How was this shot lit?

[Garry Edwards]

A different type of thread, which I thought might make a change from the usual run of threads about which latest gadget to buy . . .


The background.

A very capable photographer, photography degree, experience with one of the packshot factory type of high volume product photography companies followed by working in a high volume, high pressure portrait photography job, none of which was the best background for someone who needs to use light well, so I was asked to provide him with training in product photography lighting, which took just two days to get to a pretty high standard.

Right at the start of the second day I handed him this subject to light, asking him to light it as if it was a product that needs to be sold. I then interfered and what you see here is the final result.


What is it?

Not that it matters, but I have a few different interests and last year decided to take up playing pool for the first time, with the target of reaching my local pub pool league standard in just over a year and to be accepted into the team. This was achieved but I have a problem – at the age of 74 the arthritis in my left hand makes it impossible for me to create a high bridge, which is essential when “Chinese snookered” by a ball behind the white ball, so I needed to find a solution. I bought the brass-coloured spider, then a solid piece of aluminium rod was machined on a lathe and ended up as our subject, complete with knurling and a mirror finish.

It looked good but turned out to be over-engineered and too bulky and heavy for practical use so sadly it had to go back on the lathe for a slimming cure, a pity because the original looked so much better


Your challenge
All studio photographers should be able to look at any shot and see exactly how it was lit – where the lights were placed, their direction, what types of modifier were used, where any reflectors were used, so your challenge is to tell us how it was lit.

Disregards:
The background. Disregard the background because, as is normal for product photography, it was done in PP.

Light on the underside of the rod. Disregard this, we placed it on a piece of white cloth to act as an environmental reflector.

DOF. It needed to be positioned at the angle that showed it best, so I told my trainee that if this required more DOF than the laws of physics allowed we’d get around that by using a tilt shift lens to shift the plane of sharp focus as necessary. All that you need to think and comment about is the lighting.

So, how was it lit?

 

[bass_junkie83]

Your challenge
All studio photographers should be able to....

I don't fall into this category, but always happy to have a go, so my guess would be .....

Main light - Camera right, perpendicular to the product. Not sure on the modifier but something that gives a fairly un-diffused light, just a reflector maybe?
Second light - Softbox directly above.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Not a million miles out. Personally I wouldn't describe the light to camera right as the main light, as it only lights a small part of the product - but as the Gibb brothers sang, "it's only words
Think again about whether it's an undiffused light. With complex and convex shapes, even the largest diffused light source is bound to look like a hard light source.

And there's another, subtle light source too, not mentioned. If you look at the shadows it's clear that the other light source was needed.

I deliberately didn't include the SOOC shot, which shows the shadows on the background, simply because that would be too easy. But both the shadows and the highlights on the product provide all the info needed to deconstruct this shot.

 

[Deleted member 41401]

I'm useless at this stuff Garry, but I'll give it a go. I'm guessing a strip softbox from above. Maybe the same from the side. A reflector for fill at the "butt end" and some flagging for the shadows.

 

[Nod]

2 tube fluorescent strip light parallel to the rest?

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm useless at this stuff Garry, but I'll give it a go. I'm guessing a strip softbox from above. Maybe the same from the side. A reflector for fill at the "butt end" and some flagging for the shadows.

Yes, the overhead light is a strip softbox, but how close and at what angle?
Well done for spotting the reflector fill at the end, this was just a piece of folded white paper.
It wasn't a strip softbox for the brass coloured end but it could have been, it would have made little difference what was used there.

2 tube fluorescent strip light parallel to the rest?

Not fluorescent strip lights, but you've got one very important bit right - the light was at the angle needed to create equal width highlights.

So far, nobody has noticed the most important light . . .

 

[Peter123]

Not many reflections on this metal thing. I am wondering if a polariser was used somewhere in the set up?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Not many reflections on this metal thing. I am wondering if a polariser was used somewhere in the set up?

Good thought but no. A polariser would in any case have no effect on metal, it's all down to light placement and the size of the light source relative to that of he subject.

 

[Nod]

So far, nobody has noticed the most important light . . .

Natural?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Natural?

No, it's a very directional light, very carefully arranged.. And anyway, the shot was taken in a studio with all natural light excluded.

If nobody can see it, maybe we did a good job with it

 

[Peter123]

A humongous softbox really close camera right level with product as main light. That's a guess.

 

[Garry Edwards]

A humongous softbox really close camera right level with product as main light. That's a guess.

That could have been used to light the fleabay brassed bit, but would inevitably have spilled a lot more light on to the shaft. Because of the effect of the inverse square law, any light placed really close from one end of the shaft would have lost light power extremely rapidly over the length of the shaft and also (Inverse square law again) would have produced a brighter and smaller specular highlight as the distance from the light increased..

The only process that works with lighting (all lighting, but easier with product type shots) is to start off with just one light, and that's the one that does almost all of the work.
We then add other lights, one at a time, only if necessary, to remove or at least mitigate problems caused the first light and then by any subsequent lights. That results in (hopefully) just one apparent light source, and stops unnecessary lights from being used.

