Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Dachshund carving II

  1. #1

    Dachshund carving II

    dach auc 32 copy.jpgdach auc 48 copy.jpgdach auc 47 copy.jpgdach auc 31 copy.jpgdach auc 35 copy.jpgdach auc 36 copy.jpg

    I decided to upload this new set of photos for this piece as much for a lesson to myself as to all of us for just how bad really bad photography can be. I decided to post them in a different thread figuring it would be easier for people who wanted to compare like photos side by side. In my Dachshund Carving thread, I complained a good deal about the photos in that thread...as they are flat terrible as representations of the actual carving.

    I caught the light right today....these are IMO 100% more accurate to the piece but still not what I would hope to accomplish using a camera with more control features. I didn't get out my photo box to use as background because i wanted these to simply be better photos.....same composition or as close as I could get. These are so much more accurate to the piece that the two sets of photos at least to my eyes look like photos of two different pieces, one a shabby effort to duplicate the other.

    So these are taken with the same smartphone...same lack of controls. However the light is not just bouncing off of every feature of the piece because I caught the light right today. It was so bad in the last set, that the camera was actually both reflecting off the glass eyes like beacons but was also seeing all the way through the glass to the back of the eye which for obvious reasons was just hideous. Light bouncing off the surface, light bouncing off the inner surfaces...just terrible photos.

    So I am still going to get a bridge camera as I still can't find my old point and shoot....probably a blessing because it is getting long in the tooth.....wherever it is. Just to be clear, I think the contemporary smartphone takes incredible photos and is appropriate for many kinds of product shots. It just can't produce the kinds of photos of the work I want to produce. It is just not designed for that particular task. Still and all, I find these photos acceptable to me and if I had to accept this level of photography of the work, I would likely take it........but just barely.
    Last edited by James Nugnes; 02-25-2017 at 10:17 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    E TN, near Knoxville
    Posts
    12,298

    photographing small things

    James,

    Excellent carving - I love it! I had to go back and find the other thread but I agree, the photos were a bit, ah, less.

    For these photos, BTW, I like the second one best, simply because of the point of view - lower, on the "dog's eye" level. It shows the shape better and the "personality" of the celebrity.

    Are you interested in improving photos? I suspect so based on your comments. The lighting is always key, of course, but the first thing I would recommend is to pay attention to the background. Even in your latest set the background competes with the subject, partly because of the detail and partly because of the contrast, or lack there of in places. One easy thing to do for small subjects is to use a piece of mat board (from any framing shop) and bend it so it forms both the base, the wall, and a smooth transition between them. Mat board is available in a wide variety of colors but I prefer a light to medium grey so the color of the background doesn't mess with the visual perception of the color of the object.

    Here is a simple setup I used to use and photos from it:

    background_mat_P1114198.jpg cocobolobox_w.jpg

    This was better than I got before but could still use some improvement. The lighting is still not good and the shadows are a little sharp and poorly placed.

    It is far better if you can control the light - light is everything! For small photographing small things this usually means photographing indoors and shutting off all overhead and room lights, closing blinds, and using several well-placed lights just for the photo. I use cheap lamp fixtures with bright bulbs that have a color close to that of daylight. This works well with almost any camera with no corrections.

    To further control the light, it is best to use something too diffuse, or soften, the light. You can put things like tissue or cloth in front of the light or bounce the light off white cardboard or something. A softer light gives you soft shadows.

    An easier way for small things is a cheap, home-built photo cube. I made one from PVC pipe and fittings for almost nothing. I put the curved mat board inside and pined shear white cloth to the sides to soften the light. The lights are positioned towards the front and moved to where they work the best. I often use another smaller light on a gooseneck to put highlights on things. The PVC is not glued so the whole thing pulls apart in a few minutes for storage.

    Here is the photo cube in the shop, sitting on the table saw:

    photo_cube.jpg

    A hand-held camera can be used but it is better to use some kind of tripod to minimize shake, focusing problems, and to give more flexibility in exposure if desired. Even the little point-and-shoot cameras I have can be mounted to a tripod.

    If you can swing it, it would be best to use one of the many digital "SLR" cameras available today at dropping costs since they give you very quick control over focus, depth-of-field, color temperature. Some point-and-shoot cameras will also do this but through a bunch of klutzy menu selections. What a pain...

    The two large light bulbs at the sides are photo CFLs ordered from Amazon. Note that using light bulbs like this will eliminate color problems with any camera you use. The LED light is in the front for highlights - I attach cloth or paper to soften it if needed. Sometimes I use a mirror or white piece of cardboard inside the photo cube to put a little more light where needed.

    I stretch a stick across the top to fasten thin wires when I want to suspend something. I generally use either a light or darker grey mat board depending on the object.

    Here are some random examples from this setup (I've posted these before, mostly in Turning):

    carved_bowl_IMG_4195.jpg BOC_A_comp.jpg chip_carved_goblet_c.jpg handmirrors_two.jpg crops_2015_comp.jpg

    I use photo editing software on almost every photo, to crop, size, adjust brightness and things, remove a dust spot if needed, and make composites to show several views in one photo. This is incredibly quick with good software.

