Adjustable stand for photographing upright bowls, front and back?

[Hu Lowery]

B&H knows all

I'm not ready to call it good.....yet! My bowl photography is still "in progress"!

ooc

I captured over a hundred thousand images when I was into photography, yet to take a perfect image.

Generally two lights of different power are the starting point for setting up lighting then you modify them with filters and reflectors, more lights, different distances, whatever. Two lights of the same power at different distances give much the same result as two lights of different power. A big start to understanding lighting is the inverse square rule given below. B&H has a lot of other good information and you might want to request their lighting catalog. The link below is a good introduction to lighting and may be all you really need. Haven't seen one in years but I seem to remember a lot of good info in the catalog though plus the set-ups should give you ideas for your own set-up.

Today with our digital cameras the easiest way to deal with lighting is to get a good solid camera mount. Get the lighting balanced how you want it then keep increasing shutter time until you get the amount of light you want. I am out of date on digital cameras so I can't tell you anything about yours but shoot the same image over and over at higher and higher ISO's to get an idea of the highest ISO that gives you an acceptable image. Aperture, shutter, and ISO are the three things you balance along with the lighting to create an image. The F-stop, the aperture, affects the depth of focus so you have to consider that when deciding what aperture you can use. Too high of an ISO makes the image unacceptably grainy so that is usually your working limit there. Long shutter open times can cause motion blur if your camera and everything in your image isn't absolutely still. Mirror lock and remote shutter control or using the timer can help with getting the sharpest image with long shutter speeds.

Pretty much all I know about photography in a nutshell. Remembering to consider light temperature and this one formula below gave me a good running start at lighting.

Hu


(from B&H article http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Product_Resources/lighting1.jsp )

Inverse Square Law

This is an important law that governs light intensity as a function of distance. The law states that the quantity of light is inversely proportional to the square of its distance.


Examples:

A light is placed 1 foot away from the subject. If the distance is doubled to two feet, the square of its distance is (22) or 2x2=4. The inverse of 4 is ¼. Therefore, the quantity of light at 2 feet from the subject is ¼ the amount of light at 1 foot. If the light is moved to a distance of 8 feet, the square of its distance is (82) or 8x8=64. The inverse of 64 is 1/64. The quantity of light at 8 feet from the subject is 1/64 the amount of light.
(end included text)

 

[odie]

I captured over a hundred thousand images when I was into photography, yet to take a perfect image.

Generally two lights of different power are the starting point for setting up lighting then you modify them with filters and reflectors, more lights, different distances, whatever. Two lights of the same power at different distances give much the same result as two lights of different power. A big start to understanding lighting is the inverse square rule given below. B&H has a lot of other good information and you might want to request their lighting catalog. The link below is a good introduction to lighting and may be all you really need. Haven't seen one in years but I seem to remember a lot of good info in the catalog though plus the set-ups should give you ideas for your own set-up.

Today with our digital cameras the easiest way to deal with lighting is to get a good solid camera mount. Get the lighting balanced how you want it then keep increasing shutter time until you get the amount of light you want. I am out of date on digital cameras so I can't tell you anything about yours but shoot the same image over and over at higher and higher ISO's to get an idea of the highest ISO that gives you an acceptable image. Aperture, shutter, and ISO are the three things you balance along with the lighting to create an image. The F-stop, the aperture, affects the depth of focus so you have to consider that when deciding what aperture you can use. Too high of an ISO makes the image unacceptably grainy so that is usually your working limit there. Long shutter open times can cause motion blur if your camera and everything in your image isn't absolutely still. Mirror lock and remote shutter control or using the timer can help with getting the sharpest image with long shutter speeds.

Pretty much all I know about photography in a nutshell. Remembering to consider light temperature and this one formula below gave me a good running start at lighting.

Hu


(from B&H article http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Product_Resources/lighting1.jsp )

Inverse Square Law

This is an important law that governs light intensity as a function of distance. The law states that the quantity of light is inversely proportional to the square of its distance.


Examples:

A light is placed 1 foot away from the subject. If the distance is doubled to two feet, the square of its distance is (22) or 2x2=4. The inverse of 4 is ¼. Therefore, the quantity of light at 2 feet from the subject is ¼ the amount of light at 1 foot. If the light is moved to a distance of 8 feet, the square of its distance is (82) or 8x8=64. The inverse of 64 is 1/64. The quantity of light at 8 feet from the subject is 1/64 the amount of light.
(end included text)

Thanks for adding to this thread, Hu........

I went to the site you suggested and spent a little time looking around. I've bookmarked it for future use. One could spend a lot of money on the BH site, which is exactly what I don't want to do! For right now, it appears as though I'll come up with some formula for photography that meets my needs, but it's going to take some trial and error to get there.

From what I gather, it looks like perfection isn't a goal that is likely to be attainable. I am feeling like I'm close to what will be acceptable for my purposes, but as I said.......My photography is "work in progress". Every time I photograph a new bowl, I do a little changing and experimenting. When I find things that work, I write it down in my notes. Eventually, I'll be able to take useful pictures of my turnings without having to spend a lot of effort in the process, because I'll know what works, and what doesn't. What works using my camera and my studio accessories may not be the same as what someone else might come up with.

