Taking Decent Pictures of gear

[ruffrecords]

I have a lot of trouble taking decent pictures of the gear I build. If I use flash I get lots of glare unless I take at some silly low angle and if I don't use flash the pictures are very grainy. Yet I see loads of great pictures on this site taken in workshops, gear on office chairs and so on. How do you do that? Is it just that I have a cheap Sony 10M pixel camera or is there some other secret?

Cheers

Ian

 

[Kingston]

You just need daylight, preferably sunlight. Even the crappiest camera will be happy. Some people can shoot great photos even in their workshops because of that. Forget flash, or the usual fluorescent workshop lights.

 

[sahib]

Ian,

Increase the picture resolution. Put it upto max. This will obvioulsy decreases the number of frames the camera can take as it will take up more space of the memory card. Then you can re-size the images on your pc .

Use tripod.

I am an old school. I shot on slide for 25 years and I used to be able get sharp images hand-held  one second. Not anymore.

Edit: Kingston, it depends how you utilise the fluorescent light.  I don't have any problem with it. On the other hand you can surprisingly be fooled by the "daylight". On an overcast daylight you'll never get a sharp image. It will be soft

 

[Scodiddly]

Use a tripod.  Even my ancient Fuji digital camera can take some great pictures if steady enough.  I like to use a tripod or other mount, and then set the timer so that the camera won't be jiggled by my pressing the shutter button.

 

[PRR]

> If I use flash I get lots of glare

Put a light on your forehead, look in a shiny mirror, you see glare.

(BTW: reverse the problem. A pro photographer knows how to handle this, but is liable to put a microphone next to a speaker and wonder how to control acoustic feedback, something we audio guys learned long ago.)

Shiny-stuff pictures "must always" be taken with light NOT on the camera, but off to the side.

You can use flash.... OFF-camera flash. Don't see that much these days, people got lazy. (And none of my popular-price digi-cams seem to have flash trigger outlets.) Even so, you can't see the glare until the flash goes off. (Pro flash has steady "modeling lights" to pre-view what the flash will do.)

Get work-lights. And stands (mike-stands may work).Two 100W incandescent isn't really enuff light for larger gear unless the camera is on tripod and does >1/50th second exposure. I'd turn to 150W-500W halogen (AKA curtain-burners) work-lights.

In many cases a small intense source will still find all the glare on a shiny toy. The standard lighting is light-sources larger than the object. Spots aimed into silvered umbrellas. Box with 25 small lamps behind frosted plastic. Fluorescent and LED light sources have become common among pros, but color-balance becomes an issue that us audo-guys can't handle.

 

[lassoharp]

Super steady hand and generous use of "Light Fill" function in photoshop or equivalent.  Always some shadows to contend with.

 

[okgb]

Turn the flash off  , find a good spot near a window , use macro setting if it's fairly tight or close up
tripod , monopod or something to brace the camera , average daylight is usually enough for me
read the manual ?  try the auto settings , should be possible

 

[Meathands]

DIY lightbox! http://jyoseph.com/blog/diy-light-box-for-product-photography/

 

[ruffrecords]

Thank you everyone for all the ideas. I tried extra lights - I bought a pair of lights on tripods with diffucser. Had great big energy saving bulbs in the. It produced a lot of light but I just got galrs like I did with flash Is there any benefit is a 'proper' camera with a decent diameter lens? The lens on my SOny thing is barely 1cm across.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Kingston]

I would still suggest you get to daylight. You need pretty heroic light gear to get anywhere near the even light conditions outside. Even on a cloudy day. There's probably nothing wrong with your camera for ok quality pictures. Even the smallest mobile camera can produce great pictures in broad daylight.

Steady hand is a given, but tripods might be unnecessary.

 

[sahib]

Ian,

I think you should upgrade to a low end slr type. It does not have to be slr. I use now old Fuji 7000. You can get something similar for a couple of hundred quids at most.

Using external lighting is complicating things. You either do it with proper gear or you don't at all. So throw away that lighting. However, in general diffuser will not prevent glare as the light is direct. It will also soften the image. Instead you bounce the light from a reflector.

These digital cameras are so good that using a mixture of fluorescent on your ceiling and daylight from your window will be more than enough to produce good result.

Also use pieces of white cardboard/plastic as reflectors and place them behind and sides of your object to drop ligh and to define boundaries of the object. At the same time you can minimise/eliminate glare (for example you might be seeing your ceiling lighting on your object) by holding again a piece of sheet of cardboard over your object.

Use a  proper back drop.

This is taken with my digital Fuji. No external lighting, nothing. A back drop on my deska and a fluorescent light. But white reflectors around. Look underside of the image on left how the light is reflected. Also notice how the object is isolated from the background due to the reflectors placed on the sidies.
http://www.robotica.co.uk/robotica/ramc/products/robotic_arms/edubot250.htm

 

[ruffrecords]

Thanks again for all the good advice. My mate Bob has a chunky digital camera with a big looking lens. I'll get him to bring it round so I can try it out before I shell out any money on one for myself.

Cheers

Ian

 

[PRR]

> a decent diameter lens? The lens on my SOny thing is barely 1cm across.

And the "film" is also about 1cm.

Note that your eye, your reference for "nice image", opens only about 1mm-2mm.

With 2-inch (35mm) film you use a 2-inch long 1" or 1.5" wide lens.... mostly because you can.

