Photographing implosions... addressing glare...

Mr. Smiley · #1 2010-09-20, 5:37am

Ok, so some of my implosions have a really domed face... this makes taking pictures of them next to impossible with my light box... the glare hides a lot of the design... but the under water images fall flat... they show all of the design, but have zero depth... I'm trying to figure out how to address this with online sales. In person, these just POP... the depth, the color and the entire design can be seen... let's not even talk about capturing sparkle... some days i feel like taking a short video of each piece rotating, just so i can convey the beauty of the piece online.

That's probably not an option, so I'd love to discuss still options... Here is a quickie shot of a pendant I'm talking about... these are the under water shots.

I'll take post some of my normal pics of the same pendant in a bit...

Copperrein · #2 2010-09-20, 5:45am

Do you have a polarizing filter? A directional one you can adjust?

Mr. Smiley · #3 2010-09-20, 5:46am

Here's the same pendant in my light box...

Mr. Smiley · #4 2010-09-20, 5:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperrein

Do you have a polarizing filter? A directional one you can adjust?

I do not... well, i have a little filter i think may be polarized... but i think it messed with the color... I'll check it out again.

Moth · #5 2010-09-20, 6:15am

Watching expectantly for responses to this thread. I have the same problem.

You know Brent, when you go to some of these online glass galleries they have animated .gif images of their pieces. Sometimes you mouse over and the view changes, sometimes they just flip on their own in a loop. I wonder if that would be a viable option for you. Kinda like stop-motion animation. Not a full fledge, full 'slow loading' video.

I'm gonna work on this later and see what happens.

~~Mary

Mr. Smiley · #6 2010-09-20, 6:15am

I actually do have one... I tried this before, but it leaves the picture grainy... the filter is dark... would more light correct this or am I chasing my tail?

These are with the polarized filter...

Mr. Smiley · #7 2010-09-20, 6:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moth

Watching expectantly for responses to this thread. I have the same problem.

You know Brent, when you go to some of these online glass galleries they have animated .gif images of their pieces. Sometimes you mouse over and the view changes, sometimes they just flip on their own in a loop. I wonder if that would be a viable option for you. Kinda like stop-motion animation. Not a full fledge, full 'slow loading' video.

I'm gonna work on this later and see what happens.

~~Mary

Can't wait to see what that does... I just don't know how much more time it will take for each one... and that's something we don't have more of... time...

Cosmo · #8 2010-09-20, 6:17am

Can you show us a picture of your light box and lights?

With glass of course it's impossible to get rid of all the glare (unless you use the underwater thing, which I think makes glass look horrible) but there are ways to minimize it.

Compare the size of the glare in yours with the size of the glare in this one:

Obviously I'd prefer no glare at all, but I've got it down to where there is just the slightest amount of glare, and I don't think it takes away from it.

Moth · #9 2010-09-20, 6:18am

Like this. Although I have to wonder how the heck they took either of the images that toggle back and forth. There isn't a single glare. Dango.

http://www.artglassusa.com/pages/vmgs_pws.html

Cosmo · #10 2010-09-20, 6:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moth

Like this. Although I have to wonder how the heck they took either of the images that toggle back and forth. There isn't a single glare. Dango.

http://www.artglassusa.com/pages/vmgs_pws.html

Those aren't .gif images. That is javascript that is changing the picture when you hover over the image. .gif files aren't interactive.

You can do the same thing with CSS though.

Moth · #11 2010-09-20, 6:21am

I know those aren't gifs, but you could mock the affect with a .gif and not have to run a script which would take longer.

Moth · #12 2010-09-20, 6:22am

They would just loop through without the mouseover.

I'm gonna try to make one and I'll be back.

Mr. Smiley · #13 2010-09-20, 6:23am

I'd rather not photograph my light box... that area is messy!

I will say it's a standard small box... maybe i need to pull out the larger one and get the lights farther away... but then I'll need brighter lights... good lord... taking the next step to really good pictures and not just acceptable ones is gonna be a chore.

Mr. Smiley · #14 2010-09-20, 6:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Can you show us a picture of your light box and lights?

With glass of course it's impossible to get rid of all the glare (unless you use the underwater thing, which I think makes glass look horrible) but there are ways to minimize it.

Compare the size of the glare in yours with the size of the glare in this one:

Obviously I'd prefer no glare at all, but I've got it down to where there is just the slightest amount of glare, and I don't think it takes away from it.

A little glare is wonderful... it shows the shape of the lens and you've got it nailed to the right size... As long as it doesn't block too much of the design, it adds to the photo. What size box and lights do you use?

How much work is done in post editing?

Dirt Road · #15 2010-09-20, 6:26am

How about putting three mirrors around it? One in back, one on each side, and under water. That might give you the depth without the glare.

