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
Bookmarks