Frustrated with my studio shots

M

MacAddict

Messages
17
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys

I have started playing with taking shots for our clothing eccomerce website but I am frustrated with the results I am getting. I am new to photography but have always harbored an interest.

My setup & equipment:

Sony A200 DSLR
2x Lencarta 200w Probes
White Muslin background
Black Mulsin background

The studio is my living-room which is about 4.3x3.5m. I think I need to take Garry Edwards recommendation and get some reflectors to control the spill ( I wonder if I can use my black muslin for that ?).

Here is what I am trying to achieve http://tinyurl.com/5rv9ke. This is one of my best shots so far :( (I know its not well styled) http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/MacAddict10/pic04298.jpg

One of the things I have noticed is that I get better shots when there is more ambient light (during day time). At night I get shots like the following http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/MacAddict10/pic042231.jpg

I have been shooting RAW, typically ISO 100 although I keep seeing a grain effect on my shots (contrast problems ?) and now shooting ISO200.

I have experimented with setting the WB but not seeing much of an improvement, Custom setting typically choose ~7000K.

I have experimented with shooting f8,f11 and f16. I dont have a light meter so I keep turning the dials on the strobe and check the histogram. With these studio shots I am not seeing a difference when I experiment with aperture - my outdoor shots are different and I clearly see the effect on DOF.

I think the camera/setup is limited but I believe I am the weakest link here :(

Any help much appreciated.
Thanks
 
looking at your shots i was expecting quite poor shots. They are not bad at all (bit hard to judge at that resolution, but are they going to be any bigger?)
Maybe as foodpoison said blow out the background a bit more .
 
foodpoison said:
Fire a light at the background to overexpose it.
I'd say overexpose by a stop, but then I've never shot in a studio.
Click to expand...

Received wisdom suggests more like two, but experiment :)
 
Thanks for the input. Yes the photos will have a bigger version for zoom etc but as a customer would see this size first, these need to draw them into the product page.

I only have 2 strobes, I am using the main light on the left and a light on the right to light the background. One of my problems is I dont know what the dials on my strobe correspond to but it has a bout 8-10 positions and has a guide number of 99. The lights are about 1.5 meters from the subject.

My biggest concern is that I dont feel the pictures are vivid enough, particularly this one which just poor http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/MacAddict10/pic042231.jpg. :(

Edit: Do you think my theory about getting better day pcis because of the ambient light (in the studio) has merit ?
 
I think I need to take Garry Edwards recommendation and get some reflectors to control the spill ( I wonder if I can use my black muslin for that ?
Yes, you can use your black muslin background as an absorber (it absorbs light, it doesn't reflect it) or you can use anything else that's true black and not shiny.

have experimented with shooting f8,f11 and f16. I dont have a light meter so I keep turning the dials on the strobe and check the histogram. With these studio shots I am not seeing a difference when I experiment with aperture - my outdoor shots are different and I clearly see the effect on DOF

You won't see much or any difference in DOF with your camera at these f/stops at this distance

The lights are about 1.5 meters from the subject.
Too far. No, that isn't true, I will often use small softboxes or umbrellas from further away than that to deliberately get hard lighting that makes the clothes 'pop' but you're making problems for yourself, because the fairly hard lighting exaggerates creases in the clothes, bad posture and poor choice of light position. I would use a much larger light source, or move the one you have much closer, to get a softer effect, and use an absorber if necessary to bring back a bit of pop.

I have been shooting RAW, typically ISO 100 although I keep seeing a grain effect on my shots (contrast problems ?) and now shooting ISO200.

Don't adjust the ISO unless you really need to, adjust the power of your lights instead. You shouldn't be seeing 'grain' (actually digital noise) even at 200 ISO, which makes me wonder whether your shots are underexposed... Are you having to lighten them on your computer? If so, you need to get your exposure right. If you're not sure, send me one of your raw files and I'll see if I can nail the problem. garry (at) photolearn.co.uk
 
Many thanks for that Garry. yes I do sometimes have to up the lights when post processing. I think I am still getting the hang of the histogram, which at times I thought was indicating overexposure. I will give this another go tonight and I will even try putting the black muslin on the sides of the subject.

Really appreciate the offer of looking into my raw files :). I will report back
 
It looks like the white balance is a little off with the poorer shot. I would check if your camera has a custom white balance setting - if it's like the Canon or Nikon DSLRs I've used, it's dead easy to use - just shoot a white piece of paper, and the white balance will then be spot on.

Also, to get nice separation, you need to either move away from the background, so it becomes more gray, or light it more, so it becomes brighter. The shot you don't like, also looks like it's lacking in contrast, which will add more pop - by having a softer light, you'll be able to expose it brighter without blowing the highlights, which will also help. I would really recommend getting a light meter though - I tried and failed to get the exposure correct by checking the histogram - whilst I know what the shape should look like, I just couldn't nail exposures, like I do with the light meter.
 
What are you using by way of light modifiers?

I'd say you need a beauty dish, high and to the right, set to a high power, softbox, mid height and to the left, set to a medium power for fill, a light for the background, and maybe a backlight for separation.

