I would also guess that there is some distance from the subject to the background.
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???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks