Dye lines

This is my first attempt at dye drop photos (I'm not even sure what they're normally called)

Next time I'll use a cleaner glass, and I'm thinking perhaps flat glass would work better than a drinking glass?

Any other suggestions/critiques are appreciated, especially with regards to developing some more definition in the middle of the coloured areas.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Must admit that I've never seen this done. But it sure looks interesting.

Couple things come to mind:
You would never be able to duplicate the shot due to the chaotic behavior of the dye and water, so every shot would be different.
A small fish tank with new glass might work better as it would not be as size limiting as a glass.
Taking multiple images to watch the dye spread and adding different colors during the process, or not.
Experimentation is in order.

If nothing else it would make a great science experiment to study the "brownian movement" of molecules. http://dictionary.refe​rence.com/search?q=Bro​wnian+movement

and.duncan wrote in post #4933585
This is my first attempt at dye drop photos (I'm not even sure what they're normally called)

Next time I'll use a cleaner glass, and I'm thinking perhaps flat glass would work better than a drinking glass?

Any other suggestions/critiques are appreciated, especially with regards to developing some more definition in the middle of the coloured areas.

Curious about some of your shooting parameters. I see that you used Av mode but you also had an exposure correction of -1.0 EV dialled in. Wondering why you didn't just shoot in Manual mode. Also wonder why not shoot in RAW mode, considering that there is better control over exposure and highlight control.

In regard to the issue of "more definition", I'm not sure whether you mean better resolution (higher pixel count) in the image or sharper detail from the standpoint of lens, focus and depth of field. At the aperture (f/13) and focal length (180mm) you were using the depth if field would not be a problem. Perhaps you are worried about focusing even though you are using auto-focus. I think I would just use the center spot instead of "Pattern".

Anyway, please elaborate on your "more definition".

Very nice image!

chauncey > A fish tank is a good idea. I didn't even think of that and I have the perfect thing sitting in the other room... though it would waste a lot more water each time I had to toss it to get a clean slate I wonder if my plants will change colour if I keep feeding them dyed water (like those celery experiments in school).

Robert_Lay > I was shooting in Av as I don't really have the right equipment: I shot this in a light tent (idea being no sharp shadows and a nice white background), but I have no lights yet. This was just setup outside so I could use the sun as my light source. The problem was it was a little windy and the 'correct' exposure kept changing due to clouds etc. so I went Av to make it one less thing to think about. The -1ev was because the camera was over exposing in this mode and blowing out most of the detail.

I did shoot RAW, it might be showing up on the EXIF otherwise as I had to go into PS and try fix up the background a little... It was an uneven, greyish colour, even after i set a custom WB in Lightroom. Is this a limitation of my 1 light source? Or should I just crank it and over expose the background? Maybe find a happy medium between detail of the dye and a nice white background.

As to the definition... I'm thinking, particularly in the orange section near the bottom, that it just seems to go almost a solid one colour. I was looking for ideas that would perhaps lead to a more 'stringy' appearance. Stirring the water is bad, you just end up with a fairly solid colour. Perhaps this is just a 'time the shot' thing, it will be easier in the fish tank as I will have more room to play with before distortion begins to effect the image.

If your going for a "stringy" look, your dye must be of a little heavier density than the water so it tends to sink. Check the weights and compare it to the same volume of water.

and.duncan wrote in post #4937296
...
Robert_Lay > I was shooting in Av as I don't really have the right equipment: I shot this in a light tent (idea being no sharp shadows and a nice white background), but I have no lights yet. This was just setup outside so I could use the sun as my light source. The problem was it was a little windy and the 'correct' exposure kept changing due to clouds etc. so I went Av to make it one less thing to think about. The -1ev was because the camera was over exposing in this mode and blowing out most of the detail.

I did shoot RAW, it might be showing up on the EXIF otherwise as I had to go into PS and try fix up the background a little... It was an uneven, greyish colour, even after i set a custom WB in Lightroom. Is this a limitation of my 1 light source? Or should I just crank it and over expose the background? Maybe find a happy medium between detail of the dye and a nice white background.

As to the definition... I'm thinking, particularly in the orange section near the bottom, that it just seems to go almost a solid one colour. I was looking for ideas that would perhaps lead to a more 'stringy' appearance. Stirring the water is bad, you just end up with a fairly solid colour. Perhaps this is just a 'time the shot' thing, it will be easier in the fish tank as I will have more room to play with before distortion begins to effect the image.

This is one of those cases where you want the background whites to be blown out - in other words, you want the dyes to be placed on the Zone you want without regard to blowing out the white background. If you look at the histogram displaying all three color channels, you probably see the Red channel is the only one clipping.

I don't think that what you are doing in Lightroom can be called a Custom White Balance - it's just an adjustment of color temperature and tint. If you were to create a CWB using a white or gray card and then use that Custom White Balance for taking the picture, then you would be using a CWB.

When you use auto-exposure and if you were metering mainly on the background, then you should get a gray tone - not that that is what you want, but that's what the metering is designed to do (Remember the autoexposure system is as dumb as a rock!).

Yes, this is one of those cases where you can place the subject (the dye trails) where you want them and let the white background blow out as much as it wants.

In regard to the problem with "detail" - I think I understand what you are talking about. It's taking on a posterized look in those areas where the dye is overly thick. I don't see how you cand do anything with the camera or the lighting to avoid that.

I think you could do well selling these as a new art form - seriously!