Rafael Molina on tue 24 aug 99
------------------
Clayarters:
Over the last year and a half I've been teaching myself to photograph my =
artwork
with the help of many friends including fellow Clayarter Jason Hess. It's =
been
quite an evolution in equipment and techniques.
Recently, I rented a stand, boom, Bear Tube light, ring, softbox (Chimera
=22strip=22), and louvers. I rented it for one day for =24 40.00. A friend=
loaned me
a Novatron power pack. I had two different Superior Seamless backgrounds =
(Dawn
Grey and Dull Aluminum). I used a Nikon F2 with a 55 mm lens. My preferred
film is Fuji Provia Daylight 100 speed 35 mm slide film.
The shoot went great. I was very pleased with the results. I do believe=3B
however, I can still improve. I must say using the daylight film with a =
5500 k
light that is synchronized with the shutter speed is the way to go. It's =
much
better than the daylight film with a filter over the lens for the Tungsten =
3200
k lights that I used previously.
While I do believe that this current setup is the way I will shoot in the
future, the old system with the home made light box served it's purpose. In
fact, I shot all of the work in the article =22A Conversation with Elmer =
Taylor=22
using the old setup.
Rafael
Bruce Girrell on wed 25 aug 99
> I must say using the daylight film
> with a 5500 k
> light that is synchronized with the shutter speed is the way to
> go. It's much
> better than the daylight film with a filter over the lens for the
> Tungsten 3200
> k lights that I used previously.
>
Did you use a Varitone background in either case and, if so, which one. I
bought the neutral black background (I think it's a number 9, but it's not
here for me to check) and find that with tungsten film and tungsten (3200 K)
lights or with daylight film (Velvia) and cloud cover or shade, the
background always has a blue cast to it. I get the impression that this
background may be optimized for strobes (which I'm not willing to invest in
yet). I tried an 81A and 81B filter for the tungsten setup and with the 81B
could see the yellowing effect of the filter but the &^$%*%^)*& background
was still blue!
I can understand the blue cast with cloud cover or shade, but just can't
fathom what could be wrong with the tungsten setup.
Bruce "thank God for Photoshop" Girrell
Edmund B Burke on thu 26 aug 99
Rafael Molina wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> ------------------
> Clayarters:
>
> Over the last year and a half I've been teaching myself to photograph my artwo
> with the help of many friends including fellow Clayarter Jason Hess. It's bee
> quite an evolution in equipment and techniques.
>
> Recently, I rented a stand, boom, Bear Tube light, ring, softbox (Chimera
> "strip"), and louvers. I rented it for one day for $ 40.00. A friend loaned
> a Novatron power pack. I had two different Superior Seamless backgrounds (Daw
> Grey and Dull Aluminum). I used a Nikon F2 with a 55 mm lens. My preferred
> film is Fuji Provia Daylight 100 speed 35 mm slide film.
>
> The shoot went great. I was very pleased with the results. I do believe;
> however, I can still improve. I must say using the daylight film with a 5500
> light that is synchronized with the shutter speed is the way to go. It's much
> better than the daylight film with a filter over the lens for the Tungsten 320
> k lights that I used previously.
>
> While I do believe that this current setup is the way I will shoot in the
> future, the old system with the home made light box served it's purpose. In
> fact, I shot all of the work in the article "A Conversation with Elmer Taylor"
> using the old setup.
>
> Rafael
I read your post with interest, Rafael. I have been debating about using
a professional photographer or trying to improve my photography skills to
encompass product photography.
In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested that I
invest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
enhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have any
knowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
enhancement? It seems to me the most critical aspect of
product photography is the lighting. I'm curious if the computer
programs, such as Photoshop, can enhance in that manner?????
Lynne in Atlanta where we FINALLY got rain!!!
Robert Santerre on thu 26 aug 99
Hello Bruce,
I have essentially the same set-up and have been getting the same blue cast to
my Varitone black background. I've had success removing the blue cast with gel
filters over the lights (combo of #223 and 206 gel). While this removes the
blue cast, I'm not completely happy because some of the glaze colors are muted
and/or shifted, for instance greens take on a brownish cast at normal exposures
and don't look green again until the slide is quite under exposed. So like you,
I'm still looking for the ideal solution with tungsten lighting. One thing I
have noticed is this. Earlier, before I got my fancy Tota-lights, I used some
halogen construction lamps purchased from the local hardware/houseware store.
With the same black Varitone background, these lamps gave me no blue cast and
glaze color reproduction was great (but shadowing was the problem I tried to
solve by buying the fancy lights). Solved my shadowing problem and inherited
the "blues". As I think about this, I'm wondering why I can't just exchange the
halogen lamps and try the construction grade lamps in my Tota lights. I haven't
looked carefully, but the bulbs have essentially the same shape and will
probably fit. I'll let you know if this works. I'm crossing my fingers.
