Air rifle

Lensflare

Lensflare

Messages
3,156
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
I have got a gig from a specialist Airgun magazine, a couple of gigs a month actually, but one of them is to do a feature on a classic rifle or pistol each month.

This was done on our dining room table with a torch......20 second exposure and tried to keep myself out of the way of the lens.

 
Very nicely portrayed, to my eyes maybe the shadows need lightening a tad.

Just out of interest, is it a HW77?
 
Last edited:
I like the lighting, stock looks good and I like the back drop Simon (y) ........ its a tad dark down the left though, would be better to see the end of the barrel.

Also looked like it could do with the blues reducing

DSC_5931_zpsrduhtvh1.jpg
 
Like that but as others have said a little dark especially on lhs, readers of mag will want to look at detail of the air rifle I would have thought
 
tijuana taxi said:
Very nicely portrayed, to my eyes maybe the shadows need lightening a tad.

Just out of interest, is it a HW of some description?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's a HW 77, I have one tucked away somewhere.
 
Yes it is an HW77 and I agree about the lifting of the shadows. I am glad you lot know how to do it...that is what picture editors and designers are for. They can do it on their kit which is calibrated for the printer.....I don't have any fancy editing program whatsoever, so can't do it. :D I am not get one either, because if I did, it would only mean I would have to spend longer on the pictures and not get paid any extra for the additional time and effort.

I like it with the blue reduced, but no idea how you did it.
 
very nice picture i do like but as said also above i think the shadows could do with being a touch lighter
from a personal opinion the scope looks wrong on it with the stock though as that stock is a low cheek piece so designed for open sight's
 
Last edited:
Seems to be more about the stand than the HW77 with its bold logo and its array of interesting adjustment knobs.
 
I would have thought an aficionado would be interested en every detail of the gun. In the same way as a camera nut wants to see every knob button and bit of knurling.
I like the Idea of the background but would want to see far, far more of the guns detail and construction.
 
Nice idea, I think the light source was too wide. Try a small torch with a narrow light beam, and move it along the gun, picking out the edges.
Then use a wider light source for the hint of background.
 
Lensflare said:
Yes it is an HW77 and I agree about the lifting of the shadows. I am glad you lot know how to do it...that is what picture editors and designers are for. They can do it on their kit which is calibrated for the printer.....I don't have any fancy editing program whatsoever, so can't do it. :D I am not get one either, because if I did, it would only mean I would have to spend longer on the pictures and not get paid any extra for the additional time and effort.

I like it with the blue reduced, but no idea how you did it.
Click to expand...

The Professional gets paid for the image that he/she produces. It should be the finished article.
This can either be achieved in the setting and lighting or with the help of correct post processing. Preferably both.
A chef does not pack up and go home when he has prepared the ingredients, the job is only finished when it is ready to be served.... and so with professional photography.
Art editors and designers might crop, resize, and match the colour balance to the rest of the page, and if given a RGB file will convert it to CMYK for printing. But they do not do the photographers job for them.

A job takes as long as it takes. If that means taking more time lighting or in PP. then so be it. Neither should take more than a few minutes anyway.These are the skills people pay for.

Rant over....
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The Professional gets paid for the image that he/she produces. It should be the finished article.
This can either be achieved in the setting and lighting or with the help of correct post processing. Preferably both.
A chef does not pack up and go home when he has prepared the ingredients, the job is only finished when it is ready to be served.... and so with professional photography.
Art editors and designers might crop, resize, and match the colour balance to the rest of the page, and if given a RGB file will convert it to CMYK for printing. But they do not do the photographers job for them.

A job takes as long as it takes. If that means taking more time lighting or in PP. then so be it. Neither should take more than a few minutes anyway.These are the skills people pay for.

Rant over....
Click to expand...


Well, I have been doing OK for the last 30 years or so doing exactly what I do now - supply straight out of the camera. I didn't mess about with E6, the magazines production department did. Nothing has changed there, I just supply digital transparencies - so rant all you like. :D

Is this any better for you? I have 6 months worth already done, which buys me time to find the next few. Took me two days to photograph them all - 2 page features of about 7 or 8 pictures of each rifle - so yes, macro details and nuances of the particular model also have to be done. There is a set fee per feature, so they get what they pay for.

 
Last edited:
I think you've gone bit too far this time and that burnt-out highlight on the moderator is very distracting. There's also not enough light on the lower surfaces and lifting the shadows shows all the detail of the backdrop before that of the gun. Was this lit with a torch again? Given your lack of control over the finished product, I think you may be better off with conventional lighting where you can see the effect more easily.


Is that a Theoben Fenman?
 
Last edited:
It is a Fenman / Taunus hybrid I had built in 1994. It is a .20, and in those days Dave Theobald, who I knnew personally, would do one offs. Basically it is a long barrelled Fenman. The Fenman had an 8" barrel, the Taunus had a 10" barrel but came in a dedicated sporter stock. I wanted the flexibility of being able ot shoot off both shoulders with the ambidextrous stock, so Dave selected a special stock for me. Heydua, a rare African hardwood that they used as well as Walnut and for lower priced rifles Beech.

Yes, it was lit with the torch again - it is fun not having the total control and of course, is completely unrepeatable. You can get something like, but is the angle and duration the same each time? No. So every shot is a bit different, even if they are from the same mould. I used a different torch for this and it has more LEDs, so is a LOT brighter and has a wider beam - I am going back to the slower one - I had ot just literally wipe this torch VERY quickly so as not to overexpose, even at 100 ISO and f16 or f11, normally I would be using f5.6 or less. I don't like small apertures. The big f-stop number has resulted in the background being too sharp. It would be far better thrown out of focus - but the torch was too bright, but I didn't know that at the time. Too bad now - the pages are already designed. :D I shall know for next time - out in the woods for the next couple, to change the background. A nice moss covered chestnut stump. I have been gardening around it specially!
 
I remember Theoben and the gas ram, in fact they were originally made on the industrial estate just up the road from me, shame they went bust.

Nice photo again apart from that troublesome left hand side, keep them coming though, enjoy seeing all these lovely air rifles

Wish I still had my FWB 601 or 300, both beautifully made rifles and the former was certainly different looking,
 
It was the Heydua stock that gave it away. I didn't know Dave but I did meet Ben a few times when he had his shop in Harston.
 
Honestly you don't need brighter and wider beam, more leds etc. Long exposure, narrow beam and have some control.
 
Byker28i said:
Honestly you don't need brighter and wider beam, more leds etc. Long exposure, narrow beam and have some control.
Click to expand...


I didn't realise how much brighter this torch was - it is the one that libves in my topbox in case I have to do a puncture or something at the side of the road. 6 or 8 LEDs I think it has. The first one was done with a single LED. I know better now - the first one the HW77, was much easier. The Theoben I had to be so fast with the light it was easy to overexpose, or get too much spillage. Lesson learned.....and no, I am not buying a Light Hose generator. This will do fine and is about 10x better than any product photography they have had before!
 
I used to shoot things like this:
products_pablo_right_2010_727px.jpg

where it was equipment designed to be used in darkened studios etc and the lighting was subtle. You'd use a narrow torch beam to pick out the edges, apply definition, then a brief wide beam as general overall lighting. A small AAA maglight with adjustable beam and long exposures were the easiest way of getting control. Lower light levels and long exposures 20-30 secs gives you a lot of control.

You'd be amazed at how little light you need with long exposures
156430993.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top