Fun with wine glasses and food coloring. 3 for C&C

[Derrel]

The texture of the paper was showing because the paper was way to close to the glass. That put the paper inside the DOF for your setup.

I figured that was why. I experimented moving the glass towards the camera and away from the paper, but then I got background on either edge of the paper showing. Not a big enough background.

To get around the not a big enough background issue, the easiest thing to do is to move to a longer focal length lens, which has a narrower angle of view,and which will allow you to get the same sized glass in the foreground from a bit farther back, but which due to its narrow angle of view, will ALSO cover a narrower swath of background acceptance. This is one reason the longer macros, like 150mm and 180mm lengths, are so popular--they allow you to get a large image of the subject, but they have a narrow angle of view behind the subject, and they produce a nice, very blurred background.

As gar as the way the backdrop is being rendered in these--I'm not sure those are wrinkles. In fact, to me, the lines look like "posterization", due to "pushing" of the tonal values. There's that weird posterization banding effect...it just doesn't look like a focus or background physical defect issue to me, but posterization.

 

[lyonsroar]

The texture of the paper was showing because the paper was way to close to the glass. That put the paper inside the DOF for your setup.

I figured that was why. I experimented moving the glass towards the camera and away from the paper, but then I got background on either edge of the paper showing. Not a big enough background.

To get around the not a big enough background issue, the easiest thing to do is to move to a longer focal length lens, which has a narrower angle of view,and which will allow you to get the same sized glass in the foreground from a bit farther back, but which due to its narrow angle of view, will ALSO cover a narrower swath of background acceptance. This is one reason the longer macros, like 150mm and 180mm lengths, are so popular--they allow you to get a large image of the subject, but they have a narrow angle of view behind the subject, and they produce a nice, very blurred background.

As gar as the way the backdrop is being rendered in these--I'm not sure those are wrinkles. In fact, to me, the lines look like "posterization", due to "pushing" of the tonal values. There's that weird posterization banding effect...it just doesn't look like a focus or background physical defect issue to me, but posterization.

Totally see what you're saying with the longer lens. I just didn't think of it! All I've got at my disposal right now is my kit lens and the 50mm I used for these shots. I should have/ will test out the kit lens next time!

Also, the background has that posterized look because I did quite a bit of PP to try to make the background more pleasing than the paper texture. I can post what it looked like before the PP when I get home. It ain't pretty though... :meh:

 

[Derrel]

Maybe you could try the 75-300 zoom + 12mm or 13mm extension tube??? Results ought to be pretty decent, and the zoom will allow you lots of focal length options. And yeah, I figured you did extensive work to try and eliminate the wrinkles, and instead got thee posterization....I've been there myself...I recognize the scenario all too well...one of **THE** worst characteristics of paper as a backdrop material is its tendency to show dimples and irregular light/shadows when it is near the depth of field zone and not TOTALLY out of focus...

 

[AgentDrex]

#1 is the best in my opinion...the other two are too dark and too light...you hit the mood on the first one