Photography and bowl critique

[Matt Reagan]

My fellow AAW member Tom Zepeda asked that I photographed his work. This is my first expeience photographing someone's work. I'd love to hear critiques of the photo as well as the piece. Tom expressed interest in the critique as well.

So I'll be first, photo-wise the depth of field is to shallow and lighting underneath the bowl could have been better. I'm still trying to get a good balance with the light... I need to find a way to view the photo while on-site in something other than the small display on the camera. Maybe I'll bring a laptop next time. FWIW, I shot w/ a Canon t2i and a 50mm 1.4 lense at i think f/11 or f8 ISO 200.

As for the bowl, I love it. I have one other walnut bowl that i had lighting issues with, but i'll post that tonight.

I look forward to the comments.

Matt Reagan

 

[Robert Manning]

Nice bowl and nice photo. The background is neutral. That's good. Did you adjust the image on the computer. If so, try for this quality straight from the camera by adjusting white balance, exposure time, and other settings. What lighting are you using?

Lens, fstop, ISO all look good. What's the shutter speed?

Also, I have heard that Cannon DSLRs come with software for shooting tethered to your laptop so you can view images as you shoot them on the big screen.

 

[Steve Worcester]

to me it looks too hot on the left side. Just a little bit on the outside, but the spot on the left inside you loose the detail. I would try the same shot and bracket 1/4 stop increments under for a few shots and maybe even combine if you have software to do it.

 

[MichaelMouse]

Looks like the light responsible for the hot spot on the left created the shadow on the right. If you're using static lighting, maybe bring it in a little lower or from farther out. I just use white reflecting cards to fill in modest shadows in the tent. Bet you could have lost most of it with that simple tactic.

50mm 1.4 EF lens? Wish I could afford one. I've got the 60mm EF-S as my macro. They recommend I don't go beyond f11 looking for depth-of-field on that lens. IS is superfluous for macro work, but it's a great portrait length.

 

[John Torchick]

Lighting could be a bit more even, as previously mentioned. Nice bowl! One of these days, I'm going to try one.

 

[Mark Levitski]

I have little experience w/ photography, but it was suggested somewhere that a background between white and black be chosen to make it easier to deal with the white balance, hotspots, and such.

 

[john lucas]

The light on the right needs to go up. That will bring the highlight down inside the bowl where you won't see it. Since you didn't post a photo of you light set up we don't know what other lights or diffusers you used. It appears you had a fairly bright light from the left which of course casts a shadow on the right side. This can be filled in quite easily with reflectors. Either white cards or even mirrors.
I don't know if your using a light tent of any sort. I demonstrated a very simple trick for this this weekend using a light tent of light box some call it. It's 3 translucent panels set up over the piece. The light came from the left and up fairly high. That lit the inside and left side of the piece but left it a little dark on the right. There are two cures for this. One is to simply move the piece closer to the right side. That way the bounce off that panel is brighter. Or you can simply pick up "raw" light from outside the tent with a reflector or mirror and bounce it back into the right side. By raw light what I mean is light that shines over the panels outside the tent. This light is not diffused by the panels. The I simply use the white reflector card like a mirror and bounce the light coming from the reflector back into the piece. I hope that's clear. I don't have time today to set up a photo and show what i mean but maybe I can do it later in the week.

 

[Bret Hinz]

yeah, you've got the highlights blown into outerspace 🙂

try setting your ISO lower, which will lower your light sensitivity. you should be able to set your camera to display your levels, so that as you see your picture on the display, you will see the levels to the side of it.

i've got a 20D, so mine may be able to do things yours isn't. although, mine is almost 8 years old, and they're up to a 60 or 70 D now.

try lowering your aperture down more. for normal pictures, i shoot between 10-16, while if i'm trying to get a shallow depth of field, i'll go way down. i've got a 100mm with f1.?, and while it is a fixed length, it is very quick (f), and gives beautiful macro's, but also beautiful portraits.

if you can, shoot in aperture priority (AV on mine) about f3, set your ISO to 200-400, in which case, your speed will be what will be the floating factor. and see what you get. then fart around with your f stops up and down to get the depth of field you want.

this picture of a rose bud that i took a month ago is about as quick as my lens gets, but you'll see exactly where the plane that is in focus is located. the front of the bud is blurry and so is the rear.

 

[john lucas]

Setting your ISO lower will only change what shutter speed you have to use to get the exposure. The problem he's having is with the lighting itself. His overall exposure is actually not bad it's just beyond the range the camera can record.
As I mentioned above when you raise the light on a bowl with that shape the reflection will still be there but it will now be down inside the bowl where you won't see it from that camera angle.
this would actually change the exposure since the camera won't see that bright spot it will actually change the exposure and make the bowl lighter.
Using aperture priority for shooting art work is an excellent idea. Since the camera should be on the tripod you can pick the f stop that will give you enough depth of field to get as much of the bowl in focus as possible.

 

[Bill Boehme]

And, I'm sure tha Bret meant to say f/13 rather than f/3.

For focal length using a P&S camera, I would go with the longest optical zoom and then set the camera and tripod to the appropriate distance. If it is too far that there is not enough room to back up, then zoom in until the shooting distance is reasonable.

For an SLR or DSLR camera, a lens FL of around 100 mm is a good choice. I usually use a 70-200 mm zoom and shoot from about 8 to 10 feet. Since exposure times are generally around one second for my lighting, I use either timed shutter release or a wired release.

Live View on newer Canon cameras is really useful because there is a shooting mode that prevents vibration from the first curtain of the shutter (Live View Mode 1, which uses an electronic first curtain instead of the mechanical curtain). The Live View mode itself eliminates mirror bounce. Both of those features are great for getting really sharp images and I did realize how much blur those two sources of vibration contribute to an image until getting a camera that had those features.

 

[MichaelMouse]

Information tidbit. The T2i Canon is a cropped sensor, so the 50mm focal length is equivalent to an 80mm on a full-frame 35 in magnification. He's got about the perfect match to the human eye.

Not sure why folks want to stand back so far with various focal lengths available. If you're making your own light, getting farther away will lose some depth of field if you open up, or possibly some clarity as the camera switches to a higher ISO to compensate.

The real key to finding your DoF is to put the camera into manual focus mode and use that other ring on the lens. Don't try to focus in live mode, BTW, the view screen fools the eye too easily. Find your spot, then stop the lens down to check what's in focus.

Last paragraph N/A for point and shoot.

 

[john lucas]

Using a longer focal length leaves the objects less distorted and more natural looking. It also reduces the angle you see so the background doesn't have to be so wide.
Moving back will not change the depth of field at all if you zoom in so the object is the same size. If you back up and don't zoom in the object will be smaller and actually have more depth of field.
If you move back and don't zoom in and then crop later to get the same size final image you will lose sharpness.
I certainly agree with MM about manual focus. If you camera has that option it is much better than auto focus for shooting bowls. You will have to focus about 1/3 of the way in and stop down really far to get both edges of the bowl in focus. Most of the time it's impossible so I pick the most important areas and let that fall in focus. The best way to check focus is to enlarge the image after you shoot it and look carefully at the important areas. That's assuming your camera has that capability.

 

[john lucas]

Focal length for shooting art work

Here are two shots I did this morning. My new shooting booth is really too small but proves my point. In the first photo I was using 50mm from about 3 feet away using a Nikon D5100 which has a small sensor so it's roughly equivalent to about 80mm. As you can see in the first shot the background I have is too narrow and you can see the edges.
I backed away and changed to my longer zoom. The second shot was more like 4 feet away and shot with about 100mm. As you can see the angle behind the mirror is narrower so the background now doesn't show.

 

[MichaelMouse]

Ah yes, perspective distortion. http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf

The pitcher really is closer to that long lens camera at the ballpark than the batter. Never mind what your eyes tell you. And aunt Alice's legs really aren't that fat, they're just closer to the lens than her body when she's seated.

http://www.learnmyshot.com/Telephoto+Lens+Perspective+Compression+and+the+Angle+of+View Focal length of the baby blues is roughly equivalent to 83mm on a 35, or 52mm on an APS-C frame.