    If you are interested in more about the photo cube or about lighting or photography in general, photo editing, color temperature, just ask - zero experience needed. An amazing carving like yours deserves an amazing photo!

    JKJ

  3. #3
    Thanks for your comments about the piece and the inputs from your photographic experience. I do have a light and box set up like the one you have. Didn't use box for the second set because I wanted that second set to point out how much the light all by itself effected those initial shots. So I tried to duplicate the composition. I did not get out my photo box even to use it as a backdrop because I didn't use it for the first set of photos.

    I am less cautious with the shots I post here because really I am trying to be a good citizen to the woodworking community in general by posting here. So my take on that is to allow fellow woodworkers to see the detail in these pieces hoping that helps somebody else. Also it gives other woodworkers a chance to criticize the piece constructively if they choose. I am brutally critical of myself. So to be honest I am just about impossible to offend...it is all constructive criticism to me.

    I will usually only post one or two taken this close to the subject when posting at my storefront. I want customers to see the detail as well....but I want them also to see other aspects of the piece. At this site my photos are all about the detail for the reasons stated.

    My tripod is lost with my old point and shoot camera. Don't know where the tripod is either!!!!! Very frustrating. Bet they are both lost in the same place. But if I knew where that was they wouldn't be lost.

    I am going to get a bridge camera. The output from the contemporary bridge camera ( a fairly new idea in the first place) is just crazy good and it keeps me away from a topic I really don't want to delve into with the DSLR...lenses. I have not seen a single bridge camera above $400 that was not closer to a DSLR than it was to a point and shoot. I don't need video. So I will likely get the best one I can get without video...

    Thanks again...really appreciate it!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    E TN, near Knoxville
    Posts
    12,298
    I have no idea what a "bridge" camera is (don't have time for google at the moment) but when you get it I'd love to hear about it along with some photos.

    JKJ

  5. #5
    Glad to do that John. Hopefully I will be shooting the next carving with one.

    A bridge camera bridges the gap between a point and shoot and a DSLR. So its not as big as a DSLR, not as small as a point and shoot. They feature relatively large sensors again bigger than most of even the most recent point and shoots not quite as big as a DSLR. They have what ten years ago we would have considered insane zoom lenses and Electronic View Finders to go with their lcd screens. Then the rest of the features at or above $400 are more like a DSLR and at least from what I have seen without looking at everything, at less than $400 a little leaning toward the point and shoot. If you are not insistent on being a pocket carry camera (have not seen a bridge you can get in a pocket) they are a really nice step up from the point and shoot. So what does that mean from a practical perspective. Well here is one example. Everybody touts larger sensors right...lately the point and shoot advertising is all about sensor size. Well that is great for a good many shots. But if you want to shoot macro for example, the larger sensor is not such an advantage. The bridge camera gives you enough functionality to take advantage of the big sensor and about totally mitigates any issues you might have with a larger sensor for particular shots. The really really good ones are crazy money. But these things even well below the crazy money cameras are packed with technology and features that I cannot even imagine for cost on a single camera 10 years ago. I would not even hazard a guess.

  6. You have a cutie dachshund carved, my cousin saw this and she was truly amazed.. how much do you charge for that?

    Quote Originally Posted by James Nugnes View Post
    dach auc 32 copy.jpgdach auc 48 copy.jpgdach auc 47 copy.jpgdach auc 31 copy.jpgdach auc 35 copy.jpgdach auc 36 copy.jpg

    I decided to upload this new set of photos for this piece as much for a lesson to myself as to all of us for just how bad really bad photography can be. I decided to post them in a different thread figuring it would be easier for people who wanted to compare like photos side by side. In my Dachshund Carving thread, I complained a good deal about the photos in that thread...as they are flat terrible as representations of the actual carving.

    I caught the light right today....these are IMO 100% more accurate to the piece but still not what I would hope to accomplish using a camera with more control features. I didn't get out my photo box to use as background because i wanted these to simply be better photos.....same composition or as close as I could get. These are so much more accurate to the piece that the two sets of photos at least to my eyes look like photos of two different pieces, one a shabby effort to duplicate the other.

    So these are taken with the same smartphone...same lack of controls. However the light is not just bouncing off of every feature of the piece because I caught the light right today. It was so bad in the last set, that the camera was actually both reflecting off the glass eyes like beacons but was also seeing all the way through the glass to the back of the eye which for obvious reasons was just hideous. Light bouncing off the surface, light bouncing off the inner surfaces...just terrible photos.

    So I am still going to get a bridge camera as I still can't find my old point and shoot....probably a blessing because it is getting long in the tooth.....wherever it is. Just to be clear, I think the contemporary smartphone takes incredible photos and is appropriate for many kinds of product shots. It just can't produce the kinds of photos of the work I want to produce. It is just not designed for that particular task. Still and all, I find these photos acceptable to me and if I had to accept this level of photography of the work, I would likely take it........but just barely.

  7. #7
    Mason,

    Sent you a pm regarding your request. Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •