Jewellery background looks grey

B

bigsnowman

Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
Hi hope somebody can help ive been pulling my hair out. Ive just started a new web site for selling jewellery and asked to sell on Amazon but they said the pictures have to be on a white background so I got a light box and lights from local shop and i am using a Olympus sp-350 camera I have changed all the settings Aperture and ESP etc but every picture I take the back ground and the picture look grey and I am now kinda at a loss what to do to make them as good as the pictures I have seen any help at all would be greatly appreciated if anybody wants to email me or I can send them the pictures that I have taken and they might spot a problem please feel free my address is voodoopiercings@hotmail.co.uk
 
Hi,

Silly question, but I take it you've changed the white balance...?
 
Examples needed.. .
 
Best posting up some so we can all see, but I am guessing its a white balance issue, easily sorted in camera or in postprocessing.
 
thanks for your help one of my pals suggested taking the pictures in the back garden and thats made it much better but I will stick up some examples and you can have a look .............OK next question how do i put up pictures I tried the insert image thingy but it was looking for a web address and the photos are on a file on the computer
 
This isn't a white balance issue, it's a very basic exposure issue, one which very nicely illustrates a situation where your sophisticated camera meter will be fooled every time regardless of which metering system you use.

Take a picture of a white piece of paper with the paper filling the frame - in fact really go and do it right now -it will teach you a very basic problem about metering. Load the shot onto your computer and instead of that crispy white you were hoping for you'll find you have a pretty dull grey. If that surprised you, then go and take another shot with a black piece of paper filling the frame and you'll find you get yet another grey image.

Camera meters are designed to expose by default for an 18% grey tone, and left to their own devices that's exactly what they do. Even the very advanced evaluative (Canon) or matrix (Nikon) metering patterns will be fooled in this situation because white is the only tone in the image and the only one it has to work with, so it makes the very basic assumption " Ah, this must be 18% grey then" and exposes accordingly - the result being under-exposure and grey paper.

Sticking a relatively small piece of jewellery on that sea of white doesn't occupy enough room in the metering area to have any significant effect on the meter at all, so the result will still be that uinder-exposed grey background. What you need to do is increase exposure to get that nice crispy white you're looking for.

Alternatively- meter on an 18% grey card in the same light as your jewellery shot and use that indicated exposure directly, or take an incident light reading from the subject position with the meter pointing back towards the camera.

You'll run into this same issue photographing sheets of music or printed pages of text, so it's something you need to be aware of.
 
BandyQuill said:
well explained that man!!!
Click to expand...

Thanks, but reading that again in the cold light of day this bit is way off beam...

Alternatively- meter on an 18% grey card in the same light as your jewellery shot and use that indicated exposure directly, or take an incident light reading from the subject position with the meter pointing back towards the camera.

I dunno what possessed me .... I'll put it down to late night posting.:cuckoo:

Of course you can't use a grey card or incident light reading directly for a white subject like this. There are situations with either method where you'd still need to make allowance for the tonal range of your subject and a white subject like this is most definitely one.

A grey card reading or an incident light reading would be closer than metering off the white background but you'd still need to to increase exposure over the indicated reading to get a clean white.
 
CT said:
This isn't a white balance issue, it's a very basic exposure issue, one which very nicely illustrates a situation where your sophisticated camera meter will be fooled every time regardless of which metering system you use.

Take a picture of a white piece of paper with the paper filling the frame - in fact really go and do it right now -it will teach you a very basic problem about metering. Load the shot onto your computer and instead of that crispy white you were hoping for you'll find you have a pretty dull grey. If that surprised you, then go and take another shot with a black piece of paper filling the frame and you'll find you get yet another grey image.

Camera meters are designed to expose by default for an 18% grey tone, and left to their own devices that's exactly what they do. Even the very advanced evaluative (Canon) or matrix (Nikon) metering patterns will be fooled in this situation because white is the only tone in the image and the only one it has to work with, so it makes the very basic assumption " Ah, this must be 18% grey then" and exposes accordingly - the result being under-exposure and grey paper.

Sticking a relatively small piece of jewellery on that sea of white doesn't occupy enough room in the metering area to have any significant effect on the meter at all, so the result will still be that uinder-exposed grey background. What you need to do is increase exposure to get that nice crispy white you're looking for.

Alternatively- meter on an 18% grey card in the same light as your jewellery shot and use that indicated exposure directly, or take an incident light reading from the subject position with the meter pointing back towards the camera.

You'll run into this same issue photographing sheets of music or printed pages of text, so it's something you need to be aware of.
Click to expand...

Am I following you correctly. I set my camera to MF and Manual mode. I then took a reading from my grey lining of my Lowepro bag, with it in the same light as my white background. I adjusted the exposure scale back to centre, then moved the bag, put the piece of jewellery in centre of white background, and took the photo.