However, John, our smaller sensors don't change the focal length of the lens, just narrow the angle(s) of acceptance.

 

[Bill Boehme]

.... The T2i Canon is a cropped sensor, so the 50mm focal length is equivalent to an 80mm on a full-frame 35 in magnification.....

Not sure why folks want to stand back so far with various focal lengths available. If you're making your own light, getting farther away will lose some depth of field if you open up, or possibly some clarity as the camera switches to a higher ISO to compensate. ...

John answered the second part. It serves two purposes: reducing "fat nose" perspective distortion and increases DOF.

The first part of your statement, I disagree with. What you say is in agreement with the "story" that the marketeers have put forth as a "feature" of APS-C sensors and the Internet photography forums are awash with perpetuating that perspective.

I should also mention that the idea of "magnification factor" isn't without some basis to justify that claim. However, that basis is the assumption that the image from an APS-C sensor will be printed to fill up the same size sheet of paper as the image from a FF sensor. When you compare the two images then what you see is the image from the smaller sensor appearing "zoomed in" compared to the other. In actuality, any magnification would be the result of the DPI (dots per inch) setting when the image is sent to the printer. Working through this difference is further complicated by the fact that pixel density on cameras is always changing and no FF sensor has the same density as any APS-C sensor,not to mention that this has been constantly evolving towards greater pixel density.

Another sort of imaginary magnification occurs when the pixel density of a given size sensor increases with newer technology. In this case however, the captured image is the same, but for online viewing, sometimes an image is cropped to a certain size without rescaling which makes it appear that the higher pixel density sensor magnifies the image compared to an older camera with a lower pixel.

There are at least two groups of photographers who know better than to believe in magnification without optics: macro photographers and astronomy photographers.

• A true macro lens is marked in magnification ratio rather than in focus distance as used on other lenses. A magnification of 1:1 (AKA, life size) means that the image projected onto the sensor is physically the exact same size as the actual subject. This is true whether the lens is installed on a FF camera or an APS-C camera and is not affected by pixel density either. This is true because the distance from lens to sensor is the same for film, FF, APS-C, and APS-H SLR cameras.
• A similar situation exists in astrophotography where the lens is often a telescope. Assume that the telescope is trained on a lunar feature such as the Lunar Alps. Regardless of whether it is FF or APS-C, the physical size of the image projected onto the sensor will be the same because the distance from lens to sensor plane is the same whether using a film SLR, a FF DSLR, or an APS-C DSLR. Here is an image an image that I made of the Lunar Alps at 1120 mm focal length. Some photographers have said that the FL ought to be 1792 mm because of the APS-C sensor of my camera. My response is that the image projected onto the sensor has the same physical size regardless of sensor size or film. Besides all that, I almost always crop images to get the desired composition. How would the "magnification factor" proponents deal with that? What if I shot the same subject with a FF and an APS-C camera and then cropped down to to the same field of view in both cases and printed at the same size?

Another way of viewing the marketing claim that masking off the perimeter of a sensor (which is in essence the difference in sensor sizes) results in magnification is to extend that argument to masking even further masking of the sensor and claiming even greater magnification. You can see where this is going -- masking down to an infinitely small sensor area results in infinite magnification. That's why I pay no attention to that malarkey when I talk to a sales person at the local camera store. While they are all really good photographers, they too readily accept what the the manufacturers reps tell them.

The bottom line is that focal length is a lens property. The camera is just there to record what the lens sees. If the sensor is small then less of what the lens see is recorded. I don't think much about what the focal length is as long as it enables me to capture what I am interested in.

 

[MichaelMouse]

Had you read the reason why I don't stand back, you might understand. Remember the inverse square rule when you have to provide the light. If your background is properly constituted, background crunch has no value, while more light is ALWAYS valuable. Stopping down will increase DOF, while using a longer focal length to photograph the subject the same same size doesn't do much at all. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

You obviously have an incorrect understanding of what the APS-C sensor does, so try following along. Let the C stand for crop, and use only the center portion of the image. Simple enough? Canon even makes shorter mount EF-S type lenses for that sensor. They fill it with image edge to edge by shortening the distance from the rear element to the focal plane. They carry lighter, because they're really shorter in focal length to produce the same angle of view, and can be made for less, which increases the pool of those who can afford a DSLR. Politics notwithstanding, there is no free lunch, so the image quality isn't quite what you can get on the full-frame, but most people don't notice, or maybe don't care. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Tradeoffs.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I understand about ES-S lenses and their markings, however, all of my lenses are EF except for the kit lens that came with my first Rebel DSLR. Comparing lenses of fundamentally different construction where the distance to the focal plane is different is not a magnification due to the cropped sensor, but due to lens construction. It's just that the APS-C cameras can use either type lens that has led to some misunderstanding of what is going on, especially when somebody puts an EF lens on one of these camera and proclaims magnification by virtue of sensor size.

I'll agree about the cost of a lunch. There are pros and cons to everything and the FF cameras having larger light collecting area for each photodiode means a lower noise image. On the other hand, that advantage primarily reveals itself near the boundaries of the operating envelope such as high ISO and dynamic range. On the other hand, cropped cameras such as the 7D have found great favor among wildlife and bird photographers because of their high pixel density, clean images at relatively high ISO up to 3200 and high firing rate of 8 frames per second.

I am also familiar with Luminous Landscapes and numerous other sites that provide a wealth of information on the technical aspects of photography.

 

[john lucas]

MM as usual I don't understand what your talking about. I'm not saying you don't know what your talking about you just can't put it on paper so others can understand.
What does the inverse square law got to do with where you shoot from or the focal length of the lens? Once you set your lights you can feel free to use any lens and stand any distance away. Those factors make no difference whatsoever to the lighting.
I use long focal length lenses because they make the turning look more Normal and I have more control over the background because the angle is narrower. I've been shooting artwork for many clients for the last 26 years and tried just about everything to learn what works.
It matters little what format of sensor I use. I simply fill the frame with my shot and choose a lens with a focal length that gives me what I need. We owned many different format cameras at work and use them alternately depending on what I need.

 

[Bret Hinz]

thanks, bill. yes, i did mean f13, not f3. an f stop of 3 would give you only a portion of the bowl being in focus (like with the rose). while that is desirable with some shots, certainly wouldn't be what you were going for here.

ISO is the sensors sensitivity to light. in low-light situations, you can adjust your shutter speed to stay open longer, which would make it difficult to take a picture without blurring (because the camera is moving, but the object is still). in this case, you could move your stop to a lower number, which would decrease your depth of field, or you could increase your ISO setting which would make the sensor more sensitive to light, thus needing the shutter to not be open as long. however, the higher the ISO, the less vibrant your colors will be (not as important for sports/moving objects, where the point is to stop or slow motion, so a higher ISO is ideal)

you guys obviously know this stuff, but for those that don't, the f-stop, aperture and ISO are a triangle. if you change one, it will cause your exposure to change, thus necessitating you to change one or both of the other two to keep the same exposure. decreasing your depth of field will cause an increase to your exposure, so you would need to increase your shutter speed (the shutter will be open for a shorter period, allowing less light in) or decrease your ISO (your sensor will be less sensitive to light.

this is a concept that took forever to sink in. took tons of research to finally "get" it.

i am in no way an expert, but learning this stuff definitely helped me actually use my camera to its capabilities, not just using the auto settings.

if you have a bunch of time on your hands, check out adorama's youtube channel and watch Mark's (can't remember his last name) lessons. he is who finally helped me understand. i highly recommend their video's and am eternally grateful for the understanding they have helped me achieve!! they've earned my business!

