Single light small product photography tutorial

[Michael Kellough]

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.

Earlier Ned asked if I'd done this professionally, I'd have to say not really, though it was one of my major subjects in art school (but that is very different from learning the craft of photography in a trade school) and shooting stuff for people was how I financed grad school but since then I don't shoot for hire very often. In school (back in millennium 1.975) all I could afford to shoot was slide film and camera meters where fairly primitive so I developed a good eye for reading the light. I bought Ektachrome in 100 ft. spools and processed it myself. I didn't even bother to put a shot in a cardboard mount unless it was "worth it" so obviously I wasn't very "pro" as far as income goes  I shot a lot back then but as I moved up in format shot less and less until I'd nearly stopped, except for travel pics with a Ricoh GR1. Like lots of people, digital cameras really revived my interest in personal photography.

 

[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

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 

Michael, nice story it seems that clients are alike all over the world . I liked the yardsale idea lol

 

[Dave Rudy]

I don't regret moving to digital one bit.  I'm having lot's more fun. 

I'm using a Nikon D200 which is about as good as it gets within reason from my perspective.  I won't live long enough to figure out all the menus.  Things I miss about 35mm or don't like about digital:

1. Darkroom fun
2. More resolution (I guess you can now get resolution that equals the finest 35mm film cameras, but I believe the cost is prohibitive.
3. Too much learning curve.  I won't live long enough to figure out photoshop.
4. Thousands of photos stuck in my computer waiting for me to find the time to "adjust" them.

Things I like about digital:

1. Instant review
2. Upfront cost offset by low continuing cost.
3. Shooting in raw allows me to remake the image later (if I ever find the time to learn Photoshop and adjust all my shots).

So it's a mixed bag.  Ten or fifteen years ago, I considered myself kind of high-tech.  Now, I find that I am less interested in paying the large price of long and difficult learning curves and complex sequences that once mastered are soon forgotten if not used every day.

Maybe it's an age-perspective kind of thing.

ANyway, the proof is in the pudding.  I no longer use film, only digital.  It's holding its own.

 

[Michael Kellough]

I don't regret moving to digital one bit.  I'm having lot's more fun. 

I'm using a Nikon D200 which is about as good as it gets within reason from my perspective.  I won't live long enough to figure out all the menus.  Things I miss about 35mm or don't like about digital:

1. Darkroom fun
2. More resolution (I guess you can now get resolution that equals the finest 35mm film cameras, but I believe the cost is prohibitive.
3. Too much learning curve.  I won't live long enough to figure out photoshop.
4. Thousands of photos stuck in my computer waiting for me to find the time to "adjust" them.

Things I like about digital:

1. Instant review
2. Upfront cost offset by low continuing cost.
3. Shooting in raw allows me to remake the image later (if I ever find the time to learn Photoshop and adjust all my shots).

So it's a mixed bag.  Ten or fifteen years ago, I considered myself kind of high-tech.  Now, I find that I am less interested in paying the large price of long and difficult learning curves and complex sequences that once mastered are soon forgotten if not used every day.

Maybe it's an age-perspective kind of thing.

ANyway, the proof is in the pudding.  I no longer use film, only digital.   It's holding its own.

Something about that just really makes me smile 
Somehow it reminds me of a Buster Keaton pratfall.

 

[Dan Lyke]

2. More resolution (I guess you can now get resolution that equals the finest 35mm film cameras, but I believe the cost is prohibitive.

I'd argue that the mid-range SLRs (6-8 "megapixel") are actually competing with Velvia, resolution-wise (slide film has slightly more resolution, but digital has less grain), and are certainly in the "you've either got to be using a tripod or shooting in direct sunlight" range,  and in either case are well above the capability of the lenses most people are hanging on them.

4. Thousands of photos stuck in my computer waiting for me to find the time to "adjust" them.

I found a set of transforms I liked by default and set up an ImageMagick script to do 'em to everything I upload. Punch the saturation by just a little bit, stretch the contrast out, tweak the gamma, and poof. I've had one or two images look really bad by default, but for the most part I've just come to grips with the notion that either I'm illustrating a point or doing fine art, and I only worry about pixel tweaking if I'd have been willing to spend the same amount of time in the darkroom.

