Product Photography ( Lighting help required please )

[Coho-Blue]

Hi All

Its been a while since I posted anything ( Fly fishing has kept me busy ) and I was wondering about the cost of a small Lighting set up ..

So here`s the scenario .. Its not product photgraphy "as such" but possibly could be ..

I`m a Fly Tier ( small flies for fishing ) and also belong to a fishing forum were we show the photos of the flies we tie that are uploaded to the forum just for general viewing . Currently I just use my phone but as you can guess the photos are terrible and obviously don`t the do flies any justice , What sort of Small set up would be appropiate for this situation

To give you a basic idea, lets say a set up that someone would use for selling "small items" such as Watches , Rings , Jewellery etc that kinda of thing . Now I`m not talking a super expensive set up as this mainly only for Pleasure viewing , However having said all that, I have at times considered making these flies and "Possibly" somewhere down the line selling them on maybe eBay , FB Marketplace , these are not real expensive things you`re talking maybe £2 per fly that would/could be sold as lets say a bundle of 6 for £10.

Equipment I have is .. Nikon D500 , Good solid carbon fibre Tripod , Nikon 16-35mm F/4 ,Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8
Equipment I don`t have - Lighting ? ? ?

I would like to acheive something along the lines of , See post 2,668 >> THIS < < type of clear detailed photo .

I was thinking along the lines of a good solid table for the Product, then a couple of feet back I could set up the tripod with Camera & Lens .. all I`m missing is a light source really.

Thank you in advance for any help/info


Coho - Blue

 

[Scooter]

Hi Harry,

As a still subject, you could use pretty much anything as a light source tbh, as long as your camera is locked down on a tripod. A large light source would give a good result, from above and biased off to one side. This could be window light - as long as it's not direct sunlight, so a north-facing window or any window on a cloudy day. Or a white sheet with a lamp a good distance behind it to cast a large circle of light on the sheet.. If you want to buy something to do this, I'd suggest a small flash and a medium/large softbox off to one side with most of it above the fly.

Or go for a clamshell affair with the softbox above and a white surface below. Here's one I shot many years ago like that. It's a real fly, but the results would be much the same. This is a small softbox a few inches directly overhead of the fly, on a piece of white translucent plastic (actually a Lee white lens cap) on top of a white card or popup reflector - |I forget which now. The plastic disc was just so I could rotate the chilled fly without touching it. If you shoot it side-on you'll get most of it in focus. You'll also need a lens that can focus really close - ideally a macro lens, or a telephoto lens, with some extension tubes, to bring the focusing range in.

https://flic.kr/p/aj8mG6

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/owenlloyd/6112343229/in/album-72157654812068848/


Owen

 

[Don Fischer]

Hi All

Its been a while since I posted anything ( Fly fishing has kept me busy ) and I was wondering about the cost of a small Lighting set up ..

So here`s the scenario .. Its not product photgraphy "as such" but possibly could be ..

I`m a Fly Tier ( small flies for fishing ) and also belong to a fishing forum were we show the photos of the flies we tie that are uploaded to the forum just for general viewing . Currently I just use my phone but as you can guess the photos are terrible and obviously don`t the do flies any justice , What sort of Small set up would be appropiate for this situation

To give you a basic idea, lets say a set up that someone would use for selling "small items" such as Watches , Rings , Jewellery etc that kinda of thing . Now I`m not talking a super expensive set up as this mainly only for Pleasure viewing , However having said all that, I have at times considered making these flies and "Possibly" somewhere down the line selling them on maybe eBay , FB Marketplace , these are not real expensive things you`re talking maybe £2 per fly that would/could be sold as lets say a bundle of 6 for £10.

Equipment I have is .. Nikon D500 , Good solid carbon fibre Tripod , Nikon 16-35mm F/4 ,Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8
Equipment I don`t have - Lighting ? ? ?

I would like to acheive something along the lines of , See post 2,668 >> THIS < < type of clear detailed photo .

