Nikon DLSR Lens for Product Portraits

W

WD40

Messages
88
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I’m looking for a lens to take shots of music equipment I work on (hi-fi-type stuff). The gear is usually finished in silver or black and can be matte or glossy. A typical item is around 40-50cm wide x 10-20cm high x 30-50cm deep.

I have an 80cm-square lighting tent + 3 x 85w lights (off Ebay) and a Nikon D70 mk1 + Nikkor 28-80mm F3.3-5.6G Zoom lens + Sigma 50mm F2.8 DG Macro lens.

However hard I try with either of the lenses (editing RAW in Nikon NX2) I can’t seem to get particularly sharp, pleasing images and I’m interested in buying a Nikkor 50mm F1.8D / AF lens. I could possibly stretch to the F1.4D lens, but I’m not using low light.

Do you think, considering my subject matter, I’m on the right track regarding a lens? Is 50mm fixed-focus optimum for what I'm doing?

Many thanks in advance.
 
What sort of shutter speeds are you getting and are you using a tripod? Those ebay things aren't always as bright as the eye percieves when it comes to taking a photo.
 
Thanks, Kev.

It had occurred to me that the Ebay tent package may have less lighting horsepower than it needs. I've sat in on pro photoshoots for the same type of subjects and the photographers always used much more powerful, pro lights.

Whether I use Manual or AP mode, I always seem to get similar results. Typically I use around 1/10 - 1/16 speeds, with the D70 on a tripod via a timer. ISO is around 200 (have tried higher settings).

I seem to be getting the same issues whether I over or under-expose via shutter speed. Having tried many options, I concluded that I should try a better, faster prime lens. If you think I'm barking up the wrong tree, please tell me so.
 
Your sigma should be capable of sharp shots, especially on a tripod. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? Are you applying any sharpening to the images? If you upload a picture into the thread it will be easier for folk to help you out with your problem.
 
Oddly, the Sigma seems to have less definition than the cheap Nikkor Zoom in most shots I've taken. I'm using RAW and use sharpening in NX2

I will post some photos to the thread in a day or two when I get near my other 'puter.

That being said, do you think I'll see an improvement going for a faster 50mm Nikor lens (f1.8 or f1.4)?
 
Before you change anything...how are you sharpening your shots from RAW?

If you are using the unsharp mask method STOP.

Better by far is to use the High Pass Filter method: You can blend this with some opacity adjustment to really sharpen an image with NO sharpenig artefacts. The results will shave your beard off.

Click High pass filter. The screen will go blank normally and leave you with just a grey background (maybe a ghosted image very feint).
Turn the High pass radius up until the image JUST starts to be visible, it will suddenly jump onto your screen as you slide the slider to the right...do this gently, the moment it appears is the least amount you can use. That is what you want. You can whack it up, and then bring it back again, but then you are doing two steps to do one thing.
Click Luminance and Chrominance and slide the Chrome to 0% (all the way to the left).
Go into Blending mode, click OVERLAY.

Thats it.
 
Hi,

Here's a sample of the kind of things I'm looking to photograph:

DSC_0005-edit-crop.jpg


DSC_0009-crop.jpg


The Bozak was shot via the F3.3-5.6 Nikkor Zoom lens and the Sony via the Sigma 50mm Macro DG

In your opinion, is the Nikkor 50mm F1.8 (available for around £100) the right kind of lens for what I'm trying to do?

Next step is to order some white perspex to go under the objects.

Lensflare - thanks for the tutorial. I can't seem to find discrete Luminance and Chrominance controls in NX2, I can only find LCH - is that the same? When you say 'moment it appears' do you mean when it's still ghosted and I just have an outline of the object?

Many thanks to all of you for tolerating an inexperienced amateur - this help is much appreciated.

edit: Both items shot in AP mode. Sony @ F8, Bozak @ F16
 
They look sharp enough to me mate. Are they for web use or are you going to be printing?
 
Thanks, Kev.

Part of my problem is probably due to the fact I've worked with pro photographers and seen the results they can get. The above photos still don't strike me as particularly great, but is it mainly the hardware at fault, or the operator?

I'd really appreciate lens suggestions for the above type of gear.

The photos will be of similar equipment that I've made to order for clients. The photos are mainly for the web, but occasionally magazines / catalogues need to print them - this has caught me out in the past... The idea behind having the ability to take good photos is so I can keep a 'portfolio' of my work, photographing it before it leaves my hands. Long term, I need a good portfolio.

Any advice greatly appreciated.
 
Sorry mate I didn't haven't checked this thread in a while. I think there's a couple of things that seperate the pro's from the majority of amatuers and it isn't gear, I've got loads of gear and still take **** shots.

IMO the two biggest factors in things like this are the lighting and the post processing. The lenses you have should be capable of producing satisfactory results for you. I don't know you're experience level so won't insult you by going back to basics. I think these are good starting points and you would be better off spending your time on lighting and PP than money on gear.

Why not stick up some photos you do like, explain what you like that you think is missing from yours and maybe people can give you some tips. Where are you based maybe you're local enough to meet up with someone who can help you out.
 
