Opinions/help on these pics please

[anniefogg]

Okay, so I posted pics on a thread here to get help making my hand dyed wool fiber for my on-line shop look really good (or much better at any rate) as that is all I have to 'sell' my product until I get a physical shop. I got some wonderful help with what 'should' be in the pic, and what needs to be 'seen' so to speak (yes, I am not a photographer in the making-just need really good pics)
So, I decided to get an entry level dslr to get better color, exposure compensation for my light box (stuck in my basement) etc. I have a Nikon D40 that a friend is selling and I get to try out for the weekend, and here are the pics I took last night. Would you all mind telling me how they look, what they need etc. to make them look their best-thanks

These are the ones I don't really like (though I think they are still much better than the ones I had taken with my Nikon coolpix)

These are the ones I like, but as I still don't know enough about photography, I may be able to 'like' them better with some help:O)

Well, I just don't know, maybe I don't like any of them lol!! It is very difficult to 'tell' after I look at them so long!!
Thanks

 

[pgriz]

Hi Annie - I'm wondering if instead of showing a complete ball of fiber, you show only a portion so that portion is at higher effective magnification and you can see more of the fiber? The second idea is that you need to play with your lighting so that you have both highlights and shadows to create the appearance of volume. Thirdly, to create visual tactile texture, you need fine detail showing and for that you really need to have your focus precisely placed, and supported by enough depth-of-field to make the detail visible. After, you still need to apply sharpening in the post-processing, and the anti-alias filters in the cameras tend to blur fine detail.

Looking at your samples above, I have to say I love the colours. The bottom left image seems to be the most attractive partly because there is enough texture and hint of detail to make me see it as a ball of wool. The middle and right bottom show the colours but the lighting appears somewhat flat and the fine detail is difficult to discern.

There is a technique known as "live-view" in which the camera image is shown on the LCD of the DSLR, just as it would on a point-and-shoot. The advantage with the DSLR version is that you can magnify the image, and adjust the focus much more precisely than you can if you use autofocus or manual focusing through the viewfinder. Of course, you need the camera on a tripod, and the camera's auto-focus needs to be turned off. I use this method all the time when I'm trying to achieve critical focus and it works.

Here's an image that I took of a 1.5" seashell, where I was interested in showing the texture of the pitted surface. It was taken with a macro lens, with two flashes (main on right, fill on left) in manual mode (to control the ratio of light), with the focus achieved by life-view focusing.

I'm going to see if I can raid my wife's tissue collection (she quilts) to see if I can come up with something similar to what you're trying to do. Don't hold your breath (lots of family stuff going on this weekend, but you never know...).

Edit: Some point-and-shoot cameras have a "macro" mode which allows a closer focus. I had a point-and-shoot which had that mode and also allowed a manual control over the focus. On a tripod, I was able to get decent closeup images of flowers, twigs, stones. That could be another way for you to get closer to what you want to show without investing in a DSLR. However, I changed to a DSLR because I could get much better control over the image than I could with a P&S, so perhaps, following TheTraveller's advice some shopping on Ebay (if the deal with your co-worker doesn' work out) may be appropriate.

 

[anniefogg]

First, totally agree with all you said about my photo's, the lighting is driving me crazy and I can't seem to manipulate it at this time with so little knowledge of this camera. I am taking a new set with a different lightbox set up in my dining room in a northern window. I am using the tripod, and attempting to 'learn' a bit more about how to get what I am looking for and in my images I did edit to get more definition, exposure (when needed) sharpness etc., but it's the basic iphoto program on my macbook and it just isn't 'enough'. Another friend is going to let me play with her editing program-Light room, she said she likes it much better than photoshop.

I will have to go research more of the other details you gave me in the dslr manual and google, and piece together what I need to do to get what you describe. Though I do think the coolpix is a great little P&S camera, I don't think I am able to manipulate it to get exactly what I want. For example, when I am in the setting that allows me to control the exposure compensation, I can't also be in the pre-set white balance setting to get the correct color (that I know of) Also, I have had it in the macro setting, and it also seems 'exclusive' so if I have it in that mode I can't control exposure comp, or white balance (I am now thinking that better lighting would help on that and all fronts, heh)
LOVE that photo, and though I would not want that much of the fiber in shadow-it's exactly the texture result I would like to get (and didn't even know I wanted 3 days ago!!) What a great resource you all are!!!