I was thinking along the lines of a good solid table for the Product, then a couple of feet back I could set up the tripod with Camera & Lens .. all I`m missing is a light source really.

Thank you in advance for any help/info


Coho - Blue

I don't know a thing about macro photography but it sounds to me like what you want is a macro lens! And probably some good light's or maybe shoot your flys outside in the sunlight?

 

[swanseamale47]

light tentSomething like this would probably do the job, coupled with a half decent daylight photography bulb. Yor issue is going to be able to focus close enough, a +4 or +8 close up lens might do it, but ideally a proper macro lens like the Sigma 105 or similar.

 

[troutfisher]

Taken with the fly on a piece of blue card ( I got fed up using white) using a Canon 40D ( from memory) on a tripod with a 100mm macro lens and lit with a desklight using a daylight bulb ( one of the blue ones you can get in craft shops).

BTW I did not tie these I'm not that skilled

 

[Ed Sutton]

Given the use for the photos you can get away with pretty big crops that will still look good on a forum.

e.g.





A macro lens will make the job easier for not much cash on the used market. The longer the better (90-105mm) but even a Nikon 60mm will get the job done.

You can use pieces of white card to bounce light around small subjects quite effectively.

 

[steve_lyt]

I use one of these,

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AmazonBasics-EP53-010726-Portable-Photo-Studio/dp/B01GPY5EL4/ref=asc_df_B01GPY5EL4/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=205183279106&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1923315736039927974&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046606&hvtargid=pla-334625225023&th=1

it works well, but there are cheaper options

 

[Phil V]

I suppose the good news is that the standard you’re aiming for is frankly terrible (those images in the link).

Normally I'd advise to steer clear of light tents etc, but for the samples posted, they'll be fine.

 

[Coho-Blue]

I suppose the good news is that the standard you’re aiming for is frankly terrible (those images in the link).

Normally I'd advise to steer clear of light tents etc, but for the samples posted, they'll be fine.

What would you suggest - @Phil V ? To get an acceptably clean clear photo

thanks in advance

 

[Phil V]

What would you suggest - @Phil V ? To get an acceptably clean clear photo

thanks in advance

I’m not sure how to answer this without sounding like a nob

There’s a qualification within your question. ‘Acceptably’ is a very broad term.

If the photos you linked are acceptable to you, then an iPhone and a light tent is all you need.

However, if you want something much better than that, then a proper macro lens and some form of off camera flash, black and white ‘reflectors’ and some type of modifier for the flash would be the way to go. Speedlights are powerful enough for macro distances.

Only you can decide which of those falls within your idea of ‘acceptable’.

 

[sk66]

I suppose the good news is that the standard you’re aiming for is frankly terrible (those images in the link).

Normally I'd advise to steer clear of light tents etc, but for the samples posted, they'll be fine.

TBF, the specific example in that thread is fine (post 2668). But I agree that a light tent with a single light source (overhead/frontal) would give decent enough results for this.

TBH, I could take pictures of a fishing fly that good using my cell phone, window light, and white paper... so I'm not really sure where the issue is.

 

[Phil V]

TBF, the specific example in that thread is fine (post 2668). But I agree that a light tent with a single light source (overhead/frontal) would give decent enough results for this.

TBH, I could take pictures of a fishing fly that good using my cell phone, window light, and white paper... so I'm not really sure where the issue is.

Looking again post 2668 is better than the rest.

So the OP really needs to add a macro lens and maybe some lighting?

Re lighting - this could be done with window light; but obviously using any artificial light source (I prefer flash) makes the process 100% consistently repeatable.

 

[Coho-Blue]

I don't know a thing about macro photography but it sounds to me like what you want is a macro lens! And probably some good light's or maybe shoot your flys outside in the sunlight?

This is the funniest most contradictory statement I`ve read in quite some time

So if you "Know Nothing" about macro photography then how do you know I need a Macro lens ? anyways thank you for your input ...

 

[Coho-Blue]

TBF, the specific example in that thread is fine (post 2668). But I agree that a light tent with a single light source (overhead/frontal) would give decent enough results for this.

