Still life. More difficult than it looks

[scottduffy]

i was set an assignment to photograph still life in college. This had to be fruit of veg but could include different things too. It's been the most difficult part so far. Trying to get the ideas in your head to become reality has proved difficult indeed. It doesn't help that I traded my macro and 50mm lenses for my 70-200. Bloody nearly on the ceiling before it'll focus from above. Good learning experience though.

 

[ABTog]

Why are you shooting from above?
I did a still life for my 52 week project last year. I put this together on my coffee table and shot with a 18-50mm lens.
See here:
The art of fruit by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr

Since doing the 52 week projects, I've done more creative tabletop/still life work, it definitely gives you different challenges, ie creating a full scene from scratch and lighting it.

 

[scottduffy]

Just saw something I liked from another photographer and tried it. We had to hand in a control shot and a selling shot and the selling shot will be frontal with a shallow depth of field. Just trying quite a bit but I'll have a look at your link tonight. Thanks.

 

[big soft moose]

Still life is like anything - its easy to do, but difficult as well to do well - why the hell wee you using a 70-200 though ? i would have thought of those three lenses the macro would make most sense

 

[kendo1]

Mount the items vertically!

 

[Nod]

Probably because he traded his 50mm and macro lens in to get the 70-200.

It doesn't help that I traded my macro and 50mm lenses for my 70-200.

 

[big soft moose]

I thought he meant traded as in swapped to - he can't only have a 70-200 surely , that's just nuts

 

[Nod]

I would tend to agree that a 70-200 as an only lens wouldn't be ideal but if Scott's main interest lies at the short telephoto end of the scale, the trade may well have made sense.

 

[viv1969]

I seem to recall that still life is right up @TheBigYin 's street.
He may well have some valuable advice for you.

 

[TheBigYin]

I seem to recall that still life is right up @TheBigYin 's street.
He may well have some valuable advice for you.

I dunno if its "valuable" advice - but I'm happy to share an approach that works for me...

i was set an assignment to photograph still life in college. This had to be fruit of veg but could include different things too.

my approach when it comes to deciding what "goes on the table" for he shot is quite simple... I ask myself "why should that be there" - so for a fruit and veg shot, I'd try and only have fruit/veg that would be ripe in the garden at the same time - so, no strawberries on a platter with a red Pippin Apple say... OR - another approach would be "can I think of a recipe with these items" - the first approach saves you "throwing it all in and making the whole picture messy..." and the second approach often gives a clue as to additional shot dressing you can add... for example, if you'd a pile of ripe plum tomato's and a pile of dried Butterbeans - instantly my mind jumps to something like an Italian Tomato and Butterbean Stew - so in my "recipe" you'd need garlic, sage, parsley, olive oil, salt, pepper - thats half a dozen appropriate additional props to add in... One of the secrets to a still life that makes sense to the viewer is to make everything be there for a reason.

It's been the most difficult part so far.

it's difficult, because you've got total control over everything - not only the subject matter, but the composition (and micro-composition come to that... I've spent hours with a shot selecting just the right "face" of an apple in a fruitbowl...) and of course the light... Some people don't quite get it when I say it can take me a week to set up one photo - and, in all honesty, I will probably only take maybe 5-10 frames on the camera in that time - I generally work with the camera tethered to the laptop, and have the laptop facing me where i'm re-arranging the composition in liveview - so I can keep faffing around until I'm happy.

Trying to get the ideas in your head to become reality has proved difficult indeed.

For me, generally most of my still lifes start out with a "story" that I want to tell - if you will, consider my shots as a single frame from a short story, the "telling" frame that almost sells the story in itself. So, I write my story - then "storyboard it" - sketch out key frames like a mini-movie. Then, decide which one will work as the eventual picture. Then, and only then do I start to consider the actual props that'll go in there...

It doesn't help that I traded my macro and 50mm lenses for my 70-200. Bloody nearly on the ceiling before it'll focus from above.

I actually shoot lots of my still life stuff with a canon 70-200F4L on a 7DmkI - and, yes, the minimum focus distance IS a bit of a PITA, for "looking down" shots, I've been known to "set a table" on the floor and still been scraping the ceiling with my head (and aiming the camera using a stepladder) - though, as I say, I handle focus via tethering, and composition often by actually moving the "table" (a bit like working with macro subjects really...)

Good learning experience though.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely - and I'd be interested in seeing some of the results... perhaps when you've got something you're happy with you can share them with the forum...

 

[scottduffy]

Still life is like anything - its easy to do, but difficult as well to do well - why the hell wee you using a 70-200 though ? i would have thought of those three lenses the macro would make most sense

I traded them mate. I've been doing much more potraits outside and found myself too close with the sigma 50mm.

 

[scottduffy]

I thought he meant traded as in swapped to - he can't only have a 70-200 surely , that's just nuts

Nuts or not that's what I have. I barely used the macro and found the 50mm too close so plumped for the zoom. I love it but maybe still life is not ideal for it. Ha ha

 

[scottduffy]

I dunno if its "valuable" advice - but I'm happy to share an approach that works for me...





my approach when it comes to deciding what "goes on the table" for he shot is quite simple... I ask myself "why should that be there" - so for a fruit and veg shot, I'd try and only have fruit/veg that would be ripe in the garden at the same time - so, no strawberries on a platter with a red Pippin Apple say... OR - another approach would be "can I think of a recipe with these items" - the first approach saves you "throwing it all in and making the whole picture messy..." and the second approach often gives a clue as to additional shot dressing you can add... for example, if you'd a pile of ripe plum tomato's and a pile of dried Butterbeans - instantly my mind jumps to something like an Italian Tomato and Butterbean Stew - so in my "recipe" you'd need garlic, sage, parsley, olive oil, salt, pepper - thats half a dozen appropriate additional props to add in... One of the secrets to a still life that makes sense to the viewer is to make everything be there for a reason.



it's difficult, because you've got total control over everything - not only the subject matter, but the composition (and micro-composition come to that... I've spent hours with a shot selecting just the right "face" of an apple in a fruitbowl...) and of course the light... Some people don't quite get it when I say it can take me a week to set up one photo - and, in all honesty, I will probably only take maybe 5-10 frames on the camera in that time - I generally work with the camera tethered to the laptop, and have the laptop facing me where i'm re-arranging the composition in liveview - so I can keep faffing around until I'm happy.




For me, generally most of my still lifes start out with a "story" that I want to tell - if you will, consider my shots as a single frame from a short story, the "telling" frame that almost sells the story in itself. So, I write my story - then "storyboard it" - sketch out key frames like a mini-movie. Then, decide which one will work as the eventual picture. Then, and only then do I start to consider the actual props that'll go in there...



I actually shoot lots of my still life stuff with a canon 70-200F4L on a 7DmkI - and, yes, the minimum focus distance IS a bit of a PITA, for "looking down" shots, I've been known to "set a table" on the floor and still been scraping the ceiling with my head (and aiming the camera using a stepladder) - though, as I say, I handle focus via tethering, and composition often by actually moving the "table" (a bit like working with macro subjects really...)

Good learning experience though.

Thank you. This is great advice. I never thought about sketching the scene. I have in my head my final (selling shot) ryvita crackers with cream cheese and cucumber and tomato on top. Nice and simple but the colours work really well together and the texture of the crackers is nice when it's shot using a shallow depth of field. The problem so far has been the control shot which is just simply a test shot which can incorporate any or all of them lit properly. So far they look really boring/flat. So much so I ended up adding in a chopping board, then a table cloth, bloody knife and finally pepper pot all too much to be honest. I'll have a go at the selling shot soon but can't post anything until they're marked. Under strict instructions. I'll get them all up eventually though. Thanks again though I really appreciate your help guys.

 

[simon ess]

Have a bit of a read about colour theory as well.

 

[Graham W]

I also really struggle with still life, I find having an odd number of items can help with the composition.

 

[arclight]

Never done any still life photography. Cannot say I have felt inclined towards it so have not given it much thought before now.
This is just a fleeting idea and maybe worthless, but perhaps look for a less common approach such as placing the subject on glass and lighting from below.
Possibly mount the subject skewered on a hidden spike, so as to appear suspended in space, then experiment with lighting angles. There are loads of very cheap LED lights/torches etc. that are good light sources.

