[Keith Alan]

I just finished shooting this little scene to prepare for when it becomes part of a bigger project I might get the chance to work on this weekend.

My new flash is again fitted with a grid to focus the light and triggered with my new radio system.
It's on a stand 4 feet above the table aimed at the ducks.
Aperture was selected for the flash exposure, then the shutter speed chosen for the lantern's flame.




That's my 12gauge Harrington & Richardson single-shot shotgun.
It's very light so kicks like a mule.
I don't hunt--I just collected and restored some WWII US Army weapons and whatever else interested me back when surplus arms were still affordable.

Book is 'Birds Of America' Copyright 1917.
My copy printed in 1936 by Doubleday & Co.
Full color plates were made from paintings by Louis Agassiz Fuertes.

[Toad]

Nice still life, Keith - with great lighting.

Isn't it funny how we need to add all kinds of disclaimers about hunting when we put a gun in a photo. I own a shotgun myself, although I am also not a hunter (see - another disclaimer!) - and people are always shocked to hear that I own one these days.

[Keith Alan]

Thanks, Toad.
I'm thinking maybe sepia would have been a better choice?
I used vintage props and didn't consider a vintage look until this morning.

Yeah--I hate getting slammed with accusations of being a "bloodthirsty killer!" just because my hobbies include owning and working on beautiful bits of metal and wood.
I rarely even get to the shooting range anymore, but with my new flash equipment and some ideas I have that may change soon.

It's funny how people will throw their prejudices around when they feel they are in the "right" position on a subject, yet scream to high Heaven when someone from the "other" side tries to enjoy the same freedom.
Although I have never heard a gun owner tell someone else that they should own a gun--it's always the other way around.
Same with smoking.
Why is that?

I have no patience for the self-righteous, since everyone should know that I am the one that's always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

[Banded Drake]

First off i love this shot ! as a duck hunter yes i said it LOL , this says everything about the other hobby that i love . Looks like one of those pictures that they print on the tins .
Well done , and be proud of what else you do as a hobby , i just dont rub it in the faces of others !!

...... Shawn

[Keith Alan]

Thanks, Shawn--I hoped you would like it.

Thankfully we have a mature bunch here.
Other places online it's amazing how people can get all worked-up.
Guess I was being a little too careful after past experiences--because I'm anything BUT anti-hunting.
It's how food was gotten for thousands of years and is a heritage that needs to be defended and respected.

Here's a sepia version, a bit of a vintage look to go with the vintage props:


I think I prefer the color.

[matthew]

Sepia doesn't work. Too much is lost in the illustrations the weapon. The problem with the colour version is the shells -- I don't know what colour I'd expect them to be, since I'm Canadian, but the red demands more attention than the composition is trying to give them.


I also don't hunt, but used to enjoy target shooting with a crossbow. Archery -- there's a tradition that makes firearms seem like novelty items. I have no problem with hunting as long as it doesn't involve hides, bait, and coolers of beer. (Although I don't see why the "sport" and "trophy" crowds can't just use a camera. If it's for food, then I suppose a weapon is necessary. My GF grew up in northern Ontario, where substance hunting was practiced by nearly everyone and a traditional right of the First Nations. Her father was also an officer with the Ministry of Natural Resources, who ensured that it was done responsibly.)

[Keith Alan]

The red plastic shells were all I had, and I agree some old and faded cardboard ones would have been a better choice both for authenticity and the reason you state, Matthew.
But I wasn't going to wait for the next gunshow and lay out the high dollars commanded by collectible old ammunition, or buy a new box of yellow or green plastic--they would have been even worse looking!
If I print this, I'll do some photochopping on the shells to tone them down to the way old cardboard ones look--sound good?

[matthew]

"Collectable old ammunition" sounds like another way of saying "inspect with a bomb disposal robot and explode in place".

Selective desaturation sounds like a more economical choice, and it won't affect your insurance rates. Toning it down a little is all that's really needed. Otherwise it's an excellent photo, and pretty darn good even with the red.

