Photographing guns

[QuercusMax]

Let's talk about a different kind of shooting. We all enjoy gun porn, but really good photos are not the result of casual snapshots or pictures taken on a phone.

Some people here have posted some really nice photos, so I'd like to hear tips and techniques for how to get those really gorgeous shots.

I've posted some pictures here from time to time, but they have just been amateur efforts at best. I know that lighting, focus, the right background and being really close are all elements of good porn (I mean pictures), and I have already found that flash makes bad pictures while natural outdoor sunlight makes good ones (if shadows can be controlled), but I'd like to hear what others do.

I was inspired to ask this question by a really nice photo posted by GOOFA (http://kahrtalk.com/showpost.php?p=181537&postcount=14) recently. I also recall that Greg's pictures are always nice, some guy who seems to have been banned posted professional-quality photos here a while back, and there are a few other people too.

Share your tips, please. (Examples are good too.)

[DeaconKC]

Okay, technical pictures and artistic compositions share some similarities and differences. Technical: use the Macro setting and get somewhere with strong all around lighting. Use a light, single color background. Use a small piece of tape to cover the last few digits for security. For artistic, again good lighting is mandatory, but take a few minutes to compose your setting for the effect you want.

[Barth]

I thought this was just a gun porn thread???
Only use my crappy 5 year old Razr cell phone for my pics.
Guess I wasn't invited to this party - LOL!

Cell Phone Pic of my new baby:
https://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/thumbnail/photo44/6f/00/be5a83d41aa5__1345853087000.jpeg?tw=0&th=720&s=true&rs=false

Although low quality, I thought my cell phone Kahr pics were quite stylish LOL!
https://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/thumbnail/photo53/21/7c/61bfe35ab89d__1342739533000.jpeg?tw=0&th=720&s=true&rs=falsehttps://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/thumbnail/photo38/ef/00/0b55981da098__1339359104000.jpeg?tw=0&th=720&s=true&rs=false
https://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/thumbnail/photo42/7b/64/a84dcf2de627__1333820178000.jpeg?tw=0&th=720&s=true&rs=falsehttps://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/thumbnail/photo42/c9/0e/f1171870797e__1333819622000.jpg?tw=0&th=720&s=true&rs=false

[les strat]

Never use a direct on camera flash straight on. Any time you can get the light coming form another direction, the better. Bounce the flash off the ceiling if you have a shoe mount flash, or use a diffuser, bounce card, etc.

Use a tripod when you can.

By using a small aperature setting and longer shutter speed, you get a good depth of field for shots down the length of the gun so all will be in focus.

Remove distracting items that do not add to the pic or tends to distract.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/KevinJenne/duckfootcloseup2watermark.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/KevinJenne/howdahpistol2watermark.jpg

[QuercusMax]

Hmmm, Looks like photography is not a hot topic here. Well, people probably don't talk a lot about guns on a photography board, either.

Anyway, I have been doing some research to answer my own question, and have come across a product called a "light tent" that will provide the bright but diffuse light that usually results in a well-lit picture without harsh shadows. Even better is the fact that decent ones can be had for well under $100, which is better than having to buy a $1000-plus camera to get good photos. In other words, spending a little bit on some good lighting will be a better investment than spending a lot on an expensive camera. I'm going to get one and see what I can do with it. You'll probably be able to tell later if I can make this work or not.

OK, now back to discussing guns.

[gb6491]

Hmmm, Looks like photography is not a hot topic here. Well, people probably don't talk a lot about guns on a photography board, either.

Anyway, I have been doing some research to answer my own question, and have come across a product called a "light tent" that will provide the bright but diffuse light that usually results in a well-lit picture without harsh shadows. Even better is the fact that decent ones can be had for well under $100, which is better than having to buy a $1000-plus camera to get good photos. In other words, spending a little bit on some good lighting will be a better investment than spending a lot on an expensive camera. I'm going to get one and see what I can do with it. You'll probably be able to tell later if I can make this work or not.

OK, now back to discussing guns.
That's an excellent suggestion. They are very DIY friendly: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zRM&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=diy+photo+box&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1280&bih=764&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=goc7UIiPEaeujALX5YGIBQ#um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=d9g&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=diy+light+box+photography&oq=diy+light+box&gs_l=img.1.2.0j0i24l2j0i10i24j0i24l2j0i10i24j0i24l 3.27032.28549.0.31893.5.5.0.0.0.1.221.886.0j3j2.5. 0...0.0...1c.WNafrkjOV8M&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=68d8e93152373858&biw=1280&bih=764
Here are some free processing programs:
Free editing program: http://www.gimp.org/
Free resizer: http://majorgeeks.com/Painless_image_resizer_d6139.html
IfranView is another useful free program that can resize/convert/optimize:
http://www.irfanview.com/
Regards,
Greg

Overcast days and large shadows make for some good light:
http://gbrannon.bizhat.com/b.jpg

[les strat]

Even if you can diffuse the light off of a point-and-shoot flash, you'll get much better pics. I've seen people use the smaller bubble wrap to make a homemaid diffuser. If using a diffuser, you might want to up the flash a few stops if the camera allows.

Some of the settings (little icons like for action, macro, etc.) can be good but are somewhat limiting.

Aperture directly affects shutter speeds, and vice-versa. These two combined either give you a correct exposure or a under/over-exposed shot.

If your camera has manual controls, use those to control shutter speeds, aperature, and ISO. Remember, a smaller aperture and longer shutter speeds will get you more in focus in your depth of field. If you wanted your wife in focus and the mountain behind her as well, slow shutter speeds with small aperture settings is the way to go.

Example:
Shuter Speed - 1/60 sec
Aperture - 8-16

(All depending upon the existing light of course)
You can also blurr water to look airbrushed this way with shutter speeds that get close to a second long, in which a tripod is manditory.

For portraits, you want the subject in focus with everything behind blurred. Here, you do the opposite - shorter shutter speeds with a larger aperture (the smaller the number, the more wide open the aperture.) This is also good for freezing motion, like in sports. You can actually capture individual droplets of water with fast shutter speeds.

Example:
Shutter speed - 1/200 sec
Aperture - 2.0 - 5.6

ISO settings also directly affect your ap and shutter speeds. Lowe ISO, like 100, make you shoot with wider apertures and longer shutter speeds, but you usually get a lot better quality imagine than with an ISO like 800. And the opposite is true. If you have low light and need, you'll get more out of your existing light with higher ISO's, but the pic will end up with more "noise", which is equivilent to grain in film.

Also, a rule of thumb is never hand-hold a shot where your shutter speed is slower than your the reciprocal of your lens focal size (If your lens is a 200mm, the slowest shutter speed you would generally want to hand-hold is 1/200 sec). If any slower, use a tripod for sure.

Sorry so long winded, but these are basics anyone getting into photography might want to digest.

[doc540]

blind luck and a cheap digital camera

That's always worked for me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/doc540/Guns/1911/Presentation%20Case/GoldCupCase005-1.jpg

[TucsonMTB]

Fun with cardboard boxes from Greg's link . . . a project for a rainy Saturday? ;)

http://zdmazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/light-box-1.jpg

[ripley16]

Ken Lunde posted a "how to" on a web site a few years ago. I'll see if I can find it a report back. His are some of the best photos I've seen on-line.

[Chuck54]

Canon sx40hs camera. About $400

Piece of white foam project board. About $5

Let light come in through a window (North if possible) use the white board to reflect light back into the shadow area.

Background, use your imagination or look at craft stores for scrap booking papers they usually have some neat designs that make good back drops.

You can spend a lot more money but the above can give you above average pictures.

By the way that camera has a great zoom range and really good close up modes.

[Scoundrel]

I take about 20 pictures of each shot I want to get, trying to determine as well as I can from the crappy 2.5" LCD screen how good it turned out, make adjustments as needed when shooting more, then dump them off the SD card into the computer, delete 99% of them, and maybe touch up the contrast, mid-tones, etc, and crop the photos in a cheap image editing program. The public sees the best of the run, slightly touched up.

[CJB]

Start by training yourself to see light.

Look at it in other pictures that you like. But what are you looking for? And, when you see it, what is it? And, how do you re-create it.

Consider the sun. It is a point light source. Point light sources will give you well defined sharp edged shadows. On the moon, no blue sky, you get very sharp edged shadows. Now consider the sky. It has light in it from the sun. It acts as a light modifier. On the moon, we see almost black and white - sun or shadow, with little fill. On earth, we have the sky to fill in some of the shadows, making the "contrast" less... contrasty! Now consider a hazy sky, but with the sun still visible. You get more "fill", as the ratio of sunlight to skylight, while still drastic, is smaller than on a clear day, and much smaller than on the moon. The shadows have softer edges, but they're still distinct. Lastly, consider the overcast day, with no sun visible. The shadows are almost non existent, there is a lot of "fill lighting" from all over the whole sky.

In photo jargon, a point light source is "specular" and leaves specular reflections. The fill light is (usually) diffuse, and leaves soft reflections. The specularity of the final lighting is what makes the image seem "alive" as opposed to flat. It can make the image seem almost three dimensional. Its the sizzle on the steak.

If the the light is not a point light, then it is termed a broad light. The sky is a broad light. An unmodified flash, is a point light, leaves hard edged shadows when you photograph people. Its surface of the reflector is maybe 1-1/4 by 2-3/4 inches. Tiny compared to people. Take the same flash, and stick it right next to a bug for one of those super close up "macro" shots, and the same light is broad light, it loses much of its specularity (but retains some due to the non-diffuse nature of its beam).

So, consider the size of the light, and its nature of being specular, and diffuse.

Then consider the direction of the light, and which lights are doing what job in the entire photograph.

Light has direction. We are used to seeing light coming from a direction, but which? Usually, direct lighting - on axis with the camera, and pointed at the subject - is not considered flattering. We are not visually trained to see that in our natural lives. Instead, we much prefer sun rise and sun set to noon lighting. Beauty exists in the mind, and this is what we're accustomed to. Side lighting or angled lighting, brings out texture - which is really the rendition of the surface in tiny shadows, allowing a sense of depth to be observed (or emotionally experienced rather). As humans, we like side lighting, and/or lighting that is slightly elevated and to the side. We can have that side light from slightly behind or truly beside, or slightly in front of the subject. It can be anyplace from about 30 degress off being vertical, to about 90 degrees being off vertical - like a setting sun. That is what we are emotionally tied to, via our vision and interpretation of images three dimensional objects on flat surfaces.

Judging light, its angle, its direction, its size, its specularity, you also need to judge the contrast. Highly contrast light is usually emotionally felt as "harsh", while very un-contrasty light is experienced as "flat". Someplace between the two - harsh and flat - is a very wide ratio of contrasts that can suit some particular subject material, to render it emotionally appealing.

The question then remains, how do we take the technical, and successfully marry it to the emotional, in a way that is predictable and repeatable?

Thats the next lesson. First, see light.