i'm sorry if none of this makes sense. i have a 7 year old that is telling me to watch this, look at this, what's this for the last half hour of my trying to write this..... i give up, she won't stop long enough for me to finish a sentence, let alone proofread..... 🙄

oh, yes...... shooting from a further distance zoomed in will change the picture. for instance, the TV news crew took a picture down the boardwalk towards the pier in the town I live. they were probably half a mile away and used a super zoom to zoom in on the pier. doing this made it look like everything within the quarter mile that was in the picture was about 1/2 the actual distances. i don't know that that amount of compression would affect this short of a distance, though, nor do i know at what point compression becomes an issue. i do know, if it's workin' for ya, keep using it 🙂

 

[Bill Boehme]

Bret, it goes without saying that a tripod is necessary -- OK, well somebody ought to say it because a newcomer needs to know and exposure times can be one second or longer even with lots of light. Always use the lowest ISO gain for least noise. For SLR cameras, a FL in the neighborhood of 100 mm is good. For shooting woodturnings with my tabletop set up, I use a Canon EF 70 -200 mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and the FL ranges from about 70 mm to 120 mm if shooting woodturnings and the camera will be approximately eight feet from the subject. With those settings, an aperture of f/13 generally give sufficient DOF except for really large objects. In that case, I will user f/16. If you happen to have an IS lens, be sure to turn that feature off when using a tripod.

It is true as some say that you can shoot from much closer with a much shorter FL and with a wider aperture, but the downside is exaggerated depth of field (or "fat nose" effect). Generally, the other end of perspective distortion, field flattening, isn't a problem until using supertelephoto lenses at long distances. These are all very broad guidelines and vary considerably depending on the subject, distance, aperture, and how our eyes perceive the same scene.

When I want to compare the camera perspective with how my subject would be seen by direct viewing, I shoot with both eyes open. It takes some practice and some photographers say it bothers them too much to see two different images simultaneously. Reptiles and birds can do it so I figure that I can too. 😀 (No remarks out brain size, please)

Also set a custom white balance for optimum results, or if shooting raw, shoot a white balance target periodically during a long shooting session.

 

[MichaelMouse]

Easy enough, John, if you read the part about providing your own light. Light diminishes in intensity as it covers distance. Rule is the inverse square rule. If you're providing light to the subject from a greater distance, you're getting less on the subject. Twice the distance, 1/4 the light. Simple enough. http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/...ighting-understanding-the-inverse-square-law/ If you light the subject close and back only the camera away, you are correct, not a problem. Where's my old incident meter....

The way you or I shoot is pretty much the way everyone does. Fill the frame with what you want. Whether you do it by distance or different lens/focal length, makes no real difference except at the extremes. The loss of quality in zoom lenses is compensated by the ease with which you can fill that frame with focal length.

I noted in your initial explanation you said you were compensating for a small background, so I assumed that was the reason for distancing yourself. I Like big backgrounds and "normal perspective" lenses. My old 35mm wanted the ~80mm focal length for perspective, but since I was shooting Canon lenses, I had to used their 100. With the new system, I start at ~50mm as normal, because what I see with my eyes is pretty much the same in the viewfinder. I then move the camera to frame. In a full-frame 35, a 55 is actually a wide angle compared to binocular vision, though it was the focal length normally sold. The kit lens on this Camera is an 18-55, though I prefer my 15-85, because it's what I used (still do, any takers?) to own in four lenses. 24/50/100/135 Top end reaches out far enough to chase grandkids. The external cardioid mic will do regular speech on a full-frame kid at 85 as well, so it's the perfect walk-about lens.

Not that I back up on purpose with them, either. LEDs or flash are mounted on the bar, after all.

