Hi All,

I'm somewhat of a newbie at photography, but the instant
feedback of my digital camera is really allowing me to learn
by experience much faster than film cameras ever did. I
recently took this shot of an old microphone, and I really
like the lighting (I had just seen the Dick Tracy movie,
with Warren Beaty, on TV, and wanted to mimic that kind of
lighting). However, you can see that it is blown out at the
bottom where the light is most intense.

I'm stumped. How can I avoid those over-exposed highlights
while maintaining the overall exposure level in an image
such as this?

TIA

you could try using a light dampener cover to soften the light, and then have a longer exposure to compensate for the loss of lighting.

Spectral highlights on metal are difficult. I'm not an expert. A white reflecting card above may even out the lighting some; but with mirror highlights evening out the lighting often doesn't help much. Could try a polarizer on the lens, rotating it to adjust the amount of highlight. Sometimes they even spray the metal with a matt paint to reduce glare for product shots. As I say, I'm really not an expert. Some of the other folks here have been getting some good metal shots lately. Maybe they can help more.

YEAHEYAH!!! Use some reflector cards also maybe instead! Just white board will reflect well enough with out adding to much hotness to the scene. give it a shot, nice one Mitch

Yeah... If I can jack up the ambient light in the scene with a reflecter and reduce the exposure time to compensate... That might do it! I'll give it a try soon! Thanks again!

Softening the light would be one way to do it. I'm a traditional, "non-digital" type photographer though, so I would have a different approach. First, get a film with a better latitude. The most latitude you can get is with b&w film, so you may want to try that. If not, just find out a good color film with good latitude. My next suggestion is somewhat similar to the Ansel Adams "zone system". Take a light reading from the darkest area of the photo area and one reading from the lightest area of the photo area. This will tell you if you have enough latitude in your color film to keep all the detail in your picture. If your photo area has 3 or 4 stops difference from light to dark, most color films can handle that. So then what? Films typically handle more overexposure than under exposure and in a color film you usually only have one to one and a half stops of underexposure latitude. So take the reading you got from the darkest area in your photo (that you want to keep detail in), and add 1 to 1 1/2 stops. In your photo, if you want to keep detail in the inside of the microphone, which seems to be the darkest area, take a reading from that specific area, add 1 stop for color film or 2 stops for black and white, and you are done. I know you probably won't use a traditional camera, but maybe someone can use that information. Does that help any? Andrew

Hello. I think the picture looks great. ..Is that "S" for "Sennheiser", or "Shure"? I think that the washouts in the highlights are natural, and look fine. It's natural for direct-from-the-lightsource glare to wash out like that - That's just how it looked 'in-person', didn't it?. In case you're new here: you may as well get used to people messing around with your work, and then re-posting it.. like this.....

Ooo - I had fun with that one.

Andrew,

Thanks for the description of the "Zone System." I'll have
to think about how that might be applied to digital "film."

Then I'll have to get a light meter. :-)

Finder, The "S" is for Shure. It's a 55SW. Re: retouching my work and re-posting it. Pish-tosh! I consider it a complement that you find it interesting enough to mess with! Enjoy! (BTW: I really like the color inversion. Kinda looks like Bender's skull.)

Well, I've tried a number of experiments, ranging from
shading the light source (with a piece of plastic shopping
bag material!) to almost nothing but bounce lighting (off
a wall to the left side of the subject). I can get rid of
the over-exposed areas, but then I loose the "long shadow"
effect that I was originally trying for. Any form of diffused
lighting that I've come up with softens the shadows to the
point of making them so indistinct that the effect is lost.

Gotta get some more lighting gear too. Clip on lamps with
100watt bulbs and sleeping bags draped over chairs just
don't cut the mustard! :-)

Thanks again for all your input; I've learned something about
lighting as a result.

Ohhh, I like this one too!

Sleeping bags draped over chairs?!? What a great background!!! Jeez, that's cool..... I've started buying 3 or 4 metre lengths of materials from a local dressmaking suppliers...building up a decent range of backgrounds from just 1 per metre, so it's a cheap and easy thing.... The really good bit is they love me taking the long cardboard tubes off their hands too - so I can attach the fabric at one end with a Hot Glue Gun, roll it on and it's neat, doesn't get crease lines in it like folding, and easy to use when I need it - simply unroll and hang the tube on 2 supports!!! Taa-daa!!! Another of Mike's Cheappy Tricks! btw, the supports I use are the lighting stands I bought for the lamps in an earlier thread - just 15 each...... I'm a skinflint, I am!! (",)

Jordy you are supposed to use PVC piping!!! IT's cheaper! I was going to use you cloth suggestion though. I'm getting tired of the cozmic green reflection! So they gave you the tubes hunh! Don't let you daughted start yelling into shose it will keep her occupied for hours!!!! Bsteph

Sheesh - I just looked again. That is a beautiful image of a beautiful object. Joe

Finder wrote:

Sheesh - I just looked again.

That is a beautiful image of a beautiful object.

Joe

Thanks Joe. You guys are a very encouraging lot. It's nice
to meet you all.

Oh, wait. Were you talking about my original, or your doctored repost? sNoRk!