I also lit a candle to see what it looks like. Mine, however, had a white,
(presumably) more translucent inside. I indeed observed a glow in the
candle, going even deeper than I expected. Almost like an ambient gradient,
but not quite. No reflectiveness was observed, but then, the room was nearly
pitch dark.

Oh, and Peter, your candle sure looks good!

Margus

Ken wrote in message <37119290.3B46385D@pacbell.net>...
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>  I like it.
>
>  I just visited about 20 candle web sites trying to get a good image
>of a real burning candle and dicovered one surprising fact. People who
>manufacture and sell candles know absolutely nothing about photography.
>In virtualy all cases the candles were brand new when the photos were
>taken and the flames were dancing at the ends of their long new wicks.
>Added to this the majority were photographed against a light background
>that reflected the over enthusiastic use of flash photographay which
>nearly washed out the brilliance of the candle flame itself.
>  One thing that I did notice is that a lot of what I think we percieve
>as translucence is as much a pigmentation characteristic coupled with
>a soft but very uniform reflective surface. The reflection on the
>surface of a smooth candle is pretty high. I would guess a reflection
>of .2 - .4 would be close to real.
>  Also I just lit a candle that is designed to burn down through the
>middle and leave the shell intact. Is has a splotchy red, dark turquoise,
>and light pink pattern that goes through the candle. When looking at it
>in a darkened room there is not nearly the kind of glow that you would
>imagine. If aything it looks more like a pigment that has the ambient
>setting turned up about .3 too high. Perhaps this varies from candle
>to candle but I have no doubt that I could render an accurate duplicate
>of this candle without the need to resort to anything else but standard
>pigments and finish statements.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message