Thread: Photographing your Woodwork pieces – doing it properly

Originally Posted by Sawdust Maker

Great thread - thanks for a reasonably succinct description of the 'black' art of photography. Cheers Nick

And also thanks for not taking a big stick to my thread of a couple of years ago No need to, it's a good thread discussing different topics to this one

I can be accused of taking hundreds of photos, but that is usually in the context of "I'm unlikely to be here again" so I experiment and play etc.
I suppose my attitude comes from cutting my teeth on transparencies (before pro work), and you just can't afford to chew up film. Nor did I ever look forward to the huge editing job that you staring down the barrel of.

Anyway, I've got another idea that involves you, and a big, rough stick. Pity you can't make it up on the 10th for a trial run.

Originally Posted by Sawdust Maker

I can be accused of taking hundreds of photos, but that is usually in the context of "I'm unlikely to be here again" so I experiment and play etc. (I'm currently sorting through about 2500 from a recent trip)

2500, you're not tryin'
Earlier this year in 5 weeks overseas my partner and I shot... well rather a lot more than that.
I picked about 600 to print (two albums worth, normally I cull to 300 or 150 for album size, but this time there was just too much). I also subscribe to the philosophy of, might not ever go back there again. OK there were a lot of rubbish snaps, but there's easily another 600 which are just as good, does take a few days to sort them all out and I haven't finished labeling the actual paper albums yet!

Originally Posted by Sawdust Maker

If anybody cares my first camera was a box brownie (still got it somewhere)

I'm still occasionally using one of those!

Regards
SWK

Hi folks, I didn't percieve anything in FF oringinal post offensive, I have been following this thread and still have more to read.
At first it was a bit much for me(over my head) and I will admit I didn't quite get to the end of FF's first postings, since however while reading the comments, I did read and then re-read the post's(thanks for your efforts FF).
I am first a woodworker, and far from a photographer. I'm a P&S kinda guy, BUT since have explored the camera's functions and didn't even know it had macro (+ other functions) it is only a $120 samsung ES75,
Anyhow long and short I think you achieved your goal FF, It got me thinking. If I can post a slightly better less boring more detailed pic for those that view I guess that's something. The only thing I cannot find is manual focus.
just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Anyway, I've got another idea that involves you, and a big, rough stick. Pity you can't make it up on the 10th for a trial run.

I've told you before that I'm not playing your funny games any more!!

Originally Posted by swk

2500, you're not tryin'
...
I'm still occasionally using one of those!

Regards
SWK

There's only a certain number of photos you can take of penguins before you get the 'not another penguin!' comment and it was less then 2 weeks, and sorry I dropped the ball, and ...

Not bad, I've thought of brushing the dust off mine and giving it a whirl - still got the 1st photo I ever took with it (in about 1962)

Brett

A most impressive epic that is mostly way over my head. I am not sure exactly what I am, but I do know I am not a photographer .

With regard to the discussion, I think any thread of this nature is bound to be slightly controversial even if it was not intended that way. Photography is an exacting science. It is going to have no less of a difference of opinion than, for example, the merits of timber or metal planes.

I would comment that there is technical expertise and there is flair. This latter is the component that catches our eye (It's the same with paintings and even woodworking: In fact anything that is considered art.)

I worked in publishing for a while and one of our photographers used a motorwind all the time and I was about to challenge you on the multi shot approach. He used to print up a contact sheet and select one or two prints only. Then you said "sporting" and it was all good again. The magazine was a motorcycle publication and action or racing shots were done this way all the time . (I'll have to take multiple shots of a "racing" axe .) He also used the motorwind for "wall to wall" .

I liked the construction of the thread too. The multiple posts made it easy to identify the subject matter and indeed revisit the post if required.

Thanks for taking the (considerable) time and the flak .

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by swk

2500, you're not tryin' . . . .

I constantly get accused by SWMB of not stopping to smell the roses and to get my head out from behind the camera. In 2002 at Giverny (Monet's Garden) I thought I was pushing it with 300 photos in 4 hours or so, but have become much worse since then culminating with 400 photos taken on the half hour ferry ride between Positano and Amalfi. The main reason for this is shooting panoramas, at 10 - 15 shots per panorama they soon add up. At the 2010 Calgary Stampede Parade I shot ~750 photos over 2 hours and at the 2011 parade I shot ~1500 photos in the same period - funnily enough I got about the same number of "reasonable shots" for both years. Crossing the Rockies on the Rocky Mountaineer train in 2010 I was most restrained, only 1500 for the 2 days. It's not unusual for me to take more than 20,000 photos on a trip. But this is nothing compared to folk who shoot at some sporting events that take thousands of photos an hour - at that rate they might as well take HD movies.

Originally Posted by BobL

I constantly get accused by SWMB of not stopping to smell the roses and to get my head out from behind the camera. In 2002 at Giverny (Monet's Garden) I thought I was pushing it with 300 photos in 4 hours or so, but have become much worse since then culminating with 400 photos taken on the half hour ferry ride between Positano and Amalfi. The main reason for this is shooting panoramas, at 10 - 15 shots per panorama they soon add up. At the 2010 Calgary Stampede Parade I shot ~750 photos over 2 hours and at the 2011 parade I shot ~1500 photos in the same period - funnily enough I got about the same number of "reasonable shots" for both years. Crossing the Rockies on the Rocky Mountaineer train in 2010 I was most restrained, only 1500 for the 2 days. It's not unusual for me to take more than 20,000 photos on a trip. But this is nothing compared to folk who shoot at some sporting events that take thousands of photos an hour - at that rate they might as well take HD movies.

Now if they were using real film, just work out the cost and how many would be printed. Now with digital imaging people are 'snap happy' and only make a hard copy of a few, the rest (maybe thousands) never see the light of day and are just a digital recording.

This thread is more about recording stationary items where you can take the time to compose rather than record it now or miss out. Think of being in a museum where you can not use flash but can use a monopod or tripod. Over twenty years ago I used the last image on the roll of film to record a tractor coming towards me on the road. No second chances and next to no time to set up. That image ended up on the cover of a magazine.

Originally Posted by Avery

You are dead right Ray. Although battery life has improved out of sight in the last couple of years. My first DSLR a Fujifilm S2 Pro, chewed trough batteries at an alarming rate. it used to seem that i would go out with two camera bags, one with the camera gear , the other with rechargeable AAcells. The one with the batteries was the heavier.



My current Nikon D7000 is a totally different story. It goes for weeks between recharges and I never turn it off.

Not fair their Avery comparing AA's with rechargeable battery pack. My old EOS battery pack lasts and lasts. I will admit AA's such as the Sony rechargeable range do last quit well 3 years I have a set from AKUPK.

Edited to add

The ABC series Photo Finish - ABC TV was on it was great to see the range of cameras used top line to mobile phone, the assignments, and the major stuff ups by people.

I still have never used any of my cameras to full potential and often have to re-read manuals for specific function settings now days because I do not use it often enough. This is the one thing stopping me from buying a new DSLR putting some $2k camera into hibernation for 6 mth. Yet I look at the level price of a good PS camera $600 and sorry some are just not worthy yet some 1/2 this price are brilliant just try getting into menus when the shot will be gone in a flash pardon the pun.

I am trying to answer lots of replies here but now we are really getting into deep discussion and a variety of views.

Nick has said what I feel with photography budget and use same as tools, cars (why I walked away from Vintage & Veteran) its all hype in the end isn't it "Mines Bigger than yours" until the next new item comes out and it starts all over again.

Oldest son and daughter as well as myself still love BW film even DiL has had colour digital photos made BW of the boys and hung. These days we can take a photo and alter it so much this is when it becomes artistry not photography and to me its no longer a photograph which was taken.


Nick 200 shots of penguins no worse than 1000's of motor cars, planes, beaches, sunsets or even the family.

Originally Posted by Handyjack

Now if they were using real film, just work out the cost and how many would be printed. Now with digital imaging people are 'snap happy'

This is a fundamental part of my premise. I'm not talking about travelling through very scenic routes, or shooting moving objects etc. Remember the title of the thread, and why it's in "Woodwork", not "Photography".

As I see it, taking a whole bunch of pics and then selecting the "best" is leaving things open to chance. Not knowing what caused the picture to be the "best" just sustains the problem (otherwise the lesson would have been absorbed before, therefore no need to chance it again next time).

When doing a product shot, a pro will take one picture only (unless there's a reason to take more for different applications). In the film days this was not because of the cost of film, but because of the time and effort they take to construct the shot. Time is far more costly than film (even 5x4" film). Now that film is virtually free (digital) their practices haven't changed - still just one product shot. The time they take to produce the shot means that it is self-defeating to take different pics - they've "nailed" the pic so there is no need, and the cost of time precludes it anyway. Ipso facto, one goes with the other.

