# Kicking off this forum



## Daniel

I for one am very pleased to see this topic added to the forums.
Often times photograghing our work can be frustrating to the novis as well as the expert penturner. Photography would not be one of those skills that woudl come to mind when concedering making pens. but to participate in a Internet based group such as this it becomes important in short order. It is much quicker and simpler to upload a picture of Work, Jigs, Techniques and on and on than try to describe them in writing.
For the beginner there is already the overwhelming task of selecting equipment, choosing suppliers, selecting there first pen style and wood, then focusing. researching various finishes and then actually setting about overcomeing the raw skills needed to actuall produce a pen. they are often then extrememly excited about this accoplishment only to run head long into the inability to capture the item on a camera accuratly.
  the form of photography used to take pictures of pens is semi specialized itself, Know as "Macro Photography" this is the same method used to take Close up pictures of Insects and flowers among other things. not to be confused with Micro photography.
  Camera settings, the ability for various cameras to Automatically adjust for this seting, as well as having a camera that can take a Macro Potograph. all become issues that the average photographer has never had to consider. mush less set up a shot for.
  I would hope that the more accomplished members in this area would add there hard learned lessons to this forum so that others will not have to repeat the mistakes and can more quickly use what does work.
  one of the first things I learned about my Digital camera was the light compinsation settings. different light sources add different colors to the image. I did a test with my camersa by taking a picture of a plain white piece of paper with the camera set on each of its various settings. this was the result. remember the photos where being taken under an incondescent light.

*Image Insert:*




 11.44KB
Well that at least is a start.


----------



## Rudy Vey

Dan,
can only read the middle line: daylight, auto and shade.
What are the others?? I assume that the background was the same in all cases???

Rudy


----------



## Daniel

Rudy,
  the background is the same in all of them. it is a white sheet of paper. the subject is also the same. the only thing I changed was the light correction setting on my camera. from left to right top to bottom they are
Incondescent, Florescent 1, florescent 2, Daylight (outdoor),Auto, Shade,
and florescent 3.
the different florescent settings compensate for differing florescent lights, such as cool white. color correcting, etc. good luck figuring out just what florescent you are under. but knowing that this one setting can change the color of a photo this much helps alot in figuring out what is wrong with your pen photos. notice tha the Auto setting does not correct well in Macro photos. most of the Auto features on a camera will not. including focus in many cases.
even in th ecase of the first photo, (incondescent) with the picture being taken under incondescent light the paper comes out very Grey.
all cameras including digital expose for a grey tone. this can be eliminated with other methods of reading the shot and adjusting the camera. but unless you are taking pictures for a catalogue or something this usually would be beyond the interest of the average pen picture taker. knowing that you have to have the camera set for the right adjustment to get accurate colors is far more important.
I will try to put together a must have list for a camera that you would use for taking pen pictures.


----------



## jeff

Folks, you have to be careful around here.  Display the slightest bit of expertise on a subject, and whammo!, you get tapped to do some work. []  I've asked Daniel to moderate this new forum, which basically means he's the janitor (how's that for flattering, Daniel!) 

Because this forum is such a focused (pun intended!) subject area, I think we have an opportunity to build a nice database of expertise, equipment reviews, how-to's, etc. from the discussions here.  Daniel's mission is to keep an eye on the discussions and identify and capture the things that belong in a FAQ or reference database, and to bring up new and interesting pen photography related subjects that don't get raised by others.

Thanks, Daniel for accepting this. 

The rest of you, look out!  I'm hunting for more moderators. []


----------



## timdaleiden

Congrats Daniel, I hope you know you have your work cut out for you. There is a lot involved in taking a good pen picture. Then there is photo editing too. I wonder if you ever did any stuff like this. 

<b>Image Insert:</b><br />

<br /> 18.68&nbsp;KB

  It was taken against a plain white background, and then later auto cropped out, and replaced with a fill background. 

  Oh, and Jeff, if you need anybody to moderate the "glue yourself to stuff forum", I consider myself quite an expert. []


----------



## RussFairfield

The photos that are made by laying the pen on a scanner are better than those from a lot of cameras. A lot of things can be done with various backgrounds, both paper and cloth. 

The resulting foto can be too high a contrast, but that can be corrected with an editing software.


----------



## sparks

> _Originally posted by timdaleiden_Oh, and Jeff, if you need anybody to moderate the "glue yourself to stuff forum", I consider myself quite an expert. []


Well, that implies some UNglue yourself expertise, so I bet we have a job for you []


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by sparks_
> <br />
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by timdaleiden_Oh, and Jeff, if you need anybody to moderate the "glue yourself to stuff forum", I consider myself quite an expert. []
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that implies some UNglue yourself expertise, so I bet we have a job for you []
Click to expand...


  Are you saying that I can unglue myself of all of this stuff? That is good news. []


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by RussFairfield_
> <br />The photos that are made by laying the pen on a scanner are better than those from a lot of cameras. A lot of things can be done with various backgrounds, both paper and cloth.
> 
> The resulting foto can be too high a contrast, but that can be corrected with an editing software.