As I've said so many times before, and it applies to so many things, here, philosophically, and in life......the ONLY thing that really matters, is results.....and, if we're discussing the fruits of my labor, then I am the judge of those results. Theories and alternate opinions are always welcomed with an open mind, but are nonetheless, secondary.

ooc

 

[Hu Lowery]

sounds spot on to me

Thanks for adding to this thread, Hu........

I went to the site you suggested and spent a little time looking around. I've bookmarked it for future use. One could spend a lot of money on the BH site, which is exactly what I don't want to do! For right now, it appears as though I'll come up with some formula for photography that meets my needs, but it's going to take some trial and error to get there.

From what I gather, it looks like perfection isn't a goal that is likely to be attainable. I am feeling like I'm close to what will be acceptable for my purposes, but as I said.......My photography is "work in progress". Every time I photograph a new bowl, I do a little changing and experimenting. When I find things that work, I write it down in my notes. Eventually, I'll be able to take useful pictures of my turnings without having to spend a lot of effort in the process, because I'll know what works, and what doesn't. What works using my camera and my studio accessories may not be the same as what someone else might come up with.

As I've said so many times before, and it applies to so many things, here, philosophically, and in life......the ONLY thing that really matters, is results.....and, if we're discussing the fruits of my labor, then I am the judge of those results. Theories and alternate opinions are always welcomed with an open mind, but are nonetheless, secondary.

ooc

Odie,

Sounds like you have the situation nailed. One thing to realize when tempted to seek perfection is that the human eye has a greater range than a camera so we are basically had from the jump. Workarounds in the digital darkroom but you would be getting way more deeply involved in photography than you want to. When you please yourself that is all you can hope for. I shot some pretty pleasing images here and there but I always knew the flaws in them either due to my own shortcomings, those of the technology, or both.

About B&H, probably the best camera and camera related store out there but yes, waaay too many toys available! I bought my share from them once upon a time. Just realized, for what I spent at B&H I could have had an American Beauty with all the trimmings and cash left over.

Hu

 

[Bill Boehme]

More about umbrellas

There are two basic kinds of umbrellas -- one is white translucent and the other is opaque black on the outside and white or silver on the inside. The basic intent of both is about the same, but the results are a little different and depends on too many variables to have a hard rule about what is right.

With the first type, it is referred to as shooting through the umbrella, meaning that the light is on the other side of the umbrella and the thin white fabric diffuses the light coming through it. However, it tends to have a hotter center and softer edges that are harder to "see" in a reflection from a glossy turning.

With the second opaque umbrella (white or silver), it is called shooting into the umbrella meaning that the light faces away from the subject and is aimed at the inside of the umbrella which faces the subject. The light reflects back to the subject. The light is a bit more evenly distributed over the umbrella surface, but that can be a problem with glossy turnings because they "see" what the umbrella looks like with its well lit edges.

 

[Bill Boehme]

A softbox is sort of a combination of both. I would like to have a softbox, but right now, I have no experience with them.

BTW --

Rule 1. - woodturning, photography, flying, boating, golf, etc. -- they're gonna get your money.

Rule 2. - if you think that you can get away without spending money, refer to Rule 1.
​

 

[john lucas]

Softboxes are great. The biggest difference between a softbox and umbrella is you can control the lighting better with the softbox. With an umbrella the light spreads all around the room so it's hard to get the shadows you want. Great for portraits, not so great for shooting artwork.
If you buy a softbox get the kind that have a recessed front panel. That panel really helps keep light off the background.
Shooting through an umbrella basically lets you move the light closer to the subject which in effect makes it larger. The larger the light the softer the light and the more it raps around the subject. Shooting into an umbrella with an opaque back helps keep the light off the ceiling and back ground which can help you control the light better. It also reduces the falloff because the distance from the light to the object is measured from the light to the umbrella and then back to the light. This increases the effective distance of the light to the subject so according to the inverse square law the fall off will be less than if you shot through the umbrella and had it very close. It gets complicated but trust me it works.

 

[AlanZ]

Keep in mind that the inverse square rule applies to point light sources, not diffuse sources.

A good example is a light bounced off of a white 8'foot high ceiling.

A person standing below the broad light source will be pretty evenly illuminated by the large light source, head to toe, not exhibiting the radical falloff associated with a single bulb suspended above them.

If I recall correctly, a broad light source like an umbrella begins to follow the inverse square rules when at a distance of at least 18 times the diameter of the light source.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Keep in mind that the inverse square rule applies to point light sources, not diffuse sources. A good example is a light bounced off of a white the ceiling. A person standing below the broad light source will be pretty evenly illuminated by the large light source, head to toe, not exhibiting the radical falloff associated with a single blub suspended above them.

If I recall correctly, a broad light source like an umbrella begins to follow the inverse square rules when at a distance of at least 18 times the diameter of the light source.

Also this rule applies to an OMNIDIRECTIONAL point source. Directed and focused light such as a reflective parabolic umbrella falls off very little with distance for close distances.

The ultimate diffuse source is open sky lighting -- meaning sky glow, but minus direct sunlight. If it weren't for the fact that the atmosphere gets thinner as altitude increases, there would be no effect due to distance from sea level to the top of Mount Everest. (just a bit of totally useless trivia -- anybody planning to climb Mt. Everest soon?)