Whether or not the construction lamps fit, I think the problem is with the
halogen lamps supplied with the Tota lights and I think the solution is to find
the "proper" temperature lamp. You need to put in the proper temperature light,
not take out specific colors with filtration. The vendor says they're balanced
for daylight, but I don't believe it (they're Wiko EMD 120 v 750W lamps,
WIK-00107) so one way or another I'm going to try some different lamps. What
lamps do you use in your set-up?
What about it photo-gurus out there, what's the proper lamp to use? Any hints
on where I should start?
Bob
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Bruce Girrell wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > I must say using the daylight film
> > with a 5500 k
> > light that is synchronized with the shutter speed is the way to
> > go. It's much
> > better than the daylight film with a filter over the lens for the
> > Tungsten 3200
> > k lights that I used previously.
> >
>
> Did you use a Varitone background in either case and, if so, which one. I
> bought the neutral black background (I think it's a number 9, but it's not
> here for me to check) and find that with tungsten film and tungsten (3200 K)
> lights or with daylight film (Velvia) and cloud cover or shade, the
> background always has a blue cast to it. I get the impression that this
> background may be optimized for strobes (which I'm not willing to invest in
> yet). I tried an 81A and 81B filter for the tungsten setup and with the 81B
> could see the yellowing effect of the filter but the &^$%*%^)*& background
> was still blue!
>
> I can understand the blue cast with cloud cover or shade, but just can't
> fathom what could be wrong with the tungsten setup.
>
> Bruce "thank God for Photoshop" Girrell
Don Prey on thu 26 aug 99
In a message dated 08/25/99 1:58:12 PM, bigirrell@microlinetc.com wrote:
<fathom what could be wrong with the tungsten setup.>>
Bruce,
The various color films differ in their response to organic dyes.....used to
be a real problem with photographing fabric and getting a match to our visual
response. Just a random thought here.
Don Prey in Oregon
Dannon Rhudy on fri 27 aug 99
>
>....In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested that I
>invest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
>enhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have any
>knowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
>enhancement?......
I expect that this response is not the one you're looking for, but with the
speeding approach of "Ceramics USA 2000", I've had slides etc. in mind.
So, yes. "Computer enhancement" is the current bane of jurors. Because
people all too frequently "enhance" to the point where the image
bears very little resemblance to the actual work. So - when such work
arrives at an exhibition, it is promptly returned to sender. You will note
on most prospectuses (prospecti?) a line that says "work that differs
from the slide will not be accepted". Or words to that effect.
I don't know what programs may be used to achieve these remarkable
alterations. But it can be done, for certain sure.
Regards,
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
Anji Henderson on fri 27 aug 99
In a message dated 8/26/99 11:54:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ebburke@bellsouth.net writes:
<< Does anyone in Clayart-land have any knowlegde or experience with digital
photography and computer enhancement? It seems to me the most critical
aspect of product photography is the lighting. I'm curious if the computer
programs, such as Photoshop, can enhance in that manner?????>>
Yes yes yes.. I personally don't see the need for the digital camera, because
I have a scanner. With the scanner I can put photos in to the computer, and
with an adapter I can put the slides in.
As for Photo Shop or Corel. It's like the difference between getting a Compaq
or a Gateway. Preference and price. I have come up wit some pretty cruddy
pictures. Lets take for example the picture that we took at the end of a wine
festival (that should say it all) Well the person that was next to me is
balding on top and the sun made an intriguing glare.. GONE!! The big one I
was doing some mostly toasted thing with my mouth. Must say I was elsewhere,
so was my bottom lip when the picture came out. Problem solved good ol' Corel
(remember above the comparison with Corel and Photo Shop). Not to mention
various and sundry blurs, shadows, and plain ol' unfocused.
Both are wonderful little tools it's just getting the hang of it.. A new
dimension from manipulated forms, manipulated photos..
Anji
http://www.angelfire.com/md/Anji/
Tracey on sat 28 aug 99
Digital cameras are lots of fun but you don't really need to pay the $650
(average for a good one) to take photos to CD Rom or disk.. most one hour
shops develop this way and will even email you your "prints". (even the big
drugstore chains offer this service now). The only advantage to digital is
that you can see the prints right away.. and I can usually stand to wait an
hour!
You can also scan slides, negatives or prints at most local copyshops.. with
pretty good results (just ask if they have a slide scanner).
Hope this is helpful,
Tracey Cave info@artifactgallery.com
Chicago, IL.
http://www.artifactgallery.com/
Your Craft Fair on the Internet..Visit us and inquire about exhibiting!
