First smoke image

[chauncey]

Did ja ever try to focus on smoke...



I haven't come close to fully figuring out the technique aside from side lighting but I put a tilted piece
of glass behind the smoke to give it a path to follow making achieving a focus point somewhat easier.

Gotta figure out a way to introduce more light as I had to bump the ISO to 400, my camera is noisy
at that figure. The glass reflected the dirty background cloth.
f/3.5 is too narrow and SS .4 is too slow...is anyone good at this stuff...need advice.

[Manfred M]

I've played around with this technique, but not recently.

I used a black seamless backdrop and used a softbox that was used to more back light than side light, to create the effect. I shot in a very dark basement room and ensured no ambient light impacted the shots; and yes, clearing the smoke was a bit of a problem. My smoke was generated by sticks of incense.

Smoke images were then reprocessed in Photoshop to create the effects and get rid of unwanted artifacts.




Shutter speed = 1/250th (synch speed) and aperture f/16; pre-focused and autofocus was disconnected.

More images at:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/524694...7631984369189/

[selig1656]

Nice work and practice will make make you better.

[Loose Canon]

Did ja ever try to focus on smoke...

From time to time! But only as it related to the overall shot.



Advice I would offer Chaunce is that you have to stop it to make it effective.

You have already answered your own question.

More light.

[Stagecoach]

I have only done it before using flash from the side Chauncey. Flash power can be used to control the 'duration' of light and I suppose you could also use a combination of flash and continous to achieve the definition you want.

This example was a bit more complicated because I had to control for both the smoke and burning coil end.

[Mike Buckley]

f/3.5 is too narrow and SS .4 is too slow

As Grahame mentioned and as the other images show, you're far better off using whatever aperture provides the best depth of field, letting a flash rather than the shutter speed stop the action.

[Manfred M]

As Grahame mentioned and as the other images show, you're far better off using whatever aperture provides the best depth of field, letting a flash rather than the shutter speed stop the action.

In a flash shot (assuming there is no ambient light influence), the exposure is controlled by the aperture, rather than the shutter speed; assuming you are shooting at or below the camera's synch speed. The flash is so short (in the order of 1/1000th sec), that shutter speed has no influence on the exposure.

[chauncey]

Grrr...A flash unit is one thing in which I've never invested, was hoping to use continuous lighting.

[Mike Buckley]

The flash is so short (in the order of 1/1000th sec), that shutter speed has no influence on the exposure.

To clarify that, the short duration of the flash stops the action, not the shutter speed, assuming as you mentioned that the ambient light doesn't provide enough light to record the smoke.

[Mike Buckley]

Grrr...A flash unit is one thing in which I've never invested, was hoping to use continuous lighting.

If your camera has a built-in flash, you can probably use it to make this type of photo. Just make sure that flash doesn't light the background.

[Manfred M]

Grrr...A flash unit is one thing in which I've never invested, was hoping to use continuous lighting.

Continous light is not powerful enough for what you are trying to do. You need a fairly decent DoF to get everything in focus and a very bright light light source to freeze the moving smoke. The light source has to be fairly large to illuminate the smoke, so I use a softbox with studio strobe.

I expect that things might be a bit touchier if you use a small flash and a large diffuser, but I suspect it can be done if you play around with it.

[Shadowman]

Did ja ever try to focus on smoke...

.

.

Yes and I failed miserably. You did quite well.

[Loose Canon]

Grrr...A flash unit is one thing in which I've never invested, was hoping to use continuous lighting.

Um, just a thought?

The investment that you have avoided might be way more advantageous than a high Mp shooter that will suck in low light, which seems to be what you (as well as I) are shooting in.

[jcuknz]

If you are yet to get a flash unit then you could consider an older and perhaps secondhand flash with a slave trigger. The trigger is probably sensitive enough that you can cover the on-board flash with just a small amount of its light escaping. This small amount is not strong enough to register as lighting on the subject ...
Slave trigger ... http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...ger&_sacat=625
Flash....http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-Zoom...item234b222e8b

The flash link is for the generic type and more sophisticated that you really need ... if Cash Converters are still in business in your area I would see what they have to offer.

To control the light I made up a cardboard snoot ....

It illustrates a couple of the older and hopefully cheaper units which you might find s/h if you don't want to go for flash in a serious way ....I bought them before Yougnuo came on the market after discovering the concept of covering the camera flash enough to stop it affecting the image but enough to work a trigger.
Of course it is nice to have Yougnou Flash units with their built in triggers but they cost a bit more
Here I am testing that a new Younuo is working AOK


EDIT that piece [left] from the bottom of an ice-cream container slips into the rubber band when the flash is pointing vertically for a softer light. An idea from the past because Yougnuo have built in things for that purpose

EDIT#2 I would suggest that the snoot, simple as it is, is a first step to using flash light in a serious manner ... often people just splash light around the place with umbrellas and floods etc but IMO the serious worker controls their light so it goes where it is needed and nowhere else.
So that flash with the snoot does this reasonably well and the door on the side enabled some light to escape so that one light acted as a Key light while the flap lit the background.

I think I probably had a bit of white styrene to fill from the left.

[Rob Ekins]

In a flash shot (assuming there is no ambient light influence), the exposure is controlled by the aperture, rather than the shutter speed; assuming you are shooting at or below the camera's synch speed. The flash is so short (in the order of 1/1000th sec), that shutter speed has no influence on the exposure.

Manfred,

Should that read... the exposure is controlled by the aperture and ISO?


Nice smoke shots on your Flickr page by the way..

[Manfred M]

If your camera has a built-in flash, you can probably use it to make this type of photo. Just make sure that flash doesn't light the background.

Mike - front lighting will cause two problems with this type of shot:

1. It will light up the background, which is generally not what one wants to do; it should be contrasty and black; and

2. Will produce more back-scattered lighting, so none of that contrasty smoke one looks for in this type of shot.


In my experiments (confirmed by others later), a soft light source, just out of camera view, level with the smoke at about 45° to the image sensor plane) seems to give the best light. A good dose a curve adjustment layer helps to get rid of some of the unwanted artifacts is required too.

[Mike Buckley]

Manfred,

I'm only suggesting that he tries lighting it with his built-in flash, considering that he has no other flash. I explained that it's important that it doesn't light the background, so I don't understand why you mention that the problem is that it will light the background. If there is no way for him to use the built-in flash so it doesn't light the background, clearly it won't be effective.

Not everyone has tons of lighting equipment, so it's perhaps worth it to him to try it with his built-in flash. Whether it works as he hopes or not, it will likely be a highly educational experience.

[Manfred M]

I understand, to a point, Mike.

Photography is an equipment intensive activity and it often requires very specific equipment to get the resullts one wants to get. I don't have a macro lens, so frankly I can't do macro photography. I guess I could try to do a kludge and get as close as I can and then crop like crazy, but I suspect I won't be able to get a decent result.

Likewise, I don't have an underwater housing for my cameras, so in spite of being a scuba diver, I have never tried to do underwater shots. The closest I can get is shooting from outside an aquarium, and that's not going to fool anyone.

An external flash is something a lot of people avoid, but not having one means certain types of photography simply can't be done. Shooting smoke is one of those things that can't be emulated very well without the right light source. I suspect that William has pushed his continuous lights to the limit to get what he did. He's already shooting at a fairly low shutter speed and large aperture.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Should that read... the exposure is controlled by the aperture and ISO?


Nice smoke shots on your Flickr page by the way..

And flash power and distance to the light source.

I was assuming a fixed ISO. The important thing is to recognize is that shutter speed has a very marginal impact on the exposure when using flash, unless there is a significant amount of ambient light. You are correct, increasing ISO can also be used to change the exposure, but I personally would rather increase the flash power and keep the ISO low in this type of shot. The dark background is going to start causing problems with sensor noise if the ISO gets increased too much.

[Mike Buckley]

An external flash is something a lot of people avoid, but not having one means certain types of photography simply can't be done. Shooting smoke is one of those things that can't be emulated very well without the right light source.

I also understand you to a point, Manfred. My suggestion is that Chauncey might come up with a look that he likes using his built-in flash that is not the traditional look, perhaps in combination with his continuous light source placed on the side as in his photo. He certainly posts a lot of photos that are far from traditional, so the possibility that he would arrive at a very different approach to photographing smoke that he enjoys is quite fathomable in my mind.