Single light small product photography tutorial

[Scott W.]

Nick

Some browsing material: calumet
I buy virtually all of my photo supplies from them.

Scott W.

Thank  you sir I will look right now. Note*  Dang it - there site is down for a while it seems.

What's your take on the cube Scott?

Nickao

I have something similar for shooting reflective objects and you can do some cool things with glass but for your purpose I doubt if it would be to useful. I hardly ever use mine any more.

I'm definitely not a pro! I just got tired of paying one and waiting... so I jumped in with zero prior experience.
I shoot about 1200 catalog and ad photos a year of everything from glass to fabric and wood. I built a small studio for this purpose and use a scanning back by better light which I have had for several years now (not portable) I use it with a 4 x 5 and balcar(?sp) daylight florescent lighting.

If I were you, I would start with a backdrop or two or seamless (seamless paper is inexpensive) a decent light and a reflector or two.

Scott W.

 

[Ned]

Do you think that cube could improve my pics using the digital camera I have?

Nickao

Didn't answer this directly.  I think that if you follow John's approach--that is, put serious work into setting up and thinking about the lighting--and use a tripod (if you're not already), you will see your current camera delivering noticeably better results.

You can start off for cheap, as John describes.  If that gives you good consistent results, you're done.

If you buy lighting and light control stuff, know that that money won't be wasted even if you end up upgrading your camera.  Again, if you like the results, you're done.

The camera and lens are the last (not as in never, as in final) items I'd buy.

I did all my eBay stuff with a Canon A60 point-and-shoot, with a spec so low I don't think you can buy one today that isn't better.  I upgraded to a dSLR only when the A60 could not do the job.  You simply cannot photograph jewelry without manual control of the focus, and the A60's close-up ability wasn't too great.

Ned

 

[Ned]

I'm definitely not a pro! I just got tired of paying one and waiting... so I jumped in with zero prior experience.
I shoot about 1200 catalog and ad photos a year of everything from glass to fabric and wood. I built a small studio for this purpose and use a scanning back by better light which I have had for several years now (not portable) I use it with a 4 x 5 and balcar(?sp) daylight florescent lighting.

Scott W.

Scott, if you're not a pro, what are you?  Sure sound like a pro to me.

Ned

 

[nickao]

Yes, I am going to get every thing to set up and squeeze the most out of my existing cameras. Hopefully I can get away with them. If not, I really want the digital SLR anyway.

You guys are great help, thanks!

Nickao

 

[nickao]

I was just writing, then changed screen and those teeth freaked me out for a second!

Hey where did they go?

nickao

 

[Ned]

Bwaa haa haa...

Nick, try refreshing the screen (F5 will do it).  You'll eventually see the teeth.

Ned

 

[Scott W.]

Scott, if you're not a pro, what are you?  Sure sound like a pro to me.

Ned

Ned, I've never had a minute of training and I don't do it for $$ (or for others)  . I'm a business owner who has to get out two 120-140 page catalogs a year and two 24-36 page "sale flyers". We also run ads in trade magazines which is another 24-30 shots a year.  I just got tired of always waiting on the photographers & their grips I hired. They would get maybe 10 -12 shots a day. It took all my time doing catalogs . And the cost was getting out of hand.
Were their shots better? Some of them - no doubt! Did they sell more products? I don't think so. Do I screw some up? absolutely . But now I can shoot, typeset, proof and send it of to the printer in less than half the time, which actually leaves me time to run the business.

Scott W.

 

[Michael Kellough]

Ned I am intrigued by that cube. The 55" is 175.00.

The problem with taking pics Bam bam bam is that I do not make the projects that fast.  I do have  an entire room available just to set up a permanent photo area.
I want a simple and fast setup instead of cheap or inexpensive and time consuming.
Do you think it will help me?

Do you think that cube could improve my pics using the digital camera I have?
I know I will need lighting too.

Nickao

I'm inclined to think you should follow John's advice.  After trying the cube approach, I'm now on the path John was talking about. 

I mentioned a sterling silver spoon.  The d***d thing's nothing but a funny-shaped mirror.  If you're not careful, the entire room will be visible as a reflection in the spoon.  The cube was helpful by completely surrounding the spoon and guaranteeing no hot spots.  I even went so far as to take a piece of foamboard, cut a lens-sized hole and tape it to the front of the camera.  Combination peep hole/reflector.  Even more sophisticated would be a split-prism so that I could illuminate the subject completely, without seeing the lens at all.  Haven't done that yet.  The spoon, small and troublesome, was a good use for the cube.

What the cube does is diffuse the light.  I don't think it would be comfortable for you to use, just plain awkward.  For you, I think the ideal would be a large softbox, providing a lot of even light.  I'm no pro, but that opinion is based on trying to do good shots of large book covers (glossy, flat) and being driven batty by reflections that were clearly the lights, even with their (small) diffusion covers on.

[attachimg=1]

Not bad for eBay, but not pro.  Critiques welcome.

