|
Post by texaswoodie on Oct 10, 2007 13:34:04 GMT -5
Hey Guys! I finally got around to building a light box. Why I didn't do this 10 years ago is beyond me. If you don't have one, I highly recommend it. :-) I used the florescent bulbs that just screw into a light socket. Be SURE to get the daylight ones. The others will make the object look yellow. Curt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2007 13:51:39 GMT -5
I just made one too. It cost me almost nuthin. I used a flat rate cardboard box and tracing paper (tissue paper would work too. You cut three sides of the box out, leaving a border to support it, leave two of the flaps on for light control. I have two small desk lamps that I use, one on top and one on the side. My photos have improved drastically since using it. Here is the one I used: strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.htmlIt only takes a couple of minutes to make and if you trash it, you just make another! Shannon
|
|
|
Post by LCARS on Oct 10, 2007 15:25:52 GMT -5
A note if you're going to use regular fluorescent bulbs for a light box... Make sure to keep your shutter speeds at or slower than 1/30s because that's how long it takes for a standard fluorescent tube to complete one emission cycle. The light spectrum and intensity given off by a fluorescent tube is not constant throughout one AC cycle so you must have the shutter open long enough to capture the whole emission range in each shot. With some cameras you can change your EV+/-, F-stop setting or ISO mode to a certain extent to compensate for a set shutter speed. Some models let you give priority to the shutter speed setting and make the camera adjust around it when metering the shot. If you start using faster shutter speeds with only fluorescent lights, you will notice that your white ballance becomes offset between shots and some photos will appear lighter or darker with weird chromatic shifts. There are fluorescent tubes that use less efficient "slow phosphors" that emit a slower but more steady glow after being excited and have less range in the light output over one AC cycle, those would be better suited for use in photography if you want more consistent results and the freedom to use faster shutter speeds where a steadier light output is needed. These are usually sold as "flicker free" or "natural glow" bulbs and I have seen them in a specialty lighting store for not much more than a regular bulb. Incandescent lights have a very steady output but usually have a poor spectral range and are heavy in the red end. Again, there are special bulbs with treated filaments and filter coatings to enhance and ballance the light output for use in photography. Of course, these are things you'd be more concerned about if you were photographing a series of items you are selling on a website and you want all the photos to look consistent. If you are just showing off some specimens on RTH I doubt anyone would even notice.
|
|
|
Post by beefjello on Oct 10, 2007 22:52:05 GMT -5
Very cool Curt. Light box construction has been on my to do list since Shannon sent me that^ very same link a while back. Thanks for the lighting info too Rob. There's so much great info around these parts!
|
|
|
Post by LCARS on Oct 11, 2007 1:32:30 GMT -5
Oh BTW Curt, I forgot to mention your photo looks great too! It seems like it's been a bit overcompressed in between the image sensor and the forum post though? Not sure since I know nothing else about your photo set-up except you have a lightbox now. You have good white tone in the crystal and visible but lowlighted shadows that still show good depth in the drusy. I makes me think you are faithfully representing the true color of the piece in the photo. There is good dynamic range between the dark & bright light levels in the image too but it's a bit hard to tell if there are any saturated pixels just by looking at it. I like to meter most of my shots at -1/3ev if there are bright white areas I want to show full detail in. If I need to brighten them up in a photo editor later at least I won't lose the dynamic range in the shot. I have found that (with my camera atleast) sometimes metering at 0ev will still "bleach out" some of the brightest areas losing any range and detail there. Luckilly, my camera's shot review mode has a neat feature that causes any bleached out pixels to oscilate between black and white, letting you know those areas of the shot were overexposed, then you can make the necessary adjustments and try the shot again if you want. Taking good pictures is not as hard or expensive as a lot of people think. I've seen an intuitive amateur with a mid-line $300 digital camera take some very nice photos before long, you just have to do a bit of self-teaching and with a digital, you can experiment all day long and delete all your mistakes, nobody has to know how many shots it took to get it "just right". ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2007 3:35:21 GMT -5
that is one awesome photo! Great job!
