Photographing a model of a 17th century caravel

[r.e.]

I'm a member of a museum that has asked me to photograph a model of a sailing ship. The ship is historically important, and the museum, in what is a major undertaking, is going to start building it to full scale next summer. The fellow who made the model did a beautiful job, fom both historic and aesthetic perspectives, and the organisation wants to use a photograph of the model to raise money through the sale of postcards, prints, T-shirts, etc. The model is about 32" long by 31" high by 7" wide.

I haven't agreed to do this yet and I'm not going to unless I can come up with a way to make an image of the model that will sell. On that score, I'm getting discouraged. In an attempt to find inspiration, I've now looked at a few hundred photographs of ship models on the internet. The ones that I've seen are uniformly pedestrian. A picture of a model sitting on a cradle, or with the cradle swathed in fabric, which is generally how it's done, just doesn't excite me. There seems to be a disconnect between how these models look in person and how they look in a photograph. I can't imagine anyone except an avid model boat builder wanting to buy one of these images on a postcard or anything else.

When the museum first asked me to undertake this, I told them that I would want to photograph the model out of its case, and suspend it in the air with clear nylon fishing line in order to get it off its cradle and reveal the whole of the hull. Any evidence of the line could be removed in Photoshop. It turns out that Scandinavian churches often have model ships in them that are suspended from above, and I'm somewhat encouraged by photographs that I've seen of this arrangement. Beyond that, I'm stumped, and I'm beginning to wonder whether I should just accept the model for what it is, cradle and all, rather than try to reinvent how it appears.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

[bobwysiwyg]

Any way to photograph it on a mirrored surface with a dark background to simulate it and its reflection on water? Or, something like that... :)

[r.e.]

Yes, I can use a mirrored surface. Also, I had a look at Christopher Broadbent's still life photographs last night. I admire his work, and his style of background might work very well for something like this. I've also thought about incorporating other objects into the photograph, such as a very, very old hand plane used for shipbuilding. Of course, if I do this, I'll be abandoning respect for scale, but I'm not sure that that is a bad idea provided that it doesn't result in the model looking dwarfed. I also have access to things like fishing nets and very old cod fishing lures, all objects relevant to the function of the original vessel. I do have a concern that adding additional items will just look kitschy, and that it would mostly be a sign that I couldn't come up with a way to photograph the model on its own terms.

Something else that I've considered is photographing the model in the hands of the man who built it, or in the hands of a stand-in, maybe one of the local fishermen or boatbuilders.

[Struan Gray]

The first picture on this page isn't too bad:

http://www.vallejogallery.com/item.php?id=2172

but in the main I agree, most model ship photos are a tad too documentary.

I have found occasional ships in Swedish churches, but also in English maritime towns, so it's not just a Swedish thing. Photographing the model in-situ makes for a much more interesting shot than on an isolated studio background, but to take your model to a local church would perhaps look contrived. Why not photograph it in the museum itself?

[Steven Tribe]

You are right about many, many Danish and some coastal Norwegian and Swedish churches having large suspended models of ships. Sometimes the detail is lacking on these models as they are viewed from a distance. Another problem is that some of them are made to be viewed from below which means construction proportions are purposefully distorted (as in most Greek antique stone buildings!). You can find many images of hung and otherwise supported photographed through google. There are maritime museums in Denmark who have wrestled with this problem. Will check for you as rain has interrupted my Garden clean-up. Is this a painted model or, as I guess, a visable wood model?

[r.e.]

Struan,

I think that what makes that photograph work better than most is the stand/marquetry. In my case, while the model is beautiful, the stand is no more than functional. However, the link that you posted does suggest an approach - extreme closeups rather than trying to capture the entire vessel.

The only place in the museum that would work in a photograph is the area in which old tools are displayed. That is a possibility. Doesn't help that the museum, except for a small office area, isn't heated in the winter :)

Steven, it's a wood model with a brownish stain on the hull and above-deck details. The stain is beautiful. The original ship was a caravel with a squared, high stern, and was built in 1610.

