Feinstein's lighting technique for flower photography

I am looking at Harold Feinstein's book "One Hundred Flowers" and I am puzzled b y the lighting technique he has used for his shots. Actually the words that best describes the way his pictures look would be "painted with light". The flowers were set flat on a black background, probably a muslim, and are delicately light ed in a very selective manner. The light seems to come perpendicularly to the le ns, from all around the subject, but with a very small angle. This allows a very shallow lighting, and only the first one or two centimeters of the flowers are lit and the rest fades and disappears in black. There are absolutely no cast sha dows, so the lighting must have come from all directions. Seems to me a flat, di rective ring of light around the subject. Not the kind of lighting that comes fr om annular ring flash or optic fiber lighting. Anyone knows this technique?

A few years ago in the commercial world here in NYC, there was a lighting technique called "hose lighting." This involved using a fiber optic "hose" that would allow one to paint light on still lifes to emphasis or open given areas selectively. This was often used in conjunction with diffusion so that the object the light was directed on would glow, while the rest of the image was lighted with conventional stobe lighting and looked normally sharp.

It seems to me that the photographs you mention were done with some variation of this form of lighting.

In essense, one would leave the shutter open while traversing the circumference of the object with the light. This full circle of light would appear pretty much shadowless since the light would fill as well as provide primary light as it completed the circle.

Ted, it could have been that technique, but a close look at the images shows tha t it is not. I own myself a HoseMaster and the kind of lighting obtained is different. Feinstein has probabl y built his own device do achieve that effect. The hose painting effect is not that shallow. To give you a n idea, you take a circular fluorescent tube, put it flat around the subject, mask the light with a ring of cardboard inside the tube, then you adjust the tube and cardboard height so that the light only reaches the tips of the flowers. It may be that he used something completely different, but that's how it looks like. Some of hi s shots are really interesting.

Hi Paul,

When Harold and I taught that class at the Annenberg School (Uof P) we used to race each other to get there, since we had Candice Bergen and Mary Ellem Mark both in attendance we both told all, but somehow you missed that class. I have not seen the book but have seen some of the prints and noticed the great job he did. I think I know the answer, but I'm not tellin'. Here is a hint: Think, lighting jewelry and the law of inverse squares. I have been trying to get hold of Harold since I found out last month that we share the same book publisher. My editor said she will pass him my number. I will ask him when I speak to him.

Fred

Hi Paul,

I haven't seen the photos, but from your description "There are absolutely no cast shadows" & "The light seems to come perpendicularly to the lens, from all around the subject, but with a very small angle." - could he have used a type of ringlight and perhaps used some sort of snoot to control the light fall-off? - "This allows a very shallow lighting, and only the first one or two centimeters of the flowers are lit and the rest fades and disappears in black."

Do you know of some examples of his work on the net, which would give a better idea of the lighting technique?

regards

Peter,

No need to look, it will confirm your suspicions. All you will do is refine your guess to possible specifics.

Fred

Wow, this is turning into a play guess. Fred, I suppose that you want me to thin k that he has used a very weak source of light at very close distance from the subject? I had thought of this, but the lighting seems very regular on the whole surface of the shot, which is sometimes three feet across. Perhaps a plate of acryl glass conducing the light and passed over the flowers during the pause? Peter I just m ade a search on the web and found that page that displays some of the images contained in the book. Great pi cs.

http://www.art.com/asp/display_artist.asp?CrID=3807

Of course! A lighting sword! That's probably it.

Paul,

Having looked at the link, I am still going for the ringlight with either barndoors or snoot type control of spill, or perhaps a softbox with similar spi ll control with barndoors/black card, etc.

I've achieved similar lighting with soft natural light, carefully placed white reflectors and matt black cards on the sides of the subject to produce the light falloff effect.

They're my guesses anyway. I'm prepared to be corrected.

Let's know if you find out the technique Harold used.