You can omit the background light and do that work in photoshop if you feel you have the time.
 
Thanks guys. I have changed the layout of the studio and put the soft boxes closer to the subject. This has improved the pics but I think there is plenty of room for improvement. The following shots are of the same item on white and black black muslins. I kind of like the look of the black muslin and considering using it for all products, what do you think ?

http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/MacAddict10/4714.jpg
http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/MacAddict10/4719.jpg


Blapto: I have got 2 smallish soft boxes. I thought about getting an umbrella, but frankly not sure what difference it will make (read light from them is less directional and harsher). I am tempted to get a meter and just saw this on ebay http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sekonic-L-308...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
 
I think that it's important for you to get consistent results, and it will be much easier to get consistent results with a black background than with a white one - which anyway will need two lights on the background. Personally I don't like either black or white, because it compesses distance, but I feel that black is probably the way forward for you.

You've chosen a very bad subject to test moving your light closer; shiny materials create specular reflections, you should really test on something you've already shot with different lighting.

It isn't really right that umbrellas are less directional and harsher. There are 2 basic types, reflective and shootthrough. Reflective face 'the wrong way' and the light is fairly harsh because it's physically impossible to get them close to the subject. It is though, fairly directional.
Shoot through umbrellas can produce very soft light, but it goes everywere.

Your best bet is probably to get a much larger softbox. This one will fit your Lencarta lights.
The meter you linked to is fine, don't know whether that's a good price or not.
 
Are you doing any processing on these?

I just downloaded the photo and chucked it into photoshop, into levels and told it the background is pure white and this is what it came out as..
Before
4714.jpg

After
edit.jpg


Its not perfect, but it was a 10 second thing.

If you want me to remove the image, just ask.
 
Jamesbuk said:
Are you doing any processing on these?

I just downloaded the photo and chucked it into photoshop, into levels and told it the background is pure white and this is what it came out as..

Its not perfect, but it was a 10 second thing.

If you want me to remove the image, just ask.
Click to expand...

Yes, a lot can be done on computer (although I'm not convinced that adjusting levels is the answer) but it's much easier and far better to get the lighting right in he first place.
 
Seems like the white balance is still off and that there needs to be more light on the background to blow it out, can you get a coupe of small lights behind the model firing up the background to flood it with white light and blow it out more.
 
Couple things to try here with these.
1. Curves, little dropper tool >>>click white >>>click on background.
2. Try some dodging of the highlights. Clothes are Dark so just ramp it up to 60%+ exposure in dodge tool settings and run over the background.
Thats assuming you want a Pure White background.
 
Also remeber the Diesel clothing shot you first post probably had £1000's spent on studio etc to get it right
 
Many thanks for the input guys.

Sorry my fault I should have said I dont need the background to be pure white - I understand I have to light it for it to be pure white (or maybe start with with super white vinyl). I want it to look neat and not out of place. The shots will be cropped tightly to focus on the clothes.

Garry: I actually choose that subject on purpose because its hard. My theory is if I can cope with the extremes the norm will be fine - as if this whole studio stuff was not enough of a challenge ! I ordered a tripod to help with the consistency.

How will the larger box help ? (not questioning you, I would like to learn)

My only concern with black bg is I have not seen any one do it for fashion products.

I think my biggest concern is the sharpness, how do I improve the sharpness in the shot ? (post processing aside).
 
I always over expose the background b7 2 stops-but beware dont just meter for the lights your using to light the background as the lights used for lighting the model will add a little to the overall light and take a meter reading of backdrop with all lights on and then adjust the backlights until you have exactly 2 stops over.

Are you using softboxes-if so dont for fashion youll get better results with silver brollies.

Also Ive noticed when shooting black garments they look dull so expose slightly more-but not enough to blow it and possibly use low f stop like 5.6-more than enough for model work.

Hope this may be of help
sample_10.jpg


Maybe you think this is better maybe not.

Simple bit of unsharp mask/contrast/bit of colour and sat
 
MacAddict said:
Many thanks for the input guys.

Sorry my fault I should have said I dont need the background to be pure white - I understand I have to light it for it to be pure white (or maybe start with with super white vinyl). I want it to look neat and not out of place. The shots will be cropped tightly to focus on the clothes.

Garry: I actually choose that subject on purpose because its hard. My theory is if I can cope with the extremes the norm will be fine - as if this whole studio stuff was not enough of a challenge ! I ordered a tripod to help with the consistency.

How will the larger box help ? (not questioning you, I would like to learn)

My only concern with black bg is I have not seen any one do it for fashion products.

I think my biggest concern is the sharpness, how do I improve the sharpness in the shot ? (post processing aside).
Click to expand...
The softbox you have is almost adequate for a head shot, it's far too small for anything larger. A larger softbox can do a number of things. It can produce soft light when needed (useful for really shiny subjects because it can create soft specular highlights that you can see through to the subject beneath, instead of producing burned out white areas with no detail. It can produce reasonably soft light by having it further away, giving you more room to work, it can produce a fairly hard light by moving it a long way away or by masking it to make it smaller, or it can create more specularity (similar to a beauty dish or a silver reflective umbrella) simply by removing the diffusers.

