Still Life tables and lighting?

Ajf350d

Ajf350d

Suspended / Banned
Messages
249
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been looking at something like this:
http://www.mccordall.com/photo/dyna...-table-still-life-non-reflective-translucent/

Mainly for photography of flowers.
Does anyone have any experience of a) the quality of them and b) how much weight they can take?
Doesn't have to be this exact one (the site has several different ones) but the idea would be really useful for helping me use different lighting.

On that subject, for still life as above, would studio flashes be too overpowering?
I really want to try and get a good setup in the next few months and had looked at these:
http://www.lencarta.com/studio-ligh...martflash-studio-flash-lighting-kit_softboxes

Any advice appreciated.
 
I don't know that particular shooting table, but it should be OK for your purpose, as long as those big ugly clips don't get in the way...

The SmartFlash heads will be perfect for your needs, more powerful heads could cause problems but they will be fine. This is a long thread on photographing flowers, but you may find it helpful
 
I have a large table and I've learned several things in using it.

*A large table makes lighting more difficult... it's often hard to get the lights close enough or in the right position. Booms are a necessity.
*A table can make positioning/lighting the BG more difficult. And a continuous BG makes it problematic for certain types of shots (have to raise the subject up on a platform).
*A large table can be difficult to work around as it eats a lot of space.
*A table is often not the best choice at all... I also use the floor, a box, a tripod w/ small platform, or even a clamp arm attached to the camera tripod leg to support/position objects.

So, my concern with such a table is space/ease of use... and if it's quick/easy to take down, it's probably kind of flimsy. Honestly, a paper roll (or two) and some kind of small platform/box is more flexible, cheaper, smaller, easier.

You can use those flashes... but 400ws is probably more than you will need/use. For still life's there are a lot of advantages to constant lights, and if you can darken the room you don't need much power at all. But what type of constant light would be suitable may be variable... Do you need accurate color reproduction? Can the subject (and you) tolerate heat buildup? Is the space small where heat is more problematic? Regardless of what type of lighting you choose, do not think you will be able to just use those little spigot clamps attached to the table frame... that's a joke.
 
I had a table like that - note "had". It wasn't that exact one, and cost less but I think yours is way overpriced for what you get.
The problem I found was that the translucent sheet was just too stiff. It was impossible to get the sheet taught and there was always a sag in the middle. This was even worse if you lifted up the rear portion to make a backdrop. Then you created half a buble - if you can imagine what I mean. The clamps didn't really grip, more just held the sheet in position. The sheet was an exact fit for the size of the frame so you couldn't wrap it round the tubes to help increase stiffness. I found it impossible to place anything on there that was completely level in all directions - wherever on the sheet I placed it.

In theory it is a very good idea. In practice it was a complete waste of time and money.

Now if you'd mentioned this a couple of weeks ago you could have had mine. Now it is in various recycling bins at the local tip.

This may be better than the one I had, but caveat emptor.
 
sk66 said:
I have a large table and I've learned several things in using it.

*A large table makes lighting more difficult... it's often hard to get the lights close enough or in the right position. Booms are a necessity.
*A table can make positioning/lighting the BG more difficult. And a continuous BG makes it problematic for certain types of shots (have to raise the subject up on a platform).
*A large table can be difficult to work around as it eats a lot of space.
*A table is often not the best choice at all... I also use the floor, a box, a tripod w/ small platform, or even a clamp arm attached to the camera tripod leg to support/position objects.

So, my concern with such a table is space/ease of use... and if it's quick/easy to take down, it's probably kind of flimsy. Honestly, a paper roll (or two) and some kind of small platform/box is more flexible, cheaper, smaller, easier.

You can use those flashes... but 400ws is probably more than you will need/use. For still life's there are a lot of advantages to constant lights, and if you can darken the room you don't need much power at all. But what type of constant light would be suitable may be variable... Do you need accurate color reproduction? Can the subject (and you) tolerate heat buildup? Is the space small where heat is more problematic? Regardless of what type of lighting you choose, do not think you will be able to just use those little spigot clamps attached to the table frame... that's a joke.
Click to expand...
400Ws is in fact just right - turned down low they will allow the use of a large aperture if limited DOF is required, and the reverse is also true.
IMO continuous lights won't work well for a number of reasons - if accurate colour rendition is needed (which of course it will be for flowers) then the lights will have to be tungsten, with the associated heat problems, and their power can't be reduced because the colour temperature will change dramatically. To get adjustable power (to a very limited extent) LED will be needed, which will wreck the colour rendition.
mickledore said:
I had a table like that - note "had". It wasn't that exact one, and cost less but I think yours is way overpriced for what you get.
The problem I found was that the translucent sheet was just too stiff. It was impossible to get the sheet taught and there was always a sag in the middle. This was even worse if you lifted up the rear portion to make a backdrop. Then you created half a buble - if you can imagine what I mean. The clamps didn't really grip, more just held the sheet in position. The sheet was an exact fit for the size of the frame so you couldn't wrap it round the tubes to help increase stiffness. I found it impossible to place anything on there that was completely level in all directions - wherever on the sheet I placed it.

In theory it is a very good idea. In practice it was a complete waste of time and money.

Now if you'd mentioned this a couple of weeks ago you could have had mine. Now it is in various recycling bins at the local tip.

This may be better than the one I had, but caveat emptor.
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that. We do one where the table surface runs in a channel, so avoids those problems, but of course there's a cost attached to that.
 
So does your table surface remain permanently flat and level, even when the back is raised up?
 
Yes
 
Garry Edwards said:
....if accurate colour rendition is needed (which of course it will be for flowers)....
Click to expand...
There is a certain amount of accuracy that is required, and there is a limit to what can be achieved. None of my cameras are 100% accurate even using full/direct daylight. And if the subject only has one color, then color correction is much simpler.
I have been setting up an LED system with critical color tests... I completely agree that incomplete lights are "worse," but I can honestly say that there are *a lot* of times where they are (can be) close enough so as to not really matter.

However, I did make a mistake... I thought the heads were 400ws ea. I agree that 200ws heads w/5 stops of adjustability are about ideal. And there *is* the consideration of modifiers... hot lights and LED/Fluorescent have different requirements/options/capabilities which can be much more limiting.

For my clarification as I don't use tungsten lighting... are you saying that the temperature shift at reduced power is due to creating an incomplete spectrum? I assumed it was due to a spectral shift and not loss (essentially a WB change).
 
sk66 said:
For my clarification as I don't use tungsten lighting... are you saying that the temperature shift at reduced power is due to creating an incomplete spectrum? I assumed it was due to a spectral shift and not loss (essentially a WB change).
Click to expand...
No, tungsten lighting is not discontinous spectrum, and the only change (that I'm aware of) when reducing the voltage is the change to the colour temperature - but this can be dramatic, and with more than one light in play, it would be a massive job to correct the colour, so it isn't a practical option.
Just as an example of this, I had a bit of a play some years ago, when tungsten lights were still popular. There was a lot of ill-informed debate on a forum about whether the colour temperature of halogen lamps was 3200K or 3400K, so I actually measured them. The "hotest" I got on test was in fact 2900K, I then put the kettle on for a cuppa and measured again, switching the electric kettle on reduced the colour temp to 2700K...

I then added a potentiometer to reduce the voltage, measured the output and adjusted the potentiomer to reduce the energy by just one stop, and the colour temperature had dropped to just 2100K:(
 
Ajf350d said:
I've been looking at something like this:
http://www.mccordall.com/photo/dyna...-table-still-life-non-reflective-translucent/

Mainly for photography of flowers.
Does anyone have any experience of a) the quality of them and b) how much weight they can take?
Doesn't have to be this exact one (the site has several different ones) but the idea would be really useful for helping me use different lighting.

On that subject, for still life as above, would studio flashes be too overpowering?
I really want to try and get a good setup in the next few months and had looked at these:
http://www.lencarta.com/studio-ligh...martflash-studio-flash-lighting-kit_softboxes

Any advice appreciated.
Click to expand...

The main point of a lighting table is the transluscent top that you can light from underneath to get a pure white, shadowless background. There was no other way of doing that when shooting film.

There are easier ways now with digital, but do you really want a pure white shadowless background anyway? I have a lighting table very like that one, and it's been hung in the garage for the last few years. The most useful feature in a table for studio still life is adjustable height IMHO .
 
Firstly, many thanks for all the replies, although got slightly lost with all the discussion on colour temperature so got to go back through that.
I know the basics though. However this is all purely for my own enjoyment, so 100% accuracy is not critical.

Interesting comments on the tables and mirrored my concerns regards rigidity of them etc.
The Lencarta one does look good, but obviously pushes the budget up a bit with the flash kit as well.
The main reason was as HoppyUK suggested, to be able to backlight and under light subjects.
Currently I just use a roll of paper against the wall and a small table and a single off camera flash and I do get good results, but somewhat restricted I felt with this set up in experimenting as no way of backlighting etc.
Might have to have a play with other DIY solutions!

A couple of examples of what I got so far:
Dahlia by Andrew Farmer, on Flickr

Marigold by Andrew Farmer, on Flickr

Backlighting using a light tent, which I find awkward and cumbersome:

Backlighting Test by Andrew Farmer, on Flickr
 
Andrew... Before I say something very rude about your white background shots:exit:I ought to point out that the main reason why white backgrounds are popular is that they fit in very well on commercial websites. Most subjects look much better against different backgrounds, but on commercial websites consistency is everything, and trumps quality and visual impact.

This doesn't mean that you shouldn't use white backgrounds if that's what you like, but both white and black backgrounds tend to produce that 2-dimensional flat look that compresses distance,
Moving back a bit to the use of a shooting table, I use one a lot, but then I have a large studio and it just sits in a corner where it doesn't get in the way, and I have enough gear to be able to leave a boom arm permanently in place over it, and a shooting table is exremely useful to me simply because it's a convenient tool for volume work. But, as Richard says, a roll of background paper and a table is a good alternative. Actually, a pair of trestles is much better than a table, simply because the width is almost infinitely adjustable, just have a range of differently sized 'tops' with different kinds of surface that can be laid across the trestles.

Richard also pointed out that there are now other (better) ways of getting a pure white background, and he's right. Apart from the marigold shot, your own white background examples have been ruined by having far too much light from the background hitting them, and I and everyone else I know just does cutouts whenever possible, to avoid this damage to fine detail, unwanted wrap and the destruction of image contrast. In a commercial environment, cutouts are simply given to a junior staff member, or farmed out to one of the many specialists that operate in cheaper parts of the world - the only (occasional) exceptions are shots with a lot of fine detail, such as hair. Same goes for shadows and semi reflections - easily done in camera but much more easily done in PP, in the sense that when it's done in PP it's a piece of cake to get absolute consistency.

Having said all that, I've just done a tutorial against a backlit (Brightfield) background, shot on a piece of shiny white acrylic to get a semi reflection, and the shots are 95% there straight out of camera - it can be done when it needs to be, and it needs to be done that way for an honest "how to" tutorial.
 
Ajf350d said:
Currently I just use a roll of paper against the wall and a small table and a single off camera flash and I do get good results, but somewhat restricted I felt with this set up in experimenting as no way of backlighting etc.
Click to expand...
It appears the single light is your biggest issue, but I'm not exactly sure why. If using a single light to light the flower and the BG with little separation you shouldn't be getting so much flare from the BG. I'm guessing you have too much separation and are running the light too hard.

But it's usually better to light the BG with another light and with separation in order to prevent it.
 
I rather like those blown backgrounds as part of the high key look. Technically they're miles out, but creatively and aesthetically I like them :) Don't worry about Garry, he gets a bit grumpy whenever white backgrounds are discussed (only joking chap ;)).

Certainly, if that's the kind of effect you're after, then under-lighting and back-lighting through the transluscent surface of a lighting table will open things up for you. Under-lighting can really lift an image, if only because it looks so abnormal. Putting some coloured gels over the light might be interesting. A soft-focus filter would work well too - all a bit kitch for some tastes, but what the heck.

I don't know if you know this lady's work, but she's a master of table-top flowers photography. Mandy Disher, brilliant http://www.mandydisher.com/
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the above link to Mandy Disher, her work is stupendus in my opinion...something for me to aspire to.
 
Hehe, sorry Garry :) I do take quite a few shots 'in the wild' though too!
However, the overall look is what I am striving for, and in fact that Mandy Disher website page is fantastic. It looks though that she may be using two sources, one for the background and one for the flowers, as suggested above?
I wonder how many of the others are studio too but with backgrounds? A lot look like outdoors shots, although quite a few appear to be heavily edited?

The flare on the shots is something I have been working on, although in some shots I have intentionally gone a little 'over',. there are quite a few where it really blew out the edges of the subject.
Thinking though, I may be have to much separation (assuming this is distance from subject to BG?) A typical flower shot is probably 12 inches away.

I generally use the flash hand held above and slightly behind the flower so it fires at the background. From various articles on white backgrounds, I set it so it is a 1/3rd stop over the suggested exposure.
I must admit there is a certain amount of trial and error at the moment as it is not fixed position.
Will try different positioning too of the subject.
 
Ajf350d said:
Hehe, sorry Garry :) I do take quite a few shots 'in the wild' though too!
However, the overall look is what I am striving for, and in fact that Mandy Disher website page is fantastic. It looks though that she may be using two sources, one for the background and one for the flowers, as suggested above?
I wonder how many of the others are studio too but with backgrounds? A lot look like outdoors shots, although quite a few appear to be heavily edited?

The flare on the shots is something I have been working on, although in some shots I have intentionally gone a little 'over',. there are quite a few where it really blew out the edges of the subject.
Thinking though, I may be have to much separation (assuming this is distance from subject to BG?) A typical flower shot is probably 12 inches away.

I generally use the flash hand held above and slightly behind the flower so it fires at the background. From various articles on white backgrounds, I set it so it is a 1/3rd stop over the suggested exposure.
I must admit there is a certain amount of trial and error at the moment as it is not fixed position.
Will try different positioning too of the subject.
Click to expand...
The technically correct way of doing it is to light the subject and the background separately, each is a separate subject that requires separate lighting.
Using just the one flash that you have at the moment, you're probably doing it as well as it can be done, but when you have an extra flash that can go just on the background life will become much easier. You will then want to have more separation between subject and background, because the more distance there is, the less the light from the background will bounce back and eat away the edges of your flowers.
 
Ajf350d said:
Thinking though, I may be have to much separation (assuming this is distance from subject to BG?) A typical flower shot is probably 12 inches away.
Click to expand...
Probably too much separation... If trying to light both with a single flash, you need them close together to minimize falloff. You can also increase the lighting distance to reduce falloff. With no/little falloff the BG should be white if the subject is properly exposed... increases risk of shadows depending on direction and type (modifier/size/distance) of lighting used.

From various articles on white backgrounds, I set it so it is a 1/3rd stop over the suggested exposure.
Click to expand...
Depends on what/how you are metering... ~1/3 stop over is generally for an incidence (handheld) meter reading. 1-2 stops would be for a reflected reading from the BG. Offset for a reflected reading of the subject would be subject dependent.
All you need is for the white BG to record as white... that's not really overexposed at all. If you want to eliminate texture/slight gradations then a slight overexposure can be beneficial (but increases the risk of flare/bloom).
 
Again, thanks to everyone for your help and advice.
That Niall Benvie article was interesting, but the link to the 2nd part is broken. Might just buy his ebook.
I have some small desk lamps, so I might try using those in combination with the flash first and see what results I get, though I suspect I may get an odd mix with the different lamp temps?
Just really need to be sure I have the room to maneuver before buying some studio flash/lights!

Regards my current metering, I use a Sekonic meter to get a incidence reading with the flash for the 'correct' exposure then add +0.25 on the power on the flash, but as said that is still going to cause a slight over exposure of the flower itself.

I shall have a play at the weekend!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top