First Attempt at Product/Beverage Lighting

I, noob, have gotten moderately comfortable doing head/torso shots of my wife and kids with me D-Lite 4 kit, so today I figured it's time to try product/still life. Imagine my surprise when I ascertained that the lighting setup apparently is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from portraiture, so once again I'm at a loss and need your help.

I tried a simple 'glass of incandescent liquid' shot and these are the best I could manage.

They're quite boring, I know, but am still struggling with moulding the light, in this case a single D-Lite 4. As far as PP, I bumped up the BLACKS in LR.

I'd love to hear how I could have made these shots technically better! Thanks.

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

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

You would want to do this in a light box to avoid shadows and to have a lighted background. There are several threads about this in "Small Flash and Studio Lighting". If "out in the open" then you need at least two - properly diffused - lights.

vk2gwk - thanks for the input.

Well, I think I'll just, uh, move on out the side door here...maybe no one will, uh, notice..... [whistles, pretends to casually exit]

Shadows are not allways a bad thing. Here you have an example of good and bad. In the full shot it is very distracting. It does not have to be eliminated, but at least reduced to a level it is not a subject of the image.

In the close up shot the shadow adds some interest to the shot. You may not know this, or realize it when you were shooting... but photographers have been useing this for a very ling time....Notice how the liquid gets lighter the lower in the image it is...and the back ground gets darker the lower it is. The ballence of the two is what makes the shot here.

I like both but would also like to have seen a full close up of the bubbles.

Freddie Alessio wrote in post #9999888
vk2gwk - thanks for the input.

Well, I think I'll just, uh, move on out the side door here...maybe no one will, uh, notice..... [whistles, pretends to casually exit]

Don't! You'll miss a lot of fun. With very simple means you can get reasonable results and it is - if you are interested - a lot of fun to work out how to best light subjects, choose backdrops in various - contrasting - colours. Also experimenting with various depths of field for different effects is - apart from being interesting - also great to get to know your gear better.

For some examples (and a picture of the very simple light box I made) see my Flickr site (this set)

I like the first one

I think you need to get something goin on on/in the glass. Bubbles and/or condensation. And I would definately use a WAY bigger diffused light source.

Mark1 wrote in post #10000070
Shadows are not allways a bad thing. Here you have an example of good and bad. In the full shot it is very distracting. It does not have to be eliminated, but at least reduced to a level it is not a subject of the image.

In the close up shot the shadow adds some interest to the shot. You may not know this, or realize it when you were shooting... but photographers have been useing this for a very ling time....Notice how the liquid gets lighter the lower in the image it is...and the back ground gets darker the lower it is. The ballence of the two is what makes the shot here.

Phew! Now we're talking...I thought I was about to win the 'least commented post' award on POTN!

OK...great criticism. Just what I was looking for! I thought the shadow in the first gave an otherwise dreadfully boring shot just a little bit of "funk", but it's looking like not all see it that way. Thanks for that!

On the second one...yes, I was actually going for that shadow line but the liquid still looks....blah. There's a *little* bit of variation in the liquid but I needed some fizzier liquid or (more likely) better placed/utilized lighting...I just don't know quite how!

MikePrattPhotography wrote in post #10002708
I think you need to get something goin on on/in the glass. Bubbles and/or condensation. And I would definately use a WAY bigger diffused light source.

Yeah, it's strobe lighting bounced off of a white seamless paper background...the glass was approximately 12" away. I simply couldn't figure out any other way to do it...lighting the glass directly led to too much glare off the glass. I realize this is all basic stuff but that's the level I'm at with this type of shooting!

vk2gwk wrote in post #10002617
Don't! You'll miss a lot of fun. With very simple means you can get reasonable results and it is - if you are interested - a lot of fun to work out how to best light subjects, choose backdrops in various - contrasting - colours. Also experimenting with various depths of field for different effects is - apart from being interesting - also great to get to know your gear better.

For some examples (and a picture of the very simple light box I made) see my Flickr site (this set)

Nice...I especially liked the vodka bottle...I assume the background was pp'ed?

Perhaps I'm doing myself a disservice by trying to learn the basics of product photography with strobes? It's quite a trial-and-error tribulation, at least at this point...

Freddie Alessio wrote in post #10005230
Nice...I especially liked the vodka bottle...I assume the background was pp'ed?

Perhaps I'm doing myself a disservice by trying to learn the basics of product photography with strobes? It's quite a trial-and-error tribulation, at least at this point...

Yes, I PP'ed the background - actually selected the bottle totally from the background and even filled in the top half to get the "luminescent" effect on the top.
With the constant light - over strobe lighting - you have the advantage of being able to see what you are doing: just move the subject a bit or move the lights a bit to get the "glare" in the right spots (or avoid the glare in the wrong spots) and the same goes for the shadows - all before you snap. The advantage of strobe lights is the higher yield and the greater flexibility with more light where aperture (and therefore DOF) is concerned.

Freddie Alessio wrote in post #10005213
I thought the shadow in the first gave an otherwise dreadfully boring shot just a little bit of "funk",

The problem is it is "half a shadow". Not solid enough to stand as a secondary (or part of the primary) subject. And not diffused enough to be ignored. I agree had this been shadow-less it would be deleted. It is a great first try, because now you can see what needs to be done to make it better.

Mark1 wrote in post #10007317
The problem is it is "half a shadow". Not solid enough to stand as a secondary (or part of the primary) subject. And not diffused enough to be ignored. I agree had this been shadow-less it would be deleted. It is a great first try, because now you can see what needs to be done to make it better.

That's a very helpful comment, and I see your point. While I assume you would *not* have done this set up in any event, I am very curious to know how you personally would solve that problem... to get a darker shadow, I assume I'd have to use a harsher/more direct light. Yet, if I did, wouldn't it cause too much glare on the glass?