 

[ABTog]

I'd agree with @TheBigYin , it's harder because you have more control. All of the planned shots I've done have taken more time to set up, light, tweak, etc and only come away with a few frames at the end.
I made a conscious decision a while ago that I was going to be better at planning out my photoshoots and I now have a notebook that I jot down ideas and sketch out my shots. I did some film making modules at uni and so this is a familiar technique for me, it's called "pre-visualisation". It means you work out what you're doing before you get on set with a crew and everything is costing you money. On the photography side it means you can sketch something out, work it out before buying props or setting out a table/studio.
The more you plan and work on the composition and lighting in the studio the less you have to do in post production. IE, you might only take 10-20 shots during a 3hr session, but because you spent more time working on making sure it looked right (like TheBigYin suggests, using tethering/liveview), your percentage of "keepers" is higher.
For my latest tabletop shot, I spent 2.5hrs setting up and shooting (and packing away), came away with 10 shots and then after a short edit, only 1 final image.
It's fun stuff and really good for teaching you about lighting, shadows and positioning without having a model getting bored

As said, work out what you're trying to do, sell, tell the story of. Plan/sketch, Then shoot.

On the matter of lenses, it's not a bad thing to be limited, but unless the only thing you shoot is sports, I think a 70-200 is a bit too limited, especially while studying as you'll be asked to do lots of different styles of photography. If you could partner it with a 24-70 f2.8 then that would cover you for pretty much everything. Personally, I currently only have 3 lenses, a 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2.8 macro (also makes a good portrait lens and covers close focus work) and a 24-105 f4 which is my all purpose lens. So I've got a quite a good range covered, I can shoot in low light and can do portraits with all 3 lenses if I want, in fact I find the long end of the 24-105 is great for compression, depth of field and bokeh even at f4.
Your profile suggests you have a 17-55, is that still the case? If not, I'd get yourself a cheap 50mm or the Canon 40mm pancake so you have something wider than the 70mm (especially on a crop body).

 

[scottduffy]

My profile is needing updated. I have a 5d mk2 and 70-200 2.8 is 2. I used my 50mm before when I was shooting on my last crop body but felt it too short on full frame. I've never had any inclination to shoot still life but obviously I've no choice if I want to complete my course. I'll have to think that through.

 

[ABTog]

My profile is needing updated. I have a 5d mk2 and 70-200 2.8 is 2. I used my 50mm before when I was shooting on my last crop body but felt it too short on full frame. I've never had any inclination to shoot still life but obviously I've no choice if I want to complete my course. I'll have to think that through.

The 50mm is definitely wider on full frame, I found that when I upgraded to the 6D. But it's still a very useful length and for the cost of the 50mm f1.8 STM, it's worth having.

Two thoughts:
1) Buy a set of macro extension tubes, these will bring the minimum focus distance of the 70-200 much closer, so will help with macro and close focus stuff. I've found a 50mm on an extension tube is pretty good for macro, but I haven't used mine since I got my 90mm macro.
2) Find a "Tog Buddy" from the thread https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/find-a-tog-buddy.46944/page-32 and see if they might be willing to lend you a useful lens for a day.

 

[TheBigYin]

1) Buy a set of macro extension tubes, these will bring the minimum focus distance of the 70-200 much closer, so will help with macro and close focus stuff.

+1 for that idea - got a set of s/h mid-priced (i.e. not canon's own brand, but they still have the "pins" to do AF and Aperture setting etc.) ones and regularly use one of them with the 70-200 for closeup stuff - must admit, a lot of the "full tabletop" Vanitas or Ontbitjes type shots are generally with the 17-40L rather than the 70-200 though...

 

[scottduffy]

I was originally thinking of the canon 135L and the 24-105 combo instead of the 70-200 and in hindsight that may have been a better idea. I still love the latter though. Hopefully have a wee practise tonight when I get my son down.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Obviously it depends on exactly what you're shooting, but I do a lot of still life and I nearly always use my 200mm lens on my full frame Nikon camera, it provides what I feel to be a neutral perspective.

