 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / September 2005Taking pics with no background
Hi, I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my results are a bit naff. They are spectacles, I have taken them against a white background but they always show with a mucky coloured background. I can brighten them up using software but I lose clarity. I have tried to take them illumitated by lamps but this delivers worse results. My camera is only 2mp and I was toying with getting a better one but i'm sure its my tecnique that is the problem, I assume a better cam would just result in bigger files. So I would like advice on how to take a good clear pic and get the background as white as possible. Any input appreciated, Rick  Signaturehttp://www.justrimless.com/catalog Discount rimless and semi rimless prescription eyewear > Hi, > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Any input appreciated, > Rick Could you put a couple of examples on the Web somewhere and give a link to them, so we could see what you are talking about? Also, describe what you did to take the shots. e.g. Did you use natural light from a window? > > Hi, > > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Also, describe what you did to take the shots. e.g. Did you use natural > light from a window? Hi, Link was in the sig, didn't want to dwell on it for fear of accuse of spamming, http://www.justrimless.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5&products_id=166 I have tried in natural light, but have found that results vary on different times times/days. I then tried to illuminate using 3 desk lamps with 100w bulbs, this seemed to make things worse. The best results from a clarity of image POV seem to be when I pic them in normal light and allow the background to remain. I lose image clarity with the flash and when trying to remove the background with software. Im just wondering which way to go with this, would a bunch of images all with a slightly different natural background come across as unproffesional? Rick > http://www.justrimless.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5&products_id=166 I've had a play with that image in Photoshop and it doesn't respond well to adjusting the levels, either - the background simply becomes too high contrast and 'bitty'. > I have tried in natural light, but have found that results vary on different > times times/days. > I then tried to illuminate using 3 desk lamps with 100w bulbs, this seemed > to make things worse. It probably will unless you position them in the right way - simply pointing lights at the subject with a white background behind will confuse your camera meter even more, probably resulting in an even murkier background. > The best results from a clarity of image POV seem to be when I pic them in > normal light and allow the background to remain. I lose image clarity with > the flash and when trying to remove the background with software. > Im just wondering which way to go with this, would a bunch of images all > with a slightly different natural background come across as unproffesional? The simplest and easiest way to light them would be as thus:- Get the background setup - curved paper continuing under the spectacles, avoiding any visible join line. Bring the spectacles away from the background - several feet, ideally. Light the background with two identical lights, making sure that these lights are positioned to the side of the spectacles at 45 degrees to the background - you're aiming for an even lighting across the background. Position a pencil sticking out from the background with the point towards you and it should cast a uniform shadow either side if you've got it right. The idea of this is to totally 'bleach' the background out, so it's totally white. Now light the spectacles with a smaller light from slightly to one side - this is to give it modelling and avoid a flat, 2-dimensional look to the glasses. You may need to use a small reflector to add a bit of fill-in to them from the other side, but your idea should always be to have a main (key) light and a fill-in. Ensure you've set exposure compensation of about +1 to + 1 2/3 stops and that should work - exposing for the glasses and not the background, which you want to go totally white. You may also find that you need to be careful of colour temperature when you're doing this, depending on what lights you use. If they're normal, domestic table type lights, then they'll be tungsten and will give out a 'warm' light - this will result in a warm or mildly orange colour cast to your pic. Hopefully your camera's auto white balance will deal with this, as I doubt you'll have the facility to alter white balance on your particular camera. If you find that you're getting too many reflections in the lenses, the the other way is to use a light-tent, where you place the glasses inside a dome-type of arrangement covered in translucent white material and poke the lens through a sealed opening at one end. Then light them from outside the tent - this will give you a very even light with no reflections and is commonly how you'd photograph very reflective jewellry / silver and similar. SignatureNeil Barker > Ensure you've set exposure compensation of about +1 to + 1 2/3 stops > and that should work - exposing for the glasses and not the background, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will deal with this, as I doubt you'll have the facility to alter white > balance on your particular camera. <other advice snipped and duly noted> The settings I have at my disposal are...... EXPOSURE Auto Manual: 0.3 EV step, -1.8 ~ +1.8 EV WHITE BALANCE Auto, Sun, Shade, Fluorescent, Tungsten ...................... What exposure would you set, when you say 1 'stop' would this translate directly into the settings above, ie i can set my cam to 0.9 or 1.2. Cheers, Rick R D S <rsandr@gmail.com> observed >> Ensure you've set exposure compensation of about +1 to + 1 2/3 stops >> and that should work - exposing for the glasses and not the background, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >What exposure would you set, when you say 1 'stop' would this translate >directly into the settings above, ie i can set my cam to 0.9 or 1.2. Rick, Sure, 1 stop is 1 ev (I think), but it *is* a digital camera, can't you try *all* the settings and see which ones give you the best results? Personally I would start at the +1.8 and see what happened there. You *are* using a tripod aren't you? But really if you are having this much difficulty - then TP's advice could be best for you. Take the results you are getting so far along with you then the professional will understand what you are after. Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< > R D S <rsandr@gmail.com> observed > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Mike > [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] Hi, I am doing a bit of trial and error with all the settings but you know how battery life is. No I dont have a tripod, its on my shopping list. Yes I have thought of having them done by a pro, but if I can get good enough myself it will be better as I expect to be adding products frequently, I will see how it goes over the next couple of days, if not then ill se a pro. Anyone in here from the Lancs area? Thanks, Rick >> http://www.justrimless.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5&products_id= >> 166 [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > reflections and is commonly how you'd photograph very reflective > jewellry / silver and similar. Isn't Nelly being helpful today. Licking your wounds eh? PAHAAAA!! SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker > [...] > > Licking ROALOPLFOLF! Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil >> [...] >> >> Licking > > ROALOPLFOLF! *snigger* SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > *snigger* Braggart. Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Braggart. Braveheart. SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >>>>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Braveheart. Bloody. Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bloody. Hell. SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hell. Kitchen. SignatureRob >> >>>>>> [...] >> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kitchen. er. SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >>> >>>>>> [...] >>> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > er. th. Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil > >>> >>>>>> [...] > >>> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > th. ag. SignatureRob >> >>> >>>>>> [...] >> >>> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ag. ronomy? Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil > >> >>>>>> [...] > >> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > er. um. SignatureRob >> >> >>>>>> [...] >> >> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > um. eh. Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil > Hi, > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So I would like advice on how to take a good clear pic and get the > background as white as possible. Your problem with the white background is almost certainly caused by an exposure metering problem. A camera meter that takes an average of the scene relies on the fact that it expects to see what approximates to "18 percent grey". For the vast majority of typical photographs, that's correct enough to give good exposures, however when you've got a scene with either strong highlights (white backgrounds, for instance) or strong lowlights (black backgrounds etc) then this will not work. The white background will end up as 18 percent grey and that's why your backgrounds look 'mucky coloured'. If it was a black background, you'd also find that would come out the same colour/shade of grey. The solution is to increase the exposure by about +1 stop, though depending on what camera you have, I don't know how possible this is. What camera is it and do you know whether it has the facility to vary the exposure at all beyond what is automatically set ? SignatureNeil Barker >> Hi, >> I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What camera is it and do you know whether it has the facility to vary > the exposure at all beyond what is automatically set ? Why have you run away from demon.service, Nelly? SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker > > Hi, > > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What camera is it and do you know whether it has the facility to vary > the exposure at all beyond what is automatically set ? The cam is a rather cruddy premier DC2302. I think its a rebadged Konica. There is a manual setting for the following EXPOSURE Auto Manual: 0.3 EV step, -1.8 ~ +1.8 EV WHITE BALANCE Auto, Sun, Shade, Fluorescent, Tungsten I will have a tinker tomorrow, thanks for the help. Rick > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but > my results are a bit naff. They are spectacles, I have taken them > against a white background but they always show with a mucky coloured > background. (Bravely posting first advice) I would suggest that the auto-metering on the camera is being blinded by the white and knocking the exposure down by two or three stops. Does your camera have either exposure compensation or exposure lock? Or manual mode? a) Exposure compensation - knock it up a few stops. Experiment until it gets it right. b) Exposure lock - expose against a grey background, lock, then remove the grey leaving just the white. c) Manual mode - note down the camera's settings for white and overexpose manually, OR note settings for grey and set those settings even when white is present. > I can brighten them up using software but I lose clarity. Yeah... I think this is underexposing the whole scene because of the white. That means that the information you want stored about the spectacles is lost - any amount of brightening won't bring that information back, so you need to expose correctly. > I have tried to take them illumitated by lamps but this delivers worse > results. My camera is only 2mp and I was toying with getting a better > one The number of pixels won't be the problem. Exposure features may well be. Or quality of the lens. I'm sure people will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. Cheers, Stu :wq! I noticed that Message-ID: <3o5sl8F4d12fU1@individual.net> from R D S contained the following: >I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my >results are a bit naff. >They are spectacles, I have taken them against a white background but they >always show with a mucky coloured background. Spectacles look best on people... SignatureGeoff Berrow (put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ > I noticed that Message-ID: <3o5sl8F4d12fU1@individual.net> from R D S > contained the following: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Spectacles look best on people... Are you putting yourself forward as a model? Rick > > Spectacles look best on people... > > Are you putting yourself forward as a model? He's just trying to make a spectacle of himself ;^) >> > Spectacles look best on people... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >;^) He should have gone to Specsavers ... ;-) > >> > Spectacles look best on people... > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ;-) He could also put a flash on the background to white it out as perfected by David Bailey or meter of a 50% grey card and the background should then (in theory) come out white as in the zone scale as perfected by Ansell Adams, Better still he could throw the camera in the bin and use a decent film camera and he would have much better results. >or meter of a 50% grey card I think you probably meant an 18% grey card. In over 30 years of photography I have never seen a 50% grey card, and probably never will. I noticed that Message-ID: <3o6bo1F4a95cU1@individual.net> from R D S contained the following: >Are you putting yourself forward as a model? Ooo no! glasses don't suit me at all. <g> Couple of ideas for you though in addition to the other stuff. For shadowless images consider using a piece of white perspex lit from below as well as top lighting. Another approach might be to forget the plain background and put the glasses in a pool of light which fades off to darkness. You then play around with the shadows cast by the spectacles (I can see what I mean but its hard to explain. See http://www.macom.org.il/images/daniel-spectacles.gif for the general idea. SignatureGeoff Berrow (put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ >Hi, >I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Any input appreciated, >Rick Does it have to be white? It may be easier to get an even background if you use black instead. Try a piece of black velvet, light from above or from the camera position. You should be able to get the exposure to the point where the background is a dead, even black. Experiment with black or white cards to put shadows or highlights on the lenses to suit your needs. If it has to be white, you could try using a sheet of translucent white plastic and lighting it from below, in addition to lighting the spectacles from above. This should, if you adjust the light intensities, give you an even white shadowless background. Black/white cards as above. Finally, provided you get the background near-white, try masking and paint-dropper in Photoshop to get a whiter background. Let us know how you get on. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > Does it have to be white? It may be easier to get an even background if > you use black instead. Try a piece of black velvet, light from above or > from the camera position. You should be able to get the exposure to the > point where the background is a dead, even black. Experiment with black > or white cards to put shadows or highlights on the lenses to suit your > needs. It wouldn't necessarily work though, would it ? The camera meter, expecting an average scene of 18 percent grey will simply turn the black background into 18 percent grey :-( SignatureNeil Barker >> Does it have to be white? It may be easier to get an even background if >> you use black instead. Try a piece of black velvet, light from above or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The camera meter, expecting an average scene of 18 percent grey will >simply turn the black background into 18 percent grey :-( Yes, I thought others had explained all that quite well. SignatureDavid Littlewood >> Does it have to be white? It may be easier to get an even background if >> you use black instead. Try a piece of black velvet, light from above or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The camera meter, expecting an average scene of 18 percent grey will > simply turn the black background into 18 percent grey :-( Bit like your hair. SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >Hi, >I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Any input appreciated I am surprised that no-one has offered the most useful advice of all, which would be to get a professional photographer to take the shots. Your web site makes your whole business look amateurish, yet the page design is good. The photos let it down. A professional would take competent shots of all your spectacle frames in a very short time. You could opt to accept the unedited shots, and do the simple corrections and cropping yourself, or the pro could do all that for you - satisfaction guaranteed. Product photography such as this is bread and butter work for many pros. No sweat. You would not be limited to white backgrounds, either. The possibilities are endless. And you would probably be surprised by how little all this would cost. The alternative is to muddle on, using received advice and/or a better camera, getting slightly better results - but not so much better that they enhance the image of your business rather than detract from it. Think about it! ;-) I noticed that Message-ID: <4fbsh1dtmma7qqfo8ln3gvaoj579g5d562@4ax.com> from Tony Polson contained the following: >I am surprised that no-one has offered the most useful advice of all, >which would be to get a professional photographer to take the shots. It's good advice but why are you surprised? It's a photographic question in a photographic group. >Your web site makes your whole business look amateurish, yet the page >design is good. The photos let it down. Even professionally produced photos of rimless glasses, shown on a web page will not do them justice. See http://www.specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=39&pna me=frames/ultralight_thumbs.html&range=ultralight&material=rimless&price= Even the detail shot is crap http://www.specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=39&pna me=frames/ultralight_detail.html&material=rimless&range=ultralight&price=&page=1 &prodid=1001464 I just don't think this white background approach works. Hence my advice about using models or more creative photography. SignatureGeoff Berrow (put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ > I noticed that Message-ID: <4fbsh1dtmma7qqfo8ln3gvaoj579g5d562@4ax.com> > from Tony Polson contained the following: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Even professionally produced photos of rimless glasses, shown on a web > page will not do them justice. See http://www.specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=39&pna me=frames/ultralight_thumbs.html&range=ultralight&material=rimless&price= > Even the detail shot is crap http://www.specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=39&pna me=frames/ultralight_detail.html&material=rimless&range=ultralight&price=&page=1 &prodid=1001464 > I just don't think this white background approach works. > Hence my advice about using models or more creative photography. Hi, your coloured background advice certainly hasn't been dismissed. It is up near the top of my list of things to try next, Rick >Hi, your coloured background advice certainly hasn't been dismissed. >It is up near the top of my list of things to try next, Actually, it was my advice. I'll send you the invoice. ;-) > Hi, > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Any input appreciated, > Rick It's best to use soft (relatively large, close & diffused) light sources. Two is usually enough for white background product shots. The other requirement is a camera that you can control in full manual mode and if it has a histogram display this is very useful too. From this set up you can get good strong balanced lighting and ensure you're exposing for the object and close to blow-out on the background. Finally a quick adjustment in Photoshop is the norm to make the whole of the background whiter than white! I was doing some shots like this last week, including a pair of ladies glasses, see http://www.pbase.com/stanmore/image/48880631&exif=Y . Usually it looks best to leave the soft shadows thrown by the object in place but Photoshop can easily be used to remove these too -- Simon http://www.pbase.com/stanmore > > Hi, > > I have taken some pics of products for a website I recently set up but my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Simon > http://www.pbase.com/stanmore Your pic is just the effect I am after, after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the following... http://www.justrimless.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5&products_id=234 which isn't perfect but a step in the right direction. Thanks for the help, Rick > after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the > following... > http://www.justrimless.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5&products_id=234 > which isn't perfect but a step in the right direction. The background's certainly better, but the glasses are still lit poorly, as I'm sure you'll realise. You could always get hold of various sponge/plastic dummy heads and use them as models ? SignatureNeil Barker > > after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the > > following... http://www.justrimless.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5&products_id=234 > > which isn't perfect but a step in the right direction. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You could always get hold of various sponge/plastic dummy heads and use > them as models ? The extra challenge comes from the fact that all the glasses are rimless and as such have nothing framing the lens, I worry that putting anything behind them will reduce the chance of seeing the lens shape. I am having to colour the lens edges as it is. I will give it a try though. Rick > The extra challenge comes from the fact that all the glasses are rimless and > as such have nothing framing the lens, I worry that putting anything behind > them will reduce the chance of seeing the lens shape. I am having to colour > the lens edges as it is. > I will give it a try though. Try using a black reflector. Fold a piece of black card into an arch and place it over the glasses as if they're under a bridge. You may find the best results are when the glasses are in complete shadow and only the background is illuminated. > The extra challenge comes from the fact that all the glasses are rimless > and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rick A clear glass of water can be lit very nicely with a clean white background so highlighting and shadowing the rimless lenses on your glasses should be pretty easy to achieve. It all boils down to the quality and positioning of the light sources you're using. What are you using at the moment? In post Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight function can enhance the visual strength of the edges very well too -- Simon http://www.pbase.com/stanmore >> after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the >> following... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You could always get hold of various sponge/plastic dummy heads and use > them as models ? Filth! SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >>> after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the >>> following... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Filth! Simulated Filth! Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil >>>> after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the >>>> following... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Simulated Filth! Stimulated Filth! SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >>>>> after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved the >>>>> following... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Stimulated Filth! Sick! Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil >>>>>> after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved >>>>>> the following... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Sick! Stick! SignaturePhil Kyle™ Uno Dos Tres Cuatro CINCO!!!!!! "Be very aware that my willingness to continue to criticise your sig is infinite." -- Neil Barker >>>>>>> after trying your methods and the cam set to EV+1 I have achieved >>>>>>> the following... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Stick! Slick! Signatureah fait loucher un bon oeil |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.