Camera angle when photographing a still life

<p>I am not sure if this is the right forum for the question, but here goes..<br /> <br /> I was wondering if there are any rules or guidelines as to which camera angle to use when photographing a still life.<br /> <br /> 1) Up and down: Will any camera angle from straight at the objects, to straight down at the objects or anything between give good results?<br /> <br /> 2) Sideways: Straight at the objects, straight from the side or anything in between? Will any angle give good results?<br /> Does the above depend on which objects you are photographing, or are there rules or guidelines that will be applicable for still life in general?<br /> <br /> As you probably have figured out by now, I have not been doing a lot of still life photography in my life. I have been "studying" some great still life's though, but I think it would be useful to know more about the techniques you are using and how you are thinking when you are setting it all up. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>There is no answer, except the angle that is needed for the subject(s) and composition. Grab some items and start arranging them on a table and practice.</p>

<p> I think beginning with a good book is not a bad idea. I did a quick search at Amazon.com and here is one list:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_6_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=still+life+photography&sprefix=still+life%2Cstripbooks%2C257">Amazon.com Still Life List</a></p>

<p>As there are many to choose from, the reader reviews can help make an appropriate decision.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p> As you know the rules of photography are more guidelines. Starting points if you will. Some of the most interesting photos occur when dramatic breaking of the rules occurs.<br /> You have done a good job of listing the variables. To start as a pure realist/documentary, straight on with the camera perpendicular to the subject and the lens on a horizontal plane with the center of the subject is the position.<br /> Then, camera to subject distance, lens focal length, f stop for depth of field, exposure variation come in to play.<br /> Then moving the camera off axis from the subject in horizontal, vertical, or diagonal directions will change the image.<br /> Making it interesting is the challenge.<br /> Regards.</p>

Note: The moderator has cleaned up this thread in regards to an unfortunate misspelling of the word "angle".

<p>Thank you, James. Sorry about that :-)</p>

<p>So all options are open, and it is all up to me?<br>

<br /> There is also the camera angle between the camera and the lighting to consider. In addition to everything else. Forgot to mention that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So all options are open, and it is all up to me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pretty much true in photography. Find what works for you. Hopefully, you are shooting digital, so you have a virtually unlimited amount of free practice shots available to you!</p>

<p>Yes, I am shooting digital, Larry. I guess it is "just" like taking photos of almost anything else, then. Except for the choosing and arranging of the still items.</p>

<p>Feel free to share some of your still life works in this thread if you like.</p>

<p>I'd suggest that the angle you shoot from is detirmined by from what angle the still life looks best for what you want it to show. I'm not into still life but confined to the studio for my first term at school I did this one around sixty years ago and it remains one of my favourites. But the angle i suspect was detirmined by the height of the table and the convienient height of the camera on its wooden tripod. The 'horizonless' background was a large sheet of art paper painted with random brush strokes and curves up behind the subject. The subject material was arranged to suit the camera angle rather than the other way around I suspect. Most of my photos surviving from that period have a similar angle which sort of duplicates how I must of looked at objects and thought " that's the right angle' :-) The angle should be what is right for the subject but often I suspect it is usually what is the convienient working height which depends on what kind of camera you are working with and what tripod, are you using a viewfinder or LCD to compose by, are you fit and flexible or a stiff old man :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Context.</p>

<p>Hi JC, thank you so much for sharing your valuable 60 year old still life with us. What a beautiful still life. And how well you must be organized! :-) Thank you also for your advices. I'll keep them in mind.<br /> <br /> I just finished my first still life (if one can call this a still life, I'm not quite sure). The lighting is tricky when you are fairly new to using more than one or two lights. I used LiveView and manual focus here, and had to speedlights in addition to the in-camera master on my Nikon D300. As a lense I used my Tamron 90mm macro. The camera angle is straight at the objects, at object level. Any suggestions for improvement from anyone?</p><div></div>

<p>Ann,</p>

<p>If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion. Get the book<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Magic-Fourth-Introduction/dp/0240812255/ref=tmm_pap_title_0"> "Light Science and Magic"</a> it will level out your learning curve and introduce you to enough of the concepts and core lighting methodologies to keep you busy for years.</p>

<p>It rally is a lighting bible, and that is all still lives are really, a study of light.</p>

<p>Hi Ann,<br>

I'm still doing the 101 course in photography so no expert advice from me. I do think - as others have already suggested - that the composition and the lighting are at least as important as the camera angle. But why not experiment with just natural light from a window too?<br>

If you like classical real life photo's, you may be interested in Kevin Best's Flickr site:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevsyd/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevsyd/</a>.<br>

He's an australian photographer who has a real passion for photographing still life compositions made in the style of the old dutch masters. He also has a number of more ordinary still lifes.<br>

I'll keep an eye out for new still life photo's in your portfolio!<br>

Mike</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not sure if this is the right forum for the question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no still life forum, Ann, so this forum will be fine. Also lighting information can be found in the lighting forum.<br>

As far as angle, its open season. In studio photography, you have complete control and infinite choices to make. Sometimes having every option can be the most difficult thing of all. Something akin to a blank canvas a painter faces.</p><div></div>

