PDA

View Full Version : Photography Help!



CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 06:21 PM
Need some help from our resident shutter bugs.

We have a consignment of fine art pieces, African masks, figures, etc. So I need to upgrade to fine art level photography for the website and internet bidding. OK, not $10,000 per piece quality, but still nice pieces.

We normally shoot the smaller collectibles and such in a photo box, your basic diffuser. We've always needed better lighting so now's a good time but the diffuser works OK for most of what we shoot. These pieces we're shooting on a black background which is really sharp on these more natural pieces.

The problem is the glare on pieces that have a shine to them. Totally messes up the color of course, all you get is a picture of light reflecting so you loose the wood/dark tones.

I'm assuming this is a function of lighting. The camera we use scans barcodes to keep images organized so changing camera is the absolutely last thing I want to do. I can change everything else. The picture quality is plenty good for internet viewing even zoomed, but I'm losing the tones as the glare creates lighting hot spots that change the color tones or just show reflected light.

So what's the best setup for shooting this kind of art? Specifically I'm wondering

-- Fluorescent, Halogen, what kind of lights
-- Distance of diffuser from subject. the box we use is maybe 3x3 for art that's maybe 6"x12" high.
-- distance of lights to diffuser.
-- Camera settings I can tweak.
-- anything else anyone can suggest.

I have no expectation of doing true professional level work here. This is about the buyer knowing what they're buying, which in the case of art of course means knowing the coloration.

In this image you can see the problem. The lips on the mask are in fact blue, the face white, but the forehead is the same dark brown/black you see along the bottom edge of the mask. it turns out this washed out bluish tone.

Thanks guys. I'm grateful for any insight from our photo braintrust.

1568

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 07:18 PM
You need a light box. This will give you an idea of what you want. (http://www.buy.com/prod/cowboystudio-photography-studio-table-top-lighting-light-tent-case-pb05/217118964.html?listingId=102368313)

You can make your own for cheap using a cardboard box with windows cut on 2 sides and the top. Tape some tracing paper over the windows for the light to diffuse and shine thru. You can buy fancy daylight balanced lights, or you can use 150 watt tungsten lights and balance the light color in camera or in post processing. If you want to spend a little more money, you can get a few cheap camera flash units and some off camera triggers for them to activate the flash units and use them instead of the light bulbs.

It will take some practice to get the results you want any way you go. Oh, in all of these cases, make sure you turn off the auto pop up flash on the camera. That direct light wiil result in glare no mater whether you are using a light box or not.

edited to add, that you will want to mount the camera on a tripod as the shutter speeds you will get in full auto will be less than you can handhold without getting some motion blur.

Darrell KSR
01-21-2013, 07:40 PM
That looks slick.
Will it work with my flash cubes?

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 08:56 PM
Dan,

sadly this was taken inside a box. Just one we got on Ebay but with the side diffuser panels. I have a feeling I need more lumens but placed farther away so the light is more diffuse inside the box but I'm just guessing.

As much as possible I need to avoid post production work simply for time. I can pay more attention to these pieces than usual, but we will do 300-400 or more items for the catalog, shooting anywhere between 2 and 15 pictures for each. it's over 1,000 for almost every auction. For a gun sale it's over 2,000. I have to live with "good enough" a lot. lol

Even this African collection will be 5-7 pics each times 75 items for about 400-500 or so pictures. obviously for a $300-$400 piece of art (or more) it's worth some time but I know my setup is a weak spot so it may at least minimize the number of pics that need work if I do a better job with it.

I've messed with color in the camera. it has settings for fluorescent and daylight, etc. and it helps. where it still really shows up is on those hot spots with the lighting. Maybe if I get that fixed better the color will improve enough in camera to be OK.

Is 150 watt enough? i thought about getting 500W work lights and placing them at distance but that's a LOT of light and heat for an inventory environment. I can always swap out those bulbs for 150 or 250W.

Dumb question, do halogens turn yellow as they age? I tried some trade show type lights that had older bulbs and it came out a much browner light. I'm sure we're talking about the pure white halogens more like work lights or torchiers?

blueboss
01-21-2013, 09:17 PM
That looks slick.
Will it work with my flash cubes?

