your all
wrong. :grumpy::thumbdn::grumpy::grumpy::grumpy::grumpy:
OBVIOUSLY it is better to light the oblique side with a gold reflector
to induce a warm tonality due to the blue backround.
DUH:barf:
:foot:
this is a weird thread...
my opinions on some of the technical stuff put forth here (from a users perspective, not a professionals) -
bouncing a flash can diffuse an otherwise hard light as well as double up the area that the flash is effecting, minimizing the required equipment to functionally light an item. by bouncing light off of 2 or 3 reflectors you can create the light conditions of having 2 or 3 extra diffused lights, but at much less cost. by being able to change the color of your reflector (silver, gold, white), you can also cheaply add warmth or coolness to your image without having to purchase a costlier gel fill for your light. and you would either need to rig up a holder, or purchase a light that is specifically able to hold a gel in the first place.
light leveling can only be as useful as the dynamic range and present shadow/highlight information in a given digital image. if there are area's of shadow that have no information in them, or so little information that either detail is lost or digital artifacting and grain are the only present detail - then the shadow portion of "levels" is of absolutely no use to saving this area. same goes for blown out highlights. light leveling can help to normalize the overall light levels from image to image, but saturation will have to be taken into account as well, as pushing up the light levels will generally give the image a slightly over saturated look. I have found that if there are dark area's of a digital image (consumer range compact), there will be noticable grain it, or artifacts. this makes light leveling up truly dark areas, even where detail is present difficult.
and now that I see that there was a light box used, you would either need a brighter background to help reflect light as a bounce would, have an additional light on the back side (if thats what you wanted), or reposition the available lights to light the back side more evenly with the front side.
as far as aperture - it is dependent on the camera you are using, the shooting conditions (low light, tripod), the angle of the camera to the object (including object length), and the shooting distance. if you shoot something at an acute angle, even f/9 may appear to be a short depth of field with the front and back bokeh'd or at least out of focus. if your right up on the thing (3 inches away), even f/32 might not get everything in focus, because the closer you are to an object the shorter your depth of field gets for any given aperture. if your shooting from 30 feet away - f/1.0 may get the entire thing in focus, because the farther away you get the longer your depth of field gets for any given aperture.
if you are shooting from a tripod, you can pick and choose your apertures - as long as you are shooting from a remote. if you are pressing the button by hand, you may need shutter speed over aperture size because you shake the camera imperceptible, but it is visually seen in the image. if your hand holding your camera - you may need as large of an aperture size as possible to reduce hand shake, even in a well lit room. at iso 100, even in a well lit room (without a flash), your shutter speeds will probably be sub 1/100. I love small apertures. I ONLY use large apertures when I'm doing product photography where detail is more important then overall feeling. or in large groups of people where I need to see front and back.
SO. ya. lots of technical info, and for what? probably nothing. like evolute said - the only thing that matters is what your trying to make or convey. maybe you want lunde style product photography that has every detail from front to back to be boldly clearly presented,
or maybe you want one single aspect to be shown, such as -
http://flickr.com/photos/8892472@N03/982149993/in/set-72157601162741520/
or maybe you just wanna show people your stuff and are tired of snap shots. in this case, 80% of everything that I said above is superfluous information.
I used a reletively small aperture (I beleive f/10) to get the tip and the handle in focus on this next pic, but i intentionally kept the white balance warm and yellow because i liked how the camera saw it better then how I saw it. reality was not as pretty, it had blue highlights from a cloudy sky, and green at the edges of the desk from a reflected cork board cover. And I left in heavy shadows and did not attempt to use fill lighting because that would have looked dumb (to me), and would have disrupted the otherwise very pretty and even lighting.
http://flickr.com/photos/8892472@N03/982545656/in/set-72157601162741520/
for me, my only suggestion would be to try different backrounds and see what they look like. not a critisism of the photographs, just a nudge to explore with your camera. experimentation is what gets people to a deep understanding of what there cameras can and can't do, as well as what they like and don't like.
(i tend to dislike blue in images and try to white balance on the warm side- the exact opposite of helmut newton who loves blue)... my brother hates red in photography (white balance, not necessarily objects)...
so no one has asked this yet, which is kinda the crux of the whole argument:
is there anything you want see different in your own photographs chuddy bear? seeing as how there are 10 ways to solve any photographic problem, you'll get a lot of different answers by posting your opinions/desires, though you'll probably get easier to follow instruction by calling evolute or lunde.
