Metronome

[geotography]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161364000937229186"><img src="http://lh5.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6DZNnhaO4I/AAAAAAAAB0I/xFVAdGmVNeU/s400/IMGP3179.jpg" /></a>

This is my attempt to apply what I learned from Coffee Grinder, a previous still portrait; except this time I wanted motion, so I volunteered my metronome. Here are my questions and curiosities followed by my EXIF:
Is the moving mechanism too dark in the image? Is the overall photo too dark?
My desire was to be able to read the numbers representing beats per minute but I could not pull it off. My kit lens let me get in there to read the numbers some weeks ago but I stubbornly wanted to use the 50mm. So part of this is getting use to the 50mm fixed focal length. I have to work harder. Let's see what's my question: Do I need to buy a prime/macro lens? Please tell me yes because I want one, LOL; or set me straight. Should I be obsessed with reading the numbers in this particular composition? Maybe the bigger question is: is this photo focused sufficiently?
Relative to the above issue, should I have had my aperature set lower as there is a bit of an angle on the face of the metronome.
Compositionally, I intentionally put the subject in the center because of its equalateral swinging action. I fought that all morning, then gave into centering it. So, have I committed a composition faux paux or do I get to break a rule here?


EXIF:
Shutter: 1.6"
f/3.5
50mm (2.5+- feet between lens and subject)
ISO: 125

Thank You,

[ELAY]

Is the moving mechanism too dark in the image?

I don't think the moving mechanism is too dark per se, but it may be a bit too faint. A longer exposure with smaller aperture might have given a bit more substance to the moving part. It may also just be getting lost in the background.

Is the overall photo too dark?

I think so, yes. Especially given the dark background -- it gets kind of lost.

My desire was to be able to read the numbers representing beats per minute but I could not pull it off. My kit lens let me get in there to read the numbers some weeks ago but I stubbornly wanted to use the 50mm. So part of this is getting use to the 50mm fixed focal length. I have to work harder. Let's see what's my question: Do I need to buy a prime/macro lens? Please tell me yes because I want one, LOL; or set me straight. Should I be obsessed with reading the numbers in this particular composition? Maybe the bigger question is: is this photo focused sufficiently?

I think you should be able to read those numbers with a 50, focussed properly. Focussing maybe?

Relative to the above issue, should I have had my aperature set lower as there is a bit of an angle on the face of the metronome.

I guess you are asking if the plane of focus of your lens is so narrow, that the tilt on the face of the metronome may have put some parts out of focus? I am not sure, but I think at that distance (I think you say about 2.5 feet) and at f/3.5 you have enough DOF to accommodate the tilt of your average metronome.


Compositionally, I intentionally put the subject in the center because of its equalateral swinging action. I fought that all morning, then gave into centering it. So, have I committed a composition faux paux or do I get to break a rule here?

I don't know if I (or anybody really) is qualified to hand out rule dispensations, but I think for a shot like this, where symmetry is part of the appeal, a center composition works fine.

[geotography]

Thanks Elay for your helpful comments.

At this point, I have grown frustrated and my take here has gone from bad to worse, I feel. I am not even sure I can articulate my questions on this second photo, at least at this moment. This has humbled me and that is probably is not a bad thing. I need to learn what is happening and why I can't make this happen. Here is one of many subsequent photos. I became so confused that I didn't even know which one to drop in here. I will sleep on it...maybe switch lenses. (added comment: I don't like that I have taken the action out of the frame)

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161451197363272594"><img src="http://lh4.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6EohHhaO5I/AAAAAAAAB2k/EfK0c_zPeoE/s400/IMGP3187.jpg" /></a>

This essentially has the same settings but with a different color platform to bring in more light.

[ELAY]

What is your setup for these shots?

[geotography]

Photo #1: completely dark room, flourescent desk lamp wrapped a layer of toilet paper and a blue plastic thera-band exercise strip (transluscent).

Photo #2: same as above with trailing on camera flash shrouded with a brown paper towel.

tripod. settings noted in first post.

P.S. I plan to try this again tomorrow using some daylight, a slightly different angle and a lens that will allow me to get in about a foot closer.

[geotography]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161712490288659362"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6IWKXhaO6I/AAAAAAAAB3s/tfOBx2grLDE/s400/IMGP3288.jpg" /></a>

I rested and dreamt; my frustration subsided and I went back at this dang metronome. Click, adjust, click adjust...50 photos later I'm still not hitting my target which I finally affirm in my mind is the "movement". So I step out of this little box I put myself in and took a completely different angle. It is far from perfect and likely has many flaws; however, it's simpler and it captures what I wanted all along: mechanical movement of the little ticker.

A few lessons were learned with this obsession: I shall be clear in the outset what I am trying to capture and I shall step out of the box on what angle to shoot at; and don't over-complicate something that is relatively simple.

