Tabletop lighting and table

[Thurnau]

Can anyone share what you use or would use for taking pictures of smaller products? I need some recomendations.

I use 3 fluorescent lights and a tent which I really don't like the more I learn about lighting and angles. I am experimenting with halogen work lamps from the hardware store, but I can only control brightness by swapping the bulb, and I will be limited trying to get a soft light. However with the right angle hard light doesn't glare too much. I still need a good work surface too.

So work table, posterboard or plexiglass , strobe or constant light; please share a little.

Also some of the shooting tables made by photogenic have a light at the bottom of the plexi table. What effect is the final shot?

Thanks!

 

[Darrell Spreen]

I've worked with fluorescents and hot-shoe type strobes, but not halogens. I've avoided a light tent because it seemed too constraining (both size and lighting effects).

I prefer a simple table and use umbrellas with strobes plus reflectors and diffusers. I think it allows for many different lighting effects. Here are some samples.

http://www.la-tierra.net/abq8/lighting/tabletops.html

--
Darrell

 

[Thurnau]

The main problem with the light tent is that the subject's color becomes hazy, and a round item can look flat too. Having the same watt CFL lights hurts too. My CFL were of low quality CRI of 85, which won't help the color either. If you take the front part of the tent away for easier placement and shooting of the subject you get a dark stripe along the front.

 

[Gene L.]

The main problem with the light tent is that the subject's color
becomes hazy, and a round item can look flat too.

Hazy might mean that you area getting light into the lens from outside the field of view. Be sure to use a lens hood with a light tent. It wouldn't hurt to use gobos (black foamcore, cloth, or whatever) to block light from entering the lens.

What happens is the light from outside the field of view enters the lens and then bounces off of the various glass elements. Some of it ends up hitting the sensor, which creates a milky sort of look (loss of contrast).

Having the same watt CFL lights hurts too. My CFL were of low
quality CRI of 85, which won't help the color either.

You can move one light back, so as to create a lighting ratio between sides and/or top & bottom. My wife uses a light tent and I have her set one light higher or even more toward the back and farther away. The catch phrase is,"look for the shadows." The eye needs shadows to determine shape, so it is important that they fall in a natural manner and are visible, but not distractive.

-Gene L.
http://www.ttl-biz.com

 

[Gene L.]

Can anyone share what you use or would use for taking pictures of
smaller products? I need some recomendations.

The most versatile setup is monolights with softboxes. A couple of small (12"x16") softboxes would work well. One step better is to have a boom handy for doing overhead lighting when needed.

I started with umbrellas, but found it easier to control the light once I got softboxes.

In addition to the lighting, a shooting table makes tabletop easier. The translucent top will give a reflection, but also diffuse light. Seamless paper can be laid on top for endless background possibilities. Gel filters can be used to add color to the background for a smooth gradation.

Here is an example of lighting the shooting table from below with a color filter on the flash. The subject is lit from an overhead softbox. You can see how the shadow from the subject deepens the color near the base, while the spill lightens the color outside the shadow.

http://ttl.exposuremanager.com/scripts/expman.pl?rm=view_photo&photo_id=peachsorbet_portrait_img_289759&dir=galleries/2/5&file=peachsorbet_portrait_img_2897_medium.jpg

Here is the reflection that I was mentioning:

http://ttl.exposuremanager.com/scripts/expman.pl?rm=view_photo&photo_id=elegantlyblueberry_pict534835&dir=galleries/2/5&file=elegantlyblueberry_pict5348_medium.jpg

Finally, an example of lighting the table from behind and below using two different colors:

http://ttl.exposuremanager.com/scripts/expman.pl?rm=view_photo&photo_id=dontforgetme_img_28614&dir=galleries/2/5&file=dontforgetme_img_2861_medium.jpg

Oh, you can also do plain white. More tabletop examples here: http://ttl-biz.com/g/tabletop

-Gene L.
http://www.ttl-biz.com

 

[Thurnau]

The main problem with the light tent is that the subject's color
becomes hazy, and a round item can look flat too.

Hazy might mean that you area getting light into the lens from
outside the field of view. Be sure to use a lens hood with a light
tent. It wouldn't hurt to use gobos (black foamcore, cloth, or
whatever) to block light from entering the lens.

What happens is the light from outside the field of view enters the
lens and then bounces off of the various glass elements. Some of it
ends up hitting the sensor, which creates a milky sort of look (loss
of contrast).

Having the same watt CFL lights hurts too. My CFL were of low
quality CRI of 85, which won't help the color either.

You can move one light back, so as to create a lighting ratio between
sides and/or top & bottom. My wife uses a light tent and I have her
set one light higher or even more toward the back and farther away.
The catch phrase is,"look for the shadows." The eye needs shadows to
determine shape, so it is important that they fall in a natural
manner and are visible, but not distractive.

-Gene L.
http://www.ttl-biz.com

I need to look into that and try a lens hood. I read about that in science light and magic, but didn't know it made a milky cast.

 

[Thurnau]

I am trying to decide between these two tables.
This one is 100
http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/rm1018/



This table is around 400, and 700-800 with three strobes with poor adjustment.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/442734-REG/Smith_Victor_402076_TST_S3_Three_Monolight_Shooting.html



--

Has anyone used either? I am a little worried that the calumet isn't level and/or stable.

BH had one user review that the smith victor kit wasn't that good, and that the arms didn't work out, and the limited movement caused too much reflection.

 

[Gary J Jensen]

I am trying to decide between these two tables.
This one is 100
[Calumet table]

This table is around 400, and 700-800 with three strobes with poor
adjustment.
[Smith Victor table]
--
Has anyone used either? I am a little worried that the calumet isn't
level and/or stable.
BH had one user review that the smith victor kit wasn't that good,
and that the arms didn't work out, and the limited movement caused
too much reflection.

I have two of the Smith-Victor tables; one is their "standard" 24" table and the other is their "mini" 18" table.

One advantage to the Smith-Victor tables is that they come with the elevated clear plexiglass platform [which you can just lift off if you don't need it] that can make it easier for shooting objects without shadows.

You can also get an accessory floor stand for the 24" model, which is quite convenient. I would get this table WITHOUT their lights; the lighting you have would probably be better than the S-V lights.

The smaller 18" table is convenient to throw in the back seat of your car to take along for "location" jewelry shoots; the 24" model is rather cumbersome to transport.

The Calumet table is constructed along a more "traditional" shooting table style with the ability to adjust the angle of the back. For small objects, this isn't really a necessity [and could be a bit troublesome]. This style will also take up a lot more floor space [front-to-back] than the Smith-Victor table which has a vertical back.

If you need a table for larger objects, I'd suggest that you either get one of the "full-size" shooting tables [such as what Bogen has] or else build your own setup.
Hope this helps.

 

[Thurnau]

I am trying to decide between these two tables.
This one is 100
[Calumet table]

This table is around 400, and 700-800 with three strobes with poor
adjustment.
[Smith Victor table]
--
Has anyone used either? I am a little worried that the calumet isn't
level and/or stable.
BH had one user review that the smith victor kit wasn't that good,
and that the arms didn't work out, and the limited movement caused
too much reflection.

I have two of the Smith-Victor tables; one is their "standard" 24"
table and the other is their "mini" 18" table.
One advantage to the Smith-Victor tables is that they come with the
elevated clear plexiglass platform [which you can just lift off if
you don't need it] that can make it easier for shooting objects
without shadows.
You can also get an accessory floor stand for the 24" model, which is
quite convenient. I would get this table WITHOUT their lights; the
lighting you have would probably be better than the S-V lights.
The smaller 18" table is convenient to throw in the back seat of your
car to take along for "location" jewelry shoots; the 24" model is
rather cumbersome to transport.
The Calumet table is constructed along a more "traditional" shooting
table style with the ability to adjust the angle of the back. For
small objects, this isn't really a necessity [and could be a bit
troublesome]. This style will also take up a lot more floor space
[front-to-back] than the Smith-Victor table which has a vertical back.
If you need a table for larger objects, I'd suggest that you either
get one of the "full-size" shooting tables [such as what Bogen has]
or else build your own setup.
Hope this helps.

Not only does this help, but it was some of the input I was looking for. I use halogen work lights, or sub par CFLs. So I am shopping for lighting too. I am lighting things as small as pens and nail polish bottles, and as large as a gallon of paint.

If I leave the SV lights out, then I can afford to get the cheap stand which collapses and put more money into lighting. But then again Alien bees doesn't make a 12inch softbox either, which is where I wanted to purchase strobes from. I wanted to spend around 1,000 on a perfect setup with lighting. I can be flexible with money, but I didn't want to spend 700 and buy something not usable.

 

[ojohn]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1002&thread=30306461

 

[Thurnau]

What looks like a better deal for small product photos. The alien bees 400 or 800, or a photoflex starflash 150. If I use alien bees, I will still end up using photoflex small or xtrasmall soft boxes since alien bees only makes medium and larger.

 

[Thurnau]

Thanks for the link. I used a light cube for a while. I feel like I outgrew it, and I dislike the light it reflects for a round glossy cylinder. I can't control the family of angles making direct glare on the subject.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1002&thread=30306461

 

[YehudaKatz]

What material is that black shiny background?

Thank you,
Yehuda

I've worked with fluorescents and hot-shoe type strobes, but not
halogens. I've avoided a light tent because it seemed too
constraining (both size and lighting effects).

I prefer a simple table and use umbrellas with strobes plus
reflectors and diffusers. I think it allows for many different
lighting effects. Here are some samples.

http://www.la-tierra.net/abq8/lighting/tabletops.html

--
Darrell

 

[YehudaKatz]

You get flare if some light source hits directly the lens, or the background is over exposed. I learned that the background shoud be lighter than the object by no more than 2/3 of a stop.

Would help if you could upload a sample.
Yehuda

The main problem with the light tent is that the subject's color
becomes hazy, and a round item can look flat too.

Hazy might mean that you area getting light into the lens from
outside the field of view. Be sure to use a lens hood with a light
tent. It wouldn't hurt to use gobos (black foamcore, cloth, or
whatever) to block light from entering the lens.

What happens is the light from outside the field of view enters the
lens and then bounces off of the various glass elements. Some of it
ends up hitting the sensor, which creates a milky sort of look (loss
of contrast).

Having the same watt CFL lights hurts too. My CFL were of low
quality CRI of 85, which won't help the color either.

You can move one light back, so as to create a lighting ratio between
sides and/or top & bottom. My wife uses a light tent and I have her
set one light higher or even more toward the back and farther away.
The catch phrase is,"look for the shadows." The eye needs shadows to
determine shape, so it is important that they fall in a natural
manner and are visible, but not distractive.

-Gene L.
http://www.ttl-biz.com

I need to look into that and try a lens hood. I read about that in
science light and magic, but didn't know it made a milky cast.
--

 

[Thurnau]

Would help if you could upload a sample.
Yehuda

The main problem with the light tent is that the subject's color
becomes hazy, and a round item can look flat too.

Hazy might mean that you area getting light into the lens from
outside the field of view. Be sure to use a lens hood with a light
tent. It wouldn't hurt to use gobos (black foamcore, cloth, or
whatever) to block light from entering the lens.

What happens is the light from outside the field of view enters the
lens and then bounces off of the various glass elements. Some of it
ends up hitting the sensor, which creates a milky sort of look (loss
of contrast).

Having the same watt CFL lights hurts too. My CFL were of low
quality CRI of 85, which won't help the color either.

You can move one light back, so as to create a lighting ratio between
sides and/or top & bottom. My wife uses a light tent and I have her
set one light higher or even more toward the back and farther away.
The catch phrase is,"look for the shadows." The eye needs shadows to
determine shape, so it is important that they fall in a natural
manner and are visible, but not distractive.

-Gene L.
http://www.ttl-biz.com

I need to look into that and try a lens hood. I read about that in
science light and magic, but didn't know it made a milky cast.
--

Flare has nothing to do with it. It looks bad to the human eye without a camera. When looking at the object I see the reflection of the tent from almost all angles of the cylinder. Except when I leave the front of the ten off, then I see a dark stripe in the front where the subject is lit from all sides, and shows a reflection of everything else. I see that photoflex now sells tents with the sides angled in, which might help me with the family of angles.

 

[alfredky]

You might be surprised how much light you need for small objects! If you are looking for good DOF you will find yourself shooting at very small apertures and the AB400 might be way to small.

I shoot jewelry on a home made light table with one AB1600 in a large soft box from 12" above the object and another AB1600 for accent lighting, the later is normally further away. It is not uncommon that I shoot at f52 and the AB1600's are barely strong enough.

So my suggestion is, do not cut yourself short on power unless you don't care about DOF.
--
Alfred

 

[Darrell Spreen]

What material is that black shiny background?

It's a 30"x40" glossy black poster board -- about $5 at a hobby crafts store.

--
Darrell

 

[Thurnau]

I am trying to decide between these two tables.
This one is 100
[Calumet table]

This table is around 400, and 700-800 with three strobes with poor
adjustment.
[Smith Victor table]
--
Has anyone used either? I am a little worried that the calumet isn't
level and/or stable.
BH had one user review that the smith victor kit wasn't that good,
and that the arms didn't work out, and the limited movement caused
too much reflection.

I have two of the Smith-Victor tables; one is their "standard" 24"
table and the other is their "mini" 18" table.
One advantage to the Smith-Victor tables is that they come with the
elevated clear plexiglass platform [which you can just lift off if
you don't need it] that can make it easier for shooting objects
without shadows.
You can also get an accessory floor stand for the 24" model, which is
quite convenient. I would get this table WITHOUT their lights; the
lighting you have would probably be better than the S-V lights.
The smaller 18" table is convenient to throw in the back seat of your
car to take along for "location" jewelry shoots; the 24" model is
rather cumbersome to transport.
The Calumet table is constructed along a more "traditional" shooting
table style with the ability to adjust the angle of the back. For
small objects, this isn't really a necessity [and could be a bit
troublesome]. This style will also take up a lot more floor space
[front-to-back] than the Smith-Victor table which has a vertical back.
If you need a table for larger objects, I'd suggest that you either
get one of the "full-size" shooting tables [such as what Bogen has]
or else build your own setup.
Hope this helps.

What is the shooting height surface of the smith victor table with the legs attached?

 

[Thurnau]

You might be surprised how much light you need for small objects! If
you are looking for good DOF you will find yourself shooting at very
small apertures and the AB400 might be way to small.
I shoot jewelry on a home made light table with one AB1600 in a large
soft box from 12" above the object and another AB1600 for accent
lighting, the later is normally further away. It is not uncommon that
I shoot at f52 and the AB1600's are barely strong enough.
So my suggestion is, do not cut yourself short on power unless you
don't care about DOF.
--
Alfred

--

You bring up a good point. I usually shoot on a tripod and shoot at f8-f11 and let my light meter tell me a good place to start with shutter speed. I thought at f20ish I'd get a fuzzier image due to diffraction. I do want the entire small product in focus, and I am turning a couple of products into a 20 ft wide banner ad background for a trade show so in focus and near filling the frame is important.

 

[alfredky]

Here is a sample which was shot with the two AB1600's, I don't quite remember but I would say the f stop was at f40.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbalfred/3030309129/

--
Alfred