Adjustable stand for photographing upright bowls, front and back?

[Odie]

Just wondering if anyone is aware of an adjustable photography stand for standing bowls upright?

The stands I have are made for plate display, and only marginally usable for deeper bowls......both for views of foot and directly above.

Has anyone ever made one of these adjustable stands? If so, I'd be very interested in seeing, and hearing your description/comments.

Wish I had a bad radio somewhere, because that adjustable antenna could possibly be used for this. Anyone with ideas on a suitable substitute for the expandable antenna?

Ideas please!

ooc

 

[Mark Mandell]

You have a wood shop.

Make your own.

 

[nicktodd]

Hi Odie,
I didn't understand to the antenna reference.

I have a series wooden cubes & boxes. I'll used small blocks of wood(pen blanks work well) to lift one or two side of the box. The only problem I run into is the bowl slide off. And I use double stick tape when that happens.

I can also mount a camera on top of the light box(old tri-pod).

 

[Odie]

OK, it's done now.

The telescoping antenna might have worked pretty good for this application, but I didn't have one to use. Decided to try and make something up with materials on hand. First attempt was made from wire, and was a failure.

The idea was for it to be adjustable to any bowl I may produce in the future. Only tried it on a couple of bowls that were in the shop at the moment, and it looks like it probably will work out as planned.

Bottom supports are dyed black and adjustable from side to side. Back support has various dowel lengths and can be extended as necessary. Rubber tip to contact the bowl surface. I'll probably add to it as the need arises, because most of this was made from "theory" and not practical application.......and we all know how that goes!

So far, so good!

ooc

 

[john lucas]

If your talking about just photographing the platter what I do is to use something fairly heavy to place behind it out of photo view. At work I used bricks that I coated with Black spray on Plasti Dip. So far at home I've just used blocks of wood.
I have also used paint buckets with a piece of wood taped to the top for larger platters. The wood lets me keep the bucket far enough back to not cast a shadow on the base behind the piece. I used this when the bricks were not tall enough or heavy enough.
I rarely tip bowls up but have on occasions. For that purpose I have used anything that will lift the bowl the proper amount. Even used my wallet one time. Heck it never has any money so it might as well be used for something.
I'll be shooting some mirrors tomorrow so I'll take a photo of my process.

 

[Odie]

If your talking about just photographing the platter what I do is to use something fairly heavy to place behind it out of photo view. At work I used bricks that I coated with Black spray on Plasti Dip. So far at home I've just used blocks of wood.
I have also used paint buckets with a piece of wood taped to the top for larger platters. The wood lets me keep the bucket far enough back to not cast a shadow on the base behind the piece. I used this when the bricks were not tall enough or heavy enough.
I rarely tip bowls up but have on occasions. For that purpose I have used anything that will lift the bowl the proper amount. Even used my wallet one time. Heck it never has any money so it might as well be used for something.
I'll be shooting some mirrors tomorrow so I'll take a photo of my process.

OK, thanks John........looking forward to seeing your process! :cool2:

ooc

 

[Gretch Flo]

odies "stand"

Very ingenious. I see you are a problem solver. Odie-is that an elm burl??
John-do you worry about marring the wood with the bricks???? Gretch

 

[Odie]

Very ingenious. I see you are a problem solver. Odie-is that an elm burl??
John-do you worry about marring the wood with the bricks???? Gretch

Good eye, Gretch!.......

According to my inventory card on that one, it was sold to me as Siberian Elm. I'm not quite sure what the difference between Siberian Elm and our domestic Elm, but it is what it is! Maybe someone else can clue me in to the difference.......

Have a good day there, lady.........

ooc

 

[Rob Wallace]

Covered the bricks with plastic....

John-do you worry about marring the wood with the bricks???? Gretch

Gretch:

John wrote: "If your talking about just photographing the platter what I do is to use something fairly heavy to place behind it out of photo view. At work I used bricks that I coated with Black spray on Plasti Dip."

