Mandolin photo techniques

[danb]

We have a lot of good photographers here. Feel free to chip in with techniques for instrument photography. I'll start off with a confession of my stupidity!

I can't believe it took me this long to realize how much a polarizing filter can help with instrument photography.

I spent about $30 on a hoya circular polarizing filter for my camera after Jamie Wiens mentioned to me how it can help with minimizing reflections.

This is the shot with filter off.

[danb]

Close to the same shot (with the filter on and dialed in to the correct angle). Poof! now it really shows the figure on the top without distracting reflections

[Chris Biorkman]

That is just about the most Loarish looking mandolin I've ever seen.

[JEStanek]

Here's what I have learned. #Use a tripod and natural diffuse light (light coming in from a window and bouncing off walls to illuminate your subject). #If your camera will allow, use the two second delay before the shutter releases while on the tripod to further minimize vibration on longer exposures (shoot at iso 400, 200 or 100 is even better).

For full body shots, I would use a smaller F stop like 11 and up, for those sweet detail shots like Troy Harris often posts, use a small f stop 4.5 or 2.8 (if you have a lens that fast) and keep the camera closer to the subject. #For full body shots keep the camera a little further back. #Try and use the full frame to maintain the best image quality (reduces cropping and enlarging).

Keep the backgrounds simple and remember that they can either enhance or distract from the subject.

That's the 30 second primer I can give.

Jamie

Edit: the polarizer is a great tool. Afix it to the lens then rotate to minimize the glare, it's pretty WYSIWYG. You'll be able to see it's affect. You may lose about 1/2 to 1 full stop of light too (i.e., need a longer exposure).

[JeffD]

With digital photography my technique has changed. I just take a lot of pictures, adjusting all kinds of things with each take. Odds are I will "serve into" the right combination and some of the pictures will come out decent.



http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Jim MacDaniel]

To piggy back on what Jamie said about backgrounds: to help direct the viewer's eye to your mandolin, and to ensure that it does not get lost in the photo, choose a simple background that contrasts with the color and finish of the mandolin, both from a color and texture point of view.

[amowry]

I too started using a polarizing filter recently. It's a big help. For me, unwanted reflections are by far the most problematic part of photographing instruments. A good reason to choose a satin finish!

[BlueMountain]

Good advice, Dan. I haven't used a polarizing filter in years, and maybe I should use one again.

Jamie, you have some details wrong. (I used to teach photography.) Assuming that you are using a tripod, so you can use a slow shutter speed if you need to, the F-stop is primarily a way of adjusting depth of field. The longer the lens (i.e., as with a telephoto lens), the shallower the depth of field. With a wide-angle lens, the depth of field is wider. (This is why you can get away with a cheap wide angle lens, but you need the best telephoto lens you can afford.) When the camera is very close to the detail you are photographing, chances are you will need the best depth of field you can get. This means using F-16, or even smaller if you have it.

For example. You are using a film camera with a normal 55mm. lens, shooting a scroll. The camera is 6 inches away from the scroll. You want the entire scroll (on the top of the mandolin--not the entire 2" thickness of it) to be in focus. How much will be in focus if you have the lens set at F2.8? 0.02", less than the thickness of a D string! At F16, the depth of field will be 0.09. Not much, but it helps. At F32, 0.19" would be in focus.

So what should you do? There's an easy solution. If the film plane is TWELVE inches away from the camera, rather than 6, then at F32, you would have 0.95" in focus. At F16, you would have 0.48" in focus, enough to have the whole top of the scroll in sharp focus. But at F.2.8, you would have only 0.08" in focus.

Digital photos also use lens, and depth of field works the same way. If 12" seems too far away for the detail you want to photograph, then you need to crop the photo. It's better to have a cropped photo that is a bit grainer than a photo that isn't in sharp focus where you want it to be in focus.

As for shooting the entire mandolin at once, at F16, 3 feet away, the depth of field is 0.41 feet. At five feet, the depth of field is 1.18 feet. Your mandolin is about 2 feet long. So if you want all of it in sharp focus, then you need to shoot it at an angle so that no part of it is outside the depth of field for the focus.

No, I don't have this stuff by heart--just the principles. I got the info from http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[danb]

Here's an example showing strong direct light vs dimmer more diffuse light. These were both done in the garage with a flash, bouncing the flash itself off of close vs distant reflectors. The one with more light on it here seems to showcase the gloss of the finish as it creates more reflection. This is more direct as well, a white sheet held about 4 feet behind the instrument

[danb]

Second example is same composition but with light more distant, dim, diffuse.. shows more of the wood grain character

[danb]

My ideal outdoor shot is on a cloudy day. The sky is a great diffuser. This image shows a little too much direct light, but the highlights on the instrument show the contours and 3d shape of the top really well

[danb]

By contrast, I controlled the lighting in this one with a single light source in a dark studio/garage. I hung lots of black cloth to minimize any reflections, aiming to get rid of the scattered highlights. I succeeded, but now it looks kind of dead and has no top shape evident

[danb]

Finally, this one shows just enough "Glare" on it to show the shape of the top. Maybe a little more on the bottom right of the body would have clinched it..

