Photographing Custom Knives

[bladepurveyor]

Hello all..I am new to the forums...:D I am interested in taking digital images of custom knives...I am looking to buy a new camera...mostly for studio setup photos...I am debating on a dSLR or just a super zoom camera...can I have your thoughts on which I should buy...? I hope I am posting this in the right place.

[nhfirefighter13]

If you're looking to do a lot of studio work, you should probably go the DSLR route as it will be more adaptable to a variety of situations.

[MatsP]

The difference in price between a low-cost DSLR and a high-end P&S camera isn't that many hundreds of dollars.

For "professional" look photos, you'll also need to have a good lighting setup, preferrably with two or more light-sources, ideally using Studio Strobes or similar setup.

If you use static lights (i.e. not strobe-lights), you can get away with using the built in light-meter in the camera. If, on the other hand, you use strobes of some sort, you'll probably need to use a special light-meter with flash-metering, so that you can determine the amount of light that will hit the product.

If you use flash or strobes, you'll most likely need to use manual camera settings, which is much easier to do on a DSLR - and it's often more flexible in the amount of settings you get. One thing for sure is that the amount of flexibility in depth of field, thanks to aperture variability is greater with good lenses that you get for the DSLR.

The other point may or may not matter, and that is the close-up capability of the camera. If you want to show DETAILS of a particular product, then you need to get close-up. Some P&S digitals are good at this, others are not - but DSLR's allow you to buy a special Macro lens (such as the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM Macro, or the EF-S60/2.8 USM Macro) that can get VERY close to the subject (so close that an inch in reality becomes an inch on the sensor - except that the sensor isn't quite an inch wide...).

--
Mats

[Kevin Sadler]

i've seen some photos taken with non dslr's like the canon G series that blew me away. as the other guys have said it's all about light and good lens. good light (not necessarily expensive), clean product, good angles, and lots o' detail can be achieved without spending a fortune. it looks like your in that business so you've got lots of examples to study. take the best of what you see and try to recreate it. you can tell by shadows and reflections in a picture how a photographer set up his lights. good luck. later, kevin

[gparr]

Another factor to consider, from a long-range perspective, is that a DSLR will allow you to use tilt/shift lenses for even more DOF and perspective control. If you're going to do serious photography of objects such as knives, that may become important to you at some point. Also note that, as Mats pointed out, you don't need a top-end DSLR for this kind of work. Virtually any quality DSLR will do an excellent job. The camera is just a tool for capturing/storing the image. The lenses are the key because they determine the quality of the image that the camera captures/stores.
Gary

[bladepurveyor]

First thanks for all of your replies...I have decided to go with a Dslr..I think long term it's the better choice.. Here is an image I did with my old hp photosmart 720 3.3 mp...a lightbox I made and microsoft digital image software..(I dream to own photoshop one day). http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/royknives/SiskaSubhiltsmallnotext.jpg

I don't have a clue on what type of lenses I will need...can you guys help me with this...most of my photos will look similar to the one posted..I will sometimes use it for other types of photos but mostly for this type of shot...will I need a macro? normal lense...zoom? I am truly lost when it comes to this area...any recomendations would be greatly appreciated...thanks!

[skagitswimmer]

If this is your first DSLR you won't need a 12 or 16 megapixel camera unless you want huge blow-ups (bigger than 14"x16") with very fine detail. If you found 3 mp works for you then an 8mp (which is the current standard DSLR) would give you all you need and more. On the other hand you might be able to pick up an older used 5mp camera quite inexpensively. I'll be selling my Canon 350 Digital Rebel XT shortly - it has the same "film" as the new 30D but fewer other features which may or may not be important to you. If you are interested in that you can send me a message.

Not sure how long that knife is but you would need a macro or extension tubes for the detail inserts unless you are going to crop the detail photos out of larger shots.

There are many macro lenses that could double as your main lens.
You'll want a macro lens in the 35m to 135mm range depending on how close you want to be to your subject. Getting too close will give you trouble because you will be casting your camera's shadow on your subject. Being too far away might reduce the impact of the perspective.

There are zooms which are more versatile but also more expensive and slower. While the lens speed is not a factor for your product photography it may be an issue if you decide to shoot in other circumstances. Also, because there is more glass between you and your subject, zooms may not be as sharp (though a good zoom will be better than a poor prime lens).

You'll want some lighting - Kevin Sadler on this site is a guru for that and there were some threads that talked about making a light tent or softbox out of household materials a while ago.

And don't forget the tripod. For product work it can be a simple table-top tripod but it is essential.

[MatsP]

I would suggest that you need a mid-range lens for the overview shots, and a macro or near macro lens for the close-ups [unless, as Stephen said, you want to crop out a small piece of a big picture].

It all depends on how much money you want to spend, and what size you want your pictures. For average (or even large) web-site shots, you'll be fine with a kit-lens like the 18-55 that comes with the camera (I would definitely buy the kit-lens even if you decide to NOT use it for your product shots).

For larger sized prints (posters at 14 x 11 or bigger), you may want to look at a prime (non-zoom) lens. For the overview shot, you'll probably be best off with something in the 35-85 mm range, but the 50/1.4L is a good choice here, around $300 for that lens.

For the close-ups, I'd suggest going for the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro or EF 100/2.8 Macro. Alternatively, Sigma makes a 50/2.8 and 105/2.8 Macro lenses. Both will do great for close-ups, and you'll get plenty of detail. These lenses are all in the $200-400 range - and I'm not sure which one is the best choice.

However, a good compromise between using only the zoom lens in the kit, and getting a 50/1.4 + 100/2.8 Macro would be to get a 50 or 60mm macro lens. That would give you the 50-60 mm focal length, and close-up capability.

The only REAL difference between a longer focal length and the shorter one is that the longer one allows/forces you further from the actual subject - sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes this is a bad thing. You may want to "try it out". I don't know if it's a good idea to walk into a camera shop with a big knife - if you think it's OK and they won't call the cops as soon as you take the knife out, do that - otherwise, make a real-size paper-cutout or take something less harmfull of a similar size/shape (cucumber?), and then do a pretend shoot with a few different lenses to see how close or far away you need to be to get a full knife shot and detail shots like what you have in the sample you posted.

I tried looking at the EXIF information on the picture you posted, but it's confusing: 5.0 mm focal length, when the camera's lens is supposed to be 7-21 mm... So how do you get 5mm from that? ;-)

But if anything, it looks like you're on the wide end of the lens, which is around 34mm in DSLR lenses - but actually more like 20mm. I think, however that you'll be happy with a 50-60mm lens...

--
Mats

[django]

Here is an image I did with my old hp photosmart 720 3.3 mp...a lightbox I made and microsoft digital image software..(I dream to own photoshop one day).

That's pretty good work for not using PS :)

[MatsP]

An alternative to Photoshop CS(2) would be to use the much less expensive Photoshop Elements. I find that I don't use any more features than it has anyways, and the cost difference is something like $100 vs $650 (and I did a quick search, which seemed to indicate that you could get PS Elements for $44 from some company, the above prices are from Adobe's web-site, and I'm sure most web-stores will sell for less than that...)

--
Mats

[bladepurveyor]

Thanks everyone for your help...:) My next problem is deciding on a camera..I have looked at Nikon D50, Canon 350XT Rebel, Canon 20D..and 30D...for me being a beginner at this...I don't know if I should spend the money on a more expensive body...I like the feel of the D50, 20D haven't handled the 30D yet...the rebel felt small in my hands....I don't mind spending the money if I thought it will benefit me in the long run...I don't have a preference on Nikon or Canon...but all of the people I know that take photos of knives use Canon..so that leads me to believe there has to be a reason...but I don't know enough about the differences in the way the cameras work...I hope I am making sense....:confused: I hate to sound like pain..but can I have your thoughts on what I should buy...? thanks again.

One other question..should I buy an extended warrantee? most website stores offer (for example a "mack warrantee") which looks like it covers the basics, parts and labor...not damage caused by drops, bumps, accidents...is this a scam?

That's pretty good work for not using PS :) Thanks django..you made my day..I am truly a novice at this.... :)

I tried looking at the EXIF information on the picture you posted, but it's confusing: 5.0 mm focal length, when the camera's lens is supposed to be 7-21 mm... So how do you get 5mm from that? ;-)
I have no idea..it must have happened when using Microsoft Digital Image...

[MatsP]

For your intents and purposes (shooting knifes), there's not going to be any technical advantage in the 20D/30D/D70 range compared to the Rebel XT/D50. There are mechanical/ergonomical differences that make the handling of the different cameras slightly different - and I find that even the 20D is a bit small in my hands - I definitely like the 1D best, but I don't like the price ;-)

Buying a higher spec camera will obviously give you a generally better camera, but it's not going to show in the product shots of your knifes. Where the 20D wins over the DRXT would be in a case where you're taking action shots - knife-throwing perhaps. But for static shots, it's not going to make the smallest difference.

The money you save will go well towards getting a better (set of) lens(es).

Whether you go for the Nikon or Canon makes VERY little difference... They can both do almost exactly the same thing, and they are similarly priced. I choose canon for the simple reason that I already had a load of Canon lenses, and unless I wanted to spend a whole stack of money on replacing my existing lenses, I had to choose a Canon. And lenses are more important than camera bodies, anyways.

I think Canon has a bigger market share for two reasons: They have successfully captured a large proportion of the commercial photography market. And they have a large selection of lenses and other extras, which makes it a good choice. They also have a bigger marketing budget than Nikon, simply because they have a bigger market-share, so they can put more (or bigger) adverts in press, etc, etc.

I'm trying to find a suitable "This compares to", and I guess it's like choosing between a Ford and a Chevy truck - some people really like Ford for one reason or another and would never consider buying anything else, others like Chevy, and further others will just go for the one with the best deal at the moment. Note that I'm from England, so I don't really have much understanding of the US car-market (When I'm in the US, I drive rental cars, and they are the always the smallest engine available for the size of the car, and usually the simplest feature-set and whatever else - and I find that I like the imports better than the US brands - but that's probably because they are more similar to what we have here...). But I can certainly say that choosing between Canon and Nikon is not as choosing between a Daewoo and a Rolls-Royce.

--
Mats

[MatsP]

Oh, and extended warranty: This is probably a bit controversial, but in my personal opinion, it's a waste of money. Things like digital cameras break from production faults very quickly (most likely), or never at all. Which means that they are covered by the manufacturers warranty if they break from production faults. And I don't think the extended warranty covers things like wear'n'tear or accidental damage (at least not unless you pay extra for that - and that should be covered by your household/business insurance - if not, you can probably get it added to your normal insurance for much less than the extended warranty cost).

The way I see it is that if I lump all the money on extended warrantees that I've been offered to buy from various places, into one lump, I can pay for the repair/replacement of whatever it is that breaks.

--
Mats

[skagitswimmer]

Bear in mind as well that the Rebel XT, the 20D and 30D all use the same CMOS (i.e. the "electronic film" - all are 8 megapixel cameras, and have the same "digic II processor"

The differences are in other features, ergonomics, etc etc. You will find good comparisons on these and other cameras on the dpreview.com website.

[bladepurveyor]

You guys are the best! I thank you for your help...hope I didn't wear out my welcome :eek: :D I am sure once I purchase my new camera, the questions will be sure to follow...:rolleyes: I've decided on the Canon Rebel XT 350 with the kit lense for now..and probable a macro lense...not sure which one..will have to price them...Thanks again....

I promise the last question for awhile..what type of filter do I want to cover the lense to keep dirt and scratches off the actual lense..skylight, daylight? I don't remember what it's called...HELPPPPPP :D

[MatsP]

Generally, I have UV filter, which is a neutral (clear) filter, but either daylight or skylight filters will work well too - they are ever so mildly tinted.

And yes, it's a good idea to get one for each of the lenses you get, and leave it on there. As I told before, it saved my lens when someone drenched it with beer (tight space, and careless people not looking where they are going). I can just wipe the filter with a tissue/cloth or something, but I'd hate to do that on a $1500 LENS!

--
Mats

[bladepurveyor]

Generally, I have UV filter, which is a neutral (clear) filter, but either daylight or skylight filters will work well too - they are ever so mildly tinted.

And yes, it's a good idea to get one for each of the lenses you get, and leave it on there. As I told before, it saved my lens when someone drenched it with beer (tight space, and careless people not looking where they are going). I can just wipe the filter with a tissue/cloth or something, but I'd hate to do that on a $1500 LENS!

--
Mats
:cool: Thanks Mats

[Kevin Sadler]

i agree with mats about the uv filter being a must for every lens. but for the type of work that you're going to do (inside a controlled studio environment) you should feel free to take them off. i tend to take them off in the studio. i'm probably overdoing it but i just feel better with as little as possible between the subject and the sensor even if it's clear glass. on the other hand i also shoot in about as dirty and dusty an environment as you can imagine, often having to leave my cameras on the dirt ground. you bet i have those filters on then. so use your judgement, common sense, and personal preferences. later, kevin

[MatsP]

i agree with mats about the uv filter being a must for every lens. but for the type of work that you're going to do (inside a controlled studio environment) you should feel free to take them off. i tend to take them off in the studio. i'm probably overdoing it but i just feel better with as little as possible between the subject and the sensor even if it's clear glass. on the other hand i also shoot in about as dirty and dusty an environment as you can imagine, often having to leave my cameras on the dirt ground. you bet i have those filters on then. so use your judgement, common sense, and personal preferences. later, kevin

Agreed - I just know myself too well: I'd end up taking the camera out of the studio and not put the filter back on. More well-organized/less scatty people may not suffer from this problem... ;-)

--
Mats

[Kevin Sadler]

Agreed - I just know myself too well: I'd end up taking the camera out of the studio and not put the filter back on. More well-organized/less scatty people may not suffer from this problem... ;-)

me too. i did it and dropped the lens that day (my 70-200 IS) to boot. luckily not a scratch. that canon glass is pretty hard. :)