Lighting iridescent sequins

juggler

juggler

Messages
4,907
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
I've got a shoot coming up with a costume covered in thousands of iridescent sequins. I've been warned - by the maker - that they are notoriously difficult to photograph; they either look flat or completely blown.

I can't see why they should be any different from any other shiny object - am I missing something?

I'm planning on positioning small light sources so that they both skim across the material to show some texture and reflect some light directly towards the camera. If I had access to a jumbo para I might try to use that, but I haven't.

All thoughts gratefully received...
 
Because they don't lie flat there is no consistency to lighting them... particularly if the costume is worn. Keep in mind the option of compositing images lit differently... IME, lighting all of it at once ideally would require a very large qtty of lights.
I did a mardigras mask once using 3 lights (I think, could have been more) and wound up compositing 3 images.
 
By pure coincidence I have just sold a print of a bunch of kids wearing hats covered in sequins.

Lighting a mass of sequins, all at slightly different angles, is an absolute b***ard. :(

Although each individual sequin is a very ordinary reflective surface (reflecting light very predictably, as you would expect, according to angle of incidence = angle of reflection), all of them together on hats behave more like a reflective curved surface or object.
As Steven says, "Because they don't lie flat there is no consistency to lighting them... particularly if the costume is worn."

If the sequins themselves are of paramount importance (they were not for me - I was more concerned with lighting the people wearing them - and only very few of the sequins on the hats were brightly reflective in the resultant photograph), you might be best considering them as a single, large, reflective surface of many planes.
That is, don't primarily light the sequins (though you may have to consider lighting the costumes on which the sequins are sown).
Rather, arrange and light whatever the sequins are going to reflect.
Depending on how you and the maker actually want the costume to look this could entail one or more very large white scrims wrapping around the costume (maybe a large sheet behind the camera?), lit to be reflected in all of the sequins. This would work if you wanted all/most of the sequins to be bright.
If, on the other hand, you only want some of the sequins to appear bright, you would need to arrange lights and materials so that only those sequins reflect light directly back to the camera.

If you only use small light sources then some of the sequins will be blown out, whereas most of them will not appear to be particularly lit at all.
If the sequins are coloured, and you want to show this, then you will definitely need to use large, lit surfaces to be reflected in the sequins - and you will need to be very careful not to overlight these surfaces and blow out the sequins in which they reflect.

You need to determine how you want the costume to actually look in your photo.
I suspect that large white lit surfaces, strategically placed, will work better than a number of small light sources - though that's only for the sequins. You're likely to need to think of the whole costume and the sequinned surfaces separately.
 
Last edited:
Thank you both for the ideas. I'll bear compositing in mind but I think that it probably won't be an option - other than wholesale background replacement.

I'll have a think about large white scrims. They won't be my first choice as the rest of the set should be fairly dramatic and moody. But thinking about lighting the costume as a whole is a useful way to approach it. If I need to make some of the sequins sparkle - i.e. nearly blow - then I'll probably add smaller accent lights to pick a few out.

Cheers again.. I've got time to practice, the shoot won't be until June but there's lots to organise to make it happen.
 
Would you be up for updating us when you have done the shoot? It seems quite a challenge so the results would be helpful to know.
 
juggler said:
I'll have a think about large white scrims. They won't be my first choice as the rest of the set should be fairly dramatic and moody. But thinking about lighting the costume as a whole is a useful way to approach it. If I need to make some of the sequins sparkle - i.e. nearly blow - then I'll probably add smaller accent lights to pick a few out.
Click to expand...
As Nionyn mentioned, with reflective subjects it often better/easier to think in terms of "creating the environment" that will be reflected rather than "lighting the subject." In truth, there's no difference, but it helps me anyways.

What you want is a light environment that all of the sequins can reflect from any angle. You won't want it "bright," you want it just above the shadows. You can then create your dramatic lighting by lighting the non-reflective (less reflective) aspects such as the face. And you can create it for the subject overall by using the lights off axis so as not to reflect back to the camera (backlight, rimlight, spot).

Of course you can always add speculars or shadows (negative lighting) to some sequins to suit once you have the overall sorted. I would think of building it up from the lowest level of lighting you want to show, the sequins in general/overall. Then add/flag/remove to get the end result you want. But keep in mind that the off axis lighting (backlight/rimlight) will add to the "environmental" lighting... might be best to start with those lights and see where it puts the sequins overall (i.e. bounced off of white walls/panels around).

