Product shots, critique?

Duncan C · Apr 21, 2003

Folks,

I have been busy for the past 6 months or so learning all I can about product photography, and specifically, photographing costume jewelry. I practiced for quite a while. Now I've been busy photographing jewelry for my wife's online store.

I have a few samples of some of the earlier work in a small PBase gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/jewelry_pictures

The bulk of the work is in my wife's online store at Ruby Lane:

http://www.rubylane.com/shops/d-and-l-vintage/ilist/,id=0.html

I'd be eager to hear critiques from the working pros in this forum who do product photography. I'm pretty pleased with the results I'm getting, but am sure there's room for improvement. Paul Bowers, I'd be especially interested in hearing your thoughts.

The website I'm targeting uses quite small pictures (464 wide at max, arbitrary height) and my wife and her partner seem to prefer a black background. I use black velvet, go over it vigorously with a lint brush, and still have lots of touchup work to do in PS. (Lint is a PAIN!)

The worst thing about this site is that they recompress the images I submit. I try to keep my images at around 120k-150k, but they get compressed down to 25-30k, which really causes them to suffer. Sigh...

I shoot with a Nikon D1x, and shoot tethered to my laptop using Nikon's capture software. This lets me review my shots immediately and adjust the lighting as needed. I have a pair of Elenchrom Style 300S strobes with lightstands, umbrellas, medium softboxes, and various diffusers/reflectors, plus a snoot.

I've found it helpful to divide the jewelry into roughly 2 groups: Pieces with opalescent stones and/or large mirror-like surfaces, and pieces without those things and faceted stones.

For the mirrorlike or opalescent pieces, I use carefully placed combinations of direct flash, softbox, umbrella, diffuser, and flat white reflector.

For the pieces with faceted cut glass or gemstones, I tend to use either a point light source from near camera position, or strobes fired into crumpled foil. I took one of my umbrellas and lined it with crumpled foil, and also took a good-sized piece of foamcor, sprayed it with adhesive spray, and glued crumpled foil to one side of it. This reflector is easy to flip around depending on weather I need specular light (the foil side) or soft, broad light (the flat white side).

I've found that a combination of point sources and the shiny, speckled light from the crumpled foil helps to put some sparkle in the stones.

For a few pieces that had maddening combinations of different surfaces, I've had to resort to shooting them twice, once under the speckled light of the foil reflector, and once under the softer light of the softbox & white reflector. I then combined the two images in Photoshop. Jeweled silver or platinum watches are about the worst for this. I don't have the luxury or budget to have the crystals removed, so I have to be very careful about glare.

Duncan C
--
dpreview and PBase supporter.

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc

drew adipietro · Apr 21, 2003

Your shots look very good, for some reason the photos in your pbase portfolio are not loading for me (probably an issue on my end).

For your lint issue, however, have you tried lifting the pieces off the background (I would assume that now they're resting on it) with, say, a stick that would be out of view. This will allow you to throw some of the lint out of focus, as well as allow you to light your pieces more separately from the background.

Maybe this is what you're already doing though?

-Drew

Duncan C said:
Folks,

I have been busy for the past 6 months or so learning all I can
about product photography, and specifically, photographing costume
jewelry. I practiced for quite a while. Now I've been busy
photographing jewelry for my wife's online store.

I have a few samples of some of the earlier work in a small PBase
gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/jewelry_pictures

The bulk of the work is in my wife's online store at Ruby Lane:

http://www.rubylane.com/shops/d-and-l-vintage/ilist/,id=0.html

I'd be eager to hear critiques from the working pros in this forum
who do product photography. I'm pretty pleased with the results
I'm getting, but am sure there's room for improvement. Paul Bowers,
I'd be especially interested in hearing your thoughts.

The website I'm targeting uses quite small pictures (464 wide at
max, arbitrary height) and my wife and her partner seem to prefer a
black background. I use black velvet, go over it vigorously with a
lint brush, and still have lots of touchup work to do in PS. (Lint
is a PAIN!)

The worst thing about this site is that they recompress the images
I submit. I try to keep my images at around 120k-150k, but they get
compressed down to 25-30k, which really causes them to suffer.
Sigh...

I shoot with a Nikon D1x, and shoot tethered to my laptop using
Nikon's capture software. This lets me review my shots immediately
and adjust the lighting as needed. I have a pair of Elenchrom Style
300S strobes with lightstands, umbrellas, medium softboxes, and
various diffusers/reflectors, plus a snoot.

I've found it helpful to divide the jewelry into roughly 2 groups:
Pieces with opalescent stones and/or large mirror-like surfaces,
and pieces without those things and faceted stones.

For the mirrorlike or opalescent pieces, I use carefully placed
combinations of direct flash, softbox, umbrella, diffuser, and flat
white reflector.

For the pieces with faceted cut glass or gemstones, I tend to use
either a point light source from near camera position, or strobes
fired into crumpled foil. I took one of my umbrellas and lined it
with crumpled foil, and also took a good-sized piece of foamcor,
sprayed it with adhesive spray, and glued crumpled foil to one side
of it. This reflector is easy to flip around depending on weather I
need specular light (the foil side) or soft, broad light (the flat
white side).

I've found that a combination of point sources and the shiny,
speckled light from the crumpled foil helps to put some sparkle in
the stones.