  Russ, 
  I have tried this several times with really poor results. I can see the part of the pen nearest to the scanner bed with great clarity. I even scanned one tonight at 1200 DPI, and produced an image that was about 100mg. The part of the pen that was not touching the scanner bed was out of focus. Am I missing something here?


----------



## tipusnr

What type of scanner are you using?  My CanonScan FB 620P won't accept anything as thick as a pen. Never really thought about using the scanner before so have a couple of thoughts in mind as to some type of shroud or box to cover the scanning bed and pen while providing a background for the image.  

Will try to get with it this week and post results but if any of you beat me to it...let me know how it worked.


----------



## RussFairfield

It has been awhile since I have taken any photos with a scanner, but I will do it again and post the results when we get back home later in the week. Right now we are still 500 miles away, but working our way back in that direction. 

I didn't say they were a perfect phptograph, but they can be better than some of those from an inexpensive camera


----------



## fhinde

All of my photo's in my album were done with my Epson scanner. It is their stylus CX5200 all-in-one printer/copier/scanner.  I have an old Minolta Dimage V camera that I would use but it is a hassle to download the pictures through the serial port. And did I say slow. Someday I will get one of those 7 types of memory card readers and speed things up. Meanwhile the scanner is doing an ok job just for information type posts.


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by fhinde_
> <br />All of my photo's in my album were done with my Epson scanner. It is their stylus CX5200 all-in-one printer/copier/scanner.  I have an old Minolta Dimage V camera that I would use but it is a hassle to download the pictures through the serial port. And did I say slow. Someday I will get one of those 7 types of memory card readers and speed things up. Meanwhile the scanner is doing an ok job just for information type posts.



  Actually, your album looks good. I have a Canon lide20 and it works great for paper scanning, but for pens, it just doesn't work very well. Do you change the settings for scanning pens?


----------



## Daniel

Russ, I have seen alot of posts about using a scanner. I have never tried it but in my openion it is anouther method of capturing an image of a pen, and in my thinking a lower cost alternative for the beginner.
any advice you can add to this forum on the technique would be greatly appreciated as I don't know much only what I have seen others say.
one limitation that comes to mind, and has also become an issue with the closed end fountain pen. is choice of background. this would not be as much of an issue when selecting between Leather and graph paper, as is this case. But say taking a picture with the pen resting on a piece of drift wood would be a little challenging.

 Tim,
  I don't know nearly as much about the computer side of digital photography. Basically I am a 35mm guy that was forced into the electronic medium. I have a greater understanding of how a camera sees things and digital cameras at least try to memic that. there are enough suttle differences to make it a whole new learning process.
as far as the added backgrounds. i have toyed with them some. look at the headline photo on my web sight. the light flash was added and I can't remember what else any more. But just as I said to Russ above anything you can add in this area is very welcome. I pretty much Auto adjust my photos. that's probably why I have become such a fanatic about getting a good image right out of the can. 



> _Originally posted by RussFairfield_
> <br />The photos that are made by laying the pen on a scanner are better than those from a lot of cameras. A lot of things can be done with various backgrounds, both paper and cloth.


----------



## timdaleiden

Daniel,
  I only recently started deleting the background out and replacing it. It is an extra step as you point out. I like that I can add other views in the same picture without making it look too awkward. Again, this is extra work. 

  As for lighting, I know many people prefer a natural outside source, preferably overcast. The flash (when used indoors) seems to produce an undesirable shadow. 

  I wonder if anybody has ever used a small mirror behind the pen, to reflect the flash light back onto the pen.


----------



## fhinde

> _Originally posted by timdaleiden_
> <br />
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fhinde_
> <br />All of my photo's in my album were done with my Epson scanner. It is their stylus CX5200 all-in-one printer/copier/scanner.  I have an old Minolta Dimage V camera that I would use but it is a hassle to download the pictures through the serial port. And did I say slow. Someday I will get one of those 7 types of memory card readers and speed things up. Meanwhile the scanner is doing an ok job just for information type posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your album looks good. I have a Canon lide20 and it works great for paper scanning, but for pens, it just doesn't work very well. Do you change the settings for scanning pens?
Click to expand...


Tim,
The only change I make is to use a gray paper as the background. I think that helps. Mine does have choices of color photo or color print when scanning and I use the color photo setting.


----------



## melchioe

I never thought of using a scanner for this purpose before, and I tried it with my UMAX Astra - got fuzzy on the parts of the pen further from the scanner bed.  I'm guessing it has to do with the depth of field of the scanner element - the amount of light a photgraphic element gathers (known as the f-stop on most cameras) is governs how much of a distance from the element is in focus.  A wider aperture (smaller f-stop number) will result in a shallower depth of field.  Dunno if this has any effect on scanners, tho...  Two other things affect depth of field too, being focal length of the lens AND the distance from the camera to the subject.  My best guess is that the distance from the scanner element to the various parts of the pen is the controlling factor, and some elements just have a greater focal length.


