WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

Photo shoot follies [long]

Posts

Photo shoot follies [long]

#1

Photo shoot follies [long]

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Spent the entire afternoon with a FWW editor/photographer in my garage taking photos of planes, and how I use them to go with an article they asked me to write on adjusting smoothing planes. Don't know what of any of it, text or photos, that will survive into print, but when looking back, the experience was disheartening or hilarious depending on my mood.

First off, they shoot what is of interest to them, and not what is necessarily of interest to me. So, probably no photos of either SMT plane will make it, and no photo of the historically interesting and virtually unique Auburn plane (on loan from SMT and a plane he regularly uses) which a hundred years ago offered not only an adjustable mouth but adjustable bedding angle. Also no Knight or Shepherd planes made it into the mix, which I was sad to see left out.

The night before, I prepared some woods I thought would be interesting, a gorgeous large chunk of endgrain Macassar ebony for one. It took me three hours to flatten and smooth it with low angle planes. Wouldn't want to do that one everyday, if you think cutting an engrain Maple cutting board is tough (at least I do), its nothing compared to very old dry Macassar Ebony. There was also a large piece of Thuya burl that took over an hour to carefully flatten but also looked gorgeous as it awaited final smoothing, but come the photo shoot, a plane blade never ended up touching it.

Even before the shooting began, I was politely asked if I could change into a lighter T-shirt for "better exposure" in the photos. Now was it really because black would be hard to shoot against ( but I'm thinking they say that black makes you look slimmer) or was it the "Armed with Pride-NRA" logo emblazed-discreetly-on the front? So I compliantly return with a nice sedate brown top. "Hey, how 'bout waiting a moment so I can do some overhead barbell presses to pump up my triceps and delts."

We started out with some cocobolo for the shoot. Took a moderate sized board and flattened it against the grain with the LV LA Jack at 50 degrees. Flattened quick and easy, with little tearout. Then the smoothing came along. Editor wondered why I reversed the board ("'cause I planed it against the grain--wanted a bit more contrast to show the effects of the smoothers"). Cocobolo planed up nice. Lots of planes used on this one, L-N 4.5 with 50 (FWW wanted lots of L-N shots), new LV LABU super smoother at 50 and then 64 (FWW: "but I thought you said you prefered 63..."), L-N LA Smoother at 37 (an expected disaster that was no fault of the plane, but only the bevel angle), my desperate attempts to get the SMT's into the pics, and the wonderful little 63 degree angle Mujingfang.

There's not much room in my shop, and there's really no room when you add another body and two light umbrellas. And don't let me forget to mention that these light umbrellas focus a lot of heat, as well as light, right onto the subject (me). Oh, and did I say that it was the hottest time of the hottest day of the year, and my garage is not air conditioned. If I look like I was sweating it in the eventually photos, it's cause I was, and it had noting to do with nervousness.

Anyway, the tight quarters and limited angles (my bench is against a wall) made it hard to get nice shots of the planes (FWW: "your hands are still in the way"). So here I am trying to show good planing form, and he tells me to grab the plane from some ridiculous angle so the plane will show ("but you don't preserve high effective cutting angle when you angle a plane"). So really folks, I don't actually use my fingertips to push a 64 degree effective cutting angle plane down the length of a cocobolo board. ("and hey, must you keep including my belly as backdrop for the planing shots").

Oh, and there are a bunch of nice serious photos of a plane held high against the light as I adjust the mouth (LV) or frog (L-N, of course). (FWW: "No, I don't need for you to show us how to adjust THAT" [dissing my one of a kind SMT infill with the $700 extra cost for a screw adjustable mouth]). And again, FWW: "can we have a nice realistic photo of you adjusting the frog but please keep your hands out of the way while you do it" and " you really paid WHAT for that L-N screwdriver just so you could do THAT."

