An effective set up for an additional cost of $1!!!
board tilted leaning against the lamps - but often rests either on my camera, or lens barrel, or extended finger, or even head.......
vary the tilt angle to get the best modelling on the knife.
That white art foam board cost all of $1 from a dollar store.....
A follow up -
I am still using this cheapo $1 set up -
but thought I'd discuss the camera I am now using.
For years I used a dSLR -
it seems the obvious choice and I didn't think much more than that.
I mean, it has a view through the lens, metering and focusing are also through the taking lens -
so it should give the most accurate view, exposure and focusing.
That is until I tried out a mirrorless ILC (Interchangeable Len Camera) -
then gradually things came into focus.... (operative word**, see later)
Backup a little.
Fuji X-Trans has a reputation of some of the best image quality (IQ) of APS-C sized sensors,
so a while back I decided to try one -
literally the entry level/cheapest model the Fuji X-M1 (circa ~$360 like new used):
shown next to my current dSLR the Pentax K-5
(note: the Fuji X-A1 and X-A2 are in the X-series but they are based on regular Bayer sensors and not the Fuji X-Trans)
However I "detest" using the rear LCD screen for a "viewfinder" -
it just does not seem (to me) precise enough.
I had seen many people use a LCD hood/viewfinder for shooting video, and thought this might help me with the viewfinder aspect -
The viewfinder/hood attaches to the rear LCD screen by strong magnets to a stick on metal frame -
The viewfinder hood costs as low as $8 off eBay (mine is a V2 which fits 3:2 aspect ratio LCD screens)
has a magnification of 2.8x - so makes the rear LCD screen view ginormous -
yes, it does emphasis the LCD dots but it is acceptable for such a large "precise" view without having to squint through an eye-level viewfinder.
For years I only used optical eye-level viewfinders and found electronic viewfinders inadequate - they were grainy/low resolution and had noticeable lag.
Of course things have improved a great deal since then - 2.4 to 2.7 million dot viewfinders are high enough resolution that I find acceptable for everyday usage, and the lag has been minimized enough that I no longer notice it.
A huge advantage to electronic viewfinders is one can "preview" any exposure adjustments - whereas an optical viewfinder view remains the same.
Using the Fuji X-M1 LCD screen with LCD viewfinder/hood -
although has the objection of being grainy (it's only 921k dots) and lag-gy -
it is still somewhat better than the view through my dSLR - mainly because of the huge size/view and the ability to preview the effects of any adjustments.
So for less than $375 I now have an inexpensive view camera for photographing my knives.
**Focus - one thing I had not thought about is focusing with a dSLR.
I mean it's through the lens (TTL) so it's intrinsically accurate -
Not so fast -
what does the lens image focus on?
it's via a secondary mirror which diverts the image on to a focusing sensor -
it is NOT the actual taking image sensor.
So when it comes to critical focusing - either large/bright apertures, or close focus - and light color can cause inaccuracies.
With high resolution/pixel count images this may not matter too much
as we shrink the image for web usage - so this kind of mitigates any slight imprecision in focusing -
and this has been the case for me for years (without question)
However mirrorless cameras have their focusing sensors on the actual taking image sensor itself - so there is no error.
Cheapo Fuji X-M1 with kit lens the XC 16-50mm zoom - closest focusing distance full-frame -
Crop of actual 100% pixel level -
Look how clear and sharp it is...... for a $365 camera with $10 viewfinder attachment....
--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
https://Youtube.com/user/vtVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com