[Banded Drake]

I have to agree with matthew on the sepia , i prefer the color photo instead ..

......... Shawn

[Keith Alan]

Yeah, I've decided the sepia is just too boring and bland.
I would have shot it that way in-camera if it was what I was after.

Actually Matthew, well made ammo lasts surprisingly long if it's stored correctly.
I have 100 rounds of military M2 (basically .30-06) that was made in 1955 at the Lake City Arsenal.
Still in the original boxes.
Wouldn't trouble me one bit to use some of it, from a safety standpoint.
But opening one of the boxes would be a little stupid from the collector's perspective.

I sometimes buy a handful of tracers that old (fun!) and they always work fine.


Here's an earlier exposure with the shells desaturated to what I remember cardboard ones looking like.
The colors are a little less orange overall (no explanation--same settings) and I used a little bit more zoom.

Also, the shotgun is posed differently and there's a little bonus--see if you can figure out what I did and how.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Nice still life.

I agree the sepia looks to bland. The lightning is hard, but very appropriet for this still life.

The only thing i would change is the table edges, make them stand out less. Either by using a bigger table or by toning them down in post.

/Paul L.

[Keith Alan]

Thanks, Paul.
I agree about the hard light--my gridded snoot falls-off nicely at the edges while still casting some harder-edged shadows.
This was the approach I chose because I wanted to subliminally suggest to the viewer that all of the light might be from the lantern--as photographers we can destroy that easily through casual analysis but it was a fitting way to approach this scene in my opinion.
Any kind of small softbox would have given softer shadows at the expense of being too slick and professional looking, and maybe too bland?

As for the table, it's all I have that doesn't look too "nice" for the subject matter. Frankly, I wished I had something a little more beaten-up and scarred to match the image in my mind I was trying to replicate. A formica table from the 1950s would have been my 1st choice from memory (white with gold flakes!), but it would have ruined the exposure values. A dark tablecloth might be the way to go? I can open the table up to a larger size.
I tried lighting it with ambient a little more in fact, but didn't like the result.
On my monitor, especially with the white background on the web, the edges are barely noticeable.
I will definitely keep this in mind when it comes time to Photoshop this for a print, or if I re-shoot it.

Thanks for the valuable input.
I appreciate it.

[Irma]

Hi Keith...

I like the setup in your picture... I think there is just enough to see to give the idea you want to give.

I think the color treatment is a final touch of your personal style in the picture. I like much better your color version...

About the lighting, because of your comment

I wanted to subliminally suggest to the viewer that all of the light might be from the lantern

To me the lighting doesn't give me the impression that the light in the scene comes from the lantern... because if that were the case the highlights shouldn't be in the other side of the rifle? right in front of the lantern? I think also the shadow of the lantern and shells is telling where the light is coming from.

Also my idea of light comming from a lantern is warm and your light is a bit cold... The book shouldn't look so white... I think.

Still I might have lost the point, and I am wrong. I know you are much more experienced with lighting than I am.

[Keith Alan]

As photographers, we can tell where the light is from and see the different color temperatures.
I was talking about non-photographers viewing the picture, getting a quick impression.
Most of them don't really think about details, and first impressions tend to stay with them.
If I had a CTO gel for the flash the color would have better matched the lantern's light, but then I think it would have just looked like bad white balance.

So many images and movies/TV are lit from every direction, I don't think misplaced highlights would be noticed by the casual viewer.

[matthew]

Tough call on the lantern "light". If you backlight it with a strobe at an angle that would be consistent with the lantern light, then the lantern will cast a shadow. Perhaps a gelled soft light above, with a touch of 'white' to keep the book illustrations natural? It starts getting complicated very quickly. The point about the audience is true: like most photographers (probably), I see this as an externally lit scene with a lantern in it. Someone who isn't used to looking for the technical nuance of an image probably won't even think about the image, as it just looks "right".

(As a wise person once said, there's no point trying to impress photographers, because they aren't going to buy your prints anyway.)