Shed Light on Your Work for High-Impact Jury Slides

really appreciate the willingness of artists to have their slides reviewed in public. These reviews are an important way for me to stay in touch with the issues all of you deal with in the real world of crafts photography. In the first part of the critique, I chose slides that shared problems with backgrounds. This column will deal with lighting and other issues.

Photo #1

“Border Collie,” by Anita Edwards.

Anita Edwards of Atlanta, Ga., sent slides of her animal design jewelry. This Border Collie (Photo #1) is typical of the images Edwards sent and it’s clear that her problem is that these slides are gray and flat. There’s no “oomph” in this image.

A slide like this illustrates the need to select photographically strong work to shoot, work with strong craftsmanship, color and texture. When you are putting together a jury submission you’ve got to be a little bit of a showman.

This image is rather cold; it’s steel gray and steel gray on steel gray. It’s the kind of image that turns off a juror. To improve this particular subject I’d use a darker background to give the image some color. Then I’d light the piece more softly to cut the glare and enhance the richness of the metal surfaces.

I also would consider photographing work that has more color and perhaps more interest. The Collie is just sitting still, which compounds the feeling that there is nothing happening here. In one of Edwards’ other images, she has a lovely leaping-frog pendant that I think makes a much stronger jury entry.

The next slide (Photo #2) is from Melanie Bentley Shockley of Midlothian, Va., who sent a letter with her slides. Shockley wrote that she had submitted these slides to a show and received a note from the jury suggesting that she hire a “professional photographer” to shoot her work. She says that she was “mortified” by this note because she had hired a “professional photographer” to take these photographs.

Photo #2

Jewelry by Melanie Bentley Shockley.

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there are lots of photographers and they shoot lots of different subjects. When you are seeking a professional photographer for crafts photography, ask to see their portfolio and be the juror for that work. Make sure they’ve done credible crafts photography.

Like several of the artists I critiqued in the first column, this photographer experimented with an unusual background. In this case I think it’s been done well. It’s a simple, interesting background that appears to be a piece of leather. The photographer shot this photo of jewelry under or near a tree and there are soft leaf shadows that I think help to frame the necklace. I don’t know if the dappling was an accident but it works with the background.

Unfortunately, the work is not lit properly. All the slides Shockley sent were shot on a sunny day in rather harsh sunlight. The glare off the work makes the image harsh, even washing out details in some of the images. I suspect that the glare is what turned off the jurors and instigated the note.

The harsh lighting is a problem that can be solved with a white reflector placed to the side opposite the light source — in this case, to the left of the subject. A reflector reduces the glare, fills in the dark shadows and brings out the richness in both the clay structure and the dichrohic glass.

Photo #3

.

Necklace and pendant by Louise Kawa

Glare is also a problem for Louise Kawa of Ellington, Conn. Kawa photographed this necklace and pendant on what looks like a light-absorbing, black-velvet background (Photo #3). A word of caution: Silver and other shiny metals look great on black velvet but they do not mix well in photographs. The object reflects the black and the edges disappear. You can see this in the way the round beads of the necklace merge into the velvet.

The lighting is also very harsh in this slide. Rather than embracing and filling in all the bits of the necklace, the light is uneven. The blue jewel is partly light and partly dark; the beads between the silver beads al-most totally lost. This is an example of my “rule” of the yin/yang of lighting. Soft textures need hard light; hard surfaces need soft light. The silver necklace needs the kind of soft, diffused lighting I’ve described in a past column. (See TCR, February 2003.)

Chicago artist Virginia Brubaker sent a slide of her work in beads of “The Goddess Who Weaves the Night Sky” (Photo #4). Brubaker’s slide is a great example of the problem you face with framed, two-dimensional art: Is the inclusion of the frame important?

Photo #4

“The Goddess Who Weaves the Night Sky,” by Virginia Brubaker.

Brubaker doesn’t make frames, yet the frame occupies half the image space. I’d photograph the beadwork so that the beading fills at least a half or two-thirds of the photograph image, leaving the rest as white space.

Celia Dionne of Gurley, Ala., is a fabric artist and submitted a set of slides that are beautifully lit. The texture of the fabric just leaps off the image. The light is soft yet directed so that there is nice three-dimensional quality to the work.

Photo #5

Shaw by Celia Dionne.

The shawl image I’ve selected to critique (Photo #5) was the one I liked the least. The solid gray background pulls color out of the image. It’s too dark and too flat. And as in the image of Karen Barry’s hat from Part 1 of these critiques (see TCR, August 2003), the support holding up the wearable work is too distracting.

Our eyes are always attracted to the point of highest contrast in an image, which is where the brightest part of the image meets the darkest. In this image that place is the neck of the support and not the shawl itself.

To test this, look away from the photo and then quickly look back and you’ll notice that the neckpiece is the first place your eyes go. You almost have to will your eyes to look at the rest of the image. I’d use a lighter background and I’d paint the form a darker tone and take off the wooden headpiece.

The next two submissions were wonderfully photographed, though I retain the right to be picky and grouse a little. But these are examples of the kind of craft photos you should be trying to produce.

New York City artist Julia Reich submitted this necklace image (Photo #6) and I like it a lot — it’s very well done. The bit of “spot” light in the center holds the image together and the color is bright and pops out of the photo. It’s a good photo with great energy.

Photo #6

Necklace by Julia Reich.

My only criticism of this image is that the pendant is too low in the frame, and, just as in Celia Dionne’s image, that pesky point of highest contrast is not at the center of interest. The focal spot in this photo is by the clasp ring. It’s as though the necklace has slipped out of place. It’s a subtle point and very hard to see when you’re shooting, but I can see it and it’s distracting. Move the pendant up in the frame and you have an even better photo.

Photo #7

Enamel on copper sheeting, by Karen Seymour-Ells.

Finally, from Lombard, Ill., Karen Seymour-Ells sent a package of four slides of her enamels on copper sheeting. They are very well done by a professional photographer in Chicago. The lighting in the image (Photo #7) is great, both diffuse (soft) enough to handle the shiny surface and yet sufficiently directed to give a feeling of three dimensionality. The graduated background is a good prop for the work and the hot line of light along the top edge of the work separates the piece itself from the background.

Just being picky, let me say that it appears this piece is a bit taller than it is wide so I might have tried it as a vertical, but its quite finely done as a horizontal image.

I want to thank all of the artists who submitted material. I hope that I’ve given everyone a better sense of what is looked for in a jury slide and provided some helpful advice to the participating artists.

Steve Meltzer is a Sarasota, Fla.-based photographer.