My Mother in Law and the Family of Angles (an Intro)

shooting_painting_foa.jpgSome time ago I wrote about taking art images for my mother in law. Since I don't have my dream lens yet, I had to compromise on the lens and use the great (but not ideal for this task) Nikon 18-70 lens. (The image to the lest if one of the original paintings)

I got a few mails and comments about the issue of getting closer to the pictures to make the picture fill a wider part of the frame.

Sample Comment (by 'Anon'):

Kind of a newb, but why would you have used a zoom lens? And at what
distance/mm? I would think 50-70mm would be ideal, or would getting any
closer affect the "family of angles" thing?

As Norm replied, the main issue of getting further from the image was the Family of Angles constraint. Let me explain:

What is The Family of Angles?

The easiest way to describe the family of angles is to imagine the following setup: Say you are shooting a sheet of bright metal posted on a wall - much light the art that my mother in law makes. Now, Place a torch (or a flashlight) where the camera is placed to take the picture.

If you turn this torch on, some light will be reflected off the metal to create a hard border between light and dark. For our imaginary setup, this border will kinda look like a pyramid with its head at the painting and the base of it on the wall behind the camera torch.

The rule about the Family of Angles is as follows: what ever light source that is found with in this family of angle will be reflected through your subject into the final image.

But Paintings Are Not Made of Metal

True. The description above is good for shiny-mirror like object and is not accurate when lighting non shiny subjects. However, the painting has some shininess and placing a light source inside it will create a reflection of this light source in the final image.

Getting Closer and Further From the Painting

shooting_painting_diag.jpgNow after explaining that why I can have the flashes inside the family of angles, I can explain the issue with getting further from the painting.

In the image to the left you'll see two possible positions for the camera. The first is the original location, as I described it in the original post. (This is how I created the diagram)

The second location is an imaginary location that will contribute to a frame filled with the painting.

Look what happens to the Family of Angles as the camera gets closer to the painting, the place forbidden for flashed is getting bigger. In this illustration the location of the flashes is still OK. In the location of the shoot, moving closer to the image would have meant getting the flashes within the family of angles and getting a bright annoying reflection on the paintings.

Lastly, let me recommend a great book (I have mentioned it a few times before) Light, Science and Magic by Fil Hunter, Steven Biver and Paul Fuqua. It helped me to get this setup right, but holds tons of great advice to the novice and experienced photographer.

Make sure you don't miss out on the next article - Register to the RSS feed or the newsletter.


Comments

I'm confused

I'm really confused by this whole discussion of family of angles. Let me first say that I used to shoot artist portfolios years ago using 3200K lights and Ektachrome 160. I know I'm really dating myself.

The one and only law of physics I used to light flat art was this; the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. Therefore, I would always light flat art, regardless of it's size, with two light sources at equal distances and at angles that were always less than 30 degrees relative to the art/wall.

It always seemed to work.

re: confusion

Hi Anthony,

I assume you mean less then 30 degrees, closer to the "wall" or the art.

I can see what you mean and usually, a setup of 30 degrees will work fine, because it is outside the family of angles.

Condsider shooting a very big painting, say a wall sied painting. In that case a 30 degrees angle may be too short and angle of angle of incidence will create a direct reflection on your art.

another thing to remember whne shooting with small angles is not to soot with an angle too small to avoid skimming.

- udi

try a mirror for practice

Great article. The family of angles concept really just helps one define the angles at which light reflected will show in an image or not. A great way to practice or better understand how and why this works with a less technical eye is to try your set up with a mirror. It might give you a better more "real world" way of looking at what is going on.

thanks

Thanks for the follow up post....(I wrote the sample comment). I understand fully now and ironically I seen a mention of the book, Light: Science and Magic elsewhere today and will take it as an omen to purchase (which I am doing now).

I am going to try the mirror practice tonight.

Good Work, Folks

This is a great discussion and hugely expandable. Once you get to avoiding lights placed within the family of angles defined by a flat surface, what happens to those angles if that surface is curved? Or suppose the surface is BETTER lit if you put the light within the family of angles, then make the light big enough to at least completely fill that family of angles?

I'd like for everyone here to buy my book, because (1) there isn't enough direct mouth-to-ear communication and (2) I want the money. Still, if people can learn the material from one another in a forum like this, they'll probably learn better.

Delighted

Hi Fil,

I am delighted to see you here. Personally, your book made a huge impact on my photography style and quality. (this is why I read it twice).

Thanks for stopping by.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <a>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options