Photographing your masterpiece.

[Sawdust Maker]

To keep the Critique thread "pure" I think this needs to be here as it can provide a good reference for those wishing to photograph their work.

Same rule applies: Nothing to do with photopraphy will be deleted.

The post numbers referred to in this article are here .http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=57523
Added by .

There’s been a couple of people ask for ideas or guidelines on photographing their (extremely well) turned pieces of work. I offer the following (and please, no one take offence at me using their shots as examples, no offence is intended)


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->1 Simple non cluttered background is best, clutter takes away from the piece. Professionals use fabric, sometimes velvet, draped under and behind the work so there is no seam or creases. I drape fabric over a chair. Cliff in #64 has the idea. Reeves in #25 is ... well. (Sorry, as I said I’m not picking on anyone just using examples). With Brown Dog’s shots at #79 the white stand causes reflections to take the detail out of the timber. I tend to use darker fabric to lessen the likelihood of this occurring.


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->2 Depth of field. Simply this is what is in focus. It is difficult in taking photos of bowls etc to get it all in focus. It is probably best to focus on the closest edge. Most good shots will have the front rim very crisp with the rear rim slightly fuzzy. Twinnie at #75 demonstrates this well. Cliff, your shot in #61 appears to be focussed on the background. With an SLR use a small aperture and a longer shutter speed. With a point and shoot you’ll have to experiment, either portrait or macro, I’d guess.


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->3 Use a tripod, if you don’t have one rest the camera on a sock full of sand (or maybe shavings which for some reason seem to congregate around lathes)


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->4 Camera flash won’t work too well, diffused light from one side is better, at least in portrait photography. For example rsser’s photos at #55 has all the lighting from a window on the right, problem is we lose detail in the highlight in the bowl, hence diffused lighting, an overcast day perhaps.


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->5 If you can slightly underexpose the shots, this will help with detail.


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->6 I think shots should be side on with a few degrees above the plane, to get the idea of the outside curve, foot etc. Then at about a 45 degree angle. Cliff’s at #61 are good examples of this, as is canchippy’s, we see the shape and have a good gander at the inside.


7 use something to give scale, otherwise we have no idea how big the turning is. I use a 50c piece, Cliff has a scale on his paper.


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->8 Someone suggested one turned item per posting, I agree.


<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->9 Above all else experiment


I hope this helps, and when I post some examples of my work later, nobody is allowed to say I didn’t follow what I said.

<o></o>
cheers



PS: I'm learning a lot from the comments made please keep it up

[Cliff Rogers]

Beauty. :2tsup:

I did apologise for the crook focus. :rolleyes:

I'm using an automatic digital & I'm trying not to use flash 'cos it flattens things but it does bugger up the dept of field a bit. :cool:

[rsser]

Useful tips - thanks.

However for artistic or sales work I wouldn't include a scale; would include dimensions in the notes. And I'm not averse to two pics in the one frame, one up one down, with side and 45 degree views.

btw, WoodCentral somewhere has a cheap and cheeful DIY lightbox described.

[Sawdust Maker]

After writing the above I found this link, always happens
also has pictures

http://www.enter.net/%7Eultradad/photos.html

Cliff
With yours (and sorry for picking on you) I imagine the focus point on the camera is higher then you expect, thus the focus on the backing paper behind or if you are using a view finder at the top left of the camera then the little lines lie when the object is fairly close. There is a name for this which I cannot now remember.

feel free to be super critical when I post my first bowl!! or tell me what timber it is

[Cliff Rogers]

My camera sometimes offers a green rectangle around the spot it is focusing on & then sometimes it doesn't either....:rolleyes:
It takes really good photos of mountains & storms. :D

[Chisel Girl]

I used a spray booth to take some photos of my seahorse I made. With a
black background of the booth and some black material to rest the seahorse on.
I adjusted the light balance on the camera to control the level of white light and also adjusted the aperture. Would mainly recommend playing around with the settings on the lights and also the camera to achieve your desired effect.
Hope this helps :)

[orraloon]

I am only starting to get a grip on woodwork now I have to learn photography as well. The world is spinning too fast!:oo:

[Doc Ron]

After writing the above I found this link, always happens
also has pictures

http://www.enter.net/%7Eultradad/photos.html
u are using a view finder at the top left of the camera then the little lines lie when the object is fairly close. There is a name for this which I cannot now remember.


The term is parallax. Not a problem with an SLR, but you need to be careful with viewfinder cameras.

[Little Festo]

I use a sheet of prespex or laminex. it can be bent to give a seamless background (no creases), works well. I was going to design a simple setup for compact digital cameras, will one day. I found that a neutral gray is good as white or black can give exposure problems on the more simple compact digital cameras. Many compact digitals don't have a manual setting although the exposure can be controlled, to a degree, using the over and under exposure controls. Most people don't have digital SLR cameras with manual exposure settings.

Will be giving some digital camera workshops in Pomona, Sunshine Coast later on in the year, all forum members welcome.

Peter - Happy snapping.

[BobL]

Simple non cluttered background is best, clutter takes away from the piece. Professionals use fabric, sometimes velvet, draped under and behind the work so there is no seam or creases.
For many years I used a black teat towel until I went to Spotlight with SWMBO and rummaging amongst the fabric remnants found some bits black, brown and blue velvet all for ~$10. Clean towels are another alternative.


Depth of field. Simply this is what is in focus. It is difficult in taking photos of bowls etc to get it all in focus. It is probably best to focus on the closest edge. Most good shots will have the front rim very crisp with the rear rim slightly fuzzy.
Focusing on a rim is hard to do without a camera that can spot focus. Most cameras focus somewhere in the middle of the image but if your rim or edge is not in the middle it won't focus on it. Some cameras allow you to focus on an image by partially holding down the shot button - move the camera so the edge is in the middle - then hold the button in the partially held down state and allow the camera to focus, then and point the camera to the composition you desire - then push the button all the way.


Use a tripod, if you don’t have one rest the camera on a sock full of sand Those mini ball tripods are excellent of this sort of thing and should be given away with every with every camera. An alternative is to brace your camera on the back of chair


Camera flash won’t work too well, diffused light from one side is better, at least in portrait photography. hence diffused lighting, an overcast day perhaps. A shade screen made from a white sheet makes an excellent diffuser. I drape mine on top of the washing line - works great to diffuse direct light.


If you can slightly underexpose the shots, this will help with detail. One way to force a slight underexposure on some cameras is the same way as forcing the focus describe above. place a slightly brighter object in the picture like a piece of white paper. Focus and hold the shoot button halfway (at this point the camera electronics also determines the exposure) - remove paper and push all the way. If you are using a diffuser pull it away a little to cast more light onto the shot.


I think shots should be side on with a few degrees above the plane, to get the idea of the outside curve, foot etc. Then at about a 45 degree angle. Cliff’s at #61 are good examples of this, as is canchippy’s, we see the shape and have a good gander at the inside. I generally shoot ~20 shots all over the place to arrive at one good one.


use something to give scale, otherwise we have no idea how big the turning is. I use a 50c piece, Cliff has a scale on his paper. 50c pieces work for us Aussies but OS people won't know what they are. A US$1 bill might be more international but definitely on the tacky side. Depending how arty I'm being I sometimes choose items that fit with the object being taken, pens, bottle tops and openers, cutlery etc.


Above all else experiment
Here here!

[joe greiner]

Sometimes, a tripod is downright inconvenient, especially for WIP pics. The sock of sand or shavings can be somewhat messy. Consider also a sealed packet of rice or beans. This is particularly handy for touring museums and cathedrals where tripods may be forbidden - buy a packet at a grocer, and toss in a bin before returning home. Here's a contraption I made for close-up WIP's: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=57662

Joe

[Groggy]

Don't know if this will help anyone, but....

I don't particularly like messing around with photos, especially the transferring from camera to PC etc. At the moment I use my phone camera (Nokia 6110) and bluetooth. I take a bunch of photos during the day and generally put the phone in my pocket to avoid dust. Then, as I traipse in and out the house, every time I get near the PC (within 10 metres) it begins to auto download the pics.

At the end of the day the photos are ready to go, maybe a quick re-size then I can send them off.

[Cliff Rogers]

Sometimes, a tripod is downright inconvenient,
Another trick is a bit of string with a loop in it, hook the loop over your foot & hold it down, then take a couple of turns around a convenient place on the camera where it won't interfere with the operation, pull up on the string, aim & shoot.
If you can't hold it from wobbling from side to side like that, use 2 pieces, one around each foot. :2tsup:

[BobL]

Consider also a sealed packet of rice or beans. This is particularly handy for touring museums and cathedrals where tripods may be forbidden - buy a packet at a grocer, and toss in a bin before returning home.

I'd much rather pack my mini-tripod in my camera bag than packet of rice or beans. Mini tripods have several advantages. Besides being light, they can be attached to the bottom of the camera and braced on vertical surfaces like rough stone walls or columns commonly found in museums and churches. If I'm walking around with my camera around my neck I often leave the mini tripod attached.

[Little Festo]

I have a studio lighting setup, some large studio electronic flashes so a tripod isn't essential, also allows me to shoot with small aperatures, F22 or higher. I find that my composition does improve when I use a tripod though, may be it's just me.

Re depth of field it's better to have the foreground in focus than out of focus, you can get away with the back of the piece being slightly out of focus, also depth of field follow the rule that if you focus on a point and stop down to a greater aperature to improve your depth of field the greatest increase in sharpness (depth) occurs in the backround not the foreground so it's a good idea to lock your focusing onto the front of the piece - for safety's sake so to speak. Hope this makes sense. There are other tricks you can do but they require a manual focusing method using a SLR camera. Much of my work was closeup and depth of field was critical.

Peter

[rsser]

Any tips on the focal length of lenses?

I'm looking at investing in some primes - the kit zooms produce pretty ordinary results.

And I don't suppose there's any point in going for a prime macro for bowls etc?

Advice appreciated.

Added: already have a 50mm prime manual focus; on the digcam that ends up at about 80mm effectively so = short tele

Looking at a 35mm which should yield 'natural' proportions on the digcam. And at a 70mm macro which would also be useful for portraits (if the girls stop screwing up their faces or closing their eyes) and landscapes.

[Sawdust Maker]

On the DSLR I've a 17 - 85 zoom with a lot better glass then the usual/standard lenses which come with the specials. I read a lot of reviews before buying it.

I've had a look at the past photos of bowls and suchlike I've taken with it and noted that most photos are between 50mm and 80mm (which would equate with approx 70 - 110 in 35mm speak). For example the shavings in my avatar photo were taken at 50mm.

I think it gets down to what I'm comfortable with at the time and how I've gone about framing the shot. Also if it's on the tripod then the focal length will vary considerably, with different sized bowls.

Looking at that I'd use both the 50mm and the 80mm to take photos of my creations. Primes supposedly have better glass.

As for the girls screwing up their faces, can't help with that:no:
candid shots can work. One of my sons is a real pain to take photos of, so I tend to do a burst and usually manage to get a half decent one out of about a dozen. Group shots of boys sporting teams are the worst as there is usually one blighter sticking his tongue out, picking his nose or something equally as obnoxious:C

I've been meaning to take some photos to illustrate my original posting but am having trouble finding the time

cheers

[rsser]

Thanks SD. Burst mode sounds good for self-conscious subjects.

So effectively you ended up using short tele lengths for your pics.

Yeah, the performance of the primes is way better than most zooms (least the ones I have or could afford) but then to cover a fair focal range and kit up with filters you end up paying for the privilege and lugging around more lumps of glass.