Send a blank email to: exhibit@artifactgallery.com to receive set-up
information immediately.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dannon Rhudy
To:
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Recent Photography Experience
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >
> >....In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested that I
> >invest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
> >enhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have any
> >knowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
> >enhancement?......
>
> I expect that this response is not the one you're looking for, but with
the
> speeding approach of "Ceramics USA 2000", I've had slides etc. in mind.
>
> So, yes. "Computer enhancement" is the current bane of jurors. Because
> people all too frequently "enhance" to the point where the image
> bears very little resemblance to the actual work. So - when such work
> arrives at an exhibition, it is promptly returned to sender. You will
note
> on most prospectuses (prospecti?) a line that says "work that differs
> from the slide will not be accepted". Or words to that effect.
>
> I don't know what programs may be used to achieve these remarkable
> alterations. But it can be done, for certain sure.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dannon Rhudy
> potter@koyote.com
>
Barney Adams on sun 29 aug 99
Hi,
There are many packages that can do small enhancement and a few
expensive packages that can literally transform the image completely.
I have both a scanner and a digital camera and the camera is amazing.
I can take images routinely that my 35mm Cannon F1 with all the attachments
simply could not do. Then the added benefit of being able to edit the image
to adjust the exposure in a manner of minutes.
Barney
Anji Henderson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> In a message dated 8/26/99 11:54:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ebburke@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> << Does anyone in Clayart-land have any knowlegde or experience with digital
> photography and computer enhancement? It seems to me the most critical
> aspect of product photography is the lighting. I'm curious if the computer
> programs, such as Photoshop, can enhance in that manner?????>>
>
> Yes yes yes.. I personally don't see the need for the digital camera, because
> I have a scanner. With the scanner I can put photos in to the computer, and
> with an adapter I can put the slides in.
>
> As for Photo Shop or Corel. It's like the difference between getting a Compaq
> or a Gateway. Preference and price. I have come up wit some pretty cruddy
> pictures. Lets take for example the picture that we took at the end of a wine
> festival (that should say it all) Well the person that was next to me is
> balding on top and the sun made an intriguing glare.. GONE!! The big one I
> was doing some mostly toasted thing with my mouth. Must say I was elsewhere,
> so was my bottom lip when the picture came out. Problem solved good ol' Corel
> (remember above the comparison with Corel and Photo Shop). Not to mention
> various and sundry blurs, shadows, and plain ol' unfocused.
>
> Both are wonderful little tools it's just getting the hang of it.. A new
> dimension from manipulated forms, manipulated photos..
>
> Anji
> http://www.angelfire.com/md/Anji/
Wilkinson on sun 29 aug 99
Dannon and others interested in digital photography, there are two web sites
that I recently found to be most helpful in how to get the most out of pix
from your digital camera, scanner, printer and what programs that are best
for enhancing and reproducing pix in various ways. Wish we had seen these
several years ago when we got our scanner and digital camera. Would have
saved me a lot of time and anxiety.
http://scantips.com/
http://home.att.net/~cthames/index.htm
Lori
Tim & Lori Wilkinson
Down To Earth Pottery
Roswell NM
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/1165/
-----Original Message-----
From: Dannon Rhudy
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Recent Photography Experience
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>....In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested that I
>invest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
>enhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have any
>knowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
>enhancement?......
I expect that this response is not the one you're looking for, but with the
speeding approach of "Ceramics USA 2000", I've had slides etc. in mind.
So, yes. "Computer enhancement" is the current bane of jurors. Because
people all too frequently "enhance" to the point where the image
bears very little resemblance to the actual work. So - when such work
arrives at an exhibition, it is promptly returned to sender. You will note
on most prospectuses (prospecti?) a line that says "work that differs
from the slide will not be accepted". Or words to that effect.
I don't know what programs may be used to achieve these remarkable
alterations. But it can be done, for certain sure.
Regards,
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
Lee Love on sun 29 aug 99
------------------
----- Original Message -----
=3E =3E....In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested =
that I
=3E =3Einvest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
=3E =3Eenhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have =
any
=3E =3Eknowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
=3E =3Eenhancement?......
A good scanner would be a better investment if all you are interested in is
altering the images in your computer. You just want to get the image in the
computer for Photoshop. Good scanners go for under =24100.00 while a camera
approaching slide resolution is going to cost you about =245,000.00
I have a professional photographer, Peter Lee in Mpls. do my slides and use
what he shoots without altering the images. My digital camera is primarily
for putting images on the web.
See some Obon Lanterns here: http://hachiko.com/obon.html
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com ICQ=23 20586182
=A7 http://hachiko.com
=22I am a man: nothing human is alien to me.=22
- Heauton Timoroumenos
Larry Phillips on sun 29 aug 99
Anji Henderson wrote:
>
> Yes yes yes.. I personally don't see the need for the digital camera, because
> I have a scanner.
