still photography

[2StepSteve]

Thats why they are looking so dull... you need light coming and projecting down from where the camera is pointing. The light box you are using looks like its projecting light from underneath which is no good at all.. taking the items out of that box and above a light source (lamp, underneath fluorescent light) will produce better results.. if you want perfect results you are gonna have to invest, a macro lens would allow you to get much closer.. and a flash gun will give you controlled light.

 

[EnglishMack]

buy a £60 light tent off an auction website, everything you need including lights - don't bother making your own, just buy one.

Where I come from a lightbox is something that you look at negatives on with a magnifier..

 

[xirokx]

thanks for your response..

this is the "lightbox" we have:-

Comments noted re: lightbox and needing a lightsource from the side or above the object which I am shooting, infact I plan on experimenting with this idea later on this afternoon (hopefully if I have a minute anyway)

we already have a light tent and the pictures are pretty similar...

Thanks for the images of the type of lighting setup we require...

I will post images not taken inside the lightbox with a huge light lamp we have that I will have pointing downwards on the object which I am shooting..

thank you so much for your continued support

 

[xirokx]

these are images I took with a "tungsten light lamp" directly coming from above the object whilst placing the object on a piece of white paper:-

once again the lighting is terrible...

I used a low FSTOP and a high shutterspeed i.e. F3.5 OR F5 --- 1/100 OR 1/125

Having taken a more indepth look at the above light images, I wonder and question if I did get that route would my images come out much better?

Do I need a total dark room, and then add desklamps from the side and above to really get a realistic shot of what I am looking at? that does not require much processing..

slowly running out of ideas, please help...

We do have a light tent and 1 tungsten light lamp and wonder if I need more light or just a dark room...

Please advise

cheers

P.S. these second set of images are better then the first, OK not much better but at least you can tell what type of metal has been used to manufacture the jewellery and you can also see the design on the front more clearly..But i realise the lighting still needs to improve somehow?

 

[rpstewart]

If that's white paper that the cufflinks are sat on then it's blindingly obvious that the shots are underexposed.

Just because the camera says that it's using the correct exposure doesn't mean it is. The metering system will look to give an average luminance across the frame equivalent to 18% grey so if the bulk of the scene is actually bright white then the camera will underexpose accordingly. Therefore you need to whack in some exposure compensation to bring the scene back to where it should be.

Edit: Also either shoot in RAW and adjust the white balance later or set that correctly too to remove the orange cast.

 

[Raikiri]

As rpstewart says they're under exposed, with the pictures you already have a bit of photoshop wouldn't go a miss.

 

[xirokx]

thanks for your response

Also either shoot in RAW and adjust the white balance later or set that correctly too to remove the orange cast.

how would you remove orange cast on the 400d

Just because the camera says that it's using the correct exposure doesn't mean it is. The metering system will look to give an average luminance across the frame equivalent to 18% grey so if the bulk of the scene is actually bright white then the camera will underexpose accordingly.

I never realised this, I thought you could take the light meter as gospel...hmmm thats really interesting, so although the lightmeter may after I adjust the settings be smack bang in the centre when on "A" mode...what I need to do is move it up towards +1 and +2 in order to get the correct exposure? is that what you mean?

all this feedback is really positive its really providing me with other methods to try im really grateful for all your thoughts..

Also taking your comments one step further rpstewart, if you look at the first set of images which were taken in the lightbox, as you can see the lightbox as a white surface onto which you place your object and then adjust the lights....would you recommend taking a couple of test shots using the lightbox but this time increasing the exposure on the lightmeter??

Finally, how would increasing the exposure on "A" mode, affect the aperture and shutterspeed? surely I would still need to use a small FSTOP i.e. UNDER F10 but a fast shutterspeed i.e. 1/100 + - 20.....what do you think?

cheers

 

[xirokx]

raikiri, thanks for your comments and thanks for taking the time to process one of the images....do you see in the image that you processed how the metal part inbetween the squares looks really dark and you cannot really see what the type of metal...also wouldnt you say the image is blurred?

I took that shot using a small FSTOP and fast shutterspeed, would you suggest possibly increasing FSTOP slightly and decreasing shutterspeed to 1/60 something like that?