[Sawdust Maker]

Yeah, I think my big zoom cost almost as much as the body.:oo:
The weight factor was big in my deliberations as I like to carry almost everything, especially when hiking. So I tend to rely on the two zooms.

Was thinking of getting an attachment to the viewfinder to allow waist high shots for the candid photos of people. Haven't quite justified it to myself yet.

But I have to get a remote release as I noticed some blur or ghosting on longer exposures on the weekend. So do I get the simple shutter release or the more fancy one which allows more control of shutter speed, aperture etc. Will have to start laying the foundation for a fathers day pressie I think:rolleyes:

[rsser]

You prob know this SM but you can use the camera timer to reduce blur - I set mine to 5 secs. I also have an ebay remote that cost about 10 bucks but never use it.

As for focal lengths, I think I'll opt for another prime: a Pentax 70mm f2.4. It's tiny and so good for walking and skiing with and on the digicam will be a useful length for portraits and landscapes. Given up on the macro idea since they are big lumps. Might get some auto extension tubes instead down the track.

[Little Festo]

Hello Ern,



I use a Nikon 19-70mm zoom some of the time for photographing my pieces, usually around the 50-60 range of the zoom. I have a really nice 100mm macro that I use sometimes. A 50 or 60mm macro would be perfect, the 100mm is a bit long. The question needs to be asked - what will the image be used for. Most images I use now is for posting or a quick email photo for a gallery so exceptional lens quality, meaning a very expensive lens is not necessary. I'm sure images from the zoom would also be fine for a publication. The macro was a very expensive lens and I must admit it is a bit crisper than the zoom but it was almost twice the price of the zoom and it wasn't cheap.

BTW started my digital photography classes yesterday, got 19 students, none left at halftime and they all want to come back next week. Must not have "waffled on" too much, much relieved.

Peter

[rsser]

LoL - well done. (My students aren't allowed to leave so I need to find other ways of telling whether I'm connecting).

Thanks for those tips.

Yes, I looked closely at the Sigma 70mm macro but having owned a Tamron 90mm in film days and not getting a lot of use out of it for macro applications opted for the Pentax 70mm prime. Which has turned out to be a terrific portrait lens; good focal length, great optical performance and natural skin colours. Not cheap but should last my lifetime (at least until we get full frame digital sensors at which point I'll have to sell a kidney).

[George Bush]

Hi,

I read your post, it is very helpful for me. Please keep up the good work.

--------------------------------------------------
George Bush

I challenge you to a game of trivia! Click here to battle against me online at ConQUIZtador. Let's see who's the winner... https://www.conquiztador.com/?a=26041

[rsser]

Looking for a hobby after the White House GB? ;-}

Welcome to the madhouse btw.

[Sawdust Maker]

GB
welcome to the Forum, glad to be of help.
is the new hobby woodworking or photography:D


LF
I think I have to agree with your comments on lens quality. Most of my photography is for personal (and family) enjoyment. However I like to get a nice crisp image posted on the forum or other places like ePay. A lot of this comes down to the sensor size. IMHO lens quality has some bearing. I think I'm starting to get sick of some of the mobile phone shots, fuzzy, blurry and little detail, especially on ePay, but then that could be deliberate:!

rssr
I think nikon do a full frame sensor. It'll probably need your soul as well as the kidney:U, and maybe a first born son. Canon do one as well. Whilst I like photography I simply cannot justify that amount of loot. Which doesn't stop me trying to convince SWMBO that I need an EOS 5D:!

and you blokes teach:oo: I feel like I'm commenting to the pope on how to say mass:B

[rsser]

Oh well, a wait of 10 years will see full frame sensors in your mobile phone ;-}

(Yeah I teach, but not photography.)

[cliffroy]

I have just put a couple of photographs into my album, i would appreciate views on the photos, such as focus as I am no photographer

[Cliff Rogers]

G'day.

I'm not a pro when it comes to photrography but I'll have a look anyway.

Natural light is good BUT... I think you have just a bit too much concentrated on one side.
Maybe try adding light from another direction or set up some big & white on the over side to reflect side light back onto the dark side.

[Sawdust Maker]

Cliffroy

As Cliff says maybe a tad too much lighting from one side. What Cliff means is that you need more diffuse light and maybe some of it from another angle. If you can reflect it off a large sheet of white paper or something similar, good. You may have seen that when they interview newsreaders etc outside they have a reflective surface just out of camera shot to get rid of some of the harsher shadows etc. Same idea here.
However it seems to be in focus. and I'd say probably better then 50% (maybe even 75%) that get posted on the forums. It looks to be a nice bowl, post it where everyone can see it

and welcome to the forums

cheers

Nick

PS I'm no expert either

[NGX]

Bowls are hard to take this one I have done out side before so today I did it inside my setup as I do Sport Photos and Landscapes, studio work is very funny and the most thing I find is ( Adamant Light) it is the good and evil in all photography ;)

Get your light right and 90% of photos will take them self's Iv read all these pages and the tips are all there and well posted.

I use a rang of gear Camera: Canon 30D Lens: 18mm-to-55mm std, 24mm to135mm (is usm) and my big lens 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Cheers!

I will put a link to the photo soon.

[Sawdust Maker]

Nice photo, well lit and well framed
and bluddy great bowl:2tsup:

I'd take extra care in lighting when taking photos of a bowl like that :2tsup:

[Johncs]

Thanks SD. Burst mode sounds good for self-conscious subjects.
.

My oldest daughter is rather good at having her eyes shut. A good countermeasure is
Shut your eyes
Open your eyes
<click>

Mostly though I go candid, and if people "pose" I ask them to ignore me.

I also have an accessory flash, not just the built-in. I stick a baby bouncer to it, and I have diffused flash. I think it costs about two stops.

[Johncs]

I have just put a couple of photographs into my album, i would appreciate views on the photos, such as focus as I am no photographer

Your lighting and exposure are right when there's no detail washed out in the highlights and there's still detail in the darkest area.

