New S&W 28 Highway Patrolman + New Light Box = ?

Hanwei, I was at Kittery Trading post yesterday and they had 5 used Mod 28-2 for sale. Two 4" and two 6" and one slightly shortened 6". They ran from $375 to $499 (for the one I wanted natch!)

They also had some K38's, 32 HE 6", and others. Of course I was only looking in the "OLD" case, trying to find C&R stuff to bing home. I'm an impulse buyer.

The 28-2 I looked at was mint.

Let me give you a tip about the light box. Get a large piece of white cardboard, about24" X 24", and in the center, put a hole for your lens to poke through. Put that in front of the camera, over the lens, before you take your picture. That will add a "White Bounce" to the metal which will make it look richer, and will also open up the shadows and darker areas of the gun, without changing the overall appearance of the lighting.

Bounce light is the big trick to photographing metal.... any kind.

I'm going to try to find some pictures of the set up I used when I photographed a couple of the SIG catalogs for them. Shooting Stainless stell and blued guns in the same shot was rather difficult, but with my bounce light, reflectors and and little pieces of aluminum foil wrapped around blocks of wood and bricks, I could add shimmering highlights to the metal anywhere I wanted them. You can also do the opposite and use a black bounce card to throw detail into engraving or detail on a nickel or stainless gun.

Oh, you can use .38 in the gun too you know.

Bill
 
Hey Bill,

I was wondering when you'd chime in [grin]

Man... I'd love a 4 inch 28. And yes, I know I can shoot .38's out of my 28 [laugh] Call me crazy, but I want my first shots out of it to be .357. [grin]

Thank you for the light bounce tip! I've been spending some time with my other pistols in the light box... playing with the positioning of the 3 lights to get the desired lighting effects... and in many instances... there was always just "something" missing. I always found myself moving one or two of the side lights towards the front, but never quite getting the effect I wanted.

I'll definitely have to play around with bouncing light from the front.

And wow... shooting the catalogs for Sig must have been fun! I'd love to see your setup.

Hanwei
 
Hanwei said:
Photos please!
Click to expand...

Six Inch
HWP6Lstampmustmust.jpg


Four Inch
28-2_01d.jpg


They both have Hogue grips on them now.
 
Hanwei said:
Beautiful [grin]

Love that 4".

And the case coloring is great on the 6".
Click to expand...
So do I.

As for long guns you have me thinking about the Christmas wrapping rubbermaid containers my wife uses. I wonder how dead I'd be if I starting chopping those up for are rifle photo box?

Thanks for the ideas Hanwei.
 
Hanwei said:
Beautiful [grin]

Love that 4".

And the case coloring is great on the 6".
Click to expand...

Thanks,

They both are great with the case coloring. I too use a light box but neither of these
pictures were taken with it. Your photos are a reminder to me to get off my arse and
take some good pics again. I have been spending most of my time getting my reloading
setup going after more than a few years idle. Not enough time, not enough time.[sad]
 
The Boston Patriot said:
Hanwei,

What are you using to post process the pics, or are you using anything for post processing?

TBP
Click to expand...

In general, I use Nikon CaptureNX (even though I shoot Canon) for initial post processing... then I go to Photoshop second if I need it... then Noise Ninja at the end if it's needed. [grin]
 
Hanwei said:
I haven't moved to RAW yet... I suppose that's my next big step. Do you play with photography?
Click to expand...

Hanwei, sometime, if you like, I have an Alien Bee monolight with a large softbox and a white paper background. You're welcome to try it out.

You should definitely look into shooting RAW but you'll have to either use different software or get a Nikon. Capture NX won't deal with Canon RAW files.
 
I may be out of date here with my digital techniques, but do we really need a RAW file for anything we're doing in general?

Isn't a common JPEG more than good enough to post on a board, or send to show a gun for sale?