Kind regards

here are my guesses (made after looking at a couple of images) a very gentle fill light fom around the lens like a very large and diffused ringlight or shoot through diffuser plus other lights small and snooted and carefully gobo'd (a gobo is a device used to selectively block light. It is placed between the light source and the subject and can be made cheaply out of black cards, Rosco Cinefoil (AKA Blackwrap) or stretched black Duvateen.)

As an experiment you might try cutting a hole in a large white card to shoot through and bouncing your main lights off of the card and closely balancing this "fill" light with the more directional light used to accent the forms and details you choose to.

Balcar used to make a rigid metal boxlight that could either be used as a standard 16" x20" light It came with a diffuser and grid. It also had an optional port in the back of the light that you could open and using the attachement that came with it, shoot through to get a very diffuse ringlight/ virtually invisible and shadowless fill light effect. This light modifier can be used with any light with a 7" diameter reflector. Alas! This modifier has not been made in over twenty years but they occassionally show up on Ebay for +/- $200 USD. But it is great for photographing things like jewelry, watches, and flowers and people. The light produced does not look like the stereotypical hard ringlight.

Mola now makes a similar device but it is larger, more expensive, and the light produced is not quite as indirect.

I would also guess that there is some distance from the subject to the background.

looking at more of the images the "feel" of the lighting and the composition remind me a lot of Robert Mapplethorpe's portraits of women and flowers.

Hello Paul, I hope my input helps but I don't have the "answer" I happened upon this dicussion looking for information and a place to sell some Darius Kinsey prints I own. He photographed the logging in Washington State aouround the turn of the last(1900) century.

Harold's my uncle. I've was a still life adv. photographer for 20 years and have used ring lights, "the hose" (invented and/or marketed by a photgrapher from San Francisco) and a host of others. I've build the kind of light set up your alluding to, to photograph beer and soda cans but I don't think Harold did.

It's quite amazing to me that in all the photo talk I've had with Harold in 30 years how little was ever about film,technique, or lighting. I did use one of his "formulas" that always suck in my head: To bleach a black and white print with potassium ferrocynide "just mix the powder with water until it looks like your piss when you have the flu."

Ok, the flower lighting. I do remember that when he first started photographing flowers in color (transparencies) he mentioned he'd take them up to the roof in the sun(this was Perry Street,NYC early 80's) and sometimes used a mirror. Later around early 1997 he showed me some Epson 6 color prints on regular office paper he had made from the digital camera in Mass. I'm pretty sure he said something about a single simple light and white cards. I'm not certain but he may have said "light bulb" or at least that's how I understood and remember it. I think I asked about the color balance with digital capture, as a house hold lightbulb is much warmer in color than strobe or daylight (2000-2500degrees Kelvin as compared to 5000-6000degreesK for the strobes/ daylight) and his reply was that It wasn't a problem because the digital camera could "white balance" like a video camera does or our eye. Not knowing much about digital capture I don't know if this is so or what the limits are. I do know that Harold has always kept it pretty simple, technique wise, while embracing new technology. I'm fairly certain he would not buy an expensive ringlight or "hose" flash system. The reason I never persued the tech discussions much was that I had learned that when you figure out your own way, even if it's trying to copy someone elses technique, you find your own look . I don't mean to imply that copying is bad. there is a whole museum of "Davids" in Fiorenza, Italy by different sculpters that i love..

I think Fred mentioned jewlery photography and the inverse square law or moving the light closer or father away from the subject. I think that's it with maybe a white or off white card with a hole for the lens on some shots and on others the light is very "hot" and close with a soft spotlight look and the light falling off very quickly. Flowers and plants are also very forgiving and tend to soften out the light and yet can have this sensual luminous quality. I think the "magic" is in the flowers and plants and not the lighting.

I hope my input helps

--Gabriel Feinstein (tellgabriel@mac.com)

Hello Paul, I hope my input helps but I don't have the "answer" I happened upon this dicussion looking for information and a place to sell some Darius Kinsey prints I own. He photographed the logging in Washington State aouround the turn of the last(1900) century.

