Improving your photographs

[bhofmann]

I've just seen a thread with some less than optimal photographs which reminded me of an article I wrote off the back of a lesson on how to photograph things we make.

The original article is here, but I've copied it below so you don't have to go off-site to read it: http://www.woodburywoodturners.org.uk/articles/ShowArticle.aspx?id=20

Keith West's advice on photography

Keith West gave a talk after the 2008 Annual General Meeting on photographing the items we produce. This is a summary of his advice.

Move back, Zoom in

The most important tip that I took from Keith's talk is to move back and zoom in. He explained that modern digital cameras are wide angle lenses by default (when switched on) and that this leads to distortion when we place the camera very close to the subject. The result of this is that round items appear oval, and items such as goblets have disproportionately large tops or bottoms depending on which is closer to the camera. This is compensated for by taking the camera further back from the subject and using the zoom feature to fill the frame with the subject.

Isolate the subject

Keith suggested purchasing a large (A3) sheet of white or pale grey card and draping the sheet from a chair or similar object so that the card provides a smooth curve from the portion that lies flat on the table or floor, and rises to the seat of the chair with a smooth curve. This provides a featureless backdrop that isolates the subject, bringing it to the viewer's sole attention.

Add light

Keith used the available light from the fluorescent hall lights and explained that there is no need, with digital cameras, to compensate for these, or tungsten bulbs. Keith often photographs subjects in his conservatory, which has a plastic roof that diffuses the natural light wonderfully. If this is not available, he suggested working close to a window to benefit most from natural light. Digital cameras are very well equipped to produce accurate colour representation regardless of the light source.

Keith added light from a 40W tungsten bulb in an ordinary anglepoise light. By placing the light to the side, Keith created a gentle shadow to the rear and side of the subject. Keith showed how placing the additional light source behind the item and shining across the surface of a subject can highlight the texture on the surface of an item.

Set up once, shoot many

Keith reminded us that digital photographs cost nothing. Once you have the camera (with memory card) and a battery, there is no per-picture cost. Keith advised we take lots of pictures with the card and subject set up, trying different angles and possibly with and without, or moving additional light sources.

Many of the photographs are taken without flash, and even with a tripod we might nudge the camera slightly when pressing the button to take the picture. Keith's simple and ingenious suggestion is to use the self-timer on the camera to allow it to take the photo without being bumped.

Samples

At the beginning of the evening I saw the goblet Keith brought and was impressed with the idea and execution so I took a photo. Keith let me take another at the end of his talk. The results (below) are testament to how much he taught us.

Too close, hard flash, and not isolated from the background.

Zoomed for correct proportions, no flash, isolated with white card background, and enhanced with a subtle additional foreground light.

I hope it helps people get better pictures.

 

[MrEd]

does it really matter, as long as they illustrate the point then fine - not everyone is a 'pro tog', its about bushcraftuk.com not bushcraftphotographyuk.com but other than that some handy advice

 

[Tadpole]

does it really matter, as long as they illustrate the point then fine - not everyone is a 'pro tog', its about bushcraftuk.com not bushcraftphotographyuk.com but other than that some handy advice

I guess it only matters if the subject is either out of focus enough for you not to be able to see what the Post is about, or is so badly lit that you cannot make any details. As with everything I take freely given instruction where I can, and try to do my best to improve what I am doing, be it turning logs in to wood chips, or taking pictures of the results.

I for one am thankful for any and all constructive direction on ways to improve my limited skills.:You_Rock_

 

[FreddyFish]

Thanks for that, I'm no photo guru but I think it's always good to learn and to improve.
With those photos at the end it totally proves it worth it. I'm sure everyone (almost) would like to take better photos.

Thanks

 

[Rob]

Nice article. I am sure that some of the guys here will give some if it a go

 

[poddle]

Its a useful post don't knock it, Taking a decent photo of a knife is a nightmare, and we all like to see those on the forum, bad pics fail to show the quality of the workmanship, so in my opinion it a very valid and useful tip

Thanks for taking the time to help

 

[bhofmann]

does it really matter, as long as they illustrate the point then fine - not everyone is a 'pro tog', its about bushcraftuk.com not bushcraftphotographyuk.com but other than that some handy advice

Sorry if I offended you MrEd - it really was just to share. I'm a novice and only have a compact digital camera. I found the advice very useful for photographing small items. I liked it so much I wrote that up from the notes I made on that evening and I share it whenever I can. It was triggered by a recent post about a problem with a knife that was not clear because the blade was not in focus so it was hard to tell exactly what was wrong with it.

 

[salan]

Thanks for the post. Some good advice. I don't agree with all of it , but not enough to start splitting hairs.
I class myself as a 'serious amateur' as far a photography goes and teach basic digital photography courses. One of the first few things I tell students is,
a) turn the da*m flash off!
b) its better to have a simpler camera that you can use then a complicated all singing one that you can't !

I don't want to hijack the thread, but what camera do people take (if any) with them when out and about. In the woods and in every day?
Alan

 

[phill_ue]

Wonky pictures can be off putting a bit, I recently took the bubble from a old boat level and blu tacked it under the view finder of my camera to ensure it is level on the tripod. If you have a hot shoe on your camera, you can spend good money on something that clips onto your camera and does the same job!

 

[armie]

Good advice bhofmann, thanks. I really should use a tripod more.

what camera do people take (if any) with them when out and about. In the woods and in every day?
Alan

Yashica T4. Yes, it's a chemical camera - I use it to take slides.

 

[MrEd]

Sorry if I offended you MrEd - it really was just to share. I'm a novice and only have a compact digital camera. I found the advice very useful for photographing small items. I liked it so much I wrote that up from the notes I made on that evening and I share it whenever I can. It was triggered by a recent post about a problem with a knife that was not clear because the blade was not in focus so it was hard to tell exactly what was wrong with it.

no offence taken, i have now seen the thread and rescind my comments lol, i just took it out of context i believe!

 

[brancho]

As far as photographing knives etc is concerned Look here.

I suggest you read the manual to find the minimum focus distance and then do not get any closer to the subject as it will be blurred and the backgorund will be in focus.

for close ups for web use take an ordinary shot and crop the image before reducing its size

Use daylight if possible avoid flash and idoor lighting if possible

Avoid white backgrounds for dark objects and vice versa as its unlikey the camera will get the metering correct.

If you have one use a tripod but you need a self timer or remote shutter release as using the button by hand will shake the camera

Digital cameras are not infallable and will get the metering wrong and they will fail to correct for the lighting used sometimes

If you picture is too dark you can use exposure comensation on the camera (again read the manual) set to plus 1 for instance and see what it does.

As has been said take lots of pictures and delete the poor ones

 

[Nat]

Nice article and thanks for the advice.

 

[Chinkapin]

Bhofmann / Brancho Very good and useful information. I have a question for either one or both of you.

Years ago, prior to digital cameras, a professional photographer told me if I was wanting to take photographs of objects such as knives or guns that the best way to do it was to make a "tent" out of gauze or mosquito netting or something similar. Have several lights shine through the netting onto what was to be photographed. Cut a hole in the "tent," slip the lens through the hole and take the picture.

Now my question is, with the advent of digital cameras is this still good advice or not really necessary any longer?

 

[bhofmann]

I'll let someone with proper training or experience answer Chinkapin, but I would think that sort of diffused light is great for illuminating your subject without casting hard shadows.

For what it's worth, I have an Olympus mju 770sw. It's waterproof to 10m and makes a constant beep at 7m in sea water - discovered when snorkelling in the Maldives . It's shock resistant (can be dropped from 1.5m - we needed that for my wife). It's also crush resistant (I can apparently stand on it). I first used it on holiday in St. Lucia where I wrote it in the rear zip-up pocket of my swimming trunks every day and sat on it when sailing the Hobie cat (a daily pleasure).

It's not a great camera, but it can take video and takes decent pictures. Mostly I like how it survives in places where any camera I've had before would die.

Some samples: http://cid-0543a98e13160818.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Komandoo ^5Maldives^6 - Scenery

 

[MrEd]

Bhofmann / Brancho Very good and useful information. I have a question for either one or both of you.

Years ago, prior to digital cameras, a professional photographer told me if I was wanting to take photographs of objects such as knives or guns that the best way to do it was to make a "tent" out of gauze or mosquito netting or something similar. Have several lights shine through the netting onto what was to be photographed. Cut a hole in the "tent," slip the lens through the hole and take the picture.

Now my question is, with the advent of digital cameras is this still good advice or not really necessary any longer?

yeah that would still work, the idea is that it diffuses the light and the light then hits the object from different angles rather than straight on so you dont get that flat harsh look.

the lens through the middle enables you to get shadowless high detail shots,
much like a ringflash.

tbh you could just get a table lamp and make a diffuser out of an old white shirt, white paper or something similar and just point it at the object then use your camera off to one side slightly.

 

[AJB]

Yep, a light tent is still the way to go, after all the “digital” bit has, to all intense and purposes, just replaced the film in the equation. Although it has the huge advantage of making the issue of the colour temperature of your light source largely irrelevant, the real skill in this type of macro/micro photography is in the lighting.

My best tip would be to spend a bit longer actually looking through the camera at the image, study each element of the image not just the main subject and see if you can improve it. The card trick is perfectly valid and the curve allows you to produce a graduated background, but when it comes to lighting, card can be used very effectively as a reflector to fill in harsh shadows and don’t forget the advantages of additive and subtractive lighting, particularly with things like glass and metals, in effect reflecting the card (white or black) in the reflective subject.

Above all, take more pictures, the more you take, the better you get and the luckier you get – I was a pro with the MoD for 10 years and my old hand of a boss still used to brush the photographic devil off his shoulder before releasing the shutter on a make or break exposure

 

[Chinkapin]

Thanks guys, for the thoughtful and informative answers to my questions. I have wondered about this for sometime now. I need to take some pictures of this type and was concerned as to the best way to do it.

 

[armie]

I did some experiments once with a light tent: the subject was a white egg in a white egg cup, against a white background. Monochrome film in my camera and lots of different exposures, just to see what would happen... all photos came back identical, because the processing plant adjusted its exposure to produce 'average' photographs

 

[AJB]

I did some experiments once with a light tent: the subject was a white egg in a white egg cup, against a white background. Monochrome film in my camera and lots of different exposures, just to see what would happen... all photos came back identical, because the processing plant adjusted its exposure to produce 'average' photographs

You should have looked at the negatives not the prints, the negatives will reflect the exposure, the prints will be the best print you could have got from the negatives - if you're shooting film, use reversal (slide) film to see what effect your exposure is having, plus it has much less of an exposure latitude so the effects will be even more noticable. But with digital you should be able to see these small incremental changes easily.