The thing I most miss about film is that my 17-35/2.8 zoom is now an anemic 27-56 equivalent, at least until I can justify spending a few thousand bucks on a body with a full-frame sensor.

(Although I am thinking about trying to hack a scanner into a 4x5 or even 8x10 format back and building a Bender view camera kit for it. There's no way I can justify a BetterLight back, but I might be able to build the rough equivalent.)

 

[johne]

My thoughts on resolution. I believe for one that the whole resolution hype has not so much to do with the final quality of the prints you make. It is the lens that contributes most to image quality. In the digital realm where people either post their pictures on the internet or have regular size prints made high resolution is more of a disadvantage because you end up downsampling your images to screen resolution thus throwing away information. And for the prints most people make like a 10x15 cm or 13x 18cm a 2-3 megapixel camera would be more than adequate.

Camera manufacturers would like you to believe that by buying the latest and greatest your shots will significantly improve. They ll show you great brochures with the most amazing shots. There is a good chance that most of these shots were not even made with the camera that the brochure is about.

The first digital slr that i bought was the Canon d60 a six megapixel slr. The sensor was an APS size sensor (half the size of a normal 35mm frame). It had a CMOS sensor which was great because it stayed cooler than the CCD sensors nikon used at the time and therefore had much less noisy images. This becomes apparent with long exposures mainly.

6 meagapixels by todays standards is nothing but i could still get great looking double page printed adds out of this camera. Resolution is a bit more of a factor when your images go to print because screen resolution in offset printing is way higher than the resolution needed for an inkjet print. The largest print we ever did for a client was 4x 10 meters ( roughly 13 by 33 feet) this was for a trade show and looked way better than anything i would have gotten out of a traditional chemical print. Even when using the lowest iso film available.

The same sensor(chip) that was in that D60 camera, which cost over 3000 dollars (body only) was a few years later used in the 10d which sold for less than 1000 dollars. When i wanted to trade in my D60 2 years later they could offer no more than about 300 dollars for it. So beware camera's today are "vaporware"

I own a digital back on a 6x7 Mamiya wich i use in the studio only and a Cannon 5D full frame which has 12 megapixels but is not considered a pro camera. The canon 1DS mark 2 is but is twice the price. It has 17 megapixels but i dont need it. Most of the work i do is advertising photography that is used in print. Mots of this is A4 (21x 29.7cm or smaller) Then some twice that size A3. Bigger than that is more an exception than a rule. There is actually a tradeoff with higher resolution cameras and that is less dynamic range. (The amount of information between pure white and pure black). Manufacturers of dslr camera's have only 24x36mm space to put pixels in (the max size of the chip in a full frame dslr) but the problem is that if you make pixels smaller you lose dynamic range. So you may end up with an image that is bigger in size but worse in quality.

Any dslr with a resolution of 6 to 10 megapixels is more than enough for most peoples needs. I would go with one from Nikon or Canon or any company that is primarily a camera manufacturer. Because they have proven and tested lenses. I would invest more in a lens than in a body if i had to choose.

IMO the camera does not take the picture the guy/girl behind it does. I am quite sure that if we were to take a shot with a 7000 dollar dslr and then took the same shot with a 1000 dollar dslr using the same lens and sensor size, and had two prints made of  the same size, hardly anyone would see a difference if anybody.

The 7000 dollar body would stand up to every day abuse better but it would not take better pictures.

 

[Dan Lyke]

John, regarding resolution, I've got a Canon D60 and an el-cheapo HP point-n-shoot, that replaced a 2.1 megapixel Canon S100 point-n-shoot. The D60 produces really nice pictures. I'd take the lower resolution of the old Canon S100 over the HP any day. So, yeah, resolution is not the single perfect benchmark, and in film grain usually bothers me far earlier than resolution, mostly because resolution is limited by the lens far before the film.