Most of my photography has been monochrome,aand when I used file my weapon of choice as a Mamiya C330. http://cgi.ebay.com/Mamiya-C330-Professional-TLR-120-220-Body-w-WLF_W0QQitemZ150219032892QQcmdZViewItem

Strewth, look at that price! I've got three lenses for mine.

I'd not consider myself an expert either, but I was a member of the Waverley Camera Club for a while.

[Johncs]

Your lighting and exposure are right when there's no detail washed out in the highlights and there's still detail in the darkest area.



I meant to mention Ansel Adams who used to shoot large format.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_bridal_veil_fall_full.html

As stunning as those pics are on the screen, one really needs to see his prints. He used to go to a lot of trouble getting the exposure right so printing would be easy.

[rsser]

Yeah, that brings back memories.

Zone exposure system ... f22 club ... Weston, Minor White.

I recently read Adams collected letters ... his photos are better!

[Fredo]

Hello everyone,

I need some help with my photography. I use a Canon E0S400D digital camera. The images of my work look great on my computer, but when compressed and posted, I feel look quite ordinary. Here's how I have tried to remedy the problem: I recently made a photo tent to better control the lighting of my images. I use two 125 Watt equivalent daylight fluoro bulbs in movable lamps above and beside the tent, which I don't think are bright enough. Does anyone else use a photo tent? If so, what lights do you use and how do you arrange them?

I have switched from Shrink Pic to Photoshop to resize my images and have control over compression values. Which software do you use and do you control compression when resizing? My photo tent is quite large, an 800 mm cube, in order to accomodate this turning (see pic), which is 750 mm x 350 mm. Does the image posted look okay on your computer? I am certainaly no computer or photographic wizard, am I on the right track?

Feel free to comment, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Fredo :U

[BobR]

Fredo, you don't say what the posted image is being used for or what size you are sending. Are they being printed by the receiver or just being viewed on the screen. Also, you need to be aware that every viewer/receiver will see the image slightly differently unless all screens are calibrated. So you might "tweek" the image on your system so that it looks just right, but on the receiving monitor it may look brighter, have colour shifts, or look very contrasty. If it is just among friends, then this may not be relevant. As for printing the posted image, this is another world if reproduction is critical.

[Fredo]

BobR,
In this case the image is for posting here on the forum and is resized to 600x400 pixels and not for printing. The images look good on my computer before they are posted but not so good after they are posted, does that help?

Fredo :U

[Harry72]

800x533 is just nice for this forum, your 400D standard imported full res to photoshop is 3888x2592 at 72dpi(huge 137x92cm!), convert the image size to 800x533 at 300dpi(6.77x4.52cm)to do this right click in top bar of the picture box and select image resize, change the dpi setting 1st then make sure the "Constrain proportions" box is ticked now set the image width to 800 pixels the height will change automatically to 533 pixels click Ok.




Hint after doing the above, in photoshop hold down shift~control~alt and then push "s" to process the photo for posting on the web, here you can play with the quality settings to keep the image under 100k or so:)

If you get stuck give's a holla!

[regulated]

Hey Fredo,

Pics don't look too bad. It is harder getting a pic of a large object but. The background and the lighting have to be just right. I found photographing pens the lights have to be pointed towards the front or the shadow makes the pics loo a bit off. That may just be my setup but. I use an old digi cam with a Chinese tent but the pics do seem to be ok. With a camera like yours with a bit of playing around it should all be good. You can take tonnes of pics for no cost so take a few in the same position, change the lighting angle, take some more, move the item, take some more. You will find that pointing a light straight at the item without any filter/sheet to disperse the light has a bad effect on the pic. It puts a real shine on the item.

An effect that I like is using black perspex to create a nice reflection off the item. The perspex table came free with my tent so luckily I did not have to make it. Also normal sheets may not be the best thing to use to disperse the light, they seem to block a lot of the bright light. Most proper ones are made out a synthetic material that seems very close to melting if the lights are on too long.

I don't know which thread it was but Simo put up all the settings for his digi cam and basically all his pics come up perfect. May pay to find it and try them. Every camera is different but.

Photoshop is a high end photo editor. You should not not have too much trouble with the pics. Make sure to touch up all the backgound that is not all white. I have done something wrong with some pics after compression. The edges didn't come out smooth, sort of all jagged. Still don't know what I did wrong.

OK thanks for reading my ramblings.

BJ

[rsser]

Might be something useful here Fredo:

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/turning/articles_836.shtml

[Fredo]

Harry,
Kind of tried that, not exactly the dimensions you mentioned but here's the pic. Is this better?

Fredo :U

[rsser]

Think your prob is at source, not post-processing.

The image looks flat, and you have two shadows.

See if the tips linked to at post 6 are any use.

[Fredo]

Ern,
Could well be, I am using just a plain bed sheet on the tent and as regulated said it may not be defusing the light correctly and I suspect my lights are not bright enough. It appears John Lucas (in your link) uses much more light than I have, I guess I will have to go back to the drawing board and experiment, mainly with the lighting. The camera has to be ok, but the operator may be a little suspect.
Thanks Ern

Fredo :U

[BobR]

Fredo, the advice already given should get you on the right track.

[regulated]

The amount of lighting you have is probably ok. You said around 2 x 125W equivalent. That should be fine. Mine only has two lights. I don't think it is bright but the pics come out ok.

Optics is a massive subject. To cut it short the problem is probably your sheet. It is probably absorbing too much of the light or spectrum that the light is emitting. If the sheet is not the right colour or transparency it isn't too much use at all. Just need to play around a bit.

BJ

[Fredo]

Thanks gentlemen for the input. I'm off to experiment.

Fredo :U

[busyhands]

Just read all your comments on photographing bowls. Some really great suggestions there. I agree that lighting is really the main thing to get right. For what it's worth, here are a few other suggestions.

If you can, light your subject as if it were sitting in the centre of a triangle. the "KEY" light (which could be the sun, your flash, or another light source) should be the strongest and be at the front and slightly to one side. On the opposing side, should be a softer "FILL" light - angle it to hit the darker shadows. And the third light source is the "BACK" light which could be from underneath or above your subject to give it three dimensionality. Moving you light sources closer or further away from your subject will intensify their strength.

So, how do you do this without a studio? Bouncing light is the best option. Flexifills are what is used in the industry (and cost anywhere upwards of $100 each), but a couple of good cheap alternatives are polystyrene board or the flexible fold up heat reflectors that you put into your car windows. You can pick these up quite cheaply from $2 shops or cheap auto supplies. Silver backing will give you good light and you can bend them to concentrate light on the subject as needed. They are also easy to gaffer tape onto chairs, posts etc to keep your hands free for photographing your subject.

A simple "Cychlorama" is easy to construct out of a couple of pieces of ply joined at right angles. A large piece of black matt cardboard taped to the edges so it creates a curve will give you an horizonless background. Black will also absorb the light, rather than bouncing it back onto your subject. If you want this bounce then use white board, but it is harder to avoid highlights in unwanted areas with this.

Hope these tips are of use.

[rsser]

Good tips BH.

(You really do have them don't you :wink: )

[Ozkaban]

Couple of questions. Firstly, what lense are you using, and at what focal length? The std lense with the 400d is pretty ordinary (same optics as the one on my 350d).

I replaced the lense with a 24-70 pro series sigma lense (digital glass, but not the DC small sensor sized one). It was pricey - I think $800-900, but the photos 'stand out' much more than they did in the past.

If you stick to the OEM lense keep the F-stop to about F8 (or numerically higher). Also stick to the centre of the lense and it should help. If you go much higher than F8 the background will be too sharp in focus, losing the distinction with the object, too much less than that and the OEM lense gets a bit soft and the pictures will seem flat...

Just mu 2c worth. Hope it helps though.

Cheers,
Dave

[OGYT]

Ern,
I suspect my lights are not bright enough. It appears John Lucas (in your link) uses much more light than I have, I guess I will have to go back to the drawing board and experiment, mainly with the lighting.
Fredo :U
Fredo, I have a tent, (just don't use it enough). My Tent is lit with one 500 watt Halogen Shop Light, and white poster-board reflectors. I cover the tent with a white cotton sheet, doubled. The light is set high, to the right, and the reflector boards are propped up as necessary to take care of the shadows, but just out of camera view. Sometimes I have to move the light closer or farther away, depending on the subject.
I had previously tried two desk lamps with 60 watt incandescent bulbs, and wasn't getting enough light.
Play around with it... you'll get it.

[Woodturnerjosh]

Hi Fredo,
I'm not sure if someone else mentioned it but one of the first things I do when I set up something for photography is to reduce the amount of ambient light as much as possible. It could just be the picture but it looks like you have the standard room lights on. You want to make sure that all the light on your subject is there because YOU (the capitals are for emphasis not shouting) want it to be there. I spent about 8 hours taking the photos I submitted for the Wood Review open box competition and went through well over 150 shots. I should probably add that I wasn't happy with the resulting photos anyway. I'd set up lights, take photos, check on the computer and then change the lights and do it all over again. It's also worth familiarising yourself with RAW files as these enable you to do the final tweaking.
Cheers
Josh

[rsser]

FWIW, and it's not much and I know I have to go to a light tent, I wait for a dull day and use side lighting on a background. With brighter nat light some guys use a voile cloth diffuser between light and subject.

Also use an old superzoom digicam, with manual controls, on a tripod, and go for low ISO, long exposures and highish aperture numbers. Take bracketed exposure sequences of 3, with brackets of half a stop.

My major problem is exposing for the contrast range. With a high finish (and for me that's no more than DO but say on Blackwood the highlights can be extreme) there's either wash out at the top end or major loss of detail at the bottom.

There's cheapish light tents on ebay, and I figure that by the time I've kitted up with a setup as described in the Wood central article, I won't be much worse off price wise. But the wrinkle with our work is that you need a view top down at say 45 degrees, and tents with that facility are much bigger bucks.

[Woodturnerjosh]

It's also interesting to note the use of too high (numerical value) aperture will also result in the loss of sharpness. The standard 10mp D-SLR (APS-C sized sensor) wil become diffraction limited at around f16 (yes, I know there are a lot of other contributing factors to this but it is a good general rule) basically this means the photos look less sharp. This happens at a lower aperture for point and shoot cameras as they have smaller sensor sizes, so stay at around f8 - f11 for a D-SLR.

[Neal Addy]

Hi all,

I saw a recent post here regarding a photo tent. Thought I would share this in case you haven't seen it.

http://www.nealaddy.org/node/16

Hope it helps!

Neal

[Ozkaban]

It's also interesting to note the use of too high (numerical value) aperture will also result in the loss of sharpness. The standard 10mp D-SLR (APS-C sized sensor) wil become diffraction limited at around f16 (yes, I know there are a lot of other contributing factors to this but it is a good general rule) basically this means the photos look less sharp. This happens at a lower aperture for point and shoot cameras as they have smaller sensor sizes, so stay at around f8 - f11 for a D-SLR.

Good point. F8-11 is a pretty useful range...

cheers,
Dave

[Little Festo]

For most of my work I use a 100mm macro, one I used back in the 35mm film days. I find that I can use this lens stopped down(F22-F32) with no appreciable loss of sharpness. Of course the old 35mm lenses had a greater corner to corner sharpness (Nikon) than the digital lenses due to area they were "exposing" for. Colour is quite snappy too, this was a pro series F2.8 lens so it was not a cheap piece of glass. Also I use electronic flash so the quality of light is good too.