Thanks for the help, enjoy your weekend:O)

 

[tirediron]

Here's a different approach: This isn't a difficult shot for someone with a basic knowledge of lighting, why not try contacting your local camera club and ask if there is someone who for a small fee would be willing to meet with you and spend an hour showing you how to get the results you want. This is very formulaic shooting, so once you've got it down, you'll be fine. You might be even be able to get out of it for a steak dinner and a couple of beer.

 

[johnh2005]

Here's a different approach: This isn't a difficult shot for someone with a basic knowledge of lighting, why not try contacting your local camera club and ask if there is someone who for a small fee would be willing to meet with you and spend an hour showing you how to get the results you want. This is very formulaic shooting, so once you've got it down, you'll be fine. You might be even be able to get out of it for a steak dinner and a couple of beer.

Hrmmm... OP from Maine, Tirediron from Canada... They are not far apart. Me thinks Tired wants a steak dinner and a couple of beers! lol

 

[pgriz]

John, he's on Vancouver Island. That's a long drive to Maine. You're probably closer.

 

[anniefogg]

You guys are making me laugh-which is good, as my head is about to explode with all this f/4, dof, and all the other photography stuff I am reading. Yes, if I can get the formula down, then it will be fine. I was playing with the f/stop's and because I don't have a macro lens I can't get down to f/1.8 etc. I did get a better dof, and sharper close up of the fiber though by switching to manual and making a bunch of different adj. that I can't remember right now

 

[johnh2005]

John, he's on Vancouver Island. That's a long drive to Maine. You're probably closer.

Haha I doubt that. It is almost 300 miles just for me to get out of Texas to the closest "state", I am only about 130 miles from Mexico. ... Well, I stand corrected... I am about 500 miles closer. lol I still think he would like a few bears and a steak though!

 

[pgriz]

Annie, the larger the aperture, the smaller the number. A wide open aperture is f/1.8 and a small one is f/32. The wider the aperture, the thinner the depth-of-field (DOF). The longer the focal length, the thinner the DOF (for the same aperture). So photographers use aperture not just to control the amount of light reaching the sensor (together with the shutter speed), but also to control how much of the foreground/background is in acceptable focus. When you're shooting closeup, the DOF is usually less than if you're focusing at something farther away. There are calculators that helps one figure out the DOF for a given aperture, sensor size, distance and focal length here: Online Depth of Field Calculator and here: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

So why not just use the highest f/stop and have everything in focus? Well, optics don't work that way, and one property of light (called diffraction), starts to destructively interfere with itself when the aperture through which it has to squeeze itself gets too narrow. Just where this point is depends (again) on the sensor size, the focal and the specific f/stop, but for crop cameras such as the D40, it usually starts showing up around f/16 and progressively becomes worse at higher f/stops like f/22 and f/32. This means that to preserve maximum fine detail and maximum depth-of-field, one has to go no more than f/11-f/16. So now we have the situation where we have good DOF and still pretty good resolution. But because we stopped the lens down, we are letting in only a little bit of light - so we compensate by using either a long shutter speed, or a bright light source. If you use the shutter speed, then you need to protect the camera from movement (that's the role of the tripod), and a number of other things to ensure that no camera movement ruins the sharpness while the sensor accumulated enough light to register a good image. If you use a bright light source, that could be everyone's favourite thermonuclear source, or a flash. Either way, direct light tends to be seen as harsh and so photographers talk about light modifiers and reflectors to be able to soften the harshness, and to have a good range of shadow detail.

Yeah, it gets complicated. But it's not so hard once you've got the formula, as tirediron said. Generally, you experiment until you get the right combination, and then it routine.

I'll chime in later with more detail. At the moment, various family needs have to be met.