Oak bowl-Piccy question.

[Paul.J]

Thanks all for your advice much appreciated
I have been having a tinker with all what you have said,and here is the result.I think it is better. :?
Again just using natural light,on a tripod,using the self timer,set on Aperture priority at f8,which seems to be my highest setting.
I am pleased with the colours now as well as they look more natural,using the box

 

[Jenx]

Not too sure if 'digitals' suffer the same phenomenon, but certainly with 'film' the light has a dramatic effect -- light has a "colour temperature" ... tungsten filament bulbs will always generate a light that is very 'orangey', and fluorescent tube lighting always generates a light that is very 'green'.
As mentioned above, in the 'old days' .. photo's were best taken with what were called 'daylight corrected' bulbs, which counteracted the effects of either the tungsten, or fluoro bulbs.
- The alternative, was to put a filter over the lens, which 'colour-corrected' the light, assuming the photographer was stuck with tungsten or fluoro light sources.

But I'm not sure if digital cameras, given that the image is electronically captured, as opposed to the way 'film' uses the reaction of tiny crystals ( silver-halides, i think ) to light, perform in the same way.

Possibly worth an 'investigate' !

 

[CHJ]

Jenx, I think you will find most 'digitals' attempt to find a white balance approximation which compensates in most if not all instances for light source colour cast.

The further up the spec scale you go the more likely they are to have the ability to select for colour temperature (light source) or even to measure a grey or white card to set the level manually.

 

[Jenx]

AH ! I did suspect that digitals may be a slightly different ball game ! :lol:

I'm stuck somewhere back in the early 80's !! really must try and get into 'technology' a bit more... I have a digitial camera, but its permanently stuck on 'auto' ....
I should definately try harder... used to enjoy messing about with an OM10 and an OM2, and even had my own darkroom gear ( B&W only certainly ) for a while...

Changed days, eh 8)

Thanks Chas

 

[stevebuk]

and even had my own darkroom gear ( B&W only certainly ) for a while...

Changed days, eh 8)

Did the same Alun, had my own darkroom using B/W stuff i loved it, did a photography course many years ago, but some things you always remember, its like riding a bike.
For B/W you expose for the shadows, colour you expose for the highlights, Photoshop fills the gap between them both... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[CHJ]

Jenx, I'm afraid I let most of it wash over my head these days, as long as the results are adequate that's fine by me.
From the days of developing my own B/W as 10yr old (no electricity so printing was difficult with any consistency) How high was I up the Elm tree for this to Colour neg/transparency developing and printing in the early 60's and enough SLR bodies and lenses to give you back problems stored in the closet, I find the ability to point-shoot-copy and print all in the space of a couple of minutes satisfying enough.

 

[Paul.J]

CHJ wrote

I find the ability to point-shoot-copy and print all in the space of a couple of minutes satisfying enough.

I couldn't agree more Chas,but i think when you are trying to put a piccy on to show how nice the worked piece is,piccys like the one i've shown don't do the piece justice,and sort of spoils it.
I never used to have the focusing problem it is just something i've noticed recently,and have spent quite some time trying to get a decent enough piccy just to show.
After seeing some of the wonderful crystal clear piccys lately by other members it just made me re-think on what i was trying to do :roll:

 

[Jenx]

Cracking 'old shot' of the house there, Chas ! .... great to keep bits of history like that, thats excellent !
Just how high up that tree were you ? looks 'scarily high' !!!

I really got 'into' the B&W thing in my early 20's ... managed to 'inveegle' my pal into it at the time, and he eventually became a lecturer in it at Napier College in Edinburgh, having started life off as a dyslexic HGV mechanic ! ( nothing like a radical career change ! ) ....
and, as perhaps a sign of the times.. he now doesn't lecture at all ... and tells me ( although I don't see him very often since we moved up to where we are now ), .. that the majority of his knowledge was in processing / printing, and of course, there is just no call for it anymore.

Like you say.. I too love my little digital camera... so easy to use and then transfer to CD's or the laptop .. but something I do miss, and I suppose we 'could' do it, but for some reason just 'don't', is looking through photo-albums and also at slides. Its sort of 'died off' as a thing people do with the coming of the digital stuff. Seems a shame in a way.. I used to like filling up and looking at albums.
It was almost like a 'family event' every few months or so to dig them out and put the 'new stuff' in - and look back on the existing pics.
I suppose it could still be done, but like many people I suppose, we don't do it. -- Perhaps we should make the effort and get prints made. !

Super 'old' photo that one... lovely to see :lol:

 

[duncanh]

Thanks all for your advice much appreciated
I have been having a tinker with all what you have said,and here is the result.I think it is better. :?
Again just using natural light,on a tripod,using the self timer,set on Aperture priority at f8,which seems to be my highest setting.

You may be limited to f8 because you've zoomed in. If you zoom out and rely on actually moving the camera back and forth to get the bowl to fill the frame you will probably find that you can use a slightly higher f stop.

 

[duncanh]

The further up the spec scale you go the more likely they are to have the ability to select for colour temperature (light source) or even to measure a grey or white card to set the level manually.

For all my shots I use the custom white balance setting by taking a shot of just the white background in my light tent.
And I try to take all my shots using natural light only

 

[CHJ]

........
Just how high up that tree were you ? looks 'scarily high'

About 60ft I would imagine Jenx, I had been even further up, 90ft + to fix my aerial, you can just see it running down to my bedroom window.

You can see The tree in this shottaken off the end of one of the barns.

Amazing what you can do with a little Kodak folding 120 camera.


Sorry for hijacking your thread Paul, in nostalgia mode.

 

[CHJ]

For all my shots I use the custom white balance setting by taking a shot of just the white background in my light tent.

I sometimes do sometimes don't, auto setting background colour shading looks more appropriate with some items, just me I guess.

And I try to take all my shots using natural light only

Used to do that but got so fed up with having to wait until good daylight conditions I now use a couple of daylight low energy bulbs (total 300watt eqiv.)

 

[boysie39]

Jeez, woodturning is very complicated. Boysie

 

[Hans]

@paul: The picture of the oak bowl shows off the wood very well, being sharp where it counts. The color seems natural, as far as you can tell afterwards. No ugly harsh shadows. Full marks. I wish all the woodturners that send in pictures for our website would do as well.

@jenx and others: My start in photography was in a dark-room about 55 years ago. I developed a passion for photography and at some point even contemplated turning pro. When colour slides took over my interest waned. I think manipulation in the dark-room was essential for me. A couple of years ago my wife wanted a small digital camera. Once I discovered the possibilities of the digital dark-room I was sold. Since a few years I use a Nikon D70, some flashlights and an umbrella for most pictures of turnings. The flash give constant colors and avoid any blur caused by camera movement. All pictures are processed from raw, usually in Photoshop Elements.
If you liked processing your pictures in the dark-room, I think you should have a look at the possibilities now.

Sorry if this was off topic,

Hans

 

[Paul.J]

Hans wrote

@paul: The picture of the oak bowl shows off the wood very well, being sharp where it counts. The color seems natural, as far as you can tell afterwards. No ugly harsh shadows. Full marks. I wish all the woodturners that send in pictures for our website would do as well.

Thank you Hans.I feel happier with the second piccy now,so will try the same methods for the rest of my piccys.

 

[Jenx]

Turned into a really interesting thread....
we wandered a bit off the topic ( Sorry Paul ! :wink: 8) ) but there's alot of great info there regarding the photography part... and I think its excellent to hear about a bit of people's history too... as per Hans / Chas there /... a wonderful insight into the people behind the words.
Makes great reading.. 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

 

[Paul.J]

Jenx wrote

we wandered a bit off the topic ( Sorry Paul !

No problem Alun.It as helped me and others i hope
Chas is that old Elm still there :?: or did it go like most others
I used to love climbing trees when i were a lad,no trouble at all.But now i am scared of heights :shock:
I was also sort of into photography at one time,and was given a complete darkroom outfit off my old foreman,which i never got round to using.
This was all sold on when we moved house.

 

[CHJ]

Chas is that old Elm still there :?: or did it go like most others...

Went the way of all the others I'm afraid,

Just a clean hedgerow now, down the centre of this image.


We lost two in a storm 1946-7 but there were still six in the row before the DE hit.