Photographing Great War Artifacts

[cwbuff]

I am always trying to improve how to take great pictures of Great War artifacts. It was suggested in this thread (http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=222596&view=findpost&p=2212639) that it would be useful to start a new thread where we could share techniques for photographing Great War artifacts, thus learning from each other. Perhaps this could eventually grow into its own topic area. I placed it under the “Arms” topic because these types of artifacts are challenging to photograph – the 3D curves and the fine markings demand mastery of focus and lighting techniques. Clearly you do NOT NEED expensive equipment to take great shots. Your pictures may lack some sharpness and you may struggle getting just the right settings, but a good consumer grade digital camera will take great pictures if you use the right techniques. Photography techniques are blend of art and science. Art is a good eye for composing shots. Science is the technical knowledge about light and camera settings.

I use “decent” camera equipment. While my camera, a Nikon D80 SLR, is now outdated, the lenses are superb. The workhorse is an 18-200mm DX VR zoom lens. Because the zoom creeps when inverted, I use a rubber lens band to secure it while using a tripod. I also have a 105mm DX VR f2.8 macro lens for extreme close ups and a 35mm DX f1.8 normal lens for low lighting conditions. I also have the Nikon R1 Close-up Speedlight System (pic below).

[cwbuff]

Lighting is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect in taking good gun pictures. You need LOTS of indirect, reflected light from multiple directions or you will get distracting shadows. Before proceeding, a decision must be made on how the subject will be illuminated. Based on that decision, I use one or more of the techniques described below . With the exception of overview photos of long guns, most close up pictures require macro photography. For macro photography lighting is especially critical. There are many ways of accomplishing this:

1) Pick a bright overcast day where cloud cover acts as a light diffuser eliminating shadows. This works best in the winter when the green leaves are down so a green color is not cast on the subject

2) Use close-up flash system.

3) Use a "light box" with indirect lighting from the sun, external lights, or bounced flash. I use a frame constructed of white pvc pipe with white cloth on all sides except the bottom (where I use background material (see below). I can assemble the box to long gun length or pistol length. The white cloth panels have sleeves that the pipe goes through. Light is shined on or bounced off the white material to provide the indirect lighting. (see picture below).

[cwbuff]

Here are some experiments using different background colors. Backgrounds should not be reflective material. Uniform fabric is less distracting that a fabric with a noticeable pattern. These are pics I have on hand, even though the gun is from WW2, a couple of the backgrounds are Great War blankets

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Good advice.

Could you explain how the choice of brightness of the background or background colour is important in getting the object correctly exposed?

I'm guessing that all the shots were taken under very similar circumstances, yet the bottom two look darker.

[depaor01]

A bright background will confuse the camera's metering into adjusting the aperture and shutter speed (assuming it's auto mode) and therefore underexposing the main subject if it's darker than the background. Hence the underexposed rifles.

Dave.

[cwbuff]

I agree with Dave's comments especially if you use an automatic exposure. You can get better results in aperture priority mode. The underexposure can be compensated for in an editing tool like Photoshop. You also need to consider what you want to highlight. For example, red can bring out the color of the the wood. A blue background can make the bluing look better as well.

[Khaki]

A great start for a Great War resource,

many many thanks,

khaki

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Thanks a lot.

[4thGordons]

I agree with Dave's comments especially if you use an automatic exposure. You can get better results in aperture priority mode. The underexposure can be compensated for in an editing tool like Photoshop. You also need to consider what you want to highlight. For example, red can bring out the color of the the wood. A blue background can make the bluing look better as well.

If you are using a DSLR like the D80 mentioned you can also choose SPOT metering (or center weighted) and this will take the metering from the subject rather than the whole scene averaging in the light background. In most modern DSLRs (I am most familiar with Nikon) these (spot, center weighted, frame average) are the three metering modes.

I don't know if flash was used on the above shots (if it was the absence of hard shadows would indicate if it was it was diffused) but auto flash levels will also be affected by the light metering of the whole scene causing a similar effect.

