Beginner Help choosing camera for product photography

fiasst

fiasst

Messages
8
Name
Marc
Edit My Images
No
Hey there,

I currently have a Nikon D3200 which I'm guessing is a good, entry-level, all rounder? I'm aiming to shoot top quality product photos for a personal project - although I know this won't be easy. I've bought a great lightbox which sets the scene beautifully with brilliant, soft white light. However, unsurprisingly when taking initial test shots the colours aren't correct (too yellow).

After reading up on White Balance and Kelvin, I set about trying to adjust my camera's White Balance manually, only to find the D3200 doesn't have the option to adjust colour within WB settings.

Would anyone be able to comment on whether my Nikon D3200 is simply too basic to achieve a professional standard of product photography (isolated on white background).
I'm looking to achieve a very high quality macro image of the products so I guess a new lens is in order too.

The camera was only intended for personal use and I don't mind upgrading but only where necessary. For example, I noticed the Nikon D7000 spec states: "choose color temperature (2,500 K to 10,000 K), all with fine tuning; white balance bracketing: 2 to 3 frames in steps of 1, 2 or 3".

I'd very much appreciate your comments, and if you do recommend another camera it would be very useful to understand why that one in particular.

Thanks!
 
Hmm, surely that's not enough control for the best possible results though is it? As he says at the end "That's almost perfect".

I was referring to the setting shown at 1:09s of this video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vKcf4hMgg#t=1m09s


Also, when you say adjust white balance afterwards, do you mean post-production in software like Photoshop? I ask because I have hundreds of photos to take and therefor need to limit post-production especially where a camera is capable.

Thanks
 
fiasst said:
I ask because I have hundreds of photos to take and therefor need to limit post-production especially where a camera is capable.
Click to expand...

Depending on what software you are using, shoot in RAW, adjust the white balance on one shot then batch process the rest with the same setting.
 
Just to echo the above - shoot in raw and as long as you've lit and shot everything in the same conditions, you can batch process the lot in one go, in say Lightroom.

Quick edit: I shoot a grey card at the beginning of every shoot / lighting setup... then I use that to adjust my WB in post.
 
You are using controlled lighting, there is no reason whatsoever why you can't get the WB right in camera but as the others have said - it's easy to batch process.
 
Can you do a custom white balance? Shoot your lighbox without a product in it to set the colour.
 
I think the light box is more of a problem than your camera is if you're after 'professional' quality results.

Or do you mean 'flat uninspiring consistent' results? In which case, you really need to either get the WB correct in camera or shoot RAW and batch the WB on import in something like Lightroom, it'll be adding virtually no time to the process.
 
You don't need a new camera. Any DSLR will be up to the job if you know what you're doing. Just get a reference grey card, put it in your light box, and then follow the instructions on page 72 of your camera user manual. Job done.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time everyone. I'm learning a lot.

I've spent the weekend practicing and am fairly happy with the results so far. Although I don't expect a perfect white background, my photos are still appearing quite dark with grey backgrounds when imported into Photoshop. I wonder whether this is to be expected though? I've attached a before and after post-production from one of my test shots.

Left = raw | right = after adjusting Levels.
View attachment 35656

Also, I managed to keep noise to a minimum following advice to use a low ISO. However I don't seem to be able to get a very high-quality, highly-focused image which leaves me again wondering if the camera or perhaps lens is up to the task. I'm assuming a macro lens would simply improve foreground focus but still leave me without the desired quality when zooming into the photo in post editing?

Thanks again
 
My first impression (and my humble opinion) looking at your watch pictures is that this isn't so much a white-balance issue but an exposure issue. It looks like you are using an evaluative metering programme - and the camera is exposing the background (because that is most of the frame) to make it it grey (in simplified terms, cameras try to expose to achieve a middle grey instead of complete white or black). Try using a spot meter on the watch.
 
weybourne said:
Try using a spot meter on the watch.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that won't work either, at least for that particular watch, because it's black. Spot metering would result in the camera choosing an exposure which would render the watch as grey, and it would be seriously over-exposed.

I suggest this is another job for the grey card. Once you've used it to set your white balance, use it to determine your exposure and then dial it in using manual mode.
 
Are you sure your lighting is bright enough for the settings your camera is selecting? Ideally I'd be shooting fully manual, fire a few shots to see the results and adjust accordingly as per above. Shooting in a light box with flash will mean that your cameras metering is going to have a hard time getting it spot on so don't bother with it.

