One new, one redo photo

[Allan Ferguson]

Trying out photo tent and lights with my camera. Looking for truer color. Also would like input on the turnings. Flower-blossom of Paduak. stamen of Holly. dyed hard maple stem and base (10" tall). Redone photo of hollow form of Paduak and Purple heart.

[Brice Rogers]

Wow! That is fantastic !! Gorgious pieces of work. You have right to be proud.

[John K Jordan]

Wow, the color really shows up well in these photos. Did you build a photo tent, use daylight/full spectrum bulbs?

I like the flower idea! Hey, did you ever turn argentine lignum vitae? Its natural green color might be fun for flower stems.

JKJ

[Allan Ferguson]

Bought a photo tent set up, lights & back ground. Tried it last evening. Would like to avoid the hot spots. Halogen bulbs. Set white balance with a sheet of printer paper. Color looked right to me. I would often take photos outdoors for decent results. Snow and rain here, not good for pictures outdoors. Never used lignum vitae. Thanks for the feed back. Allan

[Justin Stephen]

Lovely pieces. My C&C is for your photos. I would suggest trying your shots at a faster aperture, to the extent that your camera allows, to de-emphasize the background. You get a shallower "depth of field", which means what is in the foreground is in focus while the background is blurred. For about $30, you could also get a gradient, or graduated background. A company called Flotone makes good ones, including in several shades of graduated blue.

Here is a shot I just took a couple of days ago on a dark gray to white gradient background and with a fast aperture (probably a little too fast in fact) in a photo tent:

329314

The fast aperture also allows the lens to grab a lot more light while still maintaining a fast shutter speed, which in turn allows for the lights to not be that bright or be placed further away. If you have a tripod of some sort, this is a moot point of course. I do have one but am usually too lazy to set it up.

[Doug Ladendorf]

The turnings are gorgeous. Really beautiful work. I'm not a fan of the blue background. I think it overwhelms the more subtle color of the wood, and also throws the exposure off a bit. That's best seen in the top of the stamen. I like the idea above of a gradient, or at least a more neutral color.

Doug

[John K Jordan]

a faster aperture

Just to avoid confusion to readers who may not be photo fluent, we might note the term "faster aperture" would mean a larger/wider aperture, a lower "f" number. For example an aperture of f/1.2 is much larger/wider and has a much narrower depth of field than, say, f/22.

Probably not too important for this type of photo, but in general camera lenses are not their sharpest at the widest or the smallest apertures. I generally set the aperture first (aperture priority setting on most cameras) to the widest that will focus the object completely. A good check is to photograph a measuring tape or yard stick laid flat stretching away from the camera and use manual focus to focus on a number right where the object will be placed. Zoom in and look at what numbers are in focus - quick and easy with digital cameras these days that have monitors on the back!

Here is one page with clear and useful beginner information about aperture:
http://digital-photography-school.com/aperture/

BTW, I always use a tripod and release the shutter with a cable release to avoid shake. That way shutter speed is not as important. Without a cable release the self-timer release on the camera will work fine.

I used to use halogens but disliked the heat. These days I use full-spectrum CFLs. One other little tip: be sure to turn all the room lights off and close the shades in the daytime to avoid mixing in other light colors, unless of course you want that for effect!

JKJ

[Justin Stephen]

Just to avoid confusion to readers who may not be photo fluent, we might note the term "faster aperture" would mean a larger/wider aperture, a lower "f" number. For example an aperture of f/1.2 is much larger/wider and has a much narrower depth of field than, say, f/22.


Yes, thanks. Depth of field, or the perception of it, can also be affected by how close your shooting distance is. I would imagine that f/4 shot from fairly close up with a good background choice would achieve the desired effect. Just about any camera down to the cheapest point and shoot should be able to shoot f/4 at a reasonable distance I would imagine.

I was f/2.8 in my shot above, but I was also further back since my 17-70 lens is on the fritz and the only other lens I had handy was a 50mm prime. On my crop sensor camera, that means standing back 4-5 feet to get the right amount of stuff in the shot. Even with that, it looks like the top of the platter is a little blurry (I focused on the middle). Whether that was from my unsteady hands or from the top being on the edge of my focus window I cannot say. I probably should dig the tripod out of the closet.

Here is a photo that illustrates shallow depth of field:

http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/4179226716_65a8e41a1a_b-600x519.jpg

That same photo taken when a slower aperture (bigger "f/" number) and/or from further away would have more or all of the mushrooms in focus. However, with the slower aperture, the "eye" of the lens is closed more so the shutter speed needs to be lower (something the camera will handle on its own normally) to account for the less light getting into the camera through the smaller opening in the lens.

[Allan Ferguson]

Back grounds limited to Red, black or blue. Came with the unit. Not an advanced camera. Allan

[Justin Stephen]

Back grounds limited to Red, black or blue. Came with the unit. Not an advanced camera. Allan

It doesn't have to be. Even $100 point and shoot cameras usually either have an aperture priority mode (might have to dig into the menu to find it) or one of the preset scene settings that accomplish something similar. As for the backgrounds, if you don't want to buy another one, I would use the black I think, and either have it stretched taut or iron it really well. You want to have the piece in focus and the background out of focus. Zooming out while getting your camera close to the piece will also help. However, zooming too far out can sometimes cause a little bit of a fisheye effect (aka "barrel distortion", the piece might look a little curvy and inflated).

[John K Jordan]

For those interested, another thing that is confusing about depth of field is the focal length, i.e. telephoto vs wide angle. Although the old idea is the depth of field is much deeper for a wide angle lens, the difference is actually small when the images are compared with the subject the same size. Much depends on the enlargement.

I looked around a bit and found this page which seems to have good information about depth of field.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
It also explains why it is not always best to simply use the smallest aperture (highest "f" number) to get more in focus.

I used to shoot with 4"x5" film with a view camera (with the black cloth over the head and all) and processed and printed in my basement darkroom. In our wildest dreams we never imagined what even the lowliest digital camera today could do.

JKJ