In terms of colour - what most people forget with DSLR is that an amazing difference can be made by the white balance setting in the camera so using a colour card to set white black and neutral grey under the lighting conditions to be use used can have a very marked impact on the image produced. Modern DSLRs will set the white balance automatically in most modes and do very well at it - but if you want to create a particular effect then it is worth paying some attention to this. These things can be corrected/modified in photoshop etc as noted but starting with a good image is always best!

Here is the last dark image tweaked in photoshop -- its not bad but I still think the other correctly exposed images are better.

I go back and forth on backgrounds. I quite like just plain white at the moment:

[Gunner Bailey]

I would venture the opinion that you need to have two types of photographic techniques in your armoury.

1. Record photography - Used for your own pleasure or for printed publications

2. Internet photography - Where submitting photos to a forum or general reading where people can shamelessly copy them for their own use.

I use a Nikon D600 for the former and a Nikon Coolpix for the latter. I also put items on a background such as a wooden (grained) table top which is less likely to be as attractive for someone needing an illustration for a book.

I write this as someone who last year had some of his images taken from a website without my permission and used by four national newspapers and one London paper. Luckily (with some arm bending) they apologised and paid me publication fees.

John

[Ice Tiger]

Thanks for the posts above; helpful.

Taking it a stage further, does anyone have tips for photographing the most tricky of subjects; CWGC grave stones?

Most of the time the luxury of returning when there is better lighting, e.g. no direct sunlight, is not an option so I try to take offset photos to place some shaddow in the engraved lettering/badge. Even with off set pictures and bracketing though I find the white of the stone throws the camera meter into melt down and playing with the picture afterwards in a photo editing program (I am not photoshop literate so use a basic editing program) often results in either a greyish stone with clear lettering or a white stone with faint hard to read inscriptions. The head stones are very evocative in the cemetery but are often reduced to less than a 1960s holiday snap when I view the photos. I use a Canon DSLR on a tripod but find my "in case of emergencies" Sony Cybershot point & shoot camera often gives better results.

Andy

[cwbuff]

I would venture the opinion that you need to have two types of photographic techniques in your armoury.

1. Record photography - Used for your own pleasure or for printed publications

2. Internet photography - Where submitting photos to a forum or general reading where people can shamelessly copy them for their own use.

I use a Nikon D600 for the former and a Nikon Coolpix for the latter. I also put items on a background such as a wooden (grained) table top which is less likely to be as attractive for someone needing an illustration for a book.

I write this as someone who last year had some of his images taken from a website without my permission and used by four national newspapers and one London paper. Luckily (with some arm bending) they apologised and paid me publication fees.

John

Virtually all of the pictures that I take are to document my collection. So I tend to use the plain backgrounds (instead of dramatic compositions) and shoot in full resolution in "raw" format. It is better to use photo editing software on raw images. Each collectable item is then documented on its own web page with a combination of pictures and text. The web site is only on my computer and is not publicly accessible. Since most forums have limits on image size, I down sample the photos before I post them on a forum. I understand the issue of people taking pictures, but that is not an issue for me personally.

[cwbuff]

I would like to get some advice on this issue. Here is an example of a type of shot that I find the most difficult. It involves both composition and focus (light is secondary). The picture below shows two matching magazines from a 1917 DWM P08 (Luger). I'm trying to show the serial number markings on the bottom of the magazines. This involves getting the lens opening and shutter speed right so that everything is in focus. Often this requires use of a tripod. But because I was in a hurry, I get a picture slightly out of focus. (Note the "+" on the left magazine indicates it is the second magazine issued with that pistol).

[cwbuff]

If you are using a DSLR like the D80 mentioned you can also choose SPOT metering (or center weighted) and this will take the metering from the subject rather than the whole scene averaging in the light background. In most modern DSLRs (I am most familiar with Nikon) these (spot, center weighted, frame average) are the three metering modes.

I don't know if flash was used on the above shots (if it was the absence of hard shadows would indicate if it was it was diffused) but auto flash levels will also be affected by the light metering of the whole scene causing a similar effect.

In terms of colour - what most people forget with DSLR is that an amazing difference can be made by the white balance setting in the camera so using a colour card to set white black and neutral grey under the lighting conditions to be use used can have a very marked impact on the image produced. Modern DSLRs will set the white balance automatically in most modes and do very well at it - but if you want to create a particular effect then it is worth paying some attention to this. These things can be corrected/modified in photoshop etc as noted but starting with a good image is always best!

Here is the last dark image tweaked in photoshop -- its not bad but I still think the other correctly exposed images are better.

post-71339-0-69524300-14211.jpg

I go back and forth on backgrounds. I quite like just plain white at the moment:

MkI.jpg

MLEa.jpg

I like the effect of the rifle appearing to "float in space." What kind of material did you use as a background? Most of the solid untextured backgrounds that I posted above are thick felt. You will notice in my pictures above, the light gray background is a thin material that wrinkles. You can see the distracting wrinkles in the one photo.

[shippingsteel]

I think you can overcomplicate the issue. I like to keep it simple, mainly because I haven't got the time to go to too much trouble with photos.

I am just an amateur that occasionally grabs a (good quality digital) camera and after spending much time positioning, starts snapping away.

My tips would include taking LOTS of slightly different shots of the same thing with slightly different angles and lighting, and selecting the best.

Also with the digital definition, you don't need to be getting too close, which confuses the auto-focus. I keep well back and then enlarge & crop.

Cheers, S>S

[cwbuff]

Let me clarify the issue. Taking pics of individual markings is one problem. Taking a single photo of multiple markings that are on curved surfaces or at different distances from the lens is more difficult. It is the latter that I tend to have problems with. I think most of my problems are not investing the thought and time to do it right. It would be nice to have a script for doing these shots.

[4thGordons]

I would like to get some advice on this issue. Here is an example of a type of shot that I find the most difficult. It involves both composition and focus (light is secondary). The picture below shows two matching magazines from a 1917 DWM P08 (Luger). I'm trying to show the serial number markings on the bottom of the magazines. This involves getting the lens opening and shutter speed right so that everything is in focus. Often this requires use of a tripod. But because I was in a hurry, I get a picture slightly out of focus. (Note the "+" on the left magazine indicates it is the second magazine issued with that pistol).

IMG_0783.jpg

The background on my photos was white felt.

One of the issues (and I think the issue here) is 'Depth of field" - that is to say the distance either side of the point of focus that is still "in focus" or at least is close enough to appear so to our eyes!

Broadly speaking (this is a simplification): Depth of field is inversely related to both aperture and focal length. So the larger the aperture the shallower the depth of field and the longer the lens in use the shallower the depth of field. I do a fair bit of bird/nature photography using a 500mm lens and at that focal length if I am using a wide aperture if I focus on a bird's bill, much of the head will not be sharp. Taking photos of artifacts we are not usually using long lenses BUT we are usually doing two other things that will reduce the depth of field -- lighting is usually an issue so we tend to use wide apertures (so we can use a faster shutter and avoid shake - the other source of blur in photos) or we are shooting at macro (high magnification - larger than life) which also reduces depth of field. This creates the problem your photo may be illustrating - while the front (or back) is in focus - the other end is not. Solutions here might be 1) to use a smaller aperture (a higher f-number on the lens so f10 for example, this will give a much greater depth of field than f2.8, but it will also necessitate a slower shutter speed or a higher ISO ("film speed" / sensor sensitivity) and/or to focus in the middle of the two magazines and hope that depth of field covers both serial numbers. Shallow depth of field can be useful -- for example portrait photographers often use if to blurr out backgrounds, you focus on the subject's eyes using a moderately long lens and a moderately wide aperture and the tip of their nose and their ears fall within the depth of field (so are in focus) but the background becomes soft and blurred and does not distract from the subject. The same effect can be used on artifacts to focus attention on the key marking/feature etc.

On your D80 upping the ISO is going to introduce significant "grain" to the image above about 400 but on newer cameras this is on area where the sensors have improved markedly I used a D200 for years - I currently use a D7000 and the change in this respect is marked. So actually I think lighting really is still key. If you have sufficient light to allow you to use a smaller aperture and still retain a practical shutter speed, you will have a greater depth of field and more will be on focus. The chances of this could be maximized by focusing between the marks (the danger is they are both out of focus!)

