Taking 1st class mando pictures

[grassrootphilosopher]

Reading the posts on the message board and looking at all the pictures posted I saw excellent pictures (check out Dan Beimborn), good pictures and mediocre pictures too.

Recently I got a request from luthiers I know to send them pictures of one of my instruments. I thought, sure, no big deal, easily accomplished, hey I´ll just get it done on the weekend when I have a couple of minutes.

Yeah, sure! I started tinkering with a digital camera, fooled around with a regular mirror reflex camera (on loan from my daddy), tried out different lighting, differnt films, differnt sensitivity (in the films) and such.

To make a long and sad story short, the outcome of my picturetaking effort was simply not worth the input (so far).

The most aggravating thing is the unwanted reflection on the instrument´s finish. The subtle differences in the finish tend to be cut short by the lighting. Either the finish appears too bright or too dark. The metal parts show reflections too, so that you are unable to see any engraving and such. There are other problems too, like the closeups seem to be unfocused...

Here is where y´all come in - I hope. Mandolin pickers seem to bee quite knowlegable when it comes to portraying their instruments (like the Wiens, Kimble, Beimborn websites). Folks, help me out. How do I take good pictures of my instruments. The miror reflex camera is equiped with a regular 35mm lens. It will not focus automatically nor will it set the shutter and the shutter time automaticaly. The digital camera (4 megapixel) will do all that but will not let me tweak the setting manualy.

I could photoshop the pictures a bit but would prefer to do as little of it as possible.

Allright folks. Lay it on me. I appreciate all the input I can get.

[mishima]

I have used tissue paper to decrease the glare or a filter over my lens.

[Michael Gowell]

For all photography it's hard to beat diffused natural light. Shoot outside on a cloudy day.

[danb]

I use an SLR digital (canon EOS 20d) + an add-on flash unit (speedlite). If I don't have my flash, I'll always use a tripod or steady on a firm surface.

An outdoor cloudy day shot is choice #1. My indoor setup is to place the instrument on a suitible background, aim my flash so it's pointing at a wall behind me, stand back a ways using my tripod and compose away any bad reflections (sometimes they actually look nice and add depth though!), then shoot. I also use this bounce-flash technique (pointing the flash at something other than your subject so the light bounces off it) in daylight.

Here are the results of a diffuse/hazy/cloudy day shot:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/689xx_face3.jpg

Not much glare there, but the instrument looks kind of "Dead" in that photo really. Here's the indoor shot of the same instrument

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/689xx_face.jpg

I like that second one a lot better, even though it shows more reflection. It shows a bit of the reality of the finish.

[danb]

This is an outdoor shot that worked better:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/9100_face2.jpg

[danb]

Another good trick with a flash is the "no background" dark/flash shot. A bound instrument looks very cool against a black background. To get pure black, an easy way is to take the instrument outside after dark, bounce your flash off the house behind you.. make sure nothing is behind within about 10-15' of the instrument, and you'll get a wonderful pure black background. I don't have a shot handy of a mandolin (DOH!), but here's a nice one of a flower I did at night with this technique. No photoshopping on that image. My reflector for the bounce flash was a brick wall behind me.

[danb]

The good ones there- the secret to them is that all of them have diffuse lighting. Not like a flashlight beam, or any other kind of strong light reflection in the finish. If it's universally bright outdoors, that's the easiest way to get this to work. A big room with a nice back wall to use as your light source from a bounced flash is more under your control, but is more of a pain to set up!

[sunburst]

My set up is very similar to this one, described at frets.com. (http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/General/PhotoStudio/photostudio.html)

As you've found, reflections in the glossy, curvy surface of a mandolin make it hard to shoot pictures without glare, or reflections of objects in the room, or outside. I get my best pictures at night, with all the lights in the shop turned off except the photo lights. I often get reflections of my tripod even then. (Draping things in the room, and the tripod, with black velvet cloth helps that.)
I can't shoot outside without reflections; cloudy, sunny, whatever, so I only do that for "artsy" pictures.
For details, I can only do that inside.

My camera (5 mega pixel), my equipment, and I are capable of getting shots good enough for the web, but not much better.
For first class pictures, start with a first class mandolin, then spend some money on a camera and some good lighting, or take the mando to a pro photographer, especially one with experience in product photography.

[danb]

I should add that most of my photos are done with a a fixed-focal macro lens. I use that for all the close-ups too, which are pretty much impossible without one.

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/3263_tuner_gear.jpg

[danb]

You can get photos of pretty small things with this macro.. self-portrait in a 2" frog's eye http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[JEStanek]

Another thing you could consider to help reduce glare off a shiny mando is a polarizing filter that can rotate to eliminate as much glare as possible. That'll work on your SLR digital and film lenses but not so much on a PhD Digital camera (push here dummy).

Jamie

[stevem]

Dan is the man! For inside pics, I use a longer exposure with no flash on a tripod.

[mandopete]

Dan Beimborn is the god of mandolin photography.

[PCypert]

I'm coming back to the states for a couple months this summer and will gladly take pictures of anyones mandolin (of course you'll have to ship it to me so I can play it ) .

Some key points to note:

Look at the finish of your mandolin. If dark make your camera underexpose by anything from 1/3rd - 1 2/3rds if it's blonde you might want to overexpose slightly. Mix Mando I'm looking at you here on the underexposing for black http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

If you have to use a point and shoot digital camera DO NOT use the pop up flash. Get near a window in the afternoon. Get out of the direct light unless you want highlights (not a bad thing sometimes but make sure you're only getting them if you want them). The direct on camera flash at close distances will always give horrible results http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Maybe not that bad, but nice diffused light is best.

Get in close. Don't be afraid to get in there for your shots. The biggest difference in average shots and pro shots are that pros get in there. You rarely see shots where people are tiny in the frame like regular shooters...same thing with mandos....you're shooting the mando not your living room...get up close.

If you are using any kind of flash that is off camera bounce it off the ceiling or from a side wall. Off the ceiling creates nice, even lighting. Bounced from a wall gives directional and dramatic lighting.

If you use a window look at how the light is hitting the mando and the angles the light is striking and reflecting off. Don't have your camera on the same angle as the light. This is when you get reflections and glares. So if the mandolin is lying down flat on the floor and is going across a clock at say 3 o clock...and the light is hitting it at 10 and reflecting off at around 2 you'd want to shoot around 3 or at 12-1...if that makes sense.

I would honestly love to do some high quality mando shots while I'm in the states. I live in Texas and will travel to Santa Fe once while back...otherwise you can ship to me http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Paul

[pjlama]

Good info here! Paul, when your going to Santa Fe PM me and I'll be happy to have my mandos shot and played of course. I'm just down in Albuquerque.

[grassrootphilosopher]

Thank you so much everybody for your input. Your photos look great. And yes, Dan yo da man!

I have found out that a tripod is indispensable pretty quickly. Just the ever so slight movement of your hand will mess up the picture.

I also dig the importance of indirect lighting. That was the first thing to find out. Man, does a direct flash make the best instrument look ugly. I have also read about bouncing the flash. I have even tried it ...:laugh: the outcome was ridiculous. I did the bouncing flash photos with the old mirror reflex camera and the problem seems to be how to determine the shutter speed. This seems to be the biggest issue for me (can read and write, but when it comes to "simple" maths, boy howdy do I flunk, ha, ha). Since the digital camera does not have any gizmos, there is no way to over- or underexpose anything. But with the mirror reflex camera I have had some really nice pictures. They are just not instruments. And instruments seem to be much more fickle than people.

Well, closeups like the ones you do, Dan, are out of the question for me, due to the lack of equipment. I guessed as much as there is a special macro lens for pictures of that caliber.

What this will mean for me: Back to the drawing board, find out about over-, underexposure, determine shutter speed and opening, and learn about indirect flash.

I´ll keep you posted of my efforts.

And Dan, that flower picture is impecable. Could you do one of an instrument? Preferably a "holy grail" picture. That would top everything of.

Thank´s again for your input.

[Hans]

The only things I could add are know your camera, and use the timer with tripod. What I would like to know is how you get those "billboard" size photos on the board. I've got a mac, lightroom, and photoshop elements 4. Posting guidelines say there is a size limit of 156.3 kb. At 72 ppi how the heck can you get an 8x10 up without the "file size to large" warning coming up? Photoshop tells me that at 72ppi 156.3 k comes out to a pix of 4x2. Am I missing something?

[sunburst]

Olaf, another thing to consider is a light tent. I 'googled' it and found numerous articles about building a cheap one. I have a small one that I bought, and I can use it in direct sunlight or under the glare of a halogen work light and get pretty good results, as long as I set the white balance for the light I'm using.

This was shot in the light tent, in bright sun, using the macro setting on my point-&-shoot (PhD) 5 meg. camera.

(EDIT) Hans, the computer savy among us have ways of posting images from servers other than the Cafe server, and can disregard the picture posting guidelines with impunity, in the process, causing dial-up connections like mine to almost come to a screeching halt!