It seemed to work well and I had a nice background without having to adjust it in Photoshop. Thank you for your explanation much clearer than Peterson's "Understanding Exposure"
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
Am I following you correctly. I set my camera to MF and Manual mode. I then took a reading from my grey lining of my Lowepro bag, with it in the same light as my white background. I adjusted the exposure scale back to centre, then moved the bag, put the piece of jewellery in centre of white background, and took the photo.

It seemed to work well and I had a nice background without having to adjust it in Photoshop. Thank you for your explanation much clearer than Peterson's "Understanding Exposure"
Click to expand...

Glad it helped Barbara, but see post No 9. Theoretically, you should need to still give additional exposure than that indicated by the grey card reading, although less than if you took a reading from the white background directly. Are you sure you were getting a really clean white?

What's important though is that you understand why your meter is being fooled in this situation and that you need to be giving extra exposure. In practice you'd be just as well served by adjusting exposure for a clean looking white on your camera preview screen and no over-exposure blinkies.
 
Last edited:
CT is correct - although in understanding exposure I think Bryan states something like add 2 stops of exposure compensation - see shooting in snow. It's effectivel;y doing the same thing but in an auto mode - Although I must admit I like CT's version better :)
 
I agree, +2 stops is about right in this situation.

I've never read Mr Peterson's book, but I'm at a loss to understand how he pads out what is a pretty basic principle to a whole book. Even advanced photographic books cover exposure in a relatively few pages, or a chapter at most.

He should worry - laughing all the way to the bank no doubt. :D
 
I liked the book - very much for beginners but really helped me understand exposure.... the point of it. :)

Now I see more clearly though.
 
CT said:
Glad it helped Barbara, but see post No 9. Theoretically, you should need to still give additional exposure than that indicated by the grey card reading, although less than if you took a reading from the white background directly. Are you sure you were getting a really clean white?

What's important though is that you understand why your meter is being fooled in this situation and that you need to be giving extra exposure. In practice you'd be just as well served by adjusting exposure for a clean looking white on your camera preview screen and no over-exposure blinkies.
Click to expand...
Thanks CT. No it wasn't a clean white when I checked it on PC. Strangely enough it had a magenta cast which I couldn't remove only by upping the exposure by 0.75.

EOS_JD said:
CT is correct - although in understanding exposure I think Bryan states something like add 2 stops of exposure compensation - see shooting in snow. It's effectivel;y doing the same thing but in an auto mode - Although I must admit I like CT's version better :)
Click to expand...

On my D80 +2 was about right, but on my G1 and GF1 I needed to up it +3 and then a bit more in CS3 just in the white areas to get rid of a magenta vignette.

CT said:
I agree, +2 stops is about right in this situation.

I've never read Mr Peterson's book, but I'm at a loss to understand how he pads out what is a pretty basic principle to a whole book. Even advanced photographic books cover exposure in a relatively few pages, or a chapter at most.

He should worry - laughing all the way to the bank no doubt. :D
Click to expand...

This was my opinion of the book, he rambled on throughout the whole book with airy fairy explanations, and most of the photos he gave for examples I personally thought were rubbish. It was a waste of money.

EOS_JD said:
I liked the book - very much for beginners but really helped me understand exposure.... the point of it. :)

Now I see more clearly though.
Click to expand...
 
It's not hard to give a clearer explantaion than Bryan Peterson's book :eek: ;) Good work from CT though :thumbs:

Just some additional comments really. Being guided by an exposure meter reading (which is basically just a best guess) is all very well, and when shooting film that's all we ever had to go by. It was often wrong too, hence the term 'bracketing' - shooting two or three frames at slightly different exposure settings just to make sure. The meter is a measuring device, and a pretty dumb one at that. The user has to add the understanding. In theory, white should be about three stops above 18% grey. There or thereabouts, but it depends on a lot of things such as the sensor's dynamic range, what 'white' is exactly as a tonal value, and the camera/sensor calibration.

Fortunately, digital is different and we have the LCD to be guided by - in particular, the histogram and blinkies (highlight over exposure warning, in the menu). This shows you what you have actually got, with no guesswork involved.

So if the background is grey, forget what the meter might say. It's obviously being fooled and the subject is under exposed - so increase the exposure until it's not. Really, it's as simple as that. But I would also say this, 'white' is never absolutely white. Even the brightest white background will reproduce as a very, very light shade of grey. So you have to push it a bit, maybe adjust the contrast setting in picture styles or tweak it a bit in post processing, if absolutely pure white is necessary. Usually it isn't, but you need to be aware of that. The only other way of ensuring a pure white background is to light it separately from the subject and deliberately over expose it a bit. However, that's obviously difficult if your subject is also sitting directly on the background, which where a professional studio would use a light table where the surface is transluscent and is separately lit from underneath, though that has drawbacks too.

In a nutshell, 100% pure white is hard to achieve, but is usually not necessary, and 95% white should be pretty easy.

