Violin Photography / Lighting redux (LED)

[Scoiattola]

Season's Greetings to All!

 

As this post's title indicates, this is a well thrashed horse being brought out for further examination:

 

Recently, I got interested in violin/bow photography. Before I got started, I wanted to do my homework. A cursory search here on Maestronet brought me to Michael Darnton's chapter on instrument photography, so this is where I started.

 

A little deeper searching was enlightening: cf. this recent telecentric lens post. A post on this thread suggests using a telephoto lens to photograph scrolls for templates, in order to reduce distortion. Tarisio's instrument photography guide has been commonly referenced, but seems to be down. Everybody was very complimentary towards it, which makes me wish I could review it! (Ditto a now defunct guide at J & A Beare's website.) While browsing the 2005 Reference thread on violin photography I found this Photoshop advice thread from 2004 with some still relevant information...

 

This 2011 Thread on shiny instrument photography was notable for identifying two "camps" of instrument photography. Particularily interesting was an anecdote from Michael Darnton from his time working for Bob Bein. Apparently they had different ideals/goals for violin photography: Michael wanted more 3D detail, and didn't mind shadows (if I understand correctly) in order to get it. Robert wanted everything flattened out with lots of lighting, which brought out lines, etc., which was useful for identification purposes (IIRC). Of course, in an ideal world, it should be possible to get both!

 

On a related note, I like a lot of the photos on the Music Museum of America's website. I also found this thread which includes a photo of a Vuillaume by Jeffery Holmes that I really like - I feel like it has great clarity, and I can imagine the arching of the fiddle based on the photo.

 

Lighting seems to be key in all of the above discussions. Naturally, this is the area I have the most issue with. Most of the guides referenced above recommend using a pair of "hot lamps" set at an angle. However, (perhaps due to an EU ban?) it is currently well nigh impossible to find incandescent bulbs here in Europe. I do have a 500W bulb from West Germany that still has a little life in it, but because I only have one, it creates a lot of shadows, and not the good kind...

 

In lieu of photo floods (which have the the side benefit of showing shadows and glare ahead of time), has anybody here used LED lighting for instrument photography? That seems to be the fashion here nowadays. From what little I have read about LEDs, they are efficient because they don't use the full spectrum of light. I would think that this would be bad for photographing violins - but what do I know? Any thoughts on Halogen lights? What are you using currently? Any suggestions for a settup available to purchase/rent here in Europe? Is there perhaps an analogue to the inexpensive Smith-Victor lighting sets available in the States? Something I could adjust/dim would be ideal.

 

Cheers,

 

Scoiattolo

 

 

[Davide Sora]

Hi Scoiattola,

 

I use two 1000 W halogen spotlights lamps (with the possibility to switch at 500 W, useful for more "artistic" image) backed wit two white umbrella for indirect lighting to smooth the shadow and minimize the problem of overheating the violin.

Nikon D600 digital camera with Nikkor Micro 105 mm lens, a top quality lens with almost no distortion (distortion is an intrinsic characteristic of the lens and definitely a need, problems of perspective on the other hand depend only on the focal length and the distance of the shooting point)

200 mm Micro Nikkor lens would be better for perspective issue and is on my wish (fantastic lens!!) but at the moment too expensive for satisfy a whim (about 1600 euro), whereas the 105 mm works really really well.

You might see my set up here in the photo at the bottom of the page.

 

http://davidesora.altervista.org/photogallery/

 

Never tried other type of lamp, but led and fluorescent may be an interesting option, probably better processed by the white balance of digital camera than halogen and heat less the violin, but I come from analogic photography and I already had those spotlights.

Halogen work well but don't last many months and one replacement bulb cost about 30 euro and in the last years the price has grown exponentially (from 16 to 30 euro in only 3 years!!).

[martin swan]

Hi Scoiattola

I think the approach to photographing violins is dictated by the intention ... if you are trying to produce an archive record, probably the lighting should be more neutral than if you're trying to sell an instrument!

Personally I don't favour completely flat lighting, since i like to be able to see the arching a bit, and to understand how reflective the varnish is etc.

I use 3 daylight LED panels these days, and I find them really good. 

[Jeff Jetson]

I just visited Davide Sora's site and am impressed as to the extent and effort you guys go to to photograph your instruments. If I want to sell one of my unwanted instruments I just place it on my Lazy Boy recliner and it does give me a surprisingly good photo as if the violin is just floating in the air against a backdrop.

My indoor house lighting consists of compact fluorescent bulbs which I bought 15 or more years ago and have yet to have one burn out and they did lower my electric bill a bit when i switched them out with the incandescent bulbs.

[Violadamore]

 

Macro with a "long lens", what a novel idea!!    IMHO, the best light for anything is bright sunlight, and the second best is a reflected xenon strobe.  Under studio conditions, using a dedicated macro lens, LED light collars are wonderful for "micro macros".  Also, a lot of what you see depends on the filters used.

 

As Martin implied, photos can lie, and can do so even when it is not the illustrator's intention.  There are some things (I could be specific, but it would hijack the thread) which look entirely different (in terms of color, surface roughness, patterns seen on the surface, etc.) from what one sees ordinarily, depending on how the object is illuminated, and can only be properly appreciated/imterpreted from a series of photos taken under various lighting conditions (particularly with regard to angle and intensity).

[Davide Sora]

Vegas2 162.JPG

 

Macro with a "long lens", what a novel idea!!    IMHO, the best light for anything is bright sunlight, and the second best is a reflected xenon strobe.  Under studio conditions, using a dedicated macro lens, LED light collars are wonderful for "micro macros".  Also, a lot of what you see depends on the filters used.

 

As Martin implied, photos can lie, and can do so even when it is not the illustrator's intention.  There are some things (I could be specific, but it would hijack the thread) which look entirely different (in terms of color, surface roughness, patterns seen on the surface, etc.) from what one sees ordinarily, depending on how the object is illuminated, and can only be properly appreciated/imterpreted from a series of photos taken under various lighting conditions (particularly with regard to angle and intensity).

 

Very nice shot Violadamore.

Macro lenses are good for details like corners, purfling mitres and so on, but the main reason why I use them for everything else is the minimum focusing distance, which almost always in normal lens is too long for violin photography.

I have a "normal" 200 mm that has a minimum focusing distance at 1.6 meters, too much for a scroll shot.

Another reason is the sharpness and the micro detail reproduction abilities (such as wood grain) that a good macro lens expressly designed for reproduction should have (the Nikon lenses I mentioned are perfect in this respect, but for example too sharp for classic portrait).

I make the canonical and "flat" pictures (for which I need a set up of symmetrical and balanced lights) for my archive and for certificates of authenticity.

These allow an indisputable certainty for the identification of instruments against faking, because wood grains are like fingerprints and in this case good quality photos do not lie at all.

For more artistic photos actually you do not need too much sophisticated lights, but thanks to digital technology offering countless trials and corrections even a couple of desk lamps can be also fine if the photographer is good and equipped with fantasy.

But in these cases, photos can lying and be very deceptive.....

[Violadamore]

That poinciana bloom was shot in Yuma AZ on 2 June 2010 at around 0930 hours local, using a fully zoomed Promaster 28-105 zoom lens (which focuses to 500 mm) at f/11 and attached to a Fuji S3 Pro (Nikon body, Fuji imaging electronics) set to manual settings, 1/250 sec, ISO 100, JPEG res as you see it, color balance set to mimic Fujichrome Velvia 100 film.  Polaris meter.  Shot from Manfrotto tripod using cable release.  My point was that shooting macros with tele lenses is nothing new, you just have to back off, and let the zoom do the magnification.  I also have a set of macro "filter lenses" (focal reducers) that I use sometimes to get closer to things.  I've got some Nikon lenses too.  Sharp is not a problem.

 

For indoor and studio stuff, bounce flash and a strobe meter are yummy.

 

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just pointing out that you don't need more than will fit in one large carry-on to shoot nearly anything anywhere. For special photos you can get more lab/studio stuff (polarizers and whatnot), but you hardly ever need it.  Like I said above, I won't go into that here, but violins aren't the case I had in mind.  Fingerprint pictures of wood grain aren't any more challenging than that flower was.

[Davide Sora]

......color balance set to mimic Fujichrome Velvia 100 film.

 

.......

 

.......  Fingerprint pictures of wood grain aren't any more challenging than that flower was.

 

Fujichrome Velvia, I used it myself in version 50 ASA for sports and nature photography, really explosive red, but for violin too exaggerated.

My preference was Kodak Ektachrome 64 Professional slides, more natural colors for violin varnishes, most of my archive is still on these slides.

 

Shooting violins is easier than flowers, no wind around to blurr your image.....

[tamiya]

Shooting violins is easier than flowers, no wind around to blurr your image.....

Mother Nature's, perhaps. Nut behind viewfinder, don't be downwind

That poinciana bloom was shot in Yuma AZ on 2 June 2010 at around 0930 hours local, using a fully zoomed Promaster 28-105 zoom lens (which focuses to 500 mm) at f/11 and attached to a Fuji S3 Pro (Nikon body, Fuji imaging electronics) set to manual settings, 1/250 sec, ISO 100, JPEG res as you see it, color balance set to mimic Fujichrome Velvia 100 film.

good to know the classics are still in service

thought I was the last remaining stalwart to have my D70 still in use, it's forever lying somewhere ready to shoot since 2004. Barely ever turned off even, battery lasts for months even when left On.

Small DX sensor can hamper macro jobs though, sometimes a fX full frame can be handy

[Violadamore]

Mother Nature's, perhaps. Nut behind viewfinder, don't be downwind

good to know the classics are still in service

thought I was the last remaining stalwart to have my D70 still in use, it's forever lying somewhere ready to shoot since 2004. Barely ever turned off even, battery lasts for months even when left On.

Small DX sensor can hamper macro jobs though, sometimes a fX full frame can be handy

The Fuji S Pro DSLR series (built into Nikon bodies) is probably the best 22 mm format image wise ever built (there are better medium and large format backs available, for a load more money) due to its unique image chip geometry as well as the way the hardwired processing mimics Fuji film types, and (in the S3) has amazing pixel noise suppression (I can use mine for long exposure astrophotography without any mask postprocessing).  Why Fuji quit making them is something of a mystery.  They are readily and cheaply available used, and I recommend them highly, though one should have a housing made if working in wet conditions. One neat thing on the S3 is that it takes AA rechargeables,  nothing weird or proprietary.

 

For some reason, Nikon has never caught up to Fuji on the imaging, and no one else has copied the Fuji geometry, though it's inarguably superior to rectangular arrays.  Probably some patent issues, politics, and so on.

[FredN]

Not sure if mentioned, but always check with a photo of horizontal and vertical lines at the exact settings if distortion is of concern.  Some lens at certain settings are terrible.

[Davide Sora]

Not sure if mentioned, but always check with a photo of horizontal and vertical lines at the exact settings if distortion is of concern.  Some lens at certain settings are terrible.

 

Great suggestion, high-quality single focal length lenses without distortion are the basis if quality is the priority.

Some high-quality zoom can keep up, but one must know the distortion characteristics at various focal because often the behavior is not homogenous.

The problem is that quality costs a lot, so it's good to think about if we really need all that quality.....

[tamiya]

For some reason, Nikon has never caught up to Fuji on the imaging, and no one else has copied the Fuji geometry, though it's inarguably superior to rectangular arrays.  Probably some patent issues, politics, and so on.

Something about hexagonal tiling of the sensor cells wasn't it? And they found it too hard to make higher-megapixel iterations, bad yields on higher pixel density... dunno, haven't caught up with the bleedingedge since Kodak went bust.