Different light and background photo setup

Yup, I gotta agree. You lost the redish cast and it looks a lot better. I have another flourescent with a funny set of bulbs off to the right of the lightbox. It is over my workbench, but it had a VERY distinct effect on polished bolsters, so I had to move the box. (And why didn't I just shut it off. Duuhhh!)

Like I said it wasn't perfect. It's amazing how easily affected lightsources are. I'll look into the daylight flourescents. There were different styles available at the Home Depot supply.

Here's a better link for those backgrounds: http://www.phototechinc.com/graduate.htm

Thanks for taking the time. I'll try to put some time in on a tutorial for the insets and other stuff that I am finding easy but get questions on regularly. I think that would help a lot of folks.

Boink, I hope you are learning too!

Coop
 
Man, I love this thread--this is all the kind of stuff that I wanted to know. I need to get some scratch together for a new digicam, but I'm saving this thread for when I get the new camera. It'll really come in handy. Thanks for all the great info, guys--keep on keepin' on.

-Z
 
What is difficult in disseminating digital photos is the fact that everyone is looking at the same image on a different monitor. They are almost always skewed into one color cast or another, or perhaps have a different lightness value due to the monitors age. In the case of LCD monitors, the darks usually suffer in visibility. And it's equally tough, or maybe even toughter, in printed output, what with all that can happen when the photo is imaged on a color printer.

What I find a challenge is to not lose the blade details when getting all the nice handle material information. It's nice to be able to capture the facets of the grind and also the grain directions - stuff that, in addition to the scales, makes folks say, "I want that knife!!"

Here's one of my feeble attempts at this.


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • jsppockett.jpg
    jsppockett.jpg
    21.6 KB · Views: 493
hey, zeng, glad it is helpful. I'm waiting anxiously to see what Coop posts on how he does his multiples. I just have to find out how to do it in ULead Photo Express 3. Their help files are not all that helpful and while there are lots of great tutorials for PS other ULead products, PSP and Gimp (another good free photoediting suite so don't think you have to buy PS). I even have a book for Gimp.

I just find Photo Express 3 very quick and easy to make simplified changes to things and thus I have even played a bit with Coop's image of the Potter auto. This took a few more "clicks" than the jws folder but only 5 minutes to get what I thought probably is an accurate rendition of the actual knife.

Coop if you can remember the knife--I know you photographed and manipulateda few hundred knives in that session--tell us if it is closer and not so yellow which is a trademark of off color lighting.



cooppotterautoadj.JPG
 
great job on that knife Boink. you are learning Coops techniques well too.

I'm emailing with a couple of collectors and they are enjoying this thread also. Hopefully others with tips and techniques will add to this discussion.
 
Murray: Ouch! Thanks for trying, but that folder just got hit with an ugly stick! ;) It definitely has creamy scales and a bluing of the bolsters. Please let it be! That is a Frank Potter auto, btw.

Boink: ALLLLRIGHT! Great clarity and usage of details. Good work.

I'll come back with some more soon.

Coop
 
Raw image shot this weekend with the setup shown on the previous page.

(Donnie Hanson folder in blacklip pearl. Knives courtesy of www.thecustomknife.com)

This is a perfect example of what I call a 'flat' image. It doesn't jump out and grab you and is hazy in appearance. This has only been cropped and downsized to 640 pixel width. This is exactly how it comes out of the camera:

orig.jpg


Now here it is again, after some tweaking, which is MUCH closer in appearance to the real thing:

orig.jpg


Now some may want to be purists and do as little as possible, but I just find that these pics need a little help. I am using PhotoShop ver. 7.0 and most programs won't have these exact features, but here it is anyway:
  • Crop pic
  • Hit 'Auto Levels' adjustment at 100%
  • Hit 'Equalize button' and then edit back down to only 5% of value (100%= WAY too much)
  • Sharpen slightly ('Unsharp Mask' (50% / 0.7 pixels / 2 levels) )
  • Add 10% contrast
  • Use 'Save for Web' feature at 60% quality file compression
  • Reduce to 640 pixel width (From original cropped 1260. DO THIS LAST!! It makes a BIG difference!)
You know I could go to town on insets, borders and the like, but that's not what we're learning today.

