An open and honest conversation about product photography in the custom knife world.

[Los Angeles]

I truly hope this post is not considered a personal attack. That is not my intention. When we discuss the work of masters, we should be allowed from time to time to give honest critiques of their work. Saying you prefer the work of Matisse over the work of Picasso or saying that you don't enjoy a certain tendency in Picasso's work does nothing to make Picasso a lesser painter. It is his position as one of the greats in his field that encourages us to dig deeper into what he does and how he does it.

Kings are questioned because they are kings. So let's start at the beginning:

In all honesty, I've never been much of a fan of the dominant style adopted by many of the best photographers in the custom knife world.

They certainly know their ways around a camera. And are they are absolute MASTERS at the intricacies of lighting a very difficult subject. They are also fantastic at photoshopping several views of the same knife into a composition so that the viewer can gain a complete sense of what the knife has in store. These things are without question.

But I'm left scratching my head about three issues.

1) The practice of placing the photographer's name side-by-side with the name of the knifemaker. I have no idea who started this practice or why they started it. You're the wedding photographer, not the bride or the groom. Someone want to enlighten me on this? I really find it annoying.

2) Overusing photoshop. Now, I admit that this can be more a matter of personal taste more than the other two issues on my list. Sometimes I feel that the photographer is inserting himself into the situation and sometimes hogging the spotlight. Many times I see nothing but a 20% zoom of the exact same angle of the ricasso seen in the center image. Was that even necessary?

I also feel like the photographer is afraid to leave any region of the composition empty. I just have to say that there is nothing wrong with what we in art school called "negative space". When used effectively, the space around the object gives the object poise, strength and even activity. You will rarely see a product photographer in any other field make this kind of decision, but it has become pretty much the standard in the knife world.

Ultimately, I think viewers would rather be dazzled by the choices of the maker, not the photoshop skills of the photographer. When the knife has details that absolutely MUST be seen from multiple angles, the multi-view method is very powerful and effective. I'm simply stating that too much salt can ruin the soup.

That brings us to ...

3) Distracting backgrounds. This is the big one. I think I've reached the point where I've seen one too many damascus patterns obliterated by the choice to place the knife on a gaudy piece of patterned wallpaper. It makes me cringe. Along with the patterns of a background is the often bizarre color choices made by the photographer. Maroon? Kelley green? Paint ball splat yellow?

I admit that I'm more keen to see photographs of products that emphasize the product first and fore-most. That usually means a nearly complete absence of a background altogether.

Rolex:

Ray-Ban:

ipod shuffle:

Neissing:

Wendy Ramshaw's stacking rings with stands:

Backgrounds certainly don't always have to be absent, but I do think that they work better when they make some kind of contextual sense. These objects live in an environment, and that environment can exist without distracting from the primary subject.

Eames chair:

Plates of gourmet food:

Spice Rack

So I guess I'm wondering why photography in the custom knife world has such a distinctive style? I'm also interested in hearing the opinions and thoughts of collectors, makers and certainly any photographers in this field.

I'm certain that I'm not fully aware of everything these great photographers worry about, so I'm hoping they can share a little bit more insight into the hows and whys of what they do.

Thanks for reading and God bless.

 

[RogerP]

An artist signs his work. The maker signs his work. Why shouldn't the professional photographer sign his work?

As for backgrounds - I don't have a generalized preference for stark versus staged. Both can be exceptionally effective. As with a customer placing an order for a knife - one can and should expect a degree of input. If you have strong feelings about backgrounds, then you can and should express them to the photographer you are considering.

I am with you on overcrowding inserts though. A central image and one - two at the most - accent inserts are all I want to see. If there's more to show, do it in a second image.

Roger

 

[Los Angeles]

I guess this is the question: when you see a photo of a knife, should the photographer's name receive an equal amount of attention as the knifemaker's name?

 

[Russ Andrews]

It used to be common practice for photographers to put their names on
the back of the print.....problem was that publishers didn't always turn
the photo over, thus proper photo credit was often omitted. For this reason,
and simply as a matter of respect, I'd say that the photographer's name
out front is appropriate.

As for style.....I like simple imagery....like the Rolex ad.....although
creating the illusion of simplicity is anything but simple....!!

 

[Snody]

I guess this is the question: when you see a photo of a knife, should the photographer's name receive an equal amount of attention as the knifemaker's name?

I think it should

I also think you should check out the Official Rolex Website for 2011
because Rolex is not utilizing your "negative space" approach.

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watches/rolexdeepsea/introduction

I am very blown away by the level of photography I see here in the Custom Forum... Major Props to all you guys and huge Respect to Coop for sharing his knowledge so freely

Much Respect Guys...

 

[T.A.DAVISON]

Los Angeles the photos you posted do nothing for me? they are kinda like? boring?

Now if you post something like this, I would stay and look a bit.
And almost do not need to check the photographer's name, it's all over the photo.....:thumbup:

We little guys just try to do what we can, with what we got...


TA

.

 

[Kevin Jones]

I believe the collectors who purchases the knives and the knife photos have a good amount of influence on the photographer and the images. And I believe they should unless they want something that's clearly not in the best interest of the knifemaker or the photographer.

I also believe it's important that the photographer and any other artists who participated in the project be identified. Even though I can tell at a glance who took the photo as many here can.

One of my pet peeves is when photographers want to shoot most knives in portrait orientation. I get knife photos taken to be viewed on the internet and IMO landscapes view better on the computer screen.

 

[Don Hanson III]

Yes, the photographer's name needs to be on the image, Especially now with
the use of images on the internet.

I also like neutral, or plain backgrounds, but in a contrasting color to the knife.

And like Kevin, 'portrait orientation' doesn't really work for me either. But I do
understand the magazines like this.

Us makers are really fortunate to have the photographers we have. :thumbup:

 

[Serge Panchenko]

An artist signs work, in this case amazing photos.

 

[Phil Dwyer]

Hi LA ( I can't remember your name, sorry),

Hmmm, I can only hope my work will someday merit having pix shot by big name knife photographers. I know for a fact I dig the heck out of looking at their knife photos!

I can relate to your dilemma in a certain way though. As a craftsman I noticed many years ago a kind of flaw that can often plague craftspeople. It can sometimes be a challenge to simply behold the wonder of someone's creation(s) without immediately going into a state of critical analysis as to skill levels and techniques used, etc. That is not to mean such a manner of perception and evaluation is not appropriate, but it can rob us of the simple pleasure of witnessing the creation purely. It's perhaps a little odd, but it saddens me to think of you looking at the photo of Nick's knife Todd posted and your not enjoying the experience. (I bet I'll get over it though. )

When I first started exploring the world of custom knife making a few years back, it did take me a little while to get used to looking at the composite photos. On more than one occasion I would get confused because I wouldn't realize I was looking at different angles or parts of the same knife. I consider it having just been another facet of my needing to come up to speed within this peculiar "industry" rich with the drama and contrasts of innovation and tradition.

As for backgrounds, that seems a potentially loaded issue. Does it not simply boil down to what pleases the photographer and the maker and their agreement on such? Of course that means the photos must successfully do their part as relates to marketing goals by effectively relating to collectors/customers. Sure seems like that's a slam dunk from what I have witnessed!

Artists sign their work. That's a given. As some folks have mentioned, artists who excel at their craft often develop such recognizable styles their work is easily recognizable even without a signature. (Now that's cool.) I can relate to your point though, even in other mediums/medias. To me it seems odd to come across a photo in a journal of some sort that has the photographer's name more prominently displayed than the photo's caption, which sometimes might not even have the name(s) listed of the folks in the photos. Ah, no biggy, but a little odd.

On-the-other-hand, I am quite sure in the case of these knife photos, having the renown knife photographer's name prominently displayed on the photo is an asset that lends credibility to the superb quality of the knife and it's maker. No matter what else might be said, that is a boon of unparalleled value for the makers!

All the best, Phil

 

[Jon Brand]

I see mixed work by all the photographers. For example Coop does a straight up knife image, and also does one inset, or two, maybe three. I think it depends on the knife, and what parts are important to show. Also some shots are hit or miss. I see better and worse examples by all photographers. I think we have come along way with the photography we have now. It really shows alot of angles and details of the work.

I tend to like plainer backgrounds. I wanna show the knife more then props or composition. However composition is still very important and I remember the law of thirds from school and I think the photographers do a decent job with it. Thats more important to me then the idea of empty space.

Most of the photos you showed are good but I don't care for the Rolex one. The PRODUCT itself is not shown that well IMO. Its dark, has too many shadows and since the empty background is so large you cant get in close with the watch! Its like wasted space to me and too much of it. I have no problems with the other photos you posted.

I guess I'm not sure the photographers name needs to be AS BIG as the makers name, but it doesn't bother me and it still needs to be somewhere on the photo.

I'm certainly no pro and most of my pictures come out pretty badly but I liked this one I did a while back. Plain background, not much extra space and just knife detail. Obviously I really stole this style and layout from my favorite photographers and I have to give them the credit. This knife was not as hard to shoot due to its very small size. I also didn't really take into consideration the shape of the whole image. Its just kind of a square. But I liked how the knife its self looks and thats important enough.

 

[Murray White]

As a retired Professional Photographer (MPA) Wedding/Portraits I don't pretend to be a commercial photographer and I don't pretend to be trying to create award winning images. Neither do I do images for knife makers for which I expect any payment.

All my images are either of knives from my personal collection or from shows in Canada and the US with once in awhile a knife maker bringing a knife to my home for some photos.

Is the knife above busy? Of course it is. Would it do well in a photographic competition? Of course not! Does it show the knife so that a prospective purchaser, were I to offer it for sale, be able to feel comfortable in knowing what the knife looked like in all its aspects? Darn Tootin'!!!! And that is the object of the exercise.

Most of my photos of knives are done using the background seen here as it is neutral enough with some color and texture to add interest without detracting from the subject. It also is my trademark and although I do sign all my images as I did with all my portraits, even then some have used my images and cloned out my signature but it is a lot more work to remove my background. Not impossible but more work that most want to spend.

Something else of interest might be the fact that this image is a composite making use of 5 or a total of 6 images taken in the whole shooting session.

None of the images here are a crop of any other portion of the knife and I seldom do that as I like to show each area of the knife in its own way so that the viewer can see the aspects of the knife as though it were being viewed by hand in real life.

I just hope that those viewing the images created either under controlled conditions which I freely discuss and show anyone as well as those done at knife shows allow other collectors and makers to enjoy the products produced by the knife making community.

 

[BowieBooster]

As a retired Professional Photographer (MPA) Wedding/Portraits I don't pretend to be a commercial photographer and I don't pretend to be trying to create award winning images. Neither do I do images for knife makers for which I expect any payment.

All my images are either of knives from my personal collection or from shows in Canada and the US with once in awhile a knife maker bringing a knife to my home for some photos.

Is the knife above busy? Of course it is. Would it do well in a photographic competition? Of course not! Does it show the knife so that a prospective purchaser, were I to offer it for sale, be able to feel comfortable in knowing what the knife looked like in all its aspects? Darn Tootin'!!!! And that is the object of the exercise.

Most of my photos of knives are done using the background seen here as it is neutral enough with some color and texture to add interest without detracting from the subject. It also is my trademark and although I do sign all my images as I did with all my portraits, even then some have used my images and cloned out my signature but it is a lot more work to remove my background. Not impossible but more work that most want to spend.

Something else of interest might be the fact that this image is a composite making use of 5 or a total of 6 images taken in the whole shooting session.

None of the images here are a crop of any other portion of the knife and I seldom do that as I like to show each area of the knife in its own way so that the viewer can see the aspects of the knife as though it were being viewed by hand in real life.

I just hope that those viewing the images created either under controlled conditions which I freely discuss and show anyone as well as those done at knife shows allow other collectors and makers to enjoy the products produced by the knife making community.

I agree with your (OP's) points 1 and 3. The photo here is the type (as a potential buyer) I like. Conveys a lot of information about the knife in both overall and detail formats, and from various angles. The huge photog name in the photo drives me nuts. No offense, but what viewer really gives a damn about who the photographer is? That's important for the MAKERS and PURVEYORS to know. It's a distraction. And, if I'm a maker, I want my name prominently displayed, not the name of the person I'm PAYING! I'm paying him to showcase me and MY work, not to advertise his services. The photog's name should be in small letters in the lower right corner (as Murray has done in this photo), so those who may be interested in that information can see it, but without it being the distraction it has generally become. It's become as if the photographer is presenting the photo not as a photo of the knife, but as a sort of joint "artwork" between the knifemaker and himself.

This is knife collecting, not photography. Two different genres or hobbies. I view knife photography as more of a commercial enterpise than as an art form. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but so be it.

P.S. to Los Angeles: I see the photos you present as crappy magazine photos that really do nothing to show consumers relevent detail of the products advertised. Especially in the case of the Rolex photo, do you not realize that THOSE photographers are THEMSELVES trying to be "artistic" in a sort of stealthy manner? How are you showcasing that watch by giving consumers 25% product and 75% background?

 

[RogerP]

I agree with your (OP's) points 1 and 3. The photo here is the type (as a potential buyer) I like. Conveys a lot of information about the knife in both overall and detail formats, and from various angles.

Yes, but could it not convey all that information as well - or better - in two images? For web display, it's not like there's much - or any - extra cost involved in displaying two images versus one. And you're not asking a lot of the viewer, either.

I look at the good quality photos on the bladegallery web site, for example. As a buyer - THAT is what I like to see. You get a good primary shot of the knife, then 4,5, sometimes 6 separate individual shots showing details and different perspectives. Could that all be crammed into one image? You bet. Would it be as effective as a selling tool? Not to me. If for whatever reason the seller chooses to restrict his display to a single photo, I say make it the best photo it can be - not crammed with the most information that can possibly fit. There comes a point of diminishing return for that latter approach. It comes earlier for some than for others, but it comes all the same.

On the portrait versus landscape view, I believe the photographer should take the approach that results in the best visual representation of the knife. If that's protrait, run with it. Frankly, I like the variety in the photographic representation of my collection. If all were portrait or all were landscape, I would find that a bit boring.

Roger

 

[ddd]

In the Preface to my first book on Modern Custom Knives I wrote
in 2002 the following:

".... I was also concerned about creating a visual language which would
not confuse the viewer as custom knives are often depicted on elaborate
backgrounds, surrounded by confusing artifacts.
I decided to show the knives alone - something like showing the beauty
of a great painting on a plain wall, letting it "sing" for itself without any
surrounding distractions. This demanded the consent of the world class
photographers who were commissioned to photograph the folders over
a period of several years. It also demanded from me over 800 hours of
computer work, carefully pulling images from their original backgrounds,
combining several folders into one illustration and enlarging various
sections of the folders to show, in detail, what this art is all about. The plain
"manipulated" backgrounds were created so as to compliment the beauty
of the knives..." (From "Art & Design in Modern Custom Folding Knives")

From the fact that most professional as well as amateur photographers
followed in my steps, and are nowadays working with simple and un-obstructive
backgrounds when displaying knives, says it all...

All the best,
David Darom (ddd)

 

[SharpByCoop]

Hi Los Angeles,

Thanks for this post. It's got some passion and facts out in the open for discussion. There is no one single answer for any of the queries posted, and no invalid question. :thumbup:

First off, let me pause to tell YOU of my personal preferences with discussions that I share valuable and professional time with. I don't like talking to an anonymous name, nor do I like being 'challenged' by an anonymous name on the internet. Open and Honest? Who am I talking with?

You can find my name on the bottom of my every post, as well as all my photos.

#1: Like you, I don't know where the policy of signing originated, and my ONLY professional experience in photography is knife photography. It appeared to be the standard, and I adapted. I happen to like balance (I'm left brained) and to have a different font or size for the photo credit, to me, looks skewed.

So it's off on the RH side. When I first started my business, I really wanted to promote myself, so I used the 'Image by SharpByCoop.com' tag line. It was and is effective. If I used space IN the photo to sign, the editors I submit this to would NOT like that.

Does it take some of the impact away from the total image about the maker? Yes. Do I own the image? Yes. Not the maker, NOR the dealer. So I make sure that's known.

#2: You won't see an enlargement of the core image on any of my photos. But you WILL see a fresh enlargement often.

I completely agree that having a standalone image with minimal background provides the most focus on the profile. But that rarely tells the whole story. I often say to prospective clients, the first thing we do as collectors, is look at a piece in total, and then we draw it up closely and look at the details. Those details are what really give of insight. There is hidden treasure in embellishments, or simply good fit and finish. But you have to look close.

My portfolio work for clients includes prints. Large prints. They take time to create and cost money to print. If the best way to present a knife with everything we'd like to see is in four different multiple single shots, so be it. I can do that. But.... expect a price increase well beyond what you are getting with a multiple exposure with (2) insets in the same image.

Time is money. Paper, ink, editing and processing add costs. It's real.

My primary source of photographic clients are not the portfolio shots. They are dealer website shots. Crazily, of these, five of my most proliferous clients all only display one rectangle image (and size beyond the thumb) of an expensive knife. (Believe me I think there should be at least a third upsized photo, if not many differing images).

So, I am catering to a style that works within the boundaries of my clients needs. This said, I am no apologizing for a multiple image as an effective selling tool. (Even portfolio images are an effective selling tool.)

The eye travels around a well conceived image and takes in information without the pause to click out and click into many different views. This has value, too. I don't know that either is website display is best. No one is going to concede sales figures, and THAT'S what really determines what works!

I ask my portfolio clients to tell me what they want: Single or montage, before I go to work. Ya know, 75% of them like a montage. I do what I'm asked.

I like your phrase: Too much salt can ruin the soup. Yup. I'm guilty as charge on occasion. But not all the time.

#3: Backgrounds: I can show you about 5-10 really mild backgrounds that would work for 95% of all my clients. Sigh. I find that boring. So would they. I attempt to add some character into an image with the usage of additional texture, or color. What a dull world it would be if they all looked like that Rolex. Just sayin'.

Crop out all the backgrounds and simply use a digital color? Good idea. Dr. Darom has pioneered this 'look' and he is the best at it. It's his. Really effective. (DDD also includes closeups and a variety in his displays. As viewers, we're able to enjoy busy as well as empty space.)

I like to stand on my own, for better or worse. Like makers, we photographers ARE artists who need/should distinguish ourselves.

I posted many comments on style in this thread from a few weeks ago. I'm sure you saw that.

All visual art is subjective, so what a viewer sees is relevant to their wishes. It's hard.

I won't change immediately, but I'm liking that there is thought being generated on visual displays. That shows that it's important.

Thanks,

Coop

 

[betzner]

Hi Los Angeles. Every opinion counts (unless it's an anonymous one, of course). But the majority rules.

There are alot of people/collectors who use a professional photographer to image their knives, including me. Almost all of the time, I'm highly satisfied with what is initially presented to me as the final product, by Coop. Now and then, I have a different take on it and Coop always comes through.

If Coop presented me with images like you seem to think are great, I would puke and get another photographer. At least, that's my opinion.

Best,

Bob Betzner

 

[ddd]

Well said Coop!

There is a fire in you and a passion that keeps it burning,
resulting in beautiful images that do more than just serve
your client's need. They are also created to show the world
what Knife Art is all about!

All the best,
David Darom (ddd)

 

[ddd]

So I guess I'm wondering why photography in the custom knife
world has such a distinctive style? I'm also interested in hearing
the opinions and thoughts of collectors, makers and certainly any
photographers in this field.

Thanks for reading and God bless.

Hello LA,
I missed this last question of yours, but the answer should
be quite obvious...

Most knives are relatively flat and elongated objects that are
usually viewed straight on from one of their sides.
They do display three dimensional features but these too are
set on a relatively flat art object.

Most knife photography meant to display this art form will show it
flat on its side with or without additional views.

A flat painting will also be reproduced as viewed straight on. There is
no need for props or dramatic lighting, just a well illuminated high
quality face-on reproduction.
Drama CAN be added in knife photography by shooting at a lower angle
and creating the feeling of depth and size in the object or by using dramatic
lighting - but these too have a very limited range to play in...

All the best,
David Darom (ddd)

 

[SSonnentag]

I really like the "Coop-style" images. My main knife photography complaint is the over use of Photoshop enhancing, bumping the contrast and levels to make Damascus pop. As a buyer I would much rather know what the knife actually looks like, not how contrasty you can make it look in PS.

Shawn