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

In some cases i think a background may not compliment the subject, or worse be distracting.. In this case i really
like how it adds to the rich colors of the handle. (scott roush)
ec45ed96.jpg


the use of background props dont seem to bother or distract too much, just giving the photo a composition.. a "primitive" theme. -- I might try removing the knife rest, but It works well i think.
 
Some nice pictures there.........


BUT......Rolex-A crown for every achievements???

Dont those guys proof read their ads? Thats some bad english!!!!!!!:o
 
Thank you to everyone who posted responses. I want to especially thank Mr. Coop and Mr. Darom for taking time to share their thoughts on this subject.

I wish I could post a response to every question and every comment here, but that would take all week I'm afraid of sending this discussion in a more negative direction by going tit-for-tat so to speak.

Each of you has certainly brought many things to light that I have not considered before.

I think the most remarkable thing that I've learned from this thread is that this niche in photography focuses on creating a single image that will be used for multiple purposes. Knifemaker's portfolio. Collector's inspection. Printed media showcase. Online distribution. This all-in-one approach is pretty fascinating, and I'm sure that has a lot to do with the distinctive style in this area.

I agree that my original rolex photo was not particularly outstanding, but I'm certain that the selling point of that particular model was the "window" into the gold mechanations behind the watch face. Putting the black watch against the black background was a cool way to emphasize that detail, in my opinion. I do suspect that this is a third party's attempt at making a wallpaper and that Rolex can't be blamed for the typo or the odd composition.

And Mr. Coop: My name is Kent Bell. I am an artist, graphic designer, art director and part-time metalsmith living and working in Venice, CA. If you would like my address, email, phone number or any other information, please feel free to contact me.
 
tom mayo said:
Some nice pictures there.........


BUT......Rolex-A crown for every achievements???

Dont those guys proof read their ads? Thats some bad english!!!!!!!:o
Click to expand...

Look at where the photo came from.
It is someone's portfolio page.

I worked at JWT and on the Rolex account.
I really, really doubt that it is JWT's work.

As far as the OP & photog's names being prominently displayed.
People buy "name" knives, so they want "name" photographers... it's all part of the package.
 
In all my images, I do no image enhancing regarding contrast or saturation. In fact, my goal is to make the knife look exactly as it is in real life and to that end I always have the knife beside the monitor when doing the final images. I have never had a purchaser ever say what he got was not exactly what he saw in the photos.

here is another that I have tried to make each image appear as they do in real life.

orig.jpg


the only slight adjustment here is a bit of burning in of some highlight areas to show the natural color of the soapstone which is a perfectly acceptable way of handling a photographic creation.

I selected these images simply because they were the last ones I have done but could have chosen from any one of another 180+ knives one can see in my site.
 
Someone should start a thread with a poll in it?
We could find out what everyones opions would be? :)

TA


.
 
Okay - Murray: there are three visual elements to that stand just by itself: the wood base, the carved post and the carved block. Each is visually distinctive (different colour, shape, size, orientation) and there is a lot of detail in both post and block.

Then there's the knife on the stand - also almost saturated with detail on its own, what with patterned blade steel, four different colours in the handle, deep relief carving on handle and butt, and inlaid jewels.

Then there's the separate image of the knife and it's twin - tripling all the knife-based detail alone right there.

Then there's the close-up up of the carved butt on one.

Then there's the carved butt of the other.

Then there's your signature.

Then there's the fact that image of the pair of knives has them running in a different direction and from a different perspective than the knife on the stand.

Then there's the fact that the two inserts each pointing in different directions from each other.

That's a lot of visual information.

Explain to me the reason behind why it's better to put all of that in one image versus two. Or three.

Roger
 
Here's an example of two images being better than one, IMHO.

Cohea warhawk, stand, blade cover. Lots of great detail work in all three.

Here's the hawk and headcover:

orig.jpg


And here they are situated on the stand.

orig.jpg


Each of these two images is crisp, clear and presents the subject extremely well. Could Coop have crammed into a single photo an image of the hawk on stand, together with an overlay of the hawk lying flat, then added a couple inserts of the close-up details of the hawk head and cover? Yep. Would that have been better than two separate shots? You all tell me what you think.

If it would be better, HOW would it be better? What is the advantage of 5,6,7 or more visual elements portrayed in a single photo versus breaking it down into two images? I'm asking because I don't know and clearly there are quite a few who favor that approach (I'm only picking on Murray because he put up an image which illustrates the point - but it's something I see quite a lot).

Roger
 
RogerP said:
You may be right... same knife with different carving front and back... though the potential confusion rather speaks to my point.

Roger
Click to expand...

I agree. If you know what you are looking at though, you can see it all without flipping the page.
 
So far as the photographer signing their work. Back in the early 80's when my wife and I started our family, We had some portraits taken. The photo studio signed each and every print we purchased. Olin Mills Studios in gold lettering on the bottom right corner of the photo. It was very distracting but common practice. I saw many other studios do the same thing.
 
As a knife maker, I am happy if people allow me to make knives I am interested in making and not critique me too harshly even if the particlar piece I have posted isn't exactly to everyones liking. I like being able to put my own spin on things and trying set myself apart from all the rest of the fine makers here. If I am able to sell what I can make I am even happier. I'm sure photographers are the same. It's not easy to be distinctly different and still have broad appeal. It would be really boring if all the "shooters" shot in the same style and format.
 
When creating the montage image, I try to work with some concepts that will assist the view in keeping his eye going to each image or part image. Thus when we look at the Butch Beaver art knife and stand, we see that the diagonal line of the knife on the stand leads the eye to the carved butt on the same side (obverse) of the knife itself viewed from another angle. The reverse is then placed parallel to the obverse image.

When on looks at the whole image, the eye will go to the lightest and brightest area which is why I place my signature where it will not be a distraction but lead the viewer to other aspects of the image. In this case the eye goes to the blades of the obverse/reverse images and the diagonal line of those images then leads the eye to the length of the knife and to one of the insets which is turned away from the diagonal to contain the eye in the image and cause the eye to flow around to the other inset of the upper handle and carved butt.

The carved butt is carved differently on each of the 4 sides and thus the two insets show the carved faces of 2 sides that cannot be seen by the obverse/reverse full knife images.

Therefore anyone viewing the image will be able to see in one image all the aspects of the knife and of the stand which was the goal of doing this particular image.

Hopefully this explains a bit more about the process of the image creating and the thinking behind why and how it was done.
 
Vege-Taco said:
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
Click to expand...
If I'm gonna spend $1K on a knife online (without holding/examining it)
I want the largest, clearest pics I can get
Show every nook and cranny (and blemishes, if they are there)
Like this pic===>
4.jpg

http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1732&aid=28397&lid=7872388#topoflot
I don't care about background or shadows
I want to SEE the knife I am buying

The artsy type pics are fine for framing and hanging on yor wall
They do not help with purchasing decisions..imho

I guess I could assume that a knife for $1k+ is flawless......:confused:
 
I don't care about background or shadows I want to SEE the knife I am buying.

The artsy type pics are fine for framing and hanging on yor wall
They do not help with purchasing decisions..imho
Click to expand...

Did you ever had Coop make a pic of one of your knives?? He (and other knife photographers for that matter) provide you, besides the printed stuff, with a very large digital file (>6Mb) so you can see every little detail. That way you get the artsy type pics (your words not mine;)) and all the details you need.

Marcel
 
Trent Rock said:
If I'm gonna spend $1K on a knife online (without holding/examining it)
I want the largest, clearest pics I can get
Show every nook and cranny (and blemishes, if they are there)
I want to SEE the knife I am buying
The artsy type pics are fine for framing and hanging on yor wall
They do not help with purchasing decisions..imho
Click to expand...

I agree.
I believe we have all at one time or another seen beautiful knife
photos and been surprised and disappointed upon actually seeing
the knife.

On the other hand we have all been pleasantly surprised at times that
knives were better than depicted in photos but these are usually poor amateur photos.
 
When we get Coop to take a picture of one of our knives we have several things in mind that we are buying and he is providing. We might want a picture showing the knife at its best for our portfolio. This is going to be the only permanent record we have of the knife and a montage shows nearly all the aspects of the knife on one photo. We want a picture that will be suitable for use in a book or magazine and attractive enough to get the interest of someone reading the magazine or book. We also get photos made for use in our advertizing and on our higher end knives we like to provide a copy of Coops photo along with the knife. The customers have really appreciated that. Since these spplications might require different types of photos, we like to explain what we are using the photo for and leave it to the pro to provide what he thinks is the best. We haven’t been disappointed.

Charlie and I, as makers, have no problem with the name of the photographer being included on the photo. The photograph is his work and his name should be on it. We also want the name of the engraver on the photograph if the knife is engraved. On every knife that we have had engraved we have asked the engraver to put his name on his work. It should be there. I wouldn't expect a photographer to publish his work without it being identified as his anymore than I would make a knife and not mark it as being my work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top