----------



## Daniel

Tim, Overcast outdoor lighting has long been recognized as one of the best lighting situations. I have a couple of photos of my parents house that one was taken on an overcast day and one ws tken on a bright sunny day. i will edit them to fit on this forum and post them so others can see the differnce for themselves. Recreating the overcast conditions in the studio is the reson for all the reflectors screenns boxes and such that you see in studios. ever noticed that a studio points the flash at an umbrella that then bounces the light back at teh subject? this is one way of breaking up the light like an overcast day does. I don't know of any good way of taking a macro photo with the flash directed at the subject. possibly putting a defuser of soem type over the flash.I bounce the flash off the ceiling with my Canon AE-1 but can't do that with my Digital. just so you all know what i have it is the
FUJIFILM S 5000
it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $360.00 with shipping. NOW DON"T GET SCARED AWAY. this camera is a little overkill for taking pen photos. As russ has already pointed out there are other ways to get a photo posted without robbing the bank. I will say right up fron that i do not know of a way to get a good photo with a $100.00 point and shoot camera. I'm not saying it can't be done. but I am so convinced it can't that I didn't even concider them when looking for my camera.
 I still need to get thr spec post done. I want it to include what I concider bare min camera, lighting and such for taking a really good detailed photo of a pen. once it is posted comments and correction are welcome and the post can be adjusted for the group opinion and experience. what I would like for it to eventually become is the overall group statement from all of our experiences adn experimenting. it will be the cover letter for this forum constantly being updated as we joinly learn more about cameras, lighting, set ups, editing, altering backgounds and other special effects and on and on. 
the reason for my camera selection was that it was the lowest cost camera that had the ability to be set for apature priority, shutter priority, full manual, full auto, had a zoom lens (22x) which is way more than is needed. and works in Macro mode. It will also bracket photos adn adjust for various light sources. Now for those that all of that was greek never fear that is what this forum is for. we will in time cover all of them and what each means to the final photo. I wil try to get comparison photos as often as I can find them. they may not actually be of a pen but target toward a specific aspect of photograph. overexposure, underexposure, to much or little contrast, focusing issues. light control, problems with shadows and how to solve them. light tents. recognizing when the tint of a photo is not right and how to correct it. just to name a few. but trust me it does not take long. once you start understanding how a camera "sees" it is easy to change it's glasses so to speak.
Well maybe I should stop talking about what I want to see on this forum and go do something about making it that way.
till next time
ta ta


----------



## tipusnr

If any of you get the American Woodturner magazine (which I'm sure most of you do) it has an article in the Summer 2004 regarding setting up an indoor area for photographing turnings.  The article is by Bob Hawks and is geared toward larger turnings but, if you can't wait for the weather, it might give you some good ideas from someone whose been there.

Beware, it is a little on the costly side and requires room.


----------



## Daniel

Tim,
  I have a "Light Tent" set up that could be used on a dining room table.
A brief description is a File folder Hanger (the metal frameword from a File cabinet drawer) covered with a cloth diaper. (stop laughing I use them for polishing cloths for my guitars so it was handy) but any white cloth woudl do, old sheets, a clean t-shirt (one thickness) you name it as long as it covers the frame on three sides and the top. you could also use colored cloths for specia effects but that is anouther topic.
I set the file frame on the floor.(I don't have a dining room table what withthe lathe and band saw and all there just isn't room...that was a joke) anyway I cover the frame with the cloth leaving the fron side open. I put down whatever background cloth etc that I want in the photo and then put the pen on that. I aim two 500 watt Halogen shop lights (less than $10.00 apiece at Home Depot) through the cloth at the pen. one from the back and one from the front. The front light has to have anouther cloth or piece of paper between it and the pen to break up the light from it. by adjusting the distance of the two lights I get the shadows evened out on each side of the pen. Walla... overcast day at my disposal. my camera sets on a tripod (If you don't have one this could be the expensive part but deals can be found) and I can set and just snap picture after picture just changing the pen for each one. I have taken over 60 consecutive shots in one setting before. Backgrounds are easy to change. and as long as you don't move anything the pictures are all the same once you get the fiddling out of the way. Low cost. breaks down to be stored till it is almost no existant. and sets up in about 15 minutes once you have an idea of the distances you need. actually for 500 watt lights they set very close to the subject. something like 16 inches. adn I mean 16 inches from the pen not the frame. I actually did soem taest for various distances for the front and back lights and my favorite came out. 16-18 inches from the pen for the back light and 12-14 inches for the front. the camera sets way back. about three feet or even more. thsi is what challenges a table to hold it all. and I zoom in to the subject. corners of the lights and the frame showing do not matter that much at this point as the picture will be cropped later.
again anouther subject.
the cloth layes over the


