Thread: Photographing your Woodwork pieces – doing it properly

Bret all good stuff if you want advertising pro type photographs, the topic has been covered often on the forum in many sections.

Trouble here is not everyone has access to the latest and greatest or the room required let alone the time. So we do with what we have got, be it point and shoot, DSLR, Mobile phone and even with those some shoot like DSLR's others need shooting.

What hurts is when you see a magazine pro photographer using a point and shoot to get the shot because his DSLR just won't take what he's after or an amateur with point and shoot taking better shots than the pro.

One thing I have learnt over the years with photography is take more than one shot, pick the best if none are worth showing then take more if you can. That was way back when film was King. Nothings changed other than its now digital and no longer 36 shots on a roll, you can delete instead of burn your stuff ups. I was also taught there is no such thing as a bad photo just a new imaginative way to take photos. I don't totally agree with that, lens caps are dam hard to see through on any camera.

I for one would love a beaut new Canon D6 with all the bells and whistles its not going to happen for me sorry so you'll have to put up with what I take.

Brett,
I am a master of the art of what not to do. If you need any help with this aspect, please let me know. I have been perfecting my skills in what not to do in photography for 50 years. In fact, I gave up on what not to do in photography when digital came along, and am now working hard on what not to do in woodwork. I expect to master that in due course.
Regards, Mike.

I have left my following response for quite some hours, so as to give it due consideration before replying.

all good stuff if you want advertising pro type photographs

That's not the thrust at all - there are all sorts of competency levels between Pro work and Phone camera pics. Different people may get different things from this. Some won't learn anything new because they're doing good work already. Certainly the thread can't be all things to all people. I was mainly aiming at people who have some middle level equipment who might perhaps want to pick up a few ideas. Much of what I've written about is to do with what happens beyond the camera, that can have a big impact on what goes into the camera (as an image). Should a person not want to pick up anything, or thinks it a waste of time, then I don't think that there's a need for them to publicly say so.

Moreover, there would be a few people who would like to be able to take advertising pro shots. Should I hold back information just to satisfy those who think this thread is too hoity toity?

...the topic has been covered often on the forum in many sections.

Yes of course, but I wasn't about to search through the forum and read all the posts in all the threads to see what had already been covered. Furthermore, different authors will have different perspectives, and readers can pick the bits from various threads that will be useful to them, perhaps even combining two perspectives into one idea for them to try.

Trouble here is not everyone has access to the latest and greatest or the room required let alone the time. So we do with what we have got, be it point and shoot, DSLR, Mobile phone and even with those some shoot like DSLR's others need shooting.

Not quite sure where I was on about the latest and greatest - I definitely don't have any of it now. Nor did I talk about the space required for large backdrops, lighting rigs etc. My purpose is to hopefully give some tips to people who may want improve their work regardless of what they are using.

One thing I have learnt over the years with photography is take more than one shot, pick the best if none are worth showing then take more if you can. That was way back when film was King. Nothings changed other than its now digital and no longer 36 shots on a roll, you can delete instead of burn your stuff ups.

Yes, I know that many people do this, but it leaves too much to chance, and I'm trying to discourage this practice by being pro-active. It's far more productive to work towards improving the pic before it is taken, and then carry what's been learnt through to the next time a photo session is undertaken. If a person doesn't want to read about that, then it's fine by me.

I for one would love a beaut new Canon D6 with all the bells and whistles its not going to happen for me sorry so you'll have to put up with what I take.

So would I! It's not a matter of me putting up with the pics of other people, it's a matter of putting some info out there in the spirit of the forum, and those who wish to read it can do so.


Regarding either the length or number of posts that I put up: well, photography is a pretty big subject, almost as big as woodwork itself, and it took about 4-5 hours to write/edit/rewrite them. Rather than put up one very long post I thought it better to split them up for reader friendliness. If it's too much for some then they can stop reading anytime they like, and without feeling that they have to say so.

Make no mistake - I haven't done this for thanks, gratitude, applause or big-noting (if I had then I would have put up some of my own pictures from the pro days wouldn't I?). As I said before, it is in the spirit of the forum, which is mostly excellent.

To those who have picked up something from this thread - good for you, that was what it was all about, and no thanks is required.

Fence Furniture

I wouldn't worry about what some think regarding your post, I for one think the information is very useful especialy the FOV information.

Learn something new every day

I actually though the information was not equipment specific and was more focused (pun not intended) on the techniques rather than the gear and could be used regardless of the cost of the gear... even when using your phone good lighting makes a huge difference.

example: my wife and I were recently in Sydney and were trying to take a picture from our hotel window of my wife with the opera house in the background. decent camera but not top of the range.

It was not possible with the auto settings to get my wife and the opera house both well lit and both in focus, however with a little trial and error in manual mode we managed a decent photo, again this was to do with the FOV and the lighting in the room.

keep the posts coming Fence Furniture

some of us are interested.

Steve

Cheers Steve. Nice lookin' cat you've got there, but I'll bet she doesn't have Nursie's psycho attitude

Good to see that you fooled around a bit with manual control. Another way to get around that problem is to shoot two frames, with different (correct) exposures and then layer them up in Photoshop (and i think I may have read other software for similar). The second pic which is exposed for outside doesn't (and shouldn't) have you two in it because you'll be in a slightly different possie, and that will create difficulties. Then you erase what you don't want from the top layer (inside) and end up with everything exposed properly.

You can also wait until dusk, monitoring the changing light outside (because inside will be constant). When the light outside has reached the same level you can take the pic.

Bret I am sorry you have taken my post as you have. I still not have read thoroughly the thread you took so long to post. However you say your not talking about latest and greatest yet your comments all lean towards Pro equipment, pro work and your view as an ex-pro.

Below is just a quick scan of what you typed up all very relevant all top notch suggestions BUT they are well over the top for a forum who's image size is restricted and for me out of wack as a hobby woodworker in it for fun and occasionally to show off something I have achieved be it well done or a pure disaster.

Its a shame that more pro's do not admit they have and can show they do have disasters it would show they are human after all.

You know like fellows who turn a magnificent piece but he has really turned 5 or 6 to get it right the rest are in the fire pile.

FenceFurniture

Light Tents
Light Tents
There is much to say about lighting, and I may cover that separately. Light Tents have already been well documented in Nick’s thread, and I have little to add.

The one thing I would encourage people to do is to forget all the artificial light sources they are using for the tent and take the tent outside and let direct sunlight be the source. This will give you beautiful pearly light that is impossible to create artificially – it’s just got that natural quality to it, and it will make your pics absolutely glow (providing of course that the tent cloth doesn’t put some spin into the colour balance). You could try this by using Tracing Paper instead of cloth as the diffuser – I’ve used this technique for lighting flowers and the result was GORGEOUS light, that looked so natural (coz it was).

Don’t be scared of shadows, but keep them under control. Shadowless lighting will always end up with the product looking as flat as a tack. Shadows are necessary to give some form and 3D to the product.

Zoom Lenses verses Prime Lenses
Zoom Lenses verses Prime Lenses
Waddya want? Convenience or quality? It’s that simple. If you want both, then buy both (which is what I did).

If you are going to have zooms then don’t try to get a one size fits all from wide to Tele. The lens designs are wildly different from wide to Tele, and it is just not possible to design a lens that will do both properly. Get a wide zoom that goes up to only Standard Focal length of 50mm, or at most up to 70mm. Then get a Tele zoom that goes from 70mm up to around 200mm. Above all, have a Prime Macro lens because these are specifically designed for close focus work. I had three Macro lenses (50, 100, 200), and used them all. When I restricted myself to one it was the 100mm.

Zoom lenses that try to be everything will have many inherent flaws such as barrel distortion at the wide end, and chromatic and spherical aberrations at the tele end. It’s a bit like trying to buy one plane that does everything – can’t do anything well.

Manual Focus Control
Manual Focus Control
Too often the autofocus can be fooled by subjects that have no contrast in the focus zone that you want. Furthermore if Depth of Field is limited then the focus point is critical, and may not be within the zone of the camera’s autofocus point. To repeat – you should be on control, especially with product photography.

A fairly simple rule of thumb is that the Depth of Field will extends towards the camera by a third, and away from the camera by two thirds (from the primary focal point). That is to say that if your focal length/aperture combination gives you 30cm of sharp focus then you should manually focus on the 10cm point.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

I still not have read thoroughly the thread you took so long to post.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

However you say your not talking about latest and greatest yet your comments all lean towards Pro equipment, pro work and your view as an ex-pro.

Eh? I've just read the ten posts, and I can't see any reference to this whatsoever (apart from saying I used to have a $600 filter)

Brett,

I've read all the posts and some of it I knew, some I learned from and some are above my level and equipment but this is the first time it was laid out easily and all in one place.

Thank you for that and please continue with your efforts. That way I may learn more.

Peter.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

...for a forum who's image size is restricted

Now this does bring up a point that deserves some exploration. Ok, the allowable pic size is fairly small, and so that means that we have to make the most of it. What I can't get to the bottom of is why, when I always make the pics 800 pixels wide before I post them, they are not as sharp as looking at them here (at 800 DPI). It clearly has nothing to do with DPI because IanW's pics are always crystal clear, without the softness that almost everybody else gets. I did get a slightly better result when I linked to Photobucket, but still not with the same clarity as they should have. I'm going to try to nail exactly what Ian's process is (by talking to him).

So, going back to making the most of it, there are several things of different natures that can lead to a pic looking pretty ordinary on the forum, but whatever happens to the pics in the uploading is only one aspect of that. However, if the other (controllable) aspects are also introduced, then it just compounds the problem, and is no doubt an unsatisfactory result for the poster (as you have alluded to Ray).

My point is, that by trying to improve the overall quality of the photo (by using good depth of field, good lighting, etc, etc) the downgrading effect on the pic is minimised.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Brett,

I've read all the posts and some of it I knew, some I learned from and some are above my level and equipment but this is the first time it was laid out easily and all in one place.

Thank you for that and please continue with your efforts. That way I may learn more.

Peter.

Goodo Peter. And a classic answer actually (none of this, bit of that, not too much of the other). So, what do you feel is over your head? There's nothing in there that can't be explained differently, or perhaps more clearly, perhaps in a little more detail, to aid understanding. Also, I should think that if you (in particular) haven't gotten hold of my gist, then many others won't have either, and I'd like to be able to simplify that.

Play nicely kiddies.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Edit your work before publication
It is pointless to put up ten pictures when one will do. In fact it’s worse than pointless, it’s counter-productive, and people can tune out to the whole series. I was looking at a post yesterday where there were at least eight pics of the same thing from slightly different viewpoints. Some were out of focus (“soft”), some were poor exposure, and I just couldn’t be fagged going through the whole sequence to find out if one was any good.

You must consider your photographs from the viewer’s point of view. Select the pics that tell the story quickly and efficiently. A writer will not publish the same paragraph in 6 different draught versions. Would you read them all if they did?

Bret with pens and timber 1/2 doz and sometimes more is the only way to show the timbers full qualities, grain and structure as one photo just will not do it.
To go to lengths of Macro lens, tents etc is just a massive time waster.

I when taking photos to produce a workshop manual and instructional some years back I would some times have 6 photos of the same thing showing different angles for, Location, additional gear which maybe there, close up, full view and even macro. This was required by the company and dept the vehicles were supplied to because of the dummies who had to use the product. Where in other cases I have had manuals myself showing one photo which is usless.

Its like waiting for the right time of day for that one shot, or being in the right place at the right time and finding you should have been in another spot.

Brett, I'm not a photographer and the only time I take photos is to put them on this board.

Until now I was using an old Sony digital camera (3.2 mega pixels Cyber-shot) and then reducing the photos to a suitable size for uploading by reducing and cropping on the computer.

Normally I just move forward or backward to get the object centered and press the button. The camera does the rest. So I'm confused about the depth of field and the manual or automatic.

However in the recent renovations/decorating I lost the charger and cabling (I put them away myself in a safe place, so safe that I can not find them) so I have upgraded to another discarded family camera, being an Olympus U 700 model, so keep that in mind. Still have to work out how to use that camera.


Peter.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

Bret with pens and timber 1/2 doz and sometimes more is the only way to show the timbers full qualities, grain and structure as one photo just will not do it.
To go to lengths of Macro lens, tents etc is just a massive time waster.

I when taking photos to produce a workshop manual and instructional some years back I would some times have 6 photos of the same thing showing different angles for, Location, additional gear which maybe there, close up, full view and even macro. This was required by the company and dept the vehicles were supplied to because of the dummies who had to use the product. Where in other cases I have had manuals myself showing one photo which is usless.

Its like waiting for the right time of day for that one shot, or being in the right place at the right time and finding you should have been in another spot.

Yes sure, there'll always be exceptions to my basic premise, and particularly with pens I would think. You need to show enough pictures to tell the story, but not excessively.

I thought light tents were the light source of choice for pen turners. No?

If you have a camera that takes interchangeable lenses then it's no slower using a macro to using any other lens, and far, far superior. As I recall, they aren't all that expensive either.