Harold's my uncle. I've was a still life adv. photographer for 20 years and have used ring lights, "the hose" (invented and/or marketed by a photgrapher from San Francisco) and a host of others. I've build the kind of light set up your alluding to, to photograph beer and soda cans but I don't think Harold did.

It's quite amazing to me that in all the photo talk I've had with Harold in 30 years how little was ever about film,technique, or lighting. I did use one of his "formulas" that always suck in my head: To bleach a black and white print with potassium ferrocynide "just mix the powder with water until it looks like your piss when you have the flu."

Ok, the flower lighting. I do remember that when he first started photographing flowers in color (transparencies) he mentioned he'd take them up to the roof in the sun(this was Perry Street,NYC early 80's) and sometimes used a mirror. Later around early 1997 he showed me some Epson 6 color prints on regular office paper he had made from the digital camera in Mass. I'm pretty sure he said something about a single simple light and white cards. I'm not certain but he may have said "light bulb" or at least that's how I understood and remember it. I think I asked about the color balance with digital capture, as a house hold lightbulb is much warmer in color than strobe or daylight (2000-2500degrees Kelvin as compared to 5000-6000degreesK for the strobes/ daylight) and his reply was that It wasn't a problem because the digital camera could "white balance" like a video camera does or our eye. Not knowing much about digital capture I don't know if this is so or what the limits are. I do know that Harold has always kept it pretty simple, technique wise, while embracing new technology. I'm fairly certain he would not buy an expensive ringlight or "hose" flash system. The reason I never persued the tech discussions much was that I had learned that when you figure out your own way, even if it's trying to copy someone elses technique, you find your own look . I don't mean to imply that copying is bad. there is a whole museum of "Davids" in Fiorenza, Italy by different sculpters that I love..

I think Fred mentioned the inverse square law or moving the light closer or father away from the subject. I think that's it with maybe a white or off white card with a hole for the lens on some shots and on others the light is very "hot" and close with a soft spotlight look and the light falling off very quickly. Flowers and plants are also very forgiving and tend to soften out the light and yet can have this sensual luminous quality. I think the "magic" is in the flowers and plants and not the lighting.

I hope my input helps

--Gabriel Feinstein (tellgabriel@mac.com)

Gabriel,

Harold certainly is your uncle, and you did not miss the ferricynide class. Harold and I are old buddies from NY and Philly.

That kind of light is very simple and can be done a number of ways. God forbid that Harold would employ a complex means, anyway. As I quickly said. Paul's cone is the way I would accomplish it. Ellis' Balcar box will do it to. That is what I used when I had one. Great device. Quick and easy to use. The flower is closer to the camera and the light source than the flower is to the background. I used a 4x6 ft piece of hurculite (super strong, super dense glass) for things like this, and the background is not within the cone of light. One light will do it two at most. The front illumination is just a tad brighter than the reflected light and can easily be done from one source and a paper cone. The trick is figuring the depth of the cone. That has to be just right.

I once designed a greenhouse for growing plants on the same principal. It had a tuned (to sun angles) open south side and a big, curved, reflective north side and top, with a light grey floor. Think of how confused the owners of a standard clear greenhouse were when they saw the light inside. It was very similar to the light Harold used.

Great forum! We had A.A. turn up the other day ;-), we might have Harold himself explain to us his technique soon! Or maybe he would tell us that it's his secret!

Gabriel, I can see from your skills at bringing natural life into wedding photog raphs that you are a member of a very talented family!

However none of your explanations convinced me so far! You really have to see th e book. The methods that you explained work well for a single flower, but you can't take a large bunch of flo wers and have the same shallow lighting all over the setting, it's just not practically achievable. I watched i t closely with the inverse square rule in mind, and all I can think of is that the light was virtually in contact with the flowers, such is the depth of lighting shallow. Even the piece of cardboard with a hole for the lens would be too far a way to achieve that effect. It's a bit like if you put something on a photocopier or scanner, except that the optical D OF is much greater. Finally the optical fiber is the option I most think of. There is a gadget called Light Sword that y ou can use to lit large surfaces by displacing the device on the surfaces whilst the shutter remains open, just like a photocopier works. But no need to panic, I am not going to invest into that. As said above, every photographer has to find his own style and I was asking more as a man curious on techniques than to try copy the same work, which is great by the way!

Maybe we'll get to know, one day!

This is turning into a very interesting thread with lots of great ligthing ideas let me suggest another idea that Gabriel's post reminded me of; Using as ingle source (sun, light bulb, or flash) and several mirrors (possibly of different sizes or shapes) that can be indepently aimed.

anyone noticed how many of the flowers look to be pressed against glass? I say that they were indeed pressed against some type of difussed glass to achieve this look.

Mark, I think it might be getting warm here! I was about to make some experiment and see if a sheet of glass or acrylic lit only by the cuts would transmit some light perpendicularly. I had a close look at the flowers petals to see if they show signs of being in contact with glass. There is actually absolutely no sign of it, but it can be that a special surface treated glass was used. Whatever the method and having worked myself wit h flowers, I know how difficult it is to make such images. If there is some moisture, it will quickly build some mist on the glass, and if it's dry, you have a very limited time to take the flowers before they start wither. Interesti ng...

Paul, I would have to disagree with you, clearly the california poppy, garden anemone, flowers (middle and bottom), and the white poppy are pressed flat, and to a lesser extent the cosmos and tulips pics. Looking again, I would guess that perhaps these flowers were scanned directly on a flat bed scanner???

I don't think so, Mark. Scanners don't have that much DOF and some of the settin gs are largely beyond the capability of any A3 scanner. But for the glass, yes I suppose there is one, although place d on top of the flowers and not below. But I am thinking of the glass as the illuminant. Have to find the time to test and see if it can be.

Paul, I took a look at the pictures on the website and now I have an understanding of what you were talking about. Fred actually began to answer this one before he got sidetracked with history.

This is in fact a variation of a standard setup for jewlery. The flowers are mounted on a non-glare sheet of glass, so the flowers don't reflect. The background is a few feet behind and is probably black velvet mounted on a board. Mounting the flowers on the glass allows one to achieve this very shallow angle of light since the glass allows one to light through the surface the flowers rest on. Exactly how he lit it--whether it was a hose or a tent of some sort-- doesn't really matter. Any of those methods will work.

Yes Ted, the glass plates were probably used, but concerning the lighting, it is much more peculiar than anyone here thinks and I don't believe any of those methods will work to that ef fect. Watching the small vignettes on the web page marked above doesn't show how delicate the lighting wa s. Only the book or larger prints show it, especially when watching larger settings of flowers. For instanc e, an area of 1 1/2 feet across shows a light falloff of about two to three stops each centimeter in depth! And it is otherwise uniformly lit. No conventional mean of lighting can achieve that. A well kept secret, it seems!

Hello All,

I've been done much experimentation with lighting techniques for the past few years and I can say with high certainty that I know Feinstein's technique. The secret is out, he's not much of a photographer but more of a "scanner." Feinstein isn't the first to use the scanner either, there are many others, some famous for scanning moths (Joseph Scheer). I have some "photos" that are similar to Harold's. If you're skeptical, I'll send you some of my pics so you can see for yourself.

When I showed the book to my wife, she said "photoshop".

If you are a regular reader of Popular Photography like me :-), in this month's (Dec 2005) issue, you will see an article about Feinstein's 100 Sea Shells project, done in the same style as his 100 Flowers. An Epson scanner was used. And wife was still right (one hour of photoshop per image).

Favorite quote: "If people knew how easy it was, I could be arrested".