|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2002 07:51:27 AM · #1 |
You know how teachers always used to offer extra help sessions after school for the kids who needed a bit more instruction, wanted to ask more specific questions and/or wanted to suck up? Sucking up won't do me any good here, but I could use some help from the people who are a lot better at these things than I.
For the advertising challenge, I really wanted to take a photo of my clarinet. The intent was basically to show how pretty it was, and therefore everyone would want one. I admit that the tie-in with traditional magazine advertising may have been a bit weak for some, and I assume that's partly to blame for the low(ish) score. But, I also know that there were a few issues with the photograph that I'd like to be able to work on and correct.
Composition
Mainly, some people felt it was too tightly cropped. From my point of view, there was plenty of information to identify it as a clarinet and not saxophone or an oboe, but it may be because I just have more familiarity with the instrument. When I tried to get the whole bell or more of the shaft, it caused the instrument to not fill the frame the way I really wanted it to because it's so long and skinny. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could have framed this better to make it more obvious what it was, yet still fill the frame?
Depth of Field
Not something I could control. I'll fix it when I get a better camera :-)
Lighting
This was my main concern while I was taking the photo. I tried lots of different locations, but the one that I ended up liking best was a combination of early morning sunlight through the blinds of my bedroom window, and a 40-watt desk light bulb with a piece of tissue paper crumpled over it to give it the highlight in the inside of the bell, which I thought was necessary to give the bell more 3-dimensionality. The background is the bottom sheet on my futon.
What I didn't manage to accomplish was to bring out the grain of the wood. My clarinet is wood, but not stained as most are, so that it is actually a very deep brown with visible grain, polished to a satin finish instead of a glossy black. I would think an even softer light to reduce the glare on the smooth surface would help bring this out? How could I do this?
I have learned from the "How did they do that?" section that I ought to have masked the camera and tripod with a piece of white paper to get my reflection out of the bell. Should I also have enclosed the whole thing in a box to get rid of stray reflections? What would I use for lighting source then?
Idea
Am I just trying to do something beyond my ability and knowledge level?
Any help is appreciated, or recommendations for sources for more information. Thanks! |
|
|
|
05/13/2002 08:19:24 AM · #2 |
Dear Kimbly,
I would not take that stuff to heart. I think so much of the interpretation and rating is very subjective. For example, I feel that many of the pictures in the top 10 are not the best pics submitted. But that is just one man's opinion. I thought your picture was excellent.
I thought the cropping was right on - the tight cropping gave the composition a lyrical feel. Showing more of the instrument would have been far too literal an interpretation IMO. But then I really go for those detail shots.
With respect to the lighting, I think that you lit it well. However, if you wanted to completely reduce reflections, you could put it in a translucent box or, the poor person's version, a tent made out of white sheets. the translucency would allow the light to shine through.
my guess is you got the score you got because it's not a blatantly commercial obvious advertisement. but it's a wonderful photo!
PS. Did my book suggestion to your previous post help at all?
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/13/2002 8:53:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 08:22:43 AM · #3 |
Kimbly..great shot actually.
What I was missing was a tie in with a specific brand.
I think what could have raised your score by about a full point would be showing the brand of the clarinet if it was on the clarinet.
As far as the technical aspect of teh clarinets and lighting.
You did a lot right here. Masking your camera and tripod is great...Natural light is always good if you don't have great lighting equipment with softboxes. So you did right there.
All of the constructive criticisms I read (irae, magnetic, David Ey, langdon to name a few) are right on target.
If you could have done those things I think you would have seen a dramatic rise in score.
The trouble with doing simple macro is every little thing you miss is magnified. Depth of field, reflections, missing elements, angles. They all become even more apparent.
Go to a bookstore and look for photographic lighting technique books by Steve Bavister.
He has an absolute master series of books out on lighting. I can't remeber if there are 4 or 5 in the series but each one deals with a differetn subject (portrait lighting, food, still life, glamour) He as some of the best photographers working in thoe books and they detail every shot with diagrams.
A perfect book for the intermediate photographer looking to step up to the big time.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 08:26:47 AM · #4 |
Just for starters, I've really enjoyed your submissions here. You've got a great eye, and you'll be deadly when you get some tricks up your sleeve. Having had marginal success with available light, I'm now working on making my own, but here's some of the little I've learned.
Originally posted by Kimbly:
Composition
Mainly, some people felt it was too tightly cropped. From my point of view, there was plenty of information to identify it as a clarinet and not saxophone or an oboe, but it may be because I just have more familiarity with the instrument. When I tried to get the whole bell or more of the shaft, it caused the instrument to not fill the frame the way I really wanted it to because it's so long and skinny. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could have framed this better to make it more obvious what it was, yet still fill the frame?
I think your approach was a good idea. You might have tried placing the key section in front of the bell, though, so it wasn't blocked, or had the end with the reed placed in front, but stopping short of the bell. Seems to me that, while you got nice detail in the etching on top, having detail in the keys (or whatever you put up front), as well would have added interest.
Depth of Field
Not something I could control. I'll fix it when I get a better camera :-)
Happy birthday! You actually can. Just add light, and the camera will be forced to stop down and give you more depth of field.
Lighting
This was my main concern while I was taking the photo. I tried lots of different locations, but the one that I ended up liking best was a combination of early morning sunlight through the blinds of my bedroom window, and a 40-watt desk light bulb with a piece of tissue paper crumpled over it to give it the highlight in the inside of the bell, which I thought was necessary to give the bell more 3-dimensionality. The background is the bottom sheet on my futon.
I think you've won half the battle just by being picky about it. One thing I'd watch for, though, is mixing light with different color temperatures. Sunlight (~5500K) is much bluer than tungsten light (~3600K), which is why your sheet is yellow in the foreground and white in the background. Really, getting good available or improvised light is more art than science, but if I were you I'd forget about adding artificial light to daylight (buys you trouble) and try reflecting it instead. Tinfoil, mirrors, paper and foam core are all good, cheap reflectors, and the latter are good for masking reflections as well.
What I didn't manage to accomplish was to bring out the grain of the wood. My clarinet is wood, but not stained as most are, so that it is actually a very deep brown with visible grain, polished to a satin finish instead of a glossy black. I would think an even softer light to reduce the glare on the smooth surface would help bring this out? How could I do this?
Diffusers are another great tool for available light photography - anything translucent can be used to soften light. Direction is also important for bringing out textures. Check out Magnetic's lighting post for a good visual primer.
I have learned from the "How did they do that?" section that I ought to have masked the camera and tripod with a piece of white paper to get my reflection out of the bell. Should I also have enclosed the whole thing in a box to get rid of stray reflections? What would I use for lighting source then?
Lots of macro jewelry photographers make a little tent around the object with an opening for the lens. This can be lit from the outside if it's not opaque. A box can work, too, but then you have corners to contend with unless you make a scrim and shoot directly at it. This is actually a question with a million answers (and I've only got a couple of thousand). Go play and see what you like.
Idea
Am I just trying to do something beyond my ability and knowledge level?
Sure hope so! Wouldn't be worth trying otherwise. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 08:34:11 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
PS. Did my book suggestion to your previous post help at all?
Hi Magnetic,
Thanks for the feedback. I went to the library to get the book...the computer showed they had 2 copies, but they were not where they were supposed to be on the shelf! So I'm going back to look for it sometime later this week...
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 08:38:22 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Kimbly..great shot actually.
Thanks!
I have to confess that I'm really attracted to advertising photos that much, so I think that may have translated into a desire not to obey the challenge very well. At least upside-down is upside-down though ;-)
The trouble with doing simple macro is every little thing you miss is magnified. Depth of field, reflections, missing elements, angles. They all become even more apparent.
Go to a bookstore and look for photographic lighting technique books by Steve Bavister.
A perfect book for the intermediate photographer looking to step up to the big time.
Thanks...I'll look for it at the library cause I'm cheap :-)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 08:50:08 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by irae:
I think your approach was a good idea. You might have tried placing the key section in front of the bell, though, so it wasn't blocked, or had the end with the reed placed in front, but stopping short of the bell. Seems to me that, while you got nice detail in the etching on top, having detail in the keys (or whatever you put up front), as well would have added interest.
The reason for not including the mouthpiece was because the one I have is crystal (glass) and looks a bit odd being transparent.
Happy birthday! You actually can. Just add light, and the camera will be forced to stop down and give you more depth of field.
As far as I can tell, the camera automatically fixes the aperture at f3.6 when in 'macro' mode, because I guess they think you want a really small depth of field.
I think you've won half the battle just by being picky about it. One thing I'd watch for, though, is mixing light with different color temperatures. Sunlight (~5500K) is much bluer than tungsten light (~3600K), which is why your sheet is yellow in the foreground and white in the background.
I noticed this, and it bothered me. It's really a lot more pronounced in the original. I had wanted to tone the whole thing sepia mainly for that reason, but I couldn't figure out how to do it in time.
Really, getting good available or improvised light is more art than science, but if I were you I'd forget about adding artificial light to daylight (buys you trouble) and try reflecting it instead. Tinfoil, mirrors, paper and foam core are all good, cheap reflectors, and the latter are good for masking reflections as well.
I did try reflecting with a piece of white computer paper, but it didn't seem to give me enough light considering the available light was already pretty dim to begin with. I guess tinfoil or mirrors would have reflected more light, though.
Thanks for your ideas!
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 10:24:05 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
As far as I can tell, the camera automatically fixes the aperture at f3.6 when in 'macro' mode, because I guess they think you want a really small depth of field.
I couldn't get the depth of focus right in my shot in "macro mode". I had to set it to "aperture priority" setting instead. I couldn't find a review for your camera at DPReview, so I don't know if your camera has this option.
I did try reflecting with a piece of white computer paper, but it didn't seem to give me enough light considering the available light was already pretty dim to begin with. I guess tinfoil or mirrors would have reflected more light, though.
I used a hand mirror in my shot and it worked pretty well. (My photo ended up significantly darker on Windows, so it might not look right if you aren't running a Mac.)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 10:31:02 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
I couldn't get the depth of focus right in my shot in "macro mode". I had to set it to "aperture priority" setting instead. I couldn't find a review for your camera at DPReview, so I don't know if your camera has this option.
Nah. My camera has "auto" mode and "manual" mode. In manual, you can white balance and exposure compensation, but no control over actual aperture or shutter speed. To get the camera to focus closer than 1 foot, I've got to push the macro button. Every macro picture I've taken that I've checked has had aperture f3.6, so I think it may be fixed.
Despite its limitations, it's actually a pretty good sturdy little camera.
I used a hand mirror in my shot and it worked pretty well. (My photo ended up significantly darker on Windows, so it might not look right if you aren't running a Mac.)
Thanks, I'll have to try this mirror thing. Maybe for this next challenge...
|
|
|
|
05/13/2002 03:03:13 PM · #10 |
| wrt my predilection for tightly cropped detail shots, i just realized that my entry for advertising also fit that criteria : ) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 04:31:55 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 04:31:55 PM EDT.
|