 

[john lucas]

Thanks MM I see where your coming from now. Light does diminish as you move it away but of course you simply compensate by changing the shutter speed to get the correct exposure.
I frequently use the inverse square law to control the light on the background and reflector cards. Moving the light closer to the piece means the light hitting the background (which is further away) is less so it's easier to get a faded background. If I move the light further away the it increases the amount of light hitting the background compared to the light hitting the piece so in effect my background is lighter. That's a confusing concept and one that's much easier to show in actual practice than to write about. It has to do with the ratio of the distances between the light and subject and light and background.
I do agree that a 50 mm lens on a full frame will give you the same size image as you see with your eyes. However your eyes fool you since they are stereo. Through trial and error I've found that lens in the 80 to 120 focal length will make 3 dimensional objects look more natural. This is why portrait photographers use longer lenses. Well that and the fact that nobody likes a camera to be right in their faces so the longer lenses let you back away and not be in the persons personal space. Maybe that's why my secretaries suggested I shoot the cheerleaders with a 400mm lens. 🙂

 

[John Torchick]

Maybe that's why my secretaries suggested I shoot the cheerleaders with a 400mm lens.

A bit off topic but that is what my wife would say. The greater the distance, the happier she is.
I have really learned a lot on this particular thread.

 

[MichaelMouse]

I do agree that a 50 mm lens on a full frame will give you the same size image as you see with your eyes. However your eyes fool you since they are stereo. Through trial and error I've found that lens in the 80 to 120 focal length will make 3 dimensional objects look more natural. This is why portrait photographers use longer lenses. Well that and the fact that nobody likes a camera to be right in their faces so the longer lenses let you back away and not be in the persons personal space. Maybe that's why my secretaries suggested I shoot the cheerleaders with a 400mm lens. 🙂

I don't think you wanted to write 50 as same-size. It's just the "normal" lens on a full frame. Same-size honors go to the 80. The 50 on my reduced size sensor is the equivalent. Anyway, the OP said he had a 50mm 1.4, so he was using a normal perspective lens for his T2i. Since that lens is a single focal length, advice to move back would not compress perspective, just move him back. I've the 60mm macro as my prime, so I just lean to frame.

Lighting problems take me back. In the days of B&W I used to do a lot of portrait stuff with my 4x5. Nice family from the next street wanted their daughter's 1st communion picture taken. A family of Maronite (Lebanese) immigrants, with respiratory equipment that would shame Jame Farr. Now THAT was a lighting problem! Nice thing about the view camera is I could shorten the nose I was narrowing with lighting by tilting the lens at the same time. That hour or two of playing with light and perspective ended up making me a good chunk of change with word of mouth.

Suppose the best perspective control would come from a 50mm T/S on my camera. Like I could ever afford it. Did some local ad work in tents with the 4x5 and tilts.

 

[john lucas]

Hmm. Tilting the lens board would only give you more depth of field. Well actually it doesn't give you more depth of field it only changes the plane of focus. The f stops still give you the depth of field. You have to tilt or swing the back to change the shape of things with a view camera. Lighting of course can change how a person looks. I've shot thousands of photos with the 4x5 and my 8x10 before I sold them to buy a digital camera.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Back 45 yeas ago when I started using a 35 mm film DSLR, a 50 mm lens was considered a "normal" lens because when looking through the viewfinder at a 100% frame view, one could have both eyes open -- one looking through the viewfinder and the other looking directly at the subject and see both images the the same size assuming that you did not wear corrective lenses.

The viewfinder ocular lens determines the apparent field of view seen by the eye. It is obvious that this can be changed by adding an eye relief extender and the magnification suddenly changes (and we lose our 100% view). Lenses designed specifically for APS-C format sensors will give an apparent "normal" size image when the zoom ring indicates approximately 32 mm focal length ( for Canon EF-S lenses -- this varies because every manufacturer has a slightly different idea about the size of an APS-C sensor). However, mounting a standard 50 mm prime focus lens (EF lenses for Canon) on the exact same camera body also results in seeing the same normal size image in the viewfinder.

A bit of trivia, there are lenses made that only fit the APS-C consumer and "prosumer" DSLR cameras which are marked IAW with the higher lens magnification. On the other hand, pro cameras that use the intermediate APS-H size sensor such as the Canon 1D Mark IV are not marketed that way. I suppose realizing that pro photographers know better, they use the same EF lenses as the Canon FF camera bodies.