A little Casio 8 Meg camera I use takes a file so big it's redicules, and then I end up editing it down in Photoshop to about 40K, so I can post on line. Maybe I'll make it 200 or 300 K if I want the pic really big of for someone to be able to blow it up on their computer without pixelating. On line you're still getting 72 DPI on CRT monitors. OK, so you get more on a Plasma screen!

RAW is great for reproduction, especially for commercial printing like 300 line quality magazines, but is it really any significant improvement for what we do here, or for most of our "snapshots"?

They don't call it a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) standard for nothing. RAW, TIFF and other file formats are the province of pros.

This is a little overkill. It's sort of like using a 50 BMG to hunt hummingbirds.

Any other pro shooters want to chime in? Vic Pinto, what say you?
 
Last edited:
PaulD said:
Hanwei, sometime, if you like, I have an Alien Bee monolight with a large softbox and a white paper background. You're welcome to try it out.

You should definitely look into shooting RAW but you'll have to either use different software or get a Nikon. Capture NX won't deal with Canon RAW files.
Click to expand...

Right now, I'm using a Smith Victor hot light setup for actual paid work... 2 250watt lamps with umbrellas and 1 150 watt lamp. Very basic. Actually... as basic as it gets [smile]

I've done research in the past on studio lighting and when I'm ready to upgrade to a more professional level setup... Alien Bee lighting will definitely be what I get. Thank you very much for the offer! I might take you up on it sometime.

Regarding RAW... Yeah... I know I'll have to change software when I start shooting RAW. But at the moment... the paid work that I do just doesn't warrant going to RAW just yet.

depicts said:
I may be out of date here with my digital techniques, but do we really need a RAW file for anything we're doing in general?

Isn't a common JPEG more than good enough to post on a board, or send to show a gun for sale?

A little Casio 8 Meg camera I use takes a file so big it's redicules, and then I end up editing it down in Photoshop to about 40K, so I can post on line. Maybe I'll make it 200 or 300 K if I want the pic really big of for someone to be able to blow it up on their computer without pixelating. On line you're still getting 72 DPI on CRT monitors. OK, so you get more on a Plasma screen!

RAW is great for reproduction, especially for commercial printing like 300 line quality magazines, but is it really any significant improvement for what we do here, or for most of our "snapshots"?

They don't call it a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) standard for nothing. RAW, TIFF and other file formats are the province of pros.

This is a little overkill. It's sort of like using a 50 BMG to hunt hummingbirds.

Any other pro shooters want to chime in? Vic Pinto, what say you?
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right... which is why I haven't moved to RAW yet. I just haven't had the need to.

Photographers telling other photographers "you gotta start shooting RAW!" is the same thing as Shooters telling other shooters "you gotta start reloading!"

In both fields, you reach a point where the requirements/benefits call for moving up to the next "level", be it shooting RAW, or reloading.

But before you reach that point, JPEG's are more than fine for the job.

And I don't think Paul was saying that I should have shot my gun photos in RAW... just that RAW was something that I should think about progressing into in general. At least that how I read it.

[grin]
 
Hanwei said:
I haven't moved to RAW yet... I suppose that's my next big step. Do you play with photography?
Click to expand...

Yeah,

I have been using a different version of a lightbox: http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent

I'm using a D70 with a number of different lenses. Got a Lester-Dyne macro lens and just picked up
a Macro Focusing Rail Set: http://www.adorama.com/MCFRS.html?searchinfo=macro&item_no=1
which ought to make some really interesting photos. I use PS CS2 and shoot in RAW
whenever I use the light tent. It makes it really easy to color correct if you are using
a gray card: http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html
 
depicts said:
I may be out of date here with my digital techniques, but do we really need a RAW file for anything we're doing in general?

Isn't a common JPEG more than good enough to post on a board, or send to show a gun for sale?
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes!

A little Casio 8 Meg camera I use takes a file so big it's redicules, and then I end up editing it down in Photoshop to about 40K, so I can post on line. Maybe I'll make it 200 or 300 K if I want the pic really big of for someone to be able to blow it up on their computer without pixelating. On line you're still getting 72 DPI on CRT monitors. OK, so you get more on a Plasma screen!
Click to expand...

