First paid product gig! Need to match existing shots, having trouble managing highlights and reflections. Thanks for looking :)

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
This is the image link :)

Super excited to have landed a product photography client last week but this morning I'm slightly freaking out - I can't seem to manage the boot highlights with my existing setup. Any help or advice is super appreciated.

Best wishes!

-r

P.S. Not sure if this is the correct forum for this post, please lmk if I posted in error and I'll delete/relocate the post :)

------ Thanks so much for all the great advice! Still took a few hours of struggle but I'm very happy with the result --------

Here's the final shot side by side with the client's example if you're curious :)
 
Last edited:
I look forward to learning from the more experienced posters.

But having said that, looking at your example with the shot you are trying to mimic.......could it have had the reflection suppressed by using an anti-reflection spray??? I ask because I can still see some evidence of hot spots!
 
The original was just lit from overhead, move the light overhead and a bit behind center.
The closer you can place it the more transparent the highlights will become, and the shadows will become softer. But they didn't do that in the original, they just shot shadow side with no fill or additional lighting/technique... I would think think the client would prefer if you could do a little better...
 
Last edited:
I have never done product photography so don’t shoot me! As someone who does a lot of landscapes would a polariser ever be used in a situation like this?
 
I have never done product photography so don’t shoot me! As someone who does a lot of landscapes would a polariser ever be used in a situation like this?
A polarizer could be used to tone some of the highlights down, but it won't have a uniform effect because the surfaces/angles are not uniform.
 
A polarizer could be used to tone some of the highlights down, but it won't have a uniform effect because the surfaces/angles are not uniform.
Right ok. I’ve used one apart from landscapes and messing around at home when I just got it.
 
Drop the flash power and up the shadows in post? As much asking myself here tbh.
 
This is the image link :)

Super excited to have landed a product photography client last week but this morning I'm slightly freaking out - I can't seem to manage the boot highlights with my existing setup.

Seriously? so you get a client with a task you cant handle so you join a forum to see if you can learn enough to satisfy your client, in the words of dragons den, "I'm out"
 
As above the key light is above and slightly behind the boot (I’m not an expert on product shots but it’s often a great start point).
I think there’s also a light camera right adding the highlight at the back of the boot.
 
I would pack the boot with stuff to even out the surfaces as well, that should help a bit.

You are getting more shadows next to highlights because of the curves.
 
I think there’s also a light camera right adding the highlight at the back of the boot.
I think that, as well as the light on the inside of the heel, is coming from the BG... might have been more of a cube/cove type setup, but there's really nothing special about the shot.
 
I think that, as well as the light on the inside of the heel, is coming from the BG... might have been more of a cube/cove type setup, but there's really nothing special about the shot.
You’re right it’s a fairly typical product shot, but the OP has no idea what that really means.

@saddlemeyer check out the book advertised in the sticky at the top also @Garry Edwards videos on the Lencarta website.
 
Shame Roger has not come back it's always great to see the end result after receiving some guidence.

Gaz
 
I'm on my farm right now, and only have my phone...

Will try to give a detailed reply over the weekend. Meanwhile, don't worry about it, it seems to be simple enough, and an ideal first job.
 
Shame Roger has not come back it's always great to see the end result after receiving some guidence.

Gaz

Wow, what an intense day! Really fun ones the dots start connecting though.

Moving the lights overhead and using fill cards did the trick. At least, close enough as far as I'm concerned. Lots of great help around these parts!

Here's a link to the final image

One shoe down, five more to go :)

Best!
 
I'm on my farm right now, and only have my phone...

Will try to give a detailed reply over the weekend. Meanwhile, don't worry about it, it seems to be simple enough, and an ideal first job.

Yeah I think so too! I've already learned a ton.
 
The original was just lit from overhead, move the light overhead and a bit behind center.
The closer you can place it the more transparent the highlights will become, and the shadows will become softer. But they didn't do that in the original, they just shot shadow side with no fill or additional lighting/technique... I would think think the client would prefer if you could do a little better...

