October 2010 Monthly Photo Contest Voting Poll

[Bud Helms]

Well, we are late again. That's twice in a row. :rolleyes:

Vote for your favorite image in the October Photo Contest here.

Photo thread here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425344).

[DRBoyle]

Running theme for some was firearms with a story to tell. Splitting hairs and picked Dolsak. Good luck to all. :)

[Dolsak]

To tell the truth, I'm amazed I have more than just my own vote.
:D

[S&W Kinda Guy]

Well Dolsak, you got my vote. Nice and simple, you let the gun do the talking.

[LanceOregon]

To tell the truth, I'm amazed I have more than just my own vote.

Well, it is your gun that is going over so well. It is such an interesting historical piece to look at. And all of that wear on it gives the pistol a lot of character too. You are lucky to have such a fine firearm in your collection.

For a tip for the future, try to provide some lighting that is less flat in nature. The photo itself is rather drab looking, as far as the lighting goes. In addition, photographing anything with a white background will result in an underexposure, which is also contributing to the poor quality of the exposure itself. Try to use a medium background that is neither too light or too dark in color. Or if you do shoot with a white background, remember that you have to override the camera's exposure and increase it, in order to compensate for the increased reflective ability of the color white. That increased reflection is tricking the camera into thinking that there is more light than there really is, thus resulting in an underexposed image.

The exposure meters on cameras all assume a world that reflects light like a light color grey. While that usually works fine most of the time, it will not in a situation like this one.

You can do things with photo editing software to correct such issues too. Photoshop Elements only costs $80, and can do a lot to help with such problems. For example, I ran your photo through Photoshop Elements, and was able to produce this. You can see that the photo now has more "Pop" to it, and no longer looks so drab.

http://i52.tinypic.com/fmekh.jpg


So do consider getting some decent photo editing software, and you will learn to be able to enjoy the hobby of digital photography even more.

.

[Shadi Khalil]

Strum, no question about it.

[Officer's Match]

Honestly Lance, I like his original better.

I regularly use white backdrops, and seldom manually overexpose my pics. And I've never retouched any submission here - straight outta' the camera for me. And its a 10 year old 3mp point 'n shoot at that. I just like 'em as they were shot.

[Sturmgewehre]

I'm with you OM, white backgrounds aren't necessarily a bad thing. I shoot against them quite often. Here's one such example.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/866901613_mSp5B-L.jpg

It's all about the lighting and the camera settings if you want to bring out detail. The white, when properly exposed becomes neutral and the subject almost looks as if it's floating in white space. It's a popular technique for product photography.

[Officer's Match]

Yep.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/sly250r/CZ/CZ12-1.jpg

[S&W Kinda Guy]

What do you guys use for your white backgrounds? Or do you do it with editing software?

[Dolsak]

I used a couch and two sheets of printer paper. :o

I feel so out of my league.

[TheGoldenState]

Strum, no question about it.


yeup

[Sturmgewehre]

What do you guys use for your white backgrounds? Or do you do it with editing software?
I use a 5ft wide white role of paper you can pick up from any photography store.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/1083135952_x2wxQ-M.jpg

But you can get an inexpensive "light box" like this one (http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-30-Photo-Soft-Light/dp/B001TKCZVM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1289249733&sr=8-3) which will make for some neat pics too. They will usually come with everything you need except lights, but they have kits with lights too. You can pick up some cheap shop lights with the brightest bulbs you can find to sit on either side of the box.

You can edit the white area in Photoshop like OM has done to remove any shadows if you don't want them. I usually leave them as it adds depth to the image, IMHO. It's a matter of personal preference.

White is a good choice for backgrounds because it reflects light. With a white background you will see all the details around the firearm if it's properly illuminated as the paper reflects the light back at the subject. If you use black, it will cause more shadows to appear in many cases (depending on your light source(s)).

[Officer's Match]

You can edit the white area in Photoshop like OM has done to remove any shadows if you don't want them.

Negative Sturm, no editing whatsoever. Straight outta' the camera. Low tech all the way for me, 10 year old point n' shoot Canon and all. No external lighting but the sun and the G1's flash. No joke.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/sly250r/IMG_0209.jpg

[Sturmgewehre]

Interesting, was the sun hitting the pistol straight on? The total lack of shadows tells me either it was or your old point and shoot has a very limited dynamic range.

What model of Canon? I shoot Canon too, but I use DSLRs.

[Officer's Match]

A G1, made in about 2001 IIRC. 3.3 megapixel, and for some reason it just takes great pictures. I'm kinda' fond of that P7 one I entered a month or two back:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/sly250r/HK/P7M13/IMG_0209.jpg

[Sturmgewehre]

The G1 is an amazing camera. I have a G12 I take out for family pics and stuff. Back in the day the G1 was the camera to have. It's good to see it's still performing so well for you.

Great shot of the P7 too.

[Officer's Match]

Thank you sir.

[Edmond]

Thanks guys, I learned thing about photographying guns. Tim, you got my vote. I love your picture.

[Bud Helms]

'Looks like Sturmgewehre took this one.