[amowry]

I have a little point and shoot too, 3 megapixels. I can't print much larger than 4 X 6 at that res, but for the web it's fine. Until recently I shot everything indoors and tried not to get any reflections, but after getting some advice on mimf.com I became convinced that a few reflections can be a good thing. I wouldn't say this looks professional, but it at least hints at the contours of the instruments. The blacktop has a partial reflection of the Adirondack chair I used as a tripod. Lately I've been itching for a digital SLR, but I'm waiting for the prices to drop a little more.

[sunburst]

Me too.
The SLR's are gradually getting less expensive, and I'll get one eventually.

I also agree about using glare and reflections to advantage sometimes. There's no other way that I know of to show the gloss of the finish.

[amowry]

That's a sweet photo and a sweet instrument.

[grassrootphilosopher]

Folks, to let you know what my aim is, here is a picture - of me - that I consider quite good. I have taken it with my daddy´s mirror reflex camera without a flash, indoors with natural light coming from the left. I was sitting somewhat near a window. This is the quality that I try to recapture (since 2003 without avail).

[grassrootphilosopher]

This is my mando indoors with natural lighting.

[Michael Wolf]

Olaf,

where in Germany do you live?

A little shot of my A4, taken with a small Casio Digi. OK for internet use, I think.




Cheers
Michael

[grassrootphilosopher]

This then is the picture that I took the other day. Outside, sunny day but where I took the photo was in the shade.

[Rick Albertson]

As a photographer, I prefer indoor studio lighting because I can control all of the light, or lack thereof. It's good to combine very soft lighting with a limited amount of very harsh, directional light to add texture, needed shadows, and highlights.

It's also good to backlight the instrument, as well, to create some dimension and remove it from the background -- portrait photographers call this a hair light.

You will probably want to consider depth of focus (field), too. The larger the aperture number (i.e. f11, f16 or f22) the greater the depth of focus. Depending on what effect you're looking for, you may want to emphasize great depth of focus or shallow depth of focus.

For the photo of a 1921 F4 on my website (http://www.rickalbertson.net/gibson1921f4) I used a couple of medium softboxes in front of the mandolin, a strong light modified with only a diffuser as a "hair light" backlighting the instrument and a strobe with a 7" reflector and a #40 grid just above the mandolin. (The clouds and flowers were added in Photoshop.)

I'll be taking some more instrument photos in the near future and will post them.

Rick

[danb]

Here's the requested black background mandolin peghead. This was indoors and using a wifepod to hold the mandolin in one of the hallways here with the lights off. Flash bounce is off the wall directly to the right only about 3' away. Nearly worked, with some tweaking I think I can get it in sharper focus but you can see the concept. THe tuners on the right of the peghead picked up a bit too much flash too. That's correctable in photoshop or by slightly more careful placement of the mandolin & flashhead

[PCypert]

Mowry...funny u should say that about DSLR prices...I've been saying the same thing about your mandos http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Trade you any day..

Paul

[danb]

This is a daylight photo one where the background is replaced with a photoshop creation

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/76547_face_retouched.jpg

[grassrootphilosopher]

Great input folks, and especially thanks Dan for sharing these pictures.

Thanks also Rick for bringing up the topic of depth (Your link did not work on my computer though). The matter of depth of focus made me wonder quite a bit. I was just not yet able to put it into the right words though. In my atempts to take pictures I have taken a closeup of a guitar and a mandolin. I had the guitar perfectly in focus but the mandolin was blurred. A matter of field aparently. I just hadn´t found the remedy yet. So thanks for this pointer.

Dan, when you do bounce the flash, does your camera set the shutter speed, the aperture and the flash intensity automaticaly or do you set it all manually? And isn´t it great that us men are loved by devoted ladies who will even put up with being a wifepod. Mine puts up with me even when I pick the mandolin early in the mornings or late at night or when she takes a phonecall, not to mention a few absurdities. She will even say:"Boy is your mandolin loud again". The only thing she requests is that I´ll then take the grin off my face.:)

Back to taking photos. I would like to enter the realm of mandolin picture philosophy, or rather likes and dislikes, as well as subjectiv/objectiv view.

I see a reason in that sometimes the reflections of the instrument finish is a wanted effect that is used to underline the certain appearance of the instrument. When it is applied as in John Hamlett´s picture I like the effect. Mostly - on my pictures - I don´t.

In these other cases when most reflections are unwanted, how do you avoid them without sacrificing the overall look of the instrument?

What comes immediately to my mind are the two pictures that you, Dan, posted. The same instrument was photographed indors and outdoors. In the first case there were some reflections in the last case there were none. Your comment was that the outdoor picture looked a little flat. Well, which picture captures the "true" look of the instrument? Is that "true" look subjective?

