Still Life Lighting

[seabee1999]

Good day to all, I am looking for some advice for photographing still life indoors. To start with, I enjoy photographing with my 4x5 camera but what I tend to photograph is outdoors with ambient light. Currently I am taking still life classes through an online school; however, the classes are geared more towards lighting for smaller formats (35mm or APS). I know there are some similarities and some differences between the two but I wish to challenge myself for the final project of the class and photograph exclusively with the 4x5. I currently have 2 Alien Bee B800 strobe units with light modifiers (umbrellas, softbox, honeycomb grids, snoot, etc.) and a Minolta Auto Flash III light meter. As a requirement, unless otherwise directed, the images for the class are to be photographed exclusively indoors with controlled lighting.

- I feel the advice I am looking for is what to consider for bellows factor in accordance to bellows draw, aperture, shutter speed and movements?
- Would the Reciprocity timer app (which I have) help me in figuring this out?
- For those of you who shoot still life imagery quite often, could you offer your process for approaching the subject?
- Which would be a better, constant lighting or strobe? I do have shop lights that work fairly well but I am limited in how I can modify the light.
- Any other considerations that I should be concerned about that I haven't thought of (film recommendations, focal length, etc)

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can offer.

Kind Regards,
David

[Peter De Smidt]

For bellows compensation, something like this is good: http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/index.html I use a Calumet version, but it's not available anymore.

For still lifes, little things are really important, the shine on a glass, say. These days commercial pros shoot digital tethered to a large monitor, and they can easily combine elements for different exposures. With film, that's not as practical. In the old days, when view cameras were used for product shots, the photographers used a lot of Polaroid. You're going to have to develop a very good eye for how the film image will look just from eyeballing it. That will require lots of practice. You can also shoot the scene, leave everything setup, develop film, evaluate, modify.....

I often use flash, but then I sometimes add IKEA Gooseneck LEDs as accent lights.

[LabRat]

Congratulations, you are entering a very interesting world!!!

For a start, using continuous light is a +++, as you can see/study what the subject reflects in real time, without digital or pull-o-roids... A big difference is that LF would require more light (for a smaller f-stop), where digi requires less (and often will not stop down below f11 on many cameras), so it can be hard to use both on the same power setting...

A good B/W light are those reflector clamp-on lights, with LED or CFL bulbs for smaller sets, as the light is close to the subject and will read brightly at a couple of feet away... (The light modifiers you would use for strobe are often to be used for longer distances, so might not focus properly at closer distances...) But learning to use a single light + reflector for a key light is often the most honest looking effect, and fill with home-made white + foil covered reflectors to fill the "holes" can give a multiple of different effects/looks...

Brush up on your bellows compensation, and reciprocity tables are usually included with your film instruction sheet... You can time low wattage lamps with your enlarging timer, so you would open your shutter/film slide in the dark, and hit the timer, so you won't jar the camera before exposure starts...

For subject approach, pick-up an item you might shoot and look at it in your hand... Ask yourself what this thing might mean to yourself or anybody else, and think about possible meanings for it photographed... Study the different forms as you rotate the angles and see what it reveals... Do the same with the light and see what speaks to you... Put another item next to your subject, and see if they converse, etc... The goal is what these will say to the viewer...

Have Fun!!!

Steve K

[Harold_4074]

Personal opinion only: still life is the most difficult of genres to execute well. It is also, for me, most rewarding on the infrequent occasions when I think I have succeeded.

LabRat's suggestion of a single light and reflector is excellent; I would add that adding simple frame, clothespins and a variety of diffusion materials (hit the local fabric store) will give you a greater range of control. Unless you put a fair amount of money into strobe equipment, you will probably find that you have either insufficient light, or so much that you have no choice of aperture. A tape measure and the basic formula for bellows factor, and a goal of keeping exposures below one second will take you a long way with continuous lighting. But beware of the often-seen advice to use tungsten-halogen work lights from the local home improvement store; heat is a really big issue, and the stands are not much better than a clamp-on light attached to the back of a chair.

The one thing that I found most problematic in the beginning was the effect of working in a small room--if the lighting is soft enough to reveal depth in the image, most of it will go right on by and bounce back from a wall. This limits your prospects; move the light back, and the lighting ratio approaches unity. Move it closer, and the highlights harden faster than the shadows darken. The two best solutions known to me ( other than finding a larger room or painting the walls black) are to set up in or adjacent to a doorway (with no light in the adjoining room) or rig dark-colored drapes surrounding the setup, and then use a reflector to control the light on the shadowed side. If you don't want to invest in duvetyne or velour (check out Filmtools in Burbank, CA ) you should be able to get wide muslin from a fabric store and paint it any dark color with ordinary latex paint. I did this a few years ago using cloth wide enough to hang from the rafters in the garage nearly to the floor; it made a world of difference in still life, and also in portraiture.

