice job of putting your thoughts into words.

Though I don't like the idea of yet another broken wine glass (my wife hates it!), it is at least nice to know that the glass can still be used for other purposes.

About that rear glass and to a lesser extent the middle glass: Using this type of setup, the closer the subject is to the light source located behind the subjects, the less distinct the subject is. That's because of the physics of light (specifically, the family of angles), which cannot be denied. However, by increasing the black point and the contrast of the middle and rear glasses, I was able to increase the clarity of the lines to create the perception (illusion) that all three glasses are more similarly lit.

Despite that I was shooting at my smallest aperture (f/22), only the first glass is completely sharp in the capture. However, this style of photography is very forgiving in that unusually aggressive sharpening techniques can be used without creating artifacts. I was able to create another illusion, this time of an increased depth of field by adding some sharpening that is so aggressive that I had never tried it before.

It's really interesting to click back and forth between Photos #2 and #3 using the Lytebox.


Photo #3

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, Terri, for giving me an idea about cropping that I would not have come up with on my own. The crop shown below is probably more aggressive on the right side than you imagined, but it works for me and came about only because I tried your initial idea.

Interestingly, this crop doesn't work at all for me in Photo #3 shown above where all three glasses are displayed with similar clarity. I think that's because all three glasses have approximately equal importance.

Just the opposite in the photo shown below, the two glasses in the rear clearly play a role that is subordinate to the glass in front. There is something about your idea that helps the two glasses in the rear recede into the distance and emphasize that their role is subordinate that I like very much.


Photo #4

[terrib]

I like both of these edits, Mike. I think you've addressed the issues and created 2 very different but great images.

Interesting that what I thought was intentional narrow DOF was actually lighting. All this complicated stuff is why I may not be trying this type of work. (I think I've heard that somewhere before... )

[Bobobird]

The square #2 does it for me.

Next time save a bit of the spilled wine too and you have another broken pic. Ketchup too, as a substitute.

[Plumcrak]

Mike, I have been coming back to these for the last 18 hours or so trying to figure out why I like one more than the others. They are all wonderful shots, a true clinic on lighting. What I have come up with is that I like #2 more than the others (just slightly though) and I believe it is because I like the illusion of the stems fading away in the distance. Maybe when you break another one you can add it to the end of the row and it might be barely visible?? Just a thought.

[Mike Buckley]

Maybe when you break another one you can add it to the end of the row and it might be barely visible??

Thank you, Jon. I have the exact same idea. Ironically, I'm sure I'll eventually be able to make that happen. Probably sooner than I want.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you also to Terri and Bobo. Somehow I missed seeing your latest posts.