pipemakersforum.com

I need to set up a better situation for taking pics and somehow get the lighting to better reflect the colors and textures. I may need a better camera at some point, but right now I'd rather put that money into briar and tooling Part of my problem may be my camera, but I suspect I could do a lot more even with it.

Somewhere on the forum Kurt showed a picture of the light defuser box he uses, which is neat, and his pics look excellent. This really got me to thinking that I need to set up a better lighting situation and develop some better techniques. Years ago I studied basic photography and I used to do better with film. I need to re-learn photography as it applies to digital cameras and pipes in particular.

Would any of you care to elaborate on what you're doing with lighting, pipe display and angles, camera settings, digital editing, etc..? What are you using for cameraa, lights, and editing software? What kinds of digital editing filters and/or lighting adjustments tend to be effective?

I'm especially taken with Teddy Knudson's photos: http://www.teddybriarpipes.dk/master.html . Some of the other Danes are getting great pics that look like there from the same photographer or editer. In terms of forum posters, Kurt's photos are real good, and so are Rad's and Dave Crosby's. Brad Pohlmann's are too, and so are Todd's. Any of you folks care to elaborate on how your doing this?

sethile wrote: Somewhere on the forum Kurt showed a picture of the light defuser box he uses, which is neat, and his pics look excellent.

Ok, great, I found it, and it's a great thread on this subject:
viewtopic.php?t=1814&highlight=

Still interested in what the rest of you are doing, and what your using... Meanwhile I'm off to check my manual and see if I can get anywhere with some better settings, and also building a better lighting arrangement, and coming up with a better setting and background for shooting the pics.

Scott

I found that the regular daylight sylvania bulbs got very hot, probably because my photo sessions are quite long. Hence I've switched to energy saver daylight bulbs. You can increase the watts and still not have a hot bulb.
Phot shops have samples of these lights, check them out and then see if you can find cheaper ones at Home Depot or other lighting stores.

All the best,
Tano

Using two lights, which is pretty much the standard setup, you can easily make a switch, w/ a double-pole/double throw switch, to change from running your lamps in series (for setting up and checking your lighting) to parallel (for actual shooting). Keeps the lamps real cool, saves electricity, increases lamp life, and gives you a feeling of accomplishment to boot.

The simgle most important thing you can do is set your white balance correctly. If your camera supports it, that is.

My 300D can take a given photo and use it as the custom white balance profile. Essentially, you take a white piece of paper, fill the frame with it, and snap a photo - then tell your camera to use it. This automatically adjusts the color profile based on your lighting, and gives a much truer color to your subject matter.

All the diffused lighting and color correcting bulbs in the world can't help you if you can't set your white balance....

Thanks guys!

KurtHuhn wrote:The simgle most important thing you can do is set your white balance correctly. If your camera supports it, that is.

Big if I'll eventually get something like the 300D. Looks like a great camera for this, and I can see good photos are going to be essential at some point. I'm using an Olympus D-230 (more or less a box camera), which has really limited white balance "options": Auto, Clear Sky, Cloudy Sky, Incandescent Lamp, and Fluorescent Lamp. I haven't played with them yet. Just left it on Auto. Bet I can do lots better by just getting the right combination of lighting with one of these settings. Exposure is all Auto, but I discovered I can tweak it to some extent with the options. If I have it use SPOT instead of ESP metering, that should focus the metering to be off the pipes. I can also adjust it + or - 2 in .5 steps.

I think I'll set up a defused lighting arrangement like yours with the Sylvania Daylight bulbs and then play with these settings to see what's closest to true color and gives the best saturation and exposure. Then any further adjustment will need to be made with software, at least for the present. All I've adjusted on the camera so far for my pipe pics is a close up focus setting, taking the flash off, and using the highest resolution, so at least I have some new things to play with in addition to getting the defused lighting set up.... I also need to scrounge up a tripod.

The diffused lighting is really great for reducing harsh glares and shadows. I use it for that reason alone. However, the Sylvania Daylight bulbs are Teh Shiznit for getting good color depth clarity. I don't know how I went so long without them.

And a tripod is a virtual must. For the settings I use on my camera, some of my exposures are over 10 seconds, and some approach 30 seconds. I'd never be able to hold a camera stationary that long. My wife picked up a tripod at Target for me a few years ago (I think it was Target) and the brand is Hakuba. Neer heard of it before. But it only cost about $30, and holds the camera still - which is all it needs to do.

I ended up making my own light defuser box fashioned after Kurt's, but check out this nifty set up on sale at Micro-Mark. Looks like a great all in one set up. All you add is the camera:



Not bad for $89!

Here's the link

Scott, I have that exact same setup - works great. Here it is at Amazon for less than 1/2 the price than at MicroMark: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Concepts- ... 597&sr=8-2

Hey guys, I'm even better eBay has it for $29.90 http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid ... Categories

Those Digital Concepts light boxes include a little mini tripod, instead of the camera arm that comes with the one from Micro Mark.

I have one of those little tripods, and it's worth about a dollar.

This could account for the price difference. The camera arm in the Micro Mark product looks pretty substantial and nice.

Rad

RadDavis wrote:Those Digital Concepts light boxes include a little mini tripod, instead of the camera arm that comes with the one from Micro Mark.

I have one of those little tripods, and it's worth about a dollar.

This could account for the price difference. The camera arm in the Micro Mark product looks pretty substantial and nice.

I have the version by American Recorder Technologies, which has the camera arm. It's fairly sturdy, but being the cheapskate I am, I would rather save the extra $60. Most of the time I prefer to use my own tripod.