Novice lighting help

[trizzypballr]

Here is a shot zoomed in and one zoomed out with the Hi Key settings.




Zoomed out are the best results ive gotten so far when zoomed out. Zoomed in something is off again though. I found out quickly though I dont like the scene modes, because they dont allow you to adjust anything :-p Of course thats the point, but since im still trying to learn I love to mess around with settings. LoL

I zoomed in on the first image and it actually turned out pretty nice. Its not white like I had hoped, but were getting there :-)

[trizzypballr]

the first shot was at f/3.46 and 1/320sec exposure time - shutter speed was much too fast so it's under exposed

the second shot had 1/40sec exposure time and that's why it's brighter at a higher f/stop and it's probably just slightly over exposed.

What shutter speed would you suggest trying so that i can keep the nice white back ground but not go to far to over expose?

Did you bother trying to set up the Hi Key scene mode, or did I waste an hour looking it up for no apparent reason? (just curious because the EXIF data states Scene Capture Type = standard (0))

I posted the pictures I produced using your steps with the Hi Key, I am curious what you thought about how they turned out, and any other suggestions you may have.

[OldClicker]

Why are you comparing different zooms? All it does is change what the camera sees. In the first one it sees a lot more of the background, which is bright, so it lowers the exposure. Only change one thing at a time.

"What shutter speed would you suggest trying so that i can keep the nice white back ground but not go to far to over expose?"

The brightness is exposure - ISO, aperture and shutter speed. The white is White Balance.

TF

[jetrim]

This shot is actually about as good as you could probably hope to get:

EXIF data says:

• Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/600 second ===> 1/60 second
• Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 56/10 ===> ƒ/5.6
• ISO Speed Ratings = 720
• Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
• Focal Length = 550/10 mm ===> 55 mm

Sampling of the white parts of the label and the background average out to

R:236
G:239
B:240

Pure white is
R:255
G:255
B:255

You are very very close, without passing the threshold where you begin to lose data.
I'd stick with that for now. Remember that when you change one setting it effects the other two (aperture/ISO/shutter speed) and you would need to compensate accordingly.

[daq7]

You know, if you are going to be wanting to take pictures of a kid doing gymnastics, you are almost certainly going to want to have at LEAST one flash anyway, right guys?

[trizzypballr]

I do not understand. A friend of mine is trying to set up the exact same thing as I am. She is using the EXACT same lights, only she is using 1 instead of 3! She made a home made light tent out of a box and tissue paper and a sheet of printer paper to take the picture on. She did absolutely no post processing and was able to get this pic!


How was she able to get the perfect background with one third of the lighting that i am using with the exact same lights!? She took the picture with all the lights off in the room, and it was at night so there was no outside light to help either.

[OldClicker]

She used the tools/knowledge we have been giving you and produced an image. It wasn't magic. - TF

[jetrim]

She did absolutely no post processing and was able to get this pic!

Don't know that I'd fall for that one so quick :idea:
The EXIF data has been stripped from the image, a sure sign that this pic has been manipulated (however slightly)

[triplemoons]

Don't know that I'd fall for that one so quick :idea:
The EXIF data has been stripped from the image, a sure sign that this pic has been manipulated (however slightly)

I wouldn't recommend calling someone you don't know a liar. The photo's size was reduced and web exported to reduce the file size, that's it. Perhaps you should have all the information before you make false accusations and look like a jerk?

[OldClicker]

I wouldn't recommend calling someone you don't know a liar. The photo's size was reduced and web exported to reduce the file size, that's it. Perhaps you should have all the information before you make false accusations and look like a jerk?

So, did you take the boot image? If so, can you help trizzypballr figure his camera settings and sort out his lighting? - TF

[chocolic]

Anyhoo..... great thread. Now I want a lightbox! how do you view the EXIF data?

[OldClicker]

Anyhoo..... great thread. Now I want a lightbox! how do you view the EXIF data?

For Windows with Internet Explorer, I use a program called Opanda. I just right click and it is one of the options like Properties. Of course, if it has been stripped, it's gone. - TF

[gahspidy]

I wouldn't recommend calling someone you don't know a liar. The photo's size was reduced and web exported to reduce the file size, that's it. Perhaps you should have all the information before you make false accusations and look like a jerk?

What an unbelieveable response :mad2:

Jet has been trying to give your friend the information and tips to getting a decent product shot and merely advised trizzypballr that the sample image he displayed from another photog may not have just come straight out of camera as he was told. He does not know YOU, and was only trying to HELP your friend.

