advice needed for product photography

I'm new to product photography and need to take pictures of paper products that I have letterpress printed. The printed image is recessed in the paper and it's important that I capture this detail as best as possible.

So, I'm looking for a camera/lense/lighting setup to mamimize the quality of the images for my website.

I have bought for this purpose an Olympus E-PL1 camera with an Olympus Zuiko 35mm F/3.5 Macro lense (and adapter). I am willing to upgrade to an SLR if needed but purchased this setup thinking that it will achieve what I am hoping.

For lighting, I have two clamp lights from Home Depot, each with 250W bulbs in it. They are 3,000 Kelvin approx.. I have a light box that I have built with a white interior (foam core). I am not currently diffusing the light but believe that I may need to.

It would be greatly appreciated if you can look at the pic of the printed piece and provide feedback on how it can be improved. This is the original file without any post work.

Would diffusing the lighting help?

Would the shot be improved by getting an SLR with a macro lense? I really would like to know if I am compromising the quality of the shot by not getting an SLR. If an SLR is the way to go, which Canon or Nikon and lense do recommend?

The two lights are at (almost) the same level as the printed piece to enhance the impression of the image into the paper. Is there a better approach with the lighting to improve this effect? I have found that if I introduce any other lights at a higher level, the details of the impression are lost.

Lastly, the image feels grainy. Is this typical for macro shots? Ho

Thanks so much for any assistance with this. It is really appreciated.

Joshua

The camera/lens combo you have should work but you didn't say, or I missed it, whether you hand hold your camera or do you use a tripod, needless to say, a tripod is needed for tack sharp photos like you want.

Secondly do you set the controls manually on your camera, you will want the lowest ISO possible for best quality. Since you have supplemental lighting selecting a low ISO isn't a problem.

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.

First of all, I think your initial results are pretty good. I doubt very much that buying a more expensive camera will do anything at all to improve the results.

I would definitely try diffusion to see how that changes the results. Too much might make things worse. You really do need the subtle shadows to show the relief of the lettering and very even light might obscure that. The angle of the light is going to be important too. You can easily experiment to get the best results.

You mentioned you bought a macro lens, which is ideal for the purpose. You might want to zoom in even further to emphasize the 3-D quality of the printing.

If you are not using a tripod, I think it would be worthwhile to get an inexpensive one for the purpose. It will allow you to shoot sharp images at low shutter speeds and low ISO when the lens is stopped down to f/8 or f/11 (or more). That will provide extreme depth of field so that the whole field of view is sharp.

Those are just my thoughts, which are worth every bit of what you paid for them. I hope they are useful.

By the way -- that is a very interesting and attractive printing technique. May I inquire a little more about the nature of the product?

Each of your replies is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Yes, I am using a tripod and will test with diffusing the light. I need to research what materials can be used to diffuse the light. Or, I may just get one of those EZ light tents. I'd rather avoid the additional cost though and would prefer to put some kind of translucent material in front of the lights. Thoughts on what material to use for this?

I just wanted to make sure that this camera/lense isn't limiting the quality of these pictures. Thanks for confirming.

Thanks for your inquiry about the printing! Letterpress printing is a form of relief printing and can be used to "press" the image into the paper. The result is a very tactile and beautiful print and there is significant market demand for this form of printing for stationery, wedding invitations, greeting cards, etc. Letterpress printing was the standard printing method back in the day (1400s-1900s) until it was replaced (not completely) by modern printing techniques somewhat recently.

This particular piece was designed and printed for an exhibition that celebrated and showcased this historic craft.

Here's a pic of my press:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bellusletterpress/

Yes, I definitely plan to include more magnified pictures of the printed work to show the depth of the impression. I have attached one such test.

Thanks again for any and all feedback. I really want to optimize the quality of these pictures for use on my website.

At first glance, it looked like you bought a new press based on a very old design. On further inspection, it appears you have acquired an old machine and done a nice restoration. I can appreciate the effort you went to to bring the machine back to life. I like to restore old woodworking machinery to top condition. Best of luck with your photography and your printing business.

It's better to use one light source only, any second achieves double shadows and extincts the (wanted) shadow of the other source.

If you want an evenly lit area set the source to a much larger distance than you've shown. Whether it's the open reflector or diffused (simple frame with tracing paper) is a matter of taste - just try and see. Also for the lighting angle, the more flat the more will the paper come out as 'grey'.

