'No Frills' $75.00 home studio tent/lightbox

Hi Joss,

Nice improvements. Glad you are finding out about settings beyond the green auto button... :p

1. Resize no larger than 800 pixels wide so we can view the image in it's entirety. Yours is 1157 wide. Too much scrolling for me. Great work on file sizing, though. It's only 141kb for such a large image.

2. if you want more 'crisp' then that is the benefit of sharpening slightly. I do, and all good photographers should. You allowed that this is untouched. Bravo. Good work again, if so. That ain't bad.

3. I like your lighting arrangement. Lighting is a subjective area and there is no one best way to get it done. Your version is a 'traditional' look and that's what you need to accomplish early on. The basics. The longer the blade, the harder it is to get consistency. How well I know. I would rotate the whole knife and background so it is more parallel to the sources and then frame it in the viewfinder on a diagonal. (In other words you need to get more light to the tip of the knife. If you simply elevate the lights you will lose that nice dramatic dual grind shadow you captured.)

The guard has very good lighting as does the handle texture. the entire image needs (for me) a touch more contrast. That is the 'spice' of life for a good digital web image.

I am a big fan of wallpapers for my backgrounds. I like color. Start with some natural tans (very universal for knives) and keep working on it.

All-in-all you need to make no apologies for this work. It's damn good.

Now get out a nice bright shiney blade and polished handle. Damascus is relatively easy. Get to work!!!! :thumbup:

Vassilli: Say what? ;)

Coop
 
Murray, Vassili, Dan, and Jim,

Thanks all for your advice. I've resized the pic to make it easier to see.

I need to learn to use my copy of Digital Image (I also got Photoshop Elements 2.0 in the box with the camera, but I can't manage to install the darn software).

Jim, your advice on rotating & framing the knife is interesting. I need to figure out how to set up the tripod for that.
 
Dramatic 'shadows' don't sell knives...? Ummm, Don't tell that to my successful clients. I'll be out of business..... :p :foot: :confused: :rolleyes:

Coop
 
SharpByCoop said:
Dramatic 'shadows' don't sell knives...? Ummm, Don't tell that to my successful clients. I'll be out of business..... :p :foot: :confused: :rolleyes:
Coop
Click to expand...
Jim, I'm going to take that as meant for me to reply to (acting a bit numb here for the benefit of any doubt) if you know me at all you knew it was coming anyway..
one plug deserves another I guess..
as I said,, it was My 2 cent, with that said,,, only my 2 cents..
to my successful clients
Click to expand...
just 2 more cents..and still only my opinion..
reputation sells knives also maybe more so then just pictures, pictures also let customers know the maker is still out there..I've done very well with very bad pictures,,
Just look and see..:rolleyes: ;)

I'm not disrespecting anyone here for making their own choices or by giving their opinions on the way they do things or by making constructive comments,, if mine are not welcome here as well, .if indeed I'm wasting my time here with what little input I have..I'll be on my way..I have work I can / should be doing anyway.
don't get me wrong, I as well as all the rest, which I'm sure would be an understatement do enjoy your time and what you have to offer..

edited to add sice you did quote what I said
I think what he means ,, go back in the post and see the pictures with side light.. it shows all the knife with great detail and for the knife buyer that's what we should want when selling knives from pictures,, for art of a picture then the shadows look nice,
I'm selling knives not pictures,,, don't get me wrong this all has it's place in pictures and photography and is great info for all..
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing anything wrong with this??
personaly I'd want to see more detail rather then more of something I can't see , again 2 more cents..
 
Dan, you old sensitive guy, you. I guess I didn't add in enough smilies. I apologize that you were even slightly offended. Your input is ALWAYS welcome, so get back in here and give me more of your .02¢! :thumbup:

But, since you have brought this up and this thread keeps moving in different directions, lets talk about this aspect. What knife images DO sell best??? Good question. Boy, I'd love to have all the answers to this. :rolleyes:

Without fail the knives that sell the best are because of the quality of the product and the reputation of the maker. Period. You hit the nail dead square on this one, Dan. Thanks.

Given the choice between a well-lit image and a dark one that has no details, I am in full agreement. Show the WORK!

But, are shadows, which sometimes can hide details, taboo? Well, it depends. The 'shadows' in which I referred to, are sometimes conspicuous and intentional. Allow me to draw up a couple of later works that I chose that have a bit of the 'dark side'.

orig.jpg

Knives courtesy of GuildKnives.com

Here are two knives that are relatively 'plain'. No engraving, one material, etc. The beauty is in their simple shape and the fabulous pearl--and the blades. Dagger blades that have two bevels. In this image I made sure I attacked them from a steeper angle than I would have otherwise, to show the grinds and to show the subtle curve of the bolsters. In the process there is a fairly dark shadow on the edges that is hiding more knife.

Here is another art knife to view:

orig.jpg

Knife courtesy of KnifeLegends.com

Absolutely stunning work by two masters. Again, It's a dagger grind and the lighting is unidirectional from the RH rear. (Yes, I still used a kicker to give some light back in to the LH lower, but it is dominated by the main lighting.)

There are dark shadows which in this case add drama. I made sure the exposed work was caught clearly, but I was not afraid of giving up some clarity for darkness on the edges. In doing so it MAKES you focus on the lit portion. No distractions. I also ADDED a very subtle vignette (darkening around the edges of the image). I induced shadowing where there wasn't any. If you saw back-to-back images you could see the effect distinctly.

Now, In my case, because I clearly am a whore with utilizing insets, there is always plenty of visual 'information' delivered. I can get away with showing less as I already show more.

There is an aspect about custom knives in particular that is important to understand; NO ONE needs one. It is a discretionary product. You have to want a custom knife. And so there is an emotional quotient that plays into age-old print advertising needs: create visual interest and subsequent desire. Text on a page gives us plenty of left brain data, but our desire is formed in our right brains. (Very general and arguable point, I know.)

So I submit with my own .02¢ that there are reasons for everything and it's ALL good! Brighten up an image and make sure it's clear. That is a sure-fire winner. Or, make it clear, but dark and mysterious and see what happens there. (BTW--Look at KnifeArt.com to see how they have changed their style of photography to a more 'artsy' look.)

I've talked enough. I want to hear what works for you, as collectors, or makers.

Coop
 
OK we're buddies again ;) hehehe like putty in my hands:D and your PR is getting good too:D

Jim my main concern I had and have is just what you said and brought out and more so what others don't do..you insert the pictures that need seeing so if you shadow to make the pictures more of an art form, it's OK , you're showing those parts that some guys don't with the one picture..
inserting these other photos and pictures mitigate what I'm saying ,
so with that said if only one picture will be used, side light I think is a big plus to those..
if you show those arias with other pictures or whoring clips (in your own words:D ) in the picture ,,, COOL your good to go.. :D

BTW George Dailey did a sweet job on that knife :thumbup: I love talking to him at the clubs H/I's a wealth of info he is..
being a jeweler sure helps too, doesn't it..:D
 
Murray White said:
the reflected light meter looked at the image and tried to make it an 18% shade of gray.
Click to expand...

Ah - I finally understood what you meant. I'm reading that "Understanding Exposure" book, and I had not yet gotten to the right chapter. You're saying that because the camera's exposure meter is set on the default setting (which averages the reading for the entire frame), it considers that the black is in fact gray and therefore offers a shutter speed that effectively overexpose the picture. Correct?

To remedy that, it seems I could do one or 2 things without changing the composition:
1) I could set the meter on spot metering and take a reading off the blade (or maybe the handle, but not the background), or
2) I could get an 18% grey sheet, plase it on top of the composition, take the reading off it, set the shutter speed based on that, and then remove it and take the pic (and disregard the meter telling me I'm underexposed.)

Do I get that right?
 
I posted my pic on the DPReview forum for criticism, and here is what one of the contributors did - pretty amazing!

EditedBBump.jpg


Quote from his post:
In Photoshop.
1) Crop slightly to align the knife with the diagonal
2) Curves to add contrast with the the background
3) Smart sharpen(40% @ 0.9 radius) to bring out the detail of the knife
4) USM sharpen (22% @ 60 radius) to boost local contrast around the knife.
5) Select the background and apply 0.6 pixels gausian blur to de-emphasize the texture of the material.
 
OK, new try:

BBump_medium2.JPG


- Image taken at 100 ISO (I thought I could go down to 50, but this is as far down as the camera will go)
- Shutter speed: 1/10 sec.
- Aperture: 6.3

(large pic available here.)

I think the metering is better. I used a grey card to meter and then took several pics at 1/3 stop interval. This one is overexposed by 1/3 over the grey card - the knife is a bit darker than 18% I think.

I'm not getting much of the velvet color, I don't know why, but at least it's not distrating.

The tip of the blade isn't super sharp, and I think I'd do well to use a slightly wider depth of field.

Wadayathink? :D
 
Here's my new set-up:

MySetUp.JPG


My previous setup was huge and unwieldly. This one can be rolled and folded in 5 minutes into a small bag. I used 0.5" PVC "risers", which conveniently are precut to exactly 2' and threaded. They exist in various length.

Coop's initial post (and ongoing generosity!) was invaluable to me - thanks buddy!
 
While I was in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, Matt Lerch poked his head inside and wanted to see my setup. I spent some time with him and described in full what I would use in lieue of my strobes: A velum diffuser and (3) of the Lights of America 500w fluorescent work lamps sold now at Wal*Mart for only $12 each. I described making a reflector out of an acrylic photo holder and silver or foil contact paper. He got the papers all at an artist's supply house.

Matt was creative and used a piece of steel shelving to support the diffuser frame, and hung the three lamps off of a shelf.

Check it out:

orig.jpg


OK, he adjusted his camera to 'Cloudy Day' setting on color balance and this is what he got:

orig.jpg


Claims Matt, it's the best knife shot he has produced. All this for about $40.

Another example of a little ingenuity and skill.

Coop

(And a damn fine knife! :) )
 
would be interesting to see what "auto" would produce as this one seems to be a bit on the blue side. Also, don't forget to add in the cost of the frame and the support for the lights.

Lightweight cardboard and tinfoil works quite well when creating a reflector. However, perhaps instead of three lights from the rear, just use two and use the other as a front fill but be sure it is aimed thru a diffuser also.
 
Murray White said:
would be interesting to see what "auto" would produce as this one seems to be a bit on the blue side.
Click to expand...
If it was put on "Cloudy", it must have over corrected towards the warm / red side, not blue.

My understanding is that pics taken under fluo lights take a greenish (not blue) tint and need to be corrected towards the magenta. But I'm just repeating stuff I've read without really understanding it...
 
Murray, why do you feel the need to ALWAYS counter with a small critique, and NEVER a support post or an 'attaboy' for what folks have accomplished?? 99% of the folks looking at this image would say it looks fine. I am among them.

There are thousands of variables that we can add or subtract from this setup. I still haven't found the perfect method, nor have you.

My point is that this thread is directed at those who do NOT have 30 years experience as a professional photographer, like you. 95% of my shots use a reflector and not a front fill light. Point Seven, Terrill Hoffman, Mitch Lum, et al--all the same. Yourself?

The cost of the frame is minimal. OK now the total cost is $60. :rolleyes: In Matt's case it was ZILCH as he used an old window screen frame.

I'm at a loss why this has become such a source of counterpoint from you. :confused:

Coop
 
Joss-- I would expect that, when Coop suggested to Matt to get he lights from WalMart, that they were DAYLIGHT flourescents which unlike regular flourescent bulbs have a kelvin temperature rating of 5000, 5500 or 6500 depending upon the manufacture of the light. Because a filter is required with regular flourescent, I found the advent of DAYLIGHT flourescents to be a wonderful source of lighting yielding consistent results. They are quite "wysiwyg" .

With regard to the color, likely it is the differences in monitors each pc user has but if not, then this is an area that might be examined. Again, I merely suggested looking at an image done with the auto and the "cloud" WB or a custom WB and deciding which gives the result desired by the user. Personally, I have found the auto setting on a 3.2 mega pixel camera just fine for what the non-pro may wish to use in creating of websites etc.

The reason I suggested to try the 'auto" setting is because if the result is equal or better than trying to use other WB settings, it simply makes things easier to do.

Not everyone has items around the home/workplace that can be used to create the systems others are using and I have no idea what supports and frames would cost, Coop.

As to the use of the three lights available, I merely suggested another possible configuration as it is entirely likely that one light from behind the subject would suffice and thus the other 2 might be used in any other fashion desired. Actually, in my post I only suggested the possibility of using one of the lights as a front light, by no means mandatory and that suggestion was given merely because there were 3 lights available.

Keep in mind that unlike daylight or incadescent light, flourescent light is not continuous so you want to keep a slow shutter speed so that the image capture time will take in all the cycles of the light whereas to fast a shutter speed will often provide inconsistent exposures.

Certainly, Coop, reflectors can be used as can a front light which may provide lighting that can't be gained by use of reflectors. Had there only been one light in the setup, then reflectors are the alternative of choice is one does not wish to purchase additional lights. Because the setup had more lights, using one as a front light is simply just another option.
 
I have a couple follow up questions:

1 - If you use an SLR, what aperture do you select? I just took a series of pocs at f/14, and I'm not super happy with the sharpness. Could be the aperture, could be that I should do a tad of sharpening. I have a tripod, so there's not a limit per se to how small an aperture I can use.
2 - What is the angle you favor between the camera, the knife, and the horizontal? Is it around 45 degrees? Closer to the vertical? Closer to the horizontal?

Thanks,

JD
 
Joss, are these questions for me?

I use anywhere from f/14 to f/20. I can turn up the heat to have to use f/32 if I need. Most pros seem to agree that the sharpest images fall somewhere in the middle ranges. I think this depends on each lens.

As you know aperature regulates depth of field. If you are shooting at 90°, then it makes no difference. If you are shooting down the blade to the handle, then it does.

The bulk of my core shots are probably around 60°-70°. This is a subjective call, and one you are free to explore. :)

Coop
 
This series of posts on lighting has made me have the urge to get out the Nikon CP5700(that I was a weenie at using for the last 18 months) for another try.

Thanks Coop, for starting this helpful thread
 
Joss said:
Here's my new set-up:

MySetUp.JPG


My previous setup was huge and unwieldly. This one can be rolled and folded in 5 minutes into a small bag. I used 0.5" PVC "risers", which conveniently are precut to exactly 2' and threaded. They exist in various length.

Coop's initial post (and ongoing generosity!) was invaluable to me - thanks buddy!
Click to expand...

I like this setup with the "quick connect" threads. I will be checking the hardware store today.

I have tried the no tripod approach, having never owned a tripod before. I simply can't get the detail I would like to get w/o blurring the image.

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