Hope this helps!

Coop

(isn't this knife AMAZING!!)
 
Blade747 - Excellent tutorial! Murray - "We're not worthy!" :)

The manipulation in Photoshop is almost a necessity, as a lot of shots fresh out the digital camera can be very soft in appearance, which is limitations of the medium. But those alterations you men do bring the image in line with what the human eye perceives in reality. Actually, it almost gets hyper-real looking.

On some shots, there is the aspect of setting the ight point and dark point values, which then causes the intermediate tones to readjust themselves. This sometimes adds a level of reality, meaning the subject pops from the picture.

The idea of reducing the pixel count last is a very important thing from the last tutorial. This means that all prior manipulations get done while employing the heavy amount of pixel data in the original shot, which it then sampled down in the last move.

Murray's longer duration open shutter I will try, as there is only so much output my lights can give, which tends to make things too dim without the additional exposure. If I move lights too close, then I risk blowing out the finish details in the blade itself.

What I am enjoying and looking to learn is how you gentleman get such balanced and detailed shots right out of the camera, without nary a manipulation!

Blade 747 - what's the raw pixel depth and height and width that comes raw out of your camera? What is the final pixel depth, height and width? I'd like to relate this to the rest of your tutorial.
 
Originally posted by Blade747
  • Crop pic
  • Hit 'Auto Levels' adjustment at 100%
  • Hit 'Equalize button' and then edit back down to only 5% of value (100%= WAY too much)
  • Sharpen slightly ('Unsharp Mask' (50% / 0.7 pixels / 2 levels) )
  • Add 10% contrast
  • Use 'Save for Web' feature at 60% quality file compression
  • Reduce to 640 pixel width (From original cropped 1260. DO THIS LAST!! It makes a BIG difference!)
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump in suddenly...

Have you tried "Adjust>Levels" and used it manually? I've had much better results compared to "AutoLevels".

I'm surprised to see the pixel reduction saved for last. It's been my understanding that every save to a jpeg image deteriorates the quality by X%.

Here's my process (for comparison only)

  • Open & Crop
  • Adjust Levels - bring markers to about 1/8" outside the edges of the curve, and then adjust the middle for lighting
  • Adjust>Curves - adjust the "R", "G", and "B" curves seperately to get the right color cast
  • Final Lighting Check - adjust with Brightness/Contrast
  • UnSharp Mask
  • Reduce Size
  • Save for Web

I've give yours a try and see what happens. We're all in this together, right?

Dan
 
these are all good Q's Boink. I don't really have a handle on all the pixel differences so I'm looking forward to Coops answers and an explaination of what each resolution is and hopefully the why also.

I thought also that is Coop does not mind others working with that original low contrast image within each persons editing suite, it could be instructive to see the results each person interested could obtain and how closely it can match Coops fine adjusted image.

I know that I don't have the types of settings that he makes use of in PS so I have tried a couple of ideas and settled on this one

coopblpadj.JPG


it is not quite exact but as close as I could accomplish.

Boink--one of the problems with flat low contrast lacking in brightness of digital images is not from the medium but rather lack of good exposure of the subject.

This happens with film also. When using a light toneed background material, and a camera set on "auto", unfortunately the camera will tend to read a wider area of the image than just the knife and thus will underexpose the knife itselft thus rendering a flat image.

Using a material closer to a neutral gray will or should help the situation. I'm going to try to take some time and play with a couple of different backgrounds and do no manipulation to hopefully show this better. Not sure when I'll get to it as the next few days are pretty busy here.

I don't do in camera manipulations either with digital. I'm a real point and shooter. Set it on auto, light the subject and do the compositon and take the photo. Often no manipulation is necessary but sometimes one or two clicks is all that is required.
 
in the above post, I mentioned that the camera in auto exposure mode will be fooled regarding correct exposure for the subject. Now I'll post 3 images done on 3 different backgrounds. The exposure on the dark backgrounds was 1/8 sec @ f 3.6 and the exposure on the lighter background is 1/8 sec @ f 3.9. There are three knives in each image. All that has been done is to reduce the image to web page usage. It is here otherwise presented as from the camera.

