Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > British & Irish Glass

Pirelli - Split from Babycham glasses topic

<< < (2/3) > >>

KevinH:
Jean,

It is often the case that close up images of canes in Vasart / Strathearn weights [and many others, too] are difficult to achieve. A major reason is striations ("wreathing") in the glass, which cause the effect you mention when looked at in close detail. Another reason for poor viewing of canes is that small areas of air bubbles can occur over individual canes. Aslo, tiny stress cracks can occur over and around canes during the final cooling process.

Your point about putting another layer of glass over the dome is spot on. Generally, after picking up the canes on the initial gather of clear glass (or on the coloured layer) another gather of clear is added and the whole is worked into the dome shape. In some cases, two or even three layers of clear can be detected within the dome.

Sometimes, it is possible to get a reasonable photo of a cane (or a small group of canes) by moving or tilting the camera slightly and accepting that the image will not be a full "head-on" view. Another thing to try is to place the weight in water that just covers the dome and to see if this helps to bring out the cane details - occasionally it will do so.

The other weight you show is certainly either a Vasart or Strathearn. And, just like the first weight, even if it had a Pirelli label on it, it would still be Vasart or Strathearn. The Pirelli label was just an indication of where it was marketed, not where it was made.

As for digital cameras providing good close up facilty, most modern cameras in the "medium" price bracket (and always cheaper in the US than in the UK!) will now provide multi-megapixel images [of a physical screen size that Bernard once aptly described as showing up in his neighbours room]. This means that you do not really have to get too close for a good sized image of small detail. Just take a photo of, say, a quarter section of the weight and most of the canes in that image will be large enough and of good enough quality for the purpose you need.

However, when I first started cane photography, I was using a Nicon Coolpix with a "macro" focus distance of about 10 cm and "only" 3 megapixel resolution. To get better "macro" results, rather than spend £200 on a Nicon macro attachment, I bought a compbined 3x / 5x magnifyer from a stamp collecting / model making shop and placed this over the front of the lens. With the Nicon, the camera lens was inset within a screw thread, and therefore the magnifyer lense woudl not cause any damage. By trying the 3x and 5x separately and in conjunction (giving 8x), I could obtain very good close ups of most canes. And the magnifyer only cost me £5. I still use this setup today, albeit with a later 4 megapixel version of the Coolpix, when my latest 6 megapixel digital SLR with all the specialised lenses and so forth fails to give the result I want!

Anonymous:
Thnk you kev
Glad I am not the only one using 'necessity is the mother of invention' techniques!!
Much apprecaite your input - at least with a digital one does not have to wait for the developing/ printing these days to find one good out  roll of film.
Thanks for looking
Jean
dreamticket2-  forgot to sign in

David555:
"It's what you do with the photo after that often has the greatest effect"

The picture (see above Vasart Pin Dish) I took was with an old digital camera 4m pix (inter) but only digital zoom

I used to use a magnifying glass to great effect for detail even with this and it was a digital - the macro was rubbish

Now I have Fuji fine pix thing that has 8X (+) optical zoom - with detailed intricate images like canes it can have trouble if the light is not exactly right - the optical zoom is not important really it is the quality of the macro setting - its no good to use macro under false light conditions as a shake occurs no matter how bright the light and flash which solves the problem turns everything dark and blasts the image with flash light (it has 6 flash settings all useless really)

What I do is set object up on a white table in broad daylight on a Perspex stand (sometimes outside in garden is good LOL) - it is best after 1.00pm ref shadows - this natural light allows me to get close in at 6m pix on macro without any shake (a little hand comes up to tell you if you have shake)

I think after in Adobe is where the work really starts - some people use other software but I think Adobe is so good - I can cut away and increase size of an image part and reduce pixel size without losing integrity

It would be good to set up a post with peoples experiences on how to photo well and keep image size down (this is good so that Jpegs images can be easily uploaded) - especially by using the software I mentioned - often bundled software is limited - I need to use saturation effects and contrast to get a definitive image sometimes as digi photos don't always tell the truth

Adam D555 :twisted:  :twisted:

RAY:
Adam a good tip, cover the flash with white paper when taking close ups.

with white paper over the flash as below

Anonymous:
Thank you for your suggestions.
I found that our local Pound Empire has a Blackspur 110mm folding magnifier
one pound did not break the bank! so I am going to experiment with the white paper or if the weather permits outside.
The canes on the pirelli labelled PWT are not set as evenly as later ones which does not help.
I am using Paintshop pro 8.1 and have tried Ulead. the Adobe I have is Adobe photoshop v 3 .
Trouble is you get used to using one programme.
best wishes
Jean
dreamticket2

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page