The third image from the "I, me, mine." set; a search for myself, beginning at home. My goal is to seek the photograph within, instead of going outside to chase it, and in that process, I hope to capture myself, in my home, through the things that have embedded their character in me.
Thank you very much for the detailed answer, Shyamal, and especially for the very interesting information about the lighting! Indeed, even the name of what we do, photography, means directly translated to record the light, and so the importance of the light is apparent. But often it is exactly that importance that is almost neglected.
About the how and the what we capture at some certain level that many masters of photography have reached, one is able to just shoot anything and make the "usual" look intriguing. I think that this is something we should at least try to achieve though of course it is a long long way up there. Like for example here, where you did take something very usual and still made it look special.
The flame on the dark side of the image introduces (in addition to everything else) quite a tension since the eye reacts automatically by questioning the fact that the reflected light is on the opposite side of the candle flame. I realized that some minutes after looking at the image for the first time, and that was why I asked about the light sources. I wonder now if this could be taken to the endth degree by illuninating the opposite side of some object/scene where there is some (less strong?) source of light visible at the other side. I can imagine for example that if there are many reflecting surfaces, or even particles like dust etc, the interaction of light with light could turn many things to very very intriguing images.
Now, where are my torches, lamps, reflectors and dustbean? ;-)
Thank you very much for you comment Nick. I certainly wanted to get across the idea that *how* we shoot is at least as important than what we shoot. At the same time, I didn't want to pick any common still life, like an apple, because there can be so many levels of complexity in an image with a simple subject, but when different sources of light get thrown into the equation, the complexity goes exponential. Thus I wanted the flame.
Yes, most pictures of candles are either underexposed, to show the detail in the flame, or overexposed, to show detail in the candle. I was certain I could do both, and would force myself to if I had an interesting piece. The flame was not the only source of light, I did have a lamp (no flash) on the left side, using the shade to diffuse the light falling on the subject.
Incidentally, I purposely lit the subject on the opposite side of the flame, so that the flame is on the darker side of the image; which I thought would give away my lighting concept.
The concept is very interesting, Shymal, since it reveals the many possibilities to make something interesting out of something that we are used to. And your capture here proves very very strongly that it *is* indeed more important *how* we shoot than whhat we shoot!
The light/shadow/reflections supply a plasticity that makes the object almost touchable. It escapes my fingers but I see it as something that is not only a depiction. I am also amazed about the clarity of the light! (BTW, Was that your only light source?) Often such candle lights in darkness tend to get overexposed and really lose much of their warm character. But not here. Here it is a real candle light - small, warm, with sharp borders to the darker background but still carrying its halo!
A very very well though out and extremely careful exposure. Only perhaps a tiny bit of a tighter crop of the top part of the image?
0 
{K:127263} 10/23/2007
