Questions about taking pictures of machines.

[Bandit]

I wonder if the shutter was not set to scinc with the flash firing, also if the flash is many centimetres above the camera lens (or to side etc. by an amount) the light from the flash may not be any ware close to focus point
/area of the lens. In the picture of the lathe saddle/cross slide, the side of picture towards tail stock is much brighter then chuck side, however distance to the chuck also appears to be greater. Picture appears to have been taken on an angle.
The real great thing about digital is you can see rite away the picture and do retakes moveing things to get better shots,(time allowing of course, or subject not running away or eating you).

 

[Susquatch]

I wonder if the shutter was not set to scinc with the flash firing, also if the flash is many centimetres above the camera lens (or to side etc. by an amount) the light from the flash may not be any ware close to focus point
/area of the lens. In the picture of the lathe saddle/cross slide, the side of picture towards tail stock is much brighter then chuck side, however distance to the chuck also appears to be greater. Picture appears to have been taken on an angle.
The real great thing about digital is you can see rite away the picture and do retakes moveing things to get better shots,(time allowing of course, or subject not running away or eating you).

My laugh was a reaction to your last sentence. Although funny, it also kinda touches on my point. You don't always have the luxury of multiple takes. You have to go with what you have and fix it.

Your reply is also useful to @a smile because it is specific to his photo. I like that approach.

Personally, I wouldn't have used a flash in this photo at all. It's a good example of when normal diffused lighting is better. Fewer shadows, deeper penetration, less contrast, etc.

I think the depth of field is also a problem. Normally that can fixed by using a smaller aperture. But in this case, I would have taken the photo from a greater distance with a longer focal length (the portrait approach). This is one time when a small aperture would not be your friend - especially with less lighting.

Also, I don't know the intent of the photo. But it doesn't show enough perspective - it is too head-on (vertical). It would be better to take the photo from an offset angle.

Lastly, the photo is unnatural. People don't look at a lathe from that angle. The result is a photo that looks awkward and uncomfortable. It would be better to take the photo from a more natural perspective.

For photos like this one, I think its better to ask yourself what it is that you want to capture in your photo and then try to compose the setup to make that happen.

I don't mean to be overly critical. I am only trying to provide constructive feedback.

 

[a smile]

This is a photo I took with Sonya 7-2, and the light is full (because I just enhanced the light), which makes me believe in the power of technology. sony's technology is improving really fast. My last camera was Sonya 350, and the shooting effect has not been satisfactory. Now I can meet my basic needs.



If I choose carefully, I will make every photo full of modern and technological feeling.

I finally figured out that the best phones could never take pictures of this depth, provided there was enough light.

My shop is messy, but it doesn't affect my camera's perfect presentation.

All photos in this reply are only 50% size because the original photos are difficult to upload. (It's too big)

 

[a smile]

Lighting, lighting, lighting. And, when you've mastered that, check your lighting.

Doesn't matter if your DOF is perfect, doesn't matter if the subject is in focus, doesn't matter if the composition is beyond compare. If the subject isn't lit properly, none of the above matters. And, post-processing will only fix limited issues. It won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

This coming from someone w/ over 600,000 digital images and thousands of hours of Photoshop under his belt.

My photo today is the proof of your point of view, I hope to get more light, he will make my photo more clear, vivid, layered. There will also be more depth of field.

More diffuse light is what the camera needs, and more light source positions will bring the light closer to natural light.

I just want to say, thank you for your speeches, let me learn more useful knowledge.

 

[Bandit]

Yes, lighting is always difficult when taking a picture of multiple objects with a single small light source (flashs, etc.) light is very directional unless it is very large. Adding surfaces that reflect light well and others that don't, and may have different surface textures too.
Sometimes a simple flat white or light coloured reflector can help "put more light on the subject, or the back ground". Be careful of shiny reflectors, can cause "hot spots" on objects.
Too many light sources, too many reflectors, too many things to control. Try one reflector to direct some light to the far side of the chuck area, in the full lathe picture, lots to experiment with. Putting camera on a tripod, can allow smaller f stops and slower shutter speeds, more depth of field and "more" light.
Also, what you want the picture to show, the feeling you want to give is up to you, not me.
Good luck, photo taking can be taken to a very high art form, or just a record of something. Up to you which direction to go.

 

[jcdammeyer]

I have been using this since WIN-98 I believe. https://www.irfanview.com/ With this program you can load that 8MB photo crop around the area you want and even turn it by tenths of a degree before you crop square. You can save as from 640x480 all the way up into the thousands. You can also save as a jpg with reduced size.
There are two photos here: Android S10 set held at the same point as the end of the lens of the Nikon D8 set at f11 ISO-400 1/5th second on Tripod overhead florescent and the LED ring light and spot light. There's another set at f11, 1/13th second but now ISO-2500

I then cropped each photo to roughly have the same view. Should be pretty easy to tell which is which.

 

[Susquatch]

I have used and loved Irfanview for decades too.

Less so in recent years though because the native app on my phone does more and more as it evolves. I like that I can take a photo, edit it on my phone, crop it, scale it, post process it, and upload it to my cloud or to other services (like this forum) all without having to go near a computer.

 

[a smile]

Today, I enhanced some lighting and took some photos, I chose one (without any retouching - I changed the picture size because the forums don't accept large original images).

 

[jcdammeyer]

Today, I enhanced some lighting and took some photos, I chose one (without any retouching - I changed the picture size because the forums don't accept large original images).View attachment 38739

That's nice. Depth of field is important. Behind your tool holders everything is out of focus. That helps to make what you do want to show pop out more. That's why also brightly lighting the object while the background way back there would be so dark it's both out of focus and dark. Again what you photograph then pops.
And on a slightly different subject... I want more tool holders now. Clearly I don't have enough...

 

[Susquatch]

Today, I enhanced some lighting and took some photos, I chose one (without any retouching - I changed the picture size because the forums don't accept large original images).

Try picking an edge and then mirroring the image so you have twice as many tool holders.......

Seriously, nice job. I like the even lighting and the shallow depth of field. Draws my eye to the subject without distraction.