A better response might have been "Hello, this was my photo and all I did was resize it for web display and the exif data was removed in the process. Thanks for helping my friend"

TF, Jet, even if the intended target does not get anything out of this or appreciate your efforts many others have been following this thread and your time is not for naught.

Thanks as always for sharing your experience wih the members here.

[jetrim]

I wouldn't recommend calling someone you don't know a liar. The photo's size was reduced and web exported to reduce the file size, that's it. Perhaps you should have all the information before you make false accusations and look like a jerk?

Hmmm, as I recall I stated that stripped EXIF data was "a sure sign that this pic has been manipulated (however slightly)" and then you stated you reduced the size, which is in fact a manipulation (however slight) so it's not a false accusation is it? But now that you mention it I would love to see your ISO/aperture/shutter speed settings. (Mostly because I can't reproduce your results.)

I had a closer look at your image and a few things confuse me...
1.If only one light was used, why are there two distinct shadows as noted by the arrows below?
(there is a logical, plausible, acceptable answer to this question, simply wondering if you know it.)

2. I would LOVE to know how you managed to get the exact RGB across the entire portion of the image now shown in green, as there is not a single value in any of the three channels even a single variable digit off. And the value off all those pixels is especially interesting because even with the camera I use which has a 400% greater dynamic range than any other DSLR available, the boot would STILL be overexposed, and yet it's not.

3. If in fact you did create this image, with one cheap fluorescent light and a cardboard box straight out of the camera (and I'm not saying you didn't) what in the world are you doing selling cheap boots on ebay? I ask because the would make you one of the top ten product photographers of the digital age and you should have big name customers lined up around the corner trying to give you wheelbarrow loads of cash to shoot their stuff.

[triplemoons]

So, did you take the boot image? If so, can you help trizzypballr figure his camera settings and sort out his lighting? - TF

Yes sir, I did. I've been trying to help Brandon for several weeks with this. Tried convincing him that his problem was lighting and not his camera, but he still went out and bought a new camera anyway. :lol: I haven't gotten over to his place yet to see how he's doing things (I'm a busy, busy gal), so I was hoping he'd get some pointers from one of these forums and be able to work it out on his own.

Here is the link to the other photos I took that session while trying different lighting things out (different position and different quantity). The walkie talkie one I did do Auto Levels in Photoshop because I had too much light and the colors were washed out.

Hmmm, as I recall I stated that stripped EXIF data was "a sure sign that this pic has been manipulated (however slightly)" and then you stated you reduced the size, which is in fact a manipulation (however slight) so it's not a false accusation is it? But now that you mention it I would love to see your ISO/aperture/shutter speed settings. (Mostly because I can't reproduce your results.)

I don't consider cropping, resizing or exporting for web photo manipulation. It simply isn't. If you could explain to me how to provide the setting information, I would be happy to.

1.If only one light was used, why are there two distinct shadows as noted by the arrows below?

I imagine because the flash was on?

2. I would LOVE to know how you managed to get the exact RGB across the entire portion of the image now shown in green, as there is not a single value in any of the three channels even a single variable digit off. And the value off all those pixels is especially interesting because even with the camera I use which has a 400% greater dynamic range than any other DSLR available, the boot would STILL be overexposed, and yet it's not.

I can't answer that. The photo is what I got. However, I've uploaded the fullsize unedited version. Also attached with the post is the data of the original file. I'll wait for your apology.

3. If in fact you did create this image, with one cheap fluorescent light and a cardboard box straight out of the camera (and I'm not saying you didn't) what in the world are you doing selling cheap boots on ebay? I ask because the would make you one of the top ten product photographers of the digital age and you should have big name customers lined up around the corner trying to give you wheelbarrow loads of cash to shoot their stuff.

It's my one year old son's boot, schmuck . I'm not selling anything on ebay. I grabbed a few things I had lying around to test settings and lighting before I moved onto live animals. Does it make you feel like a big man to make fun of my son's shoes?

[jetrim]

My questions were legitimate, my tone was a direct response to your entirely over aggressive initial post. It was uncalled for, I never stated anyone was a liar, and to respond as if I did suggests a guilty conscience.

I imagine because the flash was on?

This changes things, as it makes it a 2 light setup, not a 1 light setup as trizzypballr originally said. It can be done with one light and leave 2 shadows, but it wasn't, so it's not worth wasting further time on.