I have taken pictures in different light settings and the difference in the look of the instrument was dramatic. The sunburst finish on the mandolin will look all from a light brown to a deep brown with a little lighter center with almost black on the outer border of the instrument. It will either look very sparkly and the reflections make the instrument resemble a mirror. Otherwise the instrument will look flat, almost matte in color/finish. Is it just my subjective point of view or have you had similar experiences with your instruments. Then again, I do not see the discribed extremes when I take my mandolin out to pick. It is fun to know that the look of the instrument has quite some facets but are you able to capture THE look of the instrument (at least what THE look is to you)?

By the way aldimandola (Michael) that shot of your mando looks nice. And I´m located in the East (Germany/Magdeburg). I´ll be at the EWOB-festival on May 17th-19th at Voorthuizen, NL. (Over 40 first rate bands, extremely hospitable people there, excessive jamming, eye candy galore, check out www.ebma.nl; see also the festival listing at www.ebma.org). See ya there or when we´re within reasonable distance shoot me a mail and let´s pick.

[danb]

Dan, when you do bounce the flash, does your camera set the shutter speed, the aperture and the flash intensity automaticaly or do you set it all manually?

One or the other. I shoot in RAW mode lately, which cuts a lot of the variables at shoot time (white balance, exposure, etc are all then easy to update in the computer). Usually I let it pick the settings (the flash talks to the main camera), check the results, and tweak them a bit manually.

Most commonly I'll adjust the aperture to get more depth of field.




What comes immediately to my mind are the two pictures that you, Dan, posted. The same instrument was photographed indors and outdoors. In the first case there were some reflections in the last case there were none. Your comment was that the outdoor picture looked a little flat. Well, which picture captures the "true" look of the instrument? Is that "true" look subjective?


It's subjective of course. Most of the time you see an instrument in motion and your brain helps remove the passing reflections from your mental picture of it I suppose. My favorite is to show just enough reflection so the 3-dimensionality is clear.. that last Loar shot is what I'd love to get every time I suppose

[Hans]

I like a little still life or landscape...sometimes in reflection.
Looks like I figured out the size thing. Thanks for the help Paul O' !

[mandopete]

This was indoors and using a wifepod to hold the mandolin in one of the hallways here with the lights off.
Does your wife know you talk about her like this?

[sunburst]

I find that when I get rid of all the reflections, it means I've gotten rid of nearly all the contours and depth of the shot, and in means I've gotten rid of nearly all the light. Mandolins, shaped like they are, reflect light from somewhere almost any time there's any light around.

Here are some examples of some of the problems I run into:

In this one, I was trying for a warm, naturally lit look, shooting outside in slanted sunlight. Not trying for detail, exactly, more for an effect. The body of the mando ("satin" varnish, so reflections should be minimal) looks pretty good, but I got a nearly direct sun reflection off the peghead. I could crop down to just the body and have a decent picture.

[sunburst]

One of the great things about digital photography is; you aren't wasting film and processing by shooting a lot of shots. I moved the mandolin and the camera and shot quite a few around that tree. In this one, the peghead isn't "washed out", the recurve shows pretty well because of the reflections, but all the detail of the curly maple pick guard is gone.

[sunburst]

Sometimes reflections look better to me if they are concentrated in specific areas. If they are spread out, they can look like a milky haze so the clarity of the finish is lost.

Here's an example of shooting overexposed. I don't remember how much, but it was probably 3/4 to 1 stop. The reflections are concentrated in small areas, and reveal the contours, but the whole image lacks sharpness and depth because of my limited abilities, and the limitations of my equipment.

This is also my answer to Dan's and Hans' pics of vintage and black top instruments http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[danb]

Nice John! Do I have that 3pt in the archive? I don't think so. That's gotta be 8800-9800 range serial, which is the creme of the creme for my taste http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[sunburst]

Dan, I shot a series of pics of that one for the owner. I think he might have sent them to you, but I'm not sure. He's sent you others that I've shot.

[Ted Eschliman]

Dan has been known to take some scary pictures. Like this one you could use to frighten animals and small children (note you can tell it's London, with the Tube Map in my pocket. "Mind the Gap!"):

[danb]

Tweaked a bit from the first effort by using studio conditions

[ellisppi]

some effects of moving a light around

[sunburst]

Good example Tom! Here's another.

[JeffD]

Photography is an art, as you guys are proving. Its hard enough to play the darned thing, much less to take pictures of it.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Nice thread and some very fine photos by you folks

[danb]

I was messing around with that black background photo, and noticed suddenly for the first time just how different the F-style peghead from the early years was vs the Loar years.

Anyway, here's an interesting way to show it.. these were photographs.. all but the peghead binding and the nuts removed in photoshop

[JEStanek]

It's almost like choosing flatware during wedding registrations... So similar and yet so different! Cool way to show off the nuances, Dan.