But back to Nick's problem.  I think what you want is large, diffuse light source(s).  You can create your own transluscent screens (vellum paper, plastic pipe).  You can try building your own softboxes (try Google).  You can buy a ready-made softbox.  As always, good manufactured softboxes have a lot of engineering in their apparently simple construction--like the MFS.

BTW, the actual light generator is a separate question.  A softbox or home-built screen is just a diffuser.  Another choice you get to make is the source of the light--halogen worklights, incandescent photofloods, fluorescents, flash, and on into more exotic types.  A softbox can be used with photofloods, fluorescents, or flash (assuming the box is rated for the heat of the photofloods).  I think this whole light type subject needs to be a separate thread.

You're lucky, really.  The subject won't be moving (won't even swing forever as earrings do when I hang them).  It's flat, so depth of field isn't a problem.  I think the only things you need to work on are lighting and repeatability.

Ned

What's wrong with the book pic? That hot spot on the lower left? The main advantage of the copy stand configuration is the near elimination of hot spots. The lights are inclined 45 degrees to the surface and the camera is 90 degrees to the flat object on the copy stand so the camera is never equal to the angle of incidence of the light and there will not be a problem with reflections if the light source is fairly narrow. You got a hot spot because the camera was not perpendicular to the subject and was too close to the angle of incidence of the light to the left/rear. Broadening the light source with diffusion also increases the angles if incidence and increases the likelihood of seeing hot spots in the subject.

It is sometimes beneficial to diffuse the light in order to soften an otherwise unavoidable hot spot. You can also put a Polaroid filter over the light and another on the lens and reduce the hot spot. In the case of this book you could also change to a less reflective surface (like cloth). A convex surface between the light source and the camera (the book jacket wrapping around the edge) is always going to present a hot spot. Since it isn't a plane the polaroid stuff will not be very effective.

 

[Ned]

Michael, you're clearly an amateur.  Just like Scott. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Was photographer one of your past lives?

Ned

 

[johne]

for those interested in lighting solutions like the cube etc. you should check out the Lastolite product line
For example this light tent is like a closed cube with a hole for the lens.
They have many good and relatively cheap products. They also offer foldable softboxes. (Easy to store)http://www.lastolite.com/lighttents.php

 

[johne]

I have had a table top of liquor and perfume bottles (Pan Am inlfight store)

Let me guess, John, this has nothing to do with photography?  The liquor was for courage and the perfume to make you smell better after all that liquor?  Am I right? ;D ;D

Actually one of the perks of photography is that in many instances the product photographed does not need to be returned (like in the shot below)
Maybe i should apply at Festool to photograph their products, who knows maybe they have the same policy ;D

 

[Michael Kellough]

I have had a table top of liquor and perfume bottles (Pan Am inlfight store)

Let me guess, John, this has nothing to do with photography?  The liquor was for courage and the perfume to make you smell better after all that liquor?  Am I right? ;D ;D

Actually one of the perks of photography is that in many instances the product photographed does not need to be returned (like in the shot below)
Maybe i should apply at Festool to photograph their products, who knows maybe they have the same policy ;D

From what I've seen of your work John we would all benefit if you shot Festool's stuff. But something makes me think they wouldn't give you as much time to set up a shot of an ETS 125 as you got for the Jameson 
(Someone did do a very nice job shooting the new (to NA) trim router on the front page of festoolusa.com.)

A friend was producer/director of a commercial for Sears appliances. They wouldn't supply the appliances he had to rig for the commercial, he had to go to a store and buy them. Justifiably annoyed at that he held an appliance yard sale for the benefit of the crew immediately upon completion of shooting while the Sears people where still on the set. 

Another friend has been doing mechanical effects on a series of commercials for Whirlpool appliances. Whirlpool does supply the products for him to animate. This involves gutting the machines to make doors open and close, make the machines hop up and down, and add interior lighting etc. After the shoot Whirlpool sends a truck (or two) to take the stuff away. The last time they didn't take the stuff away and he was able to reassemble several top of the line units so he replaced the old stuff in his apartment. Some of the old appliances had been in place a very long time and there was a disgusting accumulation of grime behind them. He said the dust puppies had dreadlocks 

 

[Dave Rudy]

Dave--

If you need web-quality shots rather than portfolio-grade shots, a tent or cube might be a good answer.

Thanks Ned.  I appreciate the advice.  I will try it.  It looks like Johne creates his own cube using diffusing material, whereas the cube comes pre-packaged and ready to use.  Do I have that right?

Dave

The d***d thing's nothing but a funny-shaped mirror.  If you're not careful, the entire room will be visible as a reflection in the spoon.

Kind of like the Vice President's sun glasses?

Some browsing material:  calumet

When I sold camera equipment back in the -- a few decades ago -- Calumet was the manufacturer of a series of wonderful large-format cameras -- complete with bellows, articulating back plate, articulating lens-mount plate, etc.  How times have changed!

Maybe i should apply at Festool to photograph their products, who knows maybe they have the same policy ;D

A TS-55 might be a little hard on the digestion, though.

 

[Dan Clark]

Dave,

I've done some large (4x5) and medium (6x4.5) format work.  It's fun and teaches you a lot, but man what a hassle! 