With regard to approach: it is sometimes appealing to discover a particular form or texture, and then try to build a picture around it. This is great fun, but it takes quite some skill to correctly visualize how the camera will see (grayscale, in two dimensions, and possibly with different perspective) what was so interesting to your eye, so be persistent.

At the other extreme, a good still life, like any other good picture, will have recognizably "good" (whatever that means) composition. One way to develop skill in this regard is to play with simple forms (I like eggs, and bottles spray-painted flat gray), trying to create a pleasing picture which doesn't depend on particularly remarkable properties of the objects.

Finally, the still life thread on this forum contains many superb examples (Christopher Broadbent's being my personal favorites) and it is very instructive to pick a simple one and try to replicate it. If nothing else, this will force you to learn to analyze how and why the original works!

Best of luck to you---

[seabee1999]

Thanks to all for replying. I'll be going over all these suggestions with a fine tooth comb and will ask more questions from there.

R/
Dave

[Robert Brazile]

Suggest you do a search on Christopher Broadbent's posts here -- user "cjbroadbent". Lots of excellent still life information and examples to be seen.

Robert

[Tim Meisburger]

Although others have done outstanding still lifes, I think Christopher's work is consistently excellent. He hasn't posted in a while (I hope he is okay), but you can see his work here, or google him for his website.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Good day to all, I am looking for some advice for photographing still life indoors. To start with, I enjoy photographing with my 4x5 camera but what I tend to photograph is outdoors with ambient light. Currently I am taking still life classes through an online school; however, the classes are geared more towards lighting for smaller formats (35mm or APS). I know there are some similarities and some differences between the two but I wish to challenge myself for the final project of the class and photograph exclusively with the 4x5. I currently have 2 Alien Bee B800 strobe units with light modifiers (umbrellas, softbox, honeycomb grids, snoot, etc.) and a Minolta Auto Flash III light meter. As a requirement, unless otherwise directed, the images for the class are to be photographed exclusively indoors with controlled lighting.

- I feel the advice I am looking for is what to consider for bellows factor in accordance to bellows draw, aperture, shutter speed and movements?
- Would the Reciprocity timer app (which I have) help me in figuring this out?
- For those of you who shoot still life imagery quite often, could you offer your process for approaching the subject?
- Which would be a better, constant lighting or strobe? I do have shop lights that work fairly well but I am limited in how I can modify the light.
- Any other considerations that I should be concerned about that I haven't thought of (film recommendations, focal length, etc)

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can offer.

Kind Regards,
David

David,

Why not just use window light? For tech info, try a Kodak Dataguide
.
(photo©Christopher Nisperos, 2016)

[Harold_4074]

Why not just use window light?

Not to speak for the original poster, but to possibly help any beginner in this genre:

Window light is wonderful, properly handled, but it has the huge disadvantage of not remaining constant. It works for "found" pictures, but these are not at the heart of conventional still life, which is "arranged" with respect to subject matter, composition, and lighting and then photographed with some combination of lens, film, viewpoint, and so on. There is nothing quite like making an image, processing and proofing, and then using the results to go back and try to make an improved version.

A simple setup which can be left in place for subsequent attempts is invaluable for learning. If this is impossible, the next best thing is probably a north-facing window and the freedom to work around the times of the solstices, when day length and sun elevation are not changing rapidly.

I can think if one picture that has accounted for about twelve sheets of film, spread over three years. Not because I could leave the setup for that long, but because it uses natural light, and the sunbeam only enters the kitchen and hits the right spot for a few minutes on each of two or three days each January! An extreme example, but still...:rolleyes:

[Jon Wilson]

Even if the "golden window" is a small window, you have the timing down.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Why not just use window light?

Not to speak for the original poster, but to possibly help any beginner in this genre:

Window light is wonderful, properly handled, but it has the huge disadvantage of not remaining constant.

Hi Harold,

It depends. If you're making a very long exposure (as for a close up) the variance of the light can be proportionally minimal. It's also possible to diffuse (and therefore reduce) the light by taping tracing paper on the window, for example.

[macolive]

If you use strobes and need more power, you can always double or triple your exposure (as long as the settings stay consistent and your subject and camera don't move at all).

[Emil Schildt]

why not try to paint with light? these examples are done with a 25 watt light bulb.. nothing else..

[Leigh]

why not try to paint with light? these examples are done with a 25 watt light bulb.. nothing else..
But Emil...

You could make a cardboard box look interesting. :)

The OP is asking about techniques for normal mortals like us. :cool:

- Leigh

[Harold_4074]

Christopher,

I agree that diffusion of window light makes it easier to work with, but the larger problem is that it changes throughout the day, with the seasons, and with the weather; being able to process and proof a sheet of film and then trying to improve on the result (possibly after hours or days of consideration) pretty much demands artificial light.

