|
California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
How to photograph handguns (Updated for 2013 post #3!)
Hi all,
Time to give back to the Calguns community! Maybe you wonder (or maybe not!) how people get their nifty photos done. Problemchild and Ken Lunde have this down cold - they are the local experts. I've seen others post pictures that leave a little to be desired, so hopefully this will help us all get a little bit better. Getting started First, you should assess your equipment. Point and shoot digital cameras will work ok but aren't ideal. You don't have a lot of control over the camera and what it's doing. Digital SLR's on the other hand, place a lot of flexibility into the hands of the user. If you are serious about taking a lot of studio or product photos, you should consider getting a digital SLR, as the better results will be imminently noticeable. I use a Nikon D70S with the standard 18-70mm kit lens. You don't need to spend a lot of money buying specialized lenses or anything like that - the kit lens, as you will see, generally works fairly well. Second, you should consider the types of pictures you'll be taking. I enjoy studio shots where I can control lighting and the overall environment. This helps to ensure consistent, repeatable images which suit my purposes just fine. For the purposes of this posting, I'm going to talk exclusively about "studio" pictures. Don't use a flash! It kills the photo and makes it look just like a point and shoot consumer photo. Your "Studio" I've set up a small light box in my computer room. It looks like this: The light box is made up of PVC pipe, to form a box shape, then it is draped with an inexpensive white bed sheet to serve as a light diffuser. I then used an old calendar, flipped it over to the white glossy side, and taped it to the rear of the light box to form a ramp-like shape. This serves as the white background. Different colors can be used, as well as fabrics, if you so choose. I purchased two small 60 watt lamps from Target at $5.00 each on sale. I am using a Home Depot clamp light to provide illumination from the top of the light box. For nearly all shots, you should consider using a tripod (as above) or somehow stabilize your camera to prevent camera shake. You don't need an expensive tripod, all you really need is one that will hold the camera without tipping over or dropping it, and allow you to make minor adjustments as needed. Make sure that wherever you put your light box, you close the drapes or blinds. This prevents excessive sunlight from leaking in, if you're taking pictures during the day. Else, take pictures at night, and you won't have to worry about this problem. It is possible to take photos of objects without a light box, but you have less control over lighting and you can't soften it as much. I recommend light boxes for generally all small photo work. Total cost for your lightbox studio above should be no more than $30 to $50. Do you "need" professional studio lights? Well, you certainly could get some - Ken Lunde uses a set of Lowel lights as he's stated here before. What this does is gets him a known color temperature, which he can then set his camera to match. I've found that if you use incandescent bulbs (the standard round ones in most homes) and use the incandescent white balance on your camera, your photos generally will turn out ok. Let's talk about how to set up your camera. I will cover two cameras - point and shoot, and digital SLR. Your Camera Settings Here are the settings I use on my Canon S400:
Here are the settings I use on my Nikon D70S:
Let's look at some samples! Note: Gun above has been sold, so I don't have it any longer. Your Post-Production Editing All of my images are processed through Photoshop. Here are the steps I take:
Last edited by Turbinator; 06-02-2013 at 10:06 PM.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Some General Tricks, Tips, and Hints
I've done enough home studio work to have learned a few more tricks, tips, and hints that I can share:
New for 2010: Getting White Balance Right One thing I've noticed in my own photos and photos that other people take, it's often quite difficult to get a good white balance going without introducing a hue or color cast to your photos. Getting the right blend of reds and blues can be difficult, but not so much so if you know how to set your camera's white balance properly. All cameras have some sort of "auto" white balance mode built-in. Unfortunately, this feature doesn't always work accurately, and subsequent photos may show yellow, blue, or reddish tints upon further review at your PC. The human eye sees "white" as "white" in nearly all types of light. Electronics, however, have to interpret the light source and use different built-in reference points to accurately reproduce shades of white. Since the "auto" feature doesn't always get this right, that's why you see colored tints appear in your pictures. There are a many ways to fix this, but for now I'll cover my most recent method that seems to work for me. I went out and bought one of these: Some of you professional guys might have purchased a similar product, called the Expodisc. I was going to do so until I noticed that this little device cost only $26 from Amazon instead of the $90 for an Expodisc. It is essentially a plastic "grey card" with two sides - a white reflective side, and a grey colored plastic backing side. What you do is set your SLR's white balance off of this disk under the lighting in which you wish to take pictures. Subsequent photos taken in that same lighting should look properly color balanced - not too blue, not too yellow, not too red. Here's how I do this on my older Nikon D70s, possibly similar on other cameras as well: 1) Press the WB button 2) Thumbwheel over to "PRE" mode (release WB button) 3) Press and hold WB button until "PRE" starts flashing (release WB button) 4) Focus on and snap a picture of the Prolite Full Color & White Balance Disk, about an arm's length away, in the lighting conditions you are using 5) Camera will tell you "Gd" (good) or "No Gd" (no good). If you get "No gd" try again. Else, the camera will set its white balance off the disk using the lighting setup you've got, or the ambient lighting present. Now, leaving your WB in the "PRE" mode, go snap some pictures of your intended subject. Let's look at some comparison images. For this test, I'll use my primary home defense gun as an example: Above: Camera is on AUTO WB. Looks kind of yellow. Not too good. Above: Camera was set to INCANDESCENT WB since this is the type of bulb I'm using in my light source. Looks better, but still has a bit of a tint to it. I'll try again, but this time using the white balance disk. Above: Final try, this time the PRE WB was used and set off of the white balance disk. Looks much better now - no tinting, no casting, no odd colors. You can do any final adjustments as you wish in Photoshop, if needed. NOTE that this method makes it really easy to get nicely color balanced photos no matter what kind of light source you have available. It could be fluorescent, incandescent, shade, sunlight, morning, evening, whatever - as along as you do a manual white balance adjustment, your images will come out great every time. (By the way, that gun is NOT my primary home defense gun, I was only joking! ) Enjoy! I hope this is helpful to others out there on Calguns. Feel free to ask me any questions that you may have on how to do this for yourself. Turby Last edited by Turbinator; 01-16-2010 at 10:18 AM.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Figured it was time to do a little refresher on this photo thread. I've looked back at some of the advice I gave, and realized that I've learned a little bit more since then. Here is my updated advice specific for dSLR's as we work our way through 2013:
Manual Mode instead of Aperture Mode - Some time ago, I figured out that in manual mode, I get to specify the shutter speed and the aperture. In the photography world, this is helps to determine the exposure - how much light gets into the camera's sensor and gets translated into an image. When taking multiple pictures of a single item (perhaps from different angles), you want the exposure to be the same across all of your photos. The best way to do this is to take control and to specify all of the settings yourself. If you don't, each time you fire the shutter, the camera is evaluating light data coming in through the lens, and it chooses a shutter / aperture setting to produce what it deems to be a good exposure. The key here is to take control and determine for yourself what you want your image to look like - hence why you're going to specify both shutter and aperture. If you're taking a picture of a handgun, try starting with f/8 or f/11 as a start. For shutter speed, use the built-in light meter in your dSLR to help determine what the right setting is to use. I tend to pick a shutter speed that overexposes by about 1/2 to 1 stop, in order to give my photos a slightly brighter look. I adjust the shutter speed slower and slower until the built-in light meter indicates that my photo will be overexposed by 1/2 to 1 stop - that's when I take a sample photo to see how things are turning out. Use RAW - Yeah, I was a JPG guy for a long time. However, after I started using Adobe Lightroom and playing around with the white balance settings, I figured out that taking pictures in RAW and then having the freedom to edit white balance completely in post-processing was just amazing. I now take nearly all of my light box photos in RAW, post-process, and then I'm good to go. The only downside is that RAW takes up more space than JPG, but with storage being so affordable nowadays, I don't expect this will be a serious problem for anyone. Camera remotes - In my original article, I talked about using a timer or using software on a PC to control the camera. I have since moved over to using a wired or wireless remote to fire the shutter. The timer was just taking too long to wait for, and it was getting annoying to set it up each time. Hooking up a remote or using a wireless remote is just easier overall. Obviously, if you don't have one, using the built-in timer will be the way to go. Micro / Macro pictures - From time to time, you may have a need to take pictures of items VERY close up. This can be accomplished in a couple of ways. With a point and shoot camera, look for this setting: Choosing the macro setting on your point and shoot allows the camera to focus on something very close to the lens. This allows you to obviously get closer to your subject, thereby producing a much larger image of a relatively small object. If you're using a dSLR, you can go out and buy a dedicated micro / macro lens. Nikon uses the term "micro" to describe these close-up lenses, whereas Canon uses the term "macro" to describe their offerings. Here are some example micro lenses offered by Nikon (image credit goes to Ken Rockwell): Now, suppose we wanted to take a picture of some snap caps. Without a micro or macro lens, most of our pictures will look similar to this: Let's look at a sample taken with a Nikon micro lens: This is of course a close up image of a Pachmayr 9mm snap cap, the business end that takes all the beatings from firing pins. Notice you can see all the fine detail where the metal has been dimpled by repeated firing pin strikes. Also notice that micro lenses tend to have a very narrow depth of field, which is why not all of the snap cap is in focus. This effect can be leveraged artistically, if one is so inclined. Using a micro lens or your camera's macro setting will allow you to show off unique, distinct details of your favorite hobby items - for example, show off your new stippling work, engraving art, night sights, proof marks, rust spots, or blue job - just about anything that needs to be viewed up close and personal in order to be appreciated. Will update with more content soon! Turby Last edited by Turbinator; 06-02-2013 at 10:56 PM.. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Very nice! Good advice and techniques.
I've been using a white plastic trashbucket, on it's side with fluorescent tubes taped on top (actually the side wall of the trashcan). I set my piece of crap little Canon SD400 on a cheap tripod and use the shutter timer function as to not shake the camera during the shot. I match my camera to fluorescent lights and start snapping. Samples: |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Were you talking about me when you said "I've seen others post pictures that leave a little to be desired, so hopefully this will help us all get a little bit better."
sample of my "work"
__________________
"I would kill for a Nobel peace prize." Steven Wright" Board Member CGSSA Donate now! NRA lifetime member |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You will also have to set your white balance to flourescent, of course, to get the color to come out properly. Turby |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Very clean pictures of your Sig. Turby |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Turbinator
THanks for posting this. I realise my pics (the ones that ive taken myself haven't been really up to snuf and one of the reasons is im alot better with my cannon A1 then I am with the digital camera (Kodak easy share CX7430) but hey I have grauadated I use to only use my webcam for pics I took of stuff I sold on ebay. Ill upload a few pics I took today of ammo that is kinna strange. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I've been meaning to upgrade my lightbox by building something similar to yours for long-guns. And of course I'm gonna need a new camera too. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Where can I get these in 40SW ? Last edited by SemiAutoSam; 07-27-2006 at 12:30 PM.. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Three other points, just for the P&S crowd.
If your pics are coming out uber-blurry (the most common problem I see on here), apply these: 1. Most cameras have a macro mode. It's usually a pic of a flower. Turn it on, it'll probably focus a lot better. 2. If your pics are still blurry, then try zooming out and re-focusing. A lot of cameras can't focus as closely when zooming. Even if it means having to take the shot from farther away, or moving the camera up close, do it. You can chop out the sides of a clear picture to get to your subject, but you can never un-blur a picture that's out of focus. 3. If your pic turns out blurry, re-shoot until it isn't.
__________________
Primary author of gunwiki.net - 'like' it on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gunwiki/242578512591 to see whenever new content gets added! |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"I would kill for a Nobel peace prize." Steven Wright" Board Member CGSSA Donate now! NRA lifetime member |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Turby,
Didn't you post this on Claguns V2? I've read that out line before. Im not complaining because after I read it the first time I ran out and purchased $50 in pvc pipe, lights and white sheets. Ok, I took the white sheets off the bed. Wife wasn't happy |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Very good thread.
One of the main aspects of taking a good picture is having quality lighting and good framing skills. Ample light is key. Sometimes I take some pretty decent photos... othertimes they're a bit crappy. I'm too lazy to set up the shot, and would rather have it come to me. I always prefer outdoor or naturally lit photographs, and adjust brightness and contrast, sometimes saturation. Example.... original photo and slightly altered: Not much of an improvement, but every little bit counts. I also like to step back and use the optical zoom. It avoids pincushion/barrel effects, and can sometimes stop oversaturation of colors. Another good rule of thumb is to take 4x as many photos as you'll think you need at slightly different angles. One or more pictures may not turn out as nice, and sometimes it takes on the upwards of 10 photos to get that 'perfect shot'. These are a few of my better photographs, and some just turn out crap. It's hit and miss, but with practice and finding a style you like can take nice pictures with relative ease. Last edited by xenophobe; 07-27-2006 at 4:21 PM.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
keeping the black - black
Turbinator,
I have to ask, how have you been able to keep your black - a true black. I have played with the white balance, and even calibrated my Nikon d70 to customize the white balance. If I toy with the hue or contrast with photoshop, I start to lose detail, if I make the blacks, a darker black. I really like your photo of the CZ, it seems to have captured the true black (blue steel, I should say). The following below was done with one medium size softbox above, and a small kicker light to the right. Pretty much all of my samples have that purple tinge, that drives me crazy. Last edited by creampuff; 07-27-2006 at 9:45 PM.. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Creampuff,
I just downloaded your image to my PC. The first thing I did was take a look at your EXIF information. The first thing that stands out to me is that you used your flash to take this picture - if I may ask, why? That's what your light tent is for, to provide all of the lighting. The flash provides another light source of a different color temperature - you want to try to stick with 1 type of lighting with all of the same color temp if possible. That's one guess. Ok, check this out and let me know what you think. Your image, post-processed in Photoshop 7. I sharpened the image, auto levels, auto contrasted, then manually edited the Hue / Saturation for just the Red channel alone until the purple tint went away mostly. I find it hard to believe that you'd need to edit the Hue / Saturation every time for each image, so that's why I'm guessing it is something to do with your lighting. Turby Last edited by Turbinator; 07-27-2006 at 10:43 PM.. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Great post Turbinator. I use a D70s also. I'm curious. Which lens do you usually prefer for your gun photos? One other tip. For those with the D70s, if you want the color to have more "pop", try using the IIIa RGB color space. For those too lazy to use an elaborate setup and want to use a flash, try a diffuser and also bouncing your light to soften it and to even it out.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The lightbox I use is not so much a light tent, but a medium size soft box, with an Alien Bee strobe, which was how I was able to shoot with f/11 and 1/125, iso 200. However, I am constantly being haunted by the purple tinge, no matter what I do with the white balance. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I only have the kit lens, the 18-70mm, but I am ordering up the 18-200mm VR that recently came out. With that lens, I think I can pretty much take care of nearly all photo situations that I'd want to. Good suggestion on the color saturation, I have that adjusted in my camera as well. I always take pictures using the Program mode (which as you probably know by now is just a very flexible "auto" mode of sorts). Using a bounce card or a light diffuser would work, but I don't have an external flash yet, so I have yet to try that for myself. Another good suggestion, though. Thanks! I guess more people on here have digital SLR's than I originally thought. I wonder why we haven't seen more work from y'alls posted online? Turby |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I looked up this phenomenon quickly - it's called chromatic abberation. Try reading this link: http://www.bytephoto.com/photo-editi...berrations.php Turby |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks to all for the great photo tips. I have a D50 and 18-70 kit lens.The pro down at the local camera shop swears by prime lens only although I've shot some excellent photos with my 18-70mm. Should I try a prime lens and if so, what size would be best for shooting small objects in a light tent? Nikkor 50mm F1.4 or F1.8?