Once you find the mix of low ISO (for quality), narrow aperture (for detail) and suitable shutter speed according to your maximum flash sync you won't need to change it again because your light box should be a constant light level.
 
fiasst said:
Hmm, surely that's not enough control for the best possible results though is it?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you shoot in raw, you can adjust white balance post shoot with as much facility as you can in camera... or on your case... MORE so. Place a grey card in the set for the first exposure, and again every time you change lighting, and you can just white balance off the grey card for perfect white balance every single time. Shoot raw and stop worrying... seriously.. if anyone tells you have have to set white balance perfectly in camera when shooting raw they are talking b******s.



fiasst said:
Also, when you say adjust white balance afterwards, do you mean post-production in software like Photoshop? I ask because I have hundreds of photos to take and therefore need to limit post-production especially where a camera is capable.

Thanks
Click to expand...

If you have a grey card in the first shot, and the same lighting equipment is used for every other shot afterwards, you can batch process the white balance. Click on the grey card to balance, and then sync that WB setting to every other shot in the set. It doesn't matter if you have 2 images, or 10,000.. it still takes one click to white balance.
 
Your exposure is out, there's no reason for that when you have control of everything. There's also no reason to be shooting and cropping. David is right about fixing WB as a batch being simple, but if you're after a fast workflow with the minimum of fuss, there's no need to be shooting RAW.

If you are prepared to spend the time getting your framing, exposure and WB right in camera, and you only want web sized images, shoot med JPEG and you'll save a load of time.
 
Thanks guys.

I had tried different Metering options and yes, spot did massively over-expose the watch :]

I hadn't tried a grey card previously. I've [finally] followed your advice and shot a grey card and my results are MUCH better! I should note that the lightbox uses constant lighting and no flash.

I've been trying different shutter speeds and f-stops too. I think I've found the sweet spot with: 1/8 - F14 - ISO 100

This image had an almost perfect white background on import to Lightroom and I've modified the following:
  • Whites: +50
  • Temperature: -600
  • Vibrance: +30
  • Saturation: +10
View attachment 35693

The only thing I'm really trying to improve now is the strap colour as it's too light. I guess it could be too bright in the lightbox and it's getting washed out?

Today I'll try either lowering the light levels in the lightbox and adjusting the exposure accordingly, or changing the exposure in Lightroom instead of adjusting "Whites", while also tweaking Temperature. Any suggestions on how to improve the items true colour outside of post editing would be very welcome!

I'm not opposed to post-editing but I feel I might be missing a trick in setup which could reduce my post workload and need for true-colour judgement on a per item basis.
 
I've been looking at a ColorChecker Passport since I'm happy with the brightness but the colours aren't exactly correct. Would anyone recommend this as a solution. From what I've seen online they look very promising when used with Lightroom.

Thanks
 
I'd think your better option may be to invest in some better lighting which will provide a more consistent/natural colour temperature. Even a couple of manual Yongnuo flashguns mounted on stands with basic softboxes will give more consistent results.
 
fiasst said:
I've been looking at a ColorChecker Passport since I'm happy with the brightness but the colours aren't exactly correct. Would anyone recommend this as a solution. From what I've seen online they look very promising when used with Lightroom.

Thanks
Click to expand...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious...
How many people told you the light was unsuitable?
Guess why the colour is wrong?

....
Go on, I'll give you a minute...



Yes! You've got it, the colour of the light coming from your light source isn't putting out the same balanced spectrum as daylight, therefore... objects lit by it don't show their true colours, the solution...


You can probably guess - but flash is pretty close to daylight. And is probably a more suitable light source.





Why did no-one tell you sooner?:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Thanks for explaining the reason why flash lighting could be better suited and therefore justifying the possibility of buying more equipment - albeit with a patronising tone I find hard to believe you'd use in person to an absolute beginner...
 
fiasst said:
I've been looking at a ColorChecker Passport since I'm happy with the brightness but the colours aren't exactly correct. Would anyone recommend this as a solution. From what I've seen online they look very promising when used with Lightroom.

Thanks
Click to expand...


Not sure if this has already been mentioned but if you want spot on colour and exposure your going to need to invest in a good quality monitor and calibration system, otherwise you are assuming the monitors current settings are accurate.

Quality of the light, control and placement (direction) is very important as said above, one light would be OK, two is better. Top quality product shots aren't going to come easy, especially if you want to be able to create repeatable, consistent results, it will take you a lot of time and practice, but your off to a good start so keep going...
 
Last edited:
fiasst said:
Thanks for explaining the reason why flash lighting could be better suited and therefore justifying the possibility of buying more equipment - albeit with a patronising tone I find hard to believe you'd use in person to an absolute beginner...
Click to expand...

Well if someone came to you asking for a solution on something you do professionally and they ignored half of what you said despite you taking your time to try to help would you keep a smile plastered on your face? Would you do so after the 50th time that happened?