Nathaniel
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Oct 11, 2007 6:30:07 GMT -5
Oh BTW Curt, I forgot to mention your photo looks great too! It seems like it's been a bit overcompressed in between the image sensor and the forum post though? Not sure since I know nothing else about your photo set-up except you have a lightbox now. You have good white tone in the crystal and visible but lowlighted shadows that still show good depth in the drusy. I makes me think you are faithfully representing the true color of the piece in the photo. There is good dynamic range between the dark & bright light levels in the image too but it's a bit hard to tell if there are any saturated pixels just by looking at it. I like to meter most of my shots at -1/3ev if there are bright white areas I want to show full detail in. If I need to brighten them up in a photo editor later at least I won't lose the dynamic range in the shot. I have found that (with my camera atleast) sometimes metering at 0ev will still "bleach out" some of the brightest areas losing any range and detail there. Luckilly, my camera's shot review mode has a neat feature that causes any bleached out pixels to oscilate between black and white, letting you know those areas of the shot were overexposed, then you can make the necessary adjustments and try the shot again if you want. Taking good pictures is not as hard or expensive as a lot of people think. I've seen an intuitive amateur with a mid-line $300 digital camera take some very nice photos before long, you just have to do a bit of self-teaching and with a digital, you can experiment all day long and delete all your mistakes, nobody has to know how many shots it took to get it "just right". ;D Rob Say whut? ;D I just have a 10 year old Sony Mavica. It takes decent pics if the light is perfect. The pic above was not touched at all, not even brightness/contrast. That's why I'm thrilled with the light box. My camera has an EV adjustment from -.5 to +1.5. I don't have a clue what EV does though. It also has a brightness adjustment. That's it...no frills camera.... just like me. ;D Curt
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Oct 11, 2007 9:24:35 GMT -5
Here's a pic of a piece of druzy wood in the light box. It's 9x6x4 and weighs 9 pounds. I'm extremely happy with it except it has no depth of field. What do you do to correct that Rob? Given my camera has few adjustments, I may just have to live with it. Curt
|
|
|
Post by LCARS on Oct 11, 2007 18:05:43 GMT -5
Curt, the ev setting just makes the photo a bit darker or lighter, it's basically there as a manual tweak to the camera's automatic shot metering. It should go at least three settings in either direction from 0
I think because you have an older camera it may not be able to process a lot of image data and the output does look a bit noisey like the older CCD's tend to. That kind of thing probably can't be helped but if your camera has a resolution setting, max it out for light box photos. Fine or Super Fine is usually the highest setting and gives the sharpest most detailed image (at any size setting). Lower settings are designed to save memory when you don't need a very sharp image but I don't know anyone who takes actual photos with a lower setting.
To some degree, the depth of field is determined by the camera's optics but generally speaking, if you want better depth of field you can use a smaller aperature setting (F-stop or 'Av' short or Aperature value). If you do not have manual control over your camera's aperature setting then you can usualy "trick" it into a making the aperature smaller by using a preset shooting mode and higher light levels. Auto macro modes usually force the iris open as much as possible to give the blurred background effect common in macro shots but it kills the depth of field.
Smaller Av's require longer shutter times (Tv) which is alright if the camera stays perfectly still for the shot or better yet is triggered by a timer or remote.
If I knew more about what modes and manual settings your camera has I might be able to offer better advice but all cameras have their own personalities and you just have to spend a lot of time trying things to see what it likes and doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Oct 11, 2007 18:23:48 GMT -5
Thanks much for that info Rob. More light is all I can do to get a faster shutter speed.
Curt
|
|
dtcmor
freely admits to licking rocks
Back to lickin' rocks again!
Member since May 2006
Posts: 898
|
Post by dtcmor on Oct 12, 2007 0:43:42 GMT -5
Great job Curt! I have been thinking of building one also to improve my pics. I have the same problem with depth of field, and was wondering if different lighting angles might give the right amount of light and shadow combination to draw out more definitions. It would definitely be fun to play around with - might give it a try soon!
|
|