New tutorial - snookered

Garry Edwards

Garry Edwards

Moderator
Messages
13,475
Name
Garry Edwards
Edit My Images
No
I had to get on with the photography of the snooker cues I mentioned in another thread, and so I haven't been able to arrange either a video of the shoot, or a lighting workshop, as I had hoped - but I hope to be able to come back to that and do it later.

Meanwhile, here is a tutorial that I've just published.

The job isn't finished yet, there is minor PP work to be done on the images, and especially on the backgrounds, but as everything I publish in my tutorials is SOOC that doesn't matter. And there are 3 different types of cue case to photograph too, but they're straightforward to light and probably not worth a blog post.
 
Interesting read Garry

I used to play a bit and had a few nice cues but sold them a few years back.

The first thing I wondered when I saw the first image is whether or not the cue was hand spliced. As a customer this makes a difference - certainly to the price.

The image underneath where it says "of course, detail shots are needed too" shows that it is hand spliced. The ebony 'points' are curved rather straight as they would be on a machine spliced cue.

The splice is currently just out of frame (excuse the pun) in the main shot and I wonder if it might be best included in the main product shot ?

The carbon fibre background works really well and contrasts nicely with the more traditional wood craft.
 
Thanks for your thoughts, maybe I need to make more of the hand splicing, I'll check with the client - if I ever manage to get hold of him...
Snooker is a game at which I am a miserable failure - I understand the physics perfectly, but like everything else, when I see the top pros doing it I just realise that they're playing a different game entirely:)
I don't know how important the cue actually is, I do remember seeing Ronnie O'Sullivan on the box, it was mentioned that he had lost his cue and his response was along the lines of "It's just a f*****g bit of wood".

I'm not totally sure about the 'carbon fibre' background, I chose it to get away with from the flat white or flat green background look, but the downside of it is that the pattern obviously changes with the magnification, so looks different in closeup shots. I use all sorts of 'non standard' backgrounds, I feel that they give an opportunity to be more creative.

Of course, this tutorial isn't really about snooker cues, it's about lighting a shiny convex shape and about both creating and controlling the reflections.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Of course, this tutorial isn't really about snooker cues, it's about lighting a shiny convex shape and about both creating and controlling the reflections.
Click to expand...

I understood that the article was about the lighting but it's a rare opportunity to talk about cues :)

I guess they're not unlike photographing / lighting guitars in some respects
 
dinners said:
I understood that the article was about the lighting but it's a rare opportunity to talk about cues :)

I guess they're not unlike photographing / lighting guitars in some respects
Click to expand...
Guitars are a real challenge, far too complex (in terms of both knowledge and equipment) to explain in a blog.
 
Well, those Google images show that the approach and quality is variable, to say the least. Some of them are plain awful, some have even been shot in a light tent...
I'm not claiming that my own approach is the only way of doing it, or even the best way, it's just the way that keeps the client happy.
One of the leading makers in this field is Stamford, their photos are lit the way I do it, which isn't surprising.

All that I try to do in my tutorials is to explain my thinking and approach to various lighting challenges.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Well, those Google images show that the approach and quality is variable, to say the least. Some of them are plain awful, some have even been shot in a light tent...
I'm not claiming that my own approach is the only way of doing it, or even the best way, it's just the way that keeps the client happy.
One of the leading makers in this field is Stamford, their photos are lit the way I do it, which isn't surprising.

All that I try to do in my tutorials is to explain my thinking and approach to various lighting challenges.
Click to expand...

You don't think seeing the wood grain is important? I'm interested in how this fits into your approach.
 
JennyGW said:
You don't think seeing the wood grain is important? I'm interested in how this fits into your approach.
Click to expand...
Not at all, this isn't what I believe and it isn't what I'm saying either.

It is of course VITAL to show the details of the wood. But, it's just as important to show both specular highlights and shadow, because these are part of real life, and no product looks 'alive' without them. So, the trick is to include them (and possibly a semi-reflection as well) but to control them so that they become part of the shot, rather than dominating the shot.

The beginner approach of course is often to try to avoid both reflections and shadows entirely, which is probably why some people think that light tents are OK:)
 
Garry Edwards said:
Not at all, this isn't what I believe and it isn't what I'm saying either.

It is of course VITAL to show the details of the wood. But, it's just as important to show both specular highlights and shadow, because these are part of real life, and no product looks 'alive' without them. So, the trick is to include them (and possibly a semi-reflection as well) but to control them so that they become part of the shot, rather than dominating the shot.

The beginner approach of course is often to try to avoid both reflections and shadows entirely, which is probably why some people think that light tents are OK:)
Click to expand...

lol, brilliant. Having bought one or two cues in my time, I can't recall ever wondering about it's specular highlights. In fact, that amount of gloss generally shows that a cue is cheap.
 
Last edited:
Jenny, would you show us what you consider to be a well crafted product shot of a cue.

Steve.
 
Last edited:
I produce these tutorials so that people can understand my approaches to lighting, the importance of camera height, marketing the product etc.

I've had the advantages (?) of both higher education and formal training in photography, followed by many years of experience working for a lot of different firms, and most of this experience was pre-digital, when we had to get everything right in camera because there was no real opportunity to correct faults later. Contrast this background to today, when a degree in photography has very little technical content, when much of the training that's available privately consists of high priced courses presented by 'celebrity' photographers whose own work is often distinctly average, and where jobs in photography are hard to get and jobs in large photography firms simply don't exist.

So, I write occasional tutorials that show how I do things. And I present the results 'as shot' with no PP work (because, although PP work is an essential part of the process, it's not what my tutorials are about and I want people to see what they can produce in camera).

I try to keep things simple. The tutorials only deal with shots that can be produced in an average or small space with a 'normal' camera and affordable lighting equipment. Many of my subjects are excluded because they require too large a space, too many lights or because they need to be shot with a monorail camera utilising camera movements, simply because most people don't have these facilities and anyway the Scheimpflug principle is a bit too complicated for this level of tutorial. But, following a brief conversation with @HoppyUK I now have a tilt shift lens - but even this is a bit specialised so I won't be including its use in future tutorials.

It's a matter of complete indifference to me whether or not people who read my tutorials like my work, or even if they agree with my approach to the subject, because I don't donate my time and effort to create a fan club, I do it to pass on my knowledge and thinking processes to the people who realise that they don't know it all and can learn from others. With all due modesty, I believe that I have something to offer, people who want to learn can gain something from my tutorials and everyone who wants to learn and improve should read every relevant tutorial, and watch every in-depth video they can find on the net, and maybe pick up something from each of them. When I was starting out, it was hard to get real info on photography, Back then, there was no internet and, on an apprentice's wage, I couldn't afford most of the books and my local library didn't exactly have a large selection - and most of them had been written by my then boss anyway:) - but now, we can all get immediate and free access to an incredible amount of info. Much of the free online stuff is of course rubbish, but some of it is good. So, anyone who thinks that I'm producing rubbish is free to ignore what I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top