And, yes, just as we see gorgeous woodwork turned out by guys with not much more than a pocket knife, rarely is gear the limiting factor either. It helps, but it's only a start.

 

[greg mann]

Like Dave, I am using a D200 and, also like Dave, will not live long enough to ever be limited by it. And, like Dan, I also find that virtually every great lens I have from my film days is a different and usually less desirable lens on the digital platform. Having said this, digital repays me by way of instant feedback and really cheap usage. I shoot with an entirely different mindset when film is not advancing through the camera at a cost that would make our present day gas purchases seem modest in comparison. I cannot say my work is any better or worse for the change but things happen faster, in other words; from camera to computer, to FOG (or family).

 

[Dave Rudy]

Like Dave, I am using a D200 and, also like Dave, will not live long enough to ever be limited by it. And, like Dan, I also find that virtually every great lens I have from my film days is a different and usually less desirable lens on the digital platform. Having said this, digital repays me by way of instant feedback and really cheap usage. I shoot with an entirely different mindset when film is not advancing through the camera at a cost that would make our present day gas purchases seem modest in comparison.

Unfortunately, my mindset wasn't that smart when I was shooting film.  I took over 3,000 slides on my honeymoon almost 30 years ago.  But not having to pay for the film or developing, etc. is a big plus.  I still feel that the overhead has moved from the pocketbook to the clock.  In some ways, I keep thinking money is easier to manage than time, although I clearly have more of both than brains. 

Johne, I agree with almost all of your observations on resolution.  The problem area for me is action or sports photography vs studio work.  I find that in the former, I have to crop more drastically and need larger prints.  At some point, less resolution becomes an issue.

Dave

 

[johne]

Dave,

Good point if your subject is small in the frame you,ll need to blow it up more.  On the other hand a camera commonly used by pro's to shoot sports is the Canon
1D MarkIII because of it's shooting speed (10 frames per second). Yet it has "only" 10 megapixels. That is why, to frame their shots more closely, they use the big white Canon cannons. Lenses of 400-600mm or even 800mm.

 

[johne]

Greg,

The reason i think your old lenses sometimes look as though they are bad is mainly because of the huge magnification you can view your digital pictures at.
A 100% view in photoshop is way more than you 'd ever see in a slide for example with a magnifying glass. Flaws like unsharp corners, chromatic abberation
etc. are immediatly apparent. That's why i would invest more in a lens than in a body. The lens will still be great after the body is replaced.

 

[johne]

Dan,

That d60 was and still is a very nice camera. We did some comparative tests against a nikon d100 that came out at around the same time.(a friend of mine had one) The cannon was clearly smoother grainwise (or should i say pixelwise) this was best seen in shots with lots of clear blue sky. Another area the cannon was great in was the long exposures at night (1 min and up) the nikon became unusable while the canon stayed smooth as silk. The reason i traded it in was not so much resolution, picture quality or the body in general, but i wanted a full frame so i could have the wide angle back. My 17mm is now a 17mm again instead of a 27mm.

 

[Dan Lyke]

Good point if your subject is small in the frame you,ll need to blow it up more.

So, yeah, I bemoan  the rather pedestrian performance of my 17-35/2.8 on the digital back, but with the 1.6 multiplier my fairly sharp 70-200/2.8 becomes a decent telephoto, and my soft but light and image stabilized so I can use it handheld from the deck of a pitching boat and all sorts of other places 75-300/4.5-5.6IS almost becomes a birding lens (albeit with all sorts of aberration, but at F11 it ain't too bad...).

 

[Michael Kellough]

Greg,

The reason i think your old lenses sometimes look as though they are bad is mainly because of the huge magnification you can view your digital pictures at.
A 100% view in photoshop is way more than you 'd ever see in a slide for example with a magnifying glass. Flaws like unsharp corners, chromatic abberation
etc. are immediatly apparent. That's why i would invest more in a lens than in a body. The lens will still be great after the body is replaced.

Just to add to johne's comments, unlike the light sensitive emulsion of film (spread flat across the polyester), the photoreceptors of a CCD or CMOS sensor are in microscopic wells and need lenses that are more telecentric in design. The light passing through old lenses strikes the corners of digital sensors at a greater than ideal angle usually resulting in somewhat poorer results than the lens produces on film.

 

[Michael Kellough]

Dan,

That d60 was and still is a very nice camera. We did some comparative tests against a nikon d100 that came out at around the same time.(a friend of mine had one) The cannon was clearly smoother grainwise (or should i say pixelwise) this was best seen in shots with lots of clear blue sky. Another area the cannon was great in was the long exposures at night (1 min and up) the nikon became unusable while the canon stayed smooth as silk. The reason i traded it in was not so much resolution, picture quality or the body in general, but i wanted a full frame so i could have the wide angle back. My 17mm is now a 17mm again instead of a 27mm.

My prediction is that the 5D is going to become a classic digital camera. It is probably the best compromise of resolution and dynamic range that we'll have until there is a radical change improvement in the technology. Increasing the pixel pitch isn't an improvement.

 

[greg mann]

Listen guys, if I made it sound like my lenses were not up to my ability then I really left the wrong impression. Amongst others, I have a 105 Nikkor with macro capability that is a stunning lens. It's just not 105 anymore. OTOH, my 20mm wide angle that was great on a film body is just so-so on a digital from a framing perspective. They are all high quality Nikkors, much higher quality than this photographer.

 

[johne]

Michael,

Good points. Have you ever heard of a company called foveon? They develloped an image sensor where the RGB sensitive sensors are stacked on top of each other, as opposed to the Bayer sensor that is commonly used today, where the rgb sensors are next to each other in a pattern. The bayer sensor has all the problems we know like the moire effects, the not really true to life color etc. Ineresting concept.

www.foveon.com

 

[Michael Kellough]

Michael,

Good points. Have you ever heard of a company called foveon? They develloped an image sensor where the RGB sensitive sensors are stacked on top of each other, as opposed to the Bayer sensor that is commonly used today, where the rgb sensors are next to each other in a pattern. The bayer sensor has all the problems we know like the moire effects, the not really true to life color etc. Ineresting concept.

www.foveon.com

Yes I've read a little about Foveon. I'm surprised they haven't gotten more traction. I was trying to find a way to say something about how the best video cameras (pre-HD) didn't have any more pixels than the worst but the results were way better because they did have bigger photoreceptors and they had one for each color. (three 2/3" CCDs compared to a single 1/4" CCD) Even with you mentioning the Foveon example I still can't come up with something coherent, but, I couldn't figure out that hinge either 

 

[johne]

The reason why the quality of the foveon would theoretically be better is that you have color information for each of the three RGB colors covering the entire surface of the chip. I still have one 3 shot digital back in my studio that works with a filter wheel. In order to take one image you need 3 shots one for red. one for blue, one for green. The sofware overlays these images and forms the color image. Great for stills or reproductions where extremely accurate color rendition
is needed. Totally unusable for anything even remotly moving. But the quality is superb. In a bayer sensor the color information is in reality roughly only 1/3 of your sensor size  since the light sensitive receptors are placed nect to each other. Some algorithm is used to calculate the probable missing green information at the location of the blue and red receptors. same goes for red and blue. The thing with foveon that is weird is that they calculate resolution differently. Assuming they have a 3 megapixel chip they''ll claim it is actually 9 megapixels because of the full color information of the 3 rgb colors. While there is some validity to this because of the larger amount of color information gathered. The physical resolution of the chip is still only 3 megapixels. If they come up with a real say 12 megapixel chip or larger I'd be very interested

 

[vteknical]

I remember when foveon was coming out, I didn't buy into it because I already had Nikon lens and it was used on a Sigma body.  As a result I opted for a Fuji S1. 

For me, Fuji has been my preference, my major gripe was they built the S1, S2 and S3 on the cheapest Nikon bodies.  Still wedding photographers bought them buy the truck load.  I now own an S3 and do not forsee buying another body until this one is no longer functional. 

BTW Kudos to Johne on this excellent photography tutorial.