Inspired by the work of Alberto Seveso, a graphic designer and illustrator in Italy, I decided to recreate his photographs of "ink in water," which he has called a Due Colori. At face value, the concept of photographing ink or paint in water seemed simple. Throw paint in water and press the shutter button. But as I began the process and produced my first images, I quickly learned getting from point A to Z was going to require a bit more finessing and (more importantly) a lot of patience.
My first set up was fairly simple. I began by gathering the bare essentials: a clear container to hold water, the paint, a background, a light and of course the camera/tripod. I had most of the items I needed already. I started off using a round glass pitcher, but ended up having the purchase a square glass fish tank (see below for explanation). The only items I had to purchase for my first set of shots were a background and the ink/paint. Off I went to the local art store! For the background, I grabbed a small piece of white foam core board for roughly $5. I love foam core board. It's such a great material for portrait backgrounds and if you're artistic enough, you can paint on your own background. I prefer to use solid/uniform backgrounds (sorry tangent).
Anyways, for the ink/paint, I chose to use acrylic paint. When I researched this, I found that others have used cream and food dye. Some have tried dye alone, but the examples I saw for this were not what I wanted. The cream and dye was a possibility, but I didn't want to mess with more ingredients/steps than necessary, so I spent a little more money for the paint. As a side note regarding paint, please be sure to research what you can and cannot pour down your sink and into the sewage system. I learned a lot from talking with the one of the employees at the art store.
Below is an artistic rendering of the first set up I ended up with:
Diagram of the set up used to photograph paint in water.
For the set up, I used two flashes. Flash A had a soft box on it and acted as my main light. The second flash (B) popped my background to white. The image to the right is an unedited photo from my initial set up.
As you can see, I was immediately running into problems. It was during this shoot that I began to really appreciate product photography. Every detail counted. The above shot was good, but it was still far from what I wanted as a final image. There were bubbles in the frame, which I constantly ran into in all of my attempts. The edges of the pitcher were not helping. My biggest concern at this point was the huge rectangular reflection from the soft box. No matter where I placed my main light, I always ended up with a reflection which effectively killed a large portion of the photo. At this point, I decided I needed to have a square water tank.
The second major issue I had was the level of detail I had with the image. For the first set up, I was shooting with my 85mm lens. I was able to get close, but the moment I zoomed into the image for more detail, the shot was ruined because the detail simply was not there. Solution A was to sell my car and buy a digital medium format camera and lens. Solution B was to obtain a macro lens. I considered A (I always consider A, rather I make an excuse for A), but eventually went for B. My final images were shot using a 100mm macro lens.
Another item I had to deal with was finding the correct thickness of paint to pour. Having too thick of a mixture would lead to clumping and improper dispersion. Having too thin of a mix would not yield the abstract formations and shapes that I wanted to see. This portion required quite a bit of trial and error, but I eventually ended up with something I was happy with. If you do decide to try this, just note that thicker is better. Of course, this is subjective.
Triggering my camera and pouring the paint proved to be pretty tricky, kind of like walking and chewing gum simultaneously. When I first started, I used only one color and I was able to do that on my own (one hand for the paint and another hand for the camera). When it came to pouring two colors, I needed another set of hands. I called on one of my good friends to come assist me which made things a lot easier. The only downside is that your assistant will be bored out of his/her mind between pours. This is assuming you are not paying him/her, which I wasn't. Guilt lead me to do all of the set up myself, which took around 20 minutes per pour. I also ran his patience out and only had time to do four or five pours. I had to figure out a way to make it a one-man show since I still did not have the shots I wanted. My end solution was to get a wired remote trigger for my camera, which I taped to the floor next to where my foot would be when I poured the paint. I had the cheap wireless Canon remote, but it seems you cannot do continuous shooting with it, only single shots. Below are images of my final set up:
One last note for photographers, I would suggest not using speedlights for this set up. If you got them, use video lights. If you do not have video lights, use monolights that are plugged in directly to the wall. If you do not have either, speedlights will work. The issue I ran into with speedlights was that they would not recycle fast enough to give me consistent exposures with each frame. As you can see in the photo above, I ended up using both of my speedlights for the background, which allowed my to reduce the output of each flash unit by one stop and gave me a couple extra pops at the correct power level. My main light was a monolight plugged into a wall.
What started as a simple concept ended up being long hours of experimenting and many lessons learned, the most important of which is a recurring one: patience yields reward.
Below are a couple of images. More can be seen here.
Keep shooting.