With large format especially, loading and saving the film can be a pain.  And the you have to get the negatives processed and images enlarged.  If you want to manipulate it in PhotoShop, you have to scan the image (which is a hassle and expensive). 

I don't regret moving to digital one bit.  I'm having lot's more fun.  And, even if you get a high-end camera like a Nikon D3, the long term cost is much less than film if you're taking a fair number of images.

Regards,

Dan.

 

[Ned]

I've done some large (4x5) and medium (6x4.5) format work.

Uh, Dan, are those numbers right?  Medium seems bigger than large. 

BTW, you can get digital backs for those cameras.  All you need is money.  Lots of money.

Ned

 

[clintholeman]

Yep.  4 X 5 is in inches.  6 X 4.5 is in mm.

 

[Dan Clark]

Ned,

4 X 5 refers to inches, while 6 X 4.5 (and 6 X 7 and 6 X 6) are centimeters.  It's just the names that have been used for a long time. 

Bob Swenson mentioned a digital back for the Mamiya RZ67 (nice camera).    Here's a  Phase One Digital Back.  Nothing like a 39 megapixel camera to get all of that great detail.  Price?  Well, if you have to ask, yada, yada...  I think it's about $30,000.   

Oh, you want a camera with your digital back!?!  Sorry, that's an optional extra!

Regards,

Dan.

 

[Ned]

Thanks Ned.  I appreciate the advice.  I will try it.  It looks like Johne creates his own cube using diffusing material, whereas the cube comes pre-packaged and ready to use.  Do I have that right?

Dave

Absolutely.  Johne's example is much more flexible, and as I've said, I've headed in that direction.

A cube is more limited, but if you've got a small problem subject, I'd reach for the cube first.  Especially if you're after ordinary grade commercial work.  You can do better work without a cube, but the cube gets you to "acceptable" much more quickly for some kinds of subjects.  I do not mean to sound condescending--like the discussion on tolerances elsewhere on FOG, we've each got to decide what's good enough for a particular situation.  Something like a sewing machine foot (or a Festool) needs to be shown clearly, like documentation, and the image can't have flaws that non-photographers notice, because that would distract the customer.  To go beyond that would be to waste effort.

Selling Nick's stuff involves a bit more emotion since its value is primarily its beauty, and so the effort put into making the images as attractive as possible is justified.

Jewelry is highly emotional.  It demands what my wife and I call "jewelry porn".  The images should not merely document the object, they need to make the object look irresistible.  You have to do this because nobody needs jewelry, they have to want it.  I'm not there yet.

Food photography--you know, the kind where a hamburger looks luscious, looks like no food you're seen in real life--is food porn.  And there's car porn.  What they have in common is that while centered on something real, they portray an attractive fantasy.  That fantasy can be either a hyper-real appearance of the object, whether a hamburger or a necklace, or suggesting the implications of the object, for instance draping an attractive woman over an automobile.

Ned

 

[Michael Kellough]

Ned,

4 X 5 refers to inches, while 6 X 4.5 (and 6 X 7 and 6 X 6) are centimeters.   It's just the names that have been used for a long time. 

Bob Swenson mentioned a digital back for the Mamiya RZ67 (nice camera).    Here's a  Phase One Digital Back.   Nothing like a 39 megapixel camera to get all of that great detail.   Price?   Well, if you have to ask, yada, yada...  I think it's about $30,000.   

Oh, you want a camera with your digital back!?!  Sorry, that's an optional extra!

Regards,

Dan.

Often abbreviated further to "645". You probably already concluded that the RZ67 is 60mm by 70mm. A lot of people don't like the square format of Hasselblad and the older twin-lens reflex cameras. 6X9 is the format I like, or rather, can afford. I'd rather shoot 5X7 (inches) but the cost/hassle is prohibitive. I do like the deliberative process of using a view camera though.

 

[Dan Clark]

Ned,

4 X 5 refers to inches, while 6 X 4.5 (and 6 X 7 and 6 X 6) are centimeters.  It's just the names that have been used for a long time. 

Bob Swenson mentioned a digital back for the Mamiya RZ67 (nice camera).    Here's a  Phase One Digital Back.  Nothing like a 39 megapixel camera to get all of that great detail.  Price?  Well, if you have to ask, yada, yada...  I think it's about $30,000.   

Oh, you want a camera with your digital back!?!  Sorry, that's an optional extra!

Regards,

Dan.

Often abbreviated further to "645". You probably already concluded that the RZ67 is 60mm by 70mm. A lot of people don't like the square format of Hasselblad and the older twin-lens reflex cameras. 6X9 is the format I like, or rather, can afford. I'd rather shoot 5X7 (inches) but the cost/hassle is prohibitive. I do like the deliberative process of using a view camera though.

Michael,

I actually rented an RZ67 and a Fuji 6X9.  VERY nice cameras, but very special purpose.  I owned a Fuji 645 iWide for a while.  Also a very nice camera, but very special purpose.  I sold it to get my first digicam - a Sony DSC-F505V.  Far less camera, but far more fun!

Regards,

Dan.