Thanks again, Kev.

That makes perfect sense. I think I'm going to get a small portfolio together and then post them for criticism.

When working with pro photographers, I felt they didn't get too evangelical about gear, as you say. They did use much better lighting equipment than I do. I can't say I witnessed a lot of Photoshop and got the impression they did their best to get the result right early on without relying on post-processing.

I've got a package of three 85w 5400 lights + an 80cm x 80cm light cube. I wonder if I should look into getting more professional lights? My one distinct memory of seeing pro's work is that they didn't need to increase exposure via software - they had much brighter illumination. The setup I have sells on Ebay (item no. 120471006442). As I said before, I can't seem to get enough light without resorting to software. Surely this is going to impair detail?

What would be a good ancillary light to add?

Cheers.
 
Have you looked at reviews for your lenses to see which apertures give the sharpest results? I know with some of mine, when wide open the sharpness falters.

If you are using a tripod, you should be able to use a decent aperture and just compensate for your 'not so bright lights' with a longer exposure time.

Shooting raw and then increasing the brightness should also not compromise the sharpness.
 
Hi,

4 Years on and I'm still using the same gear as described in post no.1. I feel my issues are the following:

i) The 3 x 5500k lights I got from China on Ebay seem to give out a pretty 'cold' light. When I've had pro photos taken using Elinchrom / Bowens etc studio lights, they seem 'warmer'. Is this processing, or will more upmarket lights make an improvement, bearing in mind subject matter? Will their flash modes be useful?

ii) Using the cube as a 'soft box' (the lights themselves don't have soft covers) it's difficult to get even distribution of light.

Would I be better off spending my cash on a couple more of the 5500k lights (plus soft covers), or is it time to make the jump and get a set of Elinchrom / Bowens lights + boxes?

I am thinking about a D700 or D800 for when I'm shooting installations on-site, because of their low-light abilities compared to the D70. But for use with the cube, would anyone really tell the difference over the D70?

My current photos look little different to those earlier in thread. I've learnt to experiment with aperture settings to get sharpness, but to my mind, the photos don't look 'pro'. In an ideal world I'd like to be able to take photos in-house that rival those of local pros. Is the difference due to skill, gear or a combination of both?

Any comments would be gratefully received. Thanks in advance.
 
OK, I'm no 'pro' but I may be able to help a little.

i) Colour temperature - you should be easily able to alter the apparent 'warmth' easily in PP, and most likely that's what the guys you watched did, probably with a preset when they imported their images.

ii) Purely conjecture on my part, but is the softbox of good quality? IIRC cheaper softboxes can have thin walls that fail to provide adequate diffusion, causing the problem you're describing. You might consider additional layers of diffusing material on the sides of the box before spending money on additional lights, and you might also move the lights a little further away. Both will cause light levels to drop, but you could compensate by increasing exposure time.

From a physics approach, light is light, whatever source it's from. If your light source is uneven then you'll have a problem that needs to be dealt with, but if your light source is even in output then it doesn't really matter who made it. However you sound as though you have no confidence in your present setup - it's worth asking whether you would take better pictures because 'better' lights made you feel more confident, or because different lights might actually be better in some tangible way.

You mention experimenting with aperture setting to get sharpness: it might be worth researching your lenses in reviews to see where they have their greatest sharpness, assuming you haven't done so already, and then using them around that setting. I assume you're doing all the obvious things like turning off any anti-shake systems and locking the mirror up before taking the shot.

Something I notice with the shot of the Sony is that it's a little dull & flat looking, and even the Bozak lacks a little contrast. Is a lack of contrast - punch - something you're seeking but not describing, instead perceiving it as a lack of sharpness?
 
Thank you, AM - that's a very useful post.

i) Importing a preset is a little beyond my knowledge, so I'll have to read up on that (I use an older NX2 btw). I did experiment with the warmth slider and, lo and behold, it made the photos look a little more like the ones taken by the photographers I've hired before... This is definitely an area where they have an edge.

ii) This is really salient. The light cube is *not* made from particularly thick material, leading to exactly the issue you describe - i.e. inconsistent distribution / glares if the lights are too near the material, but murkiness if the lights are far away. I always try to shoot near a window and use daylight to combat this (using the cube outdoors on a sunny day definitely got results when I tried that). My feeling now is to get a couple more of the cheap 5500k lights, with soft-boxes, and augment the current lights. That way, I can create a more even distribution outside of the cube. This can be achieved for less than £50.

Doing a search on my lens has confirmed what I found out empirically, i.e. that it's sharpest around F5.6-F9. I do think that I've fallen into a trap, whereby I've always tried to keep the aperture as open as possible to compensate for a lack of lighting.

Point taken re: using exposure time to compensate for a dimmer, but more evenly distributed light. However, I can't see how you can add light that isn't there...if that makes sense?

You might be right re: lack of contrast / punch. I'm loathe to add a lot of PP contrast in case it looks over processed as I don't like photos of products that look artificial. Effort has been put into the products' finish - ideally, this should show without resorting to trickery.

Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top