He has apparently sprayed the bricks with a plastic coating that covers the rough brick surface with a black plastic "paint", similar to what you might get on the handle of a set of pliers or wire cutters. The plastic surface should not damage the wood piece.

Rob

 

[Curt Fuller]

Odie, a couple years ago I was goofing around and made this plate/bowl rack kind of as a joke. Titled the whole thing "The Dish Ran Away With The Spoon". But if you were to modify the back post so that the spoon holder could slide up or down on it. And then modify the spoon holder to hold the top edge of a vertical bowl or platter, it would probably work for what you're doing. You'd probably want to do away with the poorly carved feet and replace them with something a little better too.

 

[john lucas]

Yea originally I covered the bricks with Gaffer tape (really expensive duct tape). However it only lasts a year or so and is kind of slippery. The spray on Plasti Dip is kind of a sticky or high friction rubber so it won't damage the wood or other things I propped against it and it has enough friction to keep things from sliding off. I had to spray a lot of coats to get a thick build up but it has worked great.

 

[john lucas]

I forgot to say that it may be Wednesday or Thursday before I get around to shooting my latest work. Too many things came up today and I have club meetings and a yard to mow the next day or so.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Instead of gaffer's tape, I use Gorilla Tape which is about the same thing. Whatever you use for a heavy weight, it ought to be painted black or else it will create a colored halo around the object being photographed -- DAMHIKT -- experience is a great and sometimes harsh teacher.

A trick that I think that I learned from John Lucas was to use soda straws or tiny sticks between the weight and the subject using some Gorilla tape to hold things in place. Make sure that the background weight is out of view from the camera and also see that it is not creating a shadow that gives away its presence.

My opinion is that things ought to be photographed from an angle that reveals the three dimensional shape of the object. Police type mug shots (head-on and side views) might be good for identification or admiring the wood, but are not very satisfying for seeing the form of the object. It would be like only having two views of an orthographic drawing and then guessing at the shape. It would be much better to take a photo that gives a perspective comparable to what an isometric drawing tries to convey to the viewer. Another part of conveying depth is to make use of shadows. In that respect, darkness is just as important as light -- so no "deer in the headlights shots". If your camera has an on-board flash then disable it.

Also, ditch the towel. You work is far too good to deserve taking a bath in the market. Whether you like it or not, much of the worth of a turning is determined by how well it has been photographed.

 

[john lucas]

Good points Bill. I have finally caught up on all the crap I have to do so I will probably get my latest mirrors and cupcake's photographed. Maybe this evening. I'll try to take some How to photos. I'll throw in a platter since that's how this whole thing started. Keep tuned. Sorry it's taken so long just had a lot of work to get done.

 

[Odie]

Also, ditch the towel. You work is far too good to deserve taking a bath in the market. Whether you like it or not, much of the worth of a turning is determined by how well it has been photographed.

Hello Bill........

Yes, I think you are offering some valid criticism. It's not actually a towel, but a piece of bulk material I purchased that has some texture to it. It' an off-white material, and I think a pure white might be better.....? I do like the idea of a cloth, rather than a paper backdrop.....will keep experimenting.

Little by little, I'm making small improvements to my photography......but, as you know, my real hang-up is my inability to get very enthusiastic about cameras and lighting. There is nobody to blame for this, but me!

There may be a few more photos with the off-white material, but it's in the plans to do something about that!

Thanks Bill.......

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

Basically, the idea is not to have something that is a distraction. Even a simple cloth is something to look at. It has color and texture and even as benign as it may seem, the viewers eye is naturally drawn to it, assess its character, wonder how it fits into the overall message that the image conveys, etc.

With a plain background, its contribution is limited to using shadows and light to emphasize the the three dimensional characteristics of the object.

Another issue with backgrounds is that the color of the light falling on the shadow areas of the turning gets modified by the color of the light reflected off the background and that is why it is most desirable to use something that is purely neutral. Purely neutral to a photographer means something that is white, black, or some intermediate shade of gray -- in other words, much more narrowly defined that what most folks call neutral.

