| Author | Message | ||
     Lutz Slomianka (Lutzs) Peacock Username: Lutzs Post Number: 424 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.39 |
Dear Arno and list, Here is my little setup. The only thing I bought to photograph ceramics is the grey sheet of cardboard, which serves as a background - that's the $2.50 I spent. I realize that we have discussed how to take pictures a couple of times before, but anyway ... here are my two pennies worth 1. Diffuse daylight is best. 2. The aperture should be stopped down to something like 5.6 or 7. Most automatic cameras will try to give you the shortest shutter time possible under low light conditions - meaning the largest aperture and very little depth of field. The result is often that very little of the piece is in focus. 3. A tripod is essential. Relatively low light and a small aperture also mean long exposure times. If I'm lucky I can get 1/30 of a second, but it usually is between 1/5 to 1/20 and occasionally as much as 1/2 of a second - too much for consistently steady shots. 4. A good camera is essential. Good is only related to the number of pixels in the top range of cameras that are available, in which lots of care has been spent on the other, more important pieces of the camera, i.e. lens, on-chip color filtering, white balancing, exposure and focus control. Today you find that relation in the 10 Megapixel or more class. Buying yesteryears top model will get you that relation at a substantially lower price with still tons of surplus pixels. My camera was the top model some 7 years ago - only 2 Megapixel but a beautiful lens and near perfect white balance and exposure control, and no crazy internal mucking around with the picture. Optional/a matter of taste: Something that complements the color of the piece may help the camera to focus and/or find the correct white balance and, for me, makes a more interesting/pleasing picture. Mandatory: Practice. If you play around a lot with the resources you have, you are likely to come up with a way to make nice pictures sooner or later. I had been thinking about that little studio that a couple of list member have bought and which seems to give quite good results too, but currently it is working rather well without. Hope this helps, Cheers, Lutz  | ||
| Lutz Slomianka (Lutzs) Peacock Username: Lutzs Post Number: 425 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.39 |
Can't help myself ... here are a couple of my better recent attempts.    | ||
| Arno Jacobs (Jcbs) Peacock Username: Jcbs Post Number: 625 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip-145-85-177-180.fontys.nl |
Dear Lutz, Thank you very much for this thread, I can learn a lot from it. It is exactly as you say, thank you for the technical information. I'll practice on this, next time for days, weeks,........ I've bought indeed a little studio with 3x slave flash, just to believe I could make better pictures than before, till now its just an illusion. The pictures came out too dark, too light, not in focus, and so on. These things are just the usual beginners failures. For the points you mentioned I've put my own thoughts to it, and thats only my one cent thought. - daylight is the best, but most of the time, special in the winter or evening, its dark. - Aperture must be set manuel, but not always possible, as for my camera (Cannon 530), I think its not possible. - Tripod, YES. I must do the shutter time at 1/60 because I've a lot of extra flash in my little studio. - Background, I'm experimenting with it. I see I must go for a more strong background, board or so. For now I get grey background with a white cloth. The white balance I have set with this white cloth and it turn out grey in the pictures???? Sometimes light grey and sometimes dark grey. - Closeups!!! I use an extra magnifying glass between the camera and the object, just to focus because it didn't work without. Out of focus it was all the time without this glass. - The magic touch you've put in the pictures is splendid and emphasize the beauty. Thanks again, and its practice time again. I hope this gonna be a thread for all those members like me, to look at and to learn from it, to make nice pictures. Best regards, Arno | ||
| Tommy Eklöf (Toekl2002) Dragon (Board Moderator) Username: Toekl2002 Post Number: 1844 Registered: 04-2003 Posted From: c-abc6e253.66-11-64736c11.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se |
Thanks for showing Arno. Beautiful pictures. Here is my experiences when it comes to macros: http://www.gotheborg.com/discus/read.php?file=/11760/81267.html Regards Tommy | ||
| Paul Seno (Paulseno) Peacock Username: Paulseno Post Number: 404 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 203-214-121-98.dyn.iinet.net.au |
Hi all, some very good tips here, I'll have to try them. Thanks Lutz and Tommy. I also have to be more patient when taking photos. I tend to rush them. Regards Paul | ||
| michel collet (Melbournezazou) Lesser Egret Username: Melbournezazou Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: c211-28-122-69.eburwd3.vic.optusnet.com.au |
