The difference a good picture makes on a turning.

[Bill Wyko]

When I was at the AAW symposium, I had Wolf photography take professional pics of a few of my pieces. I thought I'd post their pic vs mine. You can really tell what a difference it makes. my pic looks kind of yellow nad bland. Theirs did the piece much more justice. I've really got to work on my photo skills. Please enjoy.
http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2109/11908737/24127086/403210825.jpghttp://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2109/11908737/24127086/402891043.jpg

[Steve Schlumpf]

I can see the difference... but the more important question is... did you learn anything that you want to incorporate the next time?

[Bill Wyko]

Oh I can tell you, I was in information & technique overload.I also got to spend quite a bit of time with Malcolm Tibbetts & Bruce Campbell. The talent at the show was mind blowing. I have a bunch of pics I promise I'll post as soon as I resize them. I can't believe how thin some people can turn. There were pieces over 16" in diameter turned to about 1/16" thick.

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

Hey Bill,
That sucker looks good even in bad photography. It's difficult to make a silk purse out of a sows eat. It's impossible to make a sows ear out of a silk purse. Good workmanship and great design look good in any photo as long as the photographer stays still enough to avoid blur. I do see your point though. Besides the color, the two most outstanding differences are the graduated background and the sharpness of focus. I'll bet your either hand held your camera or used the auto focus.
faust

[Bernie Weishapl]

I agree with Faust. The sharpness and the background is a big difference I see. Either picture just shows a great piece.

[Pete Jordan]

I like the color in both of the photos!

Great piece!

[Alan Trout]

Bill,

I agree good photos can make or brake you, and is a difficult concept for some of us, like me. The two best books I have found for explain in simple terms are these two books. They are not very expensive a definitely a good read if you are trying to learn the basics of photography. They helped me a bunch.

http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1ZV13P4ICLP29&coliid=I3N7RDTTSOTEK

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340972687&sr=8-1&keywords=understanding+exposure

Nice Photo.

Alan

[Dave Carey]

Photos aside, it's a magnificent piece of work in any light!

[Bill Wyko]

Thanks ve3ry much and thanks Alan, I'll be ordering the first one today. My photo skills definitely need help.

[Jeff Myroup]

I really like this piece Bill. I can only image the time spent on it.

Thanks Alan, just ordered both books

[Mike Cruz]

Bill, while I get what you mean about the better quality of their photo...and that a good photo makes a world of difference...but I have to ask: Which color is more accurate? You say yours is more yellow, but to me, that is a better representation of what maple looks like. That said, they really captured the color and detail of the walnut.

Also, their photo is very crisp, where yours is a little fuzzy. If that is the best you camera can do, then you will likely be getting a new camera soon. ;) If you are going to get a new camera, my understanding is that more megapixels isn't necessarily better. One feature that I've found that is priceless in a camera is being able to take a good photo in lower light. I have a camera that takes 7 megapixel shots. Outside, it does a fantastic job. Inside, it is mediocre...unless I use the flash, but then you get shadows. My older 3 megapixel camera is the one I use for my turnings now. It is better in lower light...especially when you zoom in (which lets less light in), and my pics (I think) are getting better.

[Prashun Patel]

Bill-
First, amazing work regardless of the photography!!!

Question: what did their setup look like vs. yours?
I have the hardest time eliminating shadows and getting rid of glare. As for depth of field and color saturation, it's easy enough to just cycle through 20 settings until I stumble on it. But the lighting is the bane of my existence...that and sanding the endgrain of any vessel. ARGH!

[Scott Conners]

Color is tough to judge on the internet, because everyone's monitor is going to display slightly (or a lot) differently unless they have calibrated it with a special tool. I see the same major differences - clarity and the background. I also see a big difference in the lighting - the pro photo lighting is soft and controlled (not falling much on the background). The pro photo is also taken form a slightly elevated position, which shows the back rim of the vessel. This is a trick I was taught to help show depth and give visual perspective, and think it was a goo choice in their composition. It's fun to play with, just take a few pictures, with and without the back rim showing. Even a little bit peeking up can make a big difference.
The clarity could possibly be a shake issue, especially as Bill's photo looks to be taken indoors with household lamps. I think it's also a factor of the camera - better lenses have much more contrast and resolution, and better cameras are going to have better dynamic range and contrast, as well as resolution. There's no escaping the fact that better gear takes better pictures more often, but you can overcome a lot by careful technique.

The two simple improvements I see for Bill is to use a seamless paper background, and to soften his light source. The paper can be large art squares for smaller subjects, or a roll of butcher paper or real background paper. The paper is suspended at the top, and pulled out forward at the bottom to form a long curve. The subject sits at the very front of the curve. Softening your lighting means making the effective light source larger. Pros do it by bouncing the light off umbrellas, or shooting the lighty through a large translucent panel, as in a softbox. You can do it by bouncing light off a white wall or ceiling (careful of colors, true white walls are rare), or rigging a scrim such as a bed sheet between the light(s) and the subject. You can also use skylight, which is what lights up a subject in the shade, where the light is coming from the sky and clouds indirectly. Shooting indoors in a room with north facing windows works well also, many pro studios have north facing windows just for this.

Light, Science and Magic is an excellent book, the most commonly recommended book I see to learn photography and lighting.

[Jacob Nothstine]

Great job on the turning.
A few photography hints.
Color - you need to white balance your camera that's how they got the nice color.
tripod and large f-stop number f8, f16, f22 will make it sharper.
Seamless paper as said before
Soft light source up high, if you look at the shadow from photo to photo the pro shadow is on the table high light source, your is behind on the back drop. You can also move the object out more from backdrop.
I like using white foamcore and bounce light off it.
Light, Science and Magic - great book I have it, but it real technical for the beginner.
I photograph stuff a lot better then I turn.

[Jamie Donaldson]

On a color calibrated monitor, the more accurate color reproduction would fall between these 2 images. Steve Wolf's image on the L is a bit too red, and Bill's on the R is a bit green, and these are complimentary colors in color reproduction, film or digital. Diffused lighting, and a good backdrop, like a white vinyl window shade, can make an obvious difference when the camera operator is in control, rather than Mr. AUTO! Other differences are the focal length settings of the lenses used, Steve's is longer and further away from the turning, while Bill was closer with a shorter(wide angle) setting which created barrel distortion in the center of the form.