 

[hockenbery]

Another vote for the photo grey paper background.
Also if you are putting together a collection of photos they all have the same consistent background and the piece become the main event.
Occasionally the Digital camera will change the color of the background. The editing programs all have a quick correction for this.

 

[AlanZ]

Instead of gaffer's tape, I use Gorilla Tape which is about the same thing.

Gaffer's tape and Gorilla tape are very different products. Although they are both available in similar sizes, and colors, that's about where the similarities end.

Gaffers tape has a matt surface, and is designed to be easily removable (even years later) without destroying the underlying surface. Gorilla tape is glossy and uses a very aggressive adhesive.

I use them both. Gaffers is my first choice (though it is pricier than other tapes), unless strength of bond is required, then I go Gorilla.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Years ago when I was a volunteer cameraman for our church's television broadcasts, the tape that they used to fasten cables down to the floor looked similar to Gorilla tape, but in retrospect, something as sticky as Gorilla tape would have left a lot of residue on the cables and pulled up more carpet fibers. I suppose that the gaffer's tape was less glossy, but my memory didn't store that information.

Anyway Gorilla tape is very good at holding, but I would not leave it stuck on anything for more than the minimum necessary time to get a set of photos.

 

[john lucas]

Yea it took me about a year to convince my boss that $17 a role vs $3 for Duct tape was worth the money. Gaffers tape won't leave a residue on whatever surface you stick it to so it doesn't mess up light stands, the floor, the wall etc. Working for a University budget is always a problem. We found we could peel it off and stick it on our metal storage cabinets and use it 3 or 4 times. I'll bet I got more miles out of a role of gaffer tape than anyone. We couldn't just bill it to the customers.
I have started a photo Q@A on Woodcentral about my latest photo shoot. Hopefully it will answer some questions you have. I will add to it every few days for the next week or more if I have time.
http://www.woodcentral.com/woodworking/photography/index.pl

 

[Odie]

I was having a great deal of difficulty getting a reasonable picture of the interior of this deep Claro Walnut Burl bowl with inclined walls. After a number of failures to get it anywhere near acceptable, the solution appeared to be moving a couple of the lamps forward and out of the covering area of the "tent".

Much experimenting was done before I ended up cutting some circles out of some empty white plastic Metamucil containers and covered the front lamps. This seems to have worked to a reasonable degree, because the resulting "hot spots" were toned down considerably, while allowing enough light to enter the interior of the bowl to see the color and figure.

On the side view of the same bowl, you can see that the interior is completely black. There isn't any way to get light there because the walls tilt inward so much. I'm thinking maybe a miniature light that could be placed down in the bottom of the bowl.....????? Is there such a thing that is small enough to be used here with the desired result?

Sorry the backdrop hasn't changed yet, Bill........your suggestion is one I will attend to soon. Just haven't done it yet. So many things to do, and so little time to do them! I'm sure we've all been there and done that!

ooc

 

[Lou Kinsey]

I've had a little success with the interior light using one of the "puck" LEDs, battery operated, big box stores have them.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I was having a great deal of difficulty getting a reasonable picture of the interior of this deep Claro Walnut Burl bowl with inclined walls. After a number of failures to get it anywhere near acceptable, the solution appeared to be moving a couple of the lamps forward and out of the covering area of the "tent"...

You're right that it would look better to have more light in the interior. If you have a high intensity LED focusing flashlight such as the type made by Coast, you could try zooming to a tight beam with the flashlight suspended above the bowl. Make sure that the beam does not hit the exterior. Don't worry about the hot spot at the center of the interior since it is out of view. The light will scatter enough to illuminate the sidewalls. You might even be able to enhance the lighting a bit by placing some pieces of foil or white paper strategically in the interior to help scatter the light and illuminate the portion that is visible to the camera.

The color temperature of most LED flashlights is considerably different from CFL's and incandescent lighting so it might be necessary to place a piece of colored cellophane over the flashlight. Another option is to buy a pack of gels such as the Strobist Collection made by Rosco.