Personally, I'd love to have a studio with a large, north-facing glass wall, but since most of my photography is done at night, I'm not sure what the point would be :(

[macolive]

why not try to paint with light? these examples are done with a 25 watt light bulb.. nothing else..

Amazing!

[Stephen Thomason]

Emil - beautiful work!

[SergeiR]

But Emil...

You could make a cardboard box look interesting. :)

- Leigh

pretty much. I never could nail painting with light properly, digital or film.. and Emil's work is so damn awesome...

[Christopher Nisperos]

Christopher,

I agree that diffusion of window light makes it easier to work with, but the larger problem is that it changes throughout the day, with the seasons, and with the weather; being able to process and proof a sheet of film and then trying to improve on the result (possibly after hours or days of consideration) pretty much demands artificial light.

Personally, I'd love to have a studio with a large, north-facing glass wall, but since most of my photography is done at night, I'm not sure what the point would be :(

Hi Harold,

I'm not sure you're catching my point: You see, —unless you're photographing in direct, strong light— the fact that the light is changing during the day isn't at all a problem when you've got a bellows racked out to 20 inches with an opening of, say, f/32. If you arrange it so that your exposure time is long enough, you can even "burn" and "dodge" the subject! (a convoluted version of 'painting with light', as Emil so aptly does!).

For me, a north, south, east or west facing window isn't a problem either. I have a good tripod, so even a small window on a cloudy day is all I need (as long as the window —vis a vis the subject— is in a good position!). Take a look at the image I posted. This was taken on such a day: completely gray and overcast. The window faced an enclosed courtyard.

To assure detail in the highlights (I expected some overexposure in these zones), I developed in pyro.

[Harold_4074]

Christopher,

I am sure that you missed the point I was trying to make. That is a lovely image that you posted; can you try it again with the pepper rotated a bit counterclockwise so that the mass is more centered above its resting place.....but do it tonight at about 10 PM your time? :)

[Christopher Nisperos]

Christopher,

I am sure that you missed the point I was trying to make. That is a lovely image that you posted; can you try it again with the pepper rotated a bit counterclockwise so that the mass is more centered above its resting place.....but do it tonight at about 10 PM your time? :)

Harold,

I'm sorry that you've chosen to respond sarcastically to a point I gave in a friendly spirit. You've successfully gotten me out of that spirit, but I have no intention of getting into a flame with you because I want the OP to get his answer. Therefore, I probably won't be responding to any further of your replies.

What I'm simply trying to get across to the OP that he can —apparently contrary to your opinion— very successfully use window light as a viable option for his still life photography. Many photographers throughout the history of photography —much better than either you or I— have already proven that, time and time again, so it's really even ridiculous to argue the point (I cite Edward Weston as an example, but you would certainly also find fault in his work and advise him to turn his pepper to your satisfaction).

You seem to be obsessed with artificial light as an absolute necessity —and the only solution— for this type of photography and on this point we indeed disagree. Once again (more for the OP and others reading this than you, since it seems to fall on deaf ears): "Window light" does not necessarily equate to "direct sunlight". And 'changing light' is proportionally a tiny issue when the exposure is super long. In fact, dim, even light is preferable.

In fact, here's a big tip for you, Harold, since you seem to enjoy sarcasm: In case you ever dare to use window light for a still life and run into that horrid, direct sunlight: Wait a while! Yes! I know you won't believe this, Harold, but sunlight. actually. moves! —as you, yourself, keep pointing out. Funny you never put that fact to good use.

On this last point, thanks anyway for your "advice", but that pepper was long ago eaten. Its position in the image was very carefully determined after days worth of consideration, based upon its best aesthetic profile. Perhaps you're not familiar with doing this. I guess your approach is to just plop an object down and shoot it based on its mass being centered over its resting place. OK, whatever. Everyone has their own approach. It would be stupid of me to criticize yours, as it was of you to criticize mine. You are correct, however, in inferring that I could have done a much better job on the image.

For example, that highlight bugs me, too, and not even the pyro development could calm it enough; the exposure time was 90 minutes and I could have stayed in my little make-shift studio during all that time, waving a dodging tool over the highlight area, just to satisfy some cretin years later, or even you. However, I decided to go out and have a coffee while the light did its magic on the film. Call me lazy. In any case, I'm happy to say that that image sells well. And that thought puts me back in a friendlier mood.

