Soft, but focused lighting?

Ajf350d

Ajf350d

Messages
249
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
My achilles heal, again!
I photograph a lot of flowers and was looking at some photos in Robert Mapplethorpes Flora book.
A lot of his photos seem to use very focused 'spot' type lighting, but also seems quite soft/diffuse.

How would this effect be achieved?
I've tried an anglepoise type lamp, but this was to wide.
I tried a spot torch I had which gave the right effect in general, but this was way too bright and through a diffuser (frosted perspex) it was to diffuse!

I am sure he had vastly more room and resources, but also guess most lighting effects can be replicated!

Just tell me I don't need flash!
 
Garry Edwards said:
There are many ways of doing it, a beauty dish is a very useful tool for this, and of course powered by flash:)
See this thread https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/fluorescent-or-halogen-help-needed.365254/
Click to expand...

For flowers? I assume we're talking mainly single blooms.

Need to see an example of the kind of subject/distance and effect you're after. Link? Googling Mapplethorpe's images doesn't bring up clear clues. Some of his black & whites look like he might have used a Fresnel spot, but that's a guess. Garry E knows a Fresnel spot when he sees one ;)

Edit: have you checked the SilkBlooms website recently Garry?! https://www.silkblooms.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
I agree, it's difficult to see which tools he used, it could have been a fresnel spot but there's really nothing to indicate that it was. A fresnel could be used, but it's a pretty hard lighting tool for the purpose (unless used extremely close) and frankly I don't see the point, which is why I suggest a beauty dish instead.
And whilst I'm being frank, even when Robert Mapplethorpe was alive most of his work didn't inspire me, and now it just looks dated.

No, I hadn't checked the SilkBlooms website, the business seems to grown and grown and grown, unlike the flowers which are made not grown - the photography seems to be working for them but I thought that we'd got their lighting up to a better standard...
 
Thank you, again!
It gives me a few things to look at and potentially experiment with.
Bit difficult to show the specific examples as they are in the book and presumably posting any here would breach copyright?

I really like his flower work, and obviously less controversial than his other subjects!

Flash is always a possibility, but I haven't the room for studio strobes, so at best, it would be what I can do with a standard 'Speedlite' type flash.
 
Maybe.. following on from Garry's knives thread .. some kind of spot, e.g. Fresnel, Beauty dish (with or without grid) combined with a silk would do what you want?

Lee's page on the effect of their different diffusion filters makes for interesting ready for the truly nerdy. I've got some 1/2 and full tough spun but haven't spent enough time with either to really know how they behave.
 
There are various possibilities and no right or wrong.
The limitation is that Andrew doesn't have any studio flash heads, so is limited to a hotshoe flashgun, which won't work with any of the creative light tools, except for a silk, which probably won't produce the effect he's looking for.
 
Robin Lambert looks at the various types of LEE Diffusion Filters
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnh-iJ4N8I4


Introduction To Lighting Diffusion
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x48mxgEU2ww


Light Quality Tutorial: Hard Light Vs. Diffused Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xibyBYOu2hM

and another Lee video - to be honest I can hardly see the difference between many of these samples:
LEE Filters - Every LEE Diffusion Compared
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l6FjphZXsk&index=4&list=PLFE0C670B749D90E9


The Lee video collection in general looks like it might be interesting to take a look through on YouTube.
 
Personally, I would prefer to start with a clinically crisp image initially - I can always soften an image using software, but I can't get a crisp image should I want it from a soft picture - all really depends on the end result you're looking for?







I've always thought that flower pictures were rather easy, no hard shiny surfaces, they have their own inherent appeal, beauty and artistry.

Paul
 
paul williams said:
Personally, I would prefer to start with a clinically crisp image initially - I can always soften an image using software, but I can't get a crisp image should I want it from a soft picture - all really depends on the end result you're looking for?







I've always thought that flower pictures were rather easy, no hard shiny surfaces, they have their own inherent appeal, beauty and artistry.

Paul
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood - soft lighting is different from a soft picture and is exceedingly difficult to create in post.

fwiw I think flower portraits are rather exacting to do well, but maybe that's just me overthinking the lighting.
 
juggler said:
I think you've misunderstood - soft lighting is different from a soft picture and is exceedingly difficult to create in post.

fwiw I think flower portraits are rather exacting to do well, but maybe that's just me overthinking the lighting.
Click to expand...

Flower portraits?

I was just going by the result of a quick Mapplethorpe Google and the images returned and then looked at some of my library pics that look similar, all simple a straightforward still life shots, so yes a bit of misunderstanding on my part as I always tend to use large light sources, which is inherently soft with a complimentary hard focused light source if required for detail. Must get some of those graduated backgrounds someday.

Paul
 
Last edited:
I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding here, and perhaps people over-think it...
Soft lighting is easy but doesn't show the flowers (or most other subjects) at their best.
Hard lighting makes them pop but creates ugly shadows.
So the answer is usually to use fairly hard lighting, but with fill light added, to mitigate the shadows.

That long thread that we had covered the subject pretty well, if you just ignore the usual forum dross, and the OP went from zero to hero in a short space of time. https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/fluorescent-or-halogen-help-needed.365254/
 
From what I can discern, the lighting generally appears to be hard lighting controlled for size/coverage at a power well matched to the ambient (i.e. lower ratio).
I suspect your spot torch could be a suitable tool, but you have to find a way to control the power from it w/o making it too large (masking tape over the lens, but it will affect color). You want to start with camera settings that expose the image well w/o the torch, then add the torch to highlight the areas desired w/ just enough power so it doesn't blow out. Another way of doing it is to use the torch and reflectors to bring the levels closer together.
 
Ajf350d said:
My achilles heal, again!
I photograph a lot of flowers and was looking at some photos in Robert Mapplethorpes Flora book.
A lot of his photos seem to use very focused 'spot' type lighting, but also seems quite soft/diffuse.

How would this effect be achieved?
I've tried an anglepoise type lamp, but this was to wide.
I tried a spot torch I had which gave the right effect in general, but this was way too bright and through a diffuser (frosted perspex) it was to diffuse!

I am sure he had vastly more room and resources, but also guess most lighting effects can be replicated!

Just tell me I don't need flash!
Click to expand...

I've just done what I should have in the first place and looked at your flower stuff on flickr. It's great.

Flash is a great tool for the job - when combined with the right modifiers - but I think a little tweaking to your current setups might achieve what you're after.

If the anglepoise is too wide then make it narrower with flags - use cinefoil, baking foil, black craft foam, gaffer tape, whatever won't catch fire.
If the spot torch is too bright then increase your shutter speed or use the inverse square law and move the torch away. If moving it away makes the area illuminated too broad then use a snoot - gaffer tape, toilet roll tube, Pringles tube, whatever.

If the light from the perspex is too diffuse then put it closer to the bulb. Try different thicknesses of alternative materials - e.g. tissue.

As above, a little bit of fill would help get closer to Mapplethorpe's style. Try bouncing a light source off a largish piece of white card or some card covered in silver foil. Start off with it as close as possible to the camera position - but watch for flare.

Watch for the different colour temperatures of different light sources causing issues. It might be a problem for you, it might not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top