The interior actually is not black -- just very dark so another option is to "repair" the damage in Photoshop. That would be the least desirable fix since no fix will ever be as good as getting the shot done right in the camera. Below is an example of a Photoshop fix. I made a copy of the first image and then over-exposed it to lighten the interior. Next, I pasted only the interior of the second image onto the first image. Next, so it would not look too obvious, I made the pasted image slightly transparent to create a blended merge.

 

[Odie]

You're right that it would look better to have more light in the interior. If you have a high intensity LED focusing flashlight such as the type made by Coast, you could try zooming to a tight beam with the flashlight suspended above the bowl. Make sure that the beam does not hit the exterior. Don't worry about the hot spot at the center of the interior since it is out of view. The light will scatter enough to illuminate the sidewalls. You might even be able to enhance the lighting a bit by placing some pieces of foil or white paper strategically in the interior to help scatter the light and illuminate the portion that is visible to the camera.

The color temperature of most LED flashlights is considerably different from CFL's and incandescent lighting so it might be necessary to place a piece of colored cellophane over the flashlight. Another option is to buy a pack of gels such as the Strobist Collection made by Rosco.

The interior actually is not black -- just very dark so another option is to "repair" the damage in Photoshop. That would be the least desirable fix since no fix will ever be as good as getting the shot done right in the camera. Below is an example of a Photoshop fix. I made a copy of the first image and then over-exposed it to lighten the interior. Next, I pasted only the interior of the second image onto the first image. Next, so it would not look too obvious, I made the pasted image slightly transparent to create a blended merge.

View attachment 5898

Very interesting, Bill........

Photoshop is a little beyond my capability for the moment.......so, it would be best to get the lighting right. What is the gel you speak of? Is this similar to the light sticks you see kids playing with now and then?

I've had a little success with the interior light using one of the "puck" LEDs, battery operated, big box stores have them.

Lou.....thanks.......I'll make it a point to look for something like that.

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

...... What is the gel you speak of? Is this similar to the light sticks you see kids playing with now and then?.......

They are actually made of polyester, but I think that they were once a gelatin emulsion on celluloid. Here is a link to the Rosco Strobist filters for use on a hot shoe flash.

 

[Odie]

They are actually made of polyester, but I think that they were once a gelatin emulsion on celluloid. Here is a link to the Rosco Strobist filters for use on a hot shoe flash.

Thanks for this information, Bill.......

I purchased a puck light at Harbor Freight today. Will try to make that work the next time I have a deep bowl with inward slanting walls......we'll see how that goes! It has a bright and dim mode, and there is always the option of filtering that with paper, plastic, whatever.

ooc

 

[Odie]

First test of new cloth backdrop

This is a new piece of material I purchased Sunday afternoon. 60% cotton, 40% polyester. It's all white and has less texture than the other piece. (Hopefully it won't be mistaken for a bath towel! Ha!)

Still playing around with camera lights.....and new, better tripod. The old tripod was a bit jerky for fine adjustments, and this one is smoother......much better! This one is a Vanguard Espod 233AP.

This little spalted Maple bowl is only 4" x 1 3/4", and was a waste piece cut off of another larger bowl. It was a free piece of wood! Finished February 2013, and was the only bowl I had on hand, and final polished, for these experimental photos.

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

Very good, Odie. I think that you need some more lights (just kidding)

For the best stability with your tripod, extend the legs to get the desired elevation, but leave the center column cranked down. Extending the center column way up in the air will make even the best tripods shaky.

Your new piece of material seems to be just the right thing. It looks very smooth. I like the first bowl shot. It shows wonderful depth of field with just the right amount of blurring to give a feeling of depth while it is still sharp enough to reveal great detail. It has a small amount of perspective distortion, but it is not the least bit objectionable.

 

[john lucas]

Odie Your main problem with the walnut bowl was the dark room. Trying to actually shine a light on the interior while it will light it, it will just cause another harsh hot spot. What's happening is the bowl is "seeing" the dark room. With dark wood that is glossy it acts like a mirror and reflects what it sees. If it sees a dark room, then you get a dark interior.
Push the bowl deeper into the light box and cover as much of the opening as you can with white cloth. This will bounce more light back into the bowl bottom. I will often shoot through a white card that has a hole cut for the lens so everything in front of the light box is white.
This is usually the extreme method that I use for highly reflective things like jewelry. Quite often with bowls and platters you can simply take a white reflector that's pretty larger like poster board and simply hold it below or above the piece and bounce light back into the bowl interior. It will have to be very close to the lens axis because the bowl interior needs to "see" the reflector.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Thanks for the outstanding insight. What you said about dark glossy objects acting as mirrors is something that I have observed, but did not consciously connect the dots. I have been playing around with photographing a black glossy bowl where I was actually trying to take advantage of the reflection properties rather than trying to mute it. I have not achieved quite what I want yet, but I am trying to see if I can use low-key photography to achieve the desired result.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Here would be an extreme example of a dark glossy turning behaving like a mirror when trying to photograph it. This would not be an example of "good" photography and it doe not have a suitable background. I am still working on showing the effect of focus distance on the reflected image.



The honeycomb and blue LEDs providing the light are from the grille and fans at the top of my wife's computer as shown on the next image.

 

[Odie]

Odie Your main problem with the walnut bowl was the dark room. Trying to actually shine a light on the interior while it will light it, it will just cause another harsh hot spot. What's happening is the bowl is "seeing" the dark room. With dark wood that is glossy it acts like a mirror and reflects what it sees. If it sees a dark room, then you get a dark interior.
Push the bowl deeper into the light box and cover as much of the opening as you can with white cloth. This will bounce more light back into the bowl bottom. I will often shoot through a white card that has a hole cut for the lens so everything in front of the light box is white.
This is usually the extreme method that I use for highly reflective things like jewelry. Quite often with bowls and platters you can simply take a white reflector that's pretty larger like poster board and simply hold it below or above the piece and bounce light back into the bowl interior. It will have to be very close to the lens axis because the bowl interior needs to "see" the reflector.

OK, thanks John........this gives me another option to work with, when experiencing unsatisfactory results. It would be easy to rig up a white cloth to the front of the tent, allowing just enough room for the camera lens to poke through.

The puck light is another arrow in my quiver, as well. Another interesting option is adding the two lights covered with white plastic in front of the tent......that's helping as well.

BTW, Bill.......Although there are six lights that can be positioned around the tent at various locations, I haven't been using all of them all the time. I turned on all the lights for the photograph of my "photography studio". There is also the option of using different wattage bulbs.......so far, I've been using a combination of 40w, 60w, and 100w bulbs.

I'm such a novice with the camera, that I don't really have much idea how to set up for any particular bowl and angle......but, I'm experimenting and learning the tricks that work for me and my set-up. Already, over the past few years, I've made improvements here and there by experimentation......usually inspired by Bill and John, and a few others who add input.

Thanks for all the suggestions and helpful insights that have added to the continuing improvement of my photography......over the years!

ooc

 

[john lucas]

Odie Try to avoid using more than one light out front. If you have the tent well lit and the work sitting inside fairly far from the opening you should have a good fill light. The light out front just adds more light to fill in the front and lower parts of the bowls.
Most people over do the lights. Most of the time when I go to their house to solve there problems we do it with 2 lights. On from the side and top to illuminate the top and side panel of the light booth. The other light should be a little brighter and we move it around to light the bowl as best we can with limited reflections.
Usually if 2 lights don't do it I add a white reflector or use a small mirror to bounce light back in to problem areas.


Black glossy objects are the worse. I lit a solid black highly glossy ceramic pitcher once. That was a nightmare. Not as bad as the mirror glass balls that I had to shoot but close.