Yes, this did the trick! I should've looked more closely at the lighting on the shoe. Thanks so much for the tip :) :)
 
I have never done product photography so don’t shoot me! As someone who does a lot of landscapes would a polariser ever be used in a situation like this?

Actually yes! I tried it. Although it didn't entirely solve the problem the polarizer did cut down the reflection a bit :)
 
I would pack the boot with stuff to even out the surfaces as well, that should help a bit.

You are getting more shadows next to highlights because of the curves.

Tried this too! Actually at first I over-stuffed them and they looked weird, but the extra padding helped on some of the angles for sure.
 
A polarizer could be used to tone some of the highlights down, but it won't have a uniform effect because the surfaces/angles are not uniform.

Oh, btw this was definitely my experience. And actually the non-uniformity came in handy at times, especially when I was catching too much light on the heels of the boots. I found that I could dial it back with only minimal changes to the forefoot highlight.
 
Well, first of all, my congratulations for taking this work on. As I'm sure you've now realised, even simple product photography such as this involves a very different knowledge base and a very different set of skills from almost every other type of photography.

Your first example was frankly terrible, as you realised, because the lighting was hopelessly wrong, as SK66 correctly pointed out.
The original was just lit from overhead, move the light overhead and a bit behind center.
The closer you can place it the more transparent the highlights will become, and the shadows will become softer. But they didn't do that in the original, they just shot shadow side with no fill or additional lighting/technique... I would think think the client would prefer if you could do a little better...
Your second link shows that you've taken that advice on board and I think that your latest version is now a bit better than the sample shot that you were asked to emulate - but that isn't saying much:)
I have never done product photography so don’t shoot me! As someone who does a lot of landscapes would a polariser ever be used in a situation like this?
As you've discovered, a polariser can be useful but has severe limitations. Correct placement of lights does everything that a polariser can do, and more, and I've never met a serious product photographer who uses one.
I would pack the boot with stuff to even out the surfaces as well, that should help a bit.

You are getting more shadows next to highlights because of the curves.
Correct. Some packing out is always necessary but it takes a bit of practice to get it right.
I look forward to learning from the more experienced posters.

But having said that, looking at your example with the shot you are trying to mimic.......could it have had the reflection suppressed by using an anti-reflection spray??? I ask because I can still see some evidence of hot spots!
Dulling spray was very popular 50 years ago, fortunately we no longer try to suppress reflections, we now try to enhance and control them at the same time.

You've followed the advice, but not completely. Your overhead softbox needs to be MUCH closer, and only just out of shot. It also needs to be a bit behind the subject and pointing partly towards the camera. In lighting terms, your boot is very similar to the example subject that I used in my tutorial on creating specular highlights, here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/controlling-specular-reflections/#.VjzW6ysl-hE which, with all due modesty, is the definitive tutorial on the subject. You'll note that this involved just a single light, plus a reflector to kick 'spare' light into the areas at the front that were placed in shadow because of the position of the light, just like your boot. For the final image I did introduce a second light, gelled to colour part of the background, but that bit was just really playing, or showing off, and didn't affect the actual product lighting.

If you use the technique I outlined in that tutorial you'll also need to point some kind of light at the background, to avoid it going black (because little or no light is reaching it) because it's much easier to cut a subject out of a grey-ish background than a black one. Don't bring extra lights into play to make the background white, that will reduce image quality unless you have both a lot of experience and a lot of space.

So much for the lighting, but the pose is wrong too. If you look at sales pages for high end shoes you'll see that there is a set arrangement for the main image, as shown in this tutorial https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/shooting-the-shoe/#.Vjx2WCsl-hE
You will of course also take shots from other angles, plus close-up shots, but the main image should always be taken at the angle shown.

Now what? My guess is that you've now finished this shoot to your own satisfaction but probably haven't supplied the images yet. My suggestion is that you experiment and take my advice on board, and supply your client with two separate sets of images - the ones that match the quality standard that they asked for and a set that show them that you can do far, far better - that's the way to improve your value to your client, gain more clients, make more money and improve your standards.
 