Jamie

[amowry]

Thanks Dan. That's really interesting. I kind of like the left side of the Loar and the right side of the 3 pt.

[WJF]

Quick question for you Dan ... How in the world are you able to select the curves of the mandolin so precisely when replacing the background as you did in the picture (with the red-ish background) above?

That's an amazing job and you either have the patience of a saint in making the selection or some kind of amazing masking tool for Photoshop that aids in the process. Either way ... GREAT job!!

[danb]

Well the selection work isn't too hard with the bezier curve selection tool. I cheat though, my wife is a graphic artist with amazing hand-eye coordination and she cut that mandolin off the background for me. I can do them to the same precision, it just takes me 4x as long!

[Jim Hilburn]

I feel it's important to have a nice chair by the window when taking mandolin photo's.
I had some piece's of cardstock taped to my camera that acted like a periscopic diffuser on the flash along with the natural light which was cloudy. I did a slight tint correction because as usual it shows up more red than it actually is. Getting correct color is the hardest part.

[danb]

Getting correct color is the hardest part.
One trick I've used for that is a color calibration bar. They show the various colors in sample ranges, you photograph it with the instrument (or slightly outside the composition) then it's quite easy to color-correct, you can work to getting the sample bars correct and the rest of the scene (the instrument) is sorted out for you.

The problem with computer screens is that the shades of red or the number of colors required to show a sunburst with a smooth blend is simply beyond the capabilities of the media, you tend to get sunbursts showing sharper distinctions than really exist.

Generally speaking, because those calibration bars also have a greyscale on them, you can use the photoshop auto-levels to get some pretty good results quickly.

[danb]

Did some googling.. you can search for
color separation guide (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=color+separation+guide&btnG=Search&meta=) to find them- they look like this

[sunburst]

I use the white side of a 'gray card' to set the white balance in the camera before I shoot the first picture, then again any time I change the focal length, the distance from the subject, or just about anything else. As long as I don't have different colors of light coming from different sources, (another reason to shoot inside at night) the camera gives me pretty true colors, and I seldom have to correct color in photoshop. I usually have to correct brightness, contrast, and sharpness though. I'm hoping my ship will come in bearing a camera that does a better job of those things. You know how players figure a new mandolin will make them into better players? Well, I'm hoping a better camera will make me into a better photographer!

[JEStanek]

I will say that moving from a Gateway branded Toshiba PhD digital camera to a Nikon D40 made all the difference in the world with my digital photography. #There are many sites that sell these SLR digital cameras pretty cheap. #Where I got burned, and #I'll pass along to you all so it doesn't happen to you, was getting charged $600 for a 2 Gig SD card and the battery and charger. #I could have spent 1/5 of that on Amazon for those extra bits. #The company's return policy was ridiculous and I didn't know better. #Their price on the camera body and two lenses was very good though.

For the price of a mid-mo or 500 series Eastman you can be taking pictures easier! #That's still a fair bit of money though.

Jamie

[first string]

Where I got burned, and I'll pass along to you all so it doesn't happen to you, was getting charged $600 for a 2 Gig SD card and the battery and charger. I could have spent 1/5 of that on Amazon for those extra bits. The company's return policy was ridiculous and I didn't know better. Their price on the camera body and two lenses was very good though.
A lot of times these places won't sell you just the camera if you don't get the whole overpriced package from them. You try to order just the camera, and they will email you and tell you it is out of stock, or back ordered, or whatever. The old bait and switch is becoming much more common in the camera retailing world unfortunately. As a rule of thumb, if their prices are lower than that of say, B & H photo, KEH Camera, or Cameta, chances are they aren't completely legit.

I am exceedingly thankful that this kind of practice is almost nonexistent in the world of mandolins. I think in a way that we are extremely fortunate that the market for mandos is as small as it is. Because of that limited size, it would be pretty detrimental to any business to engage in any such unsavory practices, as word of mouth would put them out of business in no time.

[Bill Snyder]

Because of that limited size, it would be pretty detrimental to any business to engage in any such unsavory practices, as word of mouth would put them out of business in no time.
I don't know about that. There is a music store in New Mexico whose poor business practices have been discussed over and over at the Mandolin Cafe that is still in business.

[Hans]

Yea, the mandolin is six hundred bucks, but the strings'll cost ya 4 grand! I've had some bad experiences with orders over the phone, where I have canceled the order after 5 minutes of arguing. One time after I gave them my credit card number and cancelled it, they charged a computer to my acctount. I had to change my card # and it took a month for the credit card company to track them down.
Watch out for those camera/lens kits too. You get the cheap glass with the body, no card, no batteries, and an international warranty which is no good in the USA. Of course the extended 2 year warranty costs 800 bucks.

