Photographing Glossy Flowers

[K-Sci]

Is there a good technique for reducing the 'glare' photographing shiny flowers like this one. The flower is Phalaenopsis Haur Jih Fancy 'Red Lantern'.
-Keith

[Dusty Ol' Man]

Are you bouncing the flash? A longer exposure would eliminate the need for flash. I was a pre digital amateur photographer. Anything digital is outside my experience.

[SouthPark]

Maybe if the orchid is movable to another location - or able to be re-orientated so that there's less light shining on it, then the amount of glare could be reduced.

Or if it's a DSLR type of camera - with tripod if necessary - could use a partial shade cover placed behind you. Reduces the glare. Some tinkering with shutter speed and/or aperture ----- should be able to get some nice shots.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Dusty Ol' Man

Are you bouncing the flash? A longer exposure would eliminate the need for flash. I was a pre digital amateur photographer. Anything digital is outside my experience.

I used a Nikon D7100 DSLR. The DSLR functionality is no different from the standard SLR camera I started with in the 1970s, a Canon F1. The first pictures were taken with my phone. They were better quality, but the glare was the same.

The photo shown was taken without flash. Using a flash made the glare much worse. To vary the lighting I tried outdoors in sun, in shade, when cloudy, in the greenhouse, indoors, in several orientations to the light source, and so on.

-Keith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by SouthPark

Maybe if the orchid is movable to another location - or able to be re-orientated so that there's less light shining on it, then the amount of glare could be reduced.

Or if it's an DSLR type of camera - with tripod if necessary - could use a partial shade cover placed behind you. Reduces the glare. Some tinkering with shutter speed and/or aperture ----- should be able to get some nice shots.

It is moveable and I tried quite a few lighting arrangments (see above). Perhaps using my tripod in dim diffuse light with a fast ISO and long exposure.
-Keith

[SouthPark]

If you are by yourself, without an assistant ----- then a strategically placed shade (eg. using a stand with a shade) will block the bright light from behind. And it will be possible to get a nice shot without the bright glare regions. Otherwise, an assistant with a big book, or magazine, or even newspaper - blocking the light from behind you at just the right spot ----- can allow a nice photo to be taken as well - without the glare.

Having lots of glare with a shaded indoor shot will be highly unusual.

For example - if we were to turn off the lights indoors - there would certainly be no glare at all. So with adequate shading - and direct light from behind ----- we expect to be able to take a nice shot without glare.

[TZ-Someplace]

Ring flashes for macro work tend to avoid glare.
I would surround the thing with crinkled aluminum foil to get even indirect light and see how that works with different source angles. See if you can get two sources at about 45 degrees each, maybe a bit above lateral.
Submerging it in water would get rid of the glare but you probably don't want to do that. It works great with shiny crabs and shrimps.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

...blocking the light from behind you at just the right spot ----- can allow a nice photo to be taken as well - without the glare.

Good idea. I have a covered porch on the east and west side of my house. I can block light from all but one side. The diffuse light off the porch walls should be plenty if I use a fast ISO, tripod, small aperture, and long exposure. I might need to use a tripod and long exposure to get good depth of field.

It's worth a try, anyway.

Edit: I've been looking at ring flashes and I have a very good macro lens (Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED 1:1). A ring flash can cost anything from $50 to $500US or more so I'll have to do some reading.

-Keith

[Ray]

Many years ago I built a photographic “surround” (box) using PVC pipe and a layer of white bedsheets covering the three sides. Back and bottom were black velvet. I used two light umbrellas directed down onto the top edges at 45 degrees for lighting.

I don’t recall specifically focusing on reflected glare, but the setup gave me nice, uniform light, and with no beams being straight at the front of the blossom, it likely wasn’t an issue.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Ray

Many years ago I built a photographic “surround” (box) using PVC pipe and a layer of white bedsheets covering the three sides. Back and bottom were black velvet. I used two light umbrellas directed down onto the top edges at 45 degrees for lighting.

I don’t recall specifically focusing on reflected glare, but the setup gave me nice, uniform light, and with no beams being straight at the front of the blossom, it likely wasn’t an issue.

That sounds workable, but a bit hard to store. I live in Mississippi where the people are primitive - they don't have basements. Everyone wears shoes and nobody I know married their sister, however.
j/k

-Keith

[Ray]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

That sounds workable, but a bit hard to store. I live in Mississippi where the people are primitive - they don't have basements. Everyone wears shoes and nobody I know married their sister, however.
j/k

-Keith

Believe me, I understand the storage issue. We moved from a 4 BR, 4000 sq. ft. colonial with walk-up attic and 1600 sq. ft. walk out basement to 3 BR, single-level, 2000 sq. ft. home on a crawl space.

When I did that, I had a dedicated area in the basement set up for photography. If it helps, consider the wooden stretchers used for canvasses. At least they store flat.