Another Cottonwood Bowl

[Doug Herzberg]

This is one of the roughs I've been looking forward to turning. No tungsten this time, other than ambient overheads. The colors are a little richer in the photos than in real life, but the wood is what I hoped for.

IMG_5004.jpgIMG_5011.jpgIMG_5015.jpg
IMG_5016.jpgIMG_5017.jpgIMG_5018.jpg


About 7-1/2"x2-1/4", Watco DO, Minwax WOP, waxed and buffed. Comments always.

[John Keeton]

Doug, the wood in this one is striking! Well done. I have noticed you like small bases on your bowls. I prefer something closer to a third the diameter of the bowl so they aren't tipsy. Nonetheless, good work!

[daryl moses]

Wow, that is some great looking grain!!
Nicely done!

[Doug Herzberg]

Doug, the wood in this one is striking! Well done. I have noticed you like small bases on your bowls. I prefer something closer to a third the diameter of the bowl so they aren't tipsy. Nonetheless, good work!

John, I generally use two jaw sizes, about 50 mm and 130 mm. A lot of times the tenon or recess affects the size of my base. There is plenty of meat in this one for a wider base and it just didn't occur to me to do that. I have a blue pine rough coming up that is almost a perfect hemisphere. In that case, I like the shape because of the staining and I'm thinking about no base at all or just enough to keep the rim parallel with the table. Generally, though, I like more classic proportions and I need to plan a little better. Thanks for your thoughts.

[David Delo]

Gotta get me some of that cottonwood. Very pretty Doug.

[Robert Hayward]

Nice work and wood. What are you going to do with that blank your bowl is sitting on in the photos ? Looks like an interesting piece of wood.

[William C Rogers]

Striking grain pattern. Great job on the bowl. that must have been a joy when turning to see the grain come out.

[Doug Herzberg]

Nice work and wood. What are you going to do with that blank your bowl is sitting on in the photos ? Looks like an interesting piece of wood.

I'm waiting for inspiration. Nothing yet. Thanks everyone for the comments.

[Bill Jobe]

Personally, I'm glad you decided to go with flash only.
Very nice bowls!
If you have more flashes, perhaps 1 above and behind or 1 above 45degrees left or above and behind and 45 to the right, to help separate the bowls from the background. Also with a little moving around with the flashes, accent lighting on the bowls.
Also, (and I've had little success with this), a spot flash that can easily be made. Cut back the power with it and add smaller areas of accent light.

But, hey, they look fantastic just the way they are. I just like to tinker with multiple flashes.
When I had more time and money I used to try as many variations as posible.
You could actually place the bowls in various positions and using a dark room, make a collage with the same bowl in the same photo but positioned different. Lock the mirror up, fire the flash, move the bowl to another position, fire it again, and so on. If you used just one flash in the same position you could fire it 4 times and gain one stop of light.
Just thinking out loud.

[Bill Jobe]

Just occured to me, since depth of field is your major goal, you could shoot the bowl in the same position. Then fire the flash 4 times and get one stop. 8 times would give you 1 and a half stops.......

What settings did you use on these shots?

[Doug Herzberg]

Just occured to me, since depth of field is your major goal, you could shoot the bowl in the same position. Then fire the flash 4 times and get one stop. 8 times would give you 1 and a half stops.......

What settings did you use on these shots?

Bill,

I only have two modern flashes: the one on the camera and the Speedlite knockoff, which is fully automatic on the hot shoe, but can also function as a slave with variable power settings. I also have a remote device to wirelessly trip the flash, but I didn't use it here. I do have some flashes left over from the sixties and early seventies. Some of them were automatic, according to the standards of the day; one of them requires flash bulbs, if you can get them, LOL. I suppose I could wire one of them to the remote device and use the Speedlite as a slave to get two flashes without using the one on the camera. I'll have to find them first.

Most of these photos were done with the Speedlite in slave mode off to the right and the built in flash to trip it. That's the flash you see reflected in the bowl's finish. I covered the camera flash with the diffuser that came with the Speedlite and fired the Speedlite through the photo tent. I experimented with full auto (other than focus - auto focus is nearly impossible with cottonwood) and aperture priority and a little bit with full manual. I need to learn more about the camera, an entry level Canon DSLR. When it was on aperture priority it ignored the flash and kept the shutter open for up to 15 seconds, so it recorded from the ambient ceiling lights. I'm amazed that I can't see any camera shake on my lightweight portable tripod.

As far as depth of field, I did back up the camera to 3 or 4 feet and zoom in. In full auto, the camera selected F/5.6, which may be wide open on this lens when it is zoomed. In aperture priority, I went as high as F/22. I didn't achieve enough depth of field to keep both rims in focus. I selected the photos I posted without regard to the settings - I was looking for the best depiction of the color of the wood. Just for jollies, I checked:

The first image was shot at 1/60, F/5.6. The focal length was 49mm (same as 77.2 mm in full frame 35mm terms).
The second was made with identical settings.
The third was shot at 5 seconds, F/11, same focal length.
The three profile shots were all at 1/60, F/5.6, same focal length.

It appears that the images I selected as the most accurate, with the exception of the bottom of the bowl, were all shot at full auto. I just noticed that full auto overrides my selection of film speed: it was set at ISO 800.

Here are four sequential shots, uncropped and not retouched:

IMG_4990.jpgIMG_4993.jpgIMG_4994.jpgIMG_4995.jpg

The first was shot at 5 seconds, F/11, ISO 200. I think the slave flash may have shut down automatically. You can see reflections of the camera flash and the ceiling fixture. Focal length was 55mm.
The second was 15 seconds at F/11, ISO 200, 55mm. I think I turned the slave flash back on. The camera selected the shutter speed and I can't account for the difference. The ceiling fixture reflection is more pronounced.
The third and fourth were shot at full auto, 1/60 seconds, F/5.6, ISO 800, 49mm focal length. I believe the camera was set to make two exposures, and the different colors may be attributed to something about how the flashes recycled. That the second one was lighter suggests that the capacitor doesn't hold the full charge.

I think in all these shots the power in the slave flash was dialed way down to prevent overexposure, but I didn't record the setting. It was off to the right and above and pointed straight up, so the light is a reflection off the ceiling. I also think I see evidence of camera shake in the bark of the pedestal.

Your idea of sequential flashes on the same exposure and the effective F stop is beyond my understanding. I might try it on faith. I can imagine it will be difficult not to trip on the tripod.

Thank you for your ideas. My mindset is from the past: I still think about the cost of film and forget sometimes that one can see the results immediately. I spent some time watching videos of flash portrait photography and started to internalize the idea of trying something and looking immediately to see the effect without waiting to "develop" the film. It is liberating.

Apologies to those who are here to discuss wood turning and not photography. It has come up before as we are all concerned about how we present our work.