The huge advantage of digital images is of course it is "free" to screw up! you just hit delete and try again -- rather than paying for film, developing, waiting a couple of hours and then finding you have screwed up!

I think S>S is right though - it is easy to over-complicate things (and because I like to take photos and take a lot, I tend to do this) but some basic knowledge of the camera and what is going on really helps I think.

So for example using the MACRO setting (usually looks like a tulip) will often improve photos of artifacts with a point and shoot camera - one of the mistakes I think people make here is using the macro setting and then zooming in to get close. While this will sometimes work it is far better (and the point of the setting) to move the camera much closer to the subject. The macro setting allows much closer focus but to do this the camera's zoom (here I am thinking of point-shoot type cameras) needs to be towards the wide end. The camera I have setting on my desk for quick snaps for the forum or to record documents etc is actually a 15 year old Nikon Coolpix 995 and in the viewfinder the macro symbol will change colour when the zoom is in the "sweet spot" for macro focus.

I use the same approach as John,(Gunner Bailey) I have my fancy camera and lenses for "pictures" and my old coolpix for snaps. I too have had images taken from the forum (although mostly scans of period images) and some of them cross posted to other forums without any attribution - and more annoyingly, reprints of some put up for sale on ebay! I actually have not problem with the use of images for not for profit / educational use but I draw the line at someone making money from my work or not acknowledging it as such at least!

Chris (who is now late for work!)

[Andy Wade]

Let me clarify the issue. Taking pics of individual markings is one problem. Taking a single photo of multiple markings that are on curved surfaces or at different distances from the lens is more difficult. It is the latter that I tend to have problems with. I think most of my problems are not investing the thought and time to do it right. It would be nice to have a script for doing these shots.

Have you tried taking the shot from further away and zooming in on it?

[cwbuff]

Chris - great technical response. I wondered where all those pictures on eBay came from.

Have you tried taking the shot from further away and zooming in on it?

Yes - I have tried this. It's not that I can't take some great shots. It's more like it is an accident when it happens! I need a much more systematic approach.

[4thGordons]

Have you tried taking the shot from further away and zooming in on it?

This can work well but it does introduce the issue that depth of field gets shallower as zoom gets higher.

The problem with curved surfaces and multiple objects is the plane of focus, so if this is the approach making sure the point of focus is in the middle maximizes the chance of getting everything within the field.

One problem is that one of the default setting on many cameras (even DSLRs) is to focus on the CLOSEST object to the lens. This works well for many things but can cause problems in situations like this. Most cameras can be set to a center spot focus then you can choose where it goes. That can cause issues too of course (we have all tried to take that wonderful picture of our favourite people only to produce a line of blurs with the background in sharp focus because the center point went over someone's shoulder, right? or maybe that is just me) Some modern cameras have very complex focus zones which will take several readings and then average.

For macro pictures I invariably focus manually when using my DSLR rather than using the camera's auto focus, this helps me I have found - also because in relatively poor light and at smaller apertures anything other than the most expensive cameras/lenses (which I don't have!) tend to hunt back and forwards a lot trying to focus.

Chris

Edit:

Where standing back and zooming can help (especially with point and shoot cameras) is it can mitigate WHITE OUT from the on camera flash which overpowers the image if you are too close. Most point-shoot camera flashes (unless you get very spendy) tend to be set for a distance of about 2m/6ft and anything closer than that is in danger of being burned out.

[Gunner Bailey]

Chris is 100% right about depth of field / focus. Lens choice is also critical and from experience a good close focusing 35mm or 50mm prime lens is a good choice. I have an old Nikon F - 35mm f 2.8 lens that focuses down to about 8 inches and was always great for macro before macro lenses were invented. A short extension tube and a tripod are also vital for quality work.

For small things such as the '08 markings you need a few inches of depth of focus. A good DSLR will let you preview this. Alternatively set your camera on aperture priority, set the aperture to f11 or f16, manually focus in the middle area of what you want sharp and try a few images to see how much you are getting in focus. That's the bonus with digital. You can experiment at no cost apart from the time used. Enjoy!

John

PS. The contents of this post sort of reveals I've about 50 years experience with Nikon SLRs! Doh!