[first string]

Because of that limited size, it would be pretty detrimental to any business to engage in any such unsavory practices, as word of mouth would put them out of business in no time.
I don't know about that. There is a music store in New Mexico whose poor business practices have been discussed over and over at the Mandolin Cafe that is still in business.
Are you referring to FOTW? Didn't they almost go out of business, until they were taken over by new management? I could have my story all wrong, but that was what I heard from someone or other.

[JEStanek]

Mine was at least Nikon lenses (not particularly fast at 5.6 but serviceable). So my message to any camera purchasers is if you find a good deal don't get snookered by cards, battery chargers and battery at high prices when you can get them elsewhere for cheap.

WRT FOTW. They have redone many things and have a link to the Better Business Bureau on their front page. Their BBB info is from Feb 2007 but no complaints have been registered since then. They seem to be trying to recover a decent reputation. Anyway not related to cameras and mando pictures...

If anyone wants specifics on my experiece contact me offline. I've since found better resources but this isn't the place to do it.

Jamie

[Keith Erickson]

Dan has been known to take some scary pictures. Like this one you could use to frighten animals and small children (note you can tell it's London, with the Tube Map in my pocket. "Mind the Gap!"):
Hey Ted,

I could tell immediately by that look that you spent much of your time driving on the "wrong" side of the road.

That was the same look that I had driving on the wrong side of the road in Barbados http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[zakdl]

I'm a graphic designer/art director by trade and much of my job and side projects involve photography - specifically product photography. There have been some good comments and looks like some of you are discovering that lighting is the key. Getting a good product shot involves many things, but the number one issue (in all photography) will be your lighting/lighting setup. There are times when the type of camera you have may limit you - but 98% of the time you can work around any type of camera to get a good personal photo. Likewise you don't need a bunch of fancy lighting equipment. In most instances photographers look to mimic natural light as the goal when artificially lighting things.

Think about your background - eliminate distracting objects in the frame and find what will contast, compliment or focus viewers eyes on the instrument. Depending on the mood or intent of your photo your best bet is to, as was suggested, use a window with nice diffused (use a white curtain or bed sheet)early morning or late day light (color temperature of the light is warmer during those times). Move the instrument around, tilting or rotating it in relation to the the camera lens. How do the reflections change? What features are emphasized or de-emphasized by doing this? Is it getting lost or blending too much into your background?

Some reflection is a good thing to show the instrument's finish, but most importantly to give it volume or dimension. The more diffused the light, the larger and softer the reflections will be. If you run across distracting reflections, try cutting out a piece of cardboard and holding it out of frame, blocking the light to that area while shooting.

You will need a tripod or solid surface to shoot from with the camera. If your camera has an "A" or aperature priority setting, put it on that and try shooting it at f8. If you want to add emphasis on one area of the mandolin and have areas that are closer or farther from your camera blur, try the lowest f stop you have (example: f2, f3.5). Use the lowest ISO setting you have and set your white balance (if digital) to the "sun" or outdoor setting. Make sure to take your shots in "Timer" mode so that there are no movements from you pushing the shutter button which would blur your images.

With digital, check the screen for results and zoom in to see if you're getting a good focus. Sometimes you have to choose a contrasty part of the mandolin to help the autofocus. If all else fails, manually focus. If it's too dark or too light, determine whether you need to change the light or bracket your photos (bracket if you are using film). Many cameras have an +/-EV setting which is a quick and easy way to "lighten" or "darken" the exposure without changing your shutter speed or f stop.

Many of these lighting tips are the same with artificial (light bulb)light. You will need to diffuse it and change your white balance to the "indoor" setting. If you are comfortable with flash systems, you can experiment with that as well. Bouncing from white ceilings or walls, as suggested, or shooting through softboxes or white umbrellas can give you wonderfully diffuse light - but as with other aspects of flash photography can be difficult to control and master. Always use the simplest lighting approach that will accomplish your goals.

[K3NTUCKI8oy]

I was messing around with that black background photo, and noticed suddenly for the first time just how different the F-style peghead from the early years was vs the Loar years.

Anyway, here's an interesting way to show it.. these were photographs.. all but the peghead binding and the nuts removed in photoshop
Was this supposed to be filled?

[grassrootphilosopher]

How nice everybody to post your experiences in this thread. I really appreciate the input so much.

I just wanted to come back to the issue of subjectiveness (is that the right word for it?). I have here two pictures of the same instrument, the same day, the same location, the same time... just a slightly different angle of photography. Lo and behold, if I will manage to upload them to the site, they´ll show a difference in the sunburst. Which picture shows the "true" color? Both for sure, but my view is subjective which makes me favor one color scheme before the other.

