DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Experiment with makeshift indoor lighting.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 6 of 6, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/02/2004 12:01:13 AM · #1
Because my budget is small, I have to be creative with more that the actual shots. These were taken using makeshift lighting. What do you think? Show me the error of my ways:)

11/02/2004 12:04:23 AM · #2
im not a shell person but for those who are this is a very nice picture and am sure it would appeal to them very much. i like the solo shell the best. what lights did you use?
 11/02/2004 12:10:33 AM · #3
I guess I should have taken a picture of my creation. I bought two $5.00 shop lights with spring grips and two plastic diffusing lenses for florescent lights. (Lowes)

I attached the lights to the tops of two dining room chairs and aimed them at the dining room table and then proped up the diffusing lenses in front of the lights. Added the overhead light from the room. Wala my under $20 lighting set up.

I guess I should have waited to see if anyone thinks it really stinks before revealing my cheap secrets! :)

Edit: Oh yeah, this was intended for stock photography. I had rainy day blues and nothing more interesting to shoot.

Message edited by author 2004-11-02 00:11:35.
 11/02/2004 02:45:46 AM · #4
Hi-ho,

As an asside: With a B&W shot it's hard to tell how well the lighting works, IMHO, as the B&W conversion can hide a lot of sins.. If you want comments on lighting, posting still-life colour shots would be better..

The first shell (The single) is a bit dark towards the lower left, and because the top edge that is lighter in colour has more light on it, I feel I'm drawn back to looking at that edge, but there is no detail there... This type of back lighting works well for some objects. I think this shell isn't one of them..

The triplet is also dark lower down on the bigger shell, but not as much of a problem as you've got the others to lift the image a little.

Overall the quality of light seems quite good, you don't have any harsh highlights, and the shadows from behind have well defined, but not harsh edges which is good for 'natural' subjects, as harsh light feels wrong with soft shapes..

I think however, that both of these shots are lost in mid-tone. They don't really have a good range of tones in the wonderful texture of the shells. I suppose you could call it a low-key portrait of a shell.. :-). Low key can work for people, but for an oject that dosn't show a mood or expression it just makes it, well, dull? Probably not the right word, but that's what comes to mind.

Keep experimenting, It's absolutely the best way to learn..

As always, just my 2c worth, and thanks for sharing..

Cheers, Chris Hellyar.
 11/02/2004 04:29:24 AM · #5
Thanks for the cheap idea. I had thought of the shop lights, but your "two plastic diffusing lenses for florescent lights" is a great idea.

Oh, and I like the way you use the thin line around the images to create a frame. There are many times that I would have done that if I had ever thought of, which I didn't. But now I can steal your idea. :)

Message edited by author 2004-11-02 04:31:53.
 11/02/2004 12:17:46 PM · #6
Originally posted by ohmark:
Hi-ho,

As an asside: With a B&W shot it's hard to tell how well the lighting works, IMHO, as the B&W conversion can hide a lot of sins.. If you want comments on lighting, posting still-life colour shots would be better..

The first shell (The single) is a bit dark towards the lower left, and because the top edge that is lighter in colour has more light on it, I feel I'm drawn back to looking at that edge, but there is no detail there... This type of back lighting works well for some objects. I think this shell isn't one of them..

The triplet is also dark lower down on the bigger shell, but not as much of a problem as you've got the others to lift the image a little.

Overall the quality of light seems quite good, you don't have any harsh highlights, and the shadows from behind have well defined, but not harsh edges which is good for 'natural' subjects, as harsh light feels wrong with soft shapes..

I think however, that both of these shots are lost in mid-tone. They don't really have a good range of tones in the wonderful texture of the shells. I suppose you could call it a low-key portrait of a shell.. :-). Low key can work for people, but for an oject that dosn't show a mood or expression it just makes it, well, dull? Probably not the right word, but that's what comes to mind.

Keep experimenting, It's absolutely the best way to learn..

As always, just my 2c worth, and thanks for sharing..

Cheers, Chris Hellyar.


Wow. Thanks for taking the time. Now I have to put up my makeshift studio and try again! I really appreciate the feedback.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:11:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:11:59 AM EDT.