My most unusual photos of a broken wine glass

Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
21,217
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
This time it was my wife, not I, who broke the wine glass. :ROFLMAO:

There are two characteristics that make these photos unlike all my other photos of broken wine glasses -- color and, in the first photo, spots on the glass that are prevalent and attractive (at least to me).

Setup for both photos
The background is black velvet (though the same look would have been achieved using any opaque material in any color including white). It filled the frame no more and no less. A medium continuous-light lamp behind the background was facing away from the subject and camera and lighting a white wall. The wall redirected the light toward the subject. That part of the setup outlined the transparent glass in bright tones. A black card with a rectangular hole cut in it placed very close to the lens eliminated flare, which is almost always produced by this lighting setup. For more details about the setup, it's explained in every edition of Light: Science & Magic that I've read. Fifteen focus-bracketed images at Nikon step size 3 were stacked in Helicon Focus at its default settings.


Mike 2021-09-23--0001-S.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



Mike 2021-09-23--0002-S.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
3,353
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
There are two characteristics that make these photos unlike all my other photos of broken wine glasses -- color and, in the first photo, spots on the glass that are prevalent and attractive (at least to me).
These two photos also capture particularly well the thin and delicate nature of the wine glass. I can feel the fragile nature of them glass fragments and shards in these images. Nicely done.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
21,217
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Thank you also to Bill, Gary, Eric, Andy, Allan and the three authors of Light: Science & Magic!

These two photos also capture particularly well the thin and delicate nature of the wine glass.
I think that's due to two circumstances when photographing glass that are new to me: The shapes of the broken bowl and shards happen to display the fragile, delicate characteristic very nicely and the close-up view increases the magnification, allowing the viewer to better appreciate the details that reveal that fragile, delicate characteristic.

As to the latter, this is the first time I've made a closeup of such a large wine glass. (It's so large that, if filled to the top, it holds an entire 750 ml bottle of wine.) I chose to go with a closeup when in the past I wouldn't have because in the past I wouldn't have been able to keep everything in focus. Now that I have automated focus-bracketing and focus-stacking capability, it's relatively easy to keep the closeups in focus.

Also, when making such a close-up, the subject is farther away from the background. That allows more back lighting that "wraps around" the background to light the subject, which in turn leads to at least a different kind of definition of the outlined edges if not brighter definition of them. Apologies that I'm not able to properly explain that detail but it's obvious to the eye when leaving the background and camera in place while moving the subject backward and forward, which is how I make backlit images of transparent glass (under advice from Light: Science & Magic, of course!).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
21,217
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Two clarifications:

The background is black velvet (though the same look would have been achieved using any opaque material in any color including white).
Under most situations, it's safer to use black material. That's because most situations aren't the same as my makeshift studio, which has a black ceiling, floor and walls. Years ago I conducted a test using a white background that produced the same results as using a black background. However, if I had been shooting in a brighter environment, using the white background would not have worked so well.

Also, when making such a close-up, the subject is farther away from the background. That allows more back lighting that "wraps around" the background to light the subject, which in turn leads to at least a different kind of definition of the outlined edges if not brighter definition of them. Apologies that I'm not able to properly explain that detail
The authors of Light: Science & Magic simply and accurately report that "edge definition improves as the subject moves closer to the camera." (Fifth Edition, page 193)

They explain it on page 186 in more detail though when using a bright background, which produces opposite results; when using a bright background, the outline of the glass is lit in dark tones, the opposite of using a dark background to outline the glass in bright tones. If I change the authors pertinent words to accurately describe the conditions when using a dark background, their comment could have been as follows: "This increase in definition is not brought about by the simple principle that larger detail is easier to see. Rather, it is caused by the fact that as the subject moves farther from the unlit background, more light reflects off its edges. The closer the subject is to the background, the less the subject falls within the family of angles."
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom