Those of you who subscribe to RodMaker are familiar with the center color photo gallery where we showcase the work of various rod builders each issue. Personally, I would prefer to NEVER use a photograph of my own work, but normally I have to do so in order to have enough photos to fill the gallery in each issue. Oh I get enough photos - as many as 20 per month. But most are not suitable for use.

The problem isn't the work depicted - most of it is fantastic. But I can't use photos that have ink smeared across them nor poor electronic copies nor poorly lit ofrout of focus shots.

I welcome these photo submissions but would remind any who send them to never write on the backs of your photos - the ink will smear onto the photo below it. Use a "stickie" to add any nomenclature you wish, or use a separate sheet of paper.

Digital cameras are fine for taking shots used on the internet. They are quite poor for taking shots destined for high line screen reproduction. Electronic files are not so bad, but what I start with has much if not everything to do with what I end up with.

Some people have asked why their photos have not been used. They seem to think I have something against them or their choice of subject. Not so. I just don't want to run a photo which would put their work in a bad light due to poor focus, poor resolution, lack of contrast through bad lighting, ugly backgrounds, etc. I want to depict your work in the best possible way so that it will be something you will proud to show people. If you are preparing to take some photos and need some ideas or suggestions to get a good shot, email and ask. I'll be happy to do what I can from here.

I know this won't reach every reader but hopefully it will reach some of them. I hope I never have to show one of my own rods ever again!

............................

Tom,
I would like to know more about photographing my work. Didn't a past issue of RM have an article on this? It seems like I heard or read something on photography somewhere. If not, maybe a good time to share your expertise in an upcoming issue, or on this board. Thank you for the adherance to quality and the communication to us. You dedication to high quality is what has made your magazine such a treasure. Thank you for the hard work.
Elrod

I wish I had a camera able to take photos. I now have 2 digital cameras, and a regular 35mm camera - none of which do me any good for a rodmaker centerfold shot.

I ccan throw out a thought or two. I bought a 35mm Cannon Elan 7 to take on an overseas trip. With it I purchased a 300 mm lens for action shots. After playing around with the lens, I was able to get terrific close ups of the rods I made especially with feathers. I had the film Kodak developed and along with it a CD.(The CD must be made at time of development). Then once I saw it on the computer from the CD, it looked fine. I also had a set of prints with it. If Tom would like to see a few of these, I would be happy to send them. Maybe they still aren't the quality he likes. A good scanner can send excellent pcitures also, provided it has high resolution capabilities. I am not a camera bug by any stretch, but this more than satisfied me and my friends when they saw pictures of their rods. I can e-mail a few pictures for speed and perhaps you can tell me if they come across well enough for your purposes. Sorry for the long windednesss.
Sanford Hochman

I would be happy to take a look at them. We had an article in the Nov/Dec 2000 RodMaker on taking good photographs of your rods. It is simple and easy to understand. I have been told by many that it improved their rod shots 100%.

The biggest problem with any sort of scanned or digital images is that they are just a series of tiny dots that fool the eye into seeing a picture. (Once the photos are printed in the magazine they are also done that way.) Film photographs are known as "continuous tone images" which are just that - there are not dots. The information is 100% and can be edited to an infinite degree with any amount of quality needed or desired. Once an image has been converted into a dot pattern however, you are somewhat limited into the amount of information you can work with. It is hard to add what is not already there. The images must be "descreened" and resampled at the correct line screen for the scale the photo will be reproduced in. Sometimes you can do this well enough, other times you can't.

Keep in mind that images used on the web are backlit by the monitor and thus low reslution iimages look just fine. Those same images, used in reflective format in a magazine, would look like a cheap photo out of the National Inquirer.

.............................