I am not excusing rudeness on anyone's part but you'll benefit most by focusing on the help that's been offered rather than any slights imagined or not.
 
psenior1 said:
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but if you want spot on colour and exposure your going to need to invest in a good quality monitor and calibration system, otherwise you are assuming the monitors current settings are accurate.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, why is that?

I'd have thought that with decent (full spectrum) lights, and a grey card to set the white balance and exposure, there would be no need to assume the monitor was accurate. But I've never done product photography seriously so there's probably something I'm missing...?
 
You've been offered some good advice here.
The most valuable advice IMO is to forget about your light tent and move to flash, the modifiers that you need to get the results you want and to learn about lighting, because lighting is at the core of all photography, and especially product photography.

Light tents (AKA light cubes, light boxes etc) are products that are really designed to sell on places like Ebay to people who think that they're professional solutions - but they're not a 'solution' that professionals or keen amateurs actually use...

In theory, you don't need flash, you can use tungsten (bulbs with actual filaments) continuous lighting and correct the colour balance, but in practice it's far from ideal because the power isn't adjustable and it runs far too hot. I'm guessing that what you have is either fluorescent or LED lighting, and as Phil pointed out, this type of lighting cannot record all colours accurately, so it's back to flash...

The one thing that I wouldn't change is your camera, it's fine for your purpose. And the lens should be adequate when stopped down to f/11, which you will be able to do when using flash.

As you'll see from my signature, I've produced a series of tutorials on product lighting on the Lencarta lighting blog.
 
Thanks Phil. I'm not chasing pantone matching perfection for branding or anything, just a fair representation of the product's colours. I'm on a Mac which have fairly good screens but I take on board your point. It is something I should be considering.

I'll keep in mind the comments about flash lighting and soft boxes as I'm sure that is the best solution. Nice to have some elbow room outside a lightbox too!

simonbarker, an explanation as to why the alternative equipment or method is better will always be useful. And as a beginner, it's not immediately obvious if someones recommendation is purely their opinion [which could be incorrect], or their personal preference. So although I'm here to learn, ultimately I have to decide what will work for me. Especially when I've already invested in equipment. Basically, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, I can't buy the alternative equipment yet so I better make the most of what I've got.
 
StewartR said:
Out of curiosity, why is that?

I'd have thought that with decent (full spectrum) lights, and a grey card to set the white balance and exposure, there would be no need to assume the monitor was accurate. But I've never done product photography seriously so there's probably something I'm missing...?
Click to expand...


In a perfect world you wouldn't, but in my experience the variances in the way different RAW converters handle the files always mean slight tweaks are likely to be needed for the best results, exposure, contrast, colour temp etc. As you'd probably expect I've always found Capture NX2 to need the least tweaks buts it painful to use. I've always found calibration to be most helpful in terms of consistent/accurate (to my taste at least!) exposure and contrast, but I'm not sure I'd be as concerned if we didn't do so much printing.

BTW, I've done very little product photography but a fair bit of food photography for various clients, which is sort of similar.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Out of curiosity, why is that?

I'd have thought that with decent (full spectrum) lights, and a grey card to set the white balance and exposure, there would be no need to assume the monitor was accurate. But I've never done product photography seriously so there's probably something I'm missing...?
Click to expand...

Well the whole chain of color management requires a lot more. This eBook was a good crash course in terms of a color-managed workflow for me:
http://spyder.datacolor.com/scripts/ebook-en/Spyder_eBook_EN_final.pdf

Your display is the only window you have to the colors of your image files, so if it's not accurate, you can at least automate the white balance with a grey card, but for all the rest, you're retouching without any idea what you're actually doing to its colors.
 
The camera isn't the problem, you don't say what lens you're using but you're probably in the sweet spot for aperture where it's unlikely to be a major problem eiter.

Your lightbox and technique are almost certainly at the root of your problems. As noted above these cheap lightboxes are aimed at eBay/Etsy sellers that want a fast turnaround on product shots and where it's more important that the shoot looks representative and takes less than 2 minutes to shoot than absolute image quality.

If your personal project involves watch photography you'be probably come across Ming Thein as you researched how to go about this. He's put out quite a bit of information on his style, the basics of which can be seen on these Strobist blog posts from 2007 - http://strobist.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/ping-from-ming-on-bling-lighting-thing.html and http://strobist.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/cheap-source-for-ming-thein-style-macro.html

Ming Thein's set-up may look a bit like your lightbox, but it's quite different.

Borrowing Light, Science and Magic from your local library is very strongly recommended. There's also plenty of inspiration for watch photography on WUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top