The cocobolo was the highlight. Because I had spent so much time on the M.Ebony and Thuya, I hadn't gotten any of the other boards flattened before hand. But we're running late already (for what turned out to be over 5 hours of photos) and no time to flatten now. I'm told we must have pics of the LA planes on some spalted wood. Now I had a great piece of spalted maple, it had some dense areas, and some great spalting, but some of the areas between the black margins were getting pretty rotten. The original power planing of this board had left some severe tear out, and the basic board is both cupped and twisted. Now you have any idea how hard it is to get a good shaving from a smoothing plane on an unflattened board that is half rotten? It was not a pretty picture. None of the planes were really cooperating, nor should they have. And by now, my body is starting to remind me that it's still not very healthy yet. To no one's great surprise, the board got uglier, the shavings got thicker, and the whole thing was largely a mess. Really my fault, I should have said that only by doing things right would we get decent surfaces, but I let the emphasis be on getting a lot of planes into the photos, rather than preparing the board and planes properly. So a lot planes tortured this board, including at the editor's request, a L-N Low Angle block plane, and a L-N #140 (yah, low angles work great on spalted wood, but skewed blades are usually a disaster, and this was no exception).

The editor wanted examples of failure types. So out came a piece of Ash with prominent grain and a L-N chisel plane (my idea this time) was set to enter against the grain. It digs in immediately and continues to dive as I pound it in with the heel of my hand. Dramatic example, just "not very real world, huh."

Now the request is for fibers being pulled up behind the edge. Now think about this, how am I going to show individual fibers in the act of being pulled up behind a blade edge? X-ray vision with magnification?? I've let the editor down again. So out comes the magnifiers and I show him the shape of tear out that usually occurs behind the blade, and out comes the foam rubber and knife blade example of how this occurs. I don't think either of us were believers after that, though he graciously acted like he was.

I had been trying to avoid it all along, but the editor restated a firm request for me to plane some soft, but not spalted, wood. Now I don't basically hate low density, low figured woods, but unless it's a 2x4 it doesn't tend to get space in my shop. But I must have some, somewhere. So up the ladder into the rafters I go (entering the hottest part of the already hot garage) and back I come with an ugly piece of greenish gray poplar. Not only does the editor want to see me plane it, but he wants me to demonstrate skewing a Bevel Down plane. To make matters, worse, this seem's like a good time to include another L-N plane, " you got a #4." Indeed I do, a aesthetic favorite of mine, the bronze #4. So I twist the plane at an angle and start going sideways. I get furrows instead. Ah, no crown to this blade, its been prepared as straight across as can be (I don't know why, but there was probably a reason when I last used it). So now the planing "expert" looks like he doesn't know a plane from a back hoe. And you know what, I'm so hot and tired and dehydrated and brain dead that I didn't, nor even particularly care. You won't believe this, and I don't believe it now (and I should never admit to it having even occurred)--we both concur, lets just turn over the board to its unplaned/untortured side and stick a shaving in the mouth and just demonstrate how a skewed plane is held. It sounded like a bright idea at the time, but I've got to make sure that photo never gets used.

Somewhere in here were a few more examples of how to make shavings the thickness of formica. I don't care anymore, I just want to keep things moving along and get this thing over with---and if it won't end, maybe we could talk about something else "hey, what do you want to know about woodturning hollowing tools--nothing-- darn, OK, I'll see if I can make another smoother work like a scrub plane."

On to showing how a blade is backbeveled. Ah, sharpening, I can't screw this up, can I? Actually, I didn't, but you know how visually uninteresting it is to demonstrate apply a back bevel? I quickly set up the new Lee Valley honing guide, (proving that it truly makes backbeveling a fool proof process), take about 4 passes on an 8000 stone and it's done (FWW: "That's it" Me: Yep, that's it.").

And then there were the obligatory "smile" shots, (FWW: "Oh, let's take just one more, I still don't have you smiling.") I'm sure there were a many other low points, but memory (or more properly its absence) is already being kind to me.