The other thing to watch with this sort of work is white balance. Even if it's only slightly out and would normally go unnoticed, with white it will show up. And it's usually important to get it consistent shot to shot. Just do a custom white balance. Sorted. It's really easy - see handbook.
 
I've spent the afternoon trying to get a black background and the subject correctly exposed. I have tried decreasing the exposure to compensate but by the time I get a nice black background my subject is becoming completely under exposed. I usually correct this is CS3 but am trying to set myself a project to get it right in camera.

I can't figure how I can light just the subject without light bleeding out to the background. I have tried diffused lights through the side of my light tent but this just lit up the background as well, and I also tried just illuminating the subject with a torch, but this didn't give sufficient light to the subject. I don't have any special lighting equipment, only my flash, 2 desk lights and a torch.

How should I go about doing this. Any help would be appreciated please.
 
One of two things
1. Move the subject AWAY from the background. If you are throwing light onto your subject some of it will fall onto your subject unless they are far enough away.
2. Move the light source close to your subject and not point at the background.

Read up on the inverse square law - I understand it - just can't explai it well :)
 
Sorry a qyestion - Are you using flash when doing the above?

If you are using natural light, you will struggle. The subject has to be lit more than the background so that a good exposure on the subject means the background is more under exposed (black)
 
EOS_JD said:
Sorry a qyestion - Are you using flash when doing the above?

If you are using natural light, you will struggle. The subject has to be lit more than the background so that a good exposure on the subject means the background is more under exposed (black)
Click to expand...

Yes I have tried with and without flash. I suppose that the problem has got to be down to working out the best way to light the subject, as I can't see anyway otherwise that I can get correct exposure on both.
 
Get the flash close to your subject - closer the better. Light will fall off very quickly when that is the case.
 
EOS_JD said:
Get the flash close to your subject - closer the better. Light will fall off very quickly when that is the case.
Click to expand...

Thanks I will have a try with a bigger subject, I know I can adjust it in photoshop and get it spot on but I really need to figure out how to do it in camera.:bang::thinking:
 
Ps is fine for fine tuning. Get it right first as you say.
 
It' s a classic problem you're encountering Barbara, largely due to the fact that your jewellery is actually lying on the black surface itself and causing the light spill problem, unlike portraiture where you can move your subject away from the background.

A piece of black velvet is probably your best choice of material, and is often used for jewellery shots. If you're getting close enough to a good black to need only minor pp work, then I wouldn't worry too much - it may be well nigh impossible to get a perfect result consistently.
 
Just like a white subject is never white, black is never black! Black is the total absence of light, which is never achievable in practise.

You just have to get as close and you can, then tweak it in post, maybe with a dash of extra contrast. Obviously, starting with the darkest background possible helps a lot, and as CT says, velvet is pretty good as the light sinks between the fibres and dies.
 
I didn't realise the jewellery was lying on the black cloth! Maybe best to use a prop. This was a first attempt at jewellery and could be tweaked.



MG_3755021.jpg


MG_3701.jpg


MG_3772037.jpg
 
CT said:
It' s a classic problem you're encountering Barbara, largely due to the fact that your jewellery is actually lying on the black surface itself and causing the light spill problem, unlike portraiture where you can move your subject away from the background.

A piece of black velvet is probably your best choice of material, and is often used for jewellery shots. If you're getting close enough to a good black to need only minor pp work, then I wouldn't worry too much - it may be well nigh impossible to get a perfect result consistently.
Click to expand...
Thanks CT. I wasn't really worried about shooting jewellery it was just that was all I had to hand. I'll try it out tomorrow with a flower in a vase or something similar and see how that goes.

HoppyUK said:
Just like a white subject is never white, black is never black! Black is the total absence of light, which is never achievable in practise.

You just have to get as close and you can, then tweak it in post, maybe with a dash of extra contrast. Obviously, starting with the darkest background possible helps a lot, and as CT says, velvet is pretty good as the light sinks between the fibres and dies.
Click to expand...
Right now whose black velvet curtains can I steal.:D

EOS_JD said:
I didn't realise the jewellery was lying on the black cloth! Maybe best to use a prop. This was a first attempt at jewellery and could be tweaked.



MG_3755021.jpg


MG_3701.jpg


MG_3772037.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks EOS. that's a good tip for jewellery I think.
 
david1701 said:
did google break wtf?
Click to expand...

Don't be so rude.:rules: I asked on here because I have a great respect for most of the members on here. I find on google there are a lot of people posting who haven't got a clue what they are talking about. If you didn't want to answer this post you didn't have to.
 
Last edited:
hillwalkinggirl said:
Don't be so rude.:rules: I asked on here because I have a great respect for most of the members on here. I find on google there are a lot of people posting who haven't got a clue what they are talking about. If you didn't want to answer this post you didn't have to.
Click to expand...

The replies you get on Saturday nights are sometimes a bit different. Don't take it personally ;)
 
I think david may have been on the sauce last night, he does tend to loosen up rather too much when he has, dont take it personally though please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top