books on "still life" lighting?

[stradibarrius]

I need help learning about still life lighting. There are many images that are lit in a way that they look like at Rembrandt painting. Some of the light is so soft and small it almost looks like it comes from a flashlight with weak batteries.
Are there any good book that teach this technique?

[Ed Bray]

Soft and small don't normally go together when talking about lighting. Soft lighting is usually produced by using a large diffused light source close to the subject (think of light on an overcast day), whereas hard light is produced by a small light source at a distance (think of the sun on a sunny day). Typically the smaller the light source the harder the light.

If you can direct us to the image/s you are thinking of then perhaps we can dissect the lighting to give you more idea of what was used.

[stradibarrius]

look at this. It looks like a painting from the Renaissance.
http://500px.com/photo/11569555

[stradibarrius]

or this one...
http://500px.com/photo/19274713
you get the idea. The light is small and appears to only shine directly on a section of the image and creating illuminated shadows.

[Cletus]

Lighting for Still Life, Steve Bavister, RotoVision is an excellent book with excellent examples - if you can find it. Otherwise the bible, "Light: Science & Magic" will have the answers you're looking for.

[Ed Bray]

look at this. It looks like a painting from the Renaissance.
http://500px.com/photo/11569555

There are at least two light sources lighting this image, possibly even three. The main light from the LHS as you look at it is a relatively hard light, you can see the shadows it leaves from where it hits the straw and they have hard edges, the second light is a back/side light (from RHS) which again is quite hard illuminating the hopsack and the scrim of the sieve (where it becomes diffused and adds to the softness of the image), where the two lights meet there is a cancelling out of each others shadows again adding to the overall feeling of a soft light.

[Ed Bray]

or this one...
http://500px.com/photo/19274713
you get the idea. The light is small and appears to only shine directly on a section of the image and creating illuminated shadows.

Small softbox or soft window light 'feathered' from mid height LHS. shadows fall where they will. dark background aids in the overall feel.

Diagnosing light from images is a good way to get a feel for how the subjects are lit. Some subjects (glossy/shiny) are more efficient at reflecting light and therefore give a clue as to what the light source is, dull/matt surfaces obviously do not reflect the actual source but can still give clues as to where the lighting originates from.

[SergeiR]

Easypeasy. You will have more trouble with getting interesting compositions than with actually ighting it.

There used to be very nice online tutorial on how to shoot things like that. In general your simplest possible solution - get a LARGE cardboard box (for average size bottles - 1x2' ) . Put it sideways. Make sure all your stuff can comfortably in there. Make a slit in one of sides to let sidelight in. Shoot away using either hard or soft sources, or even just a window light.

[ghostcount]

or this one...
http://500px.com/photo/19274713
you get the idea. The light is small and appears to only shine directly on a section of the image and creating illuminated shadows.


Small softbox or soft window light 'feathered' from mid height LHS. shadows fall where they will. dark background aids in the overall feel.

Diagnosing light from images is a good way to get a feel for how the subjects are lit. Some subjects (glossy/shiny) are more efficient at reflecting light and therefore give a clue as to what the light source is, dull/matt surfaces obviously do not reflect the actual source but can still give clues as to where the lighting originates from.

I suspect a black panel was used on the RHS too; there's quite a bit of fall off from the diffused to the shadow side.

[lenser]

Find anything about table top lighting from Dean Collins. He was a brilliant commercial shooter and had a mastery of how to create lighing effects that will not lead you astray. He created magic with his lighting and was a fantastic educator as well, so his DVD's really communicate. Once you understand what he teaches, you can branch out any way you want with complete control. Lighting still lifes is of the same thought process as table top commercial work, so working from his techniques and using adapting them to your goals should be an easy step.

[Jim Noel]

Learning to light is a matter of seeing and practicing.
Yes, look at a lot of images and try to imagine the lighting.
I have never seen a book which could do any more than show examples for one to copy. They will not teach you how to light anything in an original artistic manner, you will still have to practice.
Select 1, 3, or 5 objects you wish to photograph. Begin with a single light and do the best you can to get the objects looking good. Make a photograph each time you think it looks good, develop, print and analyze them.
Keep working with the single light until you can do a good job, then add a second light and repeat the process. After several sessions with 2 lights go to three. Don't overlook the tremendous advantage which can be gained with simple reflectors.
Like anything else worth accomplishing, the more you practice, the better you will get.

[Jim Noel]

I just saw the note about Dean Collins, probably the modern master of lighting. I once attended a demo in which he began with a single 5 watt bulb with no reflector. He built up from there.

[Dan Quan]

Dean Collins is awesome, and coupled with "Light, Science and Magic" it is almost an education in a couple of reads. But, some type of introduction to an even more basic concept of reflectivity, illuminance and luminance is really needed. "Basic 35mm Photo Guide" handles the recording starting point, but actually seeing the light needs an intro into the concept of reflectivity and incidence, and luminance and source, and a little practice.

[AF-ULF]

"Light Science and Magic" is the only lighting book you will ever need. It covers lighting principles, not recipes. Apply the principles to get the lighting you want.

[brian mcweeney]

Keep it simple.
The "size" of the light has to be relative to the size of the item you photograph.
In my experience, lighting is either an additive process or a subtractive one. You get yourself in trouble when you do both.
Always start with one light.
You can make it light, dark, contrasty, flat, warm, or cool.
That's it in a nutshell.

[Cletus]

Nice discussion about that topic , i have study that book , and concerned my friends , we have a moral lesson about that book it is based on the reality of a life.you can generate a lot of moral lesson about him life.

+1 :eek:

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I'd start out cheap. You don't need a book. All you need is a thing, a window, and maybe a frosted clear shower curtain to soften the light a bit, and later some sort of background if you don't want to use the walls of the room.

I think I would just start out by putting things by a north facing window. Look at them from one way, then look at them from the other way. Look at them early in the moring, look at them at noon, and closer to night. Look at them when they are close to the window and when they are further away. When the outside light is bright, and when it is flat.

Then after you get all of that looked at, go to the next stop by putting a reflector (could be just a piece of white paper) on the opposite side of the window. Move it closer and farther away, and in front and behind your subject.

Make notes of how the thing looks with the light one way and another way, with a reflector and without one.

I think seeing it with your own eyes will do a lot more for you than a book does.

[cjbroadbent]

No need for books. Just a web image search for Roland de la Porte, Chardin, Cotan. A single, natural source of light, one main subject with supporting elements making the most of the available chiaroscuro.