Now actually the FWW editor was a very nice guy. He brought along an extremely pretty St. James plane he had made and I put the blade in order and made up a brass shim he could use to close up the mouth. He took my wife and me out to dinner afterwards and a rehydrated and now cooler pair could laugh about the planing disasters (FWW: " I would have wondered you were a fraud, but you have no idea some of the things I've seen go wrong when I've been with some professional's.") and tell tales of our encounters with other woodworking luminaries. This guy is an Oxford grad and makes more furniture than some full time professionals.

It should be interesting to see if a silk purse can be made from this sow's ear (the photo shoot) or if much of my prose shall survive the editing process. If he can, I suspect my FWW editor won't get paid nearly enough for his rehabilitative capabilities. Of course with some of the photos he now has of me, he could probably supplement his pay with a little hush money.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#2

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

MikeW

>Ah, sounds like fun...

As my grandfather would sometimes say, time make distance, distance makes perspective.

I imagine it'll be fine in print. That is what he gets paid for.

Mike

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#3

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

Dave Anderson Chester,NH

>You really started my day off right Lyn. Nothing like a good laugh to make things right. As I'm sure you are aware, the photo shoot sounds like a classic example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." To put things in perspective for you, think positively about this experience-- they could have been doing a video. ;-)) I'm glad to hear you are on the mend.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#5

Photo shop follies

corvin

>Lyn/

Not to worry, I am sure before the issue goes to press FWW will modify the images with Photo Shop to show you with a LN tee shirt and and a larger shop. Of course we can do the same thing and change the images to show the SMT. :-)

Thanks for the info, it is interesting to read what goes into making the images for the magazines.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#6

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>LOL! Lyn, that sounds more like one of my better days. All too often anymore, I feel more like the FarSide fisherman, asking himself, "Fish or cut bait? Fish or cut bait?"

I guess I take too much to heart the bit of wisdom I learned from the EEs when I was an engineer: "Honor Ohm's Law. Fear Murphy's Law."

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#7

Adjustable bedding angle?

Dan Moening

>I'm sorry I didn't get much past this statement.

I've been following some interesting debate on various forums regarding plane innovation over the past century or so.

One of the topics discussed was how and if an adjustable bedding angle was possible in todays planes and still maintain the solidness that a fully bedded frog provides. This instead of having a slew of irons ground to different angles for example.

Anyway...could you describe {or better yet show a photo} of the adjustabe bedding angle on this plane?

Please?

I promise to finish reading your photo adventures... ;^)

Dan.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#8

Fibers being pulled up . . .

Steve Elliott

>Great post, Lyn. One part has me puzzled, though, and that is the paragraph about "fibers being pulled up behind the edge." Could you describe a little more fully the kind of surface defect this is, and what type of wood it occurs in, under what conditions?

I've been thinking of two types of surface defects: ordinary tear-out where chunks of wood are missing from the planed surface because the direction of the fibers causes the wood to split ahead of the blade, and cloudiness of the surface caused when the force of the blade deforms soft woods below the surface of the cut line. The description of "fibers being pulled up" makes it sound like the result would be a fuzzy surface. Do I have this right?

I'm looking forward to the article in FWW.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#9

Now..if I can catch that guy...

HC Sakman

>called "Murphy"! ;-) What does Ohm say?

Chico...

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#10

Re: Ohm says i=e/r, which is really, really boring

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#11

Re: Ohm says i=e/r, which is really, really boring

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Unless you can't keep a fuse from blowing in the Mooseslayer. Then it changes from boring to required reading:-)JR

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#12

Re: Ohm says i=e/r, which is really, really boring

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>LOL!

BTW, we put the 900i out to pasture, where it strikes fear into the evil hearts of Whitetail Deer. No mooses to be seen on the Cohansey. However, there is another varmint out there, buck-toothed, which remains nonplussed and undiscouraged, and continues to devour my flowers and vegetables. I call it Natalie. I'm working on a hybrid between a Gladiola and a habanero pepper that may thwart its dexter plots.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#13

Re: Adjustable bedding angle?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>The Auburn looks somewhat like a cross between a 164 and a #4. Its got the movable toe plate of 164, and theres a lot going on where a frog would usually be on a #4. It's a very Rube Goldberg like contraption that I don't care much for, but SMT both likes and finds useful. I'll try to get a photo together in a couple of days before I send it back to Stephen.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#14

Re: Fibers being pulled up . . .

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Hi Steve:

"the paragraph about "fibers being pulled up behind the edge." Could you describe a little more fully the kind of surface defect this is, and what type of wood it occurs in, under what conditions?"

I see this more commonly in woodturning, but I do experience it as well in planes. It is usually softer celled more elastic fibers that build up before the blade edge (similar to a type Type 3 failure condition) but instead of a sudden shearing decompression, the fibers bent and stretched before the blade edge, fibers break at natural weakness below and behind the cutting edge. This often forms deep pitting tearout when the wood has some vertical orientation of fibers, but can occure more evenly on flatter grained wood and result in the kind of fuzzyness you describe. I see it most often in rotted/spalted woods when the blade is either not very sharp and/or the effective cutting angle is higher. It is decidedly not a splitting condition, but actually a pulling up and out of fibers. As alluded to earlier, it is a cousin to compression shearing, but in this case the fibers pull free before shearing at the blade edge occurs.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#15

Re: Adjustable bedding angle?

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Lyn...I remember the delight SMT had when his wife and son found the Auburn and bought it for him behind his back for a present! He even posted a riddle thread on BP to announce the gift. It must be the gizmosity factor.JR

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#16

Re: Murphy was an optimist! Really.

Jim Toews - Walla Walla, WA

>

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#17

Subliminal message

mike recchione

>I guess it may be common knowledge, but was news to me that FWW hawks LN planes in their handtool articles. I had been wondering why just about everybody seemed to have and use LN planes in their articles, to the near exclusion of everything else.

It may just be jealousy on my part (I don't own any), but I resent the subliminal manipulation implied here, i.e. "any serious woodworker, hobbyist or professional, uses LN". One more reason I'm letting my subscription expire.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#18

Re: Subliminal message

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I view this considering a couple of other potential factors.

One, my interactions with Lee Valley are well know, and I think it is realistic for FWW to want to make sure that there was not an appearance of a LV bias. I think this was a fair (but unnecessary) concern.

Second, I think the editor was most focused on planes that the widest range of woodworkers woud be familiar with. Not only is L-N familiar as a premium plane manufacturer, but the owner of a more conventional Stanley or Record plane can "see" his or her plane represented there. Thus the applicability factor I think is real.

Third, even though a lot of photos were shot, I suspect there was a desire to be more limited in the plane types to keep the photo content down. Afterall, almost surely only a half dozen photos at most will make it into the magazine.

That said, I was dissapointed that their was so little interest, and thus little opportunity, to show how these principles of selection and adjustment could be applied to a wide variety of different planes, and to expose readers to perhaps a few quality planes (and their associated features) that might be of less familiarity. There is one photo of the adjustable mouth on a Primus, using a shim behind a Shepherd blade, and a photo of the Mujingfang, it's just that the sheer volume of photos taken were of L-N planes.

A little illustration: When it came time to backbevel a blade, the editor really wanted me to back bevel a L-N blade in the new LV honing guide. I rather firmly balked at this, saying that while the technique was fully applicable to either blade and plane, I felt that it was LV that has promoted the concept of back beveling, and that it was fitting that it should be a LV blade that be demonstrated (as if anyone was apt to tell from a photo anyway). I also pointed out that since L-N had introduced the option of a high angle frog, that this alternative should be shown as well. So the end result was that photos were taken of me BBing a LV blade, and photos were taken of the two L-N frogs. I thought this allowed both for balance, and presented the different approaches in an evenhanded manner.

I had just wanted to show something similar with respect to how an adjustable mouth is possible on a wood plane and infill plane, as well as a cast iron plane. But there was less interest in that, particulary since it was an SMT that would have been the example of an adjusable mouth infill, and I wanted to include the Knight as well as Primus to show how some woody designs lend themselves to mouth adjustment.

I suspect that in the end (and I haven't really reached that yet here, so this may not be fair), the articles we read may more represent the biases of the editors than the "authors." And frankly, this may be one of the reasons why I've lost interest in subscribing to many of the woodworking magazines--too many begin to seem written to a formula, and thus lack the diversity of not only content, but style, that can make them seem fresh, and expand perspectives.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#19

Re: Subliminal message

Steve knight

>I feel so left out. even now that I have a fully adjustable mouthed plane.

well I hardly had any sales from the last FWW article so I doubt it would matter. but still tell me who I can sue (G)

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#20

Re: My $0.02...

Doug Evans

>We have done presentations in front of the Editor and Senior Editors. We have planes in the hands of two of six Contributing Editors (both of these guys have complimented us on the product and sent customers our way). We have taught courses in two other Regular Author's schools. A few years back we sunk a lot of money (in our terms) into three ads. Of course, their ad people continue to contact us regularly. If I do say so myself, the kits are a fairly unique phenom in the Hand Tool market. It is odd that with that mucyh potential for exposure, we just dont get those "lying around in the picture shots."

Contrast this with Pop WW. We have never placed an ad with PopWW (although we will soon have a bit of a budget to remedy this). We have had two Pop WW guys build. Over the past three years, there was a feature article... there were a half dozen or so random photographs... we were featured at an Open House at their headquarters.

Pop WW appears to have received increased advertising from both LV and LN. They still mention and feature folks like Wayne Anderson, Steve Knight, Chester Toolworks, etc.

I just cant figure out whether the differences between these two are due to negligence or culpability.

Yours,

Doug

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#21

Re: My $0.02...

Patrick Gibbons, Houston

>Doug, I can think of at least two contributing editors for the magazine in question that are paid advisors and consultants for LN. One should know which side of their bread is buttered.

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#22

Shocked and Dismayed in Backwater Fergus...

Doug Evans

>Ben and I are busy running parts right now but we are a little aghast at the ramifications.

As Ben says, a magazine that purports to run unbiased articles would surely mention any biases in their contributor descriptions at the early pages of the magazine. Stock Market guru's (a future occupation of Doug and Ben?) must, by SEC rules, reveal all of their interests in any of the stocks and companies that they talk about. Maybe Contributing Editors should too.

And BTW... there can be no excuse for not having a photo of the Thomas plane as a minimum. How can you possibly leave it out? A plane with some significant adjustment capabilities that was the best overall competitor in an unbiased (OK a little LV-biased) study. Do they think they have a bunch of puddin-heads for an audience?

Again culpable or negligent?

D

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#23

Oh yeah... Our Bias...

Doug Evans

>Ben and I are from Shepherd Tool and anything we say is most assuredly biased towards really good handplanes!

D&B

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#24

Lyn, thanks so much for

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>dispelling the illusion that you (as well as the other very accomplished contributers here) live in a perfect world with perfect tools and perfect equipment. Your ability to give everyone a chuckle at your own expense (though not really) is admirable.

I'd have to buy the FWW issue if/when it ever sees the light of day because, like a fair number here, I don't subscribe.

Please, continue to heal and contribute as you can. Your writing style is refreshing....like a cool glass of ice tea & lemon on a hot Colorado afternoon ;>)!!

Re: Photo shoot follies [long]

#25

Re: Lyn, thanks so much

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native in FL. Exile :~(

>Got to agree with Frank, thanks for taaking the time to write such a lenghty post on your Photo Follies. I truly enjoyed reading it, and must admit that I found it to be quite humorous, as well as educational. I never dreamed that there would be so much, dare I say "politics" involved in a WW magazines article. I guess nothing is safe from the money mongers* afterall.

* No slander intended towards FWW advertisers, just a little dismayed to learn that a photo shoot is not a true representation of the woodworkers shop, or his tools. If nothing else it has put me straight off of FWW Magazine itself. Hopefully such cockney dosen't go on at Popular WW photo shoots.

Todd O.

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.