Here is a variation of the same shot:

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161715754463804338"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6IZIXhaO7I/AAAAAAAAB4o/hNvHQvVh5KU/s400/IMGP3295.jpg" /></a>

EXIF and Set up on both:
f/3.2
ISO: 100
.50 second shutter
50mm lens at 2 feet+-
Light was filtered cloudy daylight

[geotography]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161712490288659362"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6IWKXhaO6I/AAAAAAAAB6I/MWbGSzd-W18/s400/IMGP3288.jpg" /></a>

Desaturated the second one a bit to my liking.

[FrankenPengie]

The biggest problem I'm noticing seems to lighting. In the first shots the smokiness of the upper part of the picture seems to be a bit much. Looking at the carpet(?) underneath, I can see the DOF looks rather shallow. I like the angled shots but the light is being reflected right at the camera. It looks like primary light is upper right, and camera angle is from bottom left. What happens if you lower the light or move it left?

[geotography]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161768054280567746"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6JIsnhaO8I/AAAAAAAAB68/p0GnQGp_Bmo/s400/IMGP3316.jpg" /></a>

FrankenPengie,

Thank you for your advice. I applied it and got this. I think it's better; certainly far from perfect. I think this has evolved and that I have learned from it.

[geotography]

Trust me; I promise to get a life and get off my obsession with this mechanical device. I think I prefer this one.

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5161785075235961826"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6JYLXhaO-I/AAAAAAAAB8c/PKG2OTccuIs/s400/IMGP3301.DNG.jpg" /></a>

[RussHeath]

Geotography -- Wow, this one's really keeping you up at night, huh? ;)

I have a few comments. The idea here is good, and I understand that the execution has been difficult. Here are a few thoughts:

--The back of the metronome is very dark and quite large in the shots. Your first ones showed that dark object against a dark background without enough separation. So you were starting without contrast, and I think that contributed to some of your difficulty seeing things.

--You figured this out, I think, and are now using an even darker background but angling the light so that it directly reflects off the black back of your metronome, essentially showing us a direct reflection. This is much better in terms of contrast.

--Now, however, several of these have such a relfection that the meter numbers are obscured.

--Try this: Use a white background, lit at least 2/3 of a stop above the rest of your exposure. It's sometimes called brightfield lighting. If done right, you should be able to make the dark metronome really pop off the background.

--Now for the moving part: Have you tried rear-curtain flash with this? What you want is for the flash to go off at the end of a longish exposure to add just enough light to burn in the image with your hand at one side or the other. You'll have to play with the aperture, shutter speed, and flash power to get all these things working well for a proper exposure with the flash. I'm thinking that if everything else is slightly underexposed without the flash, and you use a rear-curtain flash that is dialed down a bit the total exposure will be correct and you'll get the hand well defined wherever it was located when the flash fired. Now you just have to get lucky and hope it's where you wanted it . . . :rolleyes:

Sorry for the long ramble, and thanks for giving me something to think about.

EDIT: After thinking about it, you really don't have to use rear-curtain flash. Just use a long exposure plus flash. It might actually be easier to get the hand frozen where you want it if the flash fires at the beginning of the exposure.

[geotography]

newbie,

Thanks for having a look and your helpful comments. I am interested in studying brightfield lighting to better understand how to execute that. I am not clear on how you would execute lighting the white background 2/3 a stop below the rest of the exposure; would that be by separate light cast upon the background?

I wasn't sure upon reading one of your comments that it was clear I wanted to create the motion blur. That in itself was not difficult; my lengthy trial and error mostly had to do with getting the metronome structure to look half-way respectable; Lighting is just such a huge topic inself.

Thanks again.

[FrankenPengie]

Lighting is just such a huge topic inself.

It is indeed! I think you're seeing the effects of getting light on the metronome right, and it's effect on the pendulum movement.

It may pain you to know that there is a piano buried in my garage. If I had a pendulum I'd be doing the same as you.

[RussHeath]

newbie,

Thanks for having a look and your helpful comments. I am interested in studying brightfield lighting to better understand how to execute that. I am not clear on how you would execute lighting the white background 2/3 a stop below the rest of the exposure; would that be by separate light cast upon the background?

I wasn't sure upon reading one of your comments that it was clear I wanted to create the motion blur. That in itself was not difficult; my lengthy trial and error mostly had to do with getting the metronome structure to look half-way respectable; Lighting is just such a huge topic inself.

Thanks again.

Geotography -- Yes, you would need separate lights on the background (or through them if you used something translucent like a shower curtain) to light in the manner I described. The idea is to create a bright white background that also acts as a light source itself, and provides separation for your subject.

You were definitely clear about wanting to capture motion. Maybe I wasn't clear about my suggestion. I think the thing missing from your motion capture is a clearly defined source of movement. Using a strobe (either at the beginning or end of exposure) would freeze one part of the frame still and give you a clearly defined metronome hand. I think the definition providied by that flash would make the motion blur in the rest of the frame more understandable to the viewer.

And yes, lighting is a huge topic. But in a sense it's the topic of photography . . . :)