Flosser hack, DOF challenge

[Inkanyezi]

Product shots are almost always close-ups of small things, and when shooting close, depth of field often will not cover the entire scene. Not that we always would want everything in focus, but there are occasions where objects that are desired to be in focus are not at the same distance from the camera.

So, I am playing around, getting used to my equipment, and when I recently made a few quick shots of the flosser that I hacked to accommodate regular floss instead of the discontinued Oral-B Hummingbird flosser heads that are no longer available. To us folks who have got used this gadget, the lack of flosser heads is frustrating.

I made a few quick ones, with the lens in its normal position, but as they are shot a bit from above, everytning except the top of the flosser is farther away, but I wanted focus on the unchanged flosser head as well as the bight of floss at the foot of the flosser.

I guess photographers sometimes are a bit crazy. The first shot I made was good enough to show what was made, although I noticed when using it with Johnson & Johnson floss, that a thinner floss would be better, more like the original one for the Hummingbird. But there was also another thing with the first shot, that it did not show the surface of the rubber on the handle. I wanted a bit more light there, stroking the surface, so I made a second one with a mirror to accentuate the contour of the right side.

Then I was disappointed by the appearance of the bight of floss in front at the foot of the flosser, so I attached the lens to my tilt adapter and shot another one with upward tilt. Thus I got the floss head at the right within the depth of field, as well as the bight of floss in front, while the floss container remained out of focus and the entire flosser gadget is in focus. The sun was shining, but now I think I have got the hang of it, so I'll leave it for a while and I don't know whether to seek perfection. After all, it's just a photo to show that I adapted the flosser head to accept regular floss. I did so by cutting notches at the tips of the prongs, and putting a screw at the crotch of the fork, where the floss is wound a few turns, taken over the tips through the notches and back to the screw where it is again wound some turns to fix it.

So the floss head now can be reused indefinitely.

The first shot I made was taken in window-light without fussing around with modifiers.

Then the second one, with a mirror to accentuate the contour and make the rubber surface visible.

Now the third one, taken this morning with the sun shining, which creates different effects and shadows, still with a mirror to the right, but this time with the lens tilted upward, focusing also on the loose floss head and the bight of floss at the foot of the flosser.

[Shadowman]

I see a lot of ads that use white backgrounds as well as the grey ground you used. Most photos lack any shadows at all. Watch out for the stray hairs on some of your shots.

[Loose Canon]

Hi Urban,

I like your thought process with this, which has led to some great results.

Just a couple of observations if I may? And please keep in mind its all just an opinion.

Comparing the second and third shot.

In the third shot I think you have successfully accentuated the rubber handle like the second, but in this shot the additional light also softens the shadows. I’m not a huge fan of the floating “ebay” shots and I like some shadow on the tabletop to “ground” the composition. It also adds some pleasing highlights to the loose flosser and the floss box helping to define the shape. Especially the shape of the loose flosser. The highlight on the lid of the floss box is less pronounced, defined, and softer in the third shot, which I think looks a lot better.

It looks like you have some color difference between the second and third shot.

I like the composition. But here’s something that might be considered and I’m guilty of this more than I would like.

Would it be beneficial in the third shot to clone a bit of the ends of the floss back on the standing flosser a bit to add some separation between them and the floss box? Also, in the third shot the flosser is a little further separated from the box which I thinks works better. I’m bad about tangents and the last piece of jewelry I posted had some humdingers! I should have reshot it but the shot was just for me so I didn’t worry too much about it!

I have trouble keeping my tabletop completely clear of minute debris so one of the first things I do (or try to do) is go wild with the healing brush/clone stamp and then recheck it before final output!

As far as DoF is concerned it looks about right to me since you are “advertising” the flosser and not the entire set of objects. I don’t think the floss box is too far OOF at all.

Nice work Urban.

[Loose Canon]

By the way Urban? What kind of tilt adapter are you using?

[Inkanyezi]

Would it be beneficial in the third shot to clone a bit of the ends of the floss back on the standing flosser a bit to add some separation between them and the floss box? Also, in the third shot the flosser is a little further separated from the box which I thinks works better.

Those are things I indeed thought about, and I tried cloning it away, but didn't like the result. The option should be a re-shoot with the floss at the head cut a bit shorter, so that it would separate from the box. It would also benefit from a bit less light on the far background.

I’m bad about tangents and the last piece of jewelry I posted had some humdingers! I should have reshot it but the shot was just for me so I didn’t worry too much about it!

And these shots were not intended for advertising. Posting them was more to show the thought process while making an image.

I have trouble keeping my tabletop completely clear of minute debris so one of the first things I do (or try to do) is go wild with the healing brush/clone stamp and then recheck it before final output!

When shooting small things, dust always becomes obvious when present - and it always is.

As far as DoF is concerned it looks about right to me since you are “advertising” the flosser and not the entire set of objects. I don’t think the floss box is too far OOF at all.

It's not the flosser per se, but the idea of reusing it that is advertised. It is a long discontinued product, where the crucial refills are unavailable. It should be embarrassing to Braun that marketed them, and there are discussions about it on various boards on the web.
https://www.facebook.com/oralb/posts/446393578742059

What the image is intended to convey is how to put it to service again, and although it will accept any size of dental floss, the one in the image is superior to a few other brands in the market. So the brand name of that product should be legible, as anyone that wants to do the same can then also get the floss that works just as the original one did. In fact, the Crest Glide floss is better than the original.

As a side track, I know boys are the ones that take things apart, and most of us have disassembled an alarm clock at very young age.

This flosser is technically very simple, and most sonic toothbrushes share the works of it. It is just a small electric motor with an unbalanced weight attached. When it rotates, the whole thing vibrates. I also have some dirt cheap sonic toothbrushes, and I have adapted one to accept the Hummingbird floss head. These sonic toothbrushes are identical in construction with vibrating sex toys, it's only the working end that is different. I acquired those sonic toothbrushes in a "dollar shop" at a price of the equivalent of $5. The Philips sonic brush is about twenty to forty times that, depending on model. Maybe not the same quality, but these come with four brush heads, and just a pack of three brush heads for the Philips sonic brush is about $25. I get five of these with in total 20 brush heads for that amount.

I wonder why sonic brushes are so expensive. They are easier to make, thus cheaper, than the more complex ones with moving parts, so they should be cheaper. They have only one moving part inside, the electric motor, a cheap standard motor found in toys.

[Inkanyezi]

By the way Urban? What kind of tilt adapter are you using?

I am using one that I got from Peleng, supposedly made by Hartblei, for M42 lenses. It can be set with good precision to the angle one wishes. For these shots I used a Shneider Xenar 50 mm and a shim to get close enough.

I had to chip off some surplus from the adapter to attach it to the OM-D, as the protruding part above, where the viewfinder is, collided with the adapter. Formerly I had used it with my Panasonic G1 without any problem.

[DanK]

Urban,

I'm not sure what the focus (no pun intended) of this thread (also no pun intended) really is. However, if the point is this:

but there are occasions where objects that are desired to be in focus are not at the same distance from the camera.

then why not simply shoot several images with fairly narrow DOF and stack them to get the DOF you want? If you stack with Zerene, you can also use the retouching tool to selectively undo the stacking. This is useful, for example, if areas that you want in focus and out of focus are in one image in the stack, so stacking puts them both in focus.

My dentist told me to stop using Glide--not enough friction.

Dan

[Inkanyezi]

Urban,

I'm not sure what the focus (no pun intended) of this thread (also no pun intended) really is.

The focus I think is according to the theme of the discussion group where it is posted: General Photography Discussion
To me, it is about the process of making the image, what to think of, tradeoffs and advantages of different methods, and how we use available means to convey what we want the photograph to say. Subtleties as well as evident features of the image, and how they are accomplished.

However, if the point is this:

but there are occasions where objects that are desired to be in focus are not at the same distance from the camera.

then why not simply shoot several images with fairly narrow DOF and stack them to get the DOF you want? If you stack with Zerene, you can also use the retouching tool to selectively undo the stacking. This is useful, for example, if areas that you want in focus and out of focus are in one image in the stack, so stacking puts them both in focus.

It is a lot more work to do the stacking process from start to end, although when it is automated, for example with Magic Lantern or CHDK, the shooting part of it is simple. Also with Samsung Galaxy NX, stacking is easier accomplished than with most other cameras, and the OM-D E-M1 can do it too, with an app.

Now I don't have any of those cameras, except the Canon PowerShot G7 that accepts CHDK, but I have a tilt adapter. I don't think stacking would do what I intended to do as easily, leave the box defocused while the flosser is entirely in focus as well as what's in front at the foot of it. This is done in one shot with tilt, straight out of camera if one so wishes.

And if your closest tool at hand is a hammer, most problems will look as nails.

My dentist told me to stop using Glide--not enough friction.

Possibly, that floss might be unsuitable for hand flossing. I have noticed that it has less friction, because it is not as easy to fix to the screw head, but when using it with this vibrating tool, it has enough friction, and it is easier to get into the spaces between teeth. When flossing by hand, few strokes are done compared to a sonic brush that makes about 500 strokes per second. Thus probably a coarser floss will work better when you do it without the sonic action. But with the sonic action, the coarser floss only wears more and is inconvenient to enter into the interdental slots. The finer and more lubricated floss enters swiftly and with all those strokes, it also cleans well.

[xpatUSA]

Well done Urban, both in the concept of re-use in spite of what Marketing wants us to do and in the good description of your thinking re: improving the shots!

[tawnyport]

Hi Urban,

great pics. Interestingly,my wife uses this exact flosser and is on her last replacement head with no luck in finding replacements. You seem to have solved this dilemma. Could I ask what you used to notch the flosser head as well as the screw size that the floss wraps around?

Best,

William