We've now established that there was an overhead strip softbox, angled exactly to the angle of the shaft, to create the diffused specular highlight there, there was a softbox light right and fairly high to light the brassed bit, placed some distance away so that the spilled light didn't create too uneven a secondary specular highight, light was also reflected from the white(ish) cloth underneath it and light from the overhead softbox was reflected back on to the left hand end by a paper reflector. Maybe the SOOC shot may make this clearer?

So, two actual lights and two reflected light sources have been identified. But these lights are big and soft and there's another light too, which is doing a job that's at least as important as the more obvious ones. . .

As I said, this cue rest was too bulky and heavy and it had to be slimmed down on the lathe, so here's yet another clue that will help anyone who does turning - which operation is being carried out in this phone pic?

 

[sk66]

It's been a few days, so I'll take a shot at it and give my reasoning. Firstly, the dark areas (top, beveled ramps on legs, etc) are just showing the room lighting (ambient) as it was killed by flash (no flags). And the underside is spill bounce filled from the white surface.
I see two strip lights, both parallel to the handle. The top one is quite close (~ 2ft) and I think it is also forward and angled away from the camera a bit (front edge hard line, back edge fading to black slower, and just a bit of directional texture from the top knurling). The second is a good bit father away (~5ft maybe), slightly above camera and square on (hard center line with both long edges clearly defined). Both extend beyond the ends of the object (catchlights in divot on butt).
There is a reflector at the butt end (flat face), and a large reflector at the front (most evident in the lower front leg, but also front edge of bridge and back leg)... I can't tell if you were shooting over it or through it, but it seems like it had to be nearly obstructing the shot... or maybe it was curved. I suppose it could also be a very large softbox/scrim from camera right extending to/beyond the camera position.
I think I see a hard light overhead/forward on the lower front of the knurling, but the IQ of the uploaded image makes it hard to really discern. Still, the texture there appears to be lit mostly from above (raking across the front edge), and it's harder/more specular, so I don't think it comes from the surface fill even though it lines up. Whatever the hard source (honeycomb reflector) I think it had to be flagged on the sides (barn doors). But maybe I'm imagining it; because I would expect to use a hard light to lift the texture on the handle (IDK that lower front is where I would have placed it).
There's a couple things I can't quite figure out... IDKW the hard strip light runs out just before reaching the bridge but shows on the top edge of the bridge itself; my best guess is a shadow reflection of the bridge face is overpowering them (?). And there's a brighter specular along the front leg shoulder... my best guess is that's from the overhead, but IMO it shouldn't be both brighter and farther from the light (editing?).

So, that's my best guess. 3 lights- two strip boxes/one hard, and two reflectors/fill, combined with ambient/spill (black room/white surface).

 

[sk66]

It took me quite a bit to make my guesses and type it out (along with wandering away) so Garry posted the SOOC and answer in that time...

 

[bass_junkie83]

As I said, this cue rest was too bulky and heavy and it had to be slimmed down on the lathe, so here's yet another clue that will help anyone who does turning - which operation is being carried out in this phone pic?

Well that's a much easier question, that's the knurling.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Interesting, thorough and insightful - and close to being right.

Firstly, the dark areas (top, beveled ramps on legs, etc) are just showing the room lighting (ambient) as it was killed by flash (no flags). And the underside is spill bounce filled from the white surface.

Correct, but there was pretty much no ambient lighting.

I see two strip lights, both parallel to the handle. The top one is quite close (~ 2ft)

No, just the one, perhaps 6" away and exactly in line with the item in terms of both angle and rake, to produce that diffused specular highlight.

There is a reflector at the butt end (flat face)

Correct, a small piece of folded white paper

I think I see a hard light overhead/forward on the lower front of the knurling, but the IQ of the uploaded image makes it hard to really discern. Still, the texture there appears to be lit mostly from above (raking across the front edge), and it's harder/more specular, so I don't think it comes from the surface fill even though it lines up. Whatever the hard source (honeycomb reflector) I think it had to be flagged on the sides (barn doors). But maybe I'm imagining it; because I would expect to use a hard light to lift the texture on the handle (IDK that lower front is where I would have placed it)..

Now we're getting there, but no barn doors. Please tell me more about both the placement and distance of that honeycombed light, and how possible light spill was controlled.

There's a couple things I can't quite figure out... IDKW the hard strip light runs out just before reaching the bridge but shows on the top edge of the bridge itself; my best guess is a shadow reflection of the bridge face is overpowering them (?).

It runs out because the light from the softbox is blocked by the bridge.

And there's a brighter specular along the front leg shoulder... my best guess is that's from the overhead, but IMO it shouldn't be both brighter and farther from the light (editing?).

No editing in the SOOC shot, no editing other than minor adjustments, cropping and cutting out on the white background version.

Well that's a much easier question, that's the knurling.

Easier for you because you obviously know how to use a lathe. No doubt you're now going to tell me that it's a Harrison with 24" centres
Yes, it's all about lighting the knurling.