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

I had no idea the Africans used aluminum in there death mask carvings I thought they were always carved out of native woods.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 09:27 PM
Please see below


Dan,

sadly this was taken inside a box. Just one we got on Ebay but with the side diffuser panels. I have a feeling I need more lumens but placed farther away so the light is more diffuse inside the box but I'm just guessing.

If you place the light source further from the light box you will have lots of photons flying around the room and many of them bouncing into the front of the box. Is there a chance that this could already be happening? Are you in a room with highly reflective coatings on the walls, ceilings , floors or shiny equipment along the walls? Or in your bedroom full of mirrors? If anything, I would try less wattage from the bulbs and place them closer to the box. You would not want to be using bare bulbs either as they need to be mounted in a fixture to focus the light at the opening of the box.

As much as possible I need to avoid post production work simply for time. I can pay more attention to these pieces than usual, but we will do 300-400 or more items for the catalog, shooting anywhere between 2 and 15 pictures for each. it's over 1,000 for almost every auction. For a gun sale it's over 2,000. I have to live with "good enough" a lot. lol

Even this African collection will be 5-7 pics each times 75 items for about 400-500 or so pictures. obviously for a $300-$400 piece of art (or more) it's worth some time but I know my setup is a weak spot so it may at least minimize the number of pics that need work if I do a better job with it.

If you get it set up right, then the number of images should only be regulated by the number of different poses you want to save.

I've messed with color in the camera. it has settings for fluorescent and daylight, etc. and it helps. where it still really shows up is on those hot spots with the lighting. Maybe if I get that fixed better the color will improve enough in camera to be OK.

If you are using tungsten lights, and I absolutely do not recommend any kind of florescent light, there should be a tungsten setting in the camera menu. That setting generally does and adequate job for color rendition. Daylight setting would be for flash or outdoors between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm this time of year.

Is 150 watt enough? i thought about getting 500W work lights and placing them at distance but that's a LOT of light and heat for an inventory environment. I can always swap out those bulbs for 150 or 250W.

Will you take a shot of the ebay box and post it here?

Dumb question, do halogens turn yellow as they age? I tried some trade show type lights that had older bulbs and it came out a much browner light. I'm sure we're talking about the pure white halogens more like work lights or torchiers?

I do not know if halogens change color with age but yes I was talking about the work lights.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 09:48 PM
Does the camera have a detachable flash? If so please try this if the room you are in has a white ceiling. Place the mask face up on the black fabric. Adjust the business end of the flash to where it will point at the ceiling when you aim the camera at the mask. Choose "flash" or "daylight" in the camera menu and take a shot using the flash and no other light other than room ambient light.

How does the image look?

This is not a solution I know, but I am just trying to remotely figure out what is going on with the glare on the mask

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 09:50 PM
Thanks for the help dan.

I tried both the older halogens and fluorescents, both in directional lamps, right at the sides of the box, but I'm worried that those light reflections meant it didn't diffuse enough. I could see the bulbs through it though obviously diffused quite a bit.

I could be dead wrong, I took that reflection off the mask as it not being diffuse enough.

the booth is set up in the gallery, so it has drop ceiling fluorescent but nothing directly on it. If I turn out the side lights for the box it's very dark. I can set it up without the ceiling lights, but without the work lights we're talking about that hasn't left enough light. Sounds like what I need is 100% of the light coming from them though the diffusers. that will definitely require more lumens than I have on there now.

Re picture quantity - that's correct. One pic per angle/shot. For these pieces 5-6 as I rotate it. For a long gun it can be 20 shots, though I'm working on a new zoom tool for the site that would cut that down quite a bit.

Here's a pic of the box, using the red liner. Comes with white, blue, red and black.

1569

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LARGE-36-Deluxe-Photo-Light-Tent-Cube-Soft-Box-90cm-Bag-and-Colors-Background-/150984026829?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2327596acd

Thanks again Dan.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 09:53 PM
I can make a box too, probably will for the bigger items. Most that I've read recommend ripstop nylon. This is the one they have at the gallery. I'm going to build a complete steel setup for this once I get the light/distances/angles roughed out. put it on rollers with the lights and diffusers all in place and then I can adjust them some as needed. It's actually set up on a wood one now to roll around and do inventory, but it doesn't have the framing to do the lighting setup right.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 09:58 PM
You are most likely correct about there being too much light entering the box and causing the reflection. The only other answer is that the ambient light in the room from the ceiling fixtures is causing the reflection. Yes you do want the light that reaches the image to be light you intend to enter the tent and be bounced around the white walls as that it what "should" provide even lighting over the entire object.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:01 PM
Does the camera have a detachable flash? If so please try this if the room you are in has a white ceiling. Place the mask face up on the black fabric. Adjust the business end of the flash to where it will point at the ceiling when you aim the camera at the mask. Choose "flash" or "daylight" in the camera menu and take a shot using the flash and no other light other than room ambient light.