<p>Ann, just wait till the T&S (tilt and shift) crowd gets wind of this thread. They'll Scheimpflug you into submission with still life examples that couldn't possibly be done any other way. ;-)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, they are kinda right. Having tilts and shifts, not to mention all the other related controls on a serious view camera wildly increases your flexibility when shooting still lifes, product photography, or any other subject matter that needs good geometric control.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

Tom,

 

I have been hovering but didn't think it would help yet :-)

<p>I've been busy! New photos will be coming up. That was really a lot of work. But it was fun. I think I am sort of getting the camera angle part, at least that was not the biggest issue. I think... :-) But not when it comes to Scott's scientific(?) approach, obviously. For your own good, keep on hovering until you see some real improvement in my work (if ever), Scott. It sounds like you are talking serious business. I have bought a lot of books in the last couple of years, but not the one you mentioned, Scott. But I might just buy that one, it is tempting me. As long as I know it is a very good book on the subject of lighting I can go for that. I need it.<br /> <br /> Mike, thank you so much for that link. Look at those awsome still lifes! I will go throught each and one of them and take my time there. Surely he must be one of the old master painters born again as a photographer? :-) If I get the hang of the still lives, there might just be a few new photos in my gallery in a few days. You are welcome to look any time :-)<br /> <br /> Hi Louis, it was definately a blank canvas. And there is the lighting to learn properly as well. The good thing is that I get practice with lighting set up. Someone told me I would miss not having modelling light when I only had speedlights. He was very right, no doubt about that. It slows the whole process down quite a bit. I love that still life of yours, Louis. Very sophisticated and a good composition. Me like.<br /> <br /> Tom, will they be hurting me badly? Sounds like it could hurt someones wallet badly, at least :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Ann,</p>

<p>No don't let the title put you off, the book is superb.</p>

<p>Whilst the Dutch Masters are wonderful photos with superb composition and technique, the lighting is comparatively simple, just look at the reflections in the glasses to see what lights were used, actually, looking for the catchlights and shadows in any photo is a great way to reverse engineer the lighting. Dutch Masters were synonymous with one large widow to the side of the subject and above them, this is often mimicked with a large soft box with a cross of tape on it to make the catchlight look like a window frame.</p>

<p>I do want to learn if from the best sources possible, Scott. As long as it not so technical that I am not able to understand most of it.<br>

<br /> A large softbox was missed tonight, that would have made the whole thing a lot easier, I think. I didn't have anything covering the speedlights tonight, either. I have some light stands, but they are not available now. At least that could have made some difference. I stood on my toes holding flashes for some shots :-)<br>

<br /> There were problems with shadows. I guess you will still have shadows with one large softbox, but that they will enrich the photo, not destroy it, as harsh dark shadows will (if they are not for some special effects or something.)<br /> Here is another one of my attemps tonight. Don't be embarrased to tell me the thruth as you see it. I can take it :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Or more cut like this</p><div></div>

<p>An image should be compelling. Perfect technique and execution do not guarantee a compelling image. So there are no rules. Understanding principles may help. Experimentation is always fun and should be done.<br>

Seeing images without my readers (blurry) reveals the composition faster. It's like perfect vision (glasses) prevents me from seeing it.</p>

<p>Your images above are under exposed. The whites are muddy. The onions have good color but the vase below is just a dark blob. Flash photography is very challenging. I saw a Sue Bryce master by CreativeLIVE on-line. She does glamous shots: all natural light. She covers a large window with vitrage to create the biggest lightbox. Then she uses lots of reflectors. A glamorous model is kind of like a still life. I bet you could find some inspiration there.</p>

<p>Louis' triple head is well done. Great lighting..</p><div></div>

<p>Ann, I like your egg, its fun as I'm sure you intended it to be. The Onion shot immediately falls down, long before I noticed the alleged muddy whites, that it is two things and I don't know which to look at. There is a saying 'evens is bad, odd is good'.</p>

<p>As far as the muddy comment there is a problem with judges that they seem to often judge by what they want to see ... I had a problem recently with some red balloons which were not the brilliant red that the judge wanted to see but were a correct representation of the balloons' tone. I accept the container despite it not being the pure white that Herma wants :-) It looks like a good representation of what it is.</p>

<p>From the reflections I can see you used quite small light sources, compounded by the curvature of the subject, when from the books you will learn about light tents, though these days I would be removing the reflections in editing.</p>

<p>Herma and JC, thank you very much for the review of my still life. That was very helpfull. This is exactly what you need to improve your photos. About the low light, that had two reason. First the technical one: I have no proper lights for images like this. When you turn down the input of light, you can "get away with" using speedlights without softboxes. Second I have been under the impression that still lives were supposed to be low light, to create the mood that you want in the photo. Off course I do have windows, but this was night time.<br /> <br /> About having two items in a photo, I know that rule. There are five objects there if you count the onins, though. But I can see that it was perceived as only two objects. I'll have that in mind :-)<br /> <br /> If I want low light still lives, wouldn't I have to live with the muddy whites, or can that be improved somehow? Or should I just go for well-lit still lives? Or maybe the solution will be not to have any white objects included in the still lives?<br>

<br /> Herma, beautiful and well-lit glasses.</p>