For a few pieces that had maddening combinations of different
surfaces, I've had to resort to shooting them twice, once under the
speckled light of the foil reflector, and once under the softer
light of the softbox & white reflector. I then combined the two
images in Photoshop. Jeweled silver or platinum watches are about
the worst for this. I don't have the luxury or budget to have the
crystals removed, so I have to be very careful about glare.

Duncan C
--
dpreview and PBase supporter.

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc

Louise Parrish · Apr 21, 2003

Duncan

This is what I am aspiring to do, you certainly, in my eyes did a very good job in photographing stones, which I have found out is not so easy to do.

Have you tried Foam Core Board (Black) at Staples, it might be easier to lift the piece with putty or some such thing, it also gives it dimension, of course no lint. Keep it up and thenks for thre turorial..
--
Louise Parrish
CP5000
PBase Supporter

Doug Cody · Apr 21, 2003

I don't see the need to lift the item above the base since its black and there's very minor, if almost no-existant shadowing from the bottom side. its almost floating as-is. Maybe a glass top table with black baseboard would give less shadow, but not much. its a great shot.

..Doug

louise parrish said:
Duncan

This is what I am aspiring to do, you certainly, in my eyes did a
very good job in photographing stones, which I have found out is
not so easy to do.
Have you tried Foam Core Board (Black) at Staples, it might be
easier to lift the piece with putty or some such thing, it also
gives it dimension, of course no lint. Keep it up and thenks for
thre turorial..
--
Louise Parrish
CP5000
PBase Supporter

Alfred · Apr 22, 2003

duncan,

i do not feel too comfortably critiquing you, as you do a way better job than i did in this regard.

however, just a few thoughts (which might or might not result in better pics

some stones/gems could use a "throughlight", as they seem dead if taken with frontal light (here is an example)
http://www.rubylane.com/ni/shops/d-and-l-vintage/iteml/D-013

another way that could be worth the hassle to investigate: PS-filters-render-lighting effects ...

here is a shot that i took (flash bounced into white towel in my bathroom) ... but with some (subtil) lighting effects in PS ... Of course you have to start out with a photo that is already of good qual.

(again, by no means a "best practice" example, but you get the idea)

hope this helps, and btw thx for your tutorial!!!

alfred

Duncan C said:
Folks,

I have been busy for the past 6 months or so learning all I can
about product photography, and specifically, photographing costume
jewelry. I practiced for quite a while. Now I've been busy
photographing jewelry for my wife's online store.

I have a few samples of some of the earlier work in a small PBase
gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/jewelry_pictures

The bulk of the work is in my wife's online store at Ruby Lane:

http://www.rubylane.com/shops/d-and-l-vintage/ilist/,id=0.html

I'd be eager to hear critiques from the working pros in this forum
who do product photography. I'm pretty pleased with the results
I'm getting, but am sure there's room for improvement. Paul Bowers,
I'd be especially interested in hearing your thoughts.

The website I'm targeting uses quite small pictures (464 wide at
max, arbitrary height) and my wife and her partner seem to prefer a
black background. I use black velvet, go over it vigorously with a
lint brush, and still have lots of touchup work to do in PS. (Lint
is a PAIN!)

The worst thing about this site is that they recompress the images
I submit. I try to keep my images at around 120k-150k, but they get
compressed down to 25-30k, which really causes them to suffer.
Sigh...

I shoot with a Nikon D1x, and shoot tethered to my laptop using
Nikon's capture software. This lets me review my shots immediately
and adjust the lighting as needed. I have a pair of Elenchrom Style
300S strobes with lightstands, umbrellas, medium softboxes, and
various diffusers/reflectors, plus a snoot.

I've found it helpful to divide the jewelry into roughly 2 groups:
Pieces with opalescent stones and/or large mirror-like surfaces,
and pieces without those things and faceted stones.

For the mirrorlike or opalescent pieces, I use carefully placed
combinations of direct flash, softbox, umbrella, diffuser, and flat
white reflector.

For the pieces with faceted cut glass or gemstones, I tend to use
either a point light source from near camera position, or strobes
fired into crumpled foil. I took one of my umbrellas and lined it
with crumpled foil, and also took a good-sized piece of foamcor,
sprayed it with adhesive spray, and glued crumpled foil to one side
of it. This reflector is easy to flip around depending on weather I
need specular light (the foil side) or soft, broad light (the flat
white side).

I've found that a combination of point sources and the shiny,
speckled light from the crumpled foil helps to put some sparkle in
the stones.

For a few pieces that had maddening combinations of different
surfaces, I've had to resort to shooting them twice, once under the
speckled light of the foil reflector, and once under the softer
light of the softbox & white reflector. I then combined the two
images in Photoshop. Jeweled silver or platinum watches are about
the worst for this. I don't have the luxury or budget to have the
crystals removed, so I have to be very careful about glare.

Duncan C
--
dpreview and PBase supporter.

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc

--

=================
http://www.pbase.com/abudschitz
=================

Alfred · Apr 22, 2003

another thing i forgot ... i work in marketing for a food-company ... and when we take food shots, some pros use plenty of shattered mirror pieces (different sizes and forms) to reflect the main light and shoot some sparkles across the product... this could also be a way to direct sparkles and create through-light

b.r.
alfred

Alfred said:
duncan,

i do not feel too comfortably critiquing you, as you do a way
better job than i did in this regard.

however, just a few thoughts (which might or might not result in
better pics

some stones/gems could use a "throughlight", as they seem dead if
taken with frontal light (here is an example)
http://www.rubylane.com/ni/shops/d-and-l-vintage/iteml/D-013

another way that could be worth the hassle to investigate:
PS-filters-render-lighting effects ...

here is a shot that i took (flash bounced into white towel in my
bathroom) ... but with some (subtil) lighting effects in PS ... Of
course you have to start out with a photo that is already of good
qual.

(again, by no means a "best practice" example, but you get the idea)

hope this helps, and btw thx for your tutorial!!!

alfred

Paul M Bowers · Apr 22, 2003

Wow. A critic. I feel somehow elevated!

I think the stuff looks great. You've done a fine job here, well controlled, good attention to shape, form and texture, excellent color, although I really would not know if these are't accurate, so forget that. But I'll bet they are. A very complicated shoot that I think is executed exceptionally well.

I do have a few suggestions, although they are purely subjective, and very easy to make as I was not fighting these images as much as you have been.

I think they are technically quite accurate, but are missing a little dazzle. There has already been the suggestion of using mirrors, and I'll reflect that suggestion. (ha-ha, that's punny). The images might dazzle a bit with the addition of more specularity. I can tell when an images is a little over-worked, they look extremely accurate, but not as "exciting" as they could. The easy way to achieve this is to shoot a very bright exposure to blow the specular highlights, then add that exposure as a masked layer and "paint" in the dazzle. I understand the images need to be accurate to give the customer information on which they will make a buying decision, but the overriding need is to SELL them. And that means they need some sizzle with the steak or grilled tofu. You can use the same technique for the watch faces. Just take away any light-usually it's the broad light, the softbox or the panel- that reflects in the crystal, and shoot an exposure for the face only without any glare on the surface of the crystal. Then use that exposure as a masked layer. This will also let the customer see if there are any scratches on the crystal, but provide a good, solid view of the face. Got it?

Personally, I do not like to see softboxes in convex surfaces. I'd like to see a panel with a diffuse highlight, That would also make your life easier making texture pop. Here's an example of the difference:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=4119786

I went to the site, and like the zoom feature, but I suggest higher rez files. The detail for which you worked so hard does not show well, the file falls apart real fast. I understand there are loading time issues, but if you are going to use the zoom feature, it should pay off for the customer. Each level of zoom should bring more detail- this will help eliminate product returns, a big cost in mail order businesses.

Does that help? Am I too picky? Thanks again for the compliment of asking my opinion- it's a good way to start my day.

p

PS- It's SO much easier to take out lint in post than using the roller brushes.--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

Peter Weitzner · Apr 22, 2003

Paul M Bowers said:
Wow. A critic. I feel somehow elevated!

I think the stuff looks great. You've done a fine job here, well
controlled, good attention to shape, form and texture, excellent
color, although I really would not know if these are't accurate, so
forget that. But I'll bet they are. A very complicated shoot that
I think is executed exceptionally well.

I do have a few suggestions, although they are purely subjective,
and very easy to make as I was not fighting these images as much as
you have been.

I think they are technically quite accurate, but are missing a
little dazzle. There has already been the suggestion of using
mirrors, and I'll reflect that suggestion. (ha-ha, that's punny).
The images might dazzle a bit with the addition of more
specularity. I can tell when an images is a little over-worked,
they look extremely accurate, but not as "exciting" as they could.
The easy way to achieve this is to shoot a very bright exposure to
blow the specular highlights, then add that exposure as a masked
layer and "paint" in the dazzle. I understand the images need to
be accurate to give the customer information on which they will
make a buying decision, but the overriding need is to SELL them.
And that means they need some sizzle with the steak or grilled
tofu. You can use the same technique for the watch faces. Just
take away any light-usually it's the broad light, the softbox or
the panel- that reflects in the crystal, and shoot an exposure for
the face only without any glare on the surface of the crystal.
Then use that exposure as a masked layer. This will also let the
customer see if there are any scratches on the crystal, but provide
a good, solid view of the face. Got it?

Personally, I do not like to see softboxes in convex surfaces. I'd
like to see a panel with a diffuse highlight, That would also make
your life easier making texture pop. Here's an example of the
difference:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=4119786

Paul, thanks for such a great illustration of soft box vs. diffusion panel. As you know, I've been using the panel on my large double bass shots and I think I'd have a ton of problems with shapes and hot spots if I was using a soft box or just umbrellas (as I had in the past). You are a treasure to these boards.

Peter

Paul M Bowers said:
I went to the site, and like the zoom feature, but I suggest higher
rez files. The detail for which you worked so hard does not show
well, the file falls apart real fast. I understand there are
loading time issues, but if you are going to use the zoom feature,
it should pay off for the customer. Each level of zoom should
bring more detail- this will help eliminate product returns, a big
cost in mail order businesses.

Does that help? Am I too picky? Thanks again for the compliment
of asking my opinion- it's a good way to start my day.

p

PS- It's SO much easier to take out lint in post than using the
roller brushes.--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

Duncan C · Apr 22, 2003

Paul M Bowers wrote:
Paul, thanks for the lengthy and informative reply.

I'll have to try working with panels. So far I've been using foamcor reflectors and direct lights. I have one small folding diffuser that I use sometimes, but haven't done much else with scrims.

I gather that panels give softer highlights because the light on the panel feathers at the edges rather than having a sharp line like a softbox or umbrella? Can I get a similar effect shooting a strobe into a foamcor panel? I know I'll lose a lot more light, but I've got 300 WS strobes, and the jewelry I'm shooting is quite small, so I've got PLENTY of light. I guess the panels need to be pretty big in order to get the softening effect of the light falling off at the edges?

Paul M Bowers said:
Wow. A critic. I feel somehow elevated!

LOL. I've seen your work. You're good, and you do it all day. I'm just a dedicated amateur.

Paul M Bowers said:
I think the stuff looks great. You've done a fine job here, well
controlled, good attention to shape, form and texture, excellent
color, although I really would not know if these are't accurate, so
forget that. But I'll bet they are. A very complicated shoot that
I think is executed exceptionally well.

Wow, I'm honored.

Paul M Bowers said:
I do have a few suggestions, although they are purely subjective,
and very easy to make as I was not fighting these images as much as
you have been.

I think they are technically quite accurate, but are missing a
little dazzle. There has already been the suggestion of using
mirrors, and I'll reflect that suggestion. (ha-ha, that's punny).

Do you use pieces of broken mirrors? If yes, how do you handle and place mirror shards? Do you have tons of little articulated arms to hold them? how do you store and transport them without cutting yourself, and what do you do about the little bits of broken glass that result.

Also, I've seen pictures of some of your setups, and you seem to have lots of articulated mirror holders, scrim and flag holders, etc. Where do you get these? Do you clamp them to your table, or attach them to your lightstands? I have some trouble with the legs of my lightstands getting tangled in each other, since I've got my lights in very close, and use other lightstands for holding reflectors, diffusers, etc.

Paul M Bowers said:
The images might dazzle a bit with the addition of more
specularity. I can tell when an images is a little over-worked,
they look extremely accurate, but not as "exciting" as they could.
The easy way to achieve this is to shoot a very bright exposure to
blow the specular highlights, then add that exposure as a masked
layer and "paint" in the dazzle. I understand the images need to
be accurate to give the customer information on which they will
make a buying decision, but the overriding need is to SELL them.
And that means they need some sizzle with the steak or grilled
tofu. You can use the same technique for the watch faces. Just
take away any light-usually it's the broad light, the softbox or
the panel- that reflects in the crystal, and shoot an exposure for
the face only without any glare on the surface of the crystal.
Then use that exposure as a masked layer. This will also let the
customer see if there are any scratches on the crystal, but provide
a good, solid view of the face. Got it?

Got it. I'll have to try. One problem is that many of these pieces sell for $20-$30, and my wife isn't paying me. Thus, it doesn't pay to spend an hour on one piece.

When I've overexposed faceted stones, I've had whole facets go white, and get blown out. How do you avoid that when your doing a layered picture? What I really want is highlights on the edges of facets, and starburst reflections. I guess I could add some of that in post, but that seems to cross the line to misrepresentation in my eyes.

Paul M Bowers said:
Personally, I do not like to see softboxes in convex surfaces. I'd
like to see a panel with a diffuse highlight, That would also make
your life easier making texture pop. Here's an example of the
difference:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=4119786

I went to the site, and like the zoom feature, but I suggest higher
rez files. The detail for which you worked so hard does not show
well, the file falls apart real fast. I understand there are
loading time issues, but if you are going to use the zoom feature,
it should pay off for the customer. Each level of zoom should
bring more detail- this will help eliminate product returns, a big
cost in mail order businesses.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, this site comresses the cr*p out of the pictures I submit, and I don't have any control over it. The pictures I give them are a little over 100k, and the site recompresses them down to 20-30k. If I made the pixel dimensions much larger, I suspect the site would use even HIGHER levels of JPEG compression, and completely trash the pictures with JPEG artifacts. I posted a question to the site about file sizes, but they never answered.

Paul M Bowers said:
Does that help? Am I too picky? Thanks again for the compliment
of asking my opinion- it's a good way to start my day.

p

PS- It's SO much easier to take out lint in post than using the
roller brushes.--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

I do both. I use roller brushes to get rid of the worst of it, and end up STILL doing cleanup in post processing.

Duncan C
--
dpreview and PBase supporter.

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc

Paul M Bowers · Apr 22, 2003

Duncan C said:
I gather that panels give softer highlights because the light on
the panel feathers at the edges rather than having a sharp line
like a softbox or umbrella? Can I get a similar effect shooting a
strobe into a foamcor panel? I know I'll lose a lot more light, but
I've got 300 WS strobes, and the jewelry I'm shooting is quite
small, so I've got PLENTY of light. I guess the panels need to be
pretty big in order to get the softening effect of the light
falling off at the edges?

Yes. Yes and no. No.

Yes, the light feathers, or diffuses over the area of the panel, creating diffuse highlights. Yes, you can bounce a flash onto foamcore and get a similar effect, but it's not as hard or specular, and it will have a dark spot in the middle of the highlight from the flash. The panel either has to be very large, or very close to the product. For the stuff you are shooting, I'd use a 4x4.

Duncan C said:
Duncan C said:

Wow. A critic. I feel somehow elevated!

Click to expand...

I'm
just a dedicated amateur.

Perhaps, but clearly more dedicated than most.

Duncan C said:
Got it. I'll have to try. One problem is that many of these pieces
sell for $20-$30, and my wife isn't paying me. Thus, it doesn't pay
to spend an hour on one piece.

Actually, shooting two exposures will save you LOTS of time.

Duncan C said:
When I've overexposed faceted stones, I've had whole facets go
white, and get blown out. How do you avoid that when your doing a
layered picture? What I really want is highlights on the edges of
facets, and starburst reflections. I guess I could add some of that
in post, but that seems to cross the line to misrepresentation in
my eyes.

Ah! Yes, of course they blow out, and that is what you want. I don't think you are understanding the "blending" method. It's kind of complicated. What you want to do is open both images, the "correct" exposure, and the "hot" one.Grab the "hot" one and drag it over to the "correct one, and , holding the shift key, drop it onto the correct one. PS will automatically bring the hot one on a new layer. Click on the layer to select it, then go to the layer menu, and pull down to "add layer" , then over a little to "hide all". This will produce a layer mask that is all black, and hides the effect of the hot layer. You should now see th "correct" version on your screen, because the layer mask prevents the "hot" one from showng up. Ok. Then you should click on the black mask to select it, and use a brush with "white paint" to begin painting white onto the black layer mask. As you do so, the areas you are painting with "white" will reveal the "hot" layer, but gently. Set your opacity on the white brush to something like 30%, so you can gradually brush in ONLY the highlights precisely where you want them, in the exact amount. I probably confused the heck out of everybody with a bad explanation of the process, but give it a try.

Starbursts? Aaack! Don't do it. Put the cross screen filter down, and step away from the image! But putting speculat highlights where they naturally occur is not misrepresentation at all. Taking a picture is only a facsimilie of the actual object, and our jobs it to make them appear as much as possible like real life. The inability to have the specular highlights and detailed shadows in the same shot is a limitation of the process, and using the two-shot blend is a way to enhance to process.
p

PS: Yes, the stands tangle together and make a mess with the cords and other stuff. I use small mirrors or scraps, and I'll clamp them with bogen clamps, or lean them against dulling spray cans, or, for the small ones, I'll use a big glob of elephant snot (um- that sticky clay stuff for mounting posters to walls wihout damage) and stick the mirror on that and stick it down on the table.

p
--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

Alfred · Apr 22, 2003

Duncan C said:
Do you use pieces of broken mirrors? If yes, how do you handle and
place mirror shards? Do you have tons of little articulated arms
to hold them? how do you store and transport them without cutting
yourself, and what do you do about the little bits of broken glass
that result.

try plasticilin (?) ... the moldable children's toy (sorry, my english s*cks) ... if nothing else, get a big box of chewing gum (i am NOT kidding)

Duncan C said:
Also, I've seen pictures of some of your setups, and you seem to
have lots of articulated mirror holders, scrim and flag holders,
etc. Where do you get these? Do you clamp them to your table, or
attach them to your lightstands? I have some trouble with the legs
of my lightstands getting tangled in each other, since I've got my
lights in very close, and use other lightstands for holding
reflectors, diffusers, etc.

i have seen shot-glasses with (tall) butter-paper rolled up in it to fight off some hot spots, also with some smoke-colored plastic foil ... its just enough to take out a stop or two on a given area

Duncan C said:
I agree with you. Unfortunately, this site comresses the cr*p out
of the pictures I submit, and I don't have any control over it. The
pictures I give them are a little over 100k, and the site
recompresses them down to 20-30k. If I made the pixel dimensions
much larger, I suspect the site would use even HIGHER levels of
JPEG compression, and completely trash the pictures with JPEG
artifacts. I posted a question to the site about file sizes, but
they never answered.

try to downsize the photos for yourself. its better YOU control this variable in a high qual program like PS, than somebody who couldnt care less re-directs your .jpg into a poor resampling algorithm ... send the same file w/ file-sized from 20 - 300kb and see for yourself ... which comes out best

alfred
--

=================
http://www.pbase.com/abudschitz
=================

robertfel · Apr 22, 2003

paul,

i remember your great post comparing panels and softboxes. it led me purchasing a large scrim jim kit (i think i got a good price, $325ish).

however, what is the difference between a large softbox with no inner baffle which is not recessed and a medium size panel?

i would think the effect would be similar, other than the sides of the box reflecting back more light. i had planned to run a test, but i'm swamped. any ideas?

thanks,

robert

Paul M Bowers said:
Yes, the light feathers, or diffuses over the area of the panel,
creating diffuse highlights. Yes, you can bounce a flash onto
foamcore and get a similar effect, but it's not as hard or
specular, and it will have a dark spot in the middle of the
highlight from the flash. The panel either has to be very large,
or very close to the product. For the stuff you are shooting, I'd
use a 4x4.

Paul M Bowers · Apr 22, 2003

robertfel said:
however, what is the difference between a large softbox with no
inner baffle which is not recessed and a medium size panel?

The focus of the light source. A panel will have a bright spot in the center, gradually diffusing towards the edges. A softbox, the light just bounces all over the place, and while it's not perfectly even form edge to edge, its much closer than a panel.

especially if you use a fresnel light behind it.

p--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

Duncan C · Apr 22, 2003

Paul M Bowers said:
Yes, the light feathers, or diffuses over the area of the panel,
creating diffuse highlights. Yes, you can bounce a flash onto
foamcore and get a similar effect, but it's not as hard or
specular, and it will have a dark spot in the middle of the
highlight from the flash. The panel either has to be very large,
or very close to the product. For the stuff you are shooting, I'd
use a 4x4.