As for the lighting, this may or may not help http://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/12/controlling-specular-reflections/#.WDNQBlw_4Xh
And so may this https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/04/tutorial-building-up-the-light/#.WDNQUlw_4Xh

There are many more, here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/#.WDNP9Fw_4Xh

 

[HopefulM]

The Big Yin has given you some fantastic advice! I was fortunate enough to have some advice from him too and since then, my still life has improved, and I'm happy to share some of what I've learned on the way :

1. Doesn't matter what lens you use, a long lens set further back from the subject will 'compress' the perspective and make objects look less distorted, so I don't think using a 70-200 is a problem (as long as your room is long enough!)

2. The 'story' is really important - whether telling a story with the objects, or using the objects to stir an emotion, try to have something going on or it won't be quite as interesting.

3. Don't be scared to scout out charity shops, 'mollies den' type places, your mothers friends, rejects from the local flower shop and your old neighbours for 'stuff'... a bunch of weeds from a neighbour who doesn't garden, plonked in an old jam jar with a snail creeping up it, or a beautiful dying rose in an elegant glass, or a selection of veg tumbling out of a flower pot etc.

4. Try something new - frozen blocks of fruit & veg arranged like Irving Penn, using light boxes, using textures in pp, using repetitive patterns etc

5. remember how colours work together and chose well (i.e. turquoise & orange, yellow & blue etc)

6, try out different lighting techniques - there's a photographer who is local to me thats done a lovely range of images where objects are arranged on a flat surface and sidelit at 90 degrees - beautiful evocative images that are just perfect and unique, I don't have any of her images to share with you but you might want to look at Chichester Camera Club roll of honour
And you don't have to spend loads of money - look at B&Q for 'site lights' and LEDS, very cheap, not quite so good, but if you're inventive, you can get some beautiful effects

7. Don't try to use too many things - 2, 3 or 4 elements at most, otherwise it'll be too much and the viewer will overthink things and wonder more about your message than enjoying the art you've created.

8. Depth of field can be your friend or your enemy - use it carefully and try a few different options to see what works best (some of mine are all in focus at f/8, others are at f1.4 to emphasise just a single element)

9. good luck, share your images, and don't get too hung up if someone says something negative, as for each person who doesn't like your image there will be someone else who loves it with all their heart.

 

[petersmart]

i was set an assignment to photograph still life in college. This had to be fruit of veg but could include different things too. It's been the most difficult part so far. Trying to get the ideas in your head to become reality has proved difficult indeed. It doesn't help that I traded my macro and 50mm lenses for my 70-200. Bloody nearly on the ceiling before it'll focus from above. Good learning experience though.

Buy a set of Auto extension tubes - problem solved and also helps with close ups.
.

 

[Alisa]

The Big Yin has given you some fantastic advice! I was fortunate enough to have some advice from him too and since then, my still life has improved, and I'm happy to share some of what I've learned on the way :

5. remember how colours work together and chose well (i.e. turquoise & orange, yellow & blue etc)

7. Don't try to use too many things - 2, 3 or 4 elements at most, otherwise it'll be too much and the viewer will overthink things and wonder more about your message than enjoying the art you've created.

8. Depth of field can be your friend or your enemy - use it carefully and try a few different options to see what works best (some of mine are all in focus at f/8, others are at f1.4 to emphasise just a single element)

9. good luck, share your images, and don't get too hung up if someone says something negative, as for each person who doesn't like your image there will be someone else who loves it with all their heart.

Those are very strong points. Still life is easy in general, but tricky in details. I can add only two points more:

1. Don't forget the theory, Golden ratio is all for you. It's the simplest rule, but most of the beginners avoid it due to it's basic.
That's your map.

2. Take inspiration and think critically. The easiest way to do it, is towatch some contest or even participate in it. The current contest about still life that I can remember right now, is Food Photography VIPA 2016: https://www.voubs.com/contests/food-photography-vipa-2016/260 Look at the photos, there different photos, some are awesome and some are awful. Try to understand why the photo is so good, or so bad. What's the purpose, what's the mistake?

Good luck!

 

[scottduffy]

I forgot about this post. Thanks very much for your advice.