amy parker on thu 16 mar 00
I shot my first slides of my pots Monday, after reading all the recent
posts. I have an ancient Minolta SRT201 with a 50mm macro lens. I used a
piece of dark grey "flannel" knit fabric as a backdrop. I set this up
outdoors in bright shade and used a light meter to take a reading off the
fabric and one off the front of the pots, and then averaged the readings. I
used 100ASA Ektachrome, with a polarizing filter, and bracketed the shutter
speed, leaving the lens at the 16 f-stop. As noted in another post, when I
looked thru the lens at a lower f-stop, the depth of field just wasn't
there. I had a tripod and a shutter release cable, but did not use a level
- just "eyeballed it".
The slides were pretty good for a first attempt. My biggest problems were
the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all - and the navy blue
bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
looks black. Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use
light grey? What do judges for a show like to see when black/dark grey just
doesn't work?
I bought some more slide film - got some Fuji Sensia II 100 ASA and Kodak
Elite Chrome 100 ASA, and am waiting for the sun to shine again so I can use
my new hindsight. (I also shot a roll of KodaChrome, which had to be "sent
out" to who-knows-where - nobody in Atlanta, as big as it is, seems to
process it!)
Amy in wet-lanta
amy parker Lithonia, GA
amyp@sd-software.com
Hank Murrow on fri 17 mar 00
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I shot my first slides of my pots Monday, after reading all the recent
>posts. Snip__
>The slides were pretty good for a first attempt. My biggest problems were
>the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
>the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all - and the navy blue
>bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
>bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
>contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
>looks black. Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use
>light grey?
>Amy in wet-lanta
>amy parker Lithonia, GA
>amyp@sd-software.com
Dear Amy; Darker pots seem to need a lighter neutral color background; but
the reflections can be taken care of in two ways. First, try getting some
diffusing plastic between the light source and the pot. Next, try having a
helper move a small cardboard 'paddle' around until the reflection
disappears. You can use white cardboard the same way but to increase the
light to one side or the other. Manipulation of the light is the main trick
the pros use to 'see' your pots. You can learn to do this yourself; but it
will require a lot of careful observation. BTW, I prefer to do this inside
where the light doesn't change with the weather. Hank in Eugene
John Hesselberth on fri 17 mar 00
Hi Amy,
It really sounds like you did pretty well for a first attempt.
Photography is a craft just like pottery and it takes about as long to
get really good at it.
I'll only make a couple suggestions. I'm sure others will chime in as a
a lot of people on the list are pretty knowledgeable about photography.
With respect to the reflections on your glossy glazes you might try using
just a touch of dulling spray (some use hair spray as a substitute) which
is available in photo supply or art supply stores. Don't overdo it
though or you will take the life right out of your pot. I'm of the
school that says there should be a small highlight on a glossy pot. You
just dont want multiple highlights like you sometimes get with multiple
light sources.
I think you will find in the long run you will get more reproducible
results if you set up inside with artificial lighting--either a flood
lamp or an electronic flash can work well--my own preference is for an
electronic flash. That way you get the same light every time and don't
even need to use light meter after you learn your system. Outdoor
lighting is very, very tough to get a matched set of slides especially
when you take some on one day and some on another. And of course you
don't have to wait for a good day with an indoor setup.
Backgrounds are about as controversial as the type of lighting. What I
think is important is consistency. Pick one background and always use
that. Again, you want matched sets of slides to send to a jury and you'd
like to have a slide taken 6 months ago look like it is matched to the
slide you took today. If you buy that logic then you are probably
limited to a light to medium gray or one of the black to white graduated
backgrounds--again my own preference is for the graduated
backgrounds--they can be purchased for $40-60 depending on size. Of
course if you only use one glaze then you can pick a color that looks
good with it.
Good luck; I'm sure you will continue to make progress. John
amy parker wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I shot my first slides of my pots Monday, after reading all the recent
>posts. I have an ancient Minolta SRT201 with a 50mm macro lens. I used a
>piece of dark grey "flannel" knit fabric as a backdrop. I set this up
>outdoors in bright shade and used a light meter to take a reading off the
>fabric and one off the front of the pots, and then averaged the readings. I
>used 100ASA Ektachrome, with a polarizing filter, and bracketed the shutter
>speed, leaving the lens at the 16 f-stop. As noted in another post, when I
>looked thru the lens at a lower f-stop, the depth of field just wasn't
>there. I had a tripod and a shutter release cable, but did not use a level
>- just "eyeballed it".
>
>The slides were pretty good for a first attempt. My biggest problems were
>the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
>the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all - and the navy blue
>bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
>bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
>contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
>looks black. Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use
>light grey? What do judges for a show like to see when black/dark grey just
>doesn't work?
>
>I bought some more slide film - got some Fuji Sensia II 100 ASA and Kodak
>Elite Chrome 100 ASA, and am waiting for the sun to shine again so I can use
>my new hindsight. (I also shot a roll of KodaChrome, which had to be "sent
>out" to who-knows-where - nobody in Atlanta, as big as it is, seems to
>process it!)
>Amy in wet-lanta
>amy parker Lithonia, GA
>amyp@sd-software.com
John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
P.O. Box 88
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com web site: http://www.frogpondpottery.com
The only things in life that are certain are death and taxes; however
only taxes come once a year. Anonymous
Bruce Girrell on fri 17 mar 00
Amy Parker wrote:
>My biggest problems were
>the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
>the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all
Many people use a matte spray to dull the reflections. The spray is easily
removed from the slick glaze surface after the photo shoot.
Personally, I think some reflection gives life to the photo. You just don't
want the reflections to dominate or to be distracting.
> - and the navy blue
>bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
>bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
>contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
>looks black.
I assume that the light metering that you did was through the lens of the
camera. If you use a hand-held light meter, you need to compensate for the
polarizer - typically about 2 1/2 stops additional exposure.
You mention metering the backdrop and the pot and then averaging. That may
have been inappropriate in this case. Try this:
Meter just the pot. Meter the darkest part. The light meter will give you an
exposure that would be suitable to use if the pot had a reflectance of 18%
(a medium gray). Your pot is not a medium gray, though. From your
description of the pot, I would decrease the exposure by 1 to 1 1/2 stops
for a proper exposure based on the light meter reading. You were wise to
bracket and I would suggest doing it again.
>Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use light grey?
Probably not a bad idea. Dark on dark just makes for a dreary picture.
>I also shot a roll of KodaChrome, which had to be "sent
>out" to who-knows-where - nobody in Atlanta, as big as it is, seems to
>process it!
There are only about six labs in the country that can process Kodachrome.
Although Kodachrome stood as the standard by which all other films were
judged for many years, it has lost the lead. Today, probably Fuji Velvia
holds that esteemed position.
Good luck and congratulations for having a go at what many consider to be a
daunting task. Don't be afraid to burn a little film. You get better only
through practice.
Bruce Girrell
Tom Wirt on fri 17 mar 00
Amy...
You may find many things happening here. First, shade on a sunny day will
have a fairly strong blue balance. You're better off on a cloudy day or
cloudy almost sunny...called cloudy/bright in the camera books.
Second, unless you provide a complete tent, you'll get the glare. A
polarizing filter won't necessarily take care of it, although it may lessen
some of it.
As to the dark blue pot, that will be the toughest to shoot.....nearly
impossible without a professional set-up. We have a Temmoku glaze, had it
shot by 3 pro's including the one who shoots all of MacKenzie's work for
publication....can't get it. The coloros are too subtle to register well
(they do register but not like with the eye) and there is a tendency for the
white of the tabletop to reflect onto the under surfaces making them appear
whitish. Again, the only way to shoot this stuff is with extremely even
soft lighting.
Get Steve Meltzer's book on shooting craft pix, and spend some time back in
the clayart archives. This subject has been hit a number of times.
Tom Wirt
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I shot my first slides of my pots Monday, after reading all the recent
> posts. I have an ancient Minolta SRT201 with a 50mm macro lens. I used a
> piece of dark grey "flannel" knit fabric as a backdrop. I set this up
> outdoors in bright shade and used a light meter to take a reading off the
> fabric and one off the front of the pots, and then averaged the readings.
I
> used 100ASA Ektachrome, with a polarizing filter, and bracketed the
shutter
> speed, leaving the lens at the 16 f-stop. As noted in another post, when
I
> looked thru the lens at a lower f-stop, the depth of field just wasn't
> there. I had a tripod and a shutter release cable, but did not use a
level
> - just "eyeballed it".
>
> The slides were pretty good for a first attempt. My biggest problems were
> the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
> the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all - and the navy blue
> bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
> bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
> contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
> looks black. Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use
> light grey? What do judges for a show like to see when black/dark grey
just
> doesn't work?
>
> I bought some more slide film - got some Fuji Sensia II 100 ASA and Kodak
> Elite Chrome 100 ASA, and am waiting for the sun to shine again so I can
use
> my new hindsight. (I also shot a roll of KodaChrome, which had to be "sent
> out" to who-knows-where - nobody in Atlanta, as big as it is, seems to
> process it!)
> Amy in wet-lanta
> amy parker Lithonia, GA
> amyp@sd-software.com
>
ferenc jakab on fri 17 mar 00
Amy,
In one of my past lives I worked as an Art Director in the film industry,
for excessive shine we used a dulling spray. It might be available from
major photographic stores as professional photographers do use it. You can
spray lightly, see the result and then do some more if necessary. It then
wash off with water.
Feri.
Steven Goldate on fri 17 mar 00
Hi Amy,
you might try putting the pot in the freezer before taking the photo. This makes
matte and thus eleiminagrtes the reflection. More on this at
http://ceramics.about.com/library/weekly/aa021000.htm
cheers,
Steven
Date sent: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:46:27 EST
Send reply to: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
From: amy parker
Subject: Attempt at photography
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I shot my first slides of my pots Monday, after reading all the recent
> posts. I have an ancient Minolta SRT201 with a 50mm macro lens. I used a
> piece of dark grey "flannel" knit fabric as a backdrop. I set this up
> outdoors in bright shade and used a light meter to take a reading off the
> fabric and one off the front of the pots, and then averaged the readings. I
> used 100ASA Ektachrome, with a polarizing filter, and bracketed the shutter
> speed, leaving the lens at the 16 f-stop. As noted in another post, when I
> looked thru the lens at a lower f-stop, the depth of field just wasn't
> there. I had a tripod and a shutter release cable, but did not use a level
> - just "eyeballed it".
>
> The slides were pretty good for a first attempt. My biggest problems were
> the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
> the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all - and the navy blue
> bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
> bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
> contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
> looks black. Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use
> light grey? What do judges for a show like to see when black/dark grey just
> doesn't work?
>
> I bought some more slide film - got some Fuji Sensia II 100 ASA and Kodak
> Elite Chrome 100 ASA, and am waiting for the sun to shine again so I can use
> my new hindsight. (I also shot a roll of KodaChrome, which had to be "sent
> out" to who-knows-where - nobody in Atlanta, as big as it is, seems to
> process it!)
> Amy in wet-lanta
> amy parker Lithonia, GA
> amyp@sd-software.com
-------------------------
Steven Goldate
world@lexicon.net
http://ceramics.about.com
-------------------------
"Dogs have masters,
cats have staff."
---------------------------------------
"The future ain 't what it used to be."
---------------------------------------
Randall Moody on fri 17 mar 00
Try shooting on a slihtly overcast day. This will eliminate the hot spots
and also the majority of the harsh shadows. You may also want to invest in a
"grey card." You use it to take the initial meter reading off of. Most good
photography stores carry them.
>
> The slides were pretty good for a first attempt. My biggest problems were
> the reflection on the glossy pots - one in particular seemed to just have
> the exact wrong shape to be able to eliminate it all - and the navy blue
> bowl, with the lighter overglaze inside of it. All the pictures of this
> bowl were awful! I think it is the dark background not showing good color
> contrast, or for that matter, not showing the navy color at all! The pot
> looks black. Any suggestions about a different backdrop? Should I use
> light grey? What do judges for a show like to see when black/dark grey
just
> doesn't work?
vince pitelka on sat 18 mar 00
In my opinion, it is a real mistake to put pots in the freezer, or use
dulling spray in order to eliminate hot spots. It kills the work. A great
many people out there who think they are taking professional-quality slides
are actually creating images which completely lack any life or energy. The
work has been drained of its soul and spirit.
If the stuff you make is shiny, then it damn well better appear in the
photographs as shiny, or you are misrepresenting your work. Instead of
dulling the surface, use a softbox or a tent, with reflector cards to create
strategic highlights and reflections, without any hotspots. This gives the
very best results. Elimination of all reflections is always a mistake
unless your work is completely matt, in which case there ARE no reflections.
This really is pretty simple. Show your work for what it really is.
Represent the surfaces as truthfully as possible, with no distractions. If
you make the work look like something other than what it really is, it will
come back and bite you every time.
Good luck -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Home - vpitelka@dekalb.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Janet Kaiser on tue 21 mar 00
Posts have included everything and anything from the best film to use to
dulling spray and some pretty harsh comments about the standard of "amateur"
photography in general. I have followed this thread closely, because I know
just how difficult it is to take good photographs whilst being on the
receiving end too.
As most of you know, I run a gallery and chose exhibits mostly through
slides and photos, less often via digital technology (via e-mail or www). I
think there is only one important point to make about an image which is
going to be submitted: does the pot look good enough to eat? Does it make
the viewer want to fondle it and whets the appetite to see more by the same
maker?
A really poor, wobbly photo/slide will obviously not achieve that aim. In a
perfect world that means it is close enough to see the detail of surface,
glaze, decoration and texture. The colours must be vivid and true. The shape
is well defined... Most difficult on bowls and open vessels, where you often
have to chose anywhere between top view and inside or side view and little
to no inside. All the pot must be in focus. No blurring or fuzzy edges.
Preferably no foreshortening which can confuse.
IMO there is no right or wrong background. Whatever you chose, you do not
notice it on the photo! Shadows are fine, but avoid harsh ones created by
using a flash or harsh lighting from one direction. I like to see
reflections on a pot... Indicates how shiny the glaze is as well as giving a
bit of life to the image. Colour of background all the same? No brownie
points for that "trick" with me! Also questionable practice if the pots in
the series are different colours.
Looking at pots in the 11th edition of POTTERS today and really took
exception to pots on a solid black background. (see pages 14 and 276). No
shadows they looked like a cut-out pasted on, really weird, like something
out of a sci-fi movie! Killed the pots!
Leafing through said book, it certainly contains some very "amateur" photos
of both potters and their work. But look here, these are photographs taken
by potters of their pots and mostly snaps of potters taken by friends as
portraits. They are not fashion models photographed at huge expense by the
Lords Lichfield or Snowdon and destined for the pages of glossy magazines.
Their Lordships probably use as much film in a day as most potters will use
in a lifetime!
When I look at images of pots, there is no contest going on. The
"professional" quality of the photos is not being judged. Juries should be
judging pots, not photographic one-upmanship. Naturally photos chosen for
publication should be the best possible quality, but if there are little
imperfections, what the hell? Makes much more interesting documentation when
pots appear "warts and all". And if a jury is side-tracked by photographic
quality or become judgmental, they are obviously judging the wrong show.
Of the many hundreds of photos I have "judged" I have never come across one
so poor I wonder why it was sent to me. I am not insulted if they are not
super quality and I would be a pretty miserable judge if I were.
Professional photography is all very well, but it costs and arm and a leg. A
pipe dream for most young potters and a luxury for many others. IMHO
photographic one-upmanship is making a rod for artist/potter's own backs and
to be avoided at all costs. Part of the snobbish bigger, better, best
syndrome I personally despise.
Furthermore I know of potters who have paid good money to have professional
photos taken of their work, only to be bitterly disappointed. Just because
someone takes money and calls themself a professional, does not mean they
are going to be any better than a practised amateur.
The bottom line? If a jury does not take the time and care to chose work
from good clear honest photos/slides it is probably not worth being a part
of that exhibition.
Come to The Chapel of Art instead!
Janet Kaiser... Am I ranting? Well, it is full moon!
And the days get longer than the nights from today...
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
Veena Raghavan on wed 22 mar 00
Hi Janet,
First of all, as a potter, I would like to thank you (a gallery
owner) for saying much of what you said in this post.
Reading the magazines, such as Craft Report and CM, and reading
many of the posts, which are full of great tips, I still wonder why it is
necessary for jurors or gallery owners to have perfect slides or
photographs of pottery in order to make their judgement. I fully understand
that the slides/photographs have to be clear, well-focused, with good
color, close enough for the detail to be seen and so on, that they need to
be set off against a good neutral background (although I do have to admit
that, for some of my pieces, I do like black, as it creates a very dramatic
backdrop for some work!), and that, all in all, gallery owners and jurors
require good quality photography. But, I do not understand why their are
expected to provide professional quality slides/photographs. As you say,
they are not being judged on the photography but the artwork. As someone
who can neither afford a professional setup with floods etc. or a
professional photographer, I wonder why clay artists, most of whom just
manage to make a living from their work, are expected to go to great
expense to get their work looked at and judged. I have also read that it is
important, when approaching a gallery, to have a professional brochure, to
make you look professional. Personally, if I had wanted to be a
professional in the world of glitz, I would have stayed in publishing and
not dedicated the last few years (and I hope the rest of my life) to clay.
Why should a gallery owner cared about a professional 4-color brochure,
when what they will be considering is pottery.
>When I look at images of pots, there is no contest going on. The
"professional" quality of the photos is not being judged. Juries should be
judging pots, not photographic one-upmanship. Naturally photos chosen for
publication should be the best possible quality, but if there are little
imperfections, what the hell? Makes much more interesting documentation
when
pots appear "warts and all". And if a jury is side-tracked by photographic
quality or become judgmental, they are obviously judging the wrong show.
The bottom line? If a jury does not take the time and care to chose work
from good clear honest photos/slides it is probably not worth being a part
of that exhibition.<
Thank you in particular for the above words.
All the best.
Veena
Veena Raghavan
75124.2520@compuserve.com
Ray Aldridge on thu 23 mar 00
At 01:53 PM 3/22/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi Janet,
> First of all, as a potter, I would like to thank you (a gallery
>owner) for saying much of what you said in this post.
> Reading the magazines, such as Craft Report and CM, and reading
>many of the posts, which are full of great tips, I still wonder why it is
>necessary for jurors or gallery owners to have perfect slides or
>photographs of pottery in order to make their judgement.
(snip)
Veena, after reading your note and Janet's, it struck me that juries and
gallery owners are looking for very different things, and not just the
obvious difference: that gallery owners are looking for work that will sell.
When Janet looks at slides, she's looking for reasons to think well of the
work, because that's her job-- to find good and salable work for her
customers.
Jurors, on the other hand, especially in the early stages of the process,
are looking for reasons to reject the work. When jurying a show or exhibit
in which dozens of potters are vying for each slot, jurors have to be
fairly ruthless. If a slide is poor, they may often be unwilling to make
the effort to see the actual work. It's easier to just reject it and go on
to the work that is well-photographed, relying on the tendency of artists
at the top of their game to provide excellent slides. It's unfair, I
think, because your jury fee is just as big as anyone else's. But the
reality is that the jurors will take shortcuts.
So it behooves potters, however poor, to learn enough about photography to
provide adequate slides. John Hesselberth has an excellent couple of
articles on his website, and the equipment can come to less than $300, if
you shop the used camera shops. If you already have a decent camera, it's
much less. And if you get into one really good show because of that
investment, you'll make it back in a couple of hours.
Potters have to learn to do everything, don't they?
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
| |
|
