Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Smoke  (Read 3038 times)

Derryck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
    • http://www.derryckmenere.com
Smoke
« on: July 30, 2012, 09:38:07 PM »

Like the "steel wool" experiment I was recently playing around with smoke. I found the best item to burn was milk cartons. Of course the studio stunk afterwards ;D
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8120
Re: Smoke
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2012, 05:34:35 AM »

Wonderful. My preference goes to the last two, they seem to come from nowhere!
Logged
Francois

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Smoke
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2012, 02:17:30 PM »

I'll bet your calcium levels are high!

Intriguing images, beautiful and very unusual. Would you mind telling us how you lit them?

Jeremy
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1147
  • Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.
    • Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
Re: Smoke
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2012, 04:06:36 PM »

Excellent shots.

Have you tried overlaying several of the smoke images into one image, but using different colour effects on the smoke for each layer? I believe I have seen that type of image somewhere and it looked really amazing.

Dave
Logged
Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info

shutterpup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Smoke
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2012, 06:38:08 PM »

Very sensual and unexpected.
Logged

Derryck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
    • http://www.derryckmenere.com
Re: Smoke
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2012, 08:39:08 PM »


Would you mind telling us how you lit them?

Jeremy

Here is a quick lighting diagram. This is a side on view. The flash head is directly in line with the camera and behind the smoke. Allow the smoke to clear between shots so that the haze doesn't reduce the contrast for the next image. That said I did really pump up the contrast when converting the raw files. There was no colour grading done to these images.

I first started with paper dipped in cooking oil but the plastic lining of the milk cartons seemed to provide a better smoke.

Logged

Derryck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
    • http://www.derryckmenere.com
Re: Smoke
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2012, 08:53:11 PM »

Excellent shots.

Have you tried overlaying several of the smoke images into one image, but using different colour effects on the smoke for each layer? I believe I have seen that type of image somewhere and it looked really amazing.

Dave

I haven't tried that but I was attempting to use multiple cameras to capture the same smoke pattern at different angles. I don't think my attempt so far was that successful because using more than one camera set to bulb whilst trying to get the smoke at the perfect moment and on the focal plane can be a bit difficult. But I would like to eventually use up to 6-8 cameras in a 90˚ arc and create a cool animated or series of images. Of course this would be tricky to do because the subject is best lit directly from behind. Below is an example of what the fourth shot in my series looked like from two angles.

Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
Re: Smoke
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2012, 01:27:24 AM »

I'll bet your calcium levels are high!

Intriguing images, beautiful and very unusual. Would you mind telling us how you lit them?

Jeremy

I'm guessing a match, but it could have been a lighter or a propane torch...  ;D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Great work, BTW!

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Smoke
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2012, 03:36:25 AM »

Here is a quick lighting diagram. This is a side on view. The flash head is directly in line with the camera and behind the smoke. Allow the smoke to clear between shots so that the haze doesn't reduce the contrast for the next image. That said I did really pump up the contrast when converting the raw files. There was no colour grading done to these images.

I first started with paper dipped in cooking oil but the plastic lining of the milk cartons seemed to provide a better smoke.

Thanks. Interesting.

I'm guessing a match, but it could have been a lighter or a propane torch...  ;D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Forgiven, Mike. Every good comedian needs a straight man  ;)

Jeremy
Logged

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
    • theimagingfactory
Re: Smoke
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2012, 07:41:31 AM »

I haven't tried that but I was attempting to use multiple cameras to capture the same smoke pattern at different angles.

Is this an exercise for a bigger project or something similar? It seems you could more easily achieve this effect with computer generated images, no? (I don't mean this to be condescending, just curious since the animated series would involve a lot of effort).
Logged
Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory

Derryck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
    • http://www.derryckmenere.com
Re: Smoke
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2012, 03:55:15 AM »

Is this an exercise for a bigger project or something similar? It seems you could more easily achieve this effect with computer generated images, no? (I don't mean this to be condescending, just curious since the animated series would involve a lot of effort).

I agree that it would take a lot more effort to do it in camera but there's something amazing about capturing a shape that I'm sure my imagination couldn't come up with if I was creating these images on the computer. While it's now a lot faster than checking the negative after processing the film there's still the excitement of never knowing exactly what you are going to get with this kind of subject matter until you look at the replayed image.

In my mind I had the idea of being about to scrub back and forth with the mouse as the image rotates left and right very similar to 360˚ product photography. Eventually I'd like to create a series of at least 10 images equally as beautiful as the fourth image shown above.
Logged

jule

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
    • http://www.juliestephenson.net
Re: Smoke
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2012, 07:22:45 AM »

I agree that it would take a lot more effort to do it in camera but there's something amazing about capturing a shape that I'm sure my imagination couldn't come up with if I was creating these images on the computer. While it's now a lot faster than checking the negative after processing the film there's still the excitement of never knowing exactly what you are going to get with this kind of subject matter until you look at the replayed image.

In my mind I had the idea of being about to scrub back and forth with the mouse as the image rotates left and right very similar to 360˚ product photography. Eventually I'd like to create a series of at least 10 images equally as beautiful as the fourth image shown above.

Derryck, I agree.. there is something quite special about the unexpected nature of images like this. I found the same excitement with my underwater vortex and bubble photos some years ago.

I really enjoyed all your images and i think they are quite beautiful. I seem to recall seeing John Paul Caponigro using smoke in many of his recent images, so you may like to investigate these further.

I really like the way you use the black background so the smoke seems as if it is in a sort of suspendeed animation....  I had a similar effect with  my underwater photos at night. Click the "Nature of Infinity portfolio at this link to see them. my underwater photos at night.... but yours have a much more etherial, suspended, sensual quality

Julie

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
    • theimagingfactory
Re: Smoke
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2012, 10:40:29 AM »

I agree that it would take a lot more effort to do it in camera but there's something amazing about capturing a shape that I'm sure my imagination couldn't come up with if I was creating these images on the computer. While it's now a lot faster than checking the negative after processing the film there's still the excitement of never knowing exactly what you are going to get with this kind of subject matter until you look at the replayed image.

In my mind I had the idea of being about to scrub back and forth with the mouse as the image rotates left and right very similar to 360˚ product photography. Eventually I'd like to create a series of at least 10 images equally as beautiful as the fourth image shown above.

Okay, I understand. Though I was referring to computer generated images, not human drawings using a computer. In that respect it would be interesting to see if computer generated randomization with smoke images would somehow "look & feel" different then what can be accomplished using nature's true physical characterů

I also thought about stereo 3D images. If you do get around to shooting several images with a smaller angle between them, any two of those with the appropriate angle between them could make perfect stereo 3D images.


Logged
Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Pages: [1]   Go Up