# DurocShark's Bounce Flash vs Photo Tent



## DurocShark

I did a quick test using a common photo tent technique, and my usual ceiling bounce flash method:

Ceiling bounce flash:







Photo Tent (Camera is at a slightly different angle because I was using a peep hole front):







Bounce flash Pros:
*Super easy and quick
*No gear to set up or store
*Nice highlights show off the finish

Cons:
*Glare
*Less color accuracy
*Can be expensive depending on your camera

Tent Pros:
*Excellent color accuracy
*Flat lighting shows more of the wood instead of the finish
*Lack of glare off metal or high shine finish
*Can be dirt cheap depending on how much stuff around the house can be used

Cons:
*PITA to setup and store
*Flat lighting, less dramatic (A snooted light from above might be able to help add highlights, but I only had 2 lights to use when I did this.)


The top pen is box elder finished with CA/BLO, bottom pen is reclaimed pine finished in lacquer.

So, which photo do you prefer? Any PROs/CONs you want to add or change?


----------



## wood-of-1kind

I like your top photos better than bottom.


----------



## its_virgil

I too like the top (bounce flash) better. I think it is an excellent photograph. Nice job.
Do a goo turn daily!
Don


----------



## ngeb528

The top pic is warmer but the bottom one shows the kit components a lot better. In the top one, the kit color looks a lot darker.  Which one is more accurate?


----------



## Rollerbob

Top photo looks clearer to me, but you seen some of my pics. Don't take my word for it!


----------



## cnirenberg

Don,
The top photo appears to have more of a contrast, possibly due to the wash of the background.  I'm no Ansel Adams, but if I had to choose, I like the top photo.


----------



## jleiwig

neither is really a fair test since they are not in the exact same position.  I also wonder if you had played with the position of your lighting for your second set of photos if it would have eliminated the wash out your getting on the nib end.


----------



## DurocShark

jleiwig said:


> neither is really a fair test since they are not in the exact same position.  I also wonder if you had played with the position of your lighting for your second set of photos if it would have eliminated the wash out your getting on the nib end.



No and yes.

There are a couple of variances. The camera angle changed about 15*. I shot the bounce pic first, and didn't realize I was stuck with a fixed angle due to my peep hole until after I got the pics into the computer. But I doubt that made any difference in the spirit of the comparison. 

The right light was 4" closer than the left due to available clamping surfaces. I could probably play around more, but I think the photos are still a valid comparison. Look at the CB. Exposure was set there for both. 

Thanks for the comment. You're spot on with your observations. I just don't know that I agree about relevance for the purposes of this discussion?


----------



## aggromere

i like the top photo better as well


----------



## rjwolfe3

I like the shine on the top but don't like the dark spots.


----------



## DurocShark

Yeah, I think I need to do the peep hole thing for that too.


----------



## jleiwig

DurocShark said:


> No and yes.
> 
> There are a couple of variances. The camera angle changed about 15*. I shot the bounce pic first, and didn't realize I was stuck with a fixed angle due to my peep hole until after I got the pics into the computer. But I doubt that made any difference in the spirit of the comparison.
> 
> The right light was 4" closer than the left due to available clamping surfaces. I could probably play around more, but I think the photos are still a valid comparison. Look at the CB. Exposure was set there for both.
> 
> Thanks for the comment. You're spot on with your observations. I just don't know that I agree about relevance for the purposes of this discussion?


 
The relevance is that you are attempting to compare two different methods, without standardizing the testing procedures.  Sorry...I do testing and analytics all day! :biggrin: 

To have a valid and repeatable test you need to standardize as many variables as possible between the two test subjects.  Ideally in this situation, camera angle and lumens available would have been the two things to standardize.


----------



## babyblues

It's hard to say which photo is better.  Having those pens in hand, which one would you say looks most like the pens when you're looking at them in person?  Also, my monitor might be calibrated for color a little different than others so it's hard to say if the colors I'm seeing are true to life.  

I think that some glare is good for pen pics because it shows off the finish.  Too much, obviously, obscures the pen.  It's kind of like pictures of wine bottles and such where there is a sliver of light reflected off the side of the bottle.  If you could figure out what angle would give you a sliver of light reflected off the side of the pen, you could show off the finish without hiding the grain of the wood.


----------



## jttheclockman

Try an outdoor shot in the shade and it may top them all.


----------



## wolftat

I have the unique pleasure of being able to look at the pens in my hand and compare them to the photos. So the first photo is showing the true image of the pens, but is leaving a dark shadow on them, maybe another light at a different angle would help. The second photo is washing out a lot of the color from the pens and is taking away from the grain at the same time. If I had to choose which one is a more accurate photo, it would have to be the first picture. The first is also giving a true view of the finishes used on them. They look much better in person though. Thanks Don, you did a great job with them.


----------



## DurocShark

Cool! I didn't think about the fact that I was sending those out. Nice to get a second pair of eyes on them in person.

Thanks for popping in! My son will blush when I tell him you liked the pine one.


----------



## TellicoTurning

Top photo shows your finish better, but the lower photo shows the pens better.. IMO


----------



## TBone

ozmandus said:


> Top photo shows your finish better, but the lower photo shows the pens better.. IMO


 
Agreed, the first shows a slight glare that emphasizes the finish.  The second shows a more clear image of the the center band characters.


----------



## Manny

Please send me those pens to evaluate in person compared to the photo


----------



## jon adams

The second picture looks a bit over exposed.  Try a slower speed or a higher F-stop.


----------



## Stephen

Replace the center band on the top photo with the CB from the second photo!!!  I will love to see that.


----------



## dow

I like the first picture as well.  Someone mentioned that the first image "is leaving a dark shadow on them."  While there is some shadow on the pens, I think that it actually adds to the depth and makes for a better image than the second one.  In the second shot, a couple of things come immediately to mind:


the image is blown out in the area of the nibs.  There's no way to tell for sure where the near side of each nib ends and the white background begins.
The lack of reflection on the pens makes them look very flat.  Flat to the point that, on the near pen, you can't tell if the clip is on the pen, or if it's painted on the pen.
You mentioned glare in the first shot.  The only place that I see any glare that takes away from the picture, is at the cap end of the box elder pen.  There's a blown highlight there, but it's small.  One thing that I don't like in the first shot is the grayish-blueish area between the nibs of the two pens.

Now, if you were to shoot these shots with a dark background, you might find that the second one is better.  I don't know.

Definitely keep bouncing that flash.:biggrin:

Regardless of the pictures, those are both great looking pens.


----------



## DurocShark

New ones. I tried to hit the same overall exposure.


----------