[Ted Eschliman]

I can't believe it took me this long to realize how much a polarizing filter can help with instrument photography.
Dan that's a cool discovery! Any way you can write up code for a "polarizing filter" into the Message Board? It would sure help us Moderators out...

[sunburst]

Dan, thanks for making the connection in my mind between polarizing filters and mandolins. While I used to use polarizers "in the old days" to minimize reflections from water (for example) and clear up hazy looking situations, that knowledge, though in my mind somewhere, hadn't occurred to me for mando photography!

[Barb Friedland]

If you're shooting with a digital camera, as I suspect most of us are these days, depth of field (the degree of sharp focus from near to far in the picture plane) is much less of an issue than in "analog" (film based) photography. Most digital camera rigs provide a huge amount of depth of field as is. (If you've ever tried to take a portrait with a soft focus background with a digital camera, you have run onto this reality.) Thus, the sort of small lens aperture openings used in traditional photography such as f-8 or smaller (f-16 was suggested) is not necessary. You'll do just fine with a digital camera aperture at around f-5.6.

One of the major issues natural light photographers run into has to do with not being able to hold the camera still, resulting in a shaky looking image. Most folks can't handhold slower than 1/60th of a second. A tripod is the answer in that situation.

One of my best recommendations is to take a page from portrait photographers, who know the art of lighting a subject,. These folks use umbrellas to bounce the light onto the subject. On an overcast day, the sky acts like a gigantic umbrella and gives a nice open natural light source. You'll have fewer problems with reflections this way.

Another page from the portrait photographers technique book is take a really discerning look at your subject. Has it got fingerprints and smears on it that will become more obvious in a photo? Wipe it down really well before you shoot.

This thread topic in on my second passion on life- photography. I taught beginner to intermediate levels for many years. Feel free to contact me if you have specific questions. I'd be happy to help.

[Hans]

Although I use a 25mm f1.4 and 50mm f2.0 macro a lot, they are usually stopped down quit a bit. Optimum is usually f5.6-f8, but it's best to check the lens. Doesn't matter that much for web shots as you are not going for max sharpness and detail only to put up at 72ppi. Ed is right, you aren't going to get much DOF at wide open, and usually, you don't get max sharpness either.
I generally don't use AWB (auto white balance) as most cameras are just not too good in all situations. I use an Expodisc, but white paper, or even a 'Pringles' cap will get you a better custom WB than AWB.
Tripods are a must, and lock the mirror up or put on at least a 2 second delay on the shutter. I have an Olympus E3 with IS (image stabilization), and 2 Leica lenses with IS, but indoors you are much better off with the tripod.
Depending on your camera, you may shoot up to ISO 400-800 before you get a lot of noise, but you really should shoot at 100-200 and use the tripod.

[JEStanek]

I guess I wasn't too clear in my original post. #For detail shots like Troy Harris shows on the Café the depth of field is very shallow. #He may have only the scroll button in sharp focus or the middle of a f hole with parts in front and behind them out of focus. #You are absolutely correct on focal planes, and distances with lenses BlueMountain.

Even the PhD (Push Here Dummy) digital cameras have some settings where you can specify aperture or shutter priority and set it to vary the depth of field or shutter speed. #The nice thing is most cameras (digital and film) have an aperture priority and a shutter priority setting where you change one the camera automatically adjusts the other.

For the beginning shooter. #(I hope this summarizes what has been posted)

The amount of light needed to get a decent exposure is constant. #You can vary three things to get it
1) ISO -film speed lower is less noisy (almost no grain), higher is noisier (grainier), #the noisier the film the less light needed to get the exposure. If you're at 200 speed 1/60th at 2.8 you could go to 400 speed 1/60th at f3.5 or 4 to get the same image with better depth of field but a little grainier.
2) Shutter speed - this is always 1/the number so 60 = 1/60th of a second 500 is 1/500th of a second so the bigger the number the faster the aperture is open and
3) F-stop or aperture where the lower the number the bigger the hole letting light in 2.8 is WIDE open while 32 is like a pinhole camera.

Aperture and Shutter speed typically are arranged in 1 step of each other. #If you are at 1/125second at F8 you would go to 1/60 second at f11 and get the same exposure but your depth of field would be deeper in the second example.