I doubt you'll have much use for small accent lighting of the sequins... regardless of how large/small the source is, because the sequins are flat there is a very limited angle which will reflect back.
 
sk66 said:
As Nionyn mentioned, with reflective subjects it often better/easier to think in terms of "creating the environment" that will be reflected rather than "lighting the subject." In truth, there's no difference, but it helps me anyways.

What you want is a light environment that all of the sequins can reflect from any angle. You won't want it "bright," you want it just above the shadows. You can then create your dramatic lighting by lighting the non-reflective (less reflective) aspects such as the face. And you can create it for the subject overall by using the lights off axis so as not to reflect back to the camera (backlight, rimlight, spot).

Of course you can always add speculars or shadows (negative lighting) to some sequins to suit once you have the overall sorted. I would think of building it up from the lowest level of lighting you want to show, the sequins in general/overall. Then add/flag/remove to get the end result you want. But keep in mind that the off axis lighting (backlight/rimlight) will add to the "environmental" lighting... might be best to start with those lights and see where it puts the sequins overall (i.e. bounced off of white walls/panels around).

I doubt you'll have much use for small accent lighting of the sequins... regardless of how large/small the source is, because the sequins are flat there is a very limited angle which will reflect back.
Click to expand...
As above.
If it was me, I would create flat lighing for the sequins and light the face separately as Steven suggests, other people might rely on PP to make the "lighting" on the face more interesting, but although the purists would say that it's easier, quicker and better to get it right in camera, PP may be your best personal solution, unless there are a large number of shots that need to be produced. If you don't know how to fake lighting on faces, just ask Profoto - they're the experts:)
 
juggler said:
I will do, with the model's approval. I can't go into more details now - the client wants to be sure that her competition doesn't get a jump on what she's up to.
Click to expand...

Just a written update would be of interest, there does not have to be images - don't want to infringe anyone :) Thanks
 
Cross polarisation could solve it.
Pola film on your flashes, circ.pol on the lens, tweak to suit. Should cut the reflections right out. http://www.gyes.eu/photo/cross_polarization.htm

Bear in mind you can't diffuse said light unless you buy enough polarising film to cover your softboxes, it's expensive stuff so watch for that. Also bounced light becomes unpolarised (Unless its bouncing off a metal surface) so you can forget white reflectors for fill :)
 
Denyerec said:
Cross polarisation could solve it.
Pola film on your flashes, circ.pol on the lens, tweak to suit. Should cut the reflections right out. http://www.gyes.eu/photo/cross_polarization.htm

Bear in mind you can't diffuse said light unless you buy enough polarising film to cover your softboxes, it's expensive stuff so watch for that. Also bounced light becomes unpolarised (Unless its bouncing off a metal surface) so you can forget white reflectors for fill :)
Click to expand...
Thanks - I'd dismissed that approach precisely because the reflected light from the sequins almost certainly will be unpolarised. Have I got something wrong?
 
There will be so many angles/directions to the reflected light that I don't think it's likely to help much...
You could try just a CPL if you already have one, but I don't think I'd be buying the film.
 
I wonder if you could do a practice test run, either by getting a bit of sequined fabric
or
by getting some tin foil, scrunching it up and then flattening it out to get some kind of multifaceted surface to light. You could always form it around something to shape it a bit.
 
I think the cross-polarising trick is worth trying. It's certainly capable of killing reflections, provided the sequins are not bare metal, and there may be a degree of adjustment with rotation. The key to it is polarising gels over the lights, a polarising filter by itself will probably be next to useless, only acting on reflections between 30-40 degrees to the surface.

On the other hand, there are a few unknowns, paricularly the angle/s at which the sequins lie. Sometimes they all lie the same, sometimes not, and do they curve around the body/shoulders and so on? The other thing is, if the polarising thing works, it will kill reflections completely and the sequins will go dark - but sequins are all about reflections and sparkle?! Could be just the opposite of what you want.

It's an interesting and unpredictable challenge. First thing I would do is get hold of an actual garment.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think the cross-polarising trick is worth trying. It's certainly capable of killing reflections, provided the sequins are not bare metal, and there may be a degree of adjustment with rotation. The key to it is polarising gels over the lights, a polarising filter by itself will probably be next to useless, only acting on reflections between 30-40 degrees to the surface.

On the other hand, there are a few unknowns, paricularly the angle/s at which the sequins lie. Sometimes they all lie the same, sometimes not, and do they curve around the body/shoulders and so on? The other thing is, if the polarising thing works, it will kill reflections completely and the sequins will go dark - but sequins are all about reflections and sparkle?! Could be just the opposite of what you want.

It's an interesting and unpredictable challenge. First thing I would do is get hold of an actual garment.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. The costume when complete will be very long & tight fitting. I've asked the creator to send me a sample of the material to experiment with.
 
juggler said:
Thanks for that. The costume when complete will be very long & tight fitting. I've asked the creator to send me a sample of the material to experiment with.
Click to expand...

Sounds fabulous (y)

I just had a google of sequin dresses and one of the first links was from a bride who noted that in some pictures of her dress in catalogues etc there was no sparkle, but in others there was. She wanted max sparkle! And in google images (well worth a gander chaps ;)) it's clear that in some shots there has been an attempt to control things too much, and others with what looks like black reflectors on either side that's maybe worth trying. A lot depends on the colour of the dress and background. To my eye, I'm agreeing with that bride when she wants lots of sparkle. They look like sack-cloth without, and of course it's highlights and shadows that reveal and emphasise shape.

And on that basis, I probably would not pursue the polarising gels trick. TBH, I think you're maybe worrying unnecessarily and over-thinking it. An awareness of the potential problem and solutions, coupled to the fact that you know what you're doing ;) should be all you need. I also recall a dress my wife has (long, black, tight, gold sequins and glitter) that's appeared in a few snaps (no idea where they are!) taken with simple cameras and direct flash, and she looks friggin fabulous :D
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I think the cross-polarising trick is worth trying. It's certainly capable of killing reflections, provided the sequins are not bare metal,
Click to expand...
I think you've got it backwards... when reflected from absorptive surfaces unpolarized light becomes polarized, and polarized light becomes **unpolarized. I.e. bare metal would be better for a polarized light source. The extent, and the angles of the effect are variables (and I suspect there will be a lot of them with a worn sequined dress).


** technically, the light remains polarized/filtered (even more-so). But due to refraction/scattering/reflection by the various surfaces (texture) the angles/rotation of it varies within the reflection overall.
 
juggler said:
You're probably right. If the shoot was tomorrow I'd just get on with it but I've got time to think about it :)
Click to expand...

LOL I know the feeling. When I have time to think about stuff, I will quickly come to a good workable solution fairly instinctively. Then spend ages considering this and that and the other, before coming back to the first option. Just run with it, knowing that you have a few options up your sleeve :)
 
sk66 said:
I think you've got it backwards... when reflected from absorptive surfaces unpolarized light becomes polarized, and polarized light becomes **unpolarized. I.e. bare metal would be better for a polarized light source. The extent, and the angles of the effect are variables (and I suspect there will be a lot of them with a worn sequined dress).


** technically, the light remains polarized/filtered (even more-so). But due to refraction/scattering/reflection by the various surfaces (texture) the angles/rotation of it varies within the reflection overall.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm fully understanding you Steven, but the key to it is polarising gel/sheet over the light source/s. That restricts the angle of reflections to a narrow band that can then be eliminated with a polarising filter on the lens rotated 90 degrees to the angle of the sheet.

I just checked it, with a torch and a couple of camera filters and a lot of small shiny things. I couldn't get total 100% extinction of all specula reflections at any one angle of rotation, but there was a point where they were all about 90% gone. I have some bigger polarising gels somewhere in the loft I think/hope, rescued from a skip 30 years ago, but they don't get a lot of use.

ps You really need a tripod to do this with difficult subjects where light and angles are over a wide range, like spherical surfaces. The precise rotation of the camera filter is very critical for max effect, like one degree-ish. But if all reflections are in generally the same sort of plane, there's quite a wide zone that works.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Not sure I'm fully understanding you Steven, but the key to it is polarising gel/sheet over the light source/s.
Click to expand...
I think we both know/understand, but just to clarify.

Normal CPL use works because light is refracted/absorbed by the material and it becomes polarized. But it does not work on completely reflective surfaces (metal/mirrors) because nothing is absorbed.
Polarizing the light source is the choice for completely reflective surfaces because a CPL (or linear) won't work otherwise. If you use polarized light on an absorptive/refractive surface it will become "additionally filtered". And this additional filtering may not work with the CPL setting.

Part of the issue may be the simplified explanation of polarization as being rejective (directing away). But in fact polarization is primarily refractive in that it changes the direction of the wave, not rejecting it (it only rejects that portion that is entirely opposite). The simplified explanations break light down into two axis (x/y, horizontal/vertical), but in fact light travels on all axis. And all of those axis that are not entirely horizontal or vertical have some component of both.

Maybe this will make it clearer... putting something "in between" the two filters (that is not entirely reflective) is similar to placing the intermediate filter in this explanation.

pola-07.jpg
 
I'm still not getting your point Steven. The fact is, the method as described works - polarising filter over the light source, and polarising filter over the lens, cuts all reflections when rotated. I'm not quite sure if you're disputing that exactly, but it's a long established technique. Only thing I can think of is your diagrams and link (that make perfect sense) refer to second and third filters in front of the lens, in the optical path. In this technique, there is only one filter on the lens.

BTW, the reason reflections off bare metal are not polarised is because light is electro-magnetic radiation.
 
I'm confused.

All this talk of polarising filters on lights and lens is all good, interesting and potentially useful - but not to Simon, the OP.

As I understand it Simon and his client want to show that the costume is covered in beautifully reflective sequins.
How will killing all reflection from these sequins help to show this?

As I understand it (again, and I might have misunderstood) the sequins need to show at least some of their specularity in the photo. Surely killing the reflections with polarising filters will utterly defeat that, no?

I'm still going with my recommendation of providing lit surfaces to show the specular property of the sequins (in a controlled manner) along with other lights to light the model and environment appropriately, as I suggested at the top of the page.
Richard's (Hoppy) suggestion of a google image search for sequin dresses appears to back me up.

Simon, when you receive your sample of the sequinned material, try to make yourself some kind of a miniature version of the full-sized shoot. get the small version to look (in a photo) how you want, then scale the whole thing up (subject, environment, lights and modifiers) and you should be on to a winner. :)
 
Last edited:
I agree, and have said so - removing all reflections would kill it.

The stuff about polarising filters etc is a technical side-debate. Very relevant when photographing oil paintings, not sequins :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Only thing I can think of is your diagrams and link (that make perfect sense) refer to second and third filters in front of the lens, in the optical path. In this technique, there is only one filter on the lens.
Click to expand...
Not really...
It doesn't matter *where* the "filter" is... only what happens to the light, and in what sequence.
In this technique there is the first filter over the light source, the second filter (absorptive/refractive subject), and a third filter over the lens. Therefore, the effectivity will be hugely dependent on the subject (second filter).
Polarizing the light source works great with consistent non-absorptive surfaces, less so with other subjects. How much less is hard to guess.


(in normal CPL use you only have the first filter (subject), and the second filter over the lens)
 
Last edited:
Light reflected from metals is, AFAIK, polarised itself - cross polarisation will not be affected by this. (I may be wrong, I await correction but this is what my brain is digging out of its filing cabinet)

It's also important to note that the *amount* of specular cut with this method is controllable, so you can dial it down by rotating your CPL, rather than cutting it completely (Which as Hoppy and Nionyn point out, would defeat the purpose of rendering a shiny dress).

You can easily fix it in post if you need to by painting out the pure white sequins with slight colour if they're objectionable, too. Depends on how many images you're charged with delivering though!
 
Denyerec said:
Light reflected from metals is, AFAIK, polarised itself - cross polarisation will not be affected by this. (I may be wrong, I await correction but this is what my brain is digging out of its filing cabinet)
Click to expand...
A completely reflective surface has no affect on the light (other than "flipping" it's orientation). That's why a CPL is not normally effective with metal (chrome/mirrors/etc) and why you need to polarize the light source.
It's the refraction/absorption of light by the surface (water/paint/etc) that normally causes light to be polarized allowing a CPL to filter it.


*technically, all light is polarized to some extent just due to passing thru air
 
Hi Simon

As you are most likely aware I have not done this and would not have a clue other than as you say try not to light them to directly. Our Saturday magazine had an image on it yesterday with sequins I thought you may find it intresting.. I know you are clevr with the lighting and can usually tell where and what lights were used and there effect.

Gaz

sequins.jpg
 
cargo said:
Hi Simon

As you are most likely aware I have not done this and would not have a clue other than as you say try not to light them to directly. Our Saturday magazine had an image on it yesterday with sequins I thought you may find it intresting.. I know you are clevr with the lighting and can usually tell where and what lights were used and there effect.