The knives, all hunters, used are each different finishes and with different handle material. The top (smallest knife) is Stellite satin finish, titanium bolster and pearl handle by Mike Franklin. The second knife, middle, is ATS 34 hi polish with 416 SS bolsters and stag handle by SR Johnson. The last is Damascus, N/S guard and butt with California burl spacer and Oosic handle by Herbert Derr.

Generally it is easier to photograph Damascus as the blade and the handle are often in the same brightness range. In this demonstration, three different brightness ranges have been used.

First is the regular background that I like to use. It is basically about 18% gray and thus makes for doing images quite easy as the subject and the background are going to be rendered fairly accurately by the automatic meter reading.

threeknivesFL2913.JPG


Next is the same setup but using one of my light backgrounds. Keep in mind that there is only 3/10th of a stop different between the light and dark background but see how much of a difference this can make to the brightness and contrast of the overall image.

threeknivesFL2918.JPG


The last image is another darker background but of a different color--red. This will then also be used for another demonstration later about color of backgrounds selected.

Remember, all the lighting conditions are identical. A bank of 4 Daylight Flourescents aimed thru the diffustion material from the rear and one DF aimed thru a diffuser from the front for some fill light on the dark handle of the damascus hunter.

threeknivesFL2924.JPG


The next assignment for those interested in learning is to take the middle image and in your image editing software create a brighter and more contrasty image acceptable for showing these three knives. Post your results in this thread and feel free to ask Q's and respond in any way. I'm sure Coop will be glad to assist.

Later I'll also do individual images of each knife and then the differences will be even more dramatic. I have tested against my regular background and have found the difference in exposure from one knife to another when photographed alone is 1 1/2 F stops between the pearl and the oosic knives.

I hope this is informative and will help those trying to do knife photographs.
 
Boy there's a lot of good stuff being talked about here. This has been my SECOND passion in the knifeworld.
Blade 747 - what's the raw pixel depth and height and width that comes raw out of your camera? What is the final pixel depth, height and width? I'd like to relate this to the rest of your tutorial.
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure what you mean by depth. The above raw image was shot at 1280x960 resolution. (Even though I can take it at 2400 I've found it doesn't make any difference once I downsize to 640. More on this later...) The raw image was 563kb.

Once downsized, cropped, and saved at 60% compression, that image is only a skinny 42kb. After my enhancements, it increased the file size back up some, to 68kb for the same size shot. It has a lot of refinements that come at that cost.

It's been told to me and I believe it, that anything upwards of 60% compression isn't noticable to the eye. Under this it starts to become slightly apparent. Most image programs provide some method of adjustment or selection.

Dan (Pendentive) wrote: Have you tried "Adjust>Levels" and used it manually? I've had much better results compared to "AutoLevels".
I'm surprised to see the pixel reduction saved for last. It's been my understanding that every save to a jpeg image deteriorates the quality by X%.
Click to expand...

Dan, I am plenty familiar with the 'Level's' controls. I usually try the Auto button first, and look it over. If I don't like what I see, I go in there and do it manually. in fact ALL of the visual settings I used up above are under constant readjusting for each picture I work on. This was an attempt to do it in the least amount of steps as to be explainable to all. MOST programs have some form of 'Auto Adjust' button, and I wish folks to use it.

For those of you out there that don't have Photoshop (which is a $700 program!! :eek: ), some of this conversation is indecipherable. Sorry.

Regarding degradation, I have heard these tales too, but I have yet to experience or see an example of how it applies. Maybe I confused you. The last thing I do is go to the 'Save for Web' window (which is Photoshop's method of finalizing a .jpg) and resize it there (not in the image program), as well as adjust the file compression.

Murray: you made it better than my original, but my monitor shows quite a bit of yellow. As Boink pointed out the differences in monitor output alone makes all of this very subjective, right? BTW--I bought and use an NEC 21" monitor seven years ago, and it's the BEST computer investment (?!) I ever made. It's outlived two major computer upgrades.

I will give your pictorial a shot at enhancements. Thanks for taking some serious time giving us the differences in various knives and backgrounds to see the effect they have. This is FUN!