On the flip side, if you're shooting a picture of someone playing and you want their picking hand and strings to look blurry, use a slow shutter speed (1/60th, 1/30, 1/15 (I wouldn't go much below 1/30th without risking too much blurry)). #The slower the exposure the more blurry it will look, and the blurrier everything else is unless you are very steady. #If you want to freeze the action use 1/125th or greater shutter speed.

Shoot with the sun behind you if possible. #You have softer, more diffuse light in the morning and evening when the sun is lower in the sky.

Polarizers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Polarizer) help reduce glare nicely.

The closer you move to your subject the narrower your depth of field range becomes with any given lens. #This effect is lessened with wide angle lenses than with telephotos.

These are very general principles and could get you started experimenting with photography (ideally to fund your MAS). #It takes practice just like picking. #Fortunately, with digital shooting, you can see your results immediately and compensate if you understand the principles of depth of field and shutter speed and how they are related. #Have fun. #

Jamie

[Hal Loflin]

Could one of you guys give us some info on the difference in milimeter sizes on the polarizing filters? I did some internet searching for one for my Canon and it comes in several different mm sizes: 53; 58; 67; 72; 77, etc.

Maybe explain the difference in the mm sizes (what they would do) and recommend a good size.

Thanks...This is a great thread!

[danb]

the size in mm is the size of your lens. They vary, so this is so that the threaded polarizer fits your filter size requirements. Usually it'll say that in the manual, printed on the lens itself, or on the stats for them if they are still available for online orders

[MLT]

Could one of you guys give us some info on the difference in milimeter sizes on the polarizing filters? I did some internet searching for one for my Canon and it comes in several different mm sizes: 53; 58; 67; 72; 77, etc.

Maybe explain the difference in the mm sizes (what they would do) and recommend a good size.

Thanks...This is a great thread!
The milimeter sizes that you are seeing have to do with the lens diameter. If your lens has screw threads, it probably has the lens diameter printed on it. On the old SLRs you would find this on the inner ring (just on the end of the glass itself). I am not sure if your Current Canon can or does have this printed on the lens ring. If the lens ring does not have screw threads, I would recommend going to a camera shop where you live and see if they can help you out. I am sure that there are products that are made for most digitals, and especially Canon.

[Steve Cantrell]

Dan's photo of John Reischman's Loar against a fading blue bench has been my wallpaper through two desktops PC's at home and three separate work computers at two different Fortune 500 companies. Good stuff.

[Hal Loflin]

Boy...A DUH MOMENT...I feel much smarter now!

[PaulO]

If you pay attention to the glare, just a small rotation of the intrument or a sight change in camera angle will take care of it.

The polarizing filter is a nice idea but it does cut down on the amount of light reaching the chip. #Please remember too that when you use a slow shutter speed (1 sec and longer) on most digital cameras, it can have a similar result as increasing your ISO. #The "grain"(noise) will increase with longer shutter speeds. When you use a polarizing filter, it is just like a slower shutter speed or using less depth of field.

When in doubt use a tripod #The f5.6-8 thing is about what is called "prime optic". #That is where a lens is as sharp as it can be. #Normally it is in that f-stop range.

Hans understands this. #He shoots his instruments with indirect light so the light scatters and does not create glare. #A bright cloudy day is a great example of that.

I wish I could play a mando as well as I take pictures.

Attached is a shot of my mandolin which I shot in my house without any lighting, just the windows in the room. #A little bit of glare is not a bad thing. It lets the viewer know that there is curvature in an object.

Paul

[PaulO]

Oops here is the shot.

[PaulO]

Note that the glare in the picture above is mostly from the light fabric it sits on. The other is from a window. This is just a grab shot so a little turn of the camera or instrument will usually solve the problem.

You all please remember, what is important to you is the problem you need to solve. If no glare at all is your goal, then perhaps the polarizer is the answer. There are lot of cats out there and many ways to skin them. No offense to the feline loving crowd.

Paul

[herbsandspices]

I'm an architectural photographer, and know a little bit about studio photography as well, which is what I'd say this falls under. The key, as Dan has been talking about, is being able to control the light (or at least know how to let it not control YOU!).

I have a pretty simple setup, involving 4 off-camera flashes (not big studio strobes, but just camera flashes that aren't mounted on the camera), each mounted on a lightstand, and usually diffused with an umbrella of some variety. Each light has a radio receiver connected to it, which is triggered by a transmitter on my camera. Sounds tricky, but it's really easy after you mess around enough.

The lights can be dialed down, moved around, diffused in different ways, and filtered as well (creating different color temperatures). It's crazy what you can accomplish with a couple flashes.

For those of you who are intimidated by off-camera flashes, check out the Strobist (http://www.strobist.com) blog - it's got a HUGE following, as well as a Flickr discussion group which is very helpful.

All this talk about photography, you would think I'd have taken a stinkin' photo of my mandolin! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif john

[theBlood]

Being a photographer in an area with some luthiers, I've done some instrument photography.

The main point I'd add would be that reflections are not necessarily something you automatically want to remove, but rather, they are lighting phenomenon that you need to be aware of and use (or possibly remove) to your advantage according to what your objectives might be.

In the case of archtop instruments, the absence of any reflecting highlights leaves out, in a sense, some important information about the surface of an instrument on occasion.

A polarizer may save the day in a given setting, for sure. However, most serious photographers will manage the light sources to give the results they want without a polarizer. One good sized diffused panel of light on one side is a good start, then add some fills here and there.

Of course, the issue these days is not really about one accessory's usefulness, but the assumptions about quality coming from a handheld digital camera set on automatic. Just as with the construction of the instruments, there is such a thing as craftmanship in photography. Good results will come from an investment of some time and experimentation.

[sgarrity]

So where can you see this pic of Reischman's Loar on the bench?

[theBlood]

So where can you see this pic of Reischman's Loar on the bench?
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?182

[Timbofood]

Fascinating little photo tutorial you contributors! Again, information that is useful for far more reaching pursuits than originally intended. I have not used my polarizing filter in 20 years...time to get it out!

[sunburst]

I may well have one of the cheapest rigs for taking photos of my mandolins of anyone reporting here. I can't solve problems by being a "gear head" because, so far, my "gear" pretty much consists of an obsolete point-n-shoot digital camera and a couple of homemade lights on stands (and, of coarse a tripod or three). Back in my 35mm days I had strobes, cable releases, filters, etc., but when the need arose to switch to digital the budget didn't allow for more than the simple camera. One thing about it though, it makes me have to figure out and solve problems without just grabbing another piece of equipment.

Most of the things I've figured out have been covered here; long exposure = noise, glossy arched instruments like mandolins are reflective nightmares to shoot, a little reflection is needed to show the contours, etc., a custom white balance is far better than an auto, a tripod and the self timer make for sharper images (I sure miss my remote shutter on my 35mm) and on and on.

I take most of my shots in a makeshift area that I've set aside on the loft of my shop, and I get my best shots at night so there are no reflections of items in the shop and I can control all of the light and keep it all the same color. Sometime I try to minimize reflections and sometimes I feature them to show the gloss of the finish and the contour of the instrument.

I haven't read every word of every post here, but I haven't seen anyone mention a light tent. It is a good way to shoot glossy items without getting glaring reflections. I have a small one, but one big enough to put mandolins in would be a relatively simple way to light the subject with plenty of diffuse light.

Here's an example of a shot done in the light tent in direct sunlight.

[trevor]

I have a professional photographer coming to advise on technique and equipment tomorrow, he took some great guitar shots for me a few years ago.

I will report back after his visit. The quality of photography should improve on my website afterwards. I am a competent outdoor photographer but have little knowledge of lighting and flash.

[Hans]

I pretty much refuse to use a flash, instead use available light even if I have to use a few lamps around the house, or a window. Many times windows can be covered with a bedsheet or light colored blanket if the light is too harsh.
Most of the time I would rather jack up the ISO a bit (you need a good camera for this) than use a flash. I shoot ISO 100, RAW, and of course stay away from noise reduction in camera. Better to make corrections in Ps or Lr.

[mandopete]

Picture? Oh, I thought someone said "pitcher"... that's a whole 'nother thing.

Sorry.

[Tim Pike]

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[PhilGE]

Picture? #Oh, I thought someone said "pitcher"... that's a whole 'nother thing.

Sorry.
I dare say I see the shape of a mandolin with a "spout" instead of a "scroll" in that there image. I also see a very fine strap hanger attached, though it's on the, uh, "wrong" side!

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

-Phil

[PaulO]

It's really nice to see how you all, who make instruments have found ways to make your pictures look great. It certainly proves that you all pay attention to detail and it shows in Hans and John. Since I make pictures for a living, I'll not call on those guys, they don't need my help. And it's interesting to see how many others are just as capable. I suspect they enjoy the process as much as they obviously enjoy making mandolins.

Paul

[TomTyrrell]

I was glad to see somebody mention a light tent (AKA light box). I've found nothing better for shooting shiny, glossy things. This link (http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent/) will give anyone who doesn't know what a light box is a good idea of the concept.

I've found that using a light from only one side of the box will enhance the three-dimensional aspects of something like a mandolin top without that annoying glare. A front curtain with a slit for the camera lens will cut down on any reflections of the camera itself. If you have an automatic digital camera, hitting the light box with two or three bright light sources will force the camera to its best settings for high detail.