 

[Odie]

Odie Try to avoid using more than one light out front. If you have the tent well lit and the work sitting inside fairly far from the opening you should have a good fill light. The light out front just adds more light to fill in the front and lower parts of the bowls.
Most people over do the lights. Most of the time when I go to their house to solve there problems we do it with 2 lights. On from the side and top to illuminate the top and side panel of the light booth. The other light should be a little brighter and we move it around to light the bowl as best we can with limited reflections.
Usually if 2 lights don't do it I add a white reflector or use a small mirror to bounce light back in to problem areas.


Black glossy objects are the worse. I lit a solid black highly glossy ceramic pitcher once. That was a nightmare. Not as bad as the mirror glass balls that I had to shoot but close.

John......I'd say my best results, so far, have been with 3-4 lights. I think you're right about the two lights up front, as I've noticed the results weren't as good as with one lamp lit. There again, though, it does seem like some photos do see an improvement with two lights up front, but with reduced wattage bulbs, still using the white plastic covering.......?

What would you say are the negatives with using more than two lights? I've tried two lights with several views, and so far, the better photos are with more light sources. There have been a few photos that looked very good (from my inexperienced eye) with all six of the lights illuminated.

What I've been doing, is turning on and off lamps, while adjusting positions.......all this while observing the reflections and amount of light the bowl is receiving. This doesn't mean what I see will be what I get in the photo......but, it's a somewhat likely indicator that can be relied on nonetheless.

Bill.....those dark photos look like a real challenge, for sure!

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

.... What would you say are the negatives with using more than two lights? .....

I'll take a stab at answering this. Too many lights will wipe out the shadows. Shadows are just as important as light when it comes to giving a three dimensional appearance to an image that only exists in two dimensions. The extra lights also multiply the problem of specular highlights -- you know, the reflection of the light source in a shiny object -- and the object does not have to be really shiny before hot spots become a problem.

While we work to eliminate hot spots, they are at the same time an essential ingredient in depicting the glossiness of a finish. This means that while we frequently need at least some highlights, we don't want the turning to look like a light show with reflections all over the place.

One of my biggest problems with reflections is seeing the reflection of my umbrellas looking like a big windmill. Maybe I'll try a soft-box or a home made light box something like the thing that Jamie Donaldson shows on his site. I attended one of his presentations at SWAT and liked his design. The good news is that it hardly costs anything which is really unusual when it comes to photography.

 

[Odie]

I'll take a stab at answering this. Too many lights will wipe out the shadows. Shadows are just as important as light when it comes to giving a three dimensional appearance to an image that only exists in two dimensions. The extra lights also multiply the problem of specular highlights -- you know, the reflection of the light source in a shiny object -- and the object does not have to be really shiny before hot spots become a problem.

While we work to eliminate hot spots, they are at the same time an essential ingredient in depicting the glossiness of a finish. This means that while we frequently need at least some highlights, we don't want the turning to look like a light show with reflections all over the place.

One of my biggest problems with reflections is seeing the reflection of my umbrellas looking like a big windmill. Maybe I'll try a soft-box or a home made light box something like the thing that Jamie Donaldson shows on his site. I attended one of his presentations at SWAT and liked his design. The good news is that it hardly costs anything which is really unusual when it comes to photography.

What you're saying here sounds good on the surface.......but, wouldn't you say the real proof is in the results? I'm admittedly an amateur when it comes to photography, but it does seem like the rules of logical thinking don't necessarily apply universally to the application in total.

To my thinking and observation, this is very similar to turning wood on a lathe. There are those who hold onto "rules" and attempt to apply those rules across the board in every application........but, it doesn't fit reality!

To be sure, though, Bill......your explanation does tend to make sense......my only thought is my own (limited) experience doesn't tend to convince me the term "universal" applies to the theory(s) you speak of.......

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

What I said isn't exactly theoretical. And I didn't claim what I said as being rules or universal although I believe it to be sound advice that ought to help get you going. I am an advocate of trying different things and agree that you should too. In your situation, more lights may be the right answer because it appears that you are using direct rather than indirect lighting. My response simply stated things that can be a problem with too many lights. While I am not the photographer that John is, I do have a bit of experience -- having been seriously interested in SLR photography for almost 40 years and hanging out with some pros. When it comes to the technical aspects, there are some things that should be considered somewhat seriously. Artistic aspects of photography are where you can decide what yanks your chain. It helps if it also yanks the other guy's chain.