I think that a black background will work fairly well for you. the shots will be dramatic and eye catching, which is what selling shots are supposed to be.

I can't tell whether or not you have a sharpness problem from such small pics. If you have, try adding sharpness using unsharp mask in PS (you need to do that anyway).
 
Thanks.

I think I have already seen evidence of the limitation of the smaller softbox, where it does not illuminate more that half a body. I took the plunge and ordered a 150cm softbox, I will keep you updated
 
Use your two lights, put them both sides of the model with a softbox or brolly -

Resize.jpg


Jo-Potrait-Resized-.jpg


To make it really high key over exspose by a stop -

Craig-8.jpg


Kelvin temp of 54-5600k would be fine as these lights should be daylight temp. Turn your lights up to full power then set your camera to 1/200th and f8-10 something like that and pop away.
 
Update: so I took Gary's advice and got a bigger softbox (its huge) and got better results. I also took my aperture to F14-16 and seem to get better result that way.

I am still new to photography but I thought (the DOF aside) exposure with these Fstops should be similar to F8 and a lower flash setting!.

I can see a more balanced exposure in my environment ( living room).

Still learning ...
 
MacAddict said:
Update: so I took Gary's advice and got a bigger softbox (its huge) and got better results. I also took my aperture to F14-16 and seem to get better result that way.

I am still new to photography but I thought (the DOF aside) exposure with these Fstops should be similar to F8 and a lower flash setting!.

I can see a more balanced exposure in my environment ( living room).

Still learning ...
Click to expand...
If possible, you should avoid any aperture smaller than f/11 with your camera. At f/16 or smaller, you'll get an effect called diffraction, which stops any part of the image being completely sharp.
 
I am still ticking away at this and trying to improve my photography. My camera can still struggle to focus indoors - particularity in a dark room and pushing it fails to fire the flash. But I still think I should be doing a lot better with this equipment.

Here is what I would like to achieve:

image1xl.jpg

image1xl.jpg

image1xl.jpg


How do you think those were shot ? and ohw can I come close to achieving that?

Thanks
 
One key point is to make sure the model is far enough away from the background that you can treat the two as seperate for lighting/exposure. Other than that, lots of big soft light which again really needs plenty of room.
 
pxl8 said:
One key point is to make sure the model is far enough away from the background that you can treat the two as seperate for lighting/exposure. Other than that, lots of big soft light which again really needs plenty of room.
Click to expand...

I am going to re-arrange furniture a bit to give me more space but I am still limited. How can I tell if I have got light bouncing on to the model ?
 
MacAddict said:
I am going to re-arrange furniture a bit to give me more space but I am still limited. How can I tell if I have got light bouncing on to the model ?
Click to expand...

Take a shot without lighting the bg then fire a shoot with the lit bg and see if the model is noticably brighter. With light spill you will often lose the edges first along with the finer detail in the hair.
 
MacAddict, can I ask what camera settings you are using? I'm not an expert at studio photography but I would still set the camera on manual mode rather than automatic or Aperture priority. That way you so not have to worry about the camera trying to set the correct exposure.

I would start at F8 and 1/60 sec and then adjust the lights power (or move the lights closer or further away) to give me the correct exposure. That way you know that you are in control and the camera setting are not changing as you adjust the lighting.
 
ShawWellPete said:
MacAddict, can I ask what camera settings you are using? I'm not an expert at studio photography but I would still set the camera on manual mode rather than automatic or Aperture priority. That way you so not have to worry about the camera trying to set the correct exposure.

I would start at F8 and 1/60 sec and then adjust the lights power (or move the lights closer or further away) to give me the correct exposure. That way you know that you are in control and the camera setting are not changing as you adjust the lighting.
Click to expand...

Yep, camera is on manual and I have previously used f8 but struggled with the exposure so I am now usually on f11 to f14 and 1/125.

kalibre said:
Take a shot without lighting the bg then fire a shoot with the lit bg and see if the model is noticably brighter. With light spill you will often lose the edges first along with the finer detail in the hair.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I have mainly not being lighting the bg and when I have its been 1 light (I only have 2)
 
MacAddict said:
I am still ticking away at this and trying to improve my photography. My camera can still struggle to focus indoors - particularity in a dark room and pushing it fails to fire the flash. But I still think I should be doing a lot better with this equipment.

Here is what I would like to achieve:

image1xl.jpg

image1xl.jpg

image1xl.jpg


How do you think those were shot ? and ohw can I come close to achieving that?

Thanks
Click to expand...
The opposite to Ally's suggestion.
A single light on the model, another light on the background.
Just look at where the shadows fall and it all clicks into place.

There is no single 'right' way of lighting anything, and fashion is no exception. You can light the face or you can light the product, it takes a lot of experience (and equipment) to do both well. With these example photos the subject is the product and lighting it obliquely shows the shape of the woman (which is what sells the product) and makes the whole thing look sexy, which balanced lighting can never do.

The 2 lights you have (plus a reflector to add a bit of fill where necessary) and some black absorber (as already discussed) is all you need. And, if the background doesn't need to be lit you won't even need 2 lights for most products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top