Gaz

sequins.jpg
Click to expand...
That's a good example of how NOT to do it
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's a good example of how NOT to do it
Click to expand...
Blimey! Not too impressive, is it? Or rather, it would be a fail if the photographer were actually trying to show the detail of her sequinned top. I'm guessing that they were lighting for her face and that she happened to turn up in the sequinned thingy. :jawdrop:

One thing I do love about the photo (in a "photographer checking out someone else's photos" kind of way...) is the angle of her earrings - she must have been turning her head to get her hair to sweep round, and the dangly earrings followed a little later in their own sweet time. Maybe I'm a bit odd (you don't need to tell me...) but I enjoy noticing these kinds of things. :D
 
Last edited:
Good luck with the shoot. Not sure it would be a good thing to light up all the sequins. Trick will be to make sure that the sequins that are lighting up create a flattering flow and pattern on the model's body, and not an detracting one. 1st link is a poor reflection. Take note how the bright points of light from her breasts make it appear that they are not symmetrical on her body.

http://g03.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1QffH...d-b-font-Women-Summer-font-b-Dress-b-font.jpg

I think once you set up the lighting, the task may be finding the best body pose for the model to be in so that the reflections accentuate the pose and the clothes.

Lighting on this one much better IMO as the reflections create bright lines that follow the lines of the pose and the body.

http://rufflegown.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/long-red-sequin-dress.jpg
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's a good example of how NOT to do it
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

I saw a sample of the costume last night but I'm not going to be able to set up a mini shoot - however the main shoot is in fact a test for something much more elaborate.

I want to capture some of the specularity without losing the colour. And in particular I want to capture the iridescence. The sample images are interesting in that they show a curved 3d sequinned surface but the sequins are simply reflective but not iridescent; that would be relatively straightforward to light.

The sequins on the costume in question aren't flat discs and they aren't very reflective in and of themselves. However they are very iridescent in the sense of reflecting different colours according to the angle of the light, and can look somewhat shiny under those circumstances. A lot like the inside of certain sea shells or an oil film.

Actually defining iridescence in writing like that has helped - if I need light to bounce off the sequins at a variety of angles to show the variation in colour then I still think small close light sources may be the best way to accomplish that - augmented by some larger ones to get the larger specular highlights which show off the curve of the costume, as well as a bit of fill.

The model will be somewhat immobile once she's in place which will limit poses but should actually help.

I'm going to get some polarizing film. Some fairly scholarly articles suggest that the iridescent reflections are likely to be very highly polarised so I probably won't need it but it's worth having another tool in the bag. Careful metering and tethered shooting will help too.
 
juggler said:
... if I need light to bounce off the sequins at a variety of angles to show the variation in colour then I still think small close light sources may be the best way to accomplish that - augmented by some larger ones to get the larger specular highlights which show off the curve of the costume, as well as a bit of fill.
Click to expand...
The shape of the sequins will provide the "variety of angles"... small/hard light sources will have more of the effect of limiting the light to a specific angle (of reflection/refraction).

Tethered shooting is a great benefit...
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's a good example of how NOT to do it
Click to expand...
I did think it was not the correct way but it's got people thinking/talking about the project.
This Simon fella can do it though ;-)


Gaz
 
alexkidd said:
Earring wise it could just have been a strong fan ;)

Or she's leaning and they've straightened her up ahah
Click to expand...
I like the way you think! ;)

Maybe they used a fan so strong that it blew her over, and this was the photo they got as she fell...

Or maybe she was leaning against a footballer. Obviously, they'd have had to 'shop the footballer out, but nevertheless a real possibility. :D
 
How long is it to the shoot now? I am really looking forward to a few notes on how it goes (realise you cant post confidential business images)
 
Oooh the tension builds, bit like being left on a soap opera cliffhanger.... will the sequins glitter, will they dull ... :)
 
So here's the first one..

The brief was to show the shape of the tail in full and the kind of sets that Lily creates for her installations / performances. It needed to have some drama but still have all the elements clearly visible - including, if possible, the iridescent scales.

In fact the iridescence is a highly local phenomenon - you can see it and photograph it - up close from almost any angle without the aid of any fancy polarisation, but on a larger scale it tends to get a bit lost except from flat areas and the angles need to be spot on. I haven't really managed here with the exception of the thighs.

I struggled to show it while meeting the other elements of the brief. The angles which caught the iridescence tended not to show the shape of the tail, or if I altered the lighting to match and catch the iridescence and shape then it started to get very flat and lost a lot of the drama. Given much more time and space I think I could have done better but this was the best I managed in this set.

I do have another totally different shot which shows it better but Lily's keeping that one under her hat for a bit.


Dave I by Simon Carter, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top