More product shots

These were just some quickies I did, experimenting with some small products. I'm trying to get photos like the Gordon's Gin photos....

Obviously I need to work on it a bit more. Yes - the photos are blurred and there is camera shake and it was a compact... I was just trying to get the lighting right and didn't have time to set up my tripod and dSLR. So... lighting critique only please...

I'm trying to get the foreground and background black.

I have a piece of black felt which isn't quite black.

I have a piece of very black but shiny card.

I set up with a clamp lamp, a 7w florescent bulb and a chair.

Suggestions for improving the lighting so that the background and foreground are jet black while the subject looks great.




and the setup...

Rhys,

Good to be experimenting. Do you need the curve in the plastic or the reflection of the bottle? Let's imagine not!

I'd use black paper from the photo store or black card. (It comes in various sizes and it's always great to have several pieces around. The one side can be black and the other white (for use as a reflector on other jobs or here if you want to add light to the side, for example).

Instead of the card you can use a black blanket or anything gray or black but not shiny.

Light the bottle only by using a a small light. Use a card or black aluminum foil from the camera store or barn doors or a piece gaffer's tape, to reduce the shape of light just give sufficient light to get the bottle illuminated. Add sufficient power of the light to have the histogram just beyond the right border. RAW will allow you the headroom and your highlights will be fine.

You will then bring down the blacks in PS and it should be pretty near perfect.

Asher

One cannot exclusively critique lighting on such carelessly captured images, Rhys. Take the time to at least use a tripod. If you've not taken the time to care why should anyone else?

I don't mean to be harsh, just frank.

Hmm... This kind of lighting is definitely tricky...

It seems to have to be very focussed.

I tried some more shots with my compact but it's not cutting it. While I can get nice blacks now, the compact can't achieve accurate focus. Time for the big guns

Hy Rhys,

Reread what Ken wrote! Use a tripod. You can't be just hobbling and balancing oddities together. You need a table. Some stands for your camera strobes. No special expansive lights are needed if you follow directions.

You can, BTW, get a simple tent for almost nothing from B&H for product shots.

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

One cannot exclusively critique lighting on such carelessly captured images, Rhys. Take the time to at least use a tripod. If you've not taken the time to care why should anyone else?

I don't mean to be harsh, just frank.

Click to expand...

My feelings exactly.

Here's my latest crack at the product shot.



Obviously it's a bit over-exposed BUT I think bringing that down should make the background and foreground darker. I like the reflection.

I used oblique lighting from one side using a bare bulb florescent lamp.

Aside from slight over-exposure (the camera must've reacted too much to the label), this isn't too bad. The background IS black. The surfaces could all do with severe dusting though!

Hi Rhys,

Obviously you have improved in getting the b.g. black. Make a print of this. Now mark it up with a red wax pencil. Circle the areas that are over-exposed. The right side of the bottle top, the label, the reflection below. You have to be prepared to be ruthless and not accept any such problems with exposure. After all, these things will show up immediately when you look at the histogram. Was this done in RAW? I think you can pull down the exposure but there was too much light, I'm afraid.

Now you have some basic to start over. Make sure you use a tripod and look at the histogram. Tell me you are using a table! Good luck,

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Hi Rhys,

Obviously you have improved in getting the b.g. black. Make a print of this. Now mark it up with a red wax pencil. Circle the areas that are over-exposed. The right side of the bottle top, the label, the reflection below. You have to be prepared to be ruthless and not accept any such problems with exposure. After all, these things will show up immediately when you look at the histogram. Was this done in RAW? I think you can pull down the exposure but there was too much light, I'm afraid.

Now you have some basic to start over. Make sure you use a tripod and look at the histogram. Tell me you are using a table! Good luck,

Asher

Click to expand...

I only took one shot today - that was a quickie on a chair with a single desklamp. I shall have to reshoot but I now know more where I'm going. Again, I'll use a single lamp but probably a white reflector with it. I realise now I made a blunder buying a clamp-type lamp. I do like that reflection though and might use that more.

May I recommend an excellent book on studio still photography:

Still Life and Special Effects Photography: A Guide to Professional Lighting Techniques, Second Edition
by Roger Hicks and Frances Shultz

Actually, theres a better book that I have my eye on, on ebay. I looked at the review of the suggested book and found that it was pretty out-dated. There's a better, more modern version.

Meanwhile, I managed to get my blacks black. The problem now is sufficient illumination of the glass. This photo is photoshopped with fill-flash which has made the green glass stand out while also increasing reflections and noise horribly. I suspect the trick is to illuminate from below to ricochet the light around the inside of the bottle while also illuminating as I did. For this, my light-source was a 7W florescent bulb above and in front of the subject. I tried putting a diffuser and without. Seems the florescent lamp is diffuse enough (it's an ordinary screw-in type).



I could eliminate the bottom reflections but quite honestly, I like them.

Ken Tanaka said:

May I recommend an excellent book on studio still photography:

Still Life and Special Effects Photography: A Guide to Professional Lighting Techniques, Second Edition
by Roger Hicks and Frances Shultz

Click to expand...

Rhys Sage said:

Actually, theres a better book that I have my eye on, on ebay. I looked at the review of the suggested book and found that it was pretty out-dated. There's a better, more modern version..

Click to expand...

Rhys,

If you know everything better than everybody else already, then don't ask for advice to start with. And when you are given some - which you are not obliged to follow- the least you can do is to accept it gracefully by thanking that person, not by one-upping him/her :-(.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Rhys,

If you know everything better than everybody else already, then don't ask for advice to start with. And when you are given some - which you are not obliged to follow- the least you can do is to accept it gracefully by thanking that person, not by one-upping him/her :-(.

Click to expand...

I wasn't one-upping. I simply stated that I had read the reviews of the book and the criticism in the reviews was that it was out-dated. In the reviews, another, later book was suggested - about which I have heard a great deal already. It could well be that Ken uses film. The later book is aimed at digital.

Meanwhile, I had another crack at the product shot. This time with a small 3v flashlight behind the bottle. No fill-flash from photoshop. I did use the 7w florescent in the same place as before. I'm still getting a couple of reflections so I clearly need to adjust my main light. The back light is good but needs more power.



From here onward I think I'm probably going to have to invest in more black paper (so I can cut holes in it) and possibly a different lamp. I'm using a clamp lamp and I think and angle-poise would have been a better buy. The florescent bulb is fine - it's low temperature so I don't have to worry about burning things.

Rhys Sage said:

I wasn't one-upping. I simply stated that I had read the reviews of the book and the criticism in the reviews was that it was out-dated. In the reviews, another, later book was suggested - about which I have heard a great deal already. It could well be that Ken uses film. The later book is aimed at digital.

Click to expand...

No, Rhys, the book is not at all "dated". It deals with creative use of studio lighting effects, such as I think you're trying to achieve. It's unrelated to the medium. (And, no, I'm principally a digital photographer.)

That aside, I'm glad you've found a "better" book, whatever it may be. Good luck on your various photographic endeavors.

Ken Tanaka said:

No, Rhys, the book is not at all "dated". It deals with creative use of studio lighting effects, such as I think you're trying to achieve. It's unrelated to the medium. (And, no, I'm principally a digital photographer.)

That aside, I'm glad you've found a "better" book, whatever it may be. Good luck on your various photographic endeavors.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your good wishes. I would love to be able to compare both books before buying. Sadly in little Columbia, there aren't book shops that are all that well stocked with photography books.

Rhys,

The use of film or digital has no bearing on lighting as Ken points out. The books anyway are close to free, given what it contains. What's your other book? AFAIK, Amazon purchase can be returned if done promptly.

Asher