Light box for object photography

On 4/22/2013 8:04 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote: > I've got you there. Done both dodging, and burning. > > Dad and I used to do sepia tone, too. > . > Christopher A. Young > Learn more about Jesus >

All of that (except vignettes)are pretty much single click operations now.

Vignettes take a few more clicks to make a mask and all...

I'm very much in favor of the digital camera though. In spite of the loss of the learning experience accorded by film.

Expense, room for equipment, flexibility...

It's pretty amazing how the technology has developed.

You would have not enjoyed the lecture from my Dad...

Words have meaning - jargon doesn't!

But it took him a LOT longer (and many more words) to say it.

Someday, high on my wish list, is a flat bed scanner built into a laptop or tablet. Why not?

I think the idea first came from "the book" in the book "Roadmarks" by Roger Zelazny.

"Just slip that note into the book - any page will do..."

Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the lunar eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot of ones and zeros getting anything usable.

Old hat.

I just use my home-made light ring now.

I shared a few thread pics a while back.

This camera is very not too bad... :)

I've always used white bed sheets cobbled on to some type of frame, with a half-dozen 100W bulbs placed around outside of the sheet enclosure.

You get a well-illuminated interior, without shadows or glare, and the whole thing breaks down into a small package.

Might have to adapt different bulbs, now that the 100 watters are no longer available.

Jon

Or one flash head, moved around and popped three or four times.

There are machine tool brochures still out there with big, overall shots of the machines shot by yours truly with one Vivitar 202 pocket flash and a piece of drafting paper for diffusion. I've added up as many as ten separate flashes that way.

This is after I got tired of lugging two Bowens Monolights and huge diffusers and stands through airports...

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta Flashmeter IV for exposure.

Highly recommended - and way over rated...\

IMHO :)

But...

You stop down _TO F(?)_

Like I said, Dad was always fussy about that.

WAY beyond my pay grade. I wouldn't have a clue how to flash the moon. :) (Well....)

My worst problem that night was vibration.

It's really touchy at 36X - even on a tripod.

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.

Richard fired this volley in news:s4CdnUvUw4tXN- jMnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it (correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD, anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture, the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

LLoyd

LLoyd

Richard fired this volley in news:tcqdnf7nSsFjKejMnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that term.

"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd

I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter. Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it (correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD, anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture, the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

LLoyd

I forgot to mention that I use an old flatbed scanner for most small items. I lay a piece of thin white paper over the item, and use a fluorescent ring light to eliminate most or all shadows.

"Stormin Mormon" fired this volley in news:wOjdt.77651$ snipped-for-privacy@fed15.iad:

Chris, you don't read attributions very well, do you?

As for being the son of a photog, that doesn't qualify you. Did you do it for years as a serious all-engrossing hobby or for pay -- or both? I'm the son of an Army Lt. Colonel tank commander. I've never driven an Abrahms, and probably never will.

"Low F-Stop" has ALWAYS meant a 'low f-number', meaning a LARGE aperture. Depth of field has always decreased with F-number (or changed inversely to aperture size). Pinhole cameras have the deepest depth-of-field.

Richard had all the relationships correct... he just mistook what the term "low F-stop" meant.

I know, and Richard knows, what's right concerning apertures and depth- of-field.

I never brought up exposure, except to disagree with the comment that "exposure isn't related to aperture". Would you also agree that it's not?

You, on the other hand, didn't read very carefully. You attributed to me something I never said.

LLoyd

This film guy said "large aperture" to avoid just that ambiguity.

Ahum...an F1.8 has a very low depth of field. An F16 has a far far greater depth of field.

And under low lights...a slow shutter speed would be indicated (with film and some digital sensors)

I suspect you are going by the hole size..not the numbers which is where most folks work from.

Gunner