Are LEDs rated CRI >93 good enough for product photography?

[Deorum]

I'm a pro-sports photographer for the past 10 years or so, but during the pandemic i started shotting some small-sized products for catalogs.I never "sold" myself as an expert to product photography, on the contrary, but the client insisted on me doing the job since he would take the photos on his own anyway, so i though why not.

Long story short, i started with 2 remote flashes and various light-modifiers. All good, but there is always better. I slowly discovered some areas that could use some impovement. So i switched to LEDs (some GODOX sl-60w)Since i'm not super experienced with studio lighting, and having 2 speedlights and light modifiers i needed a lot of experimenting before reaching the result i was expecting. I needed to move things around and then take a photo to see the result, something that was time consuming and not very "educating" if i can say.LEDS let you see in real time the result on the photo.Most importantly with LEDs i can focus stack (R6 has an auto focus stack setting) because i shot with 100m macro (mostly) and some products no matter the F setting are not totally focused. (not to mention the lower IQ at F22 or so). Focus Stacking is a god-sent and huge benefit.

I know that Leds produce much less light than Flashes, but i did some calculations and it should be enought. After all no i can stay at F7.1 for example -i can focus stack- instead of F16-F18. And this worked fine, light was enough.

The problem; The quality of light.

My flashes are rated at 93 CRI. This was a term i wasn't familiar with tbh. I knew White Balance of course something easily corrected. I noticed that my previous setup (speedlight) photos simply looked "richer". Very subtle effect, but still is there. Nothing too crazy, photos are perfectly acceptable and correctable, but i was wondering if there is room for improvement, in case anyone is more experienced.

Is CRI 93% good enought for professional catalog shoting? Should i aim for CRI 96-97+ as advertised in some better Led lights?I really don't want to return to flash photography, and i don't want to invest in studio flashes that have modelling light, since the LED lamps i will have will also be used in videos etc.

thank you in advance

 

[Klaus dk]

I'm a pro-sports photographer for the past 10 years or so, but during the pandemic i started shotting some small-sized products for catalogs.I never "sold" myself as an expert to product photography, on the contrary, but the client insisted on me doing the job since he would take the photos on his own anyway, so i though why not.

Long story short, i started with 2 remote flashes and various light-modifiers. All good, but there is always better. I slowly discovered some areas that could use some impovement. So i switched to LEDs (some GODOX sl-60w)Since i'm not super experienced with studio lighting, and having 2 speedlights and light modifiers i needed a lot of experimenting before reaching the result i was expecting. I needed to move things around and then take a photo to see the result, something that was time consuming and not very "educating" if i can say.LEDS let you see in real time the result on the photo.Most importantly with LEDs i can focus stack (R6 has an auto focus stack setting) because i shot with 100m macro (mostly) and some products no matter the F setting are not totally focused. (not to mention the lower IQ at F22 or so). Focus Stacking is a god-sent and huge benefit.

I know that Leds produce much less light than Flashes, but i did some calculations and it should be enought. After all no i can stay at F7.1 for example -i can focus stack- instead of F16-F18. And this worked fine, light was enough.

The problem; The quality of light.

My flashes are rated at 93 CRI. This was a term i wasn't familiar with tbh. I knew White Balance of course something easily corrected. I noticed that my previous setup (speedlight) photos simply looked "richer". Very subtle effect, but still is there. Nothing too crazy, photos are perfectly acceptable and correctable, but i was wondering if there is room for improvement, in case anyone is more experienced.

Is CRI 93% good enought for professional catalog shoting? Should i aim for CRI 96-97+ as advertised in some better Led lights?I really don't want to return to flash photography, and i don't want to invest in studio flashes that have modelling light, since the LED lamps i will have will also be used in videos etc.

thank you in advance

To understand why LED colours are different, you could look up "black body radiators", "metamerism", and "LED colour spectrum". CRI is determined by how humans perceive the light, not by actual measurements, so there's more to it than meets the eye — literally.

Good luck and good light.

 

[Deorum]

Thanx for the answer.
I need a lot of theory studying to do, i have grasped the basic concept. At least i believe so...

But will a light of 97% CRI translate to a worthy upgrade?Does anybody have any practical experience with it? Is 3-4% enough to matter?




George Spyros,
www.georgespyros.com / www.energyphotos.gr

 

[Klaus dk]

Thanx for the answer.
I need a lot of theory studying to do, i have grasped the basic concept. At least i believe so...
But will a light of 97% CRI translate to a worthy upgrade?Does anybody have any practical experience with it? Is 3-4% enough to matter?

George Spyros,
www.georgespyros.com / www.energyphotos.gr

It won't matter until it does. I depends on how critical colour rendering is to the products you shoot.

If you had "grasped the basic concept", you would understand why the question can't be answered with a yes or no.

Good luck and good light.

 

[Ed Shapiro]

I'm a pro-sports photographer for the past 10 years or so, but during the pandemic i started shotting some small-sized products for catalogs.I never "sold" myself as an expert to product photography, on the contrary, but the client insisted on me doing the job since he would take the photos on his own anyway, so i though why not.

Long story short, i started with 2 remote flashes and various light-modifiers. All good, but there is always better. I slowly discovered some areas that could use some impovement. So i switched to LEDs (some GODOX sl-60w)Since i'm not super experienced with studio lighting, and having 2 speedlights and light modifiers i needed a lot of experimenting before reaching the result i was expecting. I needed to move things around and then take a photo to see the result, something that was time consuming and not very "educating" if i can say.LEDS let you see in real time the result on the photo.Most importantly with LEDs i can focus stack (R6 has an auto focus stack setting) because i shot with 100m macro (mostly) and some products no matter the F setting are not totally focused. (not to mention the lower IQ at F22 or so). Focus Stacking is a god-sent and huge benefit.

I know that Leds produce much less light than Flashes, but i did some calculations and it should be enought. After all no i can stay at F7.1 for example -i can focus stack- instead of F16-F18. And this worked fine, light was enough.

The problem; The quality of light.

My flashes are rated at 93 CRI. This was a term i wasn't familiar with tbh. I knew White Balance of course something easily corrected. I noticed that my previous setup (speedlight) photos simply looked "richer". Very subtle effect, but still is there. Nothing too crazy, photos are perfectly acceptable and correctable, but i was wondering if there is room for improvement, in case anyone is more experienced.

Is CRI 93% good enought for professional catalog shoting? Should i aim for CRI 96-97+ as advertised in some better Led lights?I really don't want to return to flash photography, and i don't want to invest in studio flashes that have modelling light, since the LED lamps i will have will also be used in videos etc.

thank you in advance

I do a good volume of product work- small items, electronics, food and beverage, household, decorating times, etc.

I generally use electronic flash, mainly because my studio is so equipped for many years. The equipment I have has modeling lams so I can pre-visualize my lighting, the flash is consistent as to color temperature there's sufficient illumination for adequate depgh of field, use of modifiers (softboxes, etc.), and no issues with blur due to camera or subject movement. Color balance back in the film/color transparency era was very critical so the spectral properties of the light source were equally critical.

Frankly, nowadays with digital equipment and in-camera white balance control, I oftentimes find I can 'get away with murder" with previously problematic light sources. I have shot at industrial locations with mixed light, sodium-vapor lamps with discontinous spectrumS, every manner of LEDs, and all kinds of strange stuff and was still able to come up with an acceptable color rendition of the main subject.

Havig said that I would think that your LEDS should continue to serve you well as long as you are satisfied with color rendition and have adequate lig volume to accommodate ty modofires and depth of field.

Of course, a lot depends on what you are shooting, and what the clients require as to sharpness, color accuracy, and degree of enlargement. In small print ads or online catalogs, I wouldn't worry about diffraction. For large display prints, billboards, etc, you mig consider a tilt lens to enable more DOP at wider apertures as opposed to the need for a focus stack in post-processing.

With static subjects and a sturdy tripod, you can use lower ISO settings, longer exposures, and more advantageous apertures.

In the olden days with transparency film there was a lot of filtration required. The film came with a requirement for a basic filter pack due to variations in the emulation batches. Long exposure, bellows extension, introduces reciprocity law failure which required even more filtration. The filter packs introduced neutral density- all of this suckered up light, so a 2400 or 4000-watt-second falsh system was not overkill just to get f/11 through a large softbox.

If you have a chance. post a shot or two and I may have a few suggestions.

Ed Shapiro- Commercial and Portrait Photographer. Ottawa, Ontario Canada

 

[stateit]

A good rule of thumb is that tungsten is 100% CRI. Not many other light sources reach that. Xenon flash tubes do as well, with a bit of filtering.

LED lighting with a claimed CRI>93 from a major manufacturer should be good for that, but you pay for it. From a no-name cheap manufacturer, then it may well not be a CRI >93.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

I've switched to LED for all my closeup/product photography and purchased a few high CRI lamps to use on lightstands with umbrellas & softboxes. They are rated at 93 to 96. Even with two that are rated at 96 CRI there are slight differences which I try to eliminate with CC filters, and it works quite well.

What I've noticed is that the differences are no more than what I see between different umbrellas. COB lamps have improved greatly in the last couple of years.

I find the convenience with LED's outweighs the subtle color issues and just make minor corrections with pp.

--
DS

 

[Deorum]

I've switched to LED for all my closeup/product photography and purchased a few high CRI lamps to use on lightstands with umbrellas & softboxes. They are rated at 93 to 96. Even with two that are rated at 96 CRI there are slight differences which I try to eliminate with CC filters, and it works quite well.

What I've noticed is that the differences are no more than what I see between different umbrellas. COB lamps have improved greatly in the last couple of years.

I find the convenience with LED's outweighs the subtle color issues and just make minor corrections with pp.

 

[Klaus dk]

This article from videomaker.com explains why the uneven spectrums of fluorescent and LED lights play tricks with colour rendering.

 

[jazja]

depending on your requirements.

definitely not for top quality.

 

[jlafferty]

The rating you want is TLCI, and a number above 96 preferably.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

For this photo, I used a 60W Smith-Victor daylight LED lamp through a diffusion screen. I checked the specs and this lamp has a CRI of 92.... I do no color correction with this lamp.

Color accuracy is excellent compared to the subject matter as seen on my calibrated monitor. I think you can have confidence in today's LED lighting.



--
DS

 

[jlafferty]

Try shooting 1) a human subject; 2) anything red. You'll see the failings of LEDs with a CRI below 95 pretty quickly.

For this photo, I used a 60W Smith-Victor daylight LED lamp through a diffusion screen. I checked the specs and this lamp has a CRI of 92.... I do no color correction with this lamp.

Color accuracy is excellent compared to the subject matter as seen on my calibrated monitor. I think you can have confidence in today's LED lighting.

--

JIM LAFFERTY

Jim Lafferty is a New York based commercial photographer shooting beauty, fashion & movement.

jimlafferty.com

Evocative beats academic.

 

[jlafferty]

 

[Darrell Spreen]

Try shooting 1) a human subject; 2) anything red. You'll see the failings of LEDs with a CRI below 95 pretty quickly.

I think you may be expressing the views of those who have developed a general bias against LED lighting.

I've been using my lights for portraiture and many different types of "product" shots for quite a while with no problems. I consider neutrals to be the best indicator of color accuracy:







--
DS

 

[jlafferty]

Not at all. I have, and sometimes still do, shoot with LEDs. But I'm also keen to see and express things in a way that's refined over time.

I have two Godox LEDs, the VL150 and 300. They're decent. They're rated CRI96/TLCI96. I've shot them side by side, same subject, with my AD600Pro strobes, which are, if I recall correctly, CRI 100. The difference is there, and it's - to my eye and my needs - obvious, and not appealing. It can't be corrected with gels, or with color wheels or added saturation in post.

I've since added a Nanlite FS300, rated CRI96/TLCI98, and skin looks perceptibly better when I use it as the key.

Try shooting 1) a human subject; 2) anything red. You'll see the failings of LEDs with a CRI below 95 pretty quickly.

I think you may be expressing the views of those who have developed a general bias against LED lighting.

I've been using my lights for portraiture and many different types of "product" shots for quite a while with no problems. I consider neutrals to be the best indicator of color accuracy:

--

JIM LAFFERTY

Jim Lafferty is a New York based commercial photographer shooting beauty, fashion & movement.

jimlafferty.com

Evocative beats academic.

 

[Deorum]

Creating a custom color profile with an x-rite passport, does it help in this situation?

 

[jlafferty]

I think you should test with your intended product and see what suits your needs and tastes. The issue I’m referring to will not be corrected with a color profile. My bet is that you won’t notice it for some, or maybe most of your work, but when it shows up you won’t be able to do anything about it.

CRI96 would be the minimum I’d work with, and that might be fine for your work. It’s also pretty affordable. But the FS300 light that I have, which I’m happiest with… that went on a crazy steep sale ($229) and will likely do so again. Just have to keep your eyes open, maybe set alerts at a vendor’s website, get on their discount mailing list. I didn’t notice where you are but for me that’s Adorama and B&H. I got mine at Adorama during a seasonal lighting sale, which comes around every year.

You are also at a cost advantage given that you’re doing still life in that you can buy a lower powered light and simply run a slower shutter speed from a tripod. Aputure makes a killer $170 light that might be perfect for you. I’ll dig up a review. The FS-200, also TLCI98, goes for around $220.

--
http://jimlafferty.com
Evocative beats academic.

 

[jlafferty]

Now $150:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1667782-REG/amaran_apa0209a10_cob_60d.html