I am one of the "light fraction" too. But it´s so difficult - I find - to set up things in the right light.

I have read that you could diffuse the light with somewhat shading the flashlight with a handkerchief. Is that so? Has someone got examples?

Zakdl, you made a point there that we allways try to immitate daylight/natural light. What I find difficult is the problem of setting up things correctly so that in the end the outcome of a photosession is satisfying. In my case the major distraction comes from my little boy, which is why I have not been able to take the photos that I wanted to post so far.

By the way, is there anybody out there still that shoots pictures not digitaly but with a mirror reflex camera?

[grassrootphilosopher]

and here is picture no.2

[zakdl]

Depending on reproduction methods, color accuracy can be a real can of worms. If you're shooting with color film, you can have a variety of results from different manufacturers. Some even purposely create color film that will saturate heavily (Velvia). If you are shooting outside, time of day, clouds, shade, objects nearby can all affect color cast. To completely control the color accuracy of the light, color balanced studio strobes would have to be used in a controlled studio setting. Individual camera lenses can have color casts as well. Then variances in film developing and color printing all need to be calibrated correctly. If you are scanning the prints or color film/slides onto a computer - then you really open up some variations. Unless you're using an expensive Drum scanner, prints will not reproduce accurately. Some slide scanners can be pretty solid - but each may have different tolerances. Then you have to deal with monitors. No monitor on earth will show you the exact color of what a print will look like - as they are two separate materials (light creates the color on screen, ink or dye & paper stock on prints). The point I'm trying to make here is you need a very controlled environment to get close to the actual color of the object you are shooting. In lieu of that, it's mostly going to come down to subjective opinion. (Even with controlled environments photographers and editors usually push or pull back certain colors or areas of color for emphasis or emotive reasons).

I'd stay away from flashlights and handkerchiefs, unless you want to experiment with some cool effects on very long exposure shots. It will definitely not get you accurate color or a realistic representation. Using a light tent however would be one way to help control the light outside. I've heard and seen photos that have achieved successful outcomes on flowers by covering their entire body and subject in a white bedsheet outside. In their case it was working like a light tent or large diffuser. Might be trickier with a mandolin unless you were taking macro (close up) shots.

As far as your "mirror reflex camera"...I'm not sure exactly what that is. Most pro level cameras and medium format are referred to as SLR or 'single lens reflex'. Is that what you mean? If that is the case, they are not limited to film - there are a plethora of digital SLR cameras on the market now as well (pro and consumer level).

My advice, Grassroot, would be to try to eliminate as many distractions and variables in light/lens/film you can. Are you happy with the color on your film/slides or prints? I'm not sure what you may be using to scan the image to the computer, but that may be a weak spot in the accuracy area as well. If your not happy once you have it on the computer, I suggest getting a photo editing program like Photoshop elements (fairly inexpensive $150) and try selectively tweeking your colors to get just what you like. Just remember to try to get it as close to perfect in-camera before making adjustments on the computer. (And note that if you then choose to take it from computer to print, that will offer another set of variables in color.)

[danb]

Was this supposed to be filled?
Possibly. I noticed that detail too. It looks like it was cut deep then bound shallow, with some black filler put in to clean it up http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Lou Scuderi]

Just a small note on taking good pictures, or rather, processing them--if you can find some version of a histogram (the Levels option under image in photoshop), you can "clip" the portions of the image that are too bright or too dark. An added benefit of this is that the remaining parts of the image gain a level of contrast that brings out details previously unseen. To completley explain what's going on would require a REALLY long discussion of image processing, but you've got the basics.

As an example I took the first image in this thread, clipped the highlights, and stretched the rest of the histogram:

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7517/689xxface3hu6.jpg

On the whole, I think the processed image brings out many of the interesting details of the finish.

[Doug Edwards]

This thread has been so helpful. I'm so hit and miss indoors, but have much better luck outdoors. My HiTech 1.3 mp Olympus point and shoot.

http://ntbbluegrass.com/images/P10100152.JPG

[danb]

Fun with dark backgrounds part 2

[Hans]

Love that scroll ridge!

[JEStanek]

I love how the prominent scroll ridge on that quotes the lines of a fiddle head.

Gorgeous. Your's are some of my favorites Hans. Even better than the originals.

In another thread you talked about guilty feelings over lenses and cameras. What's your set up?