How does the image look?

This is not a solution I know, but I am just trying to remotely figure out what is going on with the glare on the mask

Not a detachable/external flash. These things are ruggedized for outdoor use. Watertight to 1 meter, rubberized for drops, etc. It's a decent enough camera, but its strength is definitely as an industrial/military spec camera for inventory and logging.

I can take it with one of my 500w torchier lamps on full blast onto the ceiling and no flash if that would help.

I will say when I've used flash on this camera I've never had any luck getting a decent shot. I'm going to have to look it up but I think it has an external link for flash through the aux port. it's a Ricoh caplio 500se fwiw. We sold them when I was selling software, have all the docs somewhere. Looking for manual now.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:04 PM
CBBN, after looking at the mask picture some more, and seeing the light tent you are using, it does appear that light from the front of the tent is causing the glare. Try taking the shot again with the tent lights on and the room lights off?

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:09 PM
You are most likely correct about there being too much light entering the box and causing the reflection. The only other answer is that the ambient light in the room from the ceiling fixtures is causing the reflection. Yes you do want the light that reaches the image to be light you intend to enter the tent and be bounced around the white walls as that it what "should" provide even lighting over the entire object.

I can adjust for the ceiling lights but they aren't bright at all, we only turn on some of them when we don't have an auction so it's not even normal office lighting levels. I wonder if I'm not getting good reflection inside the box.

If I put a light facing in from the front but covered that with a diffuser would that help or hurt? I could get more light in from that 'side' instead of having huge wattage on the sides, kind of even it out around the box.

Same thing for the top. the top of that box isn't really designed to have light through it but I think it needs it b/c I have a feeling it's not randomly reflecting enough light to have full light without the hot spots. I might also be able to put a more reflective cloth on the top inside if it's not reflecting well.

the reflecting thing I hadn't thought about. I'm getting some reflection from the two sides, but not the top or front very much. back and bottom obviously are black.

I'm going to get the work lights tomorrow morning and try them for sure. I can always use a few if they don't work.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:09 PM
Is this the camera?

1570

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:10 PM
CBBN, after looking at the mask picture some more, and seeing the light tent you are using, it does appear that light from the front of the tent is causing the glare. Try taking the shot again with the tent lights on and the room lights off?

I can do that. I turned the box lights on and off and cut the glare but of course it gets really dark. Sounds like though you do see the glare as some kind of shadow/lack of diffusion? As long as I even know what path to look down I can do some useful tests.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:15 PM
You may have already tried this, but moving the object inside the tent to a different position may help as well. Move it forward and backward in the tent. Do you have an image of the mask with one side facing the front of the tent instead of a full face on image?

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:15 PM
Is this the camera?

1570

That's her. I need to look and see what the most recent version is that can read barcodes, if any. I had to write a lot of custom software to hook this thing into the system which is one reason I haven't looked, also cost of course.

The system itself is slick. had to write the code, but these cameras scan the barcodes and encode it in the exif data. It can encode sound too so you can record the description with the picture. my software reads it out of the exif and stores them all in the database. I can get 1,000 pics from the camera to the database on the right items in two button clicks. Thus my love of them for this work.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:21 PM
Yes sir that is correct. A light box/tent is designed to provide even, soft lighting all around the object and it is obvious from afar that there is too much light falling on the front of the mask. That may be a function of the surface of the mask in relation to the rest of the mask surface and it's color, but if it is fairly uniform, then there is just too much light hitting the front in relation to the rest of the mask surface.


I can do that. I turned the box lights on and off and cut the glare but of course it gets really dark. Sounds like though you do see the glare as some kind of shadow/lack of diffusion? As long as I even know what path to look down I can do some useful tests.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:26 PM
You may have already tried this, but moving the object inside the tent to a different position may help as well. Move it forward and backward in the tent. Do you have an image of the mask with one side facing the front of the tent instead of a full face on image?

Tried moving it front and back and of course it changes, but it's just moving the glare somewhat. The angles on the tops of the masks or on figures that angle is where it goes awry.

Here's one that turned out pretty well IMO. It doesn't have a sheen to it, came out nice.

1571


This one is supposed to be almost completely black. you'll see a little of the brown wood showing through in the body, but the face should be a deep charcoal.

1572

The mask was with less light, and the settings on the fertility totem were different but you get the idea. Every shot I did had that washed out head.

sorry to bug you to death on this. I'm very grateful. Uzi shooting is on me.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:27 PM
Another thing to try using the current lights you have is to provide more diffusion between the light source and the sides of the tent. A single layer of white paper towels draped snugly over the tent might provide some more evidence in testing.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:33 PM
Yes sir that is correct. A light box/tent is designed to provide even, soft lighting all around the object and it is obvious from afar that there is too much light falling on the front of the mask. That may be a function of the surface of the mask in relation to the rest of the mask surface and it's color, but if it is fairly uniform, then there is just too much light hitting the front in relation to the rest of the mask surface.

or from the top of wherever. Glad to know my basic understanding is at least down the right road. The point of the box is to randomly scatter photons to give an even, shadowless surface. it's not doing that. I don't know if it's b/c the light is overwhelming the diffuser (too close etc.) or coming in from the front, but I can at least test the right things.

Could I need a different diffuser material to get the quality I want? Any favorite? I see a lot of people recommend ripstop nylong, but also see translucent mylar or similar opaque plastic. I can get about anything. can build the whole box out of opaque plastic if necessary.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 10:41 PM
Another thing to try using the current lights you have is to provide more diffusion between the light source and the sides of the tent. A single layer of white paper towels draped snugly over the tent might provide some more evidence in testing.

Sorry, was going down this road and overlapped your post. I could put something opaque in between the halogens and the box, I'll give that a try. Wonder if I still have any opaque plastics around.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:44 PM
I think the first image looks like it should and the 2nd is just over powered by the light. One last thought for tonight. What camera mode are you currently using?

A suggestion............ Select the ISO you want to use, and I would recommend starting with 400. Select the aperture you want use, and here again, I would suggest f2.8 up to f5.6. Put camera in manual and start changing shutter speeds until you get the image to look like you think it should. By doing this, you may be able to leave the light source as it is and take control of the image by using manual exposure controls.

Do not under any circumstances mention this technique to Darrell

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 10:47 PM
Sorry, was going down this road and overlapped your post. I could put something opaque in between the halogens and the box, I'll give that a try. Wonder if I still have any opaque plastics around.

Make sure that whatever you use is fairly tight to the outside of the tent, otherwise you will be scattering photons before they get to the tent and the result will not be good.

CitizenBBN
01-21-2013, 11:16 PM
Thanks for all the help Dan. Yeah the first mask image I did looks good. If I can repeat that 75 times I'm in great shape. :)

I'll let you know how it goes.

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 11:22 PM
What an idiot I can be at times. You said the bottom of the mask was the right color and there is no reflected light hitting it from the black background below it. The only light hitting the bottom part of the mask is obliquely from the sides. The face looks silver which I think is a color balance issue in camera, not too much light being reflected from it, but there is definitely too much light entering the tent from the sides because the top and sides of the mask has a washed out color.

Try this along with either reducing the wattage of the bulbs, or increasing the opacity of the diffusion. Change the black back and bottom to white and see what happens. All things need to be equal and black is not equal to white. Using the black for the bottom should give a different color to the base of the images, and with taller objects, I do not think it will work right especially when the object is placed on a stand.

Black works great for objects that lay flat on it like a pistol or a dime, but not in this case or so I think

dan_bgblue
01-21-2013, 11:31 PM
All right, this is my final thought for sure tonight. The 2nd attached image has a washed out background as well. If you did not change the lighting between the 2 attached images it tells me that your camera is not metering the light correctly in all of the shots. It exposes some shots correctly and others it does not.