Last edited:
A polarizer could be used to tone some of the highlights down, but it won't have a uniform effect because the surfaces/angles are not uniform.

You can do 2 or 3 angles and put them together in post. Pretty standard technique...


Light position is what gives a result. Angle of incidence is equal to angle of reflection. The rest can be worked out. Reproduction lighting is typically 2 lights 45 or so degree to each side...
 
Well, first of all, my congratulations for taking this work on. As I'm sure you've now realised, even simple product photography such as this involves a very different knowledge base and a very different set of skills from almost every other type of photography.

Your first example was frankly terrible, as you realised, because the lighting was hopelessly wrong, as SK66 correctly pointed out.

Your second link shows that you've taken that advice on board and I think that your latest version is now a bit better than the sample shot that you were asked to emulate - but that isn't saying much:)

As you've discovered, a polariser can be useful but has severe limitations. Correct placement of lights does everything that a polariser can do, and more, and I've never met a serious product photographer who uses one.

Correct. Some packing out is always necessary but it takes a bit of practice to get it right.

Dulling spray was very popular 50 years ago, fortunately we no longer try to suppress reflections, we now try to enhance and control them at the same time.

You've followed the advice, but not completely. Your overhead softbox needs to be MUCH closer, and only just out of shot. It also needs to be a bit behind the subject and pointing partly towards the camera. In lighting terms, your boot is very similar to the example subject that I used in my tutorial on creating specular highlights, here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/controlling-specular-reflections/#.VjzW6ysl-hE which, with all due modesty, is the definitive tutorial on the subject. You'll note that this involved just a single light, plus a reflector to kick 'spare' light into the areas at the front that were placed in shadow because of the position of the light, just like your boot. For the final image I did introduce a second light, gelled to colour part of the background, but that bit was just really playing, or showing off, and didn't affect the actual product lighting.

If you use the technique I outlined in that tutorial you'll also need to point some kind of light at the background, to avoid it going black (because little or no light is reaching it) because it's much easier to cut a subject out of a grey-ish background than a black one. Don't bring extra lights into play to make the background white, that will reduce image quality unless you have both a lot of experience and a lot of space.

So much for the lighting, but the pose is wrong too. If you look at sales pages for high end shoes you'll see that there is a set arrangement for the main image, as shown in this tutorial https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting-blog/shooting-the-shoe/#.Vjx2WCsl-hE
You will of course also take shots from other angles, plus close-up shots, but the main image should always be taken at the angle shown.

Now what? My guess is that you've now finished this shoot to your own satisfaction but probably haven't supplied the images yet. My suggestion is that you experiment and take my advice on board, and supply your client with two separate sets of images - the ones that match the quality standard that they asked for and a set that show them that you can do far, far better - that's the way to improve your value to your client, gain more clients, make more money and improve your standards.

Thanks so much Garry, a lot of amazing information here. Much appreciated :) :)
 
@saddlemeyer
Thanks for the update. Looks great you achieved your objective.
Having used this Lighting section for advice on many occasions. ( Hobbiest ) I find it the most helpful section on the forum. Full of folk really happy to share there knowledge. Even if I don't always understand it "at times" I usually get there in the end.

Gaz
 
It's becoming very common... but it's a lot of work if it's not actually necessary.

If I can avoid it, I do. With cars or some shiny surfaces both vertical and horizontal in interiors you may just need it if no reflections is the goal. It might be nice to see a what's inside a picture frame and not have sky all over coffee table.
 
It's becoming very common... but it's a lot of work if it's not actually necessary.
My own take on comping images together is that it can be an invaluable tool to have in the box when necessary, i.e. when the quality of image needed simply can't be achieved without it.