I just got a Nikon S600 and it is a 10 Megapixel pocket camera that I love but the lens is a pretty shitty lens. Most pocket
cameras have such a lens. Lens quality will impact the image greatly. One thing to remember is that each and every loss
along the way adds up.

RAW is great for reproduction, especially for commercial printing like 300 line quality magazines, but is it really any significant improvement for what we do here, or for most of our "snapshots"?
Click to expand...

It is just another way of obtaining greater flexibility with your photography, that's all.

They don't call it a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) standard for nothing. RAW, TIFF and other file formats are the province of pros.
Click to expand...

JPEG is a compression standard, not a quality standard.

This is a little overkill. It's sort of like using a 50 BMG to hunt hummingbirds.
Click to expand...

Not overkill at all. I would make the analogy of using standard ammo in your match rifle instead of using match ammo.
(Couldn't think of a better one [smile])

Any other pro shooters want to chime in? Vic Pinto, what say you?
Click to expand...

RAW is awesome. If you are doing any serious post processing you should be using RAW.
JPEG is a lossy compression and you will lose something in an image when using it. For
most work JPEG is fine, in fact, great. But for some studio work and certain other work,
RAW is a phenomenal base to work from. In macro work I also find it extremely good.
It's like the ford/chevy, canon/nikon, glock/1911, plastic/metal debates. Some like it one
way, others differ. I use both JPEG and RAW, JPEG mostly. When I want real flexibility
I use RAW.
 
Last edited:
The Boston Patriot said:
RAW is awesome. If you are doing any serious post processing you should be using RAW.
JPEG is a lossy compression and you will lose something in an image when using it. For
most work JPEG is fine, in fact, great. But for some studio work and certain other work,
RAW is a phenomenal base to work from. In macro work I also find it extremely good.
It's like the ford/chevy, canon/nikon, glock/1911, plastic/metal debates. Some like it one
way, others differ. I use both JPEG and RAW, JPEG mostly. When I want real flexibility
I use RAW.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that JPEG is lossy (a high quality jpeg is actually quite good quality wise and virtually indistinguishable from a tiff) but you're right about post processing.

RAW keeps the image as a bitmap (sometimes lossless compressed) and then keeps processing parameters as headers in the file. Things like white balance, sharpening, tone curves, etc are all kept in these headers. This means if you post process the file, you never affect the underlying data and therefore never lower quality. You can always get back to the original.

If you make a white balance change to a jpeg in say Photoshop, Photoshop is recalculating the values of the pixels. If you decide you don't like the change or want to tweak it, Photoshop recalculates the pixels again. This is an inexact calculation and you'll never get back to the original values (I'm ignoring that PShop has layers so work with me).
 
PaulD said:
It's not so much that JPEG is lossy (a high quality jpeg is actually quite good quality wise and virtually indistinguishable from a tiff) but you're right about post processing.
Click to expand...

To they eye it is, not to the data base that needs the info the most. Unfortunately I have
been in imaging my entire life and it's like the plumber that looks at your faucets when you
invite him in your house. I look at detail in images and type first instead of the theme and
content. What a curse.
 
The Boston Patriot said:
To they eye it is, not to the data base that needs the info the most. Unfortunately I have
been in imaging my entire life and it's like the plumber that looks at your faucets when you
invite him in your house. I look at detail in images and type first instead of the theme and
content. What a curse.
Click to expand...

Well, what I mean is if you do all processing with a RAW and then send a highest quality jpeg off to a printer like MPIX or whoever, the results vs. a tiff will extremely close.

I wouldn't save to a jpeg as an intermediate step.

One other big reason to shoot RAW is you get more bits. RAW files are 12 or 14 bit per pixel, jpeg is 8. In a controlled lighting environment like a studio, 8 bit is often fine but in a really high contrast situation, more bits helps.

Forinstance, in this shot, RAW helped:
_dsc0300.jpg
 
Hanwei said:
And I don't think Paul was saying that I should have shot my gun photos in RAW... just that RAW was something that I should think about progressing into in general. At least that how I read it.

[grin]
Click to expand...

Yeah, I always shoot RAW because I don't mind the space and Lightroom does a good job dealing with them. For displaying something on the web though, getting the lighting right first, as you did, and then using jpeg is fine.

I actually like processing pictures and seeing how I can push them.
 
Boston Patriot, we gotta meet sometime. I'll bet we already know each other. I'm from Norwood, and a pro shooter (photog) and Smith lover like you.

I think you're from Walpole, and if you've been around awhile in imaging, we must have met.

PAUL,...you can't just FORGET layers!!! LOL

Also, even when I shoot RAW, TIFF or MegaPixel JPEG I always save my original file and work with a dupe. The advantage of digital over analog is that you don't lose image quality in the second or secceeding generatins.

When I shot E-6 4x5, when digital couldn't do it yet, we'd do a scan of the chrome and end up with a 125-250 Meg file. For 133 line stuff....you could go from a big JPEG, but like I said, for 4 or 5 color seperations for 300 line glossy magazines, I can see the point of the RAW file.

I guess since I retired I've just gotten lazy. I only use my camera to take pictures of my puppy and my guns anyway nowadays.

Any of you shooters have any use for some lights stands? Tripods? Strobe meters? 4x5 film holders?, Polaroid backs? Assorted grip equipment? I have a crap load sitting in my guest house getting old, I'd love to see someone using some of it.
 
The Boston Patriot said:
Yeah,

I have been using a different version of a lightbox: http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent

I'm using a D70 with a number of different lenses. Got a Lester-Dyne macro lens and just picked up
a Macro Focusing Rail Set: http://www.adorama.com/MCFRS.html?searchinfo=macro&item_no=1
which ought to make some really interesting photos. I use PS CS2 and shoot in RAW
whenever I use the light tent. It makes it really easy to color correct if you are using
a gray card: http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html
Click to expand...

That make-it-yourself lightbox that you have is actually quite popular [grin] I almost made one of those myself. Oh, and I need a gray card. Man, trying to color correct with nothing to help is a real pain sometimes.

45collector said:
I haven't really gotten too crazy with the lighting and all that, but I like to dabble on the creative side...

smith.jpg

luger.jpg

colt.jpg
Click to expand...

More please. [grin]
 
Hanwei said:
More please. [grin]
Click to expand...

Yes sir!

I mostly like to use my old 35mm Pentax w/ black & white 400 asa film. I use no flash, only natural light. It's just kind of pain because I have to use up the roll of film, get it developed, and then scan the pics to get them on the computer. I've only had a digital camera for a few years.

This is a vintage 11" Italian stiletto. The spring is broken off. It's a collector's piece.
stilleto.jpg


I just like the contrast on this one. ATTENTION: THIS IS AN INERT GRENADE. IT IS A "DEWAT" (deactivated war trophy). I WOULD NEVER BE IN POSSESSION OF SUCH LIVE ORDNANCE.
grenade.jpg


This one is just fun. A buddy of mine had a funny comment when I showed him this pic: "In this version of Scrabble, you don't lose a turn on a mis-spelled word, YOU DIE!" [rofl] I have some funny friends.
scrabble.jpg
 
Most of my shooting is done as RAW.

Here is my biggest reason for defaulting to RAW most of the time: White Balance.

I use a WhiBal card now. The camera is set to be perfectly balanced to the FLASH and nothing else. In all other light, I just snap a shot of the WhiBal card in the same light and use that in post processing to get the perfect white balance. Even in nasty multiple light situations where you have natural, incandescent, and Florescent at the same time (A Kitchen during holiday prep for example) it doesn't matter as the WhiBal is perfectly neutral and allows the software to bring back the proper colors.