When I was a boy I lugged 4x5 gear for my dad. Lens was 5" or 6" long, wasn't even an inch wide.

_Ratio_ of lens opening to length/width is one factor of Depth Of Field. Focus the woman's eyes but soften the hair and nose.

In most Product Photography you want maximum DoF, minimum lens opening. Depending on format and lens, f/8 to f/22. Which means sunlight if you want to hand-hold, or tripod. However with longer lenses (less foreshortening) you may not need huge DoF, f/4 can be fine.

I'm happy with an old Fuji S5000 and with a $140 Canon (which I got $5 used). Lighting and careful thought counts for more than glass or film.

> with diffucser.

Probably not big enough.

Sahib is suggesting "huge" light sources. Whole ceilings, or white "walls" right next to the object.

For smaller items, Meathands' pointer to a lightbox is great. Jewelry, trinkets.... whole cars if you build it big enough.

Greg's idea "near a window" is classic, even before photography.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/product-photography.htm

 

[sahib]

PRR,

My apologies if I was clear. I was meaning normal ceiling lights not the big flash boxes.

However, I also have the S5000 which was my first digital camera. I bought the S7000 because my sister confiscated the 5000.

 

[okgb]

Since we're talking about it what opinions does anyone have for a capable
all around family camera ? [ digital ]
To me it's important to have faithful color reproduction , low light
good macro , google seems to dig up shit years old , which maybe o.k. if buying a used camera

 

[Jean Clochet]

Ian,
If you wanted some control of the lighting situation (shooting indoors maybe) rather than waiting for the British Sun to show its face, standard work lights such as those you can find @ B & Q (buy them off Ebay though for much less £) are very close to the colour temperature of pro TV/Movie lights.  A standard 3 point lighting setup would set you back just a few quid that way. 
A make-shift but acceptable diffuser can be made out of a white sheet stretched over a frame made from PVC pipes and 90 degree bends and "T" sections (also all found @ B & Q).

For small subjects, you can use those cheap (£3 or so) white LED book light things with a little stand and a flexible neck.  I've done decent shots with 3 or 4 of them strategically arranged. 

Every digital camera I've owned has been capable of "good enough for web publishing use" shots.  Unless you're blowing up to a billboard poster size, number of pixels don't really mean that much IMO, but lens quality does. 

Having said that, none of my digi cameras are working at the moment so I've gone back to shooting slide and B & W stuff on some Russian rangefinder cameras coupled with a pre-war F3.5 Elmar or a 50mm/F1.5 from 1948.    All ancient stuff but the images looks lovely!

Keeping an eye on customer feedback regarding the Sony NEX-7 APS-C sensor digital though to see how it fares in use for HD video recording.

Cheers.



   

 

[sahib]

I do not mean to contradict. We are all throwing in our own experience for the common good.

The colour temperature of the light is generally not important in digital as you can calibrate the camera before hand and compensate. Unless of course in very low temperature like 2000 Kelvin which is tungsten and you end up with a total orange overcast.

My masters may have a good experience in using cheap lighting but I'd say if you want to use ligthing then invest into a proper studio flash system. You don't need many. Just a single 250W to 500W with a brolley will be good enough for the type of gear we deal with.

However, even a couple of strips of fluorescent on the ceiling will be more than enough. A splash of daylight is just the icing on the cake.

I do not wish to bore you to death but below are all taken in my office under ceiling fluorescent. 

 

[Jean Clochet]

I do not mean to contradict. We are all throwing in our own experience for the common good.

  It's all good.

The colour temperature of the light is generally not important in digital as you can calibrate the camera before hand and compensate. Unless of course in very low temperature like 2000 Kelvin which is tungsten and you end up with a total orange overcast.

Yes I suppose so.  I admit to coming at it from a still film and 35mm movie perspective and from the snippets I've picked up from cinematographers when I've managed to corner them for 10 minutes.
I guess we're saying the same thing really in that, if you do need lighting, it's possible to do it without buying lots of uber expensive stuff.

Can't say I like flash lighting myself though as I learnt what little I know about lighting and exposure on film and TV sets where the lighting is for motion capture and continous.  That's just me though.

I do not wish to bore you to death

Not boring at all, your shots look good.

Cheers. 

 

[Marik]

Very cheap and gives pro results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bAh193Iwc

Best, M

 

[sahib]

...I guess we're saying the same thing really in that, if you do need lighting, it's possible to do it without buying lots of uber expensive stuff.

Absolutely 100%. As Marik's link anything that works, and simplicity is the key.

But to emphasise again even the cheapest digital camera is capable of giving great results under ordinary lighting conditions. I have got some shots that I did with my Fuji S5000 which would take me a whole day to set up if I was using slide, and a serious amount of lighting.

Can't say I like flash lighting myself though as I learnt what little I know about lighting and exposure on film and TV sets where the lighting is for motion capture and continous.  That's just me though.

Its got its own place. But the biggest advantage is that you can generate thousands of watts without melting your object as it would be the case with film/tv lighting. You'd be hard pressed to do the below without flash. They are all shot on slide (6X6).

Funny you mentioned Russian stuff. I took this with my old Hasselblad copy Kiev.

http://www.robotica.co.uk/ozturk/marine/gannet.htm


Now, this is a serious stuff. Took me 4-5 polaroids to get to the final shot.

http://www.robotica.co.uk/ozturk/engineering/football_cd.htm