But having said that, I can't remember when I last found it necessary because pretty much everything can be achieved by lighting. It's fine for amateur photographers who enjoy computer work but it becomes an expensive option (for someone) when a professional does it - either the client is charged a lot of money for a lot of working time or the photographer absorbs the cost and loses money, and the sad reality is that although it's easy for clients to see the skill and time taken in the actual photography, most seem to imagine that computer work takes seconds instead of hours and sometimes feel ripped off when presented with a large bill for computer work.

Digressing a bit, but it's much the same thing with focus stacking - why take at least 3 shots and merge them together when all that's needed is to shift the plane of sharp focus with a monorail camera, if that resource is available, or with a tilt / shift lens?

My view is that although some computer work is necessary on every image, it always makes sense to do the minimum necessary. It's usually so much quicker, easier and better to get the shot as near perfect as possible in camera and to reserve PP work to turning an excellent shot into an outstanding one, rather than to use a computer as a substitute for thought or care at the time of taking the shot.
 
My view is that although some computer work is necessary on every image, it always makes sense to do the minimum necessary. It's usually so much quicker, easier and better to get the shot as near perfect as possible in camera and to reserve PP work to turning an excellent shot into an outstanding one, rather than to use a computer as a substitute for thought or care at the time of taking the shot.
I agree, but my problem is that I usually forget that compositing is an option when I'm trying to resolve a lighting issue... I guess I get a little "one tracked."
 
It's fine for amateur photographers who enjoy computer work but it becomes an expensive option (for someone) when a professional does it - either the client is charged a lot of money for a lot of working time or the photographer absorbs the cost and loses money, and the sad reality is that although it's easy for clients to see the skill and time taken in the actual photography, most seem to imagine that computer work takes seconds instead of hours and sometimes feel ripped off when presented with a large bill for computer work.

There's definitely truth in that.

As part of a campaign I worked on, one creative team shot a pair of Army Boots and the bill to the client for the shoot was 10k. They were shocked, and it meant that we ended up with a tiny budget for our part of the work. I believe the hero shot was done on long exposure and lit with torches, but then comped together in post with the nicest bits from multiple exposures. I'm guessing this was necessary, because it's harder to control the lighting that way.

Admittedly, a lot of the cost was from just working with a well-known photographer (whose name eludes me at the minute), but certainly a lot was down to the technique involving tonnes of additional work.

The detail in the shot was amazing - especially when viewed full size on a computer screen, but from a holistic point of view, it was a little selfish of the guys to eat up so much of the budget to get that one shot up front. Especially as I'd imagine most people wouldn't spot the difference between We than had to use a much cheaper, but still very capable photographer for our version. We also had to set it up much more like the original shot by the OP to work in the formats we needed.

Their original ad:

Job-4.jpg


Our cheap one.

3107938_orig.jpg
 
Interesting. IMO the expensive shot is much better, but only because the boots are angled forward, which seems to me to suit the concept better.

There's nothing inherently wrong with charging high prices when justified but - without knowing any backstory - I can't see the need for it here.

Advertising photography IS expensive, but the cost needs to be justified by the results. Corporate clients are usually happy to pay top prices for top results.

Before digital, everything needed to be right in camera, which was expensive because it required a very high standard of photography and lighting skills as well as high technical costs (materials, staff, equipment etc). As an example of this, I remember seeing a video of an Audi advert, shot on film a long time ago, which called for the very high technical skills (and high technical costs) that were then common.

The ability to improve shots in PP should reduce costs and improve profits, when not carried out to excess.
 
I agree the original shot's more dynamic - we needed side on as our stuff needed to be used in way more formats than one press ad. Plus, from memory, that 10k didn't cover us for digital use so we had to reshoot it anyway.

But it is funny to talk about how quickly some skills get lost.

One of my mates produced a TV ad (for Ford I think). And it was shot in black and white. What I didn't know then but did after, was that the lighting and make-up was done in a completely different way for Black and White.

As this ad was made in the late 80's/early 90's there was no one currently working that knew how to do it, so they got all these old boys out of retirement to work on it. Apparently they were all from things like the old Hammer Horror series and had some amazing tales.
 
Back
Top