4 feet by 4 feet? Wow, that's a big panel for such small pieces.

If I'm using foamcore, I light it from the side, and accept an oval shaped highlight. This avoids the shadow of the flash. I figured it wouldn't be as hard or specular as a diffuser. Sounds like it's time to buy or build some diffuser panels. I have a 42" 5-in-1, but I guess it isn't big enough. How much do the scrim-jims you like cost?

Paul M Bowers said:
Perhaps, but clearly more dedicated than most.

Golly-gee, such praise.

Thanks for the kind words.

Paul M Bowers said:
Paul M Bowers said:

When I've overexposed faceted stones, I've had whole facets go
white, and get blown out.

Click to expand...

Ah! Yes, of course they blow out, and that is what you want. I
don't think you are understanding the "blending" method. It's kind
of complicated...

[snip]

Paul M Bowers said:
I probably confused the heck out of
everybody with a bad explanation of the process, but give it a try.

I know the process well. I used it on a couple of the jeweled watch pictures, and blended shots to get decent sparkle on the stones without too much glare on the watch crystals. I just find it time-consuming to blend images when I'm shooting 20, 30 or more pieces at a stretch.

Paul M Bowers said:
Starbursts? Aaack! Don't do it. Put the cross screen filter
down, and step away from the image! But putting speculat
highlights where they naturally occur is not misrepresentation at
all. Taking a picture is only a facsimilie of the actual object,
and our jobs it to make them appear as much as possible like real
life. The inability to have the specular highlights and detailed
shadows in the same shot is a limitation of the process, and using
the two-shot blend is a way to enhance to process.
p

LOL!

My problem is with the type of highlights I get. Lots of the stones I'm shooting have a big flat facet perpendicular to the camera angle, and these tend to blow out to a white large circle. I don't like the way that looks.

Paul M Bowers said:
PS: Yes, the stands tangle together and make a mess with the cords
and other stuff. I use small mirrors or scraps, and I'll clamp
them with bogen clamps, or lean them against dulling spray cans,
or, for the small ones, I'll use a big glob of elephant snot (um-
that sticky clay stuff for mounting posters to walls wihout damage)
and stick the mirror on that and stick it down on the table.

Elaphant snot?!? ROFL! (Rolling On The Floor Laughing) We call it sticky-tack. (I think that may be a trade name.) Where'd you get the name elaphant snot? That's too funny. I think I'll go into my local camera store or craft store and ask for a big bucket 'o elaphant snot, and see what they say.

Other photographers use a glop they call Ghee, that's made from modeling clay mixed with gum eraser. I gather it's a little stiffer than elaphant snot.

Don't you use clams on arms also? I think I remember seeing lots of mirrors, scrims, gobos, and other whatsits on articulated boom arms in some of your pics of your setups.

Duncan C

Paul M Bowers · Apr 22, 2003

Duncan C said:
4 feet by 4 feet? Wow, that's a big panel for such small pieces.

It lets you have a little room to work. It would be about 18-30 inches from the product.

Duncan C said:
How much do the scrim-jims you like
cost?

Way too much. A 4x4 kit is a little over $300

Duncan C said:
My problem is with the type of highlights I get. Lots of the stones
I'm shooting have a big flat facet perpendicular to the camera
angle, and these tend to blow out to a white large circle. I don't
like the way that looks.

Yes, and that's why you kill the broad lights. If you are just using point sources, the big, milky areas won't be there. Just little pinpoint spots that you can remove easily. And the hard light will drive the stone's color a lot more than a diffuse source.

Duncan C said:
Don't you use clams on arms also?

Clams? Arms on clams? Bivalves? Nah, I prefer oysters.

Yes, I use a lot of those clamps and magic arms. I really like c-stands with arms. But these are really expensive, and on this forum I try to keep it reasonable for folks like you to do these things. You really don't need to buy the big stuff if you are only doing it once in a while. It's a waste of $.

20-30 pieces? Heck, I'd get a light tent and call it good. Then pour a very, very cold Belvedere martini. Lemon, not olives.

p
--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

robertfel · Apr 22, 2003

Paul M Bowers said:
Way too much. A 4x4 kit is a little over $300

dtcgrip is having a moving sale. you can try them for less.

Paul M Bowers said:
20-30 pieces? Heck, I'd get a light tent and call it good.

some more established friends have been recommending these for the quick and cheap jobs. is there one you recommend?

Duncan C · Apr 22, 2003

Paul M Bowers said:
Paul M Bowers said:

How much do the scrim-jims you like
cost?

Click to expand...

Way too much. A 4x4 kit is a little over $300

Gadzooks, batman, that's a lot for a diffuser panel. Sounds like it's time to get a white translucent shower curtain or some rip-stop nylon and build a wood frame.

Do you think the diffuser from my 42" 5-in-one would make a decent panel for what you describe?

Paul M Bowers said:
Paul M Bowers said:

My problem is with the type of highlights I get. Lots of the stones
I'm shooting have a big flat facet perpendicular to the camera
angle, and these tend to blow out to a white large circle. I don't
like the way that looks.

Click to expand...

Paul M Bowers said:
Yes, and that's why you kill the broad lights. If you are just
using point sources, the big, milky areas won't be there. Just
little pinpoint spots that you can remove easily. And the hard
light will drive the stone's color a lot more than a diffuse source.