Hi all. Excellent tips. You have already helped. I have had untold problems photographing high lustre items. The attached photo of a Pilkington vase demonstrates my inability to find answer. I have tried books, forums. Does anyone knows what I should try: any tips or lead to published info? Cheers. Michel Collet   | ||
| Giovanni Repetti (Grepetti) White Crane Username: Grepetti Post Number: 1361 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host199-106-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Lutz, thank you for restarting a thread on this matter. Since all judgements are based on the posted pictures, it is important that we members are in condition of taking them at our best. All your suggestions are excellent. I would like to report my experience about the lighting. It took time to me to understand why, despite a correct white balancing of the camera, the pieces still have a dominant. Most of my pictures had a warm tone. It is because the majority of the pieces are highly reflective (due to the glaze) and then are mirroring the environment around. The walls of my house are brick or yellow painted at the exterior, so a warm tone is diffused. Then I bought on XXXX in England a soft lighting box similar to the one shown by Tommy in a recent thread. My experience with this device is that its main advantage resides in the elimination of the dominants coming from the surrounding ambient, because one can operate in a room with low light level and so the light inside the soft box is the prevailing one. Another advantage is that it is not necessary to wait for a good whether. What I didn’t like is that the resulting pictures has an artificial appearance, independently of the nature of the artificial light source (incandescence, neon). To better illustrate what I mean, I am posting here below a series of pictures of a Jun shard. For each couple of pictures, the first one is in the soft box with artificial light, and the second one is outdoor under an afternoon’s winter pale sun. You can see that the pictures under artificial light are richer in details and have color nuances that are not so evident under natural light. These nuances are undoubtedly there, nevertheless are not so evidenced under everyday standard light illumination; so after all I prefer the pictures under natural light, because who has to judge the piece has the eyes “calibrated” for that conditions.       After all the close-up details are not so different, they are just missing the “artificial” feeling. The soft box then is very useful for taking pictures outdoor, under direct sun light, for shading it. I must confess dear Lutz that I have not exactly understood your meaning about the pixel numbers or image dimensions. Are you suggesting an high resolution camera or a camera that privilege other aspect as lens quality, manual operation? I am not so keen on high resolution, the only advantage is that you can extract a detail if you have missed a close-up image. I already said that I like very much your taste on composition. I started a while ago by including a nut on my pictures for giving a dimensional sense. I choose the nut because it is known everywhere. Not all leaves or shells as you do may be dimensionally unknown by some of us, but the effect is very beautiful. May be I will copy the suggestion if it is not under copyright  . Dear Arno, the reason why your background changes its density is because the camera is setting the exposure measured at the centre of the image, where is placed the piece that you are photographing. If the subject is darker than the background, then the background becomes lighter and vice-versa. This is because the exposure systems are calibrated on a medium reflective grey of 18%. This didn’t happened a few years ago, when I only made slides, because I used an hand exposure meter, which allows you to measure incident light. This is the best system, but quite complicate with current cameras. Michel, above is also the answer to your problem. You must operate in an environment that is much darker than your subject. Kind regards, Giovanni | ||
| Lutz Slomianka (Lutzs) Peacock Username: Lutzs Post Number: 427 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.39 |
Dear Giovanni, You are right. The jun shard under natural light looks less gaudy than the one taken in the box. Re. the camera, I wanted to point out that there are more important things than the amount of pixels and that 5 million pixels are not necessarily better than 2 million pixels. However, the better cameras among the current models will also have the larger pixel numbers - unfortunately, since the vast amount of pixels makes processing the image, if needed, more cumbersome. Nice shard! Cheers, Lutz | ||
| Giovanni Repetti (Grepetti) White Crane Username: Grepetti Post Number: 1362 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host34-242-static.44-85-b.business.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Lutz, I totally agree with you about the pixels number, although "how many pixels?" is the first question made by most of the buyers. The Jun shard is not mine, I am currently restoring the wooden frames of the Jun shards collection of the Chinese museum of Parma. Best, Giovanni | ||
| Walter Susor (Wsus) Peacock Username: Wsus Post Number: 624 Registered: 08-2003 Posted From: adsl-75-7-0-7.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net |
All, A few quick observations. The number of pixels sells cameras to amateur photographers, but is irrelevant to all but professional photographers. It is the quality of the lens and tripod that determine the sharpness of any photo for the internet or small prints. Ten megapixel is meaningless if the lens is not sharp and the camera not steady. The light source is not that important if you set the white balance with a neutral grey card. I find that when I let the camera automatically determine the white balance, the camera firmware always sets the white balance with a bias toward the predominant color of the subject. This is OK for ordinary snapshots, but with ceramics, especially those that are predominately monochromatic, the automatic white balance is unsuitable. Set your white balance manually to a neutral grey card, available from a supplier of supplies for professional photographers. Both daylight and indoor illumination present problems. Daylight because skylight (shade) and sunlight are different color temperature and will result in off color highlights. Besides, the quality of daylight can change minute by minute. I live on the edge of a fog belt, making it impossible to get consistent daylight. Indoors, the problem is that there are usually conflicting light sources, again resulting in off color highlights. Each light bulb in the room has a slightly different color temperature and is also competing with daylight from the window. My solution so far is to use two 3200 degree K photo floods in 12" reflectors and to photograph only at night with the room lights turned off to avoid off color reflections. I also find that with my camera, over or under exposure will affect the color balance, so I usually bracket the exposure and select the one that looks the most true on my computer screen. I have not used a light box as I think that the harsh highlight that results from direct illumination better shows the surface texture of the ceramic even though the picture may not be as pretty as one obtained with diffuse illumination. The techniques that I use are still evolving, but I think that my photos are improving. Walter | ||
| Giovanni Repetti (Grepetti) White Crane Username: Grepetti Post Number: 1364 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host199-106-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Walter, when I spoke about white balance setting I was of course referring to the MANUAL white balance setting. You are absolutely right, automatic whit balance can’t work properly, the system arbitrarily choose what he believe that is white or grey. I also would suggest that, despite what is written in the camera’s manual, a grey sheet works better than a white one. It must be matt. The two first pictures of the series above are made under very different source, a very white daylight tone neon for the first one and, as said, a pale sun of a winter afternoon, with a very warm tone. For both them the white balancing has been made on the grey background, a paper on the first one and a tissue on the second one. You can see that there are no dominant at all. I must also say that I do not light artificial light of whatsoever type. The big problem under artificial light is the strong contrast. Since the light intensity decrease due to distance is quadratic, there is a big lighting difference across the image. Let consider the first above image. I have placed two lamps on the left. The light levels difference on left and right side was enormous, so I had to place a lamp on the right side to clear the shadow. It can be seen on the background and on the gauge that about one f/stop exist between left and right, meaning that the light on the left is twice the light on the right. Of course I could place another lamp on the right, but this will result in a lack of deepness and, in this specific case, also the cancellation of the cracquelures. This does not happen under natural light because the left/right distance (ten centimetres) is absolutely un-significant compared to the distance from the light source (about 149 million of kilometres, hahaha). In my opinion, the best light situation is outdoor, in shadow or even better in a cloudy or foggy day. On the other hand, artificial light has the big advantage of allowing us to take pictures everyday and at every time, so efforts for improving and better knowing such technique are well-worth. Kind regards, Giovanni | ||
| Walter Susor (Wsus) Peacock Username: Wsus Post Number: 625 Registered: 08-2003 Posted From: adsl-75-6-239-44.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net |
