photography

[Beekeeper]

Do we have any professional photographers on the forum?
I am interested in learning to photograph guns (and do it right).
I saw a camera at a photo studio that was hooked up to a computer and you could view whatever you were going to photograph on the computer screen.
Is it possible to do with any single lens reflex camera?
Is it only a software program that lets you do it?

Would appreciate any info anyone has on the subject.



Jim

[danski26]

I would not consider myself a pro photographer. I do take photos for my job. We do have a comera hooked up to a monitor but we use it only on the copy stand for macro shots. It has a few good features but also many drawbacks. Some digital SLR's have the output for the monitor and some don't.

What are you hoping to accomplish with this setup? Most of the time you are better off looking through the viewfinder of the camera for composition. The monitor can cause color issues. What you see may not be what you get.

Good lighting, filling the frame and matching the white balance to your lighting will go a long way to making good close-up photos of guns.

[Dale53]

I have photographed a goodly number of guns for a magazine. In fact, I built a "gun studio" in a spare bedroom. I am presently engaged in doing a complete collection at this time.

I have Canon SLR's (a 40D and a 7D). They both can be used "tethered". However, I prefer the freedom of shooting hand held with studio strobes. The strobes have a light duration of 3000th of a second so camera shake when handholding is not an issue. When doing long guns, it is quite helpful to be able to frame the rifle at an angle when taking the "middle third" for a magazine cover.

I also prefer to handhold (using the studio strobes, wireless) when taking pictures of a handgun (and leather, etc). It is MUCH easier to frame when looking directly through the viewfinder.

However, there are those that prefer tethered shooting (you can actually focus and fire the shot with your computer) and the image is directly downloaded to the laptop. The software was included with the Canon SLR's that I have.

I must say that gun photography is some of the hardest that I have attempted. It took nearly a year of serious application before I started getting results that pleased me (and my Editors). I am NEVER satisfied but each day of work puts me closer to my "ideal".

FWIW
Dale53

[Rocky Raab]

As a minimum, you need a decent digital camera, preferably one with a "macro" mode. You also need a light box and a tripod. You can buy or make a light box (just google "photo light box" for both sales and plans).

Begin with outdoor shots. You can play with aperture settings to have some photos with a distant background in focus or blurred, but be sure to fill the frame with gun. Get close enough to cut off barrel and even stock as long as the action is diamond clear. Use manual focus if necessary. Software can do many things, but it cannot fix poor focus!

BTW, I recommend downloading a program called GIMP. It is a photo program with all the bells and whistles of $400 Photoshop, but is free.

You don't absolutely need flash with a light box. You can use inexpensive "shop" halogen lights quite well. One great trick is to use the camera's self-timer. That way, you can completely eliminate even the tiniest wiggle caused when you press the shutter button. Push, take your hand off and let the camera time out by itself. I use my Canon's two-second setting. That's with a tripod, of course.

I bought an old drafting table with a tilting top as my photo table, and rigged movable light stands using conduit. With reflector lights and clamps, I can position light anywhere I want. I clamp white christmas gift tissue over the lights to serve as a light diffuser.

There are a zillion tips, but the key to laying out a photo is imagination. It often takes me an hour to arrange and compose a single shot. Getting the layout, angles, light and props exactly right is tedious - but the picture lasts forever.

[waksupi]

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9i2f5rgvj5cm7dqhg5qi6i37b6&topic=382.0

Try this

[Rocky Raab]

That is a VERY nice tutorial. It proves that you don't need a $1000 camera with a $2000 lens and a $10,000 studio to get amazing photos.

I learned several things from it. What I really need to do is learn GIMP a little better to get results like those.

[Recluse]

I learned several things from it. What I really need to do is learn GIMP a little better to get results like those.

Don't feel bad. I've used Photoshop for years, but Gimp is giving me some real indigestion trying to learn it.

:coffee:

[scrapcan]

Nice info above, thanks to all of you. One thing I have noticed in trying to learn this type of photography is that light is going to be your biggest hurdle. if you can get consistant even diffuse light on your subject to prevent glare and shadows, you will be far ahead of the curve. Then it will be learning how to use your camera features and the ever useful retouch/edit software.

GIMP is an interesting program. Do you guys have the introduction to GIMP book?

I am trying to learn the ropes of tool/firearm/macro nature photography with a nikon d60. I bought it because it is compatible with older non digital nikor lenses in manual, aperture, or shutter priority modes. I don't think I will ever get to professional level, but nice macro photography is pleasing to look at.

[jhrosier]

....What I really need to do is learn GIMP a little better to get results like those.

http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html

Jack

[Typecaster]

1. Be careful if you try to use older electronic flash units (especially studio set-ups like my Norman) with newer digital cameras—the trigger voltage can fry the camera circuits. A very Bad Thing. Use a Wein Safe-Sync or similar to protect the camera.

2. You can make a diffuser with a sheet of thin white plexiglass, or just use a 2'x4' flourescent light diffuser from Home Depot. Flex the diffuser to make a "dome" over your subject, put your lights above the diffuser, and you can shoot from the side or from a high angle. If you make a "stage" from white plexiglass and light it from underneath, you can virtually eliminate even soft shadows.

3. Some of the Stupid Bulbs (compact flourescent…we're stupid to think they're good) are diffuse enough to use in clamp-on holders without any other diffuser, but may give a color cast because they don't produce a continuous spectrum. YMMV.

4. Save the largest files you can (JPEG minimum compression if you must use JPEGS). Use the lowest ISO setting you can. This will give you the best quality image to start with; you can always make it smaller, but sometimes you can't make it bigger no matter how much you play with it. Remember, a JPEG achieves its compression by throwing away information (detail).

Make notes of your camera settings and distance of the lights to the subject and you can have repeatable results in the future.

It doesn't really get interesting until you're trying to photograph glass or chrome like dental tools or scientific glassware. I promise.

Richard

[Rocky Raab]

Thanks for the link, Jack, but they want $225 for the book! I searched and found "Beginning GIMP" for $30 and ordered it.

[Pat I.]

I'm not a professional photographer but have had a few pictures on the cover of the Fouling Shot. I don't have any thing even resembling a studio so take most of my photos outside in the shade on sunny days. Use a custom white balance and set the shutter speed to 200. Shoot in Raw if you have it and try to come up with some helpful props to make it look interesting. The Model 28 was taken on a glass coffee table top when the sun was just high enough so it gave a little back light without being too bright. I use a Canon XT body (which is old news nowadays) and mostly for pictures like this a 17x40 lens. Stick with natural light and play around a lot and you"ll get stuff that at least you think is good in no time.

Below are some examples. They're scans of the originals so the quality is pretty bad.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f357/30iffy/11-1.jpg http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f357/30iffy/22-1.jpg
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f357/30iffy/33-1.jpg http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f357/30iffy/44-1.jpg
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f357/30iffy/55_1024x683-1.jpg http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f357/30iffy/coverphoto_543x768-1.jpg

[scrapcan]

RockyRaab,

You can access the contents of the book by using the table of contents shown on the link above. If you run Linux you can download the entire book as a tarball (zipped file).

[Recluse]

Do we have any professional photographers on the forum?
I am interested in learning to photograph guns (and do it right).
I saw a camera at a photo studio that was hooked up to a computer and you could view whatever you were going to photograph on the computer screen.
Is it possible to do with any single lens reflex camera?
Is it only a software program that lets you do it?

Would appreciate any info anyone has on the subject.

Jim

Like you, I grew up in the film world, and my career in dealing with producers and production began that way as well, too. Towards the end, I was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital world. I'm still dubious in some areas, but the speed and convenience and tolerance for error (which translates into both $avings for clients and increased profits for photographers) and sheer technology it represents kind of fascinates me.

Regardless, getting the image onto the "film" plane has not changed and will not change. Digital allows you to make a bad picture better, but it is still better to do compose and shoot the picture correctly at the getgo.

Three things will be your best friend for "in the field" shooting of guns and accessories:

1. Natural Light. Fortunately, God provides this at little to no cost, but He only provides it for roughly half the day in some locales. Moonlight is nice, but hard to use it to pick up the detail and splendid colors of nice firearms.

2. Light diffusers and reflectors. You can go as expensive or inexpensive as you like with these. You can also go as elaborate or as simple as you like. During my photojournalism days (in college), I preferred simple, and for two reasons: One, I didn't have any money so simple equaled cheap, and Two, stuff gets broken out in the field so the less I had invested, the less I lost.

3. Field bag/box. The more you shoot, the more you'll discover things you "wished you had or wished you'd brought with you," but didn't due to either space limitations, didn't have them, or just flat didn't think about them.

This list would include batteries, rope/string/wire, oddball pieces of wood to help stand props/subjects up or reposition them, velcro (always a nice thing to have on a field photo shoot), tarps to cover your gear/subject when the unexpected rain shower blows in, water/cleaner to clean props or subject matter, padding, etc etc.

The sky is kind of the limit for what things you might choose to bring out in the field with you on a shoot.

At home or in a studio, you can obviously have it all in a supply cabinet or room.

In photography, equipment quality helps and there is a cutoff out there somewhere between the cheap junk and the quality equipment. You'll have to decide where that cutoff is. I used to think that Hasselblad was the only way to go in medium format photography. But Hassleblad cameras are expensive. I went with Mamiya and never looked back.

Same with 35mm SLRs. When I was shooting as an intern, then part-time for the newspaper in my college town, I used a Nikon F3, Nikon motor drive and Nikkor lenses. Between shooting sports and other "gotta be there" types of events, it's not hard for your camera to take a beating. Nikons are tough--but you pay, dearly, for that toughness.

When I decided photojournalism (journalism in particular) wasn't for me, I sold the Nikon stuff to a photographer with the Dallas Morning News and then got myself a pair of Minolta X570s with Minolta motor drives and Rokkor lenses and never looked back. Still have them, and still occasionally shoot with them.

These days, Nikon and Canon seem to be the leaders in digital SLRs. I was never a Canon fan, and not sure why, but just wasn't. Good cameras, good brand and good innovation beyond a doubt. I've drooled over a couple of the upper-end Nikon SLRs, but really do not have a need for such a high-powered camera.

So equipment-wise, it's up to you.

Now, if you still shoot with a 35mm film camera, do not despair. Shoot your film, then digitize it by having it burned to a CD. Any one-hour photo place can do this now. Once digitized (on CD), you can manipulate your images on Photoshop or Gimp no differently than if you had shot with a digital camera.

The software will be the tricky part, and for a variety of reasons.

In the age category that you and I and most other folks here at Cast Boolits belong in, steep learning curves come a bit more difficult for us--and neither Photoshop nor Gimp are easy to learn. To that end, I'd highly recommend a continuing education class from the local community college that teaches photoshop.

Also to assist you are a myriad of forums, just like Cast Boolits, whose subject matter deals with photography and photoshop. Those places, like this one, are a gold mine.

Other tricky part about software is the expense and incessant need to "update." I'm no fan of pirated software, but financial realities are what they are. I'm even less of a fan of the computer geeks lifeblood motto of what I've coined "Planned Obsolesence." Bill Gates was/is the king of this, but even my beloved Apple geeks are going that direction too.

Good news is that a basic version of Photoshop can be had from Amazon.com for a very reasonable price, and I've managed to get along with my version of Photoshop now for just over ten years with zero need to update/upgrade. The basic photo and image manipulating functions I need and desire are still 100% functional and viable for anything I need.

Finally, best way to become a good/better photographer is through obsessive reading and studying of what those before you have done and learned. I'm a huge fan of Ansel Adams--I think he's the greatest landscape photographer God ever graced with a camera. Study all photos--good and bad--of guns. You'll learn more from looking at bad pictures than you will good ones.

Then, shoot shoot and shoot some more. Especially if you go digital--because pixels are free. No D76 needed to develop them, they're already there.

The more you shoot, the more you manipulate and the more you study the the more you'll learn and the more you'll improve.

:coffee:

[jhrosier]

Thanks for the link, Jack, but they want $225 for the book! I searched and found "Beginning GIMP" for $30 and ordered it.

Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't mention that you can download the entire book for free. It was the link right under the "buy it" link.

Jack

[Dale53]

As has been mentioned above, some of the best light to be had is "open shade". My "Florida Room" has made me several magazine covers. The problem is that it only works when the weather permits and for part of the day. The quality of light is excellent but not always available. For the occasional shooter, it is top drawer (color temperature is usable, it costs nothing, and it is "soft light" with soft shadows).

Most cover shots use the middle third of a rifle. However, sometimes, when illustrating an article or even making a photo for yourself, you need to photograph a whole rifle. That presents a somewhat difficult set of problems. You need room to get far enough away (so all of the rifle is in the picture). You need to support the rifle in a way that doesn't show in the pictures (I hate hanging a rifle on "hooks" as it looks so amateurish). I finally made a home built rig complete with large scrims (defusing material) that allows me to place the rifle muzzle vertically on a plug. I can easily take a full length shot and only have to photoshop the muzzle plug from the picture. It also requires at least two lights. I use studio strobes but fixed lights can work well, also. With fixed lights, you don't have the power to allow you to hand hold the camera and have to use a tripod. That works very well but limits your flexibility when shooting.

I have excellent cameras but you can do VERY good work with a GOOD point and shoot (my first cover shot was with a Canon G3 and it (the image) is as good today as when I took it). The modern version would be the Canon G10 or G11. These cameras have enough image quality to get the job done. The price of the camera includes a lens that will be all that you really need. Then you need to have "EYES". That is something that we all do NOT have. However, if you can really SEE, then a relatively simple camera and set up can produce VERY nice images.

Guns, American Handgunner, and other similar magazines have both cover and interior images that set a very high level. Looking at dozens of those images can do nothing but help. They have had some VERY good photographers to emulate. Probably, the most important thing you can do is STUDY the craft and take LOTS of pictures. Just like with shooting a handgun, you need LOTS of trigger time.

This is a Cimarron .44 Special (of mine) that I photographed just the other day:

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/Dale53/DalesPistolsRevolvers4Selects-0315.jpg

It is a simple image but shows the revolver off well (IMO).

FWIW
Dale53

[Dale53]

One other thing that I neglected to mention. I use Photoshop CS3 and Light Room 2.6 (3 is due out shortly). Those are expensive programs. However, if I were starting out I would just use one software program until I got a lot of experience and that is Photo Shop Elements 8. Adobe now has this on special at $80.00. It has about all you'll need to handle your photos including processing your RAW photos. I LOVE LightRoom but I recommend Elements to new photographers. Elements used to be a light weight PhotoShop program. Now, it has nearly everything you'll need in itself. It even allows work in "Layers".

So, buy PhotoShop Elements 8 and a GOOD book and jump in to a lifetime of enjoyment with digital photography.

FWIW
Dale53

[felix]

Excellent saturation, Dale! That's one advantage of using the high dollar cameras. These machines allow good manual (override) controls which sort of eliminate screwing around making the same effect using Photoshop. ... felix

[GLL]

Dale:

I love what you can do ( and "undo") with Photoshop ! :) :)

Jerry

http://www.fototime.com/CD0FF97C006F6C2/orig.jpg

[felix]

Me too, Recluse. Ansel Adams rocks! With his eye for subjects and technology equally, I can only imagine what he could have done with electronic pixels. He is about the only person who has that ability to "paint with light". All of us mere mortals need color to color our "errors". Ever play with Technical Pan? I say it's better than 5K pixels per inch when EVERYTHING is perfect. Digital is so much easier that it makes mediocre look good. ... felix

[Rocky Raab]

Funny you should mention Guns and American Handgunner. I pitched an article to editor Roy Huntington at SHOT and he said that THE limiting factor for him to accept a freelance piece is the photography.

I could write like a blend of Ruark and Hemingway, he said, but if the photos weren't stunning, it'd be a "no sale." For a guy who has sold upwards of 60 articles -with pictures- over the years, that's something to yank me up short.

[felix]

Rocky, that's high acutance with high saturation. Shows how ignorant the readers of those magazines are. Thanks to the Hollywood folks making the show much more important than the tell. ... felix

[Dale53]

Felix;
Thanks for the kind words.

GLL;
You have afforded us some very nice images, yourself.

Good equipment helps but there is NO substitute for actual craft skills. I have seen some excellent work with a good point and shoot by a real photographer.

A good light tent is a really big help when doing guns.

Dale53

[TCLouis]

Rocky
I would have thought that the limiting factor in todays freelance article for the average "gunzine" is the number of advertisements written into the story line.

[Dale53]

Rocky Raab;
Huntington's comments do not surprise me at all. That has been the rule for magazines of stature at least since the years of WW II (remember LOOK and LIFE?).

Today, all "Journalism" comes to us via Television. However, the Gun magazines DO bring us great images.

FWIW
Dale53

[Dale53]

Pat;
I did not intend to ignore those nice "Fouling Shot" covers. They show excellent technique and good "building an image" skills. Good work that have given me no little pleasure.

Dale53

[JIMinPHX]

If you want to take nice pictures on the cheap, get a sub $200 digital camera from a big box store & shoot in natural light (sun light).

You don't need super high resolution unless you are going to be printing large poster size stuff. Magazines print at 300dpi. dpi = dots per inch. a 8 x 10 print @ 300dpi is 8 x 300 x 10 x 300 = 7,200,000 or 7.2 megapixles. Unless you want to print larger than 8 x 10 or at a higher resolution than a magazine, you don't need more than 7.2Mp. You would be hard pressed to notice the difference between a 7.2 & a 6, unless you know what to look for. Video monitors don't need nearly as much picture resolution as printers do.

A zoom lens is a plus. "digital zoom" is a hoax. All it does is shoot at a high resolution, then crop the picture & blow it up at a lower resolution.

If you want to get really deep into it, pay attention to the file type that the camera stores. There are 3 channel & 4 channel file types. 3-channel (like JPG) works best on video monitors. 4-channel (like TIFF) works best for printing. That is because video screens work off of 3 primary colors, Red, Green & Blue (RGB), while print ink comes in 4 primary colors, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, & blacK (CMYK). Any time that a 3 channel file goes to a printer, an imperfect calculation is done & information is lost. The loss of information degrades the picture quality.

If I get any deeper than that, we will not be talking about sub $200 cameras anymore.

[Beekeeper]

I allready have the expensive camera.
It is a high end pentax and since I have always used Pentax I have the lenses as well.
Do pretty good with normal photography but am a clutz when it comes to photographing a gun.
Since I have a large colection of antiques my insurance man wanted pics of them for insurance purposes.
They always seem clutzy to me when I look at them compared to the actual gun so maybe I just need to practice some more and maybe build a light box to shoot them in.



Jim

[Dale53]

Beekeeper;
A light box/light tent really helps. Here is an excellent article on building your own:

http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent

Good luck!
Dale53

[felix]

Way to go, Jim! The readers might want to know the meaning of those primary colors. If light is GENERATED, then the primary colors are RGB. If light seen is reflected from a generator's source (the sun, light bulb, etc.) off of an object (paper, book, etc.), then it takes four different colors, CMYK, to make a match to RGB. The difference between the two wavelengths, like B(blue) and C(cyan), is called a bias, not unlike one needed to make music from a record. Here the needle is the source sound, and the speaker is the reflected sound. ... felix