Help with lighting

[chauncey]

Been working a little lately with Orchids and can't get the lighting to look right.

This Zerene stack was shot using three work lights at subject level, one behind and two about 20 degrees
on either side of the camera.
A little shadows & highlights was applied in PS...can't seem to get the texture in the petals.

Is lighting my problem...or what else might be?

[Polar01]

Not a lighting man myself, but looks a little harsh, maybe a some what softer light would allow a bit more detail to come through.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

Were you going for a high-key look?

[DanK]

Are you diffusing the lights? if so, how?

I will probably be away from the forum until next weekend, but my experience is that lighting for flowers has to be highly diffused, and the angle of the light can make a huge difference. I use continuous lighting so that I can move it around and see (approximately) the effects before starting to take pictures. I always diffuse any direct light, and I often bounce with an umbrella to soften it more. Here is how it worked out for one photo:

[Loose Canon]

Lighting illuminates.

But more importantly (especially in this case) shadow defines.

[Mike Buckley]

To follow up on Terry's comment that shadows define the subject, consider that you placed light sources on both sides of the subject. If you had used only one of those light sources, you would have more shadows.

Try to examine those details very closely before taking the time to capture the scene, much less post-process the image.

You didn't mention the relative power of the light coming from behind and in front of the subject. If they were the same or if there was more power coming from in front, that light negated the light from the rear.

As you build your lighting scenario, do it one step (one light source) at a time. As an example, once you have placed the first light source, determine what you like and dislike about the results and adjust accordingly, partly by making a decision about where your second light source should be positioned and how powerful it should be.

[xpatUSA]

I am no lighting expert either. Got some good tools, though. According to ImageJ, there's very little contrast in your white petals whereas a white flower snapped in full sun with a smartphone has plenty:



My inclination would be to delete or considerably reduce your backlighting.

[Kodiak]

Lighting illuminates.

But more importantly (especially in this case) shadow defines.

+10

[jcuknz]

Further to Mike's final para I would suggest after setting up the scene you first take a photo using the on-board flash adjusted to one minus stop and ssee what you have ... it could be better than what you got with the three lights. These days I normally shoot by ambient light, it can be simpler.
Nearest I have to your flowers, some near white Magnolia .. sunlight with a handheld diffusion screen blocking the sun except for a spot top right in background.
You could say I was working with one light and indoors one could use a reflector, white card to reduce the range of tones the single light is creating.

[DanK]

IMHO, the comments about lighting from the side are right on target. It's not obvious from the iPhone photo I posted, but the direct, diffused lighting in my flower shots is always from one side or the other, sometimes both. This helps bring out the texture in the petals.

However, there is a drawback to lighting from the side. With some flowers, it is very easy to get undesirable (at least to my taste) strong, large shadows from entire petal edges when lighting is from the side. In my experience, this is one of the two most difficult lighting problems in flower shots. This is another reason why I use continuous lighting. I sometimes spend a lot of time moving the lights around, changing the angles and distances, before I get what I think will work. I then take a test shot, and often I start readjusting after that. The umbrella can help a great deal (I now often use a smaller silver one). I often place it so that it is slightly to the other side from the direct lighting, to cast some soft light in a direction that will lessen or even eliminate harsh shadows.

I'm thinking of making two changes to my setup. One is to get a third hair light so that I can have direct lighting from two directions as well as an umbrella. The other is to put the direct lights on rheostats so that I am more easily change their brightness, rather than moving them closer and farther away.

Here are a few with which I am relatively satisfied, that show some texture without overly harsh shadows:

[jcuknz]

Nice Dan .... flash is so convienient but you are working blind by largely guesswork. Perhaps when you have learnt with continuous you can try flash ?

[rpcrowe]

Nice Dan .... flash is so convienient but you are working blind by largely guesswork. Perhaps when you have learnt with continuous you can try flash ?

Or, if you have electric current available, studio type flash with modeling lights are a great way to go!

[chauncey]

Thanks for all your input guys...I think that there was a multitude of problems with the shot and
lighting was a significant part. Will never again use a strong backlight on semi-translucent
white flowers when subtlety is called for. The ETTR technique that I support let me down
in this scenario as well...lessons learned!