Jamie

[Hans]

Jamie, I have several cameras and lenses. I've been an Olympus guy since the OM-1 way back when. DSLR wise, I have an E500 (8MP) and an E1 (only 5MP, but a GREAT camera), and am anxiously awaiting the P1 that's supposed to come out this year. I'll lose the E500 at that point. In glass, I have Zuiko ED lenses in 14-54, 50-200 and 35 macro. In 35mm talk those would be 28-108, 100-400, and 70mm.
Recently, wishing to have a camera that I can carry around without looking like a "professional photographer" geek, I found this tiny used Leica D-Lux 3 (10MP) and I really like it. Wish I could afford Leica lenses #(optical image stabilization) for the Olys but the Zuiko lenses are excellent glass also.

[Hans]

The little Leica...

[danb]

Nice camera Hans. I have an EOS20D slr which is 8mp. I'd like to get a 10 or a 12, but at the moment those add a lot of price. The main reason is for large format prints. I can get a 12x18 from my 5mp canon, but up close it's slightly "computery". The 8mp can do 12x18 pretty well (borderline), but I'd like to have some flexibility to print some of the details a bit larger sometimes. It's a fun thing to surround yourself with photos of various instrument details. I have a 18" flowerpot inlay print from JR's Loar over my desk, and a similar big one of the torch & wire peghead to my left!

[JEStanek]

Thanks for the gear head talk, Hans and Dan.

Jamie

[Hans]

Dan, I've heard the Cannon DSLR's are excellent...haven't owned one since I had a Pellix with a 50mm f1.2. Gawd I loved that lens...FAST. I know they had a f1.0, and Leica does have a f1.0 for the M cameras, but I can afford neither the lens or an M8!
You must be around 200ppi to get a 12 X 18 out of a 5MP file...

[JEStanek]

F1.0! wow. I dream of 2.8 lenses. The 4.8 - 5.6s that came with my Nikon D40 are nice enough for me to know I would like a faster lens. I have a feeling in a year or so my MAS will be replaced with camera gear acquisition syndrome.

I'm very happy with the Nikon. I found a user guide online (kenrockwell.com)for good advice with settings for good images. So far I'm getting acquainted and having fun documenting my children's youth. I get about 300 DPI at 3000 x 2000. I've only printed full frames to 8x10 and they look really darn good. I would like to make a larger print to see what my limit is with this camera.

Jamie

Jamie

[Hans]

I saw a D40 at the local big box today...looks like a nice camera Jamie.
Leica calls that lens the "Noctilux"(I bet). There's one on eBay right now with a $3495. start price! Of course you need the $5K M8 to go with it. Way out of my range. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
I've been drooling over the Summilux 25mm (50mm) f1.4, but it's going to be a grand. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[PaulO]

Jamie it's great to want the faster lenses, but in the mean time consider this: Your lens will be at it's sharpest at about f5.6 or f8. You might be suprised if you compare a "wide open" apeture with the f-stops above. All lenses have a "prime optic". This is f-stop which gives the highest resolution possible for a given lens.
If you have a bad case of MAS, you can hold off on the high dollar lens and get that mando of your present dreams.

Don't misunderstand, those lenses are worth the price, but when you shoot "wide open" on those kit lenses they don't have the resolving power. It's all a matter of economics for the lens makers.

Paul

[Hans]

Paul #is right of course, and a fast lens has nothing to do with taking pix of instruments as you should be using a tripod and stop the lens down. I take landscape shots for hobby, and sometimes it's nice to be able to open up the lens for low light pix when you don't have that tripod along.
BTW, I just remembered that that old Cannon lens was f.095!

[JEStanek]

I know about the depth of field on fast lenses. I started off with a Pentax K1000 with a 50 mm 1.8 lens and a 4-5.6 80-200mm lens then moved up to a Nikon FM2 that served me very well through my college photography days (with access to nice lenses 20 2.8s 300 2.8s for football etc - decent lighting / strobe set ups for yearbook group shots etc.)

I got stuck digitally with crummy PhD's that could never capture the moment. I don't know if I'll ever get super fast lenses than what I have now. Those kit lenses and a tripod really get me most everything I need as a hobbiest. I nice macro lense might be nice though... and some strobes for portraits.... If I still felt like setting up a wet lab I would like to play with a Holga. My frienf had one and they make interesting pictures, medium format with mojo. Maybe I just need to find an old fashioned lab that still processes medium format negatives...

The mando(s) will probably come first.

Jamie

[danb]

Most of my stuff is done with the Sigma macro, which is 50mm fixed focal 1:2.8. I use that for most of my full mando shots too (move back further) and portraits too. Having no zoom out/wide on my main shooting lens has made me enjoy detail photos more, which is a fun thing. When Jamie Wiens was visiting with his Nikon rig, he brought a nice wide-angle and I was stunned at how much more fun you can have taking pictures of architecture with that http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif