# A pair of A13's but i need your help Bugbear



## Ian Dalziel (2 Feb 2006)

Finished this pair and currently working on a copy of a Norris 14 1/2” panel plane and a final A13. 

Just cant get my photography right…this is where I need your input bugbear please.
I bought a light tent from ebay which has 4 different background colours. I am trying to use a couple of desk style lamps with 40w soft glow bulbs shining in from the side. I tried 60watts but they looked even worse. Do you think maybe I should get halogen or dayglow.I’m only trying to upgrade my photography a bit
I am using a Fuji S7000 digital camera without the flash I’ve tried it with but it’s too bright. 
I wanted to try and get the wood to glow as it is beautiful as is but the photos don’t do it justice. I haven’t used photoshop or anything as yet as I was trying to show up my problems
Its almost similar setup I saw you do a few months back but I couldn’t find the link










thanks in advance 


Ian


----------



## DaveL (2 Feb 2006)

Ian, 

I cannot help with the lighting but I have just got to say they are wonderful looking planes. =P~ 

I just hope there will be another show that we meet up at and you bring them along so we can hold them even if we can't use them. [-o<


----------



## Gill (2 Feb 2006)

=P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~ =P~


----------



## Philly (2 Feb 2006)

Ian
Do you have Photoshop? Playing with the "levels" control makes an amazing difference-you'd be gobsmacked!
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Ian Dalziel (2 Feb 2006)

Cheers Dave and Philly,


I do have photoshop and could play a bit with it but i would rather try and get the photography right rather than cheat...if all else fails then i'll try that....thanks for the suggestion though


Ian


----------



## mr (2 Feb 2006)

Ian 
Lovely planes,
Have you tried taking a light reading from next to the plane with a lightmeter? It appears to me that the problem is that apeture isnt opening wide enough or the exposure time is too fast to get the right light level on the wood. The camera will close down the apeture if you have it set to automatic if the light in the tent is brighter than it expects. A workaround is to take your exposure reading off the palm of your hand in ambient light and then use that reading. It would also help to bracket the expected exposure by a stop or so either side. Having said all that Im sure a better photographer than me will be along shortly to help.


----------



## Adam (2 Feb 2006)

Ian, 

I wonder if the pictures don't have enough light coming flat at table level. For example, its difficult to see inside the handles at the top underneath. Does that make sense? 

What I'm trying to say is (for example) having a light immediately under where the camera is positioned, at table height, angled amost 10 degrees upwards so it provides some light up and under the handles.

Also, have you considered using bright white LEDs? I've even seen someone use a string of Christmas lights (white ones) to provide a blanket coverage of light. Personally I think a bank of white LEDs might provide some additional brightness. I'd steer away from any flash.

Have you tried it with loads more light - e.g. with a floodlight? 

Just a few thoughts.

The planes, by the way, look absolutely fabulous! You must be very proud how they turned out!

Adam


----------



## wizer (2 Feb 2006)

:tongue9:


----------



## Ian Dalziel (2 Feb 2006)

Thanks Adam


never thought of christmas lights....its still all setup so i'll give it a try tomorrow. not sure if we have white christmas lights. I havent been home for christmas since 1995  

The low level light does make sense i'll try that as well

Ian


----------



## Gary H (2 Feb 2006)

Ian

Try reflecting some of the light around with some white card and/or silver foil as home made reflectors. this may direct the light to where you want it to go.

Also if your camera can shoot in RAW mode ( Fuji's usually do I think) this is much better for post shot 'tweaking' when you have it on the 'puter.

Do you have a tripod? If so try a longer exposure with the auto timer function (eliminating shaky hands) and as mr said, bracket the shots each time to give you variances with each shot.Try varying the angle of the lamps as Adam suggests too - one low, one high. And with just one low for a glow. It may stop the over exposure on the brass adjusters.

Just my two-penn'th.  but i'm no expert

HTH

Gary


----------



## mr (2 Feb 2006)

Forgot to say that if youre experimenting with exposure, you should probably adjust your exposure times rather than your apeture setting, reason being that as you open the apeture you will lose depth of field in the image. Larger f stop, smaller hole greater depth of field - longer exposure sort of thing. 
Mike


----------



## matt (2 Feb 2006)

I'd go the tripod route too. Also... see if your camera has the option to manually set the light type. If it does, set it to tungsten initiallly but don't rule out experimenting with other settings too. Finally, assuming you try the tripod route, try moving the lights away from the subject to give a more even light. Finally (mkII...), use spot metering and take a reading from a wooden bit in "average" light. Keep the shutter half depressed while re-composing the shot then push it all the way.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (2 Feb 2006)

Wow guys,
I didnt realise there were so many photography enthusiasts on here.
I forgot to mention i have the camera set on the tripod and i was using time delay for taking the pics. the camera was set on auto.
I really dont know how to set the camera for different light settings and i really should read the manual...which i will do after college tomorrow.
i'll play about with it tomorrow night 

I dont have a light meter is there anything else i can measure it with

phew this photography bits hard i should really stick to something simple

thanks guys for all your helpful replies

Ian


----------



## mr (2 Feb 2006)

What sort of camera is it and does it have an inbuilt meter at all? Most cameras will take a reading at some point during the button press, if you can find that point and on some cameras theres a definite de-tent you should be able to take a "reading" from the palm of the hand under ambient light or from a brick wall or piece of grey card which all reflect similar light levels unless Im mistaken. then having taken that reading and holding the shutter release, recompose and take the picture. The obvious problem is the use of self timer and taking the measurement. THe principal involved is that I think that the light level in your tent while nice to look at and visually correct is too bright for the camera and fools it into closing down the amount of light allowed through to the chip or film. You need to correct this by increasing the light getting through, but stopping before you hit the point where it all burns out. Its a balancing act between exposure and lighting probably. If the cameras digital at least you can experiment.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (2 Feb 2006)

Thanks MR

I'll definately read the manual and see what it says about the exposure...i can also try and see if there is a photography department at college they might have something. although i dont really know what kinda exposure to look for or what kind of reading to expect


thanks for your reply.

Ian


----------



## Alf (3 Feb 2006)

Sheesh, Ian, when are you gonna stop with these practice planes and start making an effort...? :roll:  Bootiful. =D> 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (3 Feb 2006)

Ian Dalziel":32uzceoe said:


> Just cant get my photography right…this is where I need your input bugbear please.



I'm no expert, just a book-learnin' dabbler, but I'll try. I will point out that Alice gets excellent photos without using half of my tricks, by using the world's biggest light tent (a workshop with a translucent white roof, and the right time of day!)



> I bought a light tent from ebay which has 4 different background colours. I am trying to use a couple of desk style lamps with 40w soft glow bulbs shining in from the side. I tried 60watts but they looked even worse. Do you think maybe I should get halogen or dayglow.I’m only trying to upgrade my photography a bit
> I am using a Fuji S7000 digital camera without the flash I’ve tried it with but it’s too bright.



Right. Your camera's just fine.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/F ... xs7000.asp

Recent, highly capable, and enough manual controls to pull any trick we want, including custom white balance.

I think photographing your planes will be very difficult, because of the mixture of materials. The shiny metal parts will be prone to flare and glare, while the wood parts need lots of light. pipper.

A light tent should help. The actual amount of light shouldn't matter, since your camera will simply expose for longer to compensate. Multiple light sources help - you can manipulate highlights and shadows. Get a few (3-4?) ultra-cheap desk lamps.

The type of light (daylight etc) shouldn't matter - read you camera's manual, and use "custom white balance". For most cameras this comes down to sticking a piece of white cardboard in front of the camera (under the light conditions you're planning to use) and telling the camera "oy! This is what white looks like". Much cheaper than buying funny bulbs.

If you have the time, can you send me the original picture (JPEG or TIFF - I can't handle raw) and I'll have a look over it with Gimp or something.

Post-processing of digital photo's is normal - you could easily (for example) colour-correct a photo shot in tungsten light witht he camera set for sunlight. This is NOT cheating.

Look around the web for inspiration and possible tricks.

I know Holtey uses a pro (John Credland)

http://www.holteyplanes.com/a13_7.htm
http://www.holteyplanes.com/A13_1.htm
(nice!)

Wayne Anderson varies, but his best are good:
http://www.andersonplanes.com/
http://www.andersonplanes.com/gallery/i ... 19_jpg.jpg

Sauer and Steiner are "OK":
http://www.sauerandsteiner.com/noa6.htm

Lie-Nielsen do ugly cutouts, but the photos are good:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/images/4_5_lg.jpg
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/images/073_lg.jpg

I have never tried to photograph a metal plane, so I have little specific advice in that regard.

BugBear


----------



## mudman (3 Feb 2006)

Personally I'd use flashguns, several of them triggered by slave units.
Benefit of that is that the light is already daylight balanced and so you don't have to worry about messing with balances.
You can also diffuse and soften the output by putting something over the flash, a piece of muslin, cellophane, even a smearing of vaseline.
The colour of the light can also be modified by using coloured cellophanes, sweet wrappers are fine.
I'd also direct flashes at different parts of the image. You should have one to light the background only then others to light the subject although you will have to be careful of where the shadows go.
You can also direct light at different parts of the subject, the handles will require a lot more light than the sides as they absorb a lot more, looks like at least one stop, maybe two.
When you light the subject try to get the spread of light so that it doesn't overlap with other flashguns too much as they will reinforce each other.
You can close down the flash's spread by cutting apertures in cards.
Ideally you would have flashguns that you can control the power output with but you can achieve this by moving them back and forth to change the flash to subject distance.
Another thing you can then do is to fire all the flashes from the camera's inbuilt flash without it contributing to the exposure by covering the flash with an IR filter. You can make one of these from a piece of unexposed and developed slide film. This then give you the benefit of being able to hand hold the camera and allows multiple shots with different compositions to be tried quickly. But be careful here as if the shutter speed is slow, you may get blurring due to camera movement after the flashes fire and some ghosting.
One problem you may have is setting the aperture on the camera. You should set the shutter speed to that required for the flash. You then need to set the aperture to give the correct exposure. This is usually determined by the flash to subject distance and the guide number of the flashgun. guide number / distance = f stop value. Try to get the flashes to all be at a distance from the subject that will give the F-stop you need. However, with digital cameras the beauty is that you can experiment through trial and error and see the effect immediately.

I also think that it is better to get the lighting correct when you take the photo rather than twiddling around on a computer screen. 


Hope that helps. I've used all these techniques to photograph a lot of underground stuff from formations up to big chambers and it does work.

I forgot to say that those are beautiful planes that I would be very proud to own. But to be able to make them would be fantastic, I'm in awe, honest.


----------



## Racers (3 Feb 2006)

Hi, 

Its all about reflections and dark areas, you need to light certain parts and not others, have a look at http://www.ogormans.co.uk/dualit3.htm or http://www.ogormans.co.uk/dualit1.htm
The stainless steel shows the light sources and black areas help define the shape, but even Karl’s photos don’t show the grain very well, their is to much contrast between the dark wood and shiny metal on a plane to photograph both at the same time, photoshop might help.


pete


----------



## bugbear (3 Feb 2006)

> Personally I'd use flashguns, several of them triggered by slave units.
> Benefit of that is that the light is already daylight balanced



Any reason to use flash, not table lamps? Lamps are cheap, readily available, provide their own modelling light (!) and can be used as table lamps later ;-)

Buying multiple slave flash units sounds spendy.

Given modern digital cameras the light balance thing is not a big issue. Correct in camera, or post-camera.

I like your thoughts on using/placing the light on the subject.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (3 Feb 2006)

Some generic photo links, with emphasis on still-life


http://www.nawcc59.org/photography.html
http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents ... graphy.htm
http://www.pmwf.com/Watches/WatchPhotog ... elpers.htm
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2740
http://www.designinflight.com/04July/di ... cheap.html

BugBear


----------



## Alf (3 Feb 2006)

bugbear":1sot1y66 said:


> I will point out that Alice gets excellent photos without using half of my tricks, by using the world's biggest light tent (a workshop with a translucent white roof, and the right time of day!)


Fwiw, auto setting, macro, no zoom, tripod some of the time but mainly for the freaky-hands-included shots, Fuji Finepix A330 - Picasa to tidy up afterwards. But put me somewhere without that roof and it all goes to pot. Ergo, I'd say lighting was everything...

Mind you, shiny planes are a nightmare to shoot. Why d'you think I don't review many LNs? :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (3 Feb 2006)

The Mighty Ian":2i192pmh said:


> Its almost similar setup I saw you do a few months back but I couldn’t find the link



https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?p=81853

BugBear


----------



## Ian Dalziel (3 Feb 2006)

Thanks Bugbear.....I'm just back from college...a lot earlier than normal due to a power cut  ....the photography department is closed on a Friday so no luck there.
I dropped in by IKEA and bought a couple of desk lamps and a couple of similar floorstanding ones which i'll have to fight the kids for when i try and do a photoshoot again. IKEA....what can i say about this place....first time i've ever been in...i got lost trying to find the lighting section.

I'm away to read the camera manual and have another go with your suggestions

thanks for all the suggestions....photographing planes isnt quite as easy as i thought it wood. excuse the pun.

good to see you back on full swing Alice.

I'll post more piccies later if thats ok with the mods if any come out ok

regards

Ian


----------



## Ian Dalziel (3 Feb 2006)

This one was taken with the camera set on auto (again) the manual i have for some reason is in every language except english unless there is 2 manuals for it and i seem to have only one...i'll check fuji for a download
This time i setup the new lights with them directed more to the ceiling of the tent. I think i'll end up with some photoshop trickery. I'll also try with different colour backgrounds.
I am reasonable pleased with the picture in the last batch...as has been mentioned its quite difficult to get bright metals and dark woods photographed together well.

it is only really for my website but i wanted as good as i could do

BB and all thanks very much for all your imformative relies

Ian


----------



## bugbear (3 Feb 2006)

> I dropped in by IKEA and bought a couple of desk lamps and a couple of similar floorstanding ones



That'll help - just play away, move the lights around, and see how it looks.

I note from the Exif of your final (much nicer) shot that you're running at f3.0, 1/50 second exposure.

If you're using a tripod (IIRC you are), I'd switch the camera to aperture priority mode, and use f6 (or even f8).

This will increase the depth of field, and sharpness, at the "cost" of a longer exposure (which the tripod will allow)

Probably not essential - sharpness in your photo looks OK, but every little helps.

BugBear

P.S. Here's the Fuji download centre

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartn ... cat=616757


----------



## Gary H (3 Feb 2006)

No probs Ian, no matter how they are shot, they are still DAMN fine pieces of art in their own right!!! 8) 

If only Scotland wasn't so far away I would offer to call in and have a go at shooting them myself. Any excuse for a 'play'! :lol: 

...or are they for exhibition purposes only....?

Gary


----------



## Ian Dalziel (3 Feb 2006)

Cheers Gary,
I'll play with them for a while then they'll get shelved...i'll move on and make others. They are actually one of the best planes i've used but i'm only playing at this game. I'll keep doing them until i get either perfection or bored whatever comes first, hopefully perfection because i'm thouroughly enjoying making my own tools. 

cheers

Ian


----------



## ikd (3 Feb 2006)

I know alot has been said, but I thought id add my 2 pennys worth.

I would close the aperture down to F8 (the smallest hole you can have on your camera I think). Lenses have a sweet spot and on DSLR's this is usually f8 to f11, although I am aware your camera is not a DSLR.

Because of the high contrast between the wood on the handles and the plane blade you might want to consider taking two shots. Set the camera to aperture priority and change the metering mode to spot metering. Meter on the wooden handle and note the settings, then meter on the plane blade and note these settings. The chances are you will get two different exposure settings - say F3 for the wood and f8 for the blade for example. Now position the camera on a tripod and switch to manual mode. dial in the settings you noted down for the handle - take the shot, reset for the blade and take the shot. 

What you should see is the first shot (metered on the handle) will have the handles looking right, but the blade over exposed. On the second shot the blade will be correctly exposed and the handle under exposed.

If you use Photoshop CS2 then you can use the merge HDR feature (High Dynamic Range). This should merge the two shots together. If you do not have CS2 then you can download a 30 day trial version.

I would not use flash but angle poise lamps. If the light is still to harsh for your liking then reflect off of white card or drape tissue paper over them.

A couple of other things. I would take your pictures in RAW and not JPEG. RAW is as it hits the sensor. JPEG will perform in camera manipulation and compression. Also, I notice on the EXIF that the shot is in sRGB. I dont know if this is a result of a conversion for the web, but you have a significantly higher colour space if you use Adobe RGB.

Hope it helps?


----------



## John Clifford (3 Feb 2006)

Ok Ian, are these just for your own use or do you make them for sale? If so do you have a web site and what kind of wait time is to be expected? Thanks John.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (3 Feb 2006)

Ian,
much obliged for your input...i've downloaded and printed the user manual and will have a good read this weekend...i'll also have a go at your suggestions. pm sent

John,
I'm flattered by your response but i am just a hobbiest at planemaking. I dont sell planes as yet... maybe sometime in the future i'll make some available for sale.
thankyou for asking 

kind regards

Ian


----------



## mudman (3 Feb 2006)

bugbear":z4960oco said:


> > Personally I'd use flashguns, several of them triggered by slave units.
> > Benefit of that is that the light is already daylight balanced
> 
> 
> ...



I find them more controllable. You can direct them easier, add effects, diffuse change the exposure just by modifying how you place the flashes.
Exposure can be easily determined as well. Set your shutter speed then either:
a) choose an aperture and then set the flashes the distance from the subject required for that aperture setting.
or
b) set you flashes and determine the aperture from the flash to subject distance.



bugbear":z4960oco said:


> Buying multiple slave flash units sounds spendy.



I suppose it can be but you don't need expensive fully automatic also make you a cup of tea flashes. Just buy second hand ones. For this sort of work you won't even need very powerful ones. If they are to be used off camera on slaves, then the make doesn't matter either. In fact the simpler the flash, the better. I managed to build up a fair number of flashes by checking out second hand shops and the like. Although I did manage to ruin my nicest one by dropping it into the stream in Allt nan Uamh Stream Cave.  



bugbear":z4960oco said:


> Given modern digital cameras the light balance thing is not a big issue. Correct in camera, or post-camera.



I guess you are right there. The majority of my photography has been done using print and slide film. I have got the Fuji Finepix S7000 which is a fine camera that I bought to do a bit more experimentation with but unfortunately work has gotten in the way for quite sometime now.



bugbear":z4960oco said:


> I like your thoughts on using/placing the light on the subject.



Thanks. It mostly comes from a fair amount of underground cave photography that can be a very unforgiving environment. You have to place flashes very precisely and calculate all the exposures just to get a half decent picture.

Which reminds me of a technique that you can only use with the digital camera and photoshop. You also only need one flash and a long sync cable.
Basically you place the camera on a tripod and use the flash to light individual parts of the subject. Set the flash to light one part and then take a picture. Don't move the camera but move the flash to light another part, then take another picture.
What you end up with is a number of pictures of different parts of the subject.
Load them all up into photoshop and use layers to add them together.
It was one of the techniques I wanted to try out with the camera but haven't been able to yet.

Not sure if it would be suitable for Ian's planes but it maybe a good way to highlight different parts of the subject if the spread of the light can be tightened up enough. I would try to expose the wood and metal independantly. Expose the background with the flash angled from behind the plane and maybe a diffuse all over spread from a flash reflecting off a piece of card. Could be worth trying. You may also be able to take a single picture of the whole thing and then try to take another with the handles only getting some light. A bit difficult though I suppose.

This site gives an explanation as it's practiced for cave photography.


----------



## MikeW (4 Feb 2006)

Ian, the heck with the photography...those are just gorgeous.

Even though I've sold off many planes, including my infill  , another infill and a panel are on the "to purchase" list once I get back to wood working.

I may try a kit or two, but to go from scratch like you? Nope. I can only hope the kits would turn out half as nice.

Take care, Mike


----------



## bugbear (6 Feb 2006)

MikeW":ukkw0aj2 said:


> Ian, the heck with the photography...those are just gorgeous.



An interesting statement, given that you're making the judgement based on photographs 

BugBear


----------



## Ian Dalziel (7 Feb 2006)

[/quote]

An interesting statement, given that you're making the judgement based on photographs 

BugBear[/quote]

Cheers mike,
your saws take a bit of beating to.......
BB given we are a few miles apart how else could he assess them :lol: 

Ian


----------



## Pete B (7 Feb 2006)

They are some gorgeous looking planes!


----------



## syntec4 (7 Feb 2006)

I cant help with the pictures -they look fantastic to me. 

But I have to say that is some very nice work. I showed my Dad, he's a model engineer. He is very impressed with you're work.

Stunning, well done.

lee.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :tongue9: :tongue9: :tongue9: :tongue9: :tongue9:


----------



## MikeW (8 Feb 2006)

bugbear":2d1py8f5 said:


> MikeW":2d1py8f5 said:
> 
> 
> > Ian, the heck with the photography...those are just gorgeous.
> ...


Oh now BB, the point of the post was in soliciting help to improve the photography--that I cannot help with.

As well, the subjects of the photographs speak well for themselves--that be my point. Somehow I think you knew that :wink: . But if not, there is a statement of what I meant to end any confusion.

Now, if I was able to play--or own such a tool, I might be able to move beyond mere speculation based upon a photograph. 

Take care, Mike


----------



## Alf (8 Feb 2006)

MikeW":2ragql7e said:


> Oh now BB, the point of the post was in soliciting help to improve the photography


Oh Mike, you don't really believe that, do you? More like a thinly veiled excuse to make us all drool ourselves dry... :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (8 Feb 2006)

Alf":3qaoosod said:


> MikeW":3qaoosod said:
> 
> 
> > Oh now BB, the point of the post was in soliciting help to improve the photography
> ...


Well, can't speak to Ian's motive--but my reaction to the photos made me need a towel...

As much as I like the photos of the completed planes, the wip pictures and even the saga of building the milling setup were even more fascintaing to me.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Ian Dalziel (9 Feb 2006)

Alf":26rg3x3d said:


> MikeW":26rg3x3d said:
> 
> 
> > Oh now BB, the point of the post was in soliciting help to improve the photography
> ...



Honest really it was help with the photos :lol: ...which i am most grateful for....i have just stopped drooling....i've been working with Karl Holtey for the last couple of days....hes building a batch of A13's and after inspection i'm still a bit to go but i've learned a lot..an awful lot. I'll do another post on it over the next few days


----------