For the 'open reflector lighting' variant I'd use a larger sheet of white (paper or foam core) from the opposite to fill the shadows (and add a tad to the paper's surface).
--
cheers, Peter
Germany

Thanks so much, Peter.

I'll explore using one light source more. I have found that the object doesn't seem sufficiently lit when using just one. I'll also test diffusing the light and play more with reflecting light as well. I wonder if I should use a brighter single light source? If so, what do you recommend? I'd prefer to avoid the expense of a strobe setup so I'm curious what other options there are.

I should say that I have tilted very slightly the base that the product sits on to light the surface of the paper a bit.

I'll increase the distance of the piece from the lights but it has seemed that there isn't enough light further away. But, I'll test this too.

I'll post results soon. Thanks again.

Joshua

Thanks so much for your comments on the restoration. That's great that you restore woodworking equipment! It really is a time consuming but very rewarding process. Thanks again for your assistance and best of luck to you in your pursuits.

Try getting one of those halogen 500 watt work lights. You may want to consider cutting the protection grid from the worklite. The further you have it from your subject, the more contrasty the lighting will appear. Also, it will even out the lighting differences. Try using white fiberglass furnace filters (cheap kind) for your diffusers. They won't have the tendency to catch fire, like paper diffusers might.

Use a white card, or foil card as "fill" reflectors. Again, the further the main lite is from the subject, the more effective the reflectors will be.

Have fun! You are on the right track!
--
John

jjdewitt said:

I'm new to product photography and need to take pictures of paper products that I have letterpress printed. The printed image is recessed in the paper and it's important that I capture this detail as best as possible.

So, I'm looking for a camera/lense/lighting setup to mamimize the quality of the images for my website.

I have bought for this purpose an Olympus E-PL1 camera with an Olympus Zuiko 35mm F/3.5 Macro lense (and adapter). I am willing to upgrade to an SLR if needed but purchased this setup thinking that it will achieve what I am hoping.

Click to expand...

That should be quite enough camera and lens; a DSLR would not gain you anything. I use a DSLR for macro and closeup and always use live view, which is the default for the E-PL1.

jjdewitt said:

For lighting, I have two clamp lights from Home Depot, each with 250W bulbs in it. They are 3,000 Kelvin approx.. I have a light box that I have built with a white interior (foam core). I am not currently diffusing the light but believe that I may need to.

It would be greatly appreciated if you can look at the pic of the printed piece and provide feedback on how it can be improved. This is the original file without any post work.

Would diffusing the lighting help?

Click to expand...

I don't know. It's something you should try. Every subject is different. This one's completely new to me.

jjdewitt said:

Would the shot be improved by getting an SLR with a macro lense? I really would like to know if I am compromising the quality of the shot by not getting an SLR. If an SLR is the way to go, which Canon or Nikon and lense do recommend?

Click to expand...

Again, you have a perfectly satisfactory macro camera and lens; there would be no noticeable improvement with a Canon or Nikon.

jjdewitt said:

The two lights are at (almost) the same level as the printed piece to enhance the impression of the image into the paper. Is there a better approach with the lighting to improve this effect? I have found that if I introduce any other lights at a higher level, the details of the impression are lost.

Lastly, the image feels grainy. Is this typical for macro shots? Ho

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "grainy". There's some paper texture, but that's actually there.

I would try to light the paper evenly (keep the lights at a distance) but not symmetrically (have one light nearer than the other). This will create some shadows in the relief areas.

jjdewitt said:

Thanks so much for any assistance with this. It is really appreciated.

Click to expand...

--
Leonard Migliore

jjdewitt said:

Thanks so much, Peter.

I'll explore using one light source more. I have found that the object doesn't seem sufficiently lit when using just one. I'll also test diffusing the light and play more with reflecting light as well. I wonder if I should use a brighter single light source? If so, what do you recommend? I'd prefer to avoid the expense of a strobe setup so I'm curious what other options there are.

I should say that I have tilted very slightly the base that the product sits on to light the surface of the paper a bit.

I'll increase the distance of the piece from the lights but it has seemed that there isn't enough light further away. But, I'll test this too.

I'll post results soon. Thanks again.

Joshua

Click to expand...

May I say that it's the balance between your two light sources which is important. Both their position and relative brightness. You need a key light to get the exposure and depth of field required for the shot and a weaker fill light at a different angle to give the desired modelling effect or shadow.

jjdewitt said:

I wonder if I should use a brighter single light source? If so, what do you recommend? I'd prefer to avoid the expense of a strobe setup so I'm curious what other options there are.

