Photo Critique..John Lucas,Mike Schwing...???

Booth Pic 

Dave Winters, Steamboat Springs, CO

>

Re: Photo Critique..John Lucas,Mike Schwing...???

John Lucas

>Dave

Only have a moment before I have to go and shoot some more art but your main problem is the lights art too close to the diffusers. The idea behind the diffuser is to produce a large light source. With the light that close you still have what looks like a small light source.

don't try to get rid of all shadows. When you do that the piece looks flat. You need shadows. You just don't want ugly ones.

I would suggest taking the left light and placing it about 45 degrees up to the left so it lights both the top and side. Then if you still feel like you need the second light put it off to the right but move it further away that the first light. The second light is there simply to soften the shadows so they aren't so black.

Nice bowl by the way. Did you use the Tungsten setting on your digital camera. They look a little orange.

Re: Photo Critique..John Lucas,Mike Schwing...???

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Dave, I'm flattered that you'd ask me for help. I'm no John or Jamie. Hopefully I'll be able to live up to it.

First, I'd be negligent if I didn't mention the placement of your fire starters so closely to flammable material.

I like your work, it looks great. As John said - the photo has too much red in it. One hint for getting the color rendition correct is to place a color wheel or an object of known color in the photo that can be cropped out later. With that on the screen, match the color to the object, and then crop it out. I do my color correction using the "levels" and "curves" tool in The Gimp. I believe there is a corrolary function in Photoshop Elements.

Next - moving the light sources further back will help diffuse the light and perhaps give you a more balanced photograph.

The shadows on the front bottom can be minimized by placing the light to the left a bit towards the rear and facing it forwards, and putting some reflective material at front bottom to reflect it back towards the object being photographed. Or leave the light where it is and use some foil towards the right front corner to bounce light back down underneath the bowl. You an accomplish this without losing all of the shadow so as to retain some depth. Moving the object farther back in the booth will also help light up the front.

The photo is a bit dark but can be improved in Photoshop if moving the lights back doesn't help.

You're close.

Also, I think combining photos is easier in Elements than in Gimp. I have been told there is a "stitching" option that is easy as dropping the photos on top of each other and clicking a few buttons. I'm not an Elements user though, sorry.

Re: Booth Pic

Bill Hale / The Wood Spinner

>Hi Dave

My only comment is the Halogen so close to the cloth poses a fire risk. They get super hot.

Nice piece, I like the thick wall.

Good turning and be safe

Bill in Casa Grande, AZ.

Re: Booth Pic

JamieDonaldson

>Dave- I smell SMOKE- move the lights away from the material QUICKLY!!! Most of the shadow problem is created by the top light, which isn't needed. The shadow on the R bottom side should be filled with a bounce card(white or silver foil) on the R and angled to bounce light from L side MAIN light which should be moved slightly forward.

Redo

Dave Winters, Steamboat Springs, CO

>Thanks, guys.. Here I've moved the lights away a bit, added a foil bounce card, changed to tungsten setting and turned off the overhead flourescents. The shadow is definitely softened and it's less orang-y, no?

Set-up 

Dave Winters, Steamboat Springs, CO

>

Before and After

Dave Winters, Steamboat Springs, CO

>Here I used "Picture Package" in Print Layout to show both images. Don't know if this is the best way..

Re: Redo

Mike Schwing from Md.

>It definitely looks move evenly lit and natural, but to me it still looks a little dark. This is a very hard thing to discuss though, as everyone's monitor brightness is different.

I Second

Jorge Castaneda ~ Downeast Maine

>Mike's opinion, the botttom righ need to be opened and the overall could be raise a tad too.

Re: Before and After

Robert Cox

>It looks better to me.

But I still don't like the bottom pic. SOmething untangible.

Re: Redo

keith zimmerman, Normal, IL

>Dave, it looks to me like you need to adjust your levels a bit in your photo editor to give the image a bit more contrast. It needs just a bit more contrast than you have right now.

my opinion.

keithz

Re: Redo

John Lucas

>Dave

Much better. The reason it looks a little odd is the left light is still too low. I think if you raise that light it will look more natural.

If it's difficult to move the top light simply point it less directly at the bowl. It may work just fine as is but if it looks too bright just aim it off somewhere so it's less bright. If you move the left light up so it lights both the tip and side you may be able to do away with the top light entirely and just bounce light back in like Jamie and Mike mentioned. I light a lot of things with one light and a bounce card or mirror.

Re: Redo

Charles Bjorgen

>Dave -- Maybe you could try turning the piece (or moving your main light to the other side) so the bark side of the piece is being lighted by your main light source. The light skimming along those rough bark edges might offer a lot of nice contrast that would feature that rough side. You can adjust your fill by eye by moving it closer or away from the subject. Just a thought.

Re: Before and After

Tom Mullane

>It is a gorgeous piece... I hope you don't mind but I did a quick retouch of the values using Photoshop to brighten and sharpen it a bit...

Is this more of what it really looks like..

Re: Photo Critique..John Lucas,Mike Schwing...???

Barry Turner

>So........what's the problem? That's a very nice photo of a very nice looking bowl. I'm not sure we are trying to get rid of every single shadow in a photo. Are we?

Re: Redo

Barry Turner

>Technically, this is a much better photo in reference to lighting placement.....but I really liked the "orangey" coloration better. It's warmer.

Re: Before and After

Barry Turner

>I LIKE IT. Nice bowl too.

Re: Before and After

Dave Winters, Steamboat Springs, CO

>Tom - What all did you do? The difference is startling! Thanks everyone for all the kind words and helpful hints.

Here's another effort. Still seems almost "cloudy" or something to me. Maybe not enough shadow now.

Adjusted picture

Rick Allen

>Hi Dave

If you adjust the histogram you get the middle picture and if you add sharpening you get the picture on the left. The histogram say that the picture is over exposed. Sharpening is one of those things that can improve a low resolution picture like those posted to the web. That same sharpeing can make a picture look grainy (jagged) when printed at full resolution.

Good Luck

Richard

Good point, Barry

Dave Winters, Steamboat Springs, CO

>.. and one well taken. I guess there's a fine line between having your shadows be too "stark" and having no shadow, which to me lacks depth. This photo doesn't have enough shadow to me.

... Great last name, by the way!

Re: Before and After

Jerry Whitaker

>You are good....Tom. A fantastic fix!

Re: Before and After

Tom Mullane

>Thank you all... that's what happens when you spend half your time working with Photoshop.. been using it since version 4.

If the pic had been a higher resolution it would have looked even better...

Basically, I just adjusted the contrast, brighness and added some sharpness to the left side. This was a quick fix... took me about 5-10 minutes fooling around...

Re: Before and After

Ruth Niles

>The top one is "warmer" (as one poster already siad). I'd like to see the bowl turned a few degrees clockwise so that little nick on the left rim isn't so prominent.