Take these two examples:

First shot is my first son when he was given to my wife for the first time. This was taken with a Nikon F100 and special Kodak balanced slide film for florescent light and you can see the light blue coloring that is so common in such light. I did clean it up a little, but the JPG scan of the slide can only take so much before it starts hurting the image.

BabyDelivery8.jpg


This next shot is 2.5 years later. Taken with a Nikon D200 in basically the same light conditions (same hospital with the same lighting types) and post processed in Capture One 4.0. I believe the only thing I did was do the white balance correction, but there might also be some other minor tweaks.

Nikhil10.jpg


RAW is so flexible that I did a LOT of shooting. (Digital also allows so many more photos that you don't have to be as frugal) If anyone has seen the light in an operating room, you know that photography usually turns out horrible. All I did was take one shot of the WhiBal and then clicked away. I caught the nurse taking my son from the C-section to the cleaning area. In the past, a shot like this would have been terrible colors and likely poor exposure. With the Digital, I pushed the ISO (overall amplification of the image) selected a wide F-stop (I think it was wide open) and let the camera set the shutter speed.

Nikhil2.jpg


If I really wanted to, I could go find the original image and check out the EXIF data stored in the file and it would have all the exact camera settings. (don't think I preserved the Exif when I downsized the image for the web)

Oh heck, let me look it up.

Nope, the reduced image does not have the data, but the full size jpg and the RAW file have the following:

File: - N:\Photos\2008\Nikhil\Processed\Nikhil030.jpg

Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D200
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Capture One 4 Windows
DateTime - 2008:05:16 06:25:49
ExifOffset - 204
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
ExposureTime - 1/80 seconds
FNumber - 4.50
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 500
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2008:05:16 06:25:49
DateTimeDigitized - 2008:05:16 06:25:49
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/80 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.50
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 3.48
MeteringMode - Spot
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 18.00 mm
ExifImageWidth - 3872
ExifImageHeight - 2592
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Hard
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown


So, I was right, that lens was a F4.5 and the shutter was 1/80. ISO was only at 500. Not nearly as fast as I had thought. Explains why some of the images were more blurry than I would have liked. Looks like I also used Program mode instead of Aperture Priority. My excuse is that I was far more concerned with other things at the time. (^_^)

I made the switch to Digital about 2 months before we went to India. I shot the whole trip in RAW so that I could salvage the images later no matter what. I was very diligent to get the WhiBal shots and all in all I had great results.

Oh, what's a WhiBal? This:

WhiBalIndia.jpg


Basically it is a perfectly neutral card. This is NOT the same as the old style gray cards as they were designed for Light quantity. This one is designed for light color. Basically, you take a photo with the card and then use the dropper tool in your software on the card to set your white balance in all shots in that same light. You do need to take one in the shade and any other light changes, but it's easy to do.

I edit using 2 major tools. Capture One version 4.1 (I got version 3.8 for free with a SanDisk card years ago and I like the software a lot) and IrFanView 3.98 which not only has the ability to read the Exif data and all kinds of other cool stuff, but has a really nice batch resize/rename tool for taking the huge jpgs I get after converting the RAW and reducing them for prints or web use. I have a copy of Photoshop, but I rarely use it as Capture One does a lot. I'll only use Photoshop to correct really horrible skies on otherwise good shots.
 
Last edited:
Chris said:
Most of my shooting is done as RAW.

Here is my biggest reason for defaulting to RAW most of the time: White Balance.

I use a WhiBal card now. The camera is set to be perfectly balanced to the FLASH and nothing else. In all other light, I just snap a shot of the WhiBal card in the same light and use that in post processing to get the perfect white balance. Even in nasty multiple light situations where you have natural, incandescent, and Florescent at the same time (A Kitchen during holiday prep for example) it doesn't matter as the WhiBal is perfectly neutral and allows the software to bring back the proper colors.

Take these two examples:

First shot is my first son when he was given to my wife for the first time. This was taken with a Nikon F100 and special Kodak balanced slide film for florescent light and you can see the light blue coloring that is so common in such light. I did clean it up a little, but the JPG scan of the slide can only take so much before it starts hurting the image.

BabyDelivery8.jpg


This next shot is 2.5 years later. Taken with a Nikon D200 in basically the same light conditions (same hospital with the same lighting types) and post processed in Capture One 4.0. I believe the only thing I did was do the white balance correction, but there might also be some other minor tweaks.

Nikhil10.jpg


RAW is so flexible that I did a LOT of shooting. (Digital also allows so many more photos that you don't have to be as frugal) If anyone has seen the light in an operating room, you know that photography usually turns out horrible. All I did was take one shot of the WhiBal and then clicked away. I caught the nurse taking my son from the C-section to the cleaning area. In the past, a shot like this would have been terrible colors and likely poor exposure. With the Digital, I pushed the ISO (overall amplification of the image) selected a wide F-stop (I think it was wide open) and let the camera set the shutter speed.

Nikhil2.jpg


If I really wanted to, I could go find the original image and check out the EXIF data stored in the file and it would have all the exact camera settings. (don't think I preserved the Exif when I downsized the image for the web)

Oh heck, let me look it up.

Nope, the reduced image does not have the data, but the full size jpg and the RAW file have the following:

File: - N:\Photos\2008\Nikhil\Processed\Nikhil030.jpg

Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D200
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Capture One 4 Windows
DateTime - 2008:05:16 06:25:49
ExifOffset - 204
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
ExposureTime - 1/80 seconds
FNumber - 4.50
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 500
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2008:05:16 06:25:49
DateTimeDigitized - 2008:05:16 06:25:49
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/80 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.50
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 3.48
MeteringMode - Spot
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 18.00 mm
ExifImageWidth - 3872
ExifImageHeight - 2592
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Hard
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown


So, I was right, that lens was a F4.5 and the shutter was 1/80. ISO was only at 500. Not nearly as fast as I had thought. Explains why some of the images were more blurry than I would have liked. Looks like I also used Program mode instead of Aperture Priority. My excuse is that I was far more concerned with other things at the time. (^_^)

I made the switch to Digital about 2 months before we went to India. I shot the whole trip in RAW so that I could salvage the images later no matter what. I was very diligent to get the WhiBal shots and all in all I had great results.

Oh, what's a WhiBal? This:

WhiBalIndia.jpg


Basically it is a perfectly neutral card. This is NOT the same as the old style gray cards as they were designed for Light quantity. This one is designed for light color. Basically, you take a photo with the card and then use the dropper tool in your software on the card to set your white balance in all shots in that same light. You do need to take one in the shade and any other light changes, but it's easy to do.

I edit using 2 major tools. Capture One version 4.1 (I got version 3.8 for free with a SanDisk card years ago and I like the software a lot) and IrFanView 3.98 which not only has the ability to read the Exif data and all kinds of other cool stuff, but has a really nice batch resize/rename tool for taking the huge jpgs I get after converting the RAW and reducing them for prints or web use. I have a copy of Photoshop, but I rarely use it as Capture One does a lot. I'll only use Photoshop to correct really horrible skies on otherwise good shots.
Click to expand...

I use RAW because I don't even bother dealing with white balance until conversion time. I just let the camera do auto white balance and if it screws it up, I fix later. Capture NX has some nice tools for this.
 
That is very cool thing you have done there. I am also impressed that you live in the PRC and own a gun. You belong to a very small club I think
 

Similar threads

New Acquisition- February 2025
Replies
2
Views
263
Local
Local
New Acquisitions - January 2025
Replies
15
Views
1K
PATRON
PATRON
New Acquisitions - December 2024
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
New Acquisitions November 2024
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
safetyfirst2125
safetyfirst2125
New Acquisitions - October 2024
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Cluster F
Cluster F
Back
Top Bottom