thom_bennett

You have too much light bouncing around and it is affecting the background density. You didn't mention how deep your space is but you

need to back up against the wall so that you can get the background paper to have a deeper sweep. Also, you can bring the lights that are

lighting the sculpture towards the camera and aim them at each other (cross light) so that just the edge of the light is hitting the sculpture

and it is not spilling onto the background. I even put large 4'x8' foamcore between the lights and the background to keep the light from the

front lights from hitting the background. Also, lighter background paper is a good suggestion so that the graduation will be more

pronounced. Good luck and have fun! BTW, your wife's sculptures are very cool!

Ken,

Thanks! So you have a dedicated camera for that. That makes sense. This will only be a few rugs so we'll have to figure

something else out.

Thom

Ken,

Sounds like you got some good answers. I have another question for you. How do you manage shooting large rugs from overhead? I've been

asked to photograph some large antique rugs for a client. Do you use a scaffold? Thanks.

I think the future, as far as digital backs and view cameras go, is that the cameras will get smaller (2x3 rather than 4x5) and the medium

format digital backs will only gain in megapixels. So, there will be no reason to manufacture a full frame 4x5 digital back. My two cents.

Matthew, here's the book that has the info you are looking for: Darkroom by Lustrum Press; edited by Eleanor Lewis.

183pp. Pub. 1977. There is a chapter about Ralph Gibson and his working methods. Good luck!

Ralph Gibson? http://www.ralphgibson.com/

What do I win? :)

Chris,

Check out this article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml

Richard talks about stitching images together and mentions the lenses he uses.

Good luck!

Thom

http://www.bennettscamera.com/

In Metairie (a suburb of New Orleans) and they stock Canon. Knowledgeable

salespeople. I'm not sure that B&H will ship to a hotel room.

Enjoy your stay in Louisiana!

We use a Leaf Valeo back on a Sinar P2 for studio work primarily with 80mm and

135mm Digitar lenses and I use movements in practically every shot. Lots of

shift/rise/fall and sometimes swing/tilt. We are tethered to a computer and have Live

Video which allows us to watch the movements on a large monitor. For studio work it is

great! We shoot everything from jewelry to furniture with this setup. No disadvantages

other than not being able to take a break to make 2 lab runs a day and grabbing a

Starbucks coffee while I'm out.

Deardorff Special. It is a 5x7 that takes a 4x5 reducing back. Readily available as they had

a long manufacturing history (30+ years). I use a 90mm regularly for 4x5, although I think

it could handle a 75mm with very limited movements, and a 120mm for 5x7 on the wide

end. Check out this info: http://deardorffcameras.0catch.com/V4-V5_FS/V4_V5fs.htm.

The downside is no interchangeable bellows although, if you were scrappy, I'm sure you

could get that made. I'm a big fan of Deardorff's so I am biased. I've not handled any of

the other brands. Good luck!

Thom

Scotto,

Whatever kind of light you use (whether studio strobe or tungsten) the most important

aspect of your lighting setup will be to polarize the light source and use a polarizing filter

on your lens. This will give you the best color and saturation without any glare off the

paint. With the size of your paintings I would use 4 lights, 2 on each side. Hang the

painting about 18" off the ground and put one light about 4 feet high and the other about

8 feet high right above the other. (This is for the tallest painting, 96") The center of the

painting will be at about 5.5' which is about where your eyes are (average height) so it will

be comfortable when you look through the viewfinder. The lights should be about 6' away

from the painting. This should give you a nice even spread of light. Good luck!

Gene,

My first question would be, "Why are you so far away from the subject?" Get in close and fill

the frame as much as possible; that will help with the sharpness because you won't have to

enlarge it later. As far as the lighting goes you seem to be doing o.k. Perhaps you could add

a grid spot from either right or left rear of the set to give a little sparkle and dimension to the

subject. Also, simply adjust your f-stop to compensate for it being dark. Good luck!

Roy,

Thanks for your clarification and other info; very helpful. You engineering types are the

unsung heroes of photography. Always coming up with interesting products that make our

jobs easier. As Kirk asked, I would be interested to know how the Dyna's compare in a side

by side test given that the acrylic cables have a smaller aperture than the glass but the

glass is more efficient. Also, isn't Dyna-lite reintroducing their FO unit?

It's not so much the size or type of light but the angle that it is coming from. While you are

looking through the camera have someone move the lights around the object. Also look at

the height your lighting is coming from. Angle of incidence = angle of reflection. Move

those lights around and keep us posted.

As a longtime subscriber to VC I have followed this thread (and others like it) and must say

that I think Steve and his staff are doing a fine job. No, the editing isn't like The New

Yorker but I can forgive them the typos, etc. because, with every issue, I get exposed to

what is going on currently in the world of large format photography. There have been

times when I saw a portfolio that I didn't like but, at the very least, the work made me

rethink what I consider to be art or photography or simply trash. BUT AT LEAST IT MADE

ME THINK! And perhaps it gave me an idea that I could pursue in my own work. View

cameras (the actual cameras, not the magazine) are possibly the most anachronistic way to

take a photograph here at the beginning of the digital millenium. And yet View Camera

Magazine shows us, on a regular basis, that photographers are using view cameras in

many different and interesting ways.

On a personal note I had a problem with getting my issues right after Katrina. I called

Andrea at the VC office and she rerouted my issues to my brother's business until our mail

service got back up and running on a consistent basis. She was most kind and expressed

her sympathy for what we were going through in New Orleans. I will never forget her

kindness. At this past VC conference in Louisville I had a chance to meet her and Steve.

They were very busy and we didn't have a chance to really chat but I look forward to seeing

them again at next year's conference.

All of this is to say that yes, the editing could be improved and you may not like

everything in every issue but, I, for one, am grateful that the magazine even exists this day

and age. Keep up the good work Steve.

Thom

Josh, I, for one, am pleased to hear a student wish to learn how to use a view camera.

When you learn how to use a view camera properly you learn how to render the three

dimensional world in two dimensions. This is extremely important for product

photography. I work in a studio where we photograph furniture, jewelry, small objects,

artwork, sculpture, etc. and the view camera is essential to rendering these products

faithfully as far as perspective and scale. We are strictly digital and use a Leaf back on a

Sinar p2. The means of capture is secondary to the fact that, with the view camea, we

control every aspect of the image. I also use a view camera to photograph interiors and

exteriors but there I shoot film. Until there is an affordable digital back that is full frame

4x5 I intend to shoot film for location work. The point being is that I believe there is

definitely a future for view cameras in product, advertising and architectural photography

because you can naturally control perspective, etc. at the point of capture rather than in

time-consuming post production. Now, the reality may be that end-users of images begin

to care less and less about a properly rendered object or building but that is a discussion

for another time. If you do learn to use a view camera you may just be creating a nice little

niche for yourself in the future. Good luck to you!

Keith,

Don't overlook the uncreative and unchallenging medical and public relations "stuff". This

type of work, approached in the right manner, can yield some interesting portfolio pieces

which, in turn, may help land you that dream job. Use this time to hone your thinking about

your photography. How you approach each shoot, how you turn the mundane into something

visually interesting will make you into someone that an editor wants on his paper or

magazine because you are able to take the bland assignments and really make them

interesting. Good luck!

I recently photographed this artist for his website with the 100mm f/2 on a 20D in the

studio: http://meadjones.com/contact.html. I like the perspective of this lens especially for

headshots although I plan to get the 50mm 1.4 for couples and small groups.

Brooks, Ah yes, "unattractive" specular highlights! That's more precisely what I meant. In

order to get enough light into the stones to bring them to life I move my grid lights

around to get to the least objectionable (to me, anyway) specular hilights in the stone but

it's still not even close to perfect. I do find that it depends a lot upon the stone itself. The

hard lights also get light deep into the stones and bring up flaws that are not seen by the

naked eye. That may be more a problem with the quality of gems that are being used but,

as the photographer, I want to get the highest quality image I can in camera so that the

least amount of Photoshop has to be done to make the images look good. Can you

recommend a good resource for learning how to better light jewelry? A class, a workshop

or something like that? I really want to get better at this. Thanks for the help.

Thanks Ellis. You are reading my mind! I would love to have a fiber-optic system for this type

of work but we can't swing it right now. I was thinking that a Plume cocoon would work but

my boss doesn't want to use those; she had a photographer who used the cone and that is

what she wants. It is great to have input from other photographers about this.

Thanks Brooks. Yes, I have been doing that but my client doesn't like having specular hilights

to Photoshop out so I am trying to find a solution. I am thinking that I can pop the hard light

through the plexi and still get some sparkle in the gemstones. I would still use diffused

softbox light to get overall illumnination to the cone and, therefore, smooth lighting for the

metal parts. Do you think I am correct in this approach? Any other

ideas?

Has anyone used this to photograph jewelry and small products?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=247496&is=REG

I am thinking of getting one and cutting it from top to bottom in order to stretch it to squeeze my lens in

at various heights rather than only being able to shoot from the top. Does anyone know of something

similar, perhaps from another manufacturer. The shipping alone for this is over $200 because it has to be

dropped shipped from FOBA. I assume they are in Europe.

I don't want to get the fabric light tents; I want the solid surface of plexi.

Thanks for your help.