Peter

[Woodturnerjosh]

Hi Peter,
While I'd love to get my hands on a few good primes to play around it's just not on the cards at moment (poor uni student) sounds like a nice lens though. On the subject of diffraction though the lens quality actually has very little to do with it and if you are only looking at your photos on the computer (72dpi) you would probably notice very little loss of sharpness. I would be lying if I said I had a great understanding of diffraction and Airy discs but here's a link to a great site with examples, and a diffraction calculator, if you're interested http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
I must say the photos of your work I've seen on WoW are much better than any I've taken! :-) (the work is pretty special as well)
Cheers
Josh

[Little Festo]

Thanks for your comments Josh. Photography was my first passion (the wife won't like that) nearly 40 years ago. The last 25 years working as a photographer with the NT Gov were really great. Great opportunities to learn, travel and meet some wonderful people. Woodturning came much later and I must admit very few things feel as satisifying as getting the gouge to cut clean and have fine long shavings coming off the wood - but you all know that:U.

I just re read my previous post. My comment re the greater corner to corner sharpness was wrong, should have said the "35mm lenses" have a wider coverage, hence when using the same lenses on my Nikon digital only the "more central" sharper area of coverage is used due to the smaller size of the imaging chip. Like in the old days when I used 4" X 5" and 5 X 7 cameras. The really expensive lenses had a greater coverage so you could make use of the various tilt shifts etc, still have my old Linhof with a few Schnieder and Rhodenstock lenses. From memory the Componons and Rhodagons were the really good ones where you could use max tilts etc. Photography using them was certainly a lot slower than using 120, 35mm and digitals.

Ahh, too much reminising :rolleyes: - Peter

[Woodturnerjosh]

Wow,
Having studied photography for the first year of my art degree I quickly realised that while any idiot can take a good photo it takes a lot of skill and patience to take a great one! (not to mention the technical know how) One of the teachers actually still uses an 8 x 10 and can take the most incredible and sharp photos! Unfortunately he can only contact print because we don't have an enlarger big enough to take the negatives :-)
I know this is completely off topic but I'd love to see some of your photos!
Cheers
Josh

[Little Festo]

Hello Josh,

I,wanted to be a professional photographer since I was 17 - 18 in Brisbane. I used to shoot weddings and lots of personal too. In the early 80's I got some some more interesting work doing some contract type photography photography for the NT Gov. My big break came in 84 when I got the position of Snr Photog. for NT Dept of Education. It was really amazing, we had colour & B&W darkrooms, mamiya 6X7 then Rollei 6006 then 6008 cameras and lenses (the view cameras were mine, used then for the Gov. contract work, gave me a significant advantage on a few of the local pros). We had Nikon 35mm cameras but I hardly used them, mostly used the 6 X 6 cm format. Most of the work was for carriculum development and PR and other work too. There was sooooo much travel. I remember when I first started there was a 12 week period in which I was away, travelling throughout the territory for 9 weeks - week ends included. It was very full on. When I got back from the trips I would be in the darkroom printing and developing film. I travelled to Indonesia many times, with school sporting groups and getting images for the national Indonesian language Carriculum.

The job was becoming a grind, but was fun/good. I transferred to the NT Health Dept - Royal Darwin Hospital (RDH) as the medical/Clinical Photographer, the Education Dept downscaled the Carriculum Dev section. This was in 1991. Work here was very different, didn't know if I could handle it. I had never seen a "dead person" before, I was worried a bit about photographing post mortems etc. 99.9% of the work was shot in 35mm.

It wasn't as bad as I thought and was surprised at how strong a stomach I had. My former boss at Education had now dobts as to my ability to "handle" the work. Hes said, "You have been photographong Polititions for years so photographing diseases shouldn't be a problem. I knew I was ok when five minutes after taking some horrific photos of a patient with Donivonosis (spelling??) I was able to quite happily have a coffee and muffin.

RDH is a teaching Hospital so there was also the task of helping Medical staff to prepare lectures. I had a pager and would get calls at any/all times during the day, night and morning as well. Again work was full on.

Photography was now well and truely WORK. Creativity was not of major concern, maybe for some of the PR but in the Clinical/Forensic area good tecniquie was the most important thing (maybe that's why I feel the most important thing for me in turning is the creative side, although my techniquie is not too bad). In my own time I would not have a camera at home, this started way back when I was with Education. I would get sick of people wanting me to do weddings etc in my spare time. I would get an invitation to go somewhere with the PS - please bring your camera.

So in 2001 when my wife went on a trip to Europe I bought myself a lathe. I discovered woodturning and that became my recreation. I found it so good because I could lose myself in it, I could have a physical object that I have made. I was also lucky in thet I found a very good woodturning instructor.

I left RDH approx 3 years ago and hardly did any photography at all, just a few photos of the newly discovered garden at the new place and of my turning pieces.

I'm just starting to enjoy photography again. I'm giving some local workshops and there is a new local photographic group starting up, several of my last lot of students. We are having an exhibition coming up in a few months - Local Heratige - Pomona QLD area. I will email you sme of these images.

Hope this post isn't too boring or self indulgent or has too many spelling mistakes.

Happy photography and woodturning - Peter

[Sawdust Maker]

Big Shed recently posted his new light tent.
I made a comment that I had plans in my head to make my own.
So here is the wip

Firstly I started with some 1/2" plastic irrigation fittings. I used 8 rightangle pieces for the corners and 6 "T" pieces for the stays/spacers/whatever.

105573

Then some 8mm dowel. I noticed that the dowel fitted snugly into the irrigation connectors. Bit of a fluke this as I'd expected to do a little sanding. I decided on the irrigation connectors and dowel because I thought If I ever want to make a bigger tent I can simply get more dowel and make a bigger frame.

105574105575105576

I then cut up an old sheet, sewed it up to fit over the frame. Don't look too closely as my sewing is not the best! I put press studs on the front flap to keep it together.

105577105578105579

I had a couple of reading lamps which were on a pole which my youngest son managed to wreck. I made simple stands for them. They move up and down the stands and they also tilt. I'm using a couple of those new fangled florescent globes in them at the moment but need to up the wattage I think.

105580105581

I've set it up on the tablesaw to take a couple of photos (had to borrow my son's camera for the last two shots)
The finished tent is 310 mm high x 330 mm deep x 420 mm wide/long
It seems to work. The shadows aren't as harsh and the lighting seems more even. I haven't set the camera's light balance but will accomplish that with a white card I picked up recently from the camera shop. Here's the first photo.

105584

Now all I have to do is play around with the positioning and get some backgrounds. I'm using a single sheet of A4 white paper at the moment, which is ok for pens but a bit small for bowls etc

[rsser]

Good result Nick. Thanks for the post.

[Johncs]

Big Shed recently posted his new light tent.
I made a comment that I had plans in my head to make my own.
So here is the wip

Firstly I started with some 1/2" plastic irrigation fittings. I used 8 rightangle pieces for the corners and 6 "T" pieces for the stays/spacers/whatever.


I saw instructions in a photo magazine about 20 years ago. Conduit is good.

For colour film, you have to watch your colour balance with lighting. Fluorescent lights work very poorly, unless you like green. Common tungsten lights work, but ideally you use special tungsten film. For lighting, you could try those work lights, one can get a stand with a pair of 500W laps very cheaply in big green sheds. I'd be very cautious about putting one in your light tent though, they're flaming good heaters.

Colour balance is less a problem with digital cameras, but I don't recall I've tried fluorescent lights, and the results might vary depending on whether you have daylight, warm, or some other grade. The problem with fluorescent lamps is that there's a great big gap in the spectrum they produce. Whatever algorithm a digital camera might use to "fill in the blanks," there's a good chance the assumptions underlying it don't apply when photographing one's masterpiece.

Daylight filtered through the sheet might be best, maybe with a bit of 500W (or a mirror) to the side to give some shadow.

[rsser]

There are a couple of programs out there that make the job easier.

Photomatix allows you to combine say 3 exposures into one in order to get max dynamic range. So you don't need to live with blown out highlights or loss of detail in the darker parts of the pic.

PhotoAcute allows you to combine a number of pics taken with the focus moving from front to rear and combine them into one shot showing their combined depth of field.

[munruben]

Thanks for the post Nick, I have often thought about making something along those lines myself. Great idea to use the irrigation fittings.:2tsup:

[Boris L]

I haven't read the entire content of this thread but can someone explain how to post pictures? I posted some image - links in another thread to add to my post but the forum converted these to links only. :o

Any help appreciated.

[Big Shed]

I haven't read the entire content of this thread but can someone explain how to post pictures? I posted some image - links in another thread to add to my post but the forum converted these to links only. :o

Any help appreciated.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f36/posting-pictures-your-post-78760/

[Boris L]

Thanks, I knew it was in this place somewhere. I'm just not accustomed to such a huge forum :no:

Cheers

[rsser]

Query: I've tried all I can with the dig SLR to get the colours coming up right with no luck. Pics are also a bit contrasty despite setting it to the lowest poss.

Colour prob: a little on the yellow side. I'm using daylight compact fluoros designed for photography and a light tent.

I try to set white balance manually by following the instructions: put down a white sheet where the subject is to sit and fire off a shot. I EV compensate by two stops. The image has a slight blue/grey cast but the camera thinks it's OK.

None of the preset white balance options improve the result.

Have tried the std zoom and a quality prime. Have tried a range of EV compensation. Exposures are quite long due to the small aperture but well under 30 secs.

Any advice gratefully received.

ADDED: just realised that I've been leaving the front of the tent open. Not that there's ambient Tungsten light. Will zip up and see if that helps.

[Sawdust Maker]

Have you tried setting exposure etc with a grey card?

[rsser]

Yeah. Thanks Nick. Exposure ain't the prob. It's colour balance and to a lesser extent contrast.

[Woodturnerjosh]

Are you using Photoshop? If so have you tried shooting in a RAW format and making adjustments in Camera RAW?

[rsser]

Yes, postprocessing is a possibility but it would save a lot of time if the source could be got right.

[BobL]

Query: I've tried all I can with the dig SLR to get the colours coming up right with no luck. Pics are also a bit contrasty despite setting it to the lowest poss.

Colour prob: a little on the yellow side. I'm using daylight compact fluoros designed for photography and a light tent.

I try to set white balance manually by following the instructions: put down a white sheet where the subject is to sit and fire off a shot. I EV compensate by two stops. The image has a slight blue/grey cast but the camera thinks it's OK.

When Yellows and blues are not right that sounds like the CCD filter is not working properly in conjunction with the CCD. There's not much that can be done about that.

What sort of camera is it and how much compression are you applying?

Can you post something like a small 256 x 256 pixel crop of the original shot at the same resolution it was taken that highlights the problem?

[rsser]

Thanks Bob.

It's a Pentax K100D Super. Set at the max of 6 MP.

Will post a crop later. Will also do some shots in RAW and with ambient light just for interest.

Yesterday I used a Lumix with the same light setup; same problem.

[kevjed]

Ern, I think you will find that shooting RAW files will be the partial answer to the colour cast issues. When adjusting the 'tone' setting you should be able to remove the cast.
All the best
Kevin

[rsser]

Kevin, the camera offers 'bright' and 'normal' and I've been using normal. Is that what you meant? Or in post-processing?

..

I took some shots in RAW. The best colour cast came with light from a shaded side window through the side of the tent and auto white balance but the shot was still very contrasty despite this being set to lowest. I think a bit of chatoyance in the timber is contributing to this. I can reduce it a bit on the PC and playing with hues helps but it still ends up an unrealistic representation.

Crop attached Bob.