BellaBean · #16 2010-09-20, 6:28am

I have the same issue Brent! It stinks! The light box stinks... under water looks flat and crappy... I hope somebody has a great solution out there!!! The best I found was outside in either early morning or late afternoon when the sun is off to the side. Here is one of mine photographed that way.

menty666 · #17 2010-09-20, 6:32am

I think a big difference is that Brent's shooting straight on and Chad's shooting from an angle. This changes where the glare will fall on the piece, and you also get a bit of the 3D edge that way.

Just an observation.

Cosmo · #18 2010-09-20, 6:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

I'd rather not photograph my light box... that area is messy!

I will say it's a standard small box... maybe i need to pull out the larger one and get the lights farther away... but then I'll need brighter lights... good lord... taking the next step to really good pictures and not just acceptable ones is gonna be a chore.

I would try moving the lights away first. You don't need brighter lights. Just lengthen your exposure. A lot of my photos are taken with exposure lengths in the 1.8 - 2 second range.

I use just cheap flood lights I got from Lowes. I have 60w GE Reveal bulbs in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

A little glare is wonderful... it shows the shape of the lens and you've got it nailed to the right size... As long as it doesn't block too much of the design, it adds to the photo. What size box and lights do you use?

How much work is done in post editing?

Not much. Cropping and adding the watermark is about it.

My light box is homemade from PVC and rip-stop nylon (cost me about $3). I don't remember the size right off, but I think it's somewhere in the 9" square range.

Mr. Smiley · #19 2010-09-20, 7:30am

Ahhhh... it's your exposure time... I'm using a little Sony Cybershot... an old one... it captures the boro colors i use the best, but it does have so many other limitations. I'll move my lights back a bit and see if i can get a longer exposure time.... thanks... this is a great discussion. We've had similar ones before, but we're all moving ahead and have made great progress over the years... I don't mean to get all sentimental, but it's super cool to see everybody progressing and working together.

ABR Dave · #20 2010-09-20, 7:47am

i've had great luck using the close range setting on my canon. usually symbolized by a flower on most camera menus. you can set it to focus down to the hundreth of a meter. put it on a tripod, and play for a while. you willl find just the right spot. i've taken some great implosion pics that way

Cosmo · #21 2010-09-20, 7:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABR Dave

i've had great luck using the close range setting on my canon. usually symbolized by a flower on most camera menus. you can set it to focus down to the hundreth of a meter. put it on a tripod, and play for a while. you willl find just the right spot. i've taken some great implosion pics that way

Macro setting usually gives a very shallow depth of field. I've had much better luck using the standard setting and zooming in.

Cosmo · #22 2010-09-20, 7:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

Ahhhh... it's your exposure time... I'm using a little Sony Cybershot... an old one... it captures the boro colors i use the best, but it does have so many other limitations. I'll move my lights back a bit and see if i can get a longer exposure time.... thanks... this is a great discussion. We've had similar ones before, but we're all moving ahead and have made great progress over the years... I don't mean to get all sentimental, but it's super cool to see everybody progressing and working together.

I've thought a few times about putting together a little write-up about how I take my photos, the setup I use, how to edit photos, etc. I just haven't gotten around to it.

Maybe one day...

Katie · #23 2010-09-20, 8:08am

http://www.lightstalking.com/cats-eyes

Maybe an idea, animals have a globe over the eye with the beautifull coloring of the iris
under it.

Katie

Mr. Smiley · #24 2010-09-20, 8:14am

I'm just throwing in the towel for today... my zsoom sucks... can't get the lights positioned right... screw it. I'll try again later!

Cosmo · #25 2010-09-20, 10:40am

Looking at your photo again, it looks like the sides/top of the box are pretty close to your subject. I'd try a larger box if you have one. That would probably make a big difference on its own.

G.L.McBead · #26 2010-09-20, 10:56am

has anyone tryed a light table,so it back lights?
Lights from the back

Cosmo · #27 2010-09-20, 11:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.L.McBead

has anyone tryed a light table,so it back lights?
Lights from the back

Lighting from the back would make it very hard to see the front of the pendant. Take your hand and hold it up to the light. See how you only see the outline of your hand, and not the hand itself?

ABR Dave · #28 2010-09-20, 11:12am

my macro setting rocks.....but my canon is pretty sweet. it has rediculous zoom capability

Mr. Smiley · #29 2010-09-20, 12:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Looking at your photo again, it looks like the sides/top of the box are pretty close to your subject. I'd try a larger box if you have one. That would probably make a big difference on its own.

My box is much bigger than yours, so that doesn't make sense... but you're right... it does look closer...

Cosmo · #30 2010-09-20, 12:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

My box is much bigger than yours, so that doesn't make sense... but you're right... it does look closer...

Then I think your problem may be too much light all together. Moving your lights back (and lengthening your exposure to compensate) should do it.

That's probably not the preferred "professional" solution, but it should work.