Rack of Lamb - Take 4

[Mike Buckley]

Alan asked for a combination of detail displayed in Take 3 and the translucent look displayed in Take 2. Referring to Take 3, John alluded to a request for a more artistic look. I made the photos shown below with all of that in mind.

The subject is still the same raw, frozen rack of lamb captured in Takes 2 and 3. It was far easier to display both detail and translucence than I imagined; I simply reduced the flash from full power to 1/4 power and got what I had in mind. In other words, it was a matter of balancing the amount of light penetrating the thin areas of the meat from behind with the amount of light cast on the front area of the meat. That is a huge lesson I'm grateful to have learned!

Please view both images in the Lytebox to review the display of detail.

Comment requested
I rarely show color and monochrome versions of the same image even when requested to do so. I'm displaying them here because I feel the color version conveys the translucent characteristic better than the monochrome version. Yet I like the drama of the monochrome version so overall I prefer that one. Your comments about that (as well as anything)?

Setup
The background is the reverse side of inlaid art paper. A flash unit set at 1/4 power is in between the background and subject with just barely enough room to fit the flash there. A medium continuous-light lamp on the right side rakes light across the rack to display its texture and shape. A very small reflector on the left side lifts the shadows on one very tiny part of the meat on that side.

[Shadowman]

I'm liking the color version for artistic/realistic capture and the mono version for abstract qualities.

[FootLoose]

I prefer the coloured version.

Have you thought about doing some close-ups, Mike? The part of this shot that I find the most interesting is the translucent area. If it were my project I would try filling the frame with just that, and thinking about what it might resemble.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to John and Greg!

Greg: Is there a particular reason you prefer the colour version?

I do like your idea of doing close-ups but I think I would need a macro lens to do a decent job of photographing the translucent area while also filling the frame. As an example, though I was using my lens that focuses at the closest distance (a Nikon 35mm, f/2 lens), I was just barely able to get everything in focus in this image. I had planned to get a macro lens this year but have postponed that until next year after I get to some higher priorities this year.

[FootLoose]

Greg: Is there a particular reason you prefer the colour version?

Yes, I find the translucence in the colour version more attractive. In the b&w it is a light area which could be from side lighting, but in the colour the light is more obviously coming through from behind, producing that rich blood-red colour.

[pnodrog]

Technically I like the translucence shown in the colour version. Aesthetically and diet wise I am waiting for it to be cooked.

When I was a boy I would get told off for playing with my food

[Mike Buckley]

In the b&w it is a light area which could be from side lighting, but in the colour the light is more obviously coming through from behind, producing that rich blood-red colour.

That's my exact reaction.

When I was a boy I would get told off for playing with my food

Isn't it nice not having the limitations of a child?!

[bnnrcn]

I'm on the mono side , not because I don't like the color image but that blood-red color makes me feel uncomfortable again

[Mike Buckley]

that blood-red color makes me feel uncomfortable again