It's not a matter of need. It's a matter of digital having advantages
that film does not, and vice versa.
> I have come up wit some pretty cruddy pictures.
You will come up with less cruddy pictures with digital, since you can
see immediately when a picture is real bad. Admittedly, some cannot be
repeated, because the moment has passed, but often, you have the luxury
of snapping until you get it right, and you still have the option of
Corel or Photoshop twiddling.
> Both are wonderful little tools it's just getting the hang of it.
Never forget that a good picture is only made possible by the camera,
just as a good pot is only made possible by minerals.
--
I want to die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
David Hewitt on mon 30 aug 99
In message , Tracey writes
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Digital cameras are lots of fun but you don't really need to pay the $650
>(average for a good one) to take photos to CD Rom or disk.. most one hour
>shops develop this way and will even email you your "prints". (even the big
>drugstore chains offer this service now). The only advantage to digital is
>that you can see the prints right away.. and I can usually stand to wait an
>hour!
I agree that scanning in an image works fine but for me digital cameras
have the following advantages:-
In being able to see immediately what you have taken you can see if it
is what you want, particularly in the quality of the image and colour.
If not you can retake making some change in lighting etc..
There is no waste in taking multiple shots and the cost involved in
having these processed.
You don't have to take a film to be processed or post it, even if it is
a one hour service, nor are you involved in the cost of going to a shop
or postage.
There are no film or processing costs, only the cost of recharging
batteries.
If it is only one image that you want at a particular time you can
'process' it immediately rather than wait to finish a film and have it
processed. I do a lot of work with a colleague who is some 40 miles away
and so I can email him the results of glaze tests as they arise.
Whether or not this amounts to a justification of the cost of buying a
digital camera is obviously a matter of individual judgement. As you
say, there are other ways of achieving the same ends.
David
>You can also scan slides, negatives or prints at most local copyshops.. with
>pretty good results (just ask if they have a slide scanner).
>Hope this is helpful,
>Tracey Cave info@artifactgallery.com
>Chicago, IL.
>http://www.artifactgallery.com/
>
>Your Craft Fair on the Internet..Visit us and inquire about exhibiting!
>Send a blank email to: exhibit@artifactgallery.com to receive set-up
> information immediately.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dannon Rhudy
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 1:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Recent Photography Experience
>
>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> >
>> >....In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested that I
>> >invest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
>> >enhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have any
>> >knowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
>> >enhancement?......
>>
>> I expect that this response is not the one you're looking for, but with
>the
>> speeding approach of "Ceramics USA 2000", I've had slides etc. in mind.
>>
>> So, yes. "Computer enhancement" is the current bane of jurors. Because
>> people all too frequently "enhance" to the point where the image
>> bears very little resemblance to the actual work. So - when such work
>> arrives at an exhibition, it is promptly returned to sender. You will
>note
>> on most prospectuses (prospecti?) a line that says "work that differs
>> from the slide will not be accepted". Or words to that effect.
>>
>> I don't know what programs may be used to achieve these remarkable
>> alterations. But it can be done, for certain sure.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dannon Rhudy
>> potter@koyote.com
>>
>
--
David Hewitt
David Hewitt Pottery ,
7 Fairfield Road, Caerleon, Newport,
South Wales, NP18 3DQ, UK. Tel:- +44 (0) 1633 420647
FAX:- +44 (0) 870 1617274
Own Web site http://www.dhpot.demon.co.uk
IMC Web site http://digitalfire.com/education/people/hewitt.htm
Ray Aldridge on wed 1 sep 99
At 01:42 PM 8/29/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>> >....In discussing this with computer folks, it has been suggested that I
>> >invest in a digital camera and make photographs which can then be
>> >enhanced via a computer program. Does anyone in Clayart-land have any
>> >knowlegde or experience with digital photography and computer
>> >enhancement?......
>
>
>A good scanner would be a better investment if all you are interested in is
>altering the images in your computer. You just want to get the image in the
>computer for Photoshop. Good scanners go for under $100.00 while a camera
>approaching slide resolution is going to cost you about $5,000.00
>
>
There's another way to go that may be even better than a scanner. Many of
the low-end scanners do not accept slides without expensive adaptors, and
as most folks know, the quality of a good slide is vastly superior to the
quality of a good print. An alternative to getting a slide-scanning
scanner is to have your slides put on a Photo-CD by your developer. These
will be professionally scanned in several resolutions, and you can import
the images into Photoshop or other image-processing software. It's a
pretty good archival system, too.
Ray
| |
|