Do the manual exposure thing before you try to alter your set up a lot. Manual exposure just takes control away from the camera's algorithms for exposure and forces you to do it yourself.

dan_bgblue
01-24-2013, 04:38 PM
A question I should have asked to start with. When you placed the objects in the light tent, the ones that look to be overexposed, how did they look to you? Well lit, and good color? If that is the case, it is definitely an issue with the camera and not the lighting. Properly set, the camera should render the same image your eyes see.

CitizenBBN
01-24-2013, 08:36 PM
I think it's some of both.

Certainly a better camera would help. I need to look to see if there are better models now that still do the barcodes, ideally with the same specs for the exif data. The problem is $600+ for a camera just isn't in the cards right now esp since we have two of them.

I got a lot of improvements, was going to post the outcome, or at least where I'm at now.

First I got some halogen worklights. These can run 200, 500 or 700 watts. One on each side of the photo box. Running the 200 setting with the lights 3' or so back so the light has spread out to cover the entire side of the box.

It diffuses pretty well. Still some shine on the reflective surfaces, but not much. Certainly no shadowing or hot spot lighting, just the side to side slight shine.

We are still shooting black, the art looks better against it than anything else. Got the idea from a very nice high end art auction catalog. At least for these African pieces it looks sharp. But we did flip the black over to the shinier side and that helped a lot too. So we're going to get some black backdrop but with some sheen to it versus a felt or velvet.

Messing with the camera I found an important setting. Ricoh calls it "photometry" but it's where the camera measures the light levels to adjust the picture lighting. It defaults to sampling the entire image. I set it to focus on the center so it doesn't worry about light levels from the sides of the box or the backdrop. That helped a TON to get the coloration more accurate. With that set I didn't have to do any brightness adjustments on the camera at all, which has given a much better picture.

It's not perfect, but much better. The camera settings change, the more diffuse lighting and the backdrop change together has made it acceptable for this level of art. If this were $5,000+ pieces I'd bring in a real photographer anyway. These pieces are mostly in the 100s not 1,000s and I think this will work. At least it's way better than what we were doing.

I appreciate all the help. I was able to start getting these done yesterday and today, have 8 left that won't fit in the photo booth. In the long run I need to look at better cameras and a more thorough setup, but I think we're at least to good enough for this sale. I hope.

CitizenBBN
01-24-2013, 08:43 PM
Here are some shots of what is coming out now. The quality in megs is still low, that's getting boosted way up as part of the site upgrade. (toss that on my endless list).

Not as deep as I'd like, but way better IMO. FWIW please tell me if they still suck. better to hear from friends than sellers and buyers. Eliminating the downsampling will help.

1584

1585

dan_bgblue
01-24-2013, 09:20 PM
Messing with the camera I found an important setting. Ricoh calls it "photometry" but it's where the camera measures the light levels to adjust the picture lighting. It defaults to sampling the entire image. I set it to focus on the center so it doesn't worry about light levels from the sides of the box or the backdrop.

Terrific!! That solved most of the light metering issue. Images look a lot better this time around. To be perfectly honest I would like them to pop more and separate themselves from the background, but that particular camera and it's small minimum aperture will not allow you the artistic ability to separate them.

Glad you got the system working for you.

dan_bgblue
01-24-2013, 10:09 PM
When you look at camera upgrades if you ever want to, you might want to take a look at this.

http://www.barcodesinc.com/news/?p=2807

CitizenBBN
01-24-2013, 11:40 PM
They do need to pop more. With the felt side on some pieces it would do it great, but not on others. Glad you think they're better. For this I think we're OK, but I'm going to get a couple of my art collector friends to look at them. That's the test they have to pass.

I'm going to look for cameras. Thanks for the link. The problem with those kinds, with external barcode support, is just that they're cumbersome. Not necessarily a deal breaker but the Ricoh cameras are ideal for inventory. Just not for fine art. lol.

Looks like there's a new Ricoh that still has the barcode stuff, rugged, etc. G700 is the model. here are the specs:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/894538-REG/Ricoh_174383_G700_Waterproof_Digital_Camera.html

Not sure if that's an upgrade or not. More megapixels, but I know that's not the problem here. Not an immediate thing, but a "like to" thing if it is a big step up. The thing is other than for this kind of art they are pretty good.