Also, sometimes I have to take 40 / 50 pics, processing all of them takes a lot of time...do you guys think I can take that amount of images without having to touch them up? or with the slightest bit of touching up only...

ultimately do you guys think you can take a piccie of the type of cufflinks I have shown here so that the image looks exactly like the physical product? if yes, please suggest how..

thanks

 

[Matthew.M]

I see I'm too slow in LightRoom!

You're on the right track. I auto levelled this then auto white balanced it in Adobe LightRoom. Took 2secs and recovered the photos quite well:

Try setting a custom white balance on your camera by pointing it at the paper with nothing on it, and pushing the exposure up. They should then look fine straight out of the camera.

 

[rpstewart]

how would you remove orange cast on the 400d

As I said, either shoot in RAW and adjust the white balance in the RAW converter or adjust the white balance setting on the camera itself.

what I need to do is move it up towards +1 and +2 in order to get the correct exposure? is that what you mean?

Yes

Finally, how would increasing the exposure on "A" mode, affect the aperture and shutterspeed? surely I would still need to use a small FSTOP i.e. UNDER F10 but a fast shutterspeed i.e. 1/100 + - 20.....what do you think?

In Av mode you pick the aperture and it stays fixed, the camera will set the shutter speed it thinks is required for the correct exposure.

 

[xirokx]

thanks for your comments and using lightroom...

No offense but you see how the metal looks too bright, thats brushed metal that is...and it looks burnt plus the crystal is blurred..thats my dodgy shooting though...

Try setting a custom white balance on your camera by pointing it at the paper with nothing on it, and pushing the exposure up. They should then look fine straight out of the camera.

so point camera at white piece of paper, set custom white balance and then increase exposure, supposedly on "A" mode? then take a few test pics until the camera is shooting the white piece of paper as is looks? - is that what you mean>>

 

[xirokx]

In Av mode you pick the aperture and it stays fixed, the camera will set the shutter speed it thinks is required for the correct exposure.

cool...thats food for thought...so you reckon I should keep it on AV mode set the white balance and let the camera take care of the shutter speed??? this sounds interesting cant wait to try it out

 

[rpstewart]

ultimately do you guys think you can take a piccie of the type of cufflinks I have shown here so that the image looks exactly like the physical product? if yes, please suggest how..

Well as near as you can get with a 2D representation of a 3D object. If you get the lighting right, the exposure right, the white balance right, the depth of field right and the focussing right then the final result will be pretty good.

You need to think about what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve. Until you're comfortable with what you're doing don't just take one shot of the subject and move on. Take multiple shots changing one thing at a time, slowly increase the exposure compensation until the image looks right on the LCD. When you're working at these sorts of distances don't trust the autofocus, as an absolute minimum check where it's actually focussing better still do it manually - remember the DoF extends a third in front of the focal plane and two thirds behind.

 

[xirokx]

these are examples of our catalogue shots...

if you compare them with my images you will notice how different they are but why I wonder? the metal used to make the product doesnt look like the metal in the image when you hold it in your hand...

so why are my pics so different? forgetting exposure on this one..

thanks

 

[Mohain]

It's already been said before. Correct exposure and correct white balance and your photographs will be an accurate representation of what you're shooting.

Get one of these: http://www.lastolite.com/cubelite.php and one of these to set your white balance: http://www.lastolite.com/ezybalance.php and set your camera to aperture priority (Av) with +1.66 to +2 expsoure compensation, keep an eye on the histogram, mirror lock up, self timer. Bobs your uncle

 

[xirokx]

but those two catalogue images are not a correct representation as they are way OTT in terms of processing when compared to the images I have taken, even if the images I take has correct exposure if I compared them with the above catalogue images they would look different..

so thats why I was asking what the difference was

 

[divine`]

That's probably something as simple as level tweaks and contrast adjustments.

 

[33L]

but remember catalogues use pp to make them as atractive as possible. I dont think that they are a misrepresentation of the item.

Think about jewellery shops always have very bright crisp light to bring out the reflections in metals and stones. Obviously its not going to look like that all the time when on someones body walking down the street.

 

[Mohain]

That's probably something as simple as level tweaks and contrast adjustments.

^^^ Yeah that and better lighting than you've used. You'll be able to get very similar results using a light tent with cheap halogen lamps.

 

[Irish_Tom]

^^^ Yeah that and better lighting than you've used. You'll be able to get very similar results using a light tent with cheap halogen lamps.

And a macro lens to get more pixels per duck. (or cufflink in this case).

Panzer