TBH, I could take pictures of a fishing fly that good using my cell phone, window light, and white paper... so I'm not really sure where the issue is.

EXACTLY this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ...

There`s no huge prizes for outstanding photography or anything , I did already state something along the lines of a ""Small set up"" I`m dumbfounded by the answers , Surely you must know that we`re not talking Portraiture here , there`s no big magazine cover work .

All I`m after is a Clear "in focus" images that shows what the fly looks like , Im` not talking screen calibrating and indentical replications of Colours and all the stuff that goes with top notch professional photography and £1,000 lenses .. I did state "its only for pleasure viewing"" yet some are suggesting that I need a Macro lens and whatever else.. I think you`ve missed the point entirely .. Please RE READ the original post ..

Are some of you guys telling me that a Nikon D500 camera paired with a 16-35mm F/4 lens wont produce the sort of image i`m talking about if I were to use that with some sort of reasonable lights and crop in a tad ? ? ..

thank you for your input


Coho - Blue

 

[Don Fischer]

This is the funniest most contradictory statement I`ve read in quite some time

So if you "Know Nothing" about macro photography then how do you know I need a Macro lens ? anyways thank you for your input ...

I used to read a lot!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Are some of you guys telling me that a Nikon D500 camera paired with a 16-35mm F/4 lens wont produce the sort of image i`m talking about if I were to use that with some sort of reasonable lights and crop in a tad ? ? ..

Why not give it a try? Even without special lighting you'll be able to tell if there's sufficient detail for your needs by doing that.

 

[Garry Edwards]

EXACTLY this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ...

There`s no huge prizes for outstanding photography or anything , I did already state something along the lines of a ""Small set up"" I`m dumbfounded by the answers , Surely you must know that we`re not talking Portraiture here , there`s no big magazine cover work .

All I`m after is a Clear "in focus" images that shows what the fly looks like , Im` not talking screen calibrating and indentical replications of Colours and all the stuff that goes with top notch professional photography and £1,000 lenses .. I did state "its only for pleasure viewing"" yet some are suggesting that I need a Macro lens and whatever else.. I think you`ve missed the point entirely .. Please RE READ the original post ..

Are some of you guys telling me that a Nikon D500 camera paired with a 16-35mm F/4 lens wont produce the sort of image i`m talking about if I were to use that with some sort of reasonable lights and crop in a tad ? ? ..

thank you for your input


Coho - Blue

Yes, your equipment should be capable of producing clear in focus images, provided that you can more or less fill the frame with that lens, or at least not have to crop much. But excessive cropping will pretty much destroy the image quality, so it's possible that you may need to buy extension tubes, which are much cheaper than macro lenses.

Having re-read your original post, I think that you may be sending out mixed messages . . .

Hi All

Its been a while since I posted anything ( Fly fishing has kept me busy ) and I was wondering about the cost of a small Lighting set up ..

So here`s the scenario .. Its not product photgraphy "as such" but possibly could be ..

I`m a Fly Tier ( small flies for fishing ) and also belong to a fishing forum were we show the photos of the flies we tie that are uploaded to the forum just for general viewing . Currently I just use my phone but as you can guess the photos are terrible and obviously don`t the do flies any justice , What sort of Small set up would be appropiate for this situation

To give you a basic idea, lets say a set up that someone would use for selling "small items" such as Watches , Rings , Jewellery etc that kinda of thing . Now I`m not talking a super expensive set up as this mainly only for Pleasure viewing , However having said all that, I have at times considered making these flies and "Possibly" somewhere down the line selling them on maybe eBay , FB Marketplace , these are not real expensive things you`re talking maybe £2 per fly that would/could be sold as lets say a bundle of 6 for £10.

Equipment I have is .. Nikon D500 , Good solid carbon fibre Tripod , Nikon 16-35mm F/4 ,Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8
Equipment I don`t have - Lighting ? ? ?

I would like to acheive something along the lines of , See post 2,668 >> THIS < < type of clear detailed photo .

I was thinking along the lines of a good solid table for the Product, then a couple of feet back I could set up the tripod with Camera & Lens .. all I`m missing is a light source really.

Thank you in advance for any help/info


Coho - Blue

If you want to sell ANY products in a competitive marketplace then it will be all about presentation - the quality of the actual product is pretty much irrelevant, so your photos (and everything else) will need to be better than those of your competitors - it's as simple as that, and light tents (which have only ever been produced to sell a "magic bullet" to the unwary), aren't up to the job.

I know nothing about fly fishing, but the flies seem to be quite delicate. They remind me a bit of squirrel tails, which look quite dense at a distance but which are extremely delicate close up, and especially with the light behind them. To show the delicacy and the beauty of your flies you will need flash, as suggested above, to backlight them - and that's the only solution, if you're serious about getting it right. So, before castigating the people who've tried to help you, maybe it's you who should re-read your original post and decide what it is that you want to achieve.

 

[Phil V]

EXACTLY this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ...

There`s no huge prizes for outstanding photography or anything , I did already state something along the lines of a ""Small set up"" I`m dumbfounded by the answers , Surely you must know that we`re not talking Portraiture here , there`s no big magazine cover work .

All I`m after is a Clear "in focus" images that shows what the fly looks like , Im` not talking screen calibrating and indentical replications of Colours and all the stuff that goes with top notch professional photography and £1,000 lenses .. I did state "its only for pleasure viewing"" yet some are suggesting that I need a Macro lens and whatever else.. I think you`ve missed the point entirely .. Please RE READ the original post ..

Are some of you guys telling me that a Nikon D500 camera paired with a 16-35mm F/4 lens wont produce the sort of image i`m talking about if I were to use that with some sort of reasonable lights and crop in a tad ? ? ..

thank you for your input


Coho - Blue

Your question - your problem, there's no need to be an ingrate when people are trying to help.

For clarity - as many people have said, you can take an OK image with an iphone windowlight and a white sheet of paper. If that's good enough for you, that's all you need to do.

But if you want to use your D500? Then you're creating your own problem The lens you own won't focus close enough to do what you want, so you need to buy a close up attachment of some description (tubes, lens reverser, Raynox close up adaptor) or a dedicated macro lens. You can't simply wish your lens into it being suitable.

Next - windowlight is fine sometimes - but it's not consistent and repeatable. And if that's important to you, then you will need flash.

So to reiterate you can just use your phone - unless that's not good enough for you, in which case, you're going to need to learn to do the job properly.

Or you can just keep whining and join the long list of 'I want to take product images unless I have to put in some effort' threads.

 

[Ed Sutton]

If you want to sell ANY products in a competitive marketplace then it will be all about presentation - the quality of the actual product is pretty much irrelevant, so your photos (and everything else) will need to be better than those of your competitors - it's as simple as that,

Maybe to get an initial 'bite'' from a customer but when it comes to what one successful fishing lure manufacturer called 'consumer loseables' quality is the only thing that matters if you want repeat business.

If the flies fall apart as soon as they get wet, or don't fish 'right', it won't matter how wonderful the photos of them are there'll be no follow-on sales!

 

[Garry Edwards]

Maybe to get an initial 'bite'' from a customer but when it comes to what one successful fishing lure manufacturer called 'consumer loseables' quality is the only thing that matters if you want repeat business.

If the flies fall apart as soon as they get wet, or don't fish 'right', it won't matter how wonderful the photos of them are there'll be no follow-on sales!

Well, as I said earlier, I know nothing about fly fishing. But I do know about product photography and your statement of obvious truth isn't relevant, because without that "initial bite" there will be no sales to repeat.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the successful online sellers all run a very limited product range and spend an enormous amount of time on getting everything, especially the product photos, as good as they can be. It really is that simple, and probably the reason why I and probably other experienced photographers on here, have little patience with the people who have low standards of product photography.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Well, as I said earlier, I know nothing about fly fishing. But I do know about product photography and your statement of obvious truth isn't relevant, because without that "initial bite" there will be no sales to repeat.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the successful online sellers all run a very limited product range and spend an enormous amount of time on getting everything, especially the product photos, as good as they can be. It really is that simple, and probably the reason why I and probably other experienced photographers on here, have little patience with the people who have low standards of product photography.

Garry, I can't be the only one who finds your high and mighty attitude puts me off reading your advice - which I acknowledge is genuinely expert.

Times have changed, and selling stuff on the internet is not the same as producing ads for the glossy Sunday magazines of old.

Besides, a Bloody Butcher isn't a Rolex. You can successfully sell anglers handmade tackle with phone snaps. Plenty of people doing just that.

Rather than the TP experts telling folk how to take 'professional' product shots a thread or two on doing 'good enough' product photography with a phone might be more help? Give them the answers they are looking for instead of scaring them away telling them how it 'should' be done.

Remember the Punk motto for recording a single? It's easy, it's cheap. go and do it!

Going fishing now. Tarra.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Garry, I can't be the only one who finds your high and mighty attitude puts me off reading your advice - which I acknowledge is genuinely expert.

I'm also arrogant, supercilious and overbearing, and I make no apology for the impression you've formed of me - If I wanted to be popular I'd be a politician, but I value integrity over image.

Besides, a Bloody Butcher isn't a Rolex. You can successfully sell anglers handmade tackle with phone snaps. Plenty of people doing just that.

You're right, but doing it better rewards the seller with better sales, that's an obvious truth.

Rather than the TP experts telling folk how to take 'professional' product shots a thread or two on doing 'good enough' product photography with a phone might be more help? Give them the answers they are looking for instead of scaring them away telling them how it 'should' be done.

If that was aimed at me then I deny that I'm an expert, although like many people on here, I do have some specialist knowledge.
X = unknown quantity
Spurt = a drip under pressure

I embrace technology, and use my iPhone a lot, but never for product photography. Phones produce clear snapshots but their 'magic' is based on very dumb photographic equipment and clever software. The results lack real detail. If other people want to produce tutorials on here, using phones instead of cameras, then that's great.

I've done a dumbed-down intro to product photography here, for people just starting out https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/photography-for-amazon-ebay.157/
You may not want to read it, but this final paragraph does I think show that I have a pragmatic rather than an elysian approach to the subject . . .

So, how much time and effort should be put into producing good photos? Enough, because unless the photos produce a “want” in the customers' mind (and especially when they don't actually need to buy the product) nobody will buy it. But there are limits too, because production costs need to be kept to a reasonable level. I spent a lot of years turning out top-quality advertising photos that often cost £thousands each, but that approach doesn't pay for these types of internet sales platform.

And there’s more too. On eBay, competitors often steal photos and, despite the claims that eBay makes about image theft, it can be extremely difficult at best to get them to remove stolen photos from competitor listings. And, on Amazon (a nightmare to deal with as a seller) it gets worse, because the act of uploading images (and text) to their site also hands them the copyright and they will take your photos for use in competitor listings, and there’s absolutely nothing that you can do about it!

Going fishing now. Tarra.

Enjoy!

 

[Phil V]

Rather than the TP experts telling folk how to take 'professional' product shots a thread or two on doing 'good enough' product photography with a phone might be more help?

Well at least a couple of people already did that (even though it's not an answer to the question as asked, which was to use the D500)

However, last time I looked, this was a photography forum? And therefore it's function is to help people take better photos. Unless I'm missing a new reason for us all being here.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm also arrogant, supercilious and overbearing, and I make no apology for the impression you've formed of me - If I wanted to be popular I'd be a politician, but I value integrity over image.

I know people form wrong impressions of others. A lot think I'm an opinionated, argumentative old git.

You're right, but doing it better rewards the seller with better sales, that's an obvious truth.

I still disagree that improved photos result in improved sales in all cases. I take better photos of the rods I build now, thanks to info posted on TP - including some of your info. I like them more, but I don't think my customers give a toss and my sales certainly haven't improved because of it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

The 'expert' thing was general.

I had read that tutorial some time back.

Enjoy!

The fishing was fun.

However, last time I looked, this was a photography forum? And therefore it's function is to help people take better photos.

Better, yes. But how much better? Sometimes all that is needed is to be a little bit better.

I'm a firm believer in making the best of what you've got before going any further. Hence my suggestion the OP tries the lens they already have . They'll soon know if it's any use or not.

All too often the advice throughout TP is to go for the 'best' approach/gear. How many times have we seen someone ask for a camera upgrade mentioning an upper price limit to be met with replies suggesting gear well over budget?

I hope the OP does take on board some suggestions from this thread.

My closing advice to him would be to put the fly in the vice and place a plain background behind it as a starting point for the photos. The lighting I'll leave to the 'experts'.

 

[Phil V]

I know people form wrong impressions of others. A lot think I'm an opinionated, argumentative old git.



I still disagree that improved photos result in improved sales in all cases. I take better photos of the rods I build now, thanks to info posted on TP - including some of your info. I like them more, but I don't think my customers give a toss and my sales certainly haven't improved because of it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

The 'expert' thing was general.

I had read that tutorial some time back.



The fishing was fun.



Better, yes. But how much better? Sometimes all that is needed is to be a little bit better.

I'm a firm believer in making the best of what you've got before going any further. Hence my suggestion the OP tries the lens they already have . They'll soon know if it's any use or not.

All too often the advice throughout TP is to go for the 'best' approach/gear. How many times have we seen someone ask for a camera upgrade mentioning an upper price limit to be met with replies suggesting gear well over budget?

I hope the OP does take on board some suggestions from this thread.

My closing advice to him would be to put the fly in the vice and place a plain background behind it as a starting point for the photos. The lighting I'll leave to the 'experts'.

I’m 99% certain (without testing) that an iPhone shot will be higher quality than the very heavily cropped shot with DSLR and standard lens.

The iPhone has the inherent benefits of close focussing high mp and large DoF

Total gut feeling; but if I see an interesting insect on holiday, I reach for my phone not the proper camera as I don’t generally carry a macro lens.

And sadly - in the time it took him to write the post slagging off people who tried to be helpful, he could have run that experiment

 

[sk66]

Ok, because I'm bored and can.

Nikon D850 in DX mode (essentially a D500), don't even bother attempt using the 70-200/2.8G for this... the MFD is ~ 7ft at 200mm, and 4.6ft at 70mm. That's just too far to be useful and it has a max reproduction ration of .12x.
With the 16-35/4G it's more viable... MFD of .95ft at 35mm and a reproduction ratio of .25x. This required minimal downsize to meet the forum's 1024x limit... i.e. "pixels" were not the limitation.



Note that I did not use manual/zoomed focus or any of the other things that might improve IQ... I'd say this is about as good as any in the linked thread, but it suffers from lack of DOF. The lens might be slightly back-focused as well (operating at/near MFD leaves little room for error). I did use a tripod.

Next I used my Moto X4 from 2017... the camera/lens used is 12MP, 1.4um. The image did require a slight crop and more downsizing to meet the 1024px limit. But I think the main advantages it has are an even closer MFD and deeper DOF. I used a super crappy phone tripod for this image as well. The angle, and therefore lighting, was changed a bit due to different tripod/camera heights.



Clearly a better image.

Note that the cell phone did use HDR mode where the D850 used basic exposure (raw). And the phone probably had vibration reduction enabled where the D850 did not... I didn't do the best job of making this comparison as equal as possible. The D850 ran out of battery and I don't really know my phone's camera that well at all. Minimal edits to either image, and it would be easy to turn the BG's white.




The main thing here is a white BG in diffused light... in this case it's an open window out of direct sun; but the actual source of the light is pretty irrelevant... it just needs to be large/diffuse; which is rather easy relative to the size of a fly.

By placing the subject close to the BG, and the BG being a shade of white, allows you to record a white BG image with some backlighting (bounce) using a single light source. With just a bit of fussing (bounce cards, better positioning, manual exposure, etc) either result could be improved upon. But I think the D850/16-35 would probably require focus stacking to even things up.

So, it's probably not your equipment that's the problem...

 

[Phil V]

Ok, because I'm bored and can.

Nikon D850 in DX mode (essentially a D500), don't even bother attempt using the 70-200/2.8G for this... the MFD is ~ 7ft at 200mm, and 4.6ft at 70mm. That's just too far to be useful and it has a max reproduction ration of .12x.
With the 16-35/4G it's more viable... MFD of .95ft at 35mm and a reproduction ratio of .25x. This required minimal downsize to meet the forum's 1024x limit... i.e. "pixels" were not the limitation.

View attachment 396457

Note that I did not use manual/zoomed focus or any of the other things that might improve IQ... I'd say this is about as good as any in the linked thread, but it suffers from lack of DOF. The lens might be slightly back-focused as well (operating at/near MFD leaves little room for error). I did use a tripod.

Next I used my Moto X4 from 2017... the camera/lens used is 12MP, 1.4um. The image did require a slight crop and more downsizing to meet the 1024px limit. But I think the main advantages it has are an even closer MFD and deeper DOF. I used a super crappy phone tripod for this image as well. The angle, and therefore lighting, was changed a bit due to different tripod/camera heights.

View attachment 396458

Clearly a better image.

Note that the cell phone did use HDR mode where the D850 used basic exposure (raw). And the phone probably had vibration reduction enabled where the D850 did not... I didn't do the best job of making this comparison as equal as possible. The D850 ran out of battery and I don't really know my phone's camera that well at all. Minimal edits to either image, and it would be easy to turn the BG's white.


View attachment 396460

The main thing here is a white BG in diffused light... in this case it's an open window out of direct sun; but the actual source of the light is pretty irrelevant... it just needs to be large/diffuse; which is rather easy relative to the size of a fly.

By placing the subject close to the BG, and the BG being a shade of white, allows you to record a white BG image with some backlighting (bounce) using a single light source. With just a bit of fussing (bounce cards, better positioning, manual exposure, etc) either result could be improved upon. But I think the D850/16-35 would probably require focus stacking to even things up.

So, it's probably not your equipment that's the problem...

I’m not in the slightest surprised that this experiment played out exactly as I’d have predicted

But the OP might be if I’d been totally honest and started my response with ‘I’m not really an expert on macro, but’ like @Don Fischer did.

 

[sk66]

I’m not in the slightest surprised that this experiment played out exactly as I’d have predicted

But the OP might be if I’d been totally honest and started my response with ‘I’m not really an expert on macro, but’ like @Don Fischer did.

I never use my phone for photography... probably why I'm fine with it being 6yrs old and 12MP. But for "easy macro" I've always prefered smaller sensors for the same reasons you noted.

I have an old Pentax Optio WG-2 from 2012 that I keep around for trashing... e.g. when it's definitely going to get very wet/dirty/etc. It's one of those "tough cameras" but it also has a built in macro ring light function and a 1cm MFD.

So I thought I'd see what I could do with that pretty easily. I set up a small v-flat background, set the camera to macro mode and enabled the macro light, and I used a flashlight bounced off the left side of the v-flat. Using the bounced light relegated the ringlight to fill status (never much liked ringlights). I closed the shade so that ambient light contamination would be minimal. The light was handheld which really is not a great way of going about it... but I'm only going to spend so much time on this.




I probably should have used the same fly, but I grabbed an even smaller one.



This is a lightly edited jpeg with whatever default picture settings the camera sets. So, a flashlight (or almost any light source) and little pocket camera you can pick up used for about $50.

To do much better than this I think I would have to step to my 150mm macro on my V1 or D850; plus a proper flash in a softbox... a significantly greater investment; and quite possibly much more effort (stacking/etc). And TBH, I think they lose some of their finesse/attractiveness at higher magnification... or maybe that's just the generic crap flies I have laying around.