[Steven Tribe]

What an awful lot of photos there are! Range from uninteresting to bad. However, learning from their experience I would suggest:
1. Hung - unless the craddle is fabulous. Probably best without anyway.
2. Bottom edge of the keel should be visable. The hull defines a ship in my view.
3. Completely plain light or dark background - depends on how light/dark the various wood details are.
4. Taken from the front 45 - 60 deg to one side.
5. Taken from about 10 deg under to 5 deg over. Depends on how many of the details are concealed below the railing level.

Yes ,you can do it! It's the messy church background and people's inability to find a ladder which is the big problem with posted pictures.

[Robert Hughes]

You may want to speak with a movie efx house, perhaps bring them in as an advisor, or even hand the project off to them. Efx houses specialize in such projects.

[Steven Tribe]

Now this a one time offer. I didn't mention that I am (was) a maker of these models. I have one at home, which in spite of children/grandchildren messing around with the rigging and sails is still basically complete. It is somewhat larger than "your" model (1.50m long and 1.20m tall) and is mostly brown with little superstructure (hull from 1820 sails from 1880). It can't hang it as it is filled with ballast - ready to sail. It has three masts and sails (not square sails though). I could do a series with plain backgrounds at at different angles which might help you. Interested?

[Jim Galli]

Could someone create a plexiglass sea with a ship size cutout as the water line? Then you could approach it from a low angle and avoid the normal wedge. Dramatic lighting and selective depth of field should preclude any background so that only the ship enters the mind.

[BarryS]

How about photographing it against a blue screen or green screen, dropping out the background, and compositing it onto a stormy sea?

[wfwhitaker]

...the organisation wants to use a photograph of the model to raise money through the sale of postcards, prints, T-shirts, etc.

Images that sell within this context are usually graphic and straightforward, often dramatic. I infer from your post that you're thinking more of a literal interpretation of the model itself. The general public's attention span is short and while some may be fascinated with the workmanship shown in the model, the idea of the ship itself is more important and is what should be conveyed to the buying public's mind. Perhaps you might concentrate on the emotional qualities of drama and romance rather than on the clinical details of model making. Fine detail isn't going to come through on an image screened onto a T-shirt anyway. Sometimes a lot more can be said through mere suggestion than through complete revelation.

[Lee Christopher]

Yes, I can use a mirrored surface. Also, I had a look at Christopher Broadbent's still life photographs last night. I admire his work, and his style of background might work very well for something like this. I've also thought about incorporating other objects into the photograph, such as a very, very old hand plane used for shipbuilding. Of course, if I do this, I'll be abandoning respect for scale, but I'm not sure that that is a bad idea provided that it doesn't result in the model looking dwarfed. I also have access to things like fishing nets and very old cod fishing lures, all objects relevant to the function of the original vessel. I do have a concern that adding additional items will just look kitschy, and that it would mostly be a sign that I couldn't come up with a way to photograph the model on its own terms.

Something else that I've considered is photographing the model in the hands of the man who built it, or in the hands of a stand-in, maybe one of the local fishermen or boatbuilders.

r.e. I think that sounds like a very attractive idea (to me) - to photograph the model in the hands of a craftsman. Lit correctly for dramatic or romantic appeal, and as cliched as this may sound - one can almost smell the musk and lacquer of the workshop. The human element adds a direct link with viewers and that may help get better response than a static model ship.

CHEERS!

[csant]

Somehow I always liked dioramas... Thinking about some inspiration, I remember a setup of ship models in a museum: they had reconstructed everything, there were wales in the sea, there was a shore, boats and ships on the sea - just instead of water, there was... nothing. They used light to illuminate all objects, the rest would be swallowed by the darkness of an empty hole underneath. I really liked the idea (but didn't get around to photographing it yet).

Another shot I really like (maybe nice for some inspiration?) is here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ordfabriken/3246265583/).

[Steven Tribe]

As they are aiming at building a replica there must be a lot of exciting technical drawings around. I remember visting the HMS Victory at Portsmouth and the associated museum years ago. The thing that sold best from ye olde gifte shope was constructional plain ink drawings about 1mx1m. In terms of T shirts I would have thought that a simplified reproduction of the hull and sails would a useful starting - also as a logo for the project. Plenty of space for a circular text framing it. I enclose a rushed simple print of a similar Swedish ship.

[r.e.]

Hi Steven,

I will probably suggest to the museum that it consider artist renderings of the ship in any event. I agree with you, and with Will who has made a similar point, that they can be very effective.

There are no pictorial or technical drawings of the original ship. The model is based on a brief written description of the vessel by the man who commissioned it, as well as fairly exhaustive historical research. Last week, at a wooden boat conference, the man who made the model gave a presentation on the research that he did, and I and others were impressed. There are some educated guesses involved, as there were when John Cabot's ship, The Matthew, was re-created in the UK a few years ago, but I think that the gentleman who did the work on this vessel is very close to the mark.

You are quite right that there is no shortage of photographs of model ships on the net (there seem to be thousands of them), and also right that the photography, or at least what I have seen of it, is uninspiring. Given your background in both model building and photography, I would love to see how you would approach photographing your own work.

[Jimi]

Okay, I am probably missing the point but I want to throw this out, anyway:

Why not make a setup where you show the ship model amongst the tools that were used to make it? A sort of workbench scene? What I mean is that if it is hard to show it as a "real" ship, why not accept that and show the model as a representation of the ship that will be reconstructed?

[Armin Seeholzer]

Could you not but it into real water on a nice little lake?
This is for what ships are normaly!

Just my 2 cts. Armin

[Steven Tribe]

Models of ships, just like real ships, need ballast down in the keel. Otherwise they displace only about an inch of water and capsize. Even if they didn't, the waterline level would look very strange. About 6 kilos of lead/iron would be necessary. Model makers usually make things true to life and getting ballast down tiny hatchways would take a full crew of lilliputians a couple of days!

[Mark Barendt]

How about shooting less than the whole; get close and use camera position to suggest that the ship is not level, use movements and vignette to control what the viewer focuses on/sees.

The other thought I have is an extension of that, photograph it for mood not detail. Most model shots seem to be photographed to show the craftsmanship of the model, that does not seem to be the point of this project. Add fog with dry ice and water.

[Drew Bedo]

Photographs of models (any miniature) have a characteristic "look". Model photography is by nature macro photography. the shallow depth of field is the giveaway every time. Another characteristic is point of view. Many shots of models are made from an air borne perspective. They look like the view from a helicopter.

A sailing ship poses extra challenges because the masts and yards create a complex 3-D volume to image. One cannot use camera movements to advantage . . . something will always be out.

I don’t think that there is any one magic technique.

Suggestions:

Shoot from am low angle . . . not a "helicopter shot".

Use as wide a lens as you can.

Use photoShop shamelessly.

Shoot multiple images with progressive planes of focus, then blend or stack in PS.

Take multiple images of portions of the ship and stitch them into a panorama, then crop to a more rectangular format.

Use PS to put the ship into a seascape, or just sitting at anchor.

In the end, Large Format may not be the best tool set for this project. A DSLR may be better. The object is not primarily to produce a fine-art image for some purist collector (that would be great!). The purpose of this project is to create a saleable image for fund raising. Use whatever tools and techniques will get you and the museum the "money shot".

Show us what you get and tell us how you did it.

[Greg Lockrey]

Shoot it with a pinhole... the depth of field is forever. If the model is large enough you can position the camera near the deck to give feeling of being "on deck", etc. Some of those manufactured pinholes are incredibly sharp.

[r.e.]

I really appreciate all the input that my question has received.

[big_ben_blue]

Late last year I was involved with a project that included shooting a large historic model of a fur traders canoe (complete with carved dolls). The model was secured to a standard 4x8ft sheet of dark grey arbotite (or something similar) on a light table (for the curve). We used a ton of gobos/flags/fingers and a projection spot light with a DIY gobo to suggest wave movement. Worked like a charm. Highlighting individual areas of the model with more spots and plenty of backlighting gave the model a very realistic 3D appearance.