Huh. Would you suggest snooting my strobe for this, then? Or using a speedlight, even, for a really small point source?

Paul M Bowers said:
Paul M Bowers said:

Don't you use clams on arms also?

Click to expand...

Paul M Bowers said:
Clams? Arms on clams? Bivalves? Nah, I prefer oysters.

Funny typo. The articulated clams. Sounds like an obscure rock band.

Paul M Bowers said:
Yes, I use a lot of those clamps and magic arms. I really like
c-stands with arms. But these are really expensive, and on this
forum I try to keep it reasonable for folks like you to do these
things. You really don't need to buy the big stuff if you are only
doing it once in a while. It's a waste of $.

I'd like to get at least 1 c-stand and magic arm. Where do you get them, and what type do you recommend? And do you ever clamp your magic arms to your shooting table instead of c-stands? It would be good thing if I could lose a couple of my stands. As you mentioned in a previous post, the tangle of stand feet, cables, tripod feet, etc, get to be quite a mess.

I also am getting frustrated with my tripod. I have a decent bogen/manfrotto 'pod with a pistol-grip style ball-head, but it won't tighten down enough to hold my camera pointed down at an angle. (I shoot with a D1x, and frequently use a Tamron 28-105 f2.8, which is a big heavy lens. The combo is too much for the head.) Any suggestions on that front? I've thought about buying a moderate tilt-and-pan head, since I don't need the smooth panning action of a ballhead for this application.

Paul M Bowers said:
20-30 pieces? Heck, I'd get a light tent and call it good.

Doesn't a light tent give really flat, boring light? I've probably shot 150 pieces so far, and the light tent would sure be easier, but I fear I've already set the quality standard too high for that. My wife and her business partner would moan and complain. Then again, with what they're paying me...

Paul M Bowers said:
Then pour a very, very cold Belvedere martini. Lemon, not olives.

LOL. I'm not much of a martini drinker. I like a gin and tonic sometimes on a hot summer's day, but that's about the only time I drink gin. I'm a single malt scotch man myself. How about a nice tumbler of Lagavulin, neat? Actually, that sounds like a really good idea...

Duncan C
---

Paul M Bowers said:
p
--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

--
dpreview and PBase supporter.

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc

Paul M Bowers · Apr 22, 2003

Sounds like

Duncan C said:
it's time to get a white translucent shower curtain or some
rip-stop nylon and build a wood frame.

Functionally the same.

Duncan C said:
Do you think the diffuser from my 42" 5-in-one would make a decent
panel for what you describe?

I don't know what a 5-in-one is. I think it's the same fabric , translucent white sailcloth-like stuff? It should work fine. NOT if it's the black net stuff.

Duncan C said:
Duncan C said:

Duncan C said:

My problem is with the type of highlights I get. Lots of the stones
I'm shooting have a big flat facet perpendicular to the camera
angle, and these tend to blow out to a white large circle. I don't
like the way that looks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Duncan C said:

Yes, and that's why you kill the broad lights. If you are just
using point sources, the big, milky areas won't be there. Just
little pinpoint spots that you can remove easily. And the hard
light will drive the stone's color a lot more than a diffuse source.

Click to expand...

Huh. Would you suggest snooting my strobe for this, then? Or using
a speedlight, even, for a really small point source?

Nope. Just the bare strobe should be fine. If you have big, broad highlights with a bare strobe, you should change the angle of the stone anyway. But you have to do it for BOTH shots, not just one. Usually I just remove the panel.

Duncan C said:
I'd like to get at least 1 c-stand and magic arm. Where do you get
them, and what type do you recommend? And do you ever clamp your
magic arms to your shooting table instead of c-stands? It would be
good thing if I could lose a couple of my stands. As you mentioned
in a previous post, the tangle of stand feet, cables, tripod feet,
etc, get to be quite a mess.

I have five of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___243964___AVA205SCBK___REG___CatID=0___SID=F4F16204A60

plus three magic arms, 8 clamps, 3 of the little articulated arms, 5 "camera" mounts and lots of other gadgets to hold stuff with. I clamp a lot to the table, it works much better, but it's a bit more difficult to move the modifier from the camera position. I get the stands from Samy's camera in LA. I go on buying trips about twice a year up there, but usually I buy from B&H. I've gotten real lucky at the swap meet (my other passion) and got all my magic arms there. For about $5 each, over about 15 years.

Duncan C said:
I also am getting frustrated with my tripod. I have a decent
bogen/manfrotto 'pod with a pistol-grip style ball-head, but it
won't tighten down enough to hold my camera pointed down at an
angle. (I shoot with a D1x, and frequently use a Tamron 28-105
f2.8, which is a big heavy lens. The combo is too much for the
head.) Any suggestions on that front? I've thought about buying a
moderate tilt-and-pan head, since I don't need the smooth panning
action of a ballhead for this application.

I LOVE this head:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh6.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___109828___BO3275___REG___CatID=0___SID=F4F3608C390

For shooting small product with a dslr, this is the ticket. It's the first tripod head I've really thought did a good job. Ballheads work for a lot of people, but I'm not one of them. I use mine on location, but the 410 is still my favorite.

Duncan C said:
Doesn't a light tent give really flat, boring light? I've probably
shot 150 pieces so far, and the light tent would sure be easier,
but I fear I've already set the quality standard too high for that.
My wife and her business partner would moan and complain. Then
again, with what they're paying me...