I'll wait for your apology.

You'd like me to apologize for asking a question? A bit presumptuous, but fine; I'm sorry, I'll not ask you anymore questions

Does it make you feel like a big man to make fun of my son's shoes?

Carrying that chip around on your shoulder all the time must get awfully heavy...


trizzypballr wanted to achieve 2 things - true color and entirely white background. All of my suggestions centered around that. Having looked at the original image it's obvious how the image was achieved. You manipulated the white balance in camera - which was the very first thing I suggested. Then you overexposed the image. This is the deal breaker, once you overexpose, you change the color, something trizzypballr was emphatic about not distorting the accuracy of, because it may be viewed as deceitful. In order for me to duplicate your results (with equipment far more sophisticated than you're using) I have to bump the exposure (brightness) 53% which, as you can clearly see in the attached, changes the color. I can confirm the correct exposure vs the wildly overexposed because I checked it with a light meter. I can confirm the color accuracy of the correct exposure because I use the industry standard X-rite color checker passport So, back to the drawing board...

[trizzypballr]

I think i may be starting to get somewhere. Still trying to get down the concepts stated earlier by OldClicker and then reiterated by jetrim, on the fact that its all a matter of adjusting 1 thing, and then counter balancing it with another trying to get into the right area. I believe I may be getting somewhere. I desided that maybe I should just nix the light tent for right now and go with a simple light setup to get the basics down so I am using a piece of white paper proped up so it still has a back and have 2 bulbs facing in towards the glue bottle, angling in from the corners. Ill had to add at least 1 or 2 more lights from the top towards the back to get rid of the shadow totally, but as far as my background is coming along I think I have decent ground to start with toying with some more in the morning. I was able to get a pretty nice white background in 1 but the image is lightly under developed, then I have an image that looks good, but a darker background. They were both zoomed in with my 18-55mm but because of the way I had to prop the paper, my camera is farther away then the 10-12 inches that we discussed it should be. Is this a problem? If it is would I be able to correct it by using a 55-200 lens? for both shots my ISO is set to 200, Aperture - 5.6, the bright one is set to 1/40 shutter speed, the other 1/125. Im guessing if I try around 1/60 that should put me in pretty much where I want to be?

[triplemoons]

Carrying that chip around on your shoulder all the time must get awfully heavy...

No chip, just protective over my son as any good mother is. What kind of person makes fun of a baby's shoe? It shows me clearly what type of person you are. :nono:

trizzypballr wanted to achieve 2 things - true color and entirely white background. All of my suggestions centered around that. Having looked at the original image it's obvious how the image was achieved. You manipulated the white balance in camera - which was the very first thing I suggested. Then you overexposed the image. This is the deal breaker, once you overexpose, you change the color, something trizzypballr was emphatic about not distorting the accuracy of, because it may be viewed as deceitful. In order for me to duplicate your results (with equipment far more sophisticated than you're using) I have to bump the exposure (brightness) 53% which, as you can clearly see in the attached, changes the color. I can confirm the correct exposure vs the wildly overexposed because I checked it with a light meter. I can confirm the color accuracy of the correct exposure because I use the industry standard X-rite color checker passport So, back to the drawing board...

Regardless, the colors in that photo are accurate. I did not get any strange changes in color like you did (maybe because the pills are lighter or semi-transparent then the boot? I had tried these same settings with an anti-bacterial bottle which is transparent and got exposure issues like you show).

Frankly, I've been telling Brandon about setting his white balance for several weeks...So that's not new information you provided him. I've been sending him detailed blog posts and video. Pointing him to different forums. Sadly, some people on these forums only solution is to purchase high dollar lighting equipment that professionals use. :eek6: I think he's going to have problems twofold with this lighting issue because of the color range of the geckos he works with. What settings might work with a darker one sure isn't going to work with a brighter one.

Either way, this thread is of no interest to me any longer and I'm going to be moving on. OldClicker, thank you for your patience with Brandon. I'm sure he'll eventually get it worked out. ;)

[jetrim]

No chip, just protective over my son as any good mother is. What kind of person makes fun of a baby's shoe? It shows me clearly what type of person you are. :nono:

ROFLMAO! :lol: Is it me? Was anyone else able to make any connection to triplemoon's son from:

I do not understand. A friend of mine is trying to set up the exact same thing as I am. She is using the EXACT same lights, only she is using 1 instead of 3! She made a home made light tent out of a box and tissue paper and a sheet of printer paper to take the picture on. She did absolutely no post processing and was able to get this pic!

How was she able to get the perfect background with one third of the lighting that i am using with the exact same lights!? She took the picture with all the lights off in the room, and it was at night so there was no outside light to help either.

?

[jetrim]

Regardless, the colors in that photo are accurate. I did not get any strange changes in color like you did (maybe because the pills are lighter or semi-transparent then the boot? I had tried these same settings with an anti-bacterial bottle which is transparent and got exposure issues like you show).

Unfortunately, Brandon did get color shift as seen in the locktite photos further up the thread, which is an opaque item. Over exposure changes the color, every time, period. Aperture choice changes the saturation of the color, every time, period. It's not my opinion, it's undisputed fact.

Frankly, I've been telling Brandon about setting his white balance for several weeks...So that's not new information you provided him. I've been sending him detailed blog posts and video. Pointing him to different forums. Sadly, some people on these forums only solution is to purchase high dollar lighting equipment that professionals use. :eek6:

I never suggested I gave *NEW* information, only that when asked a question it was the first thing I suggested he adjust, so yay we agree on something. High dollar lighting is high dollar for a reason, it produces consistent, reliable, reproducible results under any conditions. That's why BronColor, ProFoto, & Balcar flash tubes cost more than an entire Alien Bee monolight.

I think he's going to have problems twofold with this lighting issue because of the color range of the geckos he works with. What settings might work with a darker one sure isn't going to work with a brighter one.

This is flawed thinking, once you understand the physics of light incidence, and get dialed in, the same settings will produce accurate color every single time, regardless of light/dark transparent/opaque smooth/rough.

[trizzypballr]

How do you feel about the first picture that I posted in my last post Jetrim? The worst part of all of this is the fact that I am actually color blind :-( When it comes to the gecko pics and stuff I actually have to ask the girlfriend to make sure that the photo is accurate to the actual animal. Another thing that I know I need to address is figuring out how to calibrate my monitor somehow so that I know what I am seeing on my monitor is what anyone else with a properly calibrated monitor. If I can figure out how to calibrate my monitor I dont have a problem with post processing if I absolutely have to because at least I know that it will be post processing for the good and it will not make the image look unreal to anyone who also has their monitor properly calibrated

[jetrim]

The top photo is about 1 stop overexposed, but I don't find it displeasing beyond the fact that the neck disappears from between the cap and body. At some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play here as well. I'd love to own a $4,000 self calibrating 16bit Eizo monitor but just can't justify the cost at this point. It's probably a good idea for you to get a calibrator. Xrite, Pantone, and Spyder all make good ones but I've seen those "freak out" once in a while too, and there can never be any way to guarantee the person at the other end is seeing what you are. At this point I'd suggest you set the camera up as you did in the first pic of your last post or the former post that I said was "probably as good as you're going to get", grab the closest lizard and put him on the table and ask your GF to review the results to see if the shot does indeed look like an accurate representation of the lizard. The color checker I linked to in an earlier post might also be a worthwhile investment, but it is another $100 outlay and it only really works to it's fullest potential when combined with Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop as it will correct for color anomalies in your camera's sensor.

[trizzypballr]

$100 doesnt sound to bad, I figured something like that would set me back alot farther. I have photoshop CS3 so I would be alright there with it also. I will snap a few shots of reptiles tonight to see how they turn out. Now being that I used such a low aperture, is pretty much the whole gecko going to be blurred? If so obviously that means I have to bump it up, but that also means ill have to find a new shutter speed that gets me the same background result :-) Thank you for all of your help and I will post my results as soon as I snap them.

[trizzypballr]

I grabbed a gecko that the color didnt exactly matter with first to check out how well my "setup" ended up turning out. As I was afraid it wouldnt, the f 5.6 isnt cutting it, when I bump it up I cannot get a white background no matter what shutter speed I use. Does this mean I have to bump the ISO up and try playing with that also or is it simply the fact that a higher aperture demands more light and i am back to not having enough light again? Here are a few of the f 5.6 pics so you can see what I was getting. The only post processing I did was to crop them, if you would like to see an original also I will gladly post it

[jetrim]

Depth of field is better thought of as a percentage than an absolute. The area in focus gets larger, the further you move the camera away from the subject at any given aperture. So, you should be able to leave the settings alone and simply move the camera back and zoom in.

FWIW other than the blurred nose in a couple, these shots look way cool :thumbsup: