Photographic bight shiny objects?

Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
....
>> Do a google search on "light-box glare photography",
>> and
>> it will provide several examples.
>> However, in a quick review I didn't see any that showed
>> the particular construction that I prefer. So I've
>> resurrected something I had on my web page a couple
>> years ago for a short time just for one individual to
>> look at. I dumped about half of it (it was actually to
>> compare several different alternatives to expensive
>> "macro lenses", and showed several compartive images),
>> and have just left the comparison between a ring light
>> and a light box, plus some images of the light box
>> showing how it works.
>> http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/dime/
>
>Floyd, can you explain the difference? I don't understand. The dime
>looks awful and flat with the ring light, maybe too contrasty with the
>light box,

I think you've reversed them? The light box is flat, the
ring light has contrast.

>the clippers look nice and even with the ring light, a little
>to harsh with the light box.

The clippers are interesting. A cut glass object or a
clear glass figurine with smooth contours would perhaps
show the difference better.

The ring light shows reflections from one direction. It
isn't as distinct as a point source light would be
though. With a longer focal length and a greater
working distance that effect would be more emphasized.

The light box shows equal reflections from every
direction, which simply makes some surfaces brighter and
reduces the contrast. The likelihood of a black
reflection from the camera can be reduced by using a
longer focal length to get more distance.

>Does the light box provide a similar effect to a light tent?

A light box and a light tent accomplish almost the exact
same thing; hence, generally they can be considered to
have the same effect. In practice though, the actual
construction of each will cause differences, and some
characteristics are more likely to be exaggerated with
the box, while others will be with the tent.

In either case the essential concept is to diffuse the
source of the light in such a way that an object is
illuminated equally from every possible direction. That
is why the picture of the dime taken with the light box
is so horribly _flat_! It's hard to see any of the
surface contours, and there simply are no shadows. On
the other hand, notice how the edges of the engraving
are all white regardless of the direction.

The ring light is a different beast, as the light is not
diffused, but it does come equally from all sides in
relationship to the center of the lense. Hence shadows
are a function of the surface of the object, not the
direction of the light. And contrast is high (though
not quite like it would be from a point light source).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> In either case the essential concept is to diffuse the
>> source of the light in such a way that an object is
>> illuminated equally from every possible direction. That
>> is why the picture of the dime taken with the light box
>> is so horribly _flat_! It's hard to see any of the
>> surface contours, and there simply are no shadows. On
>> the other hand, notice how the edges of the engraving
>> are all white regardless of the direction.
>
>NONSENSE!
>
>Had you slightly clanged the position of the dime to the lens you would have
>had a beautiful picture that has life. Stop blaming the lightbox because
>many people have demonstrated that it is an effective way of getting their
>items to pop.

Poor "Rita".

Just in case it isn't obvious, that particular light
box, as demonstrated by the photograph of the dime, is
just about as good as it gets for soft lighting of small
objects. (I made it originally to photograph some old
ivory carvings that were 2-3 inches long. The
particular design is fairly commonly used to photograph
archaeological artifacts when absolutely flat light is
desired.))

But it could have been even better! It's only about 6
or 7 inches deep, and that is just about the same size
as the front opening that the camera looks into. If the
box had been made 12 inches deep, or more, it would
allow a small object that is positioned the same 3-4
inches distance from the back of the box to receive even
more light from reflections off the box area to the
front of the object. That would probably reduce the
contast between the front and the edges of the
engraving.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Roy Smith <roy.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
>> I've got to shoot some sailing trophies -- highly polished silver with
>> lettering engraved on them. The lettering needs to be readable in the
>> photos.
>>
>> Any non-obvious tricks to get good lighting without lots of glare and
>> reflections off the polished surfaces?
>
> A ring light might help, if the surface with the
> lettering is flat. Tilt the lettered surface so that
> reflections from the ring light are not straight back at
> the camera. However, with curved surfaces there isn't
> much hope of avoiding at least some glare from the
> light.
>
> In that case, consider multiple lights, and also a
> "light box" or "light tent". The trick with multiple
> lights is to position them such that the glare does not
> detract from the object. Generally two lights will do,
> and one of those will be at very close to perpendicular
> to the axis of the lense. Placement of the other
> depends on the glare. With a light box/tent, the idea
> is to get diffuse light from every direction, thus
> reducing the contrast of the glare.
>
> I prefer a light box, simply because they are so easy to
> construct from cardboard boxes. If your trophies are 4
> feet tall though, it might be a problem... but there
> are solutions for that too.
>
> Do a google search on "light-box glare photography", and
> it will provide several examples.
>
> However, in a quick review I didn't see any that showed
> the particular construction that I prefer. So I've
> resurrected something I had on my web page a couple
> years ago for a short time just for one individual to
> look at. I dumped about half of it (it was actually to
> compare several different alternatives to expensive
> "macro lenses", and showed several compartive images),
> and have just left the comparison between a ring light
> and a light box, plus some images of the light box
> showing how it works.
>
> http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/dime/

Floyd, can you explain the difference? I don't understand. The dime
looks awful and flat with the ring light, maybe too contrasty with the
light box, the clippers look nice and even with the ring light, a little
to harsh with the light box.

Does the light box provide a similar effect to a light tent?
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>>> In either case the essential concept is to diffuse the
>>>> source of the light in such a way that an object is
>>>> illuminated equally from every possible direction. That
>>>> is why the picture of the dime taken with the light box
>>>> is so horribly _flat_! It's hard to see any of the
>>>> surface contours, and there simply are no shadows. On
>>>> the other hand, notice how the edges of the engraving
>>>> are all white regardless of the direction.
>>>
>>> NONSENSE!
>>>
>>> Had you slightly clanged the position of the dime to the lens you
>>> would have had a beautiful picture that has life. Stop blaming the
>>> lightbox because many people have demonstrated that it is an
>>> effective way of getting their items to pop.
>>
>> Poor "Rita".
>>
>> Just in case it isn't obvious, that particular light
>> box, as demonstrated by the photograph of the dime, is
>> just about as good as it gets for soft lighting of small
>> objects. (I made it originally to photograph some old
>> ivory carvings that were 2-3 inches long. The
>> particular design is fairly commonly used to photograph
>> archaeological artifacts when absolutely flat light is
>> desired.))
>>
>> But it could have been even better! It's only about 6
>> or 7 inches deep, and that is just about the same size
>> as the front opening that the camera looks into. If the
>> box had been made 12 inches deep, or more, it would
>> allow a small object that is positioned the same 3-4
>> inches distance from the back of the box to receive even
>> more light from reflections off the box area to the
>> front of the object. That would probably reduce the
>> contast between the front and the edges of the
>> engraving.
>
>That still doesn't explain why that image looks so terrible when everyone
>else is getting much better images when using soft lighting techniques.

Poor "Rita". Look up what "soft lighting" is.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2008.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

> From what I see there I don't know what the hell he's doing. I'm not even
> sure if he knows what he's doing since all these examples look terrible.
> There's no way you can get that level of dullness from either light source
> he is using.

"The images were taken with a Nikon D2x ..."

-Wolfgang

PS: Yes, Rita-baiting ain't fair.
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects? 

In article <13r9drsf05ddcea.DeleteThis@news.supernews.com>, Rita Berkowitz
<ritaberk2008.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

> We all know what "soft lighting" is, Uncle Floyd, you just didn't accomplish
> it.

"Accomplishing" is not Floyd's strong suit.
 >> Stay informed about: Photographic bight shiny objects?