Hey, I can't help you with that. You've provided the false economy for her, and there is no going back. Yes, a light tent is boring, flat and lifeless. I have one of my best accounts because their previous photographer used a light tent. The AD had had enough of that. But consider the opportunity cost (econ 101) of the photography you are doing, at a dirt cheap catalog rate, would be a minimum $100+ per shot. I figure you are doing this as part of a personal learning experience, and really don't care about the real economics of the project. I've never used a light tent or the plastic bubble, but if my wife was doing this project, I'd have her buy one. They do about an 80% job, which is probably enough in your situation. And they do it fast.

Duncan C said:
Duncan C said:

Then pour a very, very cold Belvedere martini. Lemon, not olives.

Click to expand...

I'm a single malt scotch man myself. How about a nice
tumbler of Lagavulin, neat? Actually, that sounds like a really
good idea...

Gives me the heartburn. That scotch will kill you.

I've got to get cooking. The wife is hungry, the kid is tired, and we need to get this dinner thing done. Kepp up the good work!

p

--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

john g · Apr 22, 2003

HI Duncan,

You seem to be doing quite well. You've got a common sense handle on it.

For flared crystals, keep in mind that you have Photoshop and can selectively increase the contrast in the face. It's nice and convenient to flare the entire facing of the watch, be gentle.

also, I would say that shooting on black makes for good contrast, but shadows and modulation add depth, so I favor backgrounds with tone.

But the reason I wrote is to tell you about a device of my own invention called "The Stinger".

I took apart a Lowel light and mounted the ceramic bulb socket on a metal and wood stick. I use an ESP bulb, and when it's mounted, I have a 16" stick with a bare bulb on the end. It's frightening, hence the name, "The Stinger".

This is the smallest light source I could make. Once I've lit for the jewelry, I insert The Stinger into the set and turn it on. It doesn't matter that I'm shooting strobe, the light mixes enough to kill the tungsten color. I adjust the shutter and aperture so that The Stinger adds only to the specular highlights.

Also, I like that you have only two lights. I light most jewelry with one light. My feeling is that it is all I need to 'cover' that size set. The rest is done with flags, diffusers, and cards.

PS- try some gold cards, not the shiney kind, they are green, the brushed 'florintine' type.

Good luck!

Duncan C said:
Folks,

I have been busy for the past 6 months or so learning all I can
about product photography, and specifically, photographing costume
jewelry. I practiced for quite a while. Now I've been busy
photographing jewelry for my wife's online store.

I have a few samples of some of the earlier work in a small PBase
gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/jewelry_pictures

The bulk of the work is in my wife's online store at Ruby Lane:

http://www.rubylane.com/shops/d-and-l-vintage/ilist/,id=0.html

I'd be eager to hear critiques from the working pros in this forum
who do product photography. I'm pretty pleased with the results
I'm getting, but am sure there's room for improvement. Paul Bowers,
I'd be especially interested in hearing your thoughts.

The website I'm targeting uses quite small pictures (464 wide at
max, arbitrary height) and my wife and her partner seem to prefer a
black background. I use black velvet, go over it vigorously with a
lint brush, and still have lots of touchup work to do in PS. (Lint
is a PAIN!)

The worst thing about this site is that they recompress the images
I submit. I try to keep my images at around 120k-150k, but they get
compressed down to 25-30k, which really causes them to suffer.
Sigh...

I shoot with a Nikon D1x, and shoot tethered to my laptop using
Nikon's capture software. This lets me review my shots immediately
and adjust the lighting as needed. I have a pair of Elenchrom Style
300S strobes with lightstands, umbrellas, medium softboxes, and
various diffusers/reflectors, plus a snoot.

I've found it helpful to divide the jewelry into roughly 2 groups:
Pieces with opalescent stones and/or large mirror-like surfaces,
and pieces without those things and faceted stones.

For the mirrorlike or opalescent pieces, I use carefully placed
combinations of direct flash, softbox, umbrella, diffuser, and flat
white reflector.

For the pieces with faceted cut glass or gemstones, I tend to use
either a point light source from near camera position, or strobes
fired into crumpled foil. I took one of my umbrellas and lined it
with crumpled foil, and also took a good-sized piece of foamcor,
sprayed it with adhesive spray, and glued crumpled foil to one side
of it. This reflector is easy to flip around depending on weather I
need specular light (the foil side) or soft, broad light (the flat
white side).

I've found that a combination of point sources and the shiny,
speckled light from the crumpled foil helps to put some sparkle in
the stones.

For a few pieces that had maddening combinations of different
surfaces, I've had to resort to shooting them twice, once under the
speckled light of the foil reflector, and once under the softer
light of the softbox & white reflector. I then combined the two
images in Photoshop. Jeweled silver or platinum watches are about
the worst for this. I don't have the luxury or budget to have the
crystals removed, so I have to be very careful about glare.

Duncan C
--
dpreview and PBase supporter.

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc

Louise Parrish · Apr 22, 2003

Duncan

Apart from my amiration for your work, thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a great deal from all this. Keep up the good work.

Afterthought: Where can I see photos of Paul Bowers studio. His Website is great. Thanks.
--
Louise Parrish
CP5000
PBase Supporter

Product shots, critique?

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Doug Cody

Guest

Alfred

Guest

Alfred

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Alfred

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts