Blade Photography (camera)

[Maineiac1]

Hello I've been making knives for over a year now and find myself struggling and getting as much or more disappointed in my photography outcomes than I do the knife process. I know presentation is just as important as quality of the blade and I get frustrated when I cannot snap a great picture. Ive researched a lot about how to take pictures with reflections and all that but my question is: What do you makers use for a camera to take good shots? Editing programs? I'm looking to take simple but clear and precise photos of my knives in order to have the picture look as well planned and thought out as my knives instead of a quick throw the dirty knife down, snap and post pic.. (I know I can always improve my knives, sheaths, pictures and online posts but right now am ready to focus on the picture for a few days)

Ive tried cell phone, easy and always available... Ive tried an expensive Canon Powershot camera with not much better luck... My GoPros not even worth the thought. Do I need and expensive DSLR?

Thanks in advanced, below are a couple examples that were handy..

 

[butcher_block]

tripod and light box will help you alot set your powerrshot to macro maybe i also use the timer or a trigger to get rid of as much camera shake as i can

 

[Brock Cutlery]

I need to get a light box...
I have studied a lot of Youtube vids on knife photography, and they are helpful. One thing that seems to be important is having darker backgrounds in strategic areas that won't wash the blade out.
But I'm still learning, so following this thread.

 

[E.Carlson]

You can get a decent light box set up from amazon for about 40 bucks. Box, 4 color backgrounds, 2 lights.
I'm still learning with it but it vastly improved my pictures.

 

[DanF]

Even with a light box or exterior pics on a cloudy, overcast day I'm still a pic-tard.

 

[John Cahoon]

Yours look better than mine already and I use a Canon DSLR! I guess it's just another skill to study and practice.

 

[Horsewright]

Definitly is. I use open shade rather than a light box as often I have to takes pics of oversize items as well as knives. Must be working I get a lot of compliments on my pics. I too use a Canon DSLR and an 18-55 image stablized lens for most of ourproduct shots. I've found an interesting but not too interesting background helps too.

 

[i4Marc]

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/no-frills-75-00-home-studio-tent-lightbox.328550/



At the very least, get a piece of foamcore board and bounce some light in to open up the shadows.

 

[Grayzer86]

I bought one of the $40 light box setups on amazon, with a 3 foot cube tent, two tripod lights with bulbs and the backgrounds. My girlfriend takes all the photos but she is using a Nikon D5200 DSLR typically with an 18-55mm lens or a macro lens depending on what we are trying to focus on. A tripod with remote shutter does help a lot in preventing minor blur or haze. I could not tell you exactly what settings she is using for aperture, shutter speed etc.

 

[Jrmysell]

I built a box from the thread i4marc posted. It made a world of difference.

Vs.

 

[danhowl]

My 'day job' is being a professional photographer which I have done for 25+ years now. While my specialty is people, I have had still-life/close-up photos published in numerous books and magazines. Anyway, I have been photographing the knives I make as a hobby. I have a lighting set-up that can be set up quickly for soft, beautiful light. For quick and dirty Facebook posts, I can even use my phone and produce better results than most of the photos posted here. When I have more time, I use my DSLR and either a specialized lens for close-up work or one even more specialized lens for perspective control. With the DSLR I capture far more detail that would ever be required for a web post. I prefer to use my DSLR on Manual model (for both my work and knives). With the camera stabilized on a tripod you can either zero in on the exact exposure or make exposures both lighter and darker than exact exposure (bracketing) to evaluate it later. Some of my lenses are dedicated Manual Focus as well. I like this better for still life photos because I don't want the focus to drift.

What I can see from the examples you show are that you are not setting up shots where the camera and knife are not in parallel planes. This can be fine, but it means that your camera/lens needs to carry more focus depth than keeping the camera in a parallel plane to the knife. Just something to keep in mind to capture the detail you want to capture.

I find that lighting makes the biggest difference in the quality of the photo. I would never use the flash on my camrea. Even though I use powerful studio strobes for most of my professional work, my consistent lighting set-up for knives I use a small video light fixture (Lowell Tota-Lite) shining through a translucent white silk umbrella. Because it is a bright, constant light I can see the beam and effect of the light. Typically I use the umbrella light down to the level of the surface I am shooting on firing across the knife. I use a 16"x20" white board (Foamcor) to control the shadows created by the side light. By moving the white card around you can see where the shadows fill and control the highlight on the blade. You can see what a difference it makes here:

(*still learning on the knives quality...)

I will typically try the edge both towards the light and away from the light and move the white card around to find the right placement. My DSLR would be on the tripod, with a cell phone I can manipulate both at the same time.

However, producing soft light and controlled shadows is not the only approach. I also appreciate streaming sunlight coming in from my window. Shadows can also be controlled with the white card. A raw beam of sunlight can place hot spots in the scene. This can be pleasing for some scenes. Here is an example:

There are multiple approaches to both the shooting and lighting for almost any subject. For knives, I do like to be able to control both the exposure and focus manually which is more possible with a DSLR than many compact cameras. I typically pull all images in to Photoshop for balancing and cropping. Since I shoot RAW format on all of my DSLRs I will typically bring the RAW files through Capture One Pro first, but most non-pros will prefer to shoot native JPG shots and control exclusively in a program like Photoshop.

If you have specific questions I am happy to try to answer individually.

 

[flatblackcapo]

poke around and post questions in here and you will find some very useful info.
https://www.bladeforums.com/forums/photography-discussion.847/

Hello I've been making knives for over a year now and find myself struggling and getting as much or more disappointed in my photography outcomes than I do the knife process. I know presentation is just as important as quality of the blade and I get frustrated when I cannot snap a great picture. Ive researched a lot about how to take pictures with reflections and all that but my question is: What do you makers use for a camera to take good shots? Editing programs? I'm looking to take simple but clear and precise photos of my knives in order to have the picture look as well planned and thought out as my knives instead of a quick throw the dirty knife down, snap and post pic.. (I know I can always improve my knives, sheaths, pictures and online posts but right now am ready to focus on the picture for a few days)

Ive tried cell phone, easy and always available... Ive tried an expensive Canon Powershot camera with not much better luck... My GoPros not even worth the thought. Do I need and expensive DSLR?

Thanks in advanced, below are a couple examples that were handy..

 

[Maineiac1]

My 'day job' is being a professional photographer which I have done for 25+ years now. While my specialty is people, I have had still-life/close-up photos published in numerous books and magazines. Anyway, I have been photographing the knives I make as a hobby. I have a lighting set-up that can be set up quickly for soft, beautiful light. For quick and dirty Facebook posts, I can even use my phone and produce better results than most of the photos posted here. When I have more time, I use my DSLR and either a specialized lens for close-up work or one even more specialized lens for perspective control. With the DSLR I capture far more detail that would ever be required for a web post. I prefer to use my DSLR on Manual model (for both my work and knives). With the camera stabilized on a tripod you can either zero in on the exact exposure or make exposures both lighter and darker than exact exposure (bracketing) to evaluate it later. Some of my lenses are dedicated Manual Focus as well. I like this better for still life photos because I don't want the focus to drift.

What I can see from the examples you show are that you are not setting up shots where the camera and knife are not in parallel planes. This can be fine, but it means that your camera/lens needs to carry more focus depth than keeping the camera in a parallel plane to the knife. Just something to keep in mind to capture the detail you want to capture.

I find that lighting makes the biggest difference in the quality of the photo. I would never use the flash on my camrea. Even though I use powerful studio strobes for most of my professional work, my consistent lighting set-up for knives I use a small video light fixture (Lowell Tota-Lite) shining through a translucent white silk umbrella. Because it is a bright, constant light I can see the beam and effect of the light. Typically I use the umbrella light down to the level of the surface I am shooting on firing across the knife. I use a 16"x20" white board (Foamcor) to control the shadows created by the side light. By moving the white card around you can see where the shadows fill and control the highlight on the blade. You can see what a difference it makes here:

(*still learning on the knives quality...)

I will typically try the edge both towards the light and away from the light and move the white card around to find the right placement. My DSLR would be on the tripod, with a cell phone I can manipulate both at the same time.

However, producing soft light and controlled shadows is not the only approach. I also appreciate streaming sunlight coming in from my window. Shadows can also be controlled with the white card. A raw beam of sunlight can place hot spots in the scene. This can be pleasing for some scenes. Here is an example:

There are multiple approaches to both the shooting and lighting for almost any subject. For knives, I do like to be able to control both the exposure and focus manually which is more possible with a DSLR than many compact cameras. I typically pull all images in to Photoshop for balancing and cropping. Since I shoot RAW format on all of my DSLRs I will typically bring the RAW files through Capture One Pro first, but most non-pros will prefer to shoot native JPG shots and control exclusively in a program like Photoshop.

If you have specific questions I am happy to try to answer individually.