All, I have made a few test photos that I would like to share. They are not beautiful photography as are the photos by Lutz nor are they intended to be and are not intended to show great detail - only the effect of different light sources. All are taken from a camera distance of 1 meter at the maximum telephoto setting of my camera and with auto exposure (not always accurate).  1. auto white balance, illumination from a chandelier with 4 13w spiral fluorescent bulbs directly over the camera position.  4. same as #1, but with the camera white balance set with a neutral grey card with 18% reflectance.  7. same as #4, but with illumination from 2 3200 K photoflood lamps.  16. same as #7 but with the exposure increased by 1/3 stop and the lamp positions adjusted to highlight the surface of the dish.  18. white balance set with the neutral grey card, illuminated with a single 60w incandescent bulb in a desk lamp.  19. same as #18 but with auto white balance.  20. auto white balance with illumination from skylight from the windows on a typically overcast sky.  21. same as #22 but with the white balance set to the neutral grey card. Now which most accurately represents the dish? In my humble opinion, #7 (the photoflood illumination with grey card white balance) is closest to the color while #16 best shows the condition of the glaze surface. #21 would probably be very close to the actual color with a 1/3 decrease in the exposure, but the color might be change within a few minutes (or a few seconds) as the cloud cover changes unless the white balance is reset. Walter | ||
| Lutz Slomianka (Lutzs) Peacock Username: Lutzs Post Number: 431 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.39 |
Dear Walter, Very nice illustrative shots! Some pieces I purchase by pictures look sometimes very different when they arrive. So far I have been lucky ... with a few sellers I have by now a feeling for how the piece would look like 'in person' when I see the pictures. It's one of the few skill I have that allows me to find the occasional bargain. So, dear list ... don't look too close at Walters pictures :-) Re. automatic white balance - it is quite important for me professionally, and the last time I bought a camera for my job, I did some explicit testing of it with the cameras from different manufacturers. There are vast differences between them - from cameras that violently distort/or do not manage to correct colors to cameras that keep a grey grey with only a few percent (<5%, often < 2%) difference between the primary colors. I think that is good enough for all practical purposes. So, I shot on automatic white balance all the time. Cheers, Lutz | ||
| Ricardo Manta Simões (Ricardo) Peacock Username: Ricardo Post Number: 405 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 89-180-150-213.net.novis.pt |
Dear Lutz Could you have the trouble of kindly say to what cameras are you talking about- As you know in my profession color accuracy is very important (I'm a restorer). Thank in advance and best regards. Ricardo | ||
| Tommy Eklöf (Toekl2002) Dragon (Board Moderator) Username: Toekl2002 Post Number: 1854 Registered: 04-2003 Posted From: c-4ec0e253.66-11-64736c11.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se |
Hi all. My camera (a handy Canon IXUS 500 (5 Mpx)) takes quite good photos with "automatic white balance" but when it comes to artificial light (spots) I have to set the white balance to "custom" with help of a white paper. When I do so I think the colors are quite good. With the camera studio I have the opportunity to move the spots so I don´t get any reflexes and to get rid of or make shadows if I want. Regards Tommy | ||
| Giovanni Repetti (Grepetti) White Crane Username: Grepetti Post Number: 1370 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host34-242-static.44-85-b.business.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Lutz, I am very skeptic that an automatic white balance will work correctly. I have seen that the best is manual white balance on a grey sheet, and not white although on many instructions for use the manufacturers suggest a white sheet. I think that they do so because a white paper is found everywhere while a pure grey, without blue or brown dominant it is not so commonly available. The two pictures that I have posted above, under two very different light sources, shows a pure grey background. BTW if you have experienced many cameras I would like very much to know if you have noted a different color rendition (of course after a correct white balancing). I have never found an article where the sensors of various manufacturers are compared under the point of view of the correct color rendition and the pose latitude. I do not know if “pose latitude” is a correct term, what I mean is the ability to record details both in light and shadow on the same image. About correct color rendition, I suspect that many manufacturers tends to privilege more vivid colors for market reasons. My first digital camera was a Nikon that a kind theft has stolen to me, then I bought a Pentax and very recently I bought again a Nikon and, though still I didn’t made a direct comparison, I believe that the Nikon is more correct. The Pentax has a tendency to warmest colors while the Nikon is more neutral I think. Do you have experience on that? Kind regards, Giovanni | ||
| Lutz Slomianka (Lutzs) Peacock Username: Lutzs Post Number: 432 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.39 |
Dear Ricardo and Giovanni, I'm using Olympus C-20series cameras both at home and at work - although the one I use at work comes in special 'packaging' to be mounted on a microscope. I have tested for colors, and they are true with the exception of far reds, which are too weak. The automatic white balance is exceptional - even under very odd color conditions. So is the line resolution which under good conditions corresponds to the physical limits of the chip. Noise is also very low (big chip - few pixels), and the lens on the consumer model opens up to 1.8. I have tried to upgrade to later models of Olympus and other manufacturers, but I have not found anything better. Manufacturers occasionally change filter characteristics - newer Olympus models have a better far red, but now they let some wavelength through that can completely screw up the pictures I'm taking at work. Noise is also slightly worse than on the earlier models. Don't forget that I've been working with them for many years now. Maybe I just got used to them. Good thing is that they can be picked up on THAT place for a hand full of dollars nowadays. Hmmm ... maybe I should get me a backup. Cheers, Lutz | ||
| Giovanni Repetti (Grepetti) White Crane Username: Grepetti Post Number: 1373 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host199-106-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Thank you Lutz. Best, Giovanni | ||
| Ricardo Manta Simões (Ricardo) Peacock Username: Ricardo Post Number: 406 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 87-196-24-87.net.novis.pt |
"There are vast differences between them - from cameras that violently distort/or do not manage to correct colors to cameras that keep a grey grey with only a few percent (<5%, often < 2%) difference between the primary colors." Dear Lutz This was what called for my attention. Could you elaborate on these tests? Regards. Ricardo | ||
| Lutz Slomianka (Lutzs) Peacock Username: Lutzs Post Number: 434 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.39 |
Dear Ricardo, The last time I was shopping around, I had some histological slides with me that were stained in different ways. There are usually a few spots on them which should appear color neutral, i.e. all three primary colors should have the same value. Well, they never are ... maybe just due to noise, but a good camera will get the values of the primary colors to within about 2% of each other. Others just can't. The worst I've seen were differences of up to 30%. I always use the automatic white balance. I know that good cameras are around. It is just a matter of finding them, and as long as I can find them I will prefer the point-and-shot simplicity. Cheers, Lutz | ||
| Spring Huguelet Lesser Egret Username: newserenity Post Number: 31 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: c-67-167-234-88.hsd1.il.comcast.net |
I've also had very good luck with Olympus, over the years. I'm very brand-loyal to them. I do not have color issues, thankfully, ever. As to lighting, I've had fun trying many of the methods of light sources and backdrops suggested in these threads. Through luck, I've stumbled upon the best solution for me - I've found that sunset lighting is the best, especially at this time of year, when the sun starts to get lower, the angle brings out such color! Examples from this week include attempting to photograph a sizeable black jade Phoenix. Although it is very dark green / black, only the sunset lighting brought out the wonderful colors that are waiting to be seen.   | ||
| Spring Huguelet Lesser Egret Username: newserenity Post Number: 32 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: c-67-167-234-88.hsd1.il.comcast.net |
Another difficult-to-photograph black jade with natural sunset lighting: (Think I'm going to try this beast with a different color backdrop, though I prefer the plain white with the Phoenix above.)  Thank you for all of your suggestions! Spring | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 2686 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host33-105-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Spring, I don't agree so much on your conclusions about the sunset light that should bring out colors. Generally, if you set the white balance on the camera as you should, it does not matter, within certain extents, the kind of source light. Late sunset light is lacking short wavelenght colors, so you will miss some colors instead of bringing out more. What you have is surely a general warmth tone which is appealing to our eyes. Also the images are more pleasing because of the less intense and more diffused light, which decrease the contrast and the image is more readable due to a more uniform illumination. Kind regards Giovanni |