Now if any of you folks are still paying attention, I wrote a lengthy experiment on the differences between some VERY high-profile ($$$) camera's and some not-so-costly ones, and the effect they have on output for a web-sized picture. If THIS is the medium you want to work with, you will be pleasantly surprised at what I learned: Resolution Comparisons This could save you BIG money on a camera for the future.

Lastly where's MY HERO :D, PhilL who is my image mentor? I owe much of my learning curve to him! He's chuckling in the background...

Coop
 
I'll start this edit, but as Murray invited, we'd like to see other's give it a whirl.

Murray's original:

threeknivesFL2918.JPG


My edited version:

orig.jpg


Many subtle changes, including going over the damascus and handle with the 'Dodge' tool to lighten it locally without disturbing the rest of the pic. I'm not in love with the stag redo, but I'll see what the others come up with.

Oddly, the original is 57kb, but after my enhancements, PS downsized it to 27kb at 60%. Hmmmm, you got me.

BTW--these are GREAT knives, Murray! :)

Coop
 
Just a quick note to mention that I'll be out of town for a few days, but will get back and avidly read some prior posts and those that follow. I see a beatiful textbook of technique happening here! :)
 
hey this is fun! I need a bit more practice with "tracing" my images...I still haven't figured out how to use the "paths" feature in Photoshop...

standard


RL
 
I just want to take a moment to thank all the guys for the exchange of information and ideas in this thread. Fantastic. I am putting a light box like Murrays together this weekend, and hope to offer up a few photo's soon. The pictures I submit will be from a true beginner. I bought my first digital camera this week, and have zero experience with photography. None. I am truly starting from scratch, and it will be interesting to see how getting started with the tips I have picked up here impacts those very first images. PShop enhancements will have to wait a while, but one thing I have learned already is you have to have a decent picture to start with in order to "tweak" it further. I understand knives present particular challanges to photographers, and this kind of "item specific" information is just going to be so valuble to a beginner like myself. Again..Coop, Murray, Boink, RL etc. Thanks SO much..Rich
 
Some good stuff here fellas. A few tips from Murray has really helped me out a bunch. Still a real newbie at this, but every little bit helps. I couldn't find the suggested light bulbs but bought some "GE Reveal" bulbs for my desktop photography and that alone helped a bunch. I don't have a real editing program so what comes off the floppy (Mavica FD100) is pretty much what ya get. Except for a little balancing.
Greg
 
Out of curiosity, what could you guys do with this photo? Should you want to. Or, what could I do with it to make it a little better. I am having a lot of trouble with the pink pearl.
Greg
 
actually, you have done quite well with pink pearl. It is not the easiest material to show well. The biggest thing about the image is the amount of black around the image so I'd suggest a tighter crop.

I have bumped the contrast and brightness as much as I was able. With digital it is easier to adjust something underexposed than something that is overexposed. In other words, light items are more difficult to adjust than dark ones.

I tested out an image that was sharpened but it appeared to be too artificial. With the ability to adjust parts of an image, Coop can probably do an improvement. I'm still trying to learn how to do that with my program ULead Photo Express 3.

mvcpinkpearladj.JPG
 
BTW-for anyone that does not have an editing program, just do a Googly search for The Gimp. There are also online tutorials to learn how to use it. It is a free download and usage digital editing suite.

Another item that is of concern when doing your digital imaging is the proximity of the subject to the light source. Next will be two images that have been photographed an a medium background. One is in the order that makes for a nice composition but has the lightest subject closest to the light source.

secproxtoltFL2928threeknives.JPG


even with the adjustments available without specific adjustment to specific area of the subject such as the brighter pearl area, the pearl just does not have the detail that one would like to see.

So a reversal of order was used to show the difference. While the pearl has more detail, unfortunately, the compostion is not as good. However, it does demonstrate the concept of proximity to light source.

proxtoltFL2926threeknives.JPG


lastly, I want to show my adjustments to the image that was presented for adjusting that Coop showed his method which I need to learn more about as being able to take selected components and adjust them and then reintigrate them to the base image can be most useful in some difficult situations. I find that the program I'm using can almost match PS but I know there will be times when more is necessary. Here is the result.

adjthreeknivesFL2918.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top