First Asymetrical (1st pipe finished for KC Show)

bscofield · Post by **bscofield** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:55 pm

I can't believe I have just barely over a month till the KC show and I only have the one pipe to show for it!! AH! I want to take around 10... we'll see how that goes. I have another 4 in various stages of "close to being done"

Anyway, here's my first asymmetrical to make it out of the 'ole shop. I have my own opinions of this pipe, but am very interested in your opinions as well. Let me have it!

LatakiaLover · Post by **LatakiaLover** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:13 pm

KC is a wonderful show. One of the friendliest, and VERY well organized. You'll have a good time no matter how many pipes you take.

You pulled off the two-sided thing really well. Difficult to do. What's the overall size of the pipe, btw? The bit looks larger/wider than usual in proportion to the stummel, is that to make its perceived weight lighter when smoking? (Pics have so many limitations, even when they are as good as yours.)

bscofield · Post by **bscofield** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:32 pm

The pipe is just under 6" long and the bowl is just under 2" tall... The width of the bit is hard to gauge against the shank because the shank is a "pointed oval" of sorts. I've been playing around with my new digital camera (DSC T200, highly recommended! So far I love it!!) so I've got a few more pics that show how the shank is shaped... Sorry to those whose computer takes a long time to load because of this!

souljer · Post by **souljer** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:41 pm

Hi,

Okay so you asked for an opinion (btw, two of mine are just up, so you can go over there and pick on my work if you want too

)

The two tone & texture is cool and the shape is not that wild. The shank looks extra thin because of the 'eye' shape and one side being essentially black. Notice in the right facing picture how small and out of proportion the stummel looks compared to the shot where the grain is showing?

In this case I think the bit is a little off. First off, I would not have the bit and the shank so close to the same length. Also the shank and the pipe in general seems to be delicate and carefully balanced, while the stem is rather pedestrian and too wide when seen from the top (in the pix).

I think thinning the stem - top to bottom as you approach the ring and left to right - and perhaps shortening it would give the pipe a better visual balance. Look at the pictures in the post here. Cover 1/3 or 1/2 of the stem with your thumb and see how it looks to you. Is it better balanced for the visual 'weight' of the pipe? In this case, because your bowl is short in relation to a longer shank (which I like) I think that the ring on the stem is also too wide and a smaller diameter would help.

So overall I like the idea and how you did it. I think the stem is too big and out of proportion to the pipe.

I hope that helps.

hlp808 · Post by **hlp808** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:09 am

Hey Ben,

I hope you're making more because I only have four made so far for the KC show

That table is going to have a lot of space. LOL

Jaden

bscofield · Post by **bscofield** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:14 am

hlp808 wrote:Hey Ben,

I hope you're making more because I only have four made so far for the KC show That table is going to have a lot of space. LOL

Jaden

Maybe we can fill the empty space with pictures of us as babies...

hlp808 · Post by **hlp808** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:30 am

Maybe we can fill the empty space with pictures of us as babies...

LOL, I think I rather have the empty space on the table instead

Jaden

pierredekat · Post by **pierredekat** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:54 am

bscofield wrote:I've been playing around with my new digital camera (DSC T200, highly recommended! So far I love it!!)

Ben, while you're playing around with your new camera, consider moving it back a few feet and then zooming-in to frame your subject accordingly. Because I'm thinking the geometry of your pipe is being thrown off by "perspective distortion", "barrel distortion", etc.

With your camera so close to your subject, what happens is: things that are closer to the camera appear in the photograph to be much larger than they actually are. Also, lines that should be straight can appear curved. Etc.

By stepping back and zooming in, objects will tend to photograph a lot more natural looking because the rays of light reaching the camera are more parallel, rather than coming in at weird side angles. That's how I remember it, anyway.

Maybe this illustration will help.

I don't think I'm explaining this well, but by stepping back and zooming in, you can avoid this effect here, in other words.

souljer · Post by **souljer** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:44 am

I don't know about distortion in these shots since I've not seen the real pipe, but what he says about wide angle distortion and the use of telephoto lenses to compensate is very true.

The thing to watch for there is that your depth of field will be dramatically shorter - meaning less will be in focus before and beyond the point of focus. If you want to show a detail that's fine, everything beyond will be out of focus. So use a lot of light to keep your F-stop small (which will give you a greater depth). Just something to bare in mind as your focusing will be critical with very little room for error. Sometimes that's not easy with auto-focus cameras.

However as you can see close ups with wide angle lenses are great for taking pictures of hobbit children. So there's pros and cons both ways