BTW, Jamie Donaldson uses just one light in his budget tabletop studio along with a number of modifiers (reflectors and gobos) to fine tune the light.

 

[hockenbery]

What you're saying here sounds good on the surface.......but, wouldn't you say the real proof is in the results? I'm admittedly an amateur when it comes to photography, but it does seem like the rules of logical thinking don't necessarily apply universally to the application in total.

ooc

Photographing wood can be a real challenge. what are the results you are looking for?

Documenting your journey in Woodturning?

Getting accepted into a juried show?

To be published?

Selling the piece on line from the photo?

Making you happy?


One photo may not meet all of these needs
I personally find hot spots extremely distracting. The photo of the walnut piece you wanted help with looked like two headlights coming at me.
That is what is saw. I had trouble focusing on the bowl.

One way to light that walnut would be to move it to the front of the table and light it from underneath with a reflector
Use one side light through the diffuser aimed into the opening.
This should give some nice shadow and the light coming from underneath lights the front of the bowl.

one thing I have seen professional photographers use for front lighting is to shine their light into the underside of what looks like a white umbrella . this reflects disbursed light in a somewhat focused manner.
the c

Have fun,
Al

 

[Odie]

What I said isn't exactly theoretical. And I didn't claim what I said as being rules or universal although I believe it to be sound advice that ought to help get you going. I am an advocate of trying different things and agree that you should too. In your situation, more lights may be the right answer because it appears that you are using direct rather than indirect lighting. My response simply stated things that can be a problem with too many lights. While I am not the photographer that John is, I do have a bit of experience -- having been seriously interested in SLR photography for almost 40 years and hanging out with some pros. When it comes to the technical aspects, there are some things that should be considered somewhat seriously. Artistic aspects of photography are where you can decide what yanks your chain. It helps if it also yanks the other guy's chain.

BTW, Jamie Donaldson uses just one light in his budget tabletop studio along with a number of modifiers (reflectors and gobos) to fine tune the light.

Hello Bill.......On an online forum, it's easy to get the wrong idea about what others intend in their posts. I had the mistaken idea that you were saying that unless two lights were being used, the results wouldn't be satisfactory. Thanks for clarifying for me.........

ooc

Photographing wood can be a real challenge. what are the results you are looking for?

Documenting your journey in Woodturning?

Getting accepted into a juried show?

To be published?

Selling the piece on line from the photo?

Making you happy?


One photo may not meet all of these needs
I personally find hot spots extremely distracting. The photo of the walnut piece you wanted help with looked like two headlights coming at me.
That is what is saw. I had trouble focusing on the bowl.

One way to light that walnut would be to move it to the front of the table and light it from underneath with a reflector
Use one side light through the diffuser aimed into the opening.
This should give some nice shadow and the light coming from underneath lights the front of the bowl.

one thing I have seen professional photographers use for front lighting is to shine their light into the underside of what looks like a white umbrella . this reflects disbursed light in a somewhat focused manner.
the c

Have fun,
Al

Hi Al.......I'd say "all of the above" would be the case. All except for "publishing", the results I'm getting right now are probably good enough, but I'm still making improvements on a continuing basis.

I've seen those white umbrellas used for photography, but I haven't used one.....yet. Bill also mentioned the umbrellas, and I assume this is related to his comment about direct/indirect lighting. The photography tent does greatly diffuse the light reaching the bowl, but probably still considered direct lighting.

I also have the two lamps that can be positioned in front of the tent, at my option......two, one, or none. These have a white plastic covering. I haven't done this yet, but already have made some plans to modify the plastic covering, so that the bulb itself is further diffused.

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

ooc

 

[hockenbery]

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

Odie,

You,will get there. I find less light is usually better. Digital cameras practically shoot in the dark.

Have fun,
Al