 

[sk66]

Correct, but there was pretty much no ambient lighting.

Once you said the second light was a softbox high/right it explained the things I couldn't by attributing it as a second strip light.

Please tell me more about both the placement and distance of that honeycombed light, and how possible light spill was controlled.

You really only have two options for this task, usually a combination of both. You can make sure the source is small/hard enough that there is no significant spill (honeycombs/grids), or you can block the spill (barn doors/flags/slit opening)... I would guess honeycombs+flag because what you are lighting is also hard edged (sharp transition to smooth reflective).
If I were going to light it I would place the light far right at a very shallow angle and at a sufficient distance that it is quite hard (farther is better if you have the power), and place a flag very close to the subject to block all reflective surfaces right of the knurling (hard edged shadow)... it seems like it would be easier to block the right side and not worry about spill to the left of the image; at least that's my first thought .

 

[Mr Badger]

Go on, admit it, you used a Fong type dome, didn't you?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Once you said the second light was a softbox high/right it explained the things I couldn't by attributing it as a second strip light.

You really only have two options for this task, usually a combination of both. You can make sure the source is small/hard enough that there is no significant spill (honeycombs/grids), or you can block the spill (barn doors/flags/slit opening)... I would guess honeycombs+flag because what you are lighting is also hard edged (sharp transition to smooth reflective).
If I were going to light it I would place the light far right at a very shallow angle and at a sufficient distance that it is quite hard (farther is better if you have the power), and place a flag very close to the subject to block all reflective surfaces right of the knurling (hard edged shadow)... it seems like it would be easier to block the right side and not worry about spill to the left of the image; at least that's my first thought .

I almost invariably use the honeycomb option. There are quite a few members here who have been to one of the occasional free lighting workshops that I used to host before I retired, and they may remember my near obsession with honeycombs.

I think that I may have used a 20 degree one once, a 10 degree one occasionally but my tool of choice is one that I bought a lifetime ago when I was working in an advertising studio in NY NY. It's either 3 or 5 degrees (must measure it one day) and it's incredible. They simply aren't available in the UK. Elinchrom used to do an 8 degree one, don't know whether they still do or not and 10 degree ones are available from other suppliers. There is a workaround, because I had a special honeycomb reflector made for Lencarta that takes 2 honeycombs at a time, they can be partially rotated to create variable and very tight effects - slow and messy but very effective. Unfortunately they sell very slowly, I guess that they're too dull looking and too cheap to interest the gear heads But I've just looked at their website, when I was there it stated that it could take 2 honeycombs together, now it doesn't, so that won't help sales. . . https://www.lencarta.com/all-produc...neycomb-reflector-for-smartflash-2-3-4-mod046

It was placed at the butt end and skimmed along the knurling, to show the relief. The effect is subtle in that it's not obviously there but the difference it makes is substantial. The shots were taken on a Canon 5D 111 belonging to my trainee, so he has the files. As long as he hasn't deleted the earlier shots I'll ask him to send me a shot without the honeycomb. The trick here is always to get the effect without it becoming obvious, or even apparent.

It was placed as far away as practicable, so that there was very little reduction in light over the length of the rest caused by the Inverse Square Law. This honeycomb really eats light and this limited the distance, as the 600 W/s flash at full power couldn't manage more than about 5' The honeycomb was angled very, very slightly so that no light hit the spider and instead of using barn doors I simply masked off part of it with cinefoil, which I find to be more precise.

Anyway, I hope that this thread has been helpful.

 

[sk66]

I almost invariably use the honeycomb option.

3*; wow! That has to block 90+% of the output... IDT I've ever used 600ws for a small product. I really like the idea of 2 rotatable honeycombs, near infinite variability like a variable ND. Does it only work with the 4pack of grids for the honeycomb reflector? Seems like a pair of 10's would do.

 

[Garry Edwards]

3*; wow! That has to block 90+% of the output... IDT I've ever used 600ws for a small product. I really like the idea of 2 rotatable honeycombs, near infinite variability like a variable ND. Does it only work with the 4pack of grids for the honeycomb reflector? Seems like a pair of 10's would do.

A pair of 10's will do in theory, but very difficult to adjust, almost binary in effect. One 10 and one 20 is far easier to get right.

The listing on the Lencarta website has changed and I have written to them, suggesting that it's changed back.

As for 600 Ws, that's needed with tight honeycombs, unless the ISO is increased, which can reduce IQ. I used to have a very good focussing spotlight attachment, sold by Elinchrom and which I used mainly for lighting labels on wine bottles, picking up the texture on bed mattresses and so on. It was a brilliant bit of kit but ate power and mostly had to be used with my Elinchrom 2400 W/s power pack, although for some jobs my 1200 W/s head could be used. Less than 20 years ago I had, as well as various monoblock heads, 6 x 2400 W/s units and one 6000 W/s unit - these were essential for product photography, carried out on a monorail camera where the aperture would typically be either f/45 or f/64. Times have changed and life is much easier now