Lighting for jewellery, macro settings please?

S

shimeld

Messages
26
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hi.

I shoot a lot of jewellery and small objects for our charity and speed is of the essence so editing has to be kept to a minimum, and the shot has to be ready to upload as is with just cropping, minor exposure settings and focus.

I recently watched a YouTube video who advocates setting the camera to shutter priority, and adjusting the ISO to get the intensity bars on the histogram as far to the right as possible. This is to achieve as pure white a background as possible. Then to put the subject in frame and adjusting for this.

The success of this has been reasonably good, and reduced the amount for post editing. However, I bought a cheap lens attached ring flash and tried it tonight and found that It's made no difference to the subject foreground exposure. I discovered that it doesn't like shutter priority, and fires before the shutter has opened. There is no adjustment on the new flash and when I went to aperture priority I can adjust everything to work correctly.

So should I be shooting entirely manually for small object macro photography?

Kind regards.
 
Last edited:
Studio work (which this can be considered to be) should be entirely manual, to include fixed white balance setting; because you are in control of everything and have the time required to make adjustments. In these situations full manual is far easier IMO... "set & forget" until you want something different.

I can't imagine using shutter priority for macro/closeup product work; it wants to hold the aperture wide open unless you push the ISO, which is usually too wide for macro/closeup; and it shouldn't let you push the exposure using ISO, it stops down the aperture instead (so IDK how you are doing what you said you are doing).
 
Thanks for your comments.

Here is an example that has only been cropped, otherwise untouched.

Your comments would be welcome.DSC08100.JPG
 
shimeld said:
Thanks for your comments.

Here is an example that has only been cropped, otherwise untouched.

Your comments would be welcome.
Click to expand...
Well, sorry to be harsh but, as an example of "product photography" that's pretty terrible... it's also a pretty terrible product to have to photograph (abused/dirty/ect). But, I guess if the purpose is just to post on the web in order move on some low value stuff, then it probably doesn't really matter much.

Does the BG really need to be blown out pure white? IMO, having a bit of shadow on a near enough white BG would be better that the blowouts/glare/loss of contrast you're getting with this method.
And I still don't understand how you are pushing the exposure in shutter priority mode... the semi auto modes are designed to maintain the exposure and prevent it from shifting when you change one of the other settings. The exposure should not increase by raising the ISO; unless the lens has stopped down as far as possible, which would typically also mean a very high ISO... both of which would be far less than ideal in most cases. What were the actual settings for that picture?

For better results you will typically need to light the subject and the background separately... and if you want no evidence (shadow) of the subject on the background then they need to be separated by some distance. Typically with a watch I would suspend it above the background. The background is illuminated separately to record as white (or black/whatever), and the watch is illuminated separately to best effect. I have a special jig for suspending watches, but they also make clear acrylic rings/stands... and the images still usually require editing to remove unwanted bits... and you're photographing other things besides just ugly watches.

If I had to come up with a "no edit" quick turn white BG setup for a bunch of odd things and little/no budget I would set up some kind of bright-field backlighting. About the easiest/cheapest I can come up with is an improvised glass table with a white BG (paper) on the floor under it that is illuminated to record as pure white (light source not illuminating the table). And then lay your item on the table, illuminate it separately (careful to avoid glare on the glass), and then photograph it from above. If you could splurge on some real lighting/softboxes it would be even better. While I'm sure it would be less than perfect/ideal at least at times, I'm equally certain it would (should) be far ahead of where you are now.

You could also do the light tent/box thing... but, other than being softer lighting, it won't be that much better than what you're getting now.
 
Last edited:
I found a website showing a bit fancier version of what I described... and the potential results. Also note that he mentions using bounce panels (black/white card stock for fill/negative lighting), but doesn't show them... they are also standard tools for product photography and easy DIY to make and use.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'm not a fan of the blown white backgrounds at all. I'd rather see it on a natural wood surface with a nice bit of side lighting and some shadows.
 
LeeRatters said:
Personally I'm not a fan of the blown white backgrounds at all. I'd rather see it on a natural wood surface with a nice bit of side lighting and some shadows.
Click to expand...
It's close to compulsory on most sales platforms, at least for the first picture.
But that doesn't mean that it needs to be done badly, which is bound to damage sales. The primary fault lies with the paymaster, or decision-maker. They should appreciate the value of good (or at least adequate) photography and allocate sufficient resources, which includes providing the time needed (including post-processing time), the right equipment and, of course, a photographer who at the very least understands the basics of both the simple physics involved and camera settings.

And, once that boring but necessary white background shot has been done, other shots are usually better on different types of background.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It's close to compulsory on most sales platforms, at least for the first picture.
But that doesn't mean that it needs to be done badly, which is bound to damage sales. The primary fault lies with the paymaster, or decision-maker. They should appreciate the value of good (or at least adequate) photography and allocate sufficient resources, which includes providing the time needed (including post-processing time), the right equipment and, of course, a photographer who at the very least understands the basics of both the simple physics involved and camera settings.

And, once that boring but necessary white background shot has been done, other shots are usually better on different types of background.
Click to expand...

But this is someone selling small items for a charity, not Rolex.
 
LeeRatters said:
But this is someone selling small items for a charity, not Rolex.
Click to expand...
Obviously large businesses have bigger budgets and better resources than most charities, but the same principles apply - there are very few customers who will buy products that are very badly photographed, regardless of whether or not they are a charity - they won't find out that it's a charity unless they click on the listing.

This is one of the few things that I know about, having spent most of my working life as a product photographer and, now that I'm retired, I help to run a small charity that sells online.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Obviously large businesses have bigger budgets and better resources than most charities, but the same principles apply - there are very few customers who will buy products that are very badly photographed, regardless of whether or not they are a charity - they won't find out that it's a charity unless they click on the listing.

This is one of the few things that I know about, having spent most of my working life as a product photographer and, now that I'm retired, I help to run a small charity that sells online.
Click to expand...

Badly photographed & blown white backgrounds are two separate things though. There are plenty of very well photographed items out there, some of which sell for a lot of money, which aren't shot on a white background ;)

The OP wants 'something' easier & quicker. Not trying to blow a white background & using something else which looks nice is both quicker & easier ;)
 
LeeRatters said:
But this is someone selling small items for a charity, not Rolex.
Click to expand...
Anything I sell I photograph as (essentially) white BG. The thing with the bright white BG and full lighting is that it doesn't hide anything... Actually, it often makes things look their worst; whereas more atmospheric lighting and setting can make flaws less apparent.
And people who buy from you can be quite demanding regardless of the situation I.e. no matter how little they paid for some obviously used/abused thing, they are likely to complain if something negative wasn't made readily apparent.
 
Last edited:
Hi.

Thanks to you all for your valuable contributions to my knowledge. Especially the website link from sk66.

I am using a small glass sheet suspended between 2 boxes, though I am shooting from the side/front and not above, so just relying on a background in front of the subject to bounce light under the platform.

I'm now using manual controls and things are starting to look better, though there is still room for improvement.

Yes, we get complaints from buyers who say faults were hidden due to poorly lit shots from some other staff.

Kind regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top