----------



## fmunday

Ok.  Lots of nice neat information here but, so far, little that I can put to use with the on going problems I have with taking shots of the pens that I turn.  I've tried the scanner method but find that it doesn't work for me.  The depth-of-field is not great enough to show the pen completely in focus on my HP 6200C.  I've used several different types of background when scanning but still no joy.  Pens are still not in focus.  Focus isn't really a problem with the digital camera.  Aside from  the zoom features on digital cameras, the optics are not that much better than you will find on a cheap point-and-click camera.  Part of the problems that I have are with the size and the "feel" of the digital.  If you are a long term user of 35mm or 2-1/4 then you probably know what I mean by feel.  Some cameras just "feel" right.  To me, a Leica (M2 - M5), Nikon F, Mamiya TLR's, Yashica and Minolta cameras always had the right feel.  Over the years I've owned examples or all of these except Leica.  I could never afford a Leica. []  I know my way around a camera (film) and doubt that I would have any problems with pen photos with my current 35mm (Minolta Maxxum 9000).  My Cannon Power Shot 230 is another story.  I can't seem to ever get it right with that camera.[]  It isn't the highest resolution (3.2 Mega Pixel) but that should be sufficient to display on a computer screen.  More than once, I've filled entire 256MB CF cards with junk hires photos.  I've just about given up on ever being able to produce a decent image with that camera.  I'm giving some serious thought to breaking out the Minolta, taking the pictures with it and scanning them in and posting those.  Before I do that I'm going back for one more RTFM session.  Considering that this is a community forum, that means "Read The Fine Manual".  If you put any other meaning to that... you're wrong! []  
I'm really starting to think that this may be psychological.  I don't like digital cameras in general and this one in particular.  I haven't seen a high end digital that is on a par with even a mediocre film camera in terms of resolution, color rendition or quality of the finished product.  I hope someone in this forum can give me that one piece of information that will act as a keystone and get everything to fall into place.
I suppose I could always go get another camera but that would take away from the $$$ I can spend on pen turning and that ain't gonna happen!!! []


----------



## tipusnr

Fred,

I'm no expert in much of anything but it sounds like a mental barrier to me.  I suggest you do as I intend to do. Keep reading and applying as much of the information to the tools at hand to get, not the best picture, but the best picture available to you.

I have what is probably the cheapest digital camera out there, aged so that memory cards for it are no longer sold.  With it I take fair representations of the pens I make.  If that means my pens lack in recognition and/or appreciation because of the graphics then so be it.  These are NOT my pens but only images of them which I share with you all rather than offer in competition.

Ease up and things will happen.  Your pens, and the uploaded images of them, are works worthy of recognition.[]


----------



## Scott

Hi Fred,

I know what you mean about the "feel" of a camera!  I've always been partial to Nikons, but started out with a Minolta.  Digitals feel pretty cheesy compared to a real camera!  Digitals are obviously not engineered for the same purpose - fine photography.  They really are little more than a basic point-and-shoot camera.  They are designed for uneducated people to be able to use "off-the-cuff" - grab the camera, snap the shot, and have it turn out OK.

So if you were to grab a cheapo 35mm point-and-shoot camera, you wouldn't really expect it to take as good of pictures as your nice Minolta, right?  My theory is that your expectations are too high.  The digital camera you have is supposed to be a nice one.  Work within it's limitations, and don't expect perfection!  Use that manual, and find out how you tweak the focus on close-ups!  That is the primary concern for a digital, is the focus.  Almost anything else can be corrected with decent photo editing software.  If the manual doesn't help, there are forums on the Internet for almost every species of digital camera.  Check them out and ask the questions.

There is nothing wrong with using your good camera, then scanning the photos.  But the digitals were built for convenience, and you might as well take advantage of that convenience.  Trust that your digital can perform to the level you need for pen photos, and realize that level will not be the same as with your Minolta!

Scott.


----------



## Daniel

Fred,
  The knowledge you have concerning the 35mm, did not come without practice and learning. I know that is where I come from. and I have found that no matter how much you understand the Digital Camera. it simply does not work as I anticipate it will. I am learning though. One advantage to the digital. is once you have purchased the Camera. the pictures are basically free. So practice, Alot, On everything. 
So far the information on this forum only scratches the surface. It is beginningto look like a series of Articals written by me though adn I don't want it to take that direction. If I need to write an artical then I will and put it in the artical section.
 Most of the garbage in my pictures has been do to what I call needed more "Programming in the Camera" as well as the mess Macro Pkotography will make of any photo. I can go outside on a cloudy day and get a great Macro shot by just point and shoot with either my Canon 35mm or my Finepix Digital. the problem for me lies in recreating that situation when and where I need it. Believe it or not, most of my Digital problems are caused by the camera being to Auto and not getting it right. I am not a great master of Digital Photography, just look at many pictures of my pens on my web sight or on the various forums. But I am searching everywhere for information, I ahve alot of 35mm experience, I understand alot of how a camera acts in various situations. adn I ahve seen inprovment in a couple of other peoples photos by simply looking at one of there photos and making some suggestions jsut once. what i hope to see amoung the penturners as a whole is consistant, adn effective information for beginners and old timers alike. Ask penturners about Finishes. and you will get variation, but with a strong undercurrent of unity in what works what doesn't and what not to waste your time with.
there are experiments that develope new finishes, some meeting with more popularity than others. then there are the finishes that even though they look great even the inventor wouldn't try it again.
 I also have this "Block" withthe 35mm. it is deeply ingrained that a small light camera is a cheap camera. I am used to the full fisted fell of my Canon. I can't change lenses on the Fine pix, adn I miss that. for really outstanding shhots I really believe I woudl have to return to the 35mm for now. but I will not give up on the Digital. I have seen alot of imptovment with it. I an pretty much get a palatable photo any time I want. adn still have tricks up my sleeve. but like everything else it takes tiem to drag everything out, set it up and start shooting. so alot of it remains only ideas.
It woudl be helpful if you pointed out just what you are not happy with in your current photos. Colors wrong, Exposure wrong, out of focus, blurry from movement, Or that ever elusive, they just are not right. not what you anticipate them to be.


----------



## leenollie

Greetings all,

I have been taking photos for many years, both film (Pentax K1000) and digital (HP Photosmart 310 2.1 M-pixel), but still consider myself a _very_ green novice. I have a few questions I'd like to ask the more veteran shooters:

What media is better, film or digital?

Do they have a process of turning film pictures into digital?

What type of lighting is best for shooting indoors, Incandescent of Flourescent?

I have read several books on beginning photography and while one book says one thing, another contradicts it. I would like to produce the best pictures I can to show off my work and any help given would be greatly appreciated. 

Lee Biggers
The ever curious pen turner []


----------



## melchioe

&gt;What media is better, film or digital?
Media is not really the differentiator, in my opinion.  It really depends on what you want to do with the end result, and how much you want it to be an exact duplicate of reality versus conveying a "feeling" about the subject.  Film cameras depend on film to produce the pictures (obviously), and different films have different characteristics.  I experimented for a while with using film used in movie cameras for taking still pics, and I wound up with some very "warm" looking photos.  Different films have different "graininess" levels, and different color balance characterisitics.  Digital photos with one camera tend to be more similar in color characteristics, since you do not have the option to replace the CCD  (the part that captures the light) in the camera with another.  Different CCDS DO have different color balance characterisics.  I have a camcorder with 3 CCDs, Red, Green and Blue, and I get MUCH better color reproduction with that camcorder than with another by the same mfgr with only one CCD.

Digital pics offer much quicker gratification, tend to be less expensive over time, and are much less adjustable.  Digital cameras with interchangable lenses and the same options that film cameras have had for decades are still far too expensive for most consumers (myself included).  I want a camera I can use my old Leica lenses on, or my old Canon lenses on, or new ones that have the depth of field graphs on the focus tube, and the ability to manually focus.  THe depth of field discussions we have seen in other places on this site really make me nostalgic for my film cameras, especially when doing macro photography of pens.

The short answer is that they are both good.


----------



## melchioe

&gt;Do they have a process of turning film pictures into digital?

The best thing for this is a scanner.  Most people use the final picture to scan into a digital picture, but I am a fan of scanning the negative rather than the print.  The paper the picture is printed on introduces color variations much like film does (see my previous post for some more words on that).  So if one is interested in retaining the original color balance, it might be better to scan the negative.  The downside is that scanners that can handle negatives are definitely more expensive than simple color scanners.  My Umax Astra cost me about $5 after rebate.  Film scanners cost range from $500 to $2000, with some around $6000.  (I personally define film scanners as needing at least 3600 x 3600 resolution to make a difference).  Add to that you have to deal with negative images and digital photo manipulation, and it adds up to: If you are not an imaging professional, stick with the inexpensive ($100 or less) scanners and you'll find some excellent results.

Most scanners sold today at a Best Buy or other electronics retailer will be USB units, will probably just plug into a reasonably new computer using Windows 2000 or XP, and just work.  They almost always come with some easy to use image editing software that will both allow you to scan the images and edit them a bit (cropping borders, making them brighter, more fuzzy, and putting some interesting borders around them, as well as getting rid of red-eye or stuff like that for people photography.)


----------



## Daniel

GO Ed,
 Nice to have your comments, keep them coming.


----------



## fmunday

> _Originally posted by tipusnr_
> <br />Fred,
> 
> I'm no expert in much of anything but it sounds like a mental barrier to me.


I couldn't agree more!  I wasn't in favor of going to a digital camera in the first place but was pretty much forced into it. One of those, "If Mama ain't happy, Nobody's happy!" situations. []  Then the small size, lack or real control poorly written manual and obscure icons that carry different meanings with different modes.  Yup, I have to agree, I have a mental block when it comes to the digital camera.  





> I suggest you do as I intend to do. Keep reading and applying as much of the information to the tools at hand to get, not the best picture, but the best picture available to you.


 I'm trying to do just that.  I've got my bifocals on and my magnifying glass out and I'm rereading the manual cover to cover.  It's bad enough that they make the cameras so small that they don't fit your hand if you're older than 6 or 7 but they have to make the manuals just as small.[]



> Ease up and things will happen.  Your pens, and the uploaded images of them, are works worthy of recognition.[]


 I don't know how worthy the pens are.  I've only created one image that I thought was worth anything at all and Scott/Jeff have it along with some others that my wife took for a BLO/CA article.  "Ease up" is probably the best advise I've received.  I tend to be my own worst critic and I suppose it is possible that I have been being overly critical of my efforts.  I have done a lot of playing around with this camera trying to perfect some sort of technique.  Man, I'm glad I'm not doing that with a film camera.  I would have to take out a 2nd mortgage on the house just to pay for the film and processing![]  That is one really good thing to be said for digital cameras.  Part of my frustration with this comes from the fact that I need to get a Web Site up and running.  I've lost a couple of good sales (looks like it would have been multiple pens/$$$) because I didn't have that available.  The pressure to get that going is getting pretty great.  If I don't, Mama won't let me play with my lathe any more.[]  I'm going to go over to the show off your pens forum and post that image and see what kind of response I get.


----------



## Daniel

Fred,
  Maybe this will help cut to the chase soem for you. given your experience with 35mm soem if ot all of this may be unnecessary. But being unablt to be right there to see what youare doing I will include every step. You will still need the manual to tell you the specifics for your camera if they can be done at all.

1. set the white balance for your camera to incondescent.
2. use two very bright lights, I use 500watt. defused by shining through cloth or copier paper.
3. put the camera on macro mode. if it does not have macro then place camera the min. focusing distance for the camera or lens.
4. use a tripod.
5. expose for the Pen not the background. this means if you have a dark background you need to bracket the exposure up a half step or even a whole step.if the background is light then bracket down there are a whole series of photos in the photo album that
I tried to get premision to use detailing this effect but havn't heard back form the owner yet.
6. if you cannot bracket or manually set shutter speed or apateur then I am not sure what to tell you.
7. when shooting clase ups of little things do everything you can to control flare. surround the subject with balck paper. use a lens hood or make one out of dark paper. I have even made a wall that I put the lens of my camera through of balck poster board. the idea is to soak up any light that reflects of the white cloth or pen before it get into the lens of the camera. I suspect this is the primary reason you are not happy with the quality of your images. I also suspect you are not just loking for viewable images, but are looking for excellent images.
8. experiment with reflectors. these can be as simple of pieces of white cardboard. but are great for fill lighting to kill shadows etc. and are cheaper and easier than extra flash.
the set up.
  place one light behind the image and a little off to the side
place a second light in front of the image a bit closer than the back one is so that shadows will fall behind it if there are any. this light will also be off to the side just a bit but usually the opposite side as the back light. 
 let the camera auto focus for the first shot. if it doesnot get the proper focus then you will have to manually focus the shot.
 Use a tripod. and hopefully you have a zoom lens. if so set camera up as far back as you can and zoom to fill the frame. for some reason this works better the focus is usually better adn color records more accuratly. it also closes up the depth of field and gives that loss of depth effect found in so many good photos. pulling in the background.

Hope something in that gets you onto whatever is not happening in your photos.


----------



## pecartus

Okay Daniel,

Great stuff here about cameras, but I am confused, okay I have a Digital camera (actually a digital video camera) that takes still pictures, Do I still use the the same setup you would use for a 35mm or is the lighting techniques different. I had at one time thought I had figured this out, but when trying to take my first CA finish pen photo today it came out bright and blurry even after I adjusted focus and backlighting. I am wondering if I don't need to go the tent route to defuse lighting and stop using the camera backlite system. So I guess, help, any suggestions?


----------



## Daniel

Patrick,
  I am not sure what you are doing as a Backlight system. true backlite is a bad thing. the only thing I can think of is my mentioning reflectors. these are used in addition to the tent. but the tent should be used for any pictures or your light will be to bright. the reflections from the metal parts will flash and wash out the image. see the daylight comparison thread. also light backgrounds cause problems for getting detail and this has to be compensated for by overexposing the picture. but there has not been much conversation about that.
anything that breaks up the light will work a piece of paper between the light and pen. whatever causes a soft light to fall on the pen. then work to get rid of any shadows or at least dark shadows. a few light ones are good it helps our eye formulate depth but details get lost in dark shadowas and this starts looking wrong to us. the idea I always look for is to see a shadow but still be able to see the detail in the background. the color texture any print patterns etc.


----------



## pecartus

The backlite is a function within the digital camera I have, it seems to work will on occasion, but lately to get better pen pictures, I have notice a lot of wash out from the lights. I am going to try the overcast sky idea, we have had a heck of a lot of thunderstorms rolling through in the early evening hours for the past 4 days, more of the same tomorrow. will get out between rain drops and try your suggestion out. I have quite few pens I have made over the past few weeks and of course the first CA finish pen I did to show.


----------



## Daniel

O.K I get it. sometimes you have to hit me pretty hard to wake me up. I was thinking you where intentionally backlighting the pen. Duh.
Well so you can understand your camera a little better i will explain what the backlight function does.
  when your subject is backlit.(the light source is comeing from behind the subject) the exposure tends to be to little for the thing you are trying to get a picture of. so the pen, person or whatever comes out dark or even just a silouhette. while the bright backlight is in perfect clarity. 
  the backlight function automatically overexposes the picture. this causes the background to be all washed out but the subject is not as dark.
 usually by a half step or something like that. But then is this enough? sometimes but as you have seen not always. this is where bracketing is a much better thing to learn to do. bracketing is taking the pisture at the settings your camera thinks the picture should be taken at and then telling it to overexpose by one step. and then two steps etc. then you can choose the picture that came out the best. this should be something like exposure compensation in your owners manual. 
 now if the pen is throwing off shiny places from the metal parts. the backlight setting will actually make things worse. You have to do something to get wrid of the bright reflections from the pen itself. or you will just record them and adjusting the camera as I suggest above means you will record them even brighter than they really are. underexposing to reduce the bright flashes causes the pen to be so dark you can't see anything. this is the job of the light tent. to kill all the bright spots on the pens metal parts. it's glass shiny finish etc. and make all the areas evenly lit.
think of light as spray paint . and even though it happens very fast. this spray is getting on the film when the shutter opens. the brighter the light the more paint gets on the film. the less light the less paint. but whatever light goes through the lens while the shutter is open is going to be on the film.
 All of my photography comments have been in relation to a Digital camera. instead of film a digital camera has light sensitive cells. but for our pourposes they work the same as film. 
 A litte time going through our owners manual will help alot. If you have been reading my posts and learning anything from them then reading your manual will be a new experience in how to use your camera. the functions will start actually meaning something.


----------



## pecartus

Thanks for your information and yes re-reading that novel, things make a little more sense. I do have a lot questions regarding pictures and working with the software espcially with larger items. I build pool tables and game/poker tables. Since I don't have a studio to set these items up in, I have to take pictures with alot of background in them, such as tools and other work shop items. I was wondering how you could wash out the back ground and maintain the subject matter in tac. I know this can be done but i havent been successful with it via the software I use. Curious if others have done this and what software packages they were using [?]


----------



## Daniel

Patrick
Look in timdaleiden's Album at his most recent photos.


----------



## pecartus

Okay, so this is what I have to achieve, drop in background photos. Great pictures and very nice pens to boot. Oh, well, I really didnt have anything else better to do. [] Great looking pens Tim !


----------



## timdaleiden

Ok, I set up my first photo tent. I used "3" 500 watt halogen lamps, some wood for a frame, and an old white bed sheet for the cover. The results were not great. I did eliminate most of the shadows, but the pictures came out very yellow. They were so bad, I could not correct them with my software. I am very disappointed. 

  My camera's built in flash will not work when exposed to the brightness of these lights. I am thinking that it would be easier overall to use some sort of filter material over the grills on my lights, and forget about the tent. Any suggestions about what material might work for a filter????


----------



## Daniel

Tim,
 Did you set the white balance on your camera for Incondescent Light?


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by Daniel_
> <br />Tim,
> Did you set the white balance on your camera for Incondescent Light?



 Daniel, 

  I have a Kodak DC215. I do not have an incandecent setting that I am aware of. There is an exposure compensation setting that can be adjusted when it is hooked up to the PC. In this mode there are also flash options, auto, fill, or off. Any help will be appreciated. 

 I do not want to buy another camera. I want good pix from this one. []


----------



## Daniel

The incondescent setting may also be called a white balance. as for any of the settings actually being labled incondescent the maker of your camera may simply call it indoor or something simular.
you may try using the fill flash setting as well, but I am pretty sure the yellowing of your picture is from the artaficial light.


----------



## melchioe

Unfortunately, the DC215, while a nice point and shoot camera, is not especially adjustable.  The only real control is the exposure compensation you mentioned. For that setting, an increase of 1.0 doubles the amount of light allowed into the camera.  Increasing the setting may get rid of some of the yellow effect.  Otherwise, some type of filter (either lens or over the light, as you suggest) might help.

Keep in mind that the monitor introduces color change.  Try viewing the pics on different monitors too.

One other thing to keep in mind - old sheets, even perfectly clean (or even NEW) might not really be white - they might be off-white or cream, tending toward yellow.  Look critically at the color of the sheets and see if that might be affecting the look.

You should be able to get a good picture with that camera - I had one a few years back, and it worked great, and our graphics artists liked it pretty well too.  The nice thing about playing with light filters and such is that you can take as many pics as you like and additional pictures won't cost anything.


----------



## tipusnr

In case you get to feeling that taking these pictures just for posting to a forum is getting to be to much hassle, here are some other uses for the files.

1. I have a screen saver for my computer at work that lets me add my own collections.  It now shows my woodturnings as both the wallpaper and screensaver.

2. I am adding a bulletin board to the shop wall behind my lathe.  That way I can print and post pictures of past pens (that I've given away or sold) and some of your designs for inspiration (or duplication) while doing new turnings.


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by melchioe_
> <br />Unfortunately, the DC215, while a nice point and shoot camera, is not especially adjustable.  The only real control is the exposure compensation you mentioned. For that setting, an increase of 1.0 doubles the amount of light allowed into the camera.  Increasing the setting may get rid of some of the yellow effect.  Otherwise, some type of filter (either lens or over the light, as you suggest) might help.



  I tried a few different things, with no luck so far. I have one more thing I want to try.


----------



## timdaleiden

Ok, I ran one of my yelowish pix through a different program I have, and it turnout out a bit better. I am not completely happy with it, but it is better. 

<b>Image Insert:</b><br />


<br /> 30.19&nbsp;KB


----------



## tipusnr

I like the warmth of this photo.  Gives a nice feel to both the woodgrain and the metal parts.  I can tell you're a perfectionist and say "go for it".  Still this photo does an admiral job of displaying your craftmanship.


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by tipusnr_
> <br />I like the warmth of this photo.  Gives a nice feel to both the woodgrain and the metal parts.  I can tell you're a perfectionist and say "go for it".  Still this photo does an admiral job of displaying your craftmanship.



   Thanks for the compliment. You are right, I am a perfectionist which has led to much misery. [] I really like the pen and stand. The stand is supposed to serve as a paper clip holder as well. The photo still lacks true color and detail in my view. It is nice to see most of the shadows go away though, and as you said it does have a warm feel.


----------



## Daniel

Tim
  Those photos are really getting right in there. certainly considering the limitations of your camera. the most important thing is that you are getting a since of how your camera will record an image unf=der various conditions. Try expeerimenting with various light combinations. try setting a FLorescent lamp sothat soem whiter  light is added in the mix etc. I don't think you will really get it down totoally with a camera you cannot take control over as the adjustments are automatic and it wilil usually only have one choice. but you can get closer to the conditions it can adjust near perfectly for. it's just a harder way to go about it. then there are filters. I will see what I can find that might help in that area.


----------



## melchioe

I second Daniel's idea about perhaps a flourescent light - get some "whiter" light into the mix, and it might make the colors more accurate.  The DC215 simply wasn't designed with accurate color reproduction in mind, so to get more accurate colors, you have to compensate for the design limits of the camera by altering the light source or using filters.


----------



## melchioe

Light-balancing filters let you make minor adjustments in the color quality of illumination.  The color balance jargon includes cooler (bluer) or warmer (yellower). The jargon also refers to color temerature, and to get accurate conversions, you must already know the color temperature of the prevailing light (using, of course, a color-temperature meter[]); many filter manufacturers offer detailed charts on how to convert a particular "color temperature" to another color temperature.  

But don't despair, effectively, you can make a photo less yellow by guessing (I prefer the term approximating[8D]).  Essentially, use a blue filter to make the photo less "warm", and a yellow filter to make the photo more "warm".  The photo I saw of yours looks warm (and quite nice, BTW)

You don't need to put the filter on the lens, either - with your camera (Kodak DC215), you'd need a separate system, probably by Cokin, to attach filters to the lens, and that's not cheap.  I'd try getting a 'gel' to cover the light source.  These can be obtained at many professional lighting supply houses - you can try local music stores that sell lights for bands.  Get a gel that is very light blue, and perhaps another that is a little darker blue (but still light), and put it in front of the light when you are taking pictures.  Keep in mind that the 'gel' is designed for very high-intensity lights, and you are probably using much lower power illumination - that's why I suggest the very light blue.

You may also be able to find something around the house to tint the light.  Also, an uncoated (bare glass) incandescent bulb might help too.  Or one of the department stores might have a blue-tinted bulb...

This should give you a chance at reducing the 'warmth' of the pic for not too much money.  And you can use the gels to give mood lighting in your house afterwards...[}]


----------



## Daniel

Ed,
  Thanks for the color suggestions. I have not used much int he way of filters adn woudl have needed to go back to the books to remember what cancels what. and yes color the light source by using gels over the lights. If you cover the lens you have to refigure the exposure even if the filter is a light one. and if your camera cannot be taken off auto this would be a nightmare.


----------



## tipusnr

The small town theatre group I belonged to awhile back used plastic wrap in a pinch for coloring the lights.

I'll bet Saran Wrap would do the job and you could layer it over a cardboard frame until you got the effect you wanted.


Hey look!!! I just made Vice Admiral....I'm gonna call my mommy! She'll be soo proud!


----------



## timdaleiden

> _Originally posted by melchioe_
> <br />Light-balancing filters let you make minor adjustments in the color quality of illumination.  The color balance jargon includes cooler (bluer) or warmer (yellower).



   Thanks for your suggestions, I will give them a shot when I get a chance. Thanks to all others as well for trying to help me. []

  BTW, fellow Wisconsin turner, if you ever have a chance to get up here in Wausau, drop an e-mail ahead of time. I will teach you my patented techniques for CA gluing yourself to stuff. []  Maybe you can show me which end of the camera actually takes the picture. It sounds like you have some experience there.


----------



## melchioe

Tim, I might be able to teach you a few things about gluing myself to things with CA - my favorite so far is when I glued the CA debonder bottle to my hand.  I'm hoping that is the capper to my gluing career, but I know myself and am optimisitic that I may top even that...

Haven't been to Wausau for a while, love the area though.  Next time I'm pointed that direction I'll let you know.  Same to you for the Milwaukee area...


----------

