If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
____ wrote:
In article , Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Polarizers only work on non-metallic reflecting surfaces, which silver isn't. I disagree. First, reflections from metal surfaces are not polarized, and polarizing filter will *not* have any effect. However, just because the item is made from silver does not mean the reflection is from a metalic surface. If it has _any_ kind of coating on it, the polarizing filter will have some effect. Hence if the surface has been polished, for example... And that is exactly what the OP needs to consider, if a polarizing filter is to be used. Almost anything that provides a "clear" coat will also allow the filter to work. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
On Feb 12, 8:21 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: "Roy Smith" wrote: I've got to shoot some sailing trophies -- highly polished silver with lettering engraved on them. The lettering needs to be readable in the photos. Any non-obvious tricks to get good lighting without lots of glare and reflections off the polished surfaces? Try a polarizer. Don't expect wonders but it might reduce some of the reflections somewhat. Polarizers only work on non-metallic reflecting surfaces, which silver isn't. -Wolfgang It is true that metallic surfaces cause *little* polarisation... But components of the light that falls on the metallic surface may *already* be polarised. That is why the polariser may still have a significant effect. However, to be useful, it would be best to combine a polariser on the lens with a polarised screen over the light source/s as well... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... ____ wrote: In article , Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Polarizers only work on non-metallic reflecting surfaces, which silver isn't. I disagree. First, reflections from metal surfaces are not polarized, and polarizing filter will *not* have any effect. However, just because the item is made from silver does not mean the reflection is from a metalic surface. If it has _any_ kind of coating on it, the polarizing filter will have some effect. Hence if the surface has been polished, for example... And that is exactly what the OP needs to consider, if a polarizing filter is to be used. Almost anything that provides a "clear" coat will also allow the filter to work. One option that will help is to polarize the light source(s) and then put a polarizer on the camera at 90 degrees to the angle of polarization of the lights. Another is to use a light tent or big softbox to minimize point reflections and objects reflected in the polished plate. Toby Toby |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
Mike Coon mjcoon@ wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Polarizers only work on non-metallic reflecting surfaces, which silver isn't. I happen to have a silver-plated trophy and a polariser to hand; it works for me! Lightsource? Unpolarized? Is there any type of coating on the trophy? Can you cite a contrary scientific source, please? Any physics book dealing with reflection ans polarisation. Can you cite any scientific source for your position, please? -Wolfgang |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Mike Coon mjcoon@ wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Polarizers only work on non-metallic reflecting surfaces, which silver isn't. I happen to have a silver-plated trophy and a polariser to hand; it works for me! Lightsource? Unpolarized? Is there any type of coating on the trophy? Can you cite a contrary scientific source, please? Any physics book dealing with reflection ans polarisation. Can you cite any scientific source for your position, please? -Wolfgang My position was mere observation. Admittedly my trophy is a bit tarnished, though most reflection is evidently from the silver since tarrnish is black, but all light sources seem to be equivalent. I shall fetch my undergraduate optics textbook and look it up (Brewster angle I can remember!)... Mike. -- If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Roy Smith wrote: I've got to shoot some sailing trophies -- highly polished silver with lettering engraved on them. The lettering needs to be readable in the photos. Any non-obvious tricks to get good lighting without lots of glare and reflections off the polished surfaces? A ring light might help, if the surface with the lettering is flat. Tilt the lettered surface so that reflections from the ring light are not straight back at the camera. However, with curved surfaces there isn't much hope of avoiding at least some glare from the light. In that case, consider multiple lights, and also a "light box" or "light tent". The trick with multiple lights is to position them such that the glare does not detract from the object. Generally two lights will do, and one of those will be at very close to perpendicular to the axis of the lense. Placement of the other depends on the glare. With a light box/tent, the idea is to get diffuse light from every direction, thus reducing the contrast of the glare. I prefer a light box, simply because they are so easy to construct from cardboard boxes. If your trophies are 4 feet tall though, it might be a problem... but there are solutions for that too. Do a google search on "light-box glare photography", and it will provide several examples. However, in a quick review I didn't see any that showed the particular construction that I prefer. So I've resurrected something I had on my web page a couple years ago for a short time just for one individual to look at. I dumped about half of it (it was actually to compare several different alternatives to expensive "macro lenses", and showed several compartive images), and have just left the comparison between a ring light and a light box, plus some images of the light box showing how it works. http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/dime/ Floyd, can you explain the difference? I don't understand. The dime looks awful and flat with the ring light, maybe too contrasty with the light box, the clippers look nice and even with the ring light, a little to harsh with the light box. Does the light box provide a similar effect to a light tent? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
Paul Furman wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: .... Do a google search on "light-box glare photography", and it will provide several examples. However, in a quick review I didn't see any that showed the particular construction that I prefer. So I've resurrected something I had on my web page a couple years ago for a short time just for one individual to look at. I dumped about half of it (it was actually to compare several different alternatives to expensive "macro lenses", and showed several compartive images), and have just left the comparison between a ring light and a light box, plus some images of the light box showing how it works. http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/dime/ Floyd, can you explain the difference? I don't understand. The dime looks awful and flat with the ring light, maybe too contrasty with the light box, I think you've reversed them? The light box is flat, the ring light has contrast. the clippers look nice and even with the ring light, a little to harsh with the light box. The clippers are interesting. A cut glass object or a clear glass figurine with smooth contours would perhaps show the difference better. The ring light shows reflections from one direction. It isn't as distinct as a point source light would be though. With a longer focal length and a greater working distance that effect would be more emphasized. The light box shows equal reflections from every direction, which simply makes some surfaces brighter and reduces the contrast. The likelihood of a black reflection from the camera can be reduced by using a longer focal length to get more distance. Does the light box provide a similar effect to a light tent? A light box and a light tent accomplish almost the exact same thing; hence, generally they can be considered to have the same effect. In practice though, the actual construction of each will cause differences, and some characteristics are more likely to be exaggerated with the box, while others will be with the tent. In either case the essential concept is to diffuse the source of the light in such a way that an object is illuminated equally from every possible direction. That is why the picture of the dime taken with the light box is so horribly _flat_! It's hard to see any of the surface contours, and there simply are no shadows. On the other hand, notice how the edges of the engraving are all white regardless of the direction. The ring light is a different beast, as the light is not diffused, but it does come equally from all sides in relationship to the center of the lense. Hence shadows are a function of the surface of the object, not the direction of the light. And contrast is high (though not quite like it would be from a point light source). -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: In either case the essential concept is to diffuse the source of the light in such a way that an object is illuminated equally from every possible direction. That is why the picture of the dime taken with the light box is so horribly _flat_! It's hard to see any of the surface contours, and there simply are no shadows. On the other hand, notice how the edges of the engraving are all white regardless of the direction. NONSENSE! Had you slightly clanged the position of the dime to the lens you would have had a beautiful picture that has life. Stop blaming the lightbox because many people have demonstrated that it is an effective way of getting their items to pop. Poor "Rita". Just in case it isn't obvious, that particular light box, as demonstrated by the photograph of the dime, is just about as good as it gets for soft lighting of small objects. (I made it originally to photograph some old ivory carvings that were 2-3 inches long. The particular design is fairly commonly used to photograph archaeological artifacts when absolutely flat light is desired.)) But it could have been even better! It's only about 6 or 7 inches deep, and that is just about the same size as the front opening that the camera looks into. If the box had been made 12 inches deep, or more, it would allow a small object that is positioned the same 3-4 inches distance from the back of the box to receive even more light from reflections off the box area to the front of the object. That would probably reduce the contast between the front and the edges of the engraving. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
From what I see there I don't know what the hell he's doing. I'm not even sure if he knows what he's doing since all these examples look terrible. There's no way you can get that level of dullness from either light source he is using. "The images were taken with a Nikon D2x ..." -Wolfgang PS: Yes, Rita-baiting ain't fair. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Photographic bight shiny objects?
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: In either case the essential concept is to diffuse the source of the light in such a way that an object is illuminated equally from every possible direction. That is why the picture of the dime taken with the light box is so horribly _flat_! It's hard to see any of the surface contours, and there simply are no shadows. On the other hand, notice how the edges of the engraving are all white regardless of the direction. NONSENSE! Had you slightly clanged the position of the dime to the lens you would have had a beautiful picture that has life. Stop blaming the lightbox because many people have demonstrated that it is an effective way of getting their items to pop. Poor "Rita". Just in case it isn't obvious, that particular light box, as demonstrated by the photograph of the dime, is just about as good as it gets for soft lighting of small objects. (I made it originally to photograph some old ivory carvings that were 2-3 inches long. The particular design is fairly commonly used to photograph archaeological artifacts when absolutely flat light is desired.)) But it could have been even better! It's only about 6 or 7 inches deep, and that is just about the same size as the front opening that the camera looks into. If the box had been made 12 inches deep, or more, it would allow a small object that is positioned the same 3-4 inches distance from the back of the box to receive even more light from reflections off the box area to the front of the object. That would probably reduce the contast between the front and the edges of the engraving. That still doesn't explain why that image looks so terrible when everyone else is getting much better images when using soft lighting techniques. Poor "Rita". Look up what "soft lighting" is. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
lighing for objects | william kossack | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | December 31st 06 05:48 PM |
Capturing Objects in Fog | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 11 | September 17th 06 02:43 PM |
Interior objects | G. Hoppenbrouwers | Digital Photography | 0 | December 17th 05 03:29 PM |
Clean Objects | Jack | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | April 27th 04 10:55 PM |
Shiny Stuff | Jack | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 14 | February 3rd 04 03:26 PM |