A few more ideas:

How about shooting it with a DSLR as mentioned and incorporating a drawing (like Steven suggested) in the background. The drawing wouldn't have to be overly complex for that (imagine it slightly soft and OOF in a warmish brown ink tone). A green screen technique might work for that. On a related note, Steven might be onto something regarding the appeal of a technical drawing to the general public. Heck, my most priced possession in my late teens were a few copies of the complete technical drawings for some of the WW2 submarines. For building a full scale replica of an historic vessel, drawing would have to be made anyhow; just make double use of them (maybe add a few handwritten notes in longhand).

Maybe using paper cutouts to represent waves in the foreground? It would give the whole thing an illustrative stylized nature though (think along the lines of the old Karel Zeman movies).

Personally, I find slightly 3/4 frontal views from a bit below the most dramatic for showing the bulk of the hull and "high-in-the-sky" rigging.

[Jim Ewins]

Scan the Image and in Photoshop place it on a calm sea.

[Rodney Polden]

I would suggest to leave out anything to do with background or a "scene", using a darkish, shadowed, almost black environment around it instead. This will throw all the viewer's attention onto the subject itself.

The critical element here is viewpoint, and finding that exact viewpoint to within fractions of an inch may well take hours, possibly days of just looking at the model, turning it this way and that, until you have absorbed all the subtle changes in the dominance of one aspect of the vessel over the others that occurs as the position of the viewer's eye changes. Nearer or further by mere inches can alter the 'sensations' of the form in a huge way. This may sound extreme, but I believe that it will be in finding the precise eye-position to evoke emotion and awe and a sense of realism, that you will find the image that truly has power and meaning to it.

Play with a hand-held camera - DSLR, 35mm or whatever - just for establishing viewpoint. But start with something WIDE, say 20mm (in 35mm equivalent) and only move to 24mm, 28mm, 35mm equivalents successively, once you have definitely established that the wide view is too wide. You may find that the 20mm actually does it. It carves its own way with the curves of hull and rigging, and the drama will appear that lifts mere objects up and out of the studio setting into their own reality.

Water-craft are such complex and nuanced structures to begin with - lovely things in their own right. To go beyond the image that just shows a model, and reach out to the image that shows a vessel, a real ocean-going vessel, will be the main challenge inherent in this commission, I feel. My instinct would be to begin low and wide-angle and fairly close to the bow, to one side. Balancing the drama of the viewpoint against the other considerations of inclusion, emphasis, near-far scale, depth-of-field and so on, will lead you through the technical and aesthetic decision-making process by continual refinement and by discarding paths that prove not to work.

If you can convince your sponsors/clients to accept b/w, the problems will be considerably less on all fronts, I would suggest. An inspiring and emotive image that will sell posters etc. is 100% easier to achieve in b/w, since then you can concentrate on form and the _idea_ of a ship, rather than the brown wooden reality of a model.

Lighting is the other big challenge. A dark studio-like space (dark floor too) will make it easier to control contrast, and the model needs to be high enough off the floor to avoid excessive bounce from below (until you want it). Start with a spot (or another single hard light source) high and and to the rear, and slowly add reflectors in small increments to build the shaping and contouring that's required.

Alternatively, you might even try painting the model with light from a flashlight or whatever, in darkness, and with the shutter open - different areas and different angles. Remarkable effects can be had this way that are not achievable in a single short exposure.

This sounds like a great project to be involved with. I hope it turns out to be a success for both you and your friends at the museum.

[GPS]

I would suggest to leave out anything to do with background or a "scene", using a darkish, shadowed, almost black environment around it instead. This will throw all the viewer's attention onto the subject itself.
...
.
I agree with you when it comes to the useless use of a "scene". Whatever scene is used it always looks faky, artificial and ridiculous, like the old Tarzan movies...
But no darkish, almost black background either - it looks strange, like a boat in darkness lit by its own glory only.
The simplicity is the key here. White background with nothing else but the ship - looks great on a T-shirt, keeps the attention on the subject and speaks volumes about what the reconstruction is about (the ship). What is more, the white background leaves plenty to imagination - it's like a ship with an eternal life imagined by the viewer only.