Thread: RW Spanish Point 7/8 Kudu

Robert,

That's a pretty decent camera. You should be able to get very nice photos with a little practice.

Incidentally, I thought the shots were actually pretty decent from an artistic/compositional standpoint. But since you're showing off a product, the goal has to be flattering the subject, not channeling Caravaggio.

A couple of other tips: Be sure to keep your ISO low. Some cameras default to auto ISO, which means you don't have control over how much noise is in the photo. Compact cameras tend to get pretty noisy over 400 ISO.

Try setting the camera to manual, too, so you can control exposure. Under soft florescent lighting, I might set the camera to ISO 200, with an aperture of f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/15 or 1/30. Use a tripod, and look at the LCD to judge the exposure. When it looks good, it is good.

Josh

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

Try setting the camera to manual, too, so you can control exposure. Under soft florescent lighting, I might set the camera to ISO 200, with an aperture of f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/15 or 1/30. Use a tripod, and look at the LCD to judge the exposure. When it looks good, it is good.

Josh

I was wondering about that! I haven't tried manual settings yet but it looks like it's the ticket. But yes, I was wondering if the LCD display was really a good indicator of actual exposure. That will help a lot, I think. Now I'm ready to play with it some more. It's gotten to where trying to take pictures of the razors has been just an onorous chore. So now I've got some things to try for better results. Thanks a bunch.

The LCD on most digicams is a decent way to judge exposure. The best option is to turn on the histograms, especially if you can get seperate ones for all the channels. But it takes a little practice to read those...

You want to look at the overall exposure. The main danger with digital cameras is blowing out the highlights. In English, that means that the bright parts of the photo (light glinting off the blade, for instance) go completely white. When that happens, you lose detail and you can't get it back later.

The goal is to keep the highlights low enough that the camera can record them while also casting enough light into the shadow areas so that they don't turn into black blobs with (you guessed it) no detail.

Soft, even lighting helps maximize the detail across the different tones.

Good luck,
Josh

AHA! Yep, I've experienced both burnout and blackout. I finally did come to learn that a n improperly lighted digital camera image can't be simply "fixed" in my photo software for exactly the reasons you just said. Here's a question, though.... do you prefer close camera work at the macro level on your razors or getting farther back with the telephoto?

It's funny when you realize that even digital wizardry has its limits, no?

On the macro vs. telephoto thing, it depends what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to show a detail, like an etching or a bolster, definitely go macro. You want magnification in that case.

But for showing the whole razor, it's usually better to back up and zoom in. The proportions this way look more natural. Try looking at something from six inches away, then look at the same object from a distance. See the difference?

When you're photographing very close to an object, the nearest part seems to grow in prominence compaired to the other parts, which are farther away. That's why a wide-angle shot from close to your face makes you look like you have a huge nose. (I actually do have a huge nose, so it's just that much worse for me. )

Standing farther back deemphasizes the difference in distance between the closer part of the razor and the farther away part, because that distance is dwarfed by the several feet between you and the razor.

Portrait photographers use telephoto lenses to render faces with more flattering proportions. They stand maybe eight or 10 feet away and zoom in a bit.

So that's a long and somewhat confusing answer to your question: Yes, stand back and zoom in.

Josh

Originally Posted by PapaBull

.... do you prefer close camera work at the macro level on your razors or getting farther back with the telephoto?

If you move the camera away from the subject by using a longer lens you will gain depth of field and get the whole razor in focus (more accurately, within the range of the depth of field). If you try to work in the most commonly understood Macro mode and have your lens right on top of the subject your depth of field might only be a mm or so.

For watchs I use a 100 mm Macro at a distance of 18 to 24 inches and a cocoon type lighting tent to provide even lighting. A lot of people use a translucent trash can with external lighting to accomplish the same thing.

I'll try to post some pics later.

Robert,

I came to photography with a Nikon SLR back in the 80's ( ) and now use Fuji Digital. I did some photographs of my razors to post on a website and the macro settings were horrible....if I wanted to shoot the maker's name, great - but not for decent photos of the blades. I even had the camera on a tripod. In the end, I opted for hand-held and zoom...using good marksman technique (breath, let out half, fire, release the rest) I got some decent shots. I am using a black velvet background (velvet in a poster frame)...next time I may put the blades on the velvet on the floor and use my large tripod, keeping the camera 4-5' from the object....seems like it will work better. Also direct flash is just as other have said...in the exposure the razor disappears due to the reflection from the blade...got better results with a halogen desk lamp.

Your razor, no matter how good the photo, will look amazing!!!!



Greg