new bulldog

smokepiper · Post by **smokepiper** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:06 pm

i didn´t stain this one cause it´s a gem a block from paradise.

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:17 pm

More pics, please!

That one photo look really good though. :thumb:

smokepiper · Post by **smokepiper** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:56 pm

a few more.

ckr · Post by **ckr** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:31 am

Ronny,

That is one absolutely beautiful pipe, but is it a bulldog or rhodesian?

The bowl definately says bulldog but I thought a prerequsite for a bulldog was a diamond stem while a rhodesian could have either.

Anyway, it is still one heck of a nice pipe.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:05 am

Gorgeous buddy. You gotta make yourself a light box so you can get some better pictures. You're pipes are too good to be photographed by lamp light.

smokepiper · Post by **smokepiper** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:29 pm

you right about the lamp light, but i need to get a digital camera that workes first. I bought a dimage z6 on ebay new and when i got it the macro function wasn´t operating, the seller doesn´t want any part in helping me out either. He didn´t send a warrent with the camera so i´m stuck with a camera useless for closeups.

flix · Post by **flix** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:11 pm

Ronny,
Nice pipe, looks very cool smoking!
Too bad about the camera. Is it repairable? I should think it might be worth getting a quote for fixing the macro capability...

I too need a light box. Does anyone have plans for such a thing? Did Kurt post something a while back about one, or are you (Nick) referring to something entirely different? I sure can't afford a professional "flash/reflective umbrella" type setup.

--Michael

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:26 pm

Kurt posted somthing way back in 2004. Here's the tread: http://www.pipemakersforum.com/modules. ... =light+box

here's the picture of what he made:

I didn't reread the thread, but if my memory serves its just made out of PVC pipe and a white sheet.

alexanderfrese · Post by **alexanderfrese** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:49 pm

As I don't want to repeat myself, I just want to give this LINK to a previous posting I made discussing my rather simple photography setup that does not use professional light bouncing equipment. We are all lucky pipes are considerable small objects to take pictures of so that some sort of DIYS equipment faking the principle of a pro setting leads to a dramatic increase in the pic's quality.

I also quite often don't go as close to the pipe that I would have to use the macro option. Issue is a dramatic loss of depth of field (also see the article in wikipedia here). I step back to some distance with my tripod. Not too far, since within the tele range of the lense, depth of field also is reduced. And remember: A pic taken in the normal focal length of the lense that shows too much "around" can be cropped to a satisfying image later. As long as you don't want to make poster prints of that pic, resolution still will be sufficient by far, if you did not switch the camera to some low res "Web" setting before. Always (always!) reduce or even adjust the resolution of a pic taken as a last step in the process. Redundant data can be thrown over board, when you consider it to be unnecessary. Data that was missing from the beginnig is missing forever…

smokepiper · Post by **smokepiper** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:06 pm

I remember you posting that information couple of months ago, well needed refreschment. Thanks!

bluesmk · Post by **bluesmk** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:45 pm

Man ! thats sweet, my friend!
Dan
Gabrieli Pipes

alexanderfrese · Post by **alexanderfrese** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:03 pm

Uhm, I forgot to mention that beautiful pipe starting this thread. You did not want to stain it because grain was too good by itself? I do understand to some extent. Though I think staining goes beyond bare pushing average wood structure.
In some pics (on my screen) the wood looks a bit "flesh-toned". On some it tends to look more golden/yellowish. If it is more on the flesh tone side, I would consider staining it ever so slightly towards that golden tone without increasing the overall contrast if possible.
I love blonde pipes. I had a beautiful though simple Savinelli with a beautiful light blonde tone without looking "yellow" once. I find it harder to achieve a harmonic "blonde" look than some right but not spectacular looking brown finish.

Tano · Post by **Tano** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:49 pm

My compliments Ronny,
This is a beautifull pipe, to me.
I would like to ask you whether any part of the pipe was turned on a lathe? It seems that the top, shank, and rings are nice and symetrical.
To the rest of the forum members, how many of you work your stummels on
either a metal or wood lathe? If so how do you achieve a taper with a metal lathe?

All the best.
Tano

smokepiper · Post by **smokepiper** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:05 am

The first steps i made in a metallathe like shank and ring to it the drilling, bowl and the 2 lines is made at the lathe with a grinded file ( i remove the grinding surface from the file and forms it like a stretched out L, sharp the edges ) for the shape and a sharp knife for the 2 lines. The rest is made by the disc, tapered shank and i made it a bit flat. The shaping comes is many steps with different sizes or grinding wheels, finaly the 240, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500 and final sanding by hand.

Tano wrote:My compliments Ronny,
This is a beautifull pipe, to me.
I would like to ask you whether any part of the pipe was turned on a lathe? It seems that the top, shank, and rings are nice and symetrical.
To the rest of the forum members, how many of you work your stummels on
either a metal or wood lathe? If so how do you achieve a taper with a metal lathe?

All the best.
Tano

PapaDuke · Post by **PapaDuke** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:05 pm

That is an Awesome pipe!
Great choice on not staining it!!

pipemakersforum.com

new bulldog

new bulldog

more pics.

about pics.

Thanks again