Last edited by sac7000; 07-28-2006 at 6:52 AM.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Personally, since you're using a light tent or a light box such as my setup, and a tripod, I don't think the f speed matters as much - and I'd rather have the zoom flexibility when taking photos of small objects. If your lens is slower, such as the kit lens 18-70mm with f/3.5 that you and I both have, all you need to do is bump up your EV and/or increase the shutter times. I personally would use the f/1.4 or f/1.8 if I had to take a lot of indoor low light shots - the f/1.8 isn't too expensive, I think around $100, so you could pick one up just to see if it works out well for you. For me, I'm not going to bother - I'm going to see how well the 18-200mm VR works for me also at f/3.5. Thoughts? Turby |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
One thought on primes. If you like shooting in available light, the 50mm is a great lens for that purpose. Of course, in that case, the 1.4 would be awesome. If you find the focal range too long, you could consider the Nikkor 35mm f2. Another great lens for low light shooting. Creampuff: Regarding the purple tinge. It is CA as Turbinator already pointed to. It does occur in certain lenses. You can either correct it in post-processing or just try a different lens. You could also try softer natural lighting. The CA usually occurs from strong light sources. Last edited by Mute; 07-28-2006 at 8:36 AM.. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I miss my trusty 50mm 1.4 that I used for years on my old Mamyia-Sekor 1000DTL SLR film camera. (1972 vintage, before electricity and flush toilets) I took hundreds of great photos with it without a flash. I was fast but it was faster. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Old doesn't mean bad. I started with manual cameras and with the right film and lens I can get as good if not a better shot than any digital camera with that combination. Only thing is, if you want to post pictures to a website you'll need to scan the picture with a good scanner.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Number one tip for great pictures is to use a tripod. Simple as that. You don't need an expensive camera to shoot great photos. Focus and shoot. Use your camera's built in timed shutter release to avoid any vibration. You'll have clear, sharp photos every time.
Last edited by sac7000; 07-28-2006 at 10:41 AM.. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Turbinator,
Thanks again for the tip. I went through my old folder, and isolated the red channel....works like a charm. Before, I use to just hit Ctrl-L, and tried to adjust the entire RGB curve. Obviously that didn't work. You can see the before and after below, by just isolating the red channel. Normally, I have my white balance calibrated to my strobes, and for most objects it comes out correct; however, with blue steel my entire collection comes out purple like a giant Barney the dinosaur collection. Before After Before After: |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Your pictures look great! But why do you use a bright white background? It seems like that is already defeating your contrast levels. I get the idea of making it appear as if floating or "in space" on its own, and no other distractions, which is a cool look, but it would seem that something in a background tone more neutral on a gray scale, behind what are most often black, blued, or other dark features of guns, would give a better image. This seems to be why the stainless guns look great on the white; they are more close to the background in gray scale.
I am also willing to bet that the stark white background contributes to the final photo from some digital cameras reading the blacks a slight purple, as they try to compensate for focusing on details within the blacks, besides the lens issue mentioned - but that is just speculation; yet I have seen this happen with traditional 35MM film, where a slight magenta hue is cast in the blacks when the background is back-lit or white. Even my old Nikon N90 used to do this and I would often have to focus elsewhere to adjust then put the center back on my subject, even in the multi-zone metering mode. I think the advantages of using a neutral background are best seen in Lunde's photos, where he uses a lighter blue background, but while a color, on a gray-scale, that lighter blue is likely very middle/neutral on a light meter. It helps the camera, and even yourself, adjust for the tones better and pick up the rich details easier. Lunde's photos are some of the best I have seen of anything online, anywhere!!! Any photographer that shoots weddings can tell you the complications of evening out the bride's white dress and the groom's black tux - but in all cases, the background is neutral, usually a medium green or woody scenery. My problem right now is that I don't have Photo-shop. I have a photo enhancement program from Minolta, and a "similar" to Photo-shop program, but both are limited when it comes to changing the actual MB or kb size in correlation to it's actual size. When I shrink one, it shrinks the other too. And with no hosting website other than Photobucket, I can't make full use of my photos - hence, the originals are beuaties, but the online versions I would post here, well, suck.
__________________
------------------------ Last edited by CALI-gula; 07-29-2006 at 12:27 AM.. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Turby |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|