I'm hoping for some expert opinions on lighting this subject. First things first: this was just a test. I know the tee and the number 4 are crooked. I also know there's a strange reflection of something yellow/red on top of the ball that I'll need to flag.
Setup was one strobe high camera left, fill card camera right, bground strobe, and what you might think of as a hair light but I suppose is a Dimple Light.
I think I need to back off the key light about half a stop. I suppose my main question is what to do about the Dimple Light. It's hard as hell to get what I want there. Perhaps a second question is this: Would you do it totally differently?
You did a great job at being a self critic. What you didn't say is that it is a great shot. Nice job. The only time a saw a closer shot of a Nike golf ball was Tiger on 16 at the masters.
FWIW, I find it a little distracting that the tee and the furthest dimples are out of focus. I'd prefer to see you stop down a little and lose some of the DOF. I like the contrast of the white ball against the blue background. Perhaps some small white reflectors underneath the ball and to camera right would help to fill some of the shadowed areas. Overall, a very nice job.
Mattski1, I was already at f/11. For the final image, I'll have to do some focus stacking because I do want the tee in focus.
It occurs to me that I'm having so much trouble with the Dimple Light because I'm treating it like a real hair light sometimes works--that is, it's a small light source while my key is diffused. That works fine for humans but is too harsh, I think, for golf balls--which are essentially reflective. I'm going to use something larger next time.
Overall, a very nice job. As you said the key is a bit too high. And I agree with Mattski1 that more DoF would help.
Try a lower angle on the dimple light, with maybe a 10 or 20deg honeycomb grid. If you feather the light toward the edge of the grid pattern, you might find what you want in terms of specular highlight and softness.
Greg Feldman wrote:
...Mattski1, I was already at f/11. For the final image, I'll have to do some focus stacking because I do want the tee in focus.
Try f/16, or -- if that's a zoom lens -- move the camera back and zoom in to re-establish framing. (Greater camera-to-subject distance = greater DOF at a given f-stop.)
BrianO wrote:
Try f/16, or -- if that's a zoom lens -- move the camera back and zoom in to re-establish framing. (Greater camera-to-subject distance = greater DOF at a given f-stop.)
Brian, Peter is correct: that's a misapprehension. Moving back would yield more DOF, but then zooming in would get me right back where I was. For any given framing/composition (e.g., the golf ball taking up exactly the width of the image), aperture is all that determines DOF. Adjustments of subject-to-camera distance and lens focal length effectively cancel each other out when the final composition is the same.
I'll definitely focus-stack the tee and far dimples. This shot was really just a test of my lighting plan. It wasn't even shot in the studio. I put it together on my couch and used speedlights--one of them handheld--just to get the idea down. The blue background is the inside flap of my laptop bag.
I think you are over-lighting it. With a white object adding rim light will cause a loss of edge contrast and shape, and too much fill cancels the natural modeling of the key light.
For a comparison to what natural light looks like on a golf ball, here's a shot I did for the course where I Marshal [and play free golf ] taken with natural light and a bit of fill from over the camera.
Sometimes less is more. You have the same basic natural pattern with the angle of your key light, but then your fill and accent lights are subverting it.
As others have mentioned, keep the ball in focus when shooting. Selective focus provides clue to the eye of the viewer of a photo what is most important but when anything other than the primary center of interest is noticed too much it pulls attention away and becomes a distraction. In the case of a close up like this one you'd want the softness clue to work on a sub-conscious, subliminal level where it causes the eyes to move to the sharper parts but the brain of the viewer doesn't consciously think about the fact parts are out of focus. That type of sub-conscious manipulation with contrast of tone, color and sharpness is what makes some photos more effective than others: the eye of the viewer seems to gravitate to what is most important and stay there automatically,
In the ball the line of shadow just under the logo will tend to eye to the brighter part of the ball above the logo, and keep the eye from going past the logo because what is in the shadows aren't as interesting. But by over-filling the right side and adding rim light you create contrast the eye of the viewer will want to go check out, which pulls them off the brand logo. That's why beyond modeling the basic shape of an object with key light, and revealing the detail in the shadows with fill, you want to think about where any other highlights you put on an object will lead the eye. If the highlight works to pull the viewer from the edges to what is most important (like the highlighted part of the ball pulls the eye to the logo) then its effective. But if the highlight pulls the eye off the desired center of interest after it is seen and dwelled upon then that highlight becomes a distraction which will make the photo less effective.