 

[Coho-Blue]

I suppose the good news is that the standard you’re aiming for is frankly terrible (those images in the link).

Normally I'd advise to steer clear of light tents etc, but for the samples posted, they'll be fine.

Really, Phil v ? I stated look at post 2668 NOT THE WHOLE THREAD

TBF, the specific example in that thread is fine (post 2668). But I agree that a light tent with a single light source (overhead/frontal) would give decent enough results for this.

TBH, I could take pictures of a fishing fly that good using my cell phone, window light, and white paper... so I'm not really sure where the issue is.

I`m kinda confused at this moment in time ? I always assumed that unless I have a Pro/Semi Pro camera that I cannot produce decent images (My naivety)

Looking again post 2668 is better than the rest.

So the OP really needs to add a macro lens and maybe some lighting?

Re lighting - this could be done with window light; but obviously using any artificial light source (I prefer flash) makes the process 100% consistently repeatable.

So now I need a Macro lens and some lighting ? - I`m about to go onto Amazon/eBay and buy a lens - are you sure about this @ Phil V because now you`ve changed your mind ..

Yes, your equipment should be capable of producing clear in focus images, provided that you can more or less fill the frame with that lens, or at least not have to crop much. But excessive cropping will pretty much destroy the image quality, so it's possible that you may need to buy extension tubes, which are much cheaper than macro lenses.

Having re-read your original post, I think that you may be sending out mixed messages . . .

If you want to sell ANY products in a competitive marketplace then it will be all about presentation - the quality of the actual product is pretty much irrelevant, so your photos (and everything else) will need to be better than those of your competitors - it's as simple as that, and light tents (which have only ever been produced to sell a "magic bullet" to the unwary), aren't up to the job.

I know nothing about fly fishing, but the flies seem to be quite delicate. They remind me a bit of squirrel tails, which look quite dense at a distance but which are extremely delicate close up, and especially with the light behind them. To show the delicacy and the beauty of your flies you will need flash, as suggested above, to backlight them - and that's the only solution, if you're serious about getting it right. So, before castigating the people who've tried to help you, maybe it's you who should re-read your original post and decide what it is that you want to achieve.

So now I don`t need a macro lens ? Or do I ? I`m now totally confused ..according to Phil I do need one but now you`re saying I don`t Garry

Your question - your problem, there's no need to be an ingrate when people are trying to help.

For clarity - as many people have said, you can take an OK image with an iphone windowlight and a white sheet of paper. If that's good enough for you, that's all you need to do.

But if you want to use your D500? Then you're creating your own problem The lens you own won't focus close enough to do what you want, so you need to buy a close up attachment of some description (tubes, lens reverser, Raynox close up adaptor) or a dedicated macro lens. You can't simply wish your lens into it being suitable.

Next - windowlight is fine sometimes - but it's not consistent and repeatable. And if that's important to you, then you will need flash.

So to reiterate you can just use your phone - unless that's not good enough for you, in which case, you're going to need to learn to do the job properly.

Or you can just keep whining and join the long list of 'I want to take product images unless I have to put in some effort' threads.

I`m not being ungrateful in any way ""Thats your assumption"" so why couldn`t you have explained the part about "creating my own problem to begin with" In the beginning ... I`m not whining at all AGAIN thats your arrogant assumption ..I`m genuinely asking for help, you`re to blind sided with your own arrogance to recognise this ,coupled with mixed messages from YOU , do I buy another lens and lights that according to some "I don`t need OR may not need"

I’m 99% certain (without testing) that an iPhone shot will be higher quality than the very heavily cropped shot with DSLR and standard lens.

The iPhone has the inherent benefits of close focussing high mp and large DoF

Total gut feeling; but if I see an interesting insect on holiday, I reach for my phone not the proper camera as I don’t generally carry a macro lens.

And sadly - in the time it took him to write the post slagging off people who tried to be helpful, he could have run that experiment

So now I`m totaly confused more than I ever was before - Do I need a Macro lens or not , what is it to be @Phil V ? Or don`t you know either ?