Not kid photos

[Reschsmooth]

It has been too long since I have photographed anything other than children, so found myself with an hour or so this afternoon with a camera and no children responsibilities.

Here are some lowish key photos of some bottles...

Appreciate feedback. In particular, whilst I am not looking to do 'stock' photos as such, I would be keen for feedback (ignoring framing) on how these would compare to stock - nowhere near the mark or reasonably close.

[ian.bertram]

Hi,
Nice and clean images. What immediately struck me as I looked at your photos was the huge challenge of trying to lift a very dark subject (in this case almost black bottles) from its background to make it the focal point of the image. When I first looked at your images which are very competently taken I thought that the bottles were too dark, but on reflection (no pun intended) you are shooting essentially a predominantly black subject. Two thoughts might be worth a try. Firstly try making the background a little (but not too) darker, and secondly perhaps try a little more lighting from the front on the bottles. It may give your images some more 'punch.'

[aim54x]

Not a kid??? Oh well those a beautiful bottles.

I think they are stunning, but need a tad more light on those white labels to lift those shadows a few shades.

[Mr Darcy]

Wine bottles have to be one of the hardest things to capture well. I do a dozen bottles once a quarter for a friend & I always struggle.

You have done a good job.

Things to watch out for:
Lighting the front. Your bottles show a dark streak down the front. This is manageable in these ones, but if the label is VERY reflective, then this can become almost unmanageable. The Widow & Bubbles show this the worst.

Reflections from the neck. This is a bit of an issue in #1, #2 and in #3

Watch the quality of your bottles. There is a ding in the cap of the front bottle #1 and there is a crease down the label in #2 that is accentuated by the side lighting.

I think you need to allow a little more room for your bottles in #1. Either that or cut off the bottles as you have done in the others.

Judicious rear lighting can help bring out the colour of the wine in the bottles. You can see this a little in #1

I haven't tried it myself yet (I don't have one), but I suspect a very large softbox - at least twice the height of the bottle - only just out of frame may be the way to go to control a lot of these issues.


If you need help disposing of all those, now unnecessary bottles, I'll be glad to help out.

[Reschsmooth]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Firstly, the issue of the under-exposure on the labels: I was trying to emmulate the cover photo of the brochure for the Penfolds 2010 Luxury wine release which is only lit on one side (although there is a reflector on the other, I reckon). I will try to take a photo of the brochure and post for comparative purposes. Incidentally, this brochure is the basis for the placement of the bottles in the first image (although mine has an extra bottle).

Things to watch out for:
Lighting the front. Your bottles show a dark streak down the front. This is manageable in these ones, but if the label is VERY reflective, then this can become almost unmanageable. The Widow & Bubbles show this the worst.

Accept this point in the context of the comments above about my intent - my execution didn't quite match the intent.

Reflections from the neck. This is a bit of an issue in #1, #2 and in #3

Accept this

Watch the quality of your bottles. There is a ding in the cap of the front bottle #1 and there is a crease down the label in #2 that is accentuated by the side lighting.

I saw the ding after downloading the photos. Unfortunately, I only have one of these bottles. Re the crease (I presume you mean the St Henri) - I also only noticed this in post and should have swapped the bottle for another one. I tried to ensure the bottles were clean and unblemished.

I think you need to allow a little more room for your bottles in #1. Either that or cut off the bottles as you have done in the others.

Fair enough.

Judicious rear lighting can help bring out the colour of the wine in the bottles. You can see this a little in #1

Not 100% sure what you mean here.

I haven't tried it myself yet (I don't have one), but I suspect a very large softbox - at least twice the height of the bottle - only just out of frame may be the way to go to control a lot of these issues.

The softbox used is 160 cm tall, I believe although, relative to the vertical placement of the bottles, much of it is wasted. However, the softbox extends well below and above the bottles.

If you need help disposing of all those, now unnecessary bottles, I'll be glad to help out.

Too late, I threw them in the recycling after the photos - didn't need them anymore. Plus, they are all past their 'used by' date. Wine perishes quickly, right?

[Reschsmooth]

Hi,
Nice and clean images. What immediately struck me as I looked at your photos was the huge challenge of trying to lift a very dark subject (in this case almost black bottles) from its background to make it the focal point of the image. When I first looked at your images which are very competently taken I thought that the bottles were too dark, but on reflection (no pun intended) you are shooting essentially a predominantly black subject. Two thoughts might be worth a try. Firstly try making the background a little (but not too) darker, and secondly perhaps try a little more lighting from the front on the bottles. It may give your images some more 'punch.'

The large softbox on the left is actually behind the bottles. Moving them to the front, I believe, creates other reflection/exposure problems. I did move a small white object, which happens to be about the height of the Veuve lable to the front-right of this to try to reflect more light, but it wasn't very suitable.

The problem with the Champagne bottles is that they are actually green with transparent liquid inside. Ordinarily increasing the exposure would bring out the translucent nature of the object (and makes the writing on the Perrier Jouet more difficult to read). Your suggestion of underexposing the background may help alleviate this.

[radar]

Looking at the Penfolds web site, I see what you were attempting to do. Looking at what they did, they seem to have the lighting a bit more front on but I'm no lighting expert. This may explain why your shots seem a little bit too dark but you should be able to rectify some of that in PP, since you don't have the bottles anymore

On that first one, I also find that a bit more separation between the bottles would work a bit better to highlight the St Henri at the back.

The Veuve Clicquot shots comes out great.

Still a great collection of photos and wines.

cheers,

André

[Willy wombat]

Like the verve shot the best. I dont mind the side lit effect but agree that you need more front lighting on the labels in the first 2.

[gstark]

Patrick,

I do like what you're attempting here, and I don't have any issues at all with the apparent darkness in #1. I think that the darkness may well be very suitable for this image, depending upon the context that you wish the image to be displayed in: I see that darkness as being appropriate, for instance, in trying to illustrate bottles held in a cellar.

This is a very classy group of images; well prepared and shot.

Too bad that the contents has already been disposed of.

[Reschsmooth]

Again, thanks for the feedback, folks.

Here is the Penfolds brochure I was trying to emulate (Gary, if it is more appropriate to place a link to my image rather than the image itself, let me know):



And here is my attempt at replication (if it isn't obvious, all my Penfolds wines appearing herein are 2006, and the 2006 Grange has not been released yet ):



Incidentally, the reason I only have the 2006s is because that was our marriage year. I haven't been able to track down a Yattarna and am waiting for the Grange to be released next year. And finally, if released, the Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame 2006 (in about 8 years or so) - I proposed over a glass of Veuve, figuratively speaking.

[Mr Darcy]

Now I see where you are going...
1. The original has much less DOF. Open your shutter more. And decrease light output to compensate.
2. Original is darker, moodier. Decrease light O/P even more
3. Light source is lower - look at the neck of the Grange bottle. I suspect the top of the source is well below the neck
4. reflected light from the other side is much weaker in strength. Maybe a grey, or even black "reflector".

[Reschsmooth]

Now I see where you are going...
1. The original has much less DOF. Open your shutter more. And decrease light output to compensate.
2. Original is darker, moodier. Decrease light O/P even more
3. Light source is lower - look at the neck of the Grange bottle. I suspect the top of the source is well below the neck
4. reflected light from the other side is much weaker in strength. Maybe a grey, or even black "reflector".

Agree 100%, Greg. Not wishing to sound defensive, but my problem was that my light source was already at it's weakest setting. Reducing DOF would have given more exposure, even though I was at my fastest shutter speed. I couldn't move the light source further away or lower. In hindsight, I could have placed additional diffusing material over the softbox to cut output whilst allowing a wider aperture.

For next time.

[Mr Darcy]

Another option to consider would be a Neutral Density filter on the lens, or even a CPL (2 -3 stops)

[gstark]

Also, in the original image that you're emulating, the bottles in the background are located further back - there's greater physical separatio between the foreground and background bottles.

(Gary, if it is more appropriate to place a link to my image rather than the image itself, let me know)

Thanks for asking, Patrick. As this is for educational/illustrative purposes, I have no problems with this being posted as you have done.

[aim54x]

Wow, you have done a great job emulating that advert. Those suggestions should place your emulation pretty close to the advert though.

[Willy wombat]

Cool emulation.

I would suggest that the original picture was probably shot with available light?