Line Dancin’ and Flashin’




So, portable flashes are temperamental, I’ve learned. At least mine dislikes me. It’s probably because I just bought it and haven’t built up a rapport with it yet. It went off only half of the time, which is disappointing. No photographer likes seeing their images completely black. But some came out, which is lucky for me since I’m being graded for this.

I used two techniques, the bounce technique and the direct technique. The direct technique is obvious, I pointed the light where the subject was. Simple enough right? Not so much when you have a cord attaching your camera to the flash and have to spread your arms like an eagle to cover what you think you intended to cover with light. The bounce technique is when you point the flash at a surface nearby, either a wall, ceiling, floor, etc. to make the light larger and diffused. It “bounces” off of the surface and over the subject. (Hopefully.) Since I pointed mine at a wood floor, the light came off a bit tannish or as I like to say, “dusty”. Which worked for my situation.

I like the bounce/diffuse technique, it’s a lot less harsh and enhances the natural environment if used correctly. That and people don’t get as shocked or mad at you when you’re firing the light at the floor or the ceiling rather than their eyes.

Needless to say, it’s hard for me to make a decision, so I have three “direct light” examples and two “bounce light” examples for your perusal. I hope you can tell the difference between them, otherwise I have failed. *Cries incessantly.* These posts are getting more and more emotional. For that I apologize.




Glass, the Diva


mgbellk_lr _mg_bellk_lighting-diagram-1363106281

Never has an inanimate object frustrated me more. But I’m glad to say that in this battle between woman and glass, woman has won. What do I have against glass you say? Well let’s start with how reflective the substance is. Never has an object disliked light so much. Any light placed on it is immediately thrown, as if it’s not good enough to be in the glass’presence. It’s a very arrogant substance. It also likes to tell you you’re a bad photographer, because there’s always some kind of reflection of you or your camera or the studio on it. It’s always making you work for it. “No, I must be draped in black velvet darling, I will not stand to be placed upon anything else.” And to think that a tiny object needed so many sheets and reflectors and diffusers! “More, more!” it says. “Take,TAKE!”

But I’m being dramatic. Glass may be the biggest diva I ever have to photograph, but it is damn pretty. I suppose it’s justified in it’s incessant need for adjustment, because when it’s right, it is so right.

I had to use not one, not two, but three soft boxes (the maximum amount of light heads we have in the studio) to light this small glass. A massive one on each side and a smaller one above on a “boom”, which is a terrifying piece of machinery if I do say so myself. I put black velvet behind and under the object and kind of draped it to make it look a bit dramatic. I had white sheets hanging around practically the entire set up so that I wouldn’t get any stray reflections of me or the studio on the surface. I got to poke my camera through a slit in the sheet and I felt like I was a Peeping Tom, so that was fun. So yeah, all that work for a itty bitty glass object. It was neat though, experimenting with the set up and sitting in the dark waiting for the flash to go off and blind me. It’s cheesy, but I felt like a pro. Because pros take an hour to photograph one object right? Right.

Create a free website or blog at