I'll increase the distance of the piece from the lights but it has seemed that there isn't enough light further away. But, I'll test this too.

Click to expand...

Assuming that your fixtures are of Edison E27 socket type I'd suggest to replace the bulb(s) with CFLs of high power and with a good CRI (larger than 80) rating. E.g. this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fluorescent-Studio-Photo-Daylight-Day-Light-Bulb-105W-2-/120614016372?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c1527d574

Cool but bright enough
--
cheers, Peter
Germany

Leonard Migliore said:

jjdewitt said:

I'm new to product photography and need to take pictures of paper products that I have letterpress printed. The printed image is recessed in the paper and it's important that I capture this detail as best as possible.

So, I'm looking for a camera/lense/lighting setup to mamimize the quality of the images for my website.

I have bought for this purpose an Olympus E-PL1 camera with an Olympus Zuiko 35mm F/3.5 Macro lense (and adapter). I am willing to upgrade to an SLR if needed but purchased this setup thinking that it will achieve what I am hoping.

Click to expand...

That should be quite enough camera and lens; a DSLR would not gain you anything. I use a DSLR for macro and closeup and always use live view, which is the default for the E-PL1.

Leonard Migliore said:

For lighting, I have two clamp lights from Home Depot, each with 250W bulbs in it. They are 3,000 Kelvin approx.. I have a light box that I have built with a white interior (foam core). I am not currently diffusing the light but believe that I may need to.

It would be greatly appreciated if you can look at the pic of the printed piece and provide feedback on how it can be improved. This is the original file without any post work.

Would diffusing the lighting help?

Click to expand...

I don't know. It's something you should try. Every subject is different. This one's completely new to me.

Click to expand...

Long, thin light. A 2 foot foot fluorescent sandwiched between two black cards is my favorite trick for "popping" textured art paper.

Leonard Migliore said:

Leonard Migliore said:

Would the shot be improved by getting an SLR with a macro lense? I really would like to know if I am compromising the quality of the shot by not getting an SLR. If an SLR is the way to go, which Canon or Nikon and lense do recommend?

Click to expand...

Again, you have a perfectly satisfactory macro camera and lens; there would be no noticeable improvement with a Canon or Nikon.

Click to expand...

We have a different way of looking at things. The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the pictures, especially the second one where he did a high magnification detail of a couple of letters, is how much a tilt shift lens like the Canon 90mm TS/E or Nikon 85mm PC-E would have helped those shots.

The big problem there, is we're talking a $1500 lens.

Leonard Migliore said:

Leonard Migliore said:

The two lights are at (almost) the same level as the printed piece to enhance the impression of the image into the paper. Is there a better approach with the lighting to improve this effect? I have found that if I introduce any other lights at a higher level, the details of the impression are lost.

Lastly, the image feels grainy. Is this typical for macro shots? Ho

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "grainy". There's some paper texture, but that's actually there.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The big problem is that the light source is too small, it's acting like a point. That causes light to refract within paper fibers and adds color to the sparkles (which I find to be a beautiful effect, sometimes, but easy to get tired of). A larger light source will kill that effect. But it can't be taller, or you lose the texture of the intaglio. So, long and thin, like a strip light.

And a bargain striplight can be made with a 2 foot commercial fixture and two black cards.

Leonard Migliore said:

I would try to light the paper evenly (keep the lights at a distance) but not symmetrically (have one light nearer than the other). This will create some shadows in the relief areas.

Click to expand...

That too.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

I love the press, I ran lithograph machines for eight years. Would love to run your machine.

I can remember about thirty years ago we still had a print shop useing that type of press, run by a father and son, the son was 71 years old and I have no idea how old the fahter was. By the way thier machine was hand operated no electric motor, amazing.
Dennis

Shoplights have two big problems - uneven lighting and HEAT. You can compensate for the former with a diffuser, but the heat can melt/burn your subject and certainly ignite a diffuser!

I do a lot of product photography in a medical equipment company - including having to shoot very small items and capturing the texture on the surface of small parts. My primary set up uses a copying standand a set of four CFL flood lights (two on each side) - I can adjust the angle/direction of each of the four bulbs to change the lighting balance. Unfortunately, it is hard to find a good, cheap, copying stand with a light set these days (although Adorama has one for about $200).

But the nice thing about digital is you can try lots of things and see the results immediatley.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Leonard Migliore said:

Again, you have a perfectly satisfactory macro camera and lens; there would be no noticeable improvement with a Canon or Nikon.

Click to expand...

We have a different way of looking at things. The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the pictures, especially the second one where he did a high magnification detail of a couple of letters, is how much a tilt shift lens like the Canon 90mm TS/E or Nikon 85mm PC-E would have helped those shots.

The big problem there, is we're talking a $1500 lens.

Click to expand...

Yes, tilt-shift. I hadn't considered that, but it's clearly the best way to go. You did, however, note that it's a non-trivial expense.

I was just looking at macro image quality with standard macro lenses; I didn't consider the entire universe of available optics.

Leonard Migliore

Thanks again to each of you for your assistance.

I have continued to test this and haven't yet find the right lighting solution. While I understand that this issue hasn't necessarily been the camera, I did upgrade to a Nikon D90 and also picked up a macro Nikon 60mm lense (exchanged my originally purchased Olympus EPL1).

I have tested various lighting options but nothing yet has produced the results that I am looking for. I have tried a 250W Eiko photo floodlight to the right near the plane of the subject with another (same) light to the left, about 2 feet above and further away.

I have also tested halogen work lights but definitely agree that they produce uneven lighting and are very hot. I have tested diffusing both light sources with a furnace filter (thanks for the tip).

I've also tested trying to create a DIY strip box/light to control the light spill and keep it on a horizontal plane.

Through my testing, and with additional research, I'd like to achieve a harder shadow as in the attached reference pictures. I'd prefer this to be with a continuous lighting setup but am open to a flash/etc. solution as well.

My challenge has been that without diffusing the light, I am unable at this time to create an even lighting across the subject. When I diffuse, the light becomes too soft.

So, I'm trying to achieve lighting that is very similar to those in the attached pics (with a harder, more contrasting shadow, to show the impression in the paper).

I am considering a few options now (see below) but could really use additional feedback on what the best lighting setup is to achieve this kind of lighting/shadow (one of these two solutions or something else).

1. softbox without diffuser
http://store.tabletopstudio-store.com/kuhl30.html

2. nikon sb0600 speedlight flash

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Flashes/4802/SB-600-AF-Speedlight.html

Any additional assistance with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.

Josh

Trying to achieve the following. These are not my pictures:

You have white halos around the characters. It doesn't look right to my eye, nor pleasing. Here's an example that uses a different technique:



(Found by putting "embossed printing" into Google Images.)

You see the shadows on one side of the characters, white on the other side. Also, both are clearly on the sides of the characters, not around them. This is probably connected to the fact that the tops and bottoms have neither. Colored paper helps create the effect.

No, I don't know how to do this, except for the obvious point that the crucial light comes solely from the right side at an apparent angle of perhaps 30 degrees.

Also, you might try an Unsharp Mask with a large radius (20 pixels) at a moderate amount (50% strength). It brings out realistic detail.

Charles2 said:

You have white halos around the characters. It doesn't look right to my eye, nor pleasing. Here's an example that uses a different technique:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VCELKnFl-T8/TBBp7FQpcPI/AAAAAAAAADA/-spwSmq6a_I/s200/embossed.jpg

(Found by putting "embossed printing" into Google Images.)

You see the shadows on one side of the characters, white on the other side. Also, both are clearly on the sides of the characters, not around them. This is probably connected to the fact that the tops and bottoms have neither. Colored paper helps create the effect.

Click to expand...

His are around the characters because his characters go into the paper, they're not raised, like in your example.

And they're not pressed into a hard edge, they're struck, and the paper curves gently away from the struck letter. Any angle more than about 60 degrees from perpendicular will illuminate the opposite edge of the sunken letters, forming the white. But in order to have a sharp, well defined black edge, he'd need to have a very shallow grazing light, almost parallel to the paper.

Charles2 said:

No, I don't know how to do this, except for the obvious point that the crucial light comes solely from the right side at an apparent angle of perhaps 30 degrees.

Also, you might try an Unsharp Mask with a large radius (20 pixels) at a moderate amount (50% strength). It brings out realistic detail.

Click to expand...

?

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

jjdewitt said:

I have tried a 250W Eiko photo floodlight to the right near the plane of the subject with another (same) light to the left, about 2 feet above and further away.

Click to expand...

Main rule: one source only. When set from, say, 7 foot distance it will light the subject area quite evenly.

Look at the examples, it's a sharp projected light, meaning very low stray light. The least expensive source I can suggest is an ETC Par: ($ 160 +HPL bulb and plug)
http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/etcsofoparpa.html

--
cheers, Peter
Germany