Its not about rules, simply cause and effect and thinking about what effect the lighting and the contrast it creates will have on eye movement on a perceptual level. The more eye "hang time" you can create on what you want the viewer to see, the more effective the photo will be.
Chuck, I originally had that same idea--no need for a rim light--but it looked a little too flat when I tried it like that. I think your example avoids that problem by placing the ball in a continuous context (the grass) so it has a different relationship with the background. I'll experiment with this too.
I agree the fill card on the right is a little too close. It definitely needed a little something there--to avoid complete darkness--but not as much as it has.
Thanks, as always, for your very thoughtful replies.
The thing you need to realize about contrast is that it is entirely a factor of the dynamic range of the sensor when exposure is set to create detail in the highlights and shadows.
The photographic process is linear in the sense that if we shoot a gray scale and reproduce the end points accurately as black and white all the steps on the middle will have the same proportional progression of tone in the in-between gray tones in the reproduction as they do in the original. An 18% reflectance in the original which is perceptually in the middle will also appear to be perceptually in the middle of the reproduction.
B&W film can record 10 stops of detail. That means there would be a 4-5 stop exposure difference between the white parts of the golf ball and the middle gray shadows. Digital cameras can record only about 6 stops of detail, which means it only takes a 2-3 stop difference in exposure to make the shadows of the golf ball middle gray.
How I'd approach shooting you golf ball is to start with fill.
I'd start by shooting from a distance and aperture that allowed enough DOF to keep the entire ball in focus, ideally trying to stay below f/11 to minimize diffraction.
Since the ball is reflective I'd want to use a reflective object strategy: surround the ball with white to create uniform reflections and light the surround. The simple approach for a ball, which doesn't have recessed eye sockets to worry about, would be to just bounce the fill off the ceiling above the camera or between camera and ball. That would mimic natural sky fill that comes from overhead.
I understand the role of fill to be revealing shadow detail in everything the camera records which has detail in the original. So with just the fill light on I'd raise its intensity until the darkest shadows, which will be under the ball near the tee, are above clipping and the noise threshold: an eye dropper value of about 30. Its trivial to make shadows darker in Photoshop. Exposing above clipping helps reduce noise. I'd make the evaluation for a still life subject like a ball by checking the RAW file on the computer.
Once I had the fill set based on the darkest shadows I'd add the key light on the left. Getting correct exposure is simply a matter of raising the intensity of the key light until clipping is seen on the golf ball. By comparing test files between the camera playback and RAW its possible to interpolate what is happening in the highlights of the RAW by looking at the clipping warning in the camera playback, but since the ball isn't going anywhere I'd again check the RAW files directly.
Now here's where the range of the sensor plays a factor. Because I set fill based on the darkest shadows under the ball and the key light based on the brightest highlights on the top, without any regard to the tone of the shadows on the side of the ball they will fall wherever the contrast of the lighting and the sensor range puts them. I won't know where that is until I set the end points and look at it.
The fact I've opted to surround the ball with white and bounce the fill off the ceiling will create much more fill and lighter shadows than if I had suspended the ball in a dark cave where there was no wrap-around spill effect and filled from the direction of the camera directly.
After seeing where the dynamic range of the camera and the lighting put the midtones I'd then decide whether to leave them as is, make them lighter for less contrast, or darker for more contrast. While shooting I could add a reflector on the side and below to make the shadows lighter (as you did) but I don't think that would be very effective for the reasons mentioned previously. More than likely I'd want to make the shadows on the ball darker and increase contrast which the brain interprets as more distinct "sharp" edges. Most at this point might simply reduce the fill, but that will change the shadows under the ball and cause detail to be lost there. The way to selectively change the shadow on the ball would be to "flag" the fill so less reaches the side if the ball. Its done in much the same way as using a reflector, but with a black card instead, the same way "shadows" on jewelry or cars are created.
