Wine: My favorite from South Africa

[Mike Buckley]

Winery: Mulderbosch
Year: 2008
Region: Stellenbosch, South Africa
Brand: Barrel Fermented
Grape: Chardonnay

Mulderbosch was purchased a few years ago by Terroir Capital, a California-based investment group. Ever since then, Mulderbosch has not been making its chardonnay available in the U.S., which is where I live. That's unfortunate because it happens to be some of the best chardonnay I have ever enjoyed and it was especially good that the wine was not expensive.

When my wife and I spent a couple weeks in South Africa last year, we made a point of doing a tasting at the estate. We tasted the 2008, 2009 and 2010 vintages of their Barrel Fermented Chardonnay and the 2008 was really special. We left the winery with four bottles, drank two of them as we traveled throughout South Africa, and brought two home with us.

This photo is of our last bottle. We have friends who very touchingly brought a bottle of Marechal Foch back from their trip to Nova Scotia so they could share it with us. We are going to return the favor by sharing this last bottle with them.

[Jim35010]

Nice! Just a thought, the bottle appears to be unopened....

[Wavelength]

Nice indeed

[bugster0121]

As always very nice capture

[Kaye Leggett]

Lovely bottle, although I'm not sure about the dof with the glass but maybe that's because its not of your normal style and so takes a second/third glance which I've given it, but still not sure. Interested to see what others think.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, all!

the bottle appears to be unopened....

Delayed gratification isn't everything that it's made out to be.

I'm not sure about the dof with the glass but maybe that's because its not of your normal style

If you're referring to my photos of clear glass, I believe that's an accurate statement overall. Even so, several of those photos at my website do make use of limited depth of field.

If you're referring to my photos of wine bottles or wine glasses with wine in them, I've only made six of them and all of those were made in the last week. (I'm not including in that count a couple experiments conducted a few years ago when I had relatively no idea what I was doing.)

So, considering the relatively few images in my very small body of work, I think it might be more accurate to say that there are too few of them to say that I have developed a style other than to perhaps hone in on the idea that I do prefer simplicity over complexity at least for now.

Just my highly subjective thinking.

[Mike Buckley]

About the wine glass that is out of focus: I don't know exactly why I imagined this composition from the very beginning but that's what came to mind when I first began to think about photographing this wine bottle. I was thinking all along that the wine glass should be very distant in contrast to the bold presence of the wine bottle. I considered using a much larger glass but ruled that out when I realized that a large size would increase its presence when I wanted the exact opposite effect. There's certainly no deep meaning intended in all of that, just a simple compositional idea that works for me.

I might feel differently about it a year or so from now and welcome dissenting or approving comments.

[Brownbear]

Another Mike Buckley Gem!

I love the out of focus glass for the mysterious feel, and simply because it is different.

Aside.... There is a brighter whiter area around the top of the bottle.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, Christina!

There is a brighter whiter area around the top of the bottle.

By design, there is a bright, narrow area in the background that is on the right side of the bottle's neck, above the top of the bottle, and on the left side of the bottle's neck. That area on the left also extends into the background area above the wine glass. The luminosity values in that total area are within a range of 245 to 250. The brightest area in the image (not by design and might merit correction) is a short, narrow area immediately adjacent to the left shoulder of the bottle with luminosity values ranging from 250 to 255.

Regardless, please continue pointing out areas that don't seem quite right just in case I miss something.

[kap55]

Very nice presentation.

Whenever I think of South African wine I think of Pinotage, but then I prefer reds to whites.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Brian!

Whenever I think of South African wine I think of Pinotage

You're probably aware that pinotage is a cross between pinot noir and hermitage (also called cinsault) that was initially developed by a professor at Stellenbosch University. There is something about the flavor of pinotage that makes it one of only two grapes that I generally don't like. (The other grape is aglianico.) However, my friends in South Africa introduced me to a pinotage that I was very happy to enjoy several times throughout my visit there.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for sharing... I see the design of your beautiful lighting is to draw attention to the subject, and that it just not as soft at the top of the bottle. Fascinating, as well being something to learn from and think about for future, as well as the soft shadows.

Thank you, Christina!



By design, there is a bright, narrow area in the background that is on the right side of the bottle's neck, above the top of the bottle, and on the left side of the bottle's neck. That area on the left also extends into the background area above the wine glass. The luminosity values in that total area are within a range of 245 to 250. The brightest area in the image (not by design and might merit correction) is a short, narrow area immediately adjacent to the left shoulder of the bottle with luminosity values ranging from 250 to 255.

Regardless, please continue pointing out areas that don't seem quite right just in case I miss something.

[Mike Buckley]

[the lighting is] just not as soft at the top of the bottle.

I disagree and am guessing that the disagreement is rooted in your use of the term, "soft."

The quality of light can be summed up in three fundamental characteristics -- color, brightness and contrast. The softness or hardness of light is related to the amount of contrast. Soft light produces soft shadows (shadows not well defined) and hard light produces harsh shadows (well defined shadows). Note that the softness and hardness of light has nothing to do with the color or brightness of light.

Depending on the material the subject is made of, soft and hard light may produce relatively the same highlights or very different highlights. As a reminder, soft and hard light will always produce very different shadows.

There are two ways to produce soft light: Either use a relatively small light source and disperse its rays of light in different directions or use a relatively large light source.

In this case, the top of the bottle is made of two fundamentally different materials -- foil and paper. The light source was relatively large. That combination of light and subject material produced a soft highlight on the foil and no highlight on the paper.

So, that brings us back to the fact that the light at the top of the bottle is most definitely very soft.

There are two reasons I'm making such a big deal of making sure you understand the importance of using photographers' definitions and terminology when describing light. The first reason is that doing so will help you immensely in your quest to accurately assess the quality of light in your landscape photography, actually, all styles of photography. Once you've accurately assessed the quality of light, you will be far closer to accurately assessing whether the photograph will appear as you hope.

The second reason is that using terminology inaccurately impedes your progress through the learning curve; though you know what you are trying to communicate with others, informed photographers have no realistic choice but to assume you are using the terminology accurately even though that may not be the case.

Moral of the story: Read and reread pages 13 -23 of Light: Science and Magic and apply the concepts to scenes that you photograph until everything sinks in. I just now read parts of those pages for at least the 10th time just to make sure this post doesn't accidentally mislead you by using terminology inaccurately.

[Brownbear]

Thank you as always for taking the time. Your explanation is very helpful.

I will reread those pages, at least ten times.

If I could click the helpful button 100 times for you, I would. Perhaps I can ask others to do so for me, simply to show our appreciation that you always take the time to help others and share your knowledge to help others.

Thank you.

I disagree and am guessing that the disagreement is rooted in your use of the term, "soft."

The quality of light can be summed up in three fundamental characteristics -- color, brightness and contrast. The softness or hardness of light is related to the amount of contrast. Soft light produces soft shadows (shadows not well defined) and hard light produces harsh shadows (well defined shadows). Note that the softness and hardness of light has nothing to do with the color or brightness of light.

Depending on the material the subject is made of, soft and hard light may produce relatively the same highlights or very different highlights. As a reminder, soft and hard light will always produce very different shadows.

There are two ways to produce soft light: Either use a relatively small light source and disperse its rays of light in different directions or use a relatively large light source.

In this case, the top of the bottle is made of two fundamentally different materials -- foil and paper. The light source was relatively large. That combination of light and subject material produced a soft highlight on the foil and no highlight on the paper.

So, that brings us back to the fact that the light at the top of the bottle is most definitely very soft.

There are two reasons I'm making such a big deal of making sure you understand the importance of using photographers' definitions and terminology when describing light. The first reason is that doing so will help you immensely in your quest to accurately assess the quality of light in your landscape photography, actually, all styles of photography. Once you've accurately assessed the quality of light, you will be far closer to accurately assessing whether the photograph will appear as you hope.

The second reason is that using terminology inaccurately impedes your progress through the learning curve; though you know what you are trying to communicate with others, informed photographers have no realistic choice but to assume you are using the terminology accurately even though that may not be the case.

Moral of the story: Read and reread pages 13 -23 of Light: Science and Photography and apply the concepts to scenes that you photograph until everything sinks in. I just now read parts of those pages for at least the 10th time just to make sure this post doesn't accidentally mislead you by using terminology inaccurately.

[Mike Buckley]

No need to be concerned about the Helpful button, Christina. Glad to know that you're on your way to understanding and using the terminology accurately!