Feinstein's lighting technique for flower photography

[Paul Schilliger]

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?

[Fred De Van]

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

[Peter Brown]

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

[tedkaufman]

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.

[Paul Schilliger]

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

[Peter Brown]

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

[Ellis Vener]

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.

[Ellis Vener]

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

[Paul Schilliger]

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.

[Gabriel Feinstein]

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)