[kevjed]

Hi Ern, It would be in post.
Here is a screen shot of the Photoshop settings that come up when I open a RAW file. Move the temperature to get close to the colour balance you like and fine tune with the tint settings. This is just a basic starting point. Longer exposures, >5 secs, introduce some interesting colour casts.
As for getting it right at the source its tuff to get it 100% correct unless you use a colour meter reading and calibrate the camera white balance to that reading(I'm not sure your pentax allows for this?). It will take in the ambiant light, the colour bias of your light source and the colour cast created by the reflected light off the light tent. Get as close as you can at the source and fix it in post. Every lens adds its on own colour cast, every screen does the same and every print media adds to the mix.
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=152797&stc=1&d=1289477439

[rsser]

Thanks Kev.

I used the RAW manipulation s/w that came with the camera which is a bit limited. PS needs a mod to handle Pentax RAW so I'll try and do that.

[nalmo]

I've just started using PS on RAW files with my new camera, and think that a lot of people's problems with color could arise due to not having their screens calibrated correctly.

What you see on the screen is not necessarily the correct colors as recorded by the sensor, and needs to be calibrated against a known standard color chart. Only then will the visual adjustments you make in PS be correct.

To calibrate a screen, you display the known color chart (electronic), then hold a sensor over the different colors. The software will tell you what adjustments are needed to get correct calibration. I have 2 monitors on my computer, and there is a vast difference between the rendition of the same photo on the 2 screens.

Now saving up to buy a calibrator (wouldn't mind sharing the cost & equipment with another user cos you don't need to do the calibration very often.

[rsser]

Allan, I have a Spyder2express you're welcome to borrow.

Review: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/spyder2express.html

You also need a decent monitor it should go without saying.

[nalmo]

That's great, thanks for the offer Ern. Current LCD monitors are fairly old and nothing special. I'm looking at upgrading later in the year so might take up your generous offer then (though this might bring the upgrade forward a bit).

[Peter Jennings]

Got caught out for my last few pictures.....couldn't work out why they weren't perfect....I was using tripod, remote shutter release, narrow aperture for depth of field, etc, to photograph some before and after shots of fuming oak with ammonia.

Then I worked out it was because the vibration control on the lens was on....vibration control should be switched off when the camera is not hand held.

I did some comparison shots...there is a very marked improvement when vibration control is off.

[Grumpy John]

Got caught out for my last few pictures.....couldn't work out why they weren't perfect....I was using tripod, remote shutter release, narrow aperture for depth of field, etc, to photograph some before and after shots of fuming oak with ammonia.

Then I worked out it was because the vibration control on the lens was on....vibration control should be switched off when the camera is not hand held.

I did some comparison shots...there is a very marked improvement when vibration control is off.

Interesting point you raise Peter, I've heard that point raised before. I'd be interested to see some side by side comparison shots if you have any. You can post them in this thread, or, better still create a new thread in the photography forum.
I leave the OS (Optical Stabilisation) on on my 17-70 Sigma all the time whether it's being hand held or on a tripod and I've not noticed any problems. Although I will say that apparently some lenses are smart enough to know if they're mounted on a tripod they automatically disable I/S-O/S, don't know if my lens is one of them :shrug:.


"Many modern image stabilization lenses (notably Canon's more recent IS lenses) are able to auto-detect that they are tripod-mounted (as a result of extremely low vibration readings) and disable IS automatically to prevent this and any consequent image quality reduction.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization#cite_note-11) The system also draws power from the battery, so deactivating it when it is not needed will extend the time before a recharge is required."

From this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization) article

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization)http://www.woodworkforums.com/f122/image-stabilisation-tripods-164396/#post1595243

[Peter Jennings]

Thanks John. The lens I used was a Tamron Di 2 18/270 zoom. It does say in the lens instructions to switch off Vibration control (equivalent of Canon's Image stabilization) when tripod mounted, to stop those busy little gyros spinning. I use very slow shutter speeds, up to 4 seconds, to get maximum depth of field with a narrow aperture, and this may have made the blurring effect of the vibration control worse.

[Grumpy John]

No probs Peter. I'm not an expert by any means, just putting in my two bob's worth.

FYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QNm0oSZadM

[nalmo]

The mirror flipping up may be enough to blur a 4 sec exposure, even on a tripod.
Solution is to manually lock the mirror up before exposing. I've been doing twilight exposures up to 30 sec; any where I forget to lock up the mirror are slightly blurred.
I usually switch off image stabilisation, focus (auto), switch off auto focus (care not to adjust focus setting), lock up mirror, then expose (using a remote release).

[Doc Ron]

i think the term is parallax. a problem with anything other than an SLR.

[JayGee59]

A couple of other big thing is to not create hot spots and to use a COPY of your photo and play around with your background to see if you can really make it pop.

Not everyone can afford a professional setup. Not to worry. A PVC framework with covering works well. Using crumpled up 18" wide tinfoil that is then spread out again and pasted to the walls of your booth or onto some foam board you can bounce your lights off of those and you should not see hot spots if done correctly. OR drop some white cotton cloth over a frame and shine your lights through that.

GIMP is an OpenSource (free download and use) software very similar to a very expensive PhotoShop package. Learning to de even simple tricks in such a package works wonders on your photos. I've seen a photo that was very dark spring out of such using just ONE TOOL in Gimp. ALSO, you can delete backgrounds easily although it takes time usually. Sometimes you can re-do the background with a simple FILL command using a paint bucket. BUT, once you've cleared a background you can then fill with various colors to see what makes your item pop out.

[Cliff Rogers]

Beauty. :2tsup:

I did apologise for the crook focus. :rolleyes:

I'm using an automatic digital & I'm trying not to use flash 'cos it flattens things but it does bugger up the dept of field a bit. :cool:

I have been asked for the photos, this thread is about 12 years old but I found them. :2tsup:

[Daton]

Thank you, Cliff, appreciate your prompt response and the pictures.

I'm just starting out with photography and reviewing various posts and related comments.

Cheers

[calabrese55]

A simple large piece of black fabric laid across the table and propped up behind. Photo with a typical digital low $ camera no special lighting.
calabrese55536538