Another way to achieve the same end is in Photoshop using ACR brightness or PS Levels/Curves adjustment. Since there is nothing except the ball in the shot simply opening the shot in ACR and adjusting brightness will change the midtone without affecting the end points. The middle slider in Levels has the same effect as does pulling up the middle of the range above the linear straight line in curves.
For a more selective adjustment I would use adjustment layers. I have an action which creates soft light, screen and multiply adjustment layers with a mouse click. Soft light adds contrast, screen lightens by reducing saturation and value (grayness), multiply darkens by adding saturation and value (grayness). Here's an example how they work:
Once I'd explored everything that can be done with key and fill I'd consider adding accents. On white objects the illusion of 3D relies on maintaining specular 255 highlights and solid white 250 tones surrounding them in the highlights, and having the key light be focused and parallel enough to create sharp and distinct shadows.
A simple way to get even wrap around fill and specular reflections on white objects at the same time is to use bare bulb fill in a small white room. The light will radiate is all directions bouncing off the wall and producing even fill, but the reflection of the source will be seen as a "catchlight" in the object. Moving the light stand with the bare bulb fill around will change where the highlights appear on the surfaces of the ball.
To get distinct shadows a key light which produces parallel rays would be the tool of choice: a small, gridded SB would produce a nice mix of directional light with more muted highlights than a reflector and metal grid would. Another option would be reflector and metal grid with a gobo between light an ball for a "sunlight through the trees" effect.
The message here is bake the cake and get the base layer of frosting on, then step back, look at the result and decide how else to embellish it. In this case less will be more.
One thing on the focus that may help you is using the Hyperfocal distance. here and here may have some information that will help you get both halves of the ball in focus.
Other than what you have mentioned, focusing and lowering the dimple light I think the image is great.
I don't think there's any getting around the fact that f/11 at >1:2 magnification yields a DOF smaller than half a golf ball. Not a big deal to focus-stack the final shot, though.
After sleeping on it, staring at the image, and taking Chuck's advice, I think I'm going to scrap the Dimple Light entirely. I can get all the modeling I need from the key light and fill card. Separation from the bground can be accomplished with the fill card and lighting the bground a little differently.
I'll be sure to post the final one when it exists--probably in a few weeks.
Greg Feldman wrote:
I don't think there's any getting around the fact that f/11 at >1:2 magnification yields a DOF smaller than half a golf ball. Not a big deal to focus-stack the final shot, though.
Crop wider in the camera. Just happened to have a golf ball on the floor nearby. 200m at 10ft @ f/11 on a 1.6 crop camera yields DOF of 3.72". The ball fills the center circle of a 50D viewfinder from that distance.
PeterBerressem wrote:
Oh no Brian, this is a misapprehension.
Let's do a thought experiment here, before you dismiss my suggestion out of hand.
Let's assume that the golf ball has a diameter of 2 inches. (It's actually closer to 1.68 inches, but for this experiment we'll call it 2.)
If the focal plane of the camera is 2 inches from the front of the ball it will be 4 inches from the back of the ball, for a ratio of 4:2. That is, the back of the ball will be 2 times further away than the front.
If we move the camera back so it is 200 inches from the front of the ball it will be 202 inches from the back of the ball, a ratio of 202:200. So the back will be only 1.01 times further away, a negligible difference.
Even if you zoom in to fill the frame to the same degree as in the closer shot, this foreshortening effect will allow the entire ball to fit within the range of focus, especially since only 1/2 or less of the ball is actually visible.
This is an exaggerated example, of course, and in real life you wouldn't want to change the distance to that extreme due to the perspective change; but some increase in camera-to-subject difference might be found that allows full focus while still modeling the sphericality of the ball.
Use a blue or black tee, or some other color that will blend harmoniously with the background. The brown wood one is creating a distracting color contrast.
I also know there's a strange reflection of something yellow/red on top of the ball that I'll need to flag.