If people are happy with what they are getting from their current techniques, then there is nothing much for them to gain from this thread (and that's not a criticism). This thread is for those who are looking for some tips on how to improve their photography, or perhaps the answers to why certain things happen. Once they have taught themselves a few things then it will speed up the whole photography process, with a better result and they can get on with the woodwork!

Originally Posted by Handyjack

Now if they were using real film, just work out the cost and how many would be printed. Now with digital imaging people are 'snap happy' and only make a hard copy of a few, the rest (maybe thousands) never see the light of day and are just a digital recording.

The last time I had a hard copy made of a digital photo was 2010 and that was one photo.

This thread is more about recording stationary items where you can take the time to compose rather than record it now or miss out. .

Yep I agree with that, but the more experienced a photographer becomes the more techniques used for stationary set shots can be transferred to more rapid fire shooting.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

I still have never used any of my cameras to full potential

I don't think anyone ever does Ray, for two reasons: they can be very complex, and nobody needs all the features (i.e. some need this or that, others need something different)

Originally Posted by wheelinround

and often have to re-read manuals for specific function settings

So glad you brought this up. Read it, use it, and re-read it. A few months later, read it again. Keep on reading it until there is nothing new before your eyes. Then read it every 12 months, to refresh. APPLY THIS PRINCIPLE TO ALL TOOLS etc.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

just try getting into menus when the shot will be gone in a flash pardon the pun.

ARRGGH! Don't start me

Ok, you started me. Having spent 10 years as a COBOL programmer, I was trained in the flow of logic, and I can't for the life of me remember where many of the things are in the menus because they are so illogical. Different buttons bring up different menus, but the half of the contents of one should be in the menus from the other button (because they are of a similar nature). It drives me crackers!

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned bracketing as an antidote to the problem of getting the settings right, or perhaps mentioned it as a legitimate expression of the 'take lots of photos and choose one' approach.

Originally Posted by Arron

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned bracketing as an antidote to the problem of getting the settings right, or perhaps mentioned it as a legitimate expression of the 'take lots of photos and choose one' approach.

Quite right Arron. I haven't brought it up mainly because I figured that those with cameras capable of this would have read the manual.

However, for those not in the know, what Arron is referring to is taking additional exposures slightly either side of the original (in either a third of half stop increments and decrements).

Some cameras have an auto-bracketing function where they will take 3 exposures that are bracketed, and for other cameras you just take three pics. As far as I am concerned these three pics only amount to one pic, as the others are discarded (deleted forever) once I have reviewed them on the computer.

With my camera it is critical that I bracket the exposure because the in-camera display is a little brighter than it should be (i.e. the pic has to look a little over exposed to be correct).

Bracketed exposures are also good for combining in layers (Photoshop or similar) where the dynamic range of the pic is too big for the sensor to handle. That is to say that if the mid-tones are exposed correctly then you'll probably find that the highlights and shadows are not correct. By layering them up (see my previous post #21) if either the shadows or highlights are necessary then you can fool around with layering to get a better result.

There are other ways of fooling around with these levels, but they require a pretty good understanding and execution of Photoshop, and quite frankly don't give as good a result.

I'll relate this back to transparency and negative film. With trannies you have to be bang-on, and bracketing is essential. Almost always there will only be one frame that is the best. With neg film, because there is a second generation (the print) it is much more forgiving, and mistakes can be corrected, particularly with "dodging and burning" in the print stage.

However, we are talking exclusively digital photography here. Regardless of how good you are with Photoshop, there is still nothing as good as a well exposed original that require no fooling around. Remembering what I said before about for every gain there is always a loss, the same is true of a manipulated image. Introduction of "noise" seems to be the most common thing in manipulated images. Noise is the digital equivalent of film grain.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

...

Ok, you started me. Having spent 10 years as a COBOL programmer, I was trained in the flow of logic, and I can't for the life of me remember where many of the things are in the menus because they are so illogical. Different buttons bring up different menus, but the half of the contents of one should be in the menus from the other button (because they are of a similar nature). It drives me crackers!

I've customizable menus - if only I could work out how to use them

Wot - read the manual