Some great info from everyone! Danhowl, what is the difference from shooting RAW vs jpeg? I know my Powershot is already set at jpeg but I'm unsure what either REALLY mean.. you've got some great explanations of lighting and camera angle which helps me understand a lot. I realize what you mean by the camera and knife not being parallel and now better understand why the entire knife isn't focused like I was hoping. So I appreciate your time!

 

[variant2]

I use my exterior flash (pivoting head) mounted on my camera to bounce the light off the ceiling which acts like a huge soft box. Also use a wide angle lens (10-22mm) for interesting perspectives.

Stopped down the exposure on these shots primarily to focus the eye on Phil Harvey's contouring, texture finish and hand rubbed satin finish on the blade.

Quick post processing is done in Lightroom.

 

[variant2]

If possible, always shoot RAW due to the added dynamic range and flexibility you get to post process your images. RAW is the original unprocessed, uncompressed file while the JPG has already been processed onboard and compressed.

When shooting knives, there's usually a good amount of reflective metal that may cause blown highlights and ruin the picture. If you capture RAW, you may be able to stop down the file enough to bring back some detail in the highlights whereas in JPG, you won't have that luxury.

 

[danhowl]

Raw camera files are images with all of the information captured by the camera--basically three channels of black and white images on top of each other with no color processing algorithm applied to them. Raw files require special software to open and process, but it gives you the opportunity to determine the exact color balance and it also allows for more latitude in exposure control because it contains all of the image information. Most (possibly all) raw file processor software are non-destructive when working on files since they only add processing bias information without actually changing the file. When outputting you can determine the size of the file and select compression level (JPEG) or uncompressed (TIFF).

A JPG from the camera is a file that has already had the color algorithm applied to it and the excess information had been dropped and compressed. This does take flexibility away from manipulating the file. DSLR cameras do this quickly and generally efficiently. The problem comes when you make multiple changes in different sessions. The JPEG compression standard drops unused information each time it is saved. That process adds noise each time. Careful file handling can produce perfectly acceptable results. Sports photographers and wedding photographers use this method all of the time.

While I use RAW workflow exclusively for several reasons, it was never intended to replace attention to lighting. I believe that the OP would benefit most from a soft lighting source and manual exposure control rather than shooting raw files (if his camera offers it). As he gains more experience he can look into raw, but it is another step to get used to.

My suggestion is to start by:
stabilizing camera (tripod)
keep angle in mind when setting up shots (camera image plane vs. knife plane)
manual exposure control (also consider manual focus control)
soft light source (umbrella, diffusion panel, box, cone)
reflector panel to control shadows

Once you are pushing the boundaries of the quality you can get with these, you can experiment with raw camera files.

 

[Maineiac1]

Awesome. This informations helps me a lot in understanding so I have a lot of new things to try the next time I shoot my next few knives!

 

[tyyreaun]

I'm jumping into this thread late, and it sounds like all the important points have been covered. However, I wanted to add two things.

First, unless you really want to get into photography, don't buy a dSLR. In most cases you'll probably end up with worse pictures with a dSLR than you would with a smartphone or compact camera unless you really intend to learn to manage depth of field, etc. That's especially true for product photography, where you're working at near-macro distances. A compact camera like the Canon G9 X, or even your smartphone, is more than good enough for posting web-quality pictures on Instagram or "for sale" threads. Spend your money on a good lighting setup, background, and a decent tripod designed for macro photography.

If possible, always shoot RAW due to the added dynamic range and flexibility you get to post process your images. RAW is the original unprocessed, uncompressed file while the JPG has already been processed onboard and compressed.

Second, I'm going to disagree with this suggestion, again unless you really intend to get into photography. RAW captures the data directly from camera's sensor without all the fancy algorithms cameras apply to make the picture look good, under the assumption that you'll apply those changes yourself afterwards, using Adobe Camera RAW or something like that. As with using a dSLR, unless you really want to learn to process RAW files yourself, you're almost certainly going to get better results with JPGs straight out of the camera.

You can manage your need for dynamic range (the difference between the darkest and brightest areas in the photo, which can appear as areas of pure black and white if the sensor can't capture them) with proper lighting, and as mentioned there are plenty of resources on YouTube, etc., on how to set up lighting for product photography. Likewise, RAW lets you control white balance afterwards (so colors appear accurate), but if you're setting up a mini studio with controlled lighting, you can set a custom white balance, or find which white balance preset works best with your lighting, and just rely on that.

You can ABSOLUTELY get better photos with a high end camera, good post processing, etc., but there is a steep learning curve, and a relatively high cost of entry, to get into that. Unless you're really interested in photography, I really do think you'd be better of keeping it simple.

Edited to add: just wanted to mention, my advice is coming from my personal experience. When my wife convinced me to get a dSLR (because she wanted "real" photos), my pictures looked like ass for the first year or so. It took a lot of reading, learning, and practice before my dSLR photos were even as good as what I was getting with a compact camera before. I'd also spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment - and sold lots of it at a loss - while learning what I needed and what I really didn't.

 

[Maineiac1]

I'm jumping into this thread late, and it sounds like all the important points have been covered. However, I wanted to add two things.

First, unless you really want to get into photography, don't buy a dSLR. In most cases you'll probably end up with worse pictures with a dSLR than you would with a smartphone or compact camera unless you really intend to learn to manage depth of field, etc. That's especially true for product photography, where you're working at near-macro distances. A compact camera like the Canon G9 X, or even your smartphone, is more than good enough for posting web-quality pictures on Instagram or "for sale" threads. Spend your money on a good lighting setup, background, and a decent tripod designed for macro photography.



Second, I'm going to disagree with this suggestion, again unless you really intend to get into photography. RAW captures the data directly from camera's sensor without all the fancy algorithms cameras apply to make the picture look good, under the assumption that you'll apply those changes yourself afterwards, using Adobe Camera RAW or something like that. As with using a dSLR, unless you really want to learn to process RAW files yourself, you're almost certainly going to get better results with JPGs straight out of the camera.

You can manage your need for dynamic range (the difference between the darkest and brightest areas in the photo, which can appear as areas of pure black and white if the sensor can't capture them) with proper lighting, and as mentioned there are plenty of resources on YouTube, etc., on how to set up lighting for product photography. Likewise, RAW lets you control white balance afterwards (so colors appear accurate), but if you're setting up a mini studio with controlled lighting, you can set a custom white balance, or find which white balance preset works best with your lighting, and just rely on that.

You can ABSOLUTELY get better photos with a high end camera, good post processing, etc., but there is a steep learning curve, and a relatively high cost of entry, to get into that. Unless you're really interested in photography, I really do think you'd be better of keeping it simple.

Edited to add: just wanted to mention, my advice is coming from my personal experience. When my wife convinced me to get a dSLR (because she wanted "real" photos), my pictures looked like ass for the first year or so. It took a lot of reading, learning, and practice before my dSLR photos was even as good as what I was getting with a compact camera before. I'd also spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment - and sold lots of it at a loss - while learning what I needed and what I really didn't.

Thanks for your post! I do not wish to spend as much money as knifemaking on photography and nor do I plan on learning the photography trade right now, so I appreciate your input. Most of my sales are on Facebook or in person, so I guess I will stick to the Canon powershot, and hone my skills with that camera!

 

[variant2]

I'm jumping into this thread late, and it sounds like all the important points have been covered. However, I wanted to add two things.

First, unless you really want to get into photography, don't buy a dSLR. In most cases you'll probably end up with worse pictures with a dSLR than you would with a smartphone or compact camera unless you really intend to learn to manage depth of field, etc. That's especially true for product photography, where you're working at near-macro distances. A compact camera like the Canon G9 X, or even your smartphone, is more than good enough for posting web-quality pictures on Instagram or "for sale" threads. Spend your money on a good lighting setup, background, and a decent tripod designed for macro photography.



Second, I'm going to disagree with this suggestion, again unless you really intend to get into photography. RAW captures the data directly from camera's sensor without all the fancy algorithms cameras apply to make the picture look good, under the assumption that you'll apply those changes yourself afterwards, using Adobe Camera RAW or something like that. As with using a dSLR, unless you really want to learn to process RAW files yourself, you're almost certainly going to get better results with JPGs straight out of the camera.

You can manage your need for dynamic range (the difference between the darkest and brightest areas in the photo, which can appear as areas of pure black and white if the sensor can't capture them) with proper lighting, and as mentioned there are plenty of resources on YouTube, etc., on how to set up lighting for product photography. Likewise, RAW lets you control white balance afterwards (so colors appear accurate), but if you're setting up a mini studio with controlled lighting, you can set a custom white balance, or find which white balance preset works best with your lighting, and just rely on that.

With the low cost of memory today, it would be a mistake to limit yourself just to JPGs. Post processing RAW images is a breeze with Lightroom which only costs $10 p/month for the Adobe Suite for photographers. Working with RAW images gives you much more flexibility.

I’m pretty sure the Canon PowerShot has the ability to capture RAW so he can give it a try. Once I started shooting RAW years ago, I never went back to just JPG and never will — no benefit to limiting my abilities.