Very sincerely

[LabRat]

Well, there's something classic about window light, and artists have been using north light for centuries, but the OP's school assignment is to use artificial light for the course project... But for commercial photography, where the needs are to be repeatable and consistent, artificial is it, as it can be dark or light outside, sunny/cloudy/rainy outside, any time of day, and in your dark, (lit) studio, it does not matter... :-)

Steve K

[John Olsen]

I've enjoyed the discussion above and some fine images have been shared. I'd only like to add that back in the dark ages Kodak put out teaching books like "Professional Photographic Illustration Techniques" with diagrams and helpful info. Search for them in used book stores or on the shelves of doddering old photographers.

As for the original question of constant versus strobe light, there are times when they can be combined. For example, your two strobes can be supplemented by window or flood light fill, especially if the color difference will not be a problem. Or you can add color filters to the floods to get the same color temperature as in the strobes. A flood light fill in the background might even add a nice color (the cab lite in the image below is a small flood in a strobe lit truck).

155697

[Christopher Nisperos]

.... the OP's school assignment is to use artificial light for the course project...

Steve K

Thanks, Steve. I, in fact, didn't read the post well enough.

[seabee1999]

Hi y'all, sorry I have been away for a bit of time. I had surgery to correct an issue with my Achilles' tendon a few Friday's ago and well, let's just say last Tuesday I had a major setback in my healing process when I fell down at home. I pretty much ripped apart was was corrected so now I'm down again and on the mends for a little longer time. With that said, sadly, I will be dropping both classes today as I cannot stand for another 2 weeks. Thanks to all for your assistance and examples. I think this winter though I'll experiment a bit with my lights and LF.

Chris, thanks specifically to you for your suggestion on the use of window light. Unfortunately my still life setups were all going to be in my garage where I have no windows so artificial lights were necessary.

Emil, lovely images for light painting. Maybe that is something I can try this winter as well.

R/
David

[stawastawa]

Window light is wonderful, properly handled, but it has the huge disadvantage of not remaining constant. It works for "found" pictures, but these are not at the heart of conventional still life, which is "arranged" with respect to subject matter, composition, and lighting and then photographed with some combination of lens, film, viewpoint, and so on. There is nothing quite like making an image, processing and proofing, and then using the results to go back and try to make an improved version.

A simple setup which can be left in place for subsequent attempts is invaluable for learning. If this is impossible, the next best thing is probably a north-facing window and the freedom to work around the times of the solstices, when day length and sun elevation are not changing rapidly.


I have been using a West window for some work, and while I like many of the results, I am afraid the body of work may not look consistent when I finally bring things together.
It helps to have portland's gray cloudy days on a regular basis ^.^
(but I understand this is not the OP's question)

[Christopher Nisperos]

Chris, thanks specifically to you for your suggestion on the use of window light. Unfortunately my still life setups were all going to be in my garage where I have no windows so artificial lights were necessary.
R/
David

David, you're quite welcome, and I apologize for not having read your original post more carefully.

Regarding: "Unfortunately my still life setups were all going to be in my garage where I have no windows so artificial lights were necessary"
......... That's why God made saber saws and sky-lights! ;o)

Regarding your injury: I wish you a complete recovery. Notice I didn't say "quick". I know from my own knee problem that those types of injuries take a very long time to heal correctly and shouldn't be messed with, so —as the French say— "bon courage"!

Best,

Chris

[seabee1999]

Thanks again Chris. This healing is a slow process. I hope to be able to stand and put weight on my bad foot in a few weeks. I just want to walk around again. As for the "skylight & saber saw", I don't think my landlord would appreciate a hole in his roof. :-)

R/
Dave

[aluncrockford]

to return to your original question, essentially still life is remarkably simple. Keep your initial set up to one light for the foreground,and if you feel you need it a second light for the back.
The thing you have to aware of is the contrast of the light , which is why for the majority of the time the light source is diffused, popular materials are matt opaque perspex or trace stretched over screens, what you have to remember is the diffusion materiel is now your light source, the time honoured way is to put you trace from the left, angled at about 30 degrees with the front edge of the lens being just out of shot and as close to the subject as possible, this tends to reduce the need for fill, as overfilling is the easiest way to flatten the subject. with your diffuser in place you can then position your light to control the form of your subject by moving it closer or further or forward and backward to control the fill.The choice between constant and flash is one of personal preference though bear in mind the heat from tungsten light in a small space can be less than splendid. Finally setting up your background, if you are shooting tabletop then it is paramount to get everything square, even if you decide at a later date to change it, the simple way to get the table top square is to first level the base with a spirit level then use a ruler to find the central point of the base place a set square on the front edge of the base and put a straight line that runs straight from front to back of the base on the central point, finally position your camera so the line on the tabletop runs straight through the centre of your viewfinder/screen.
How straightforward was that

http://www.aluncrockford.com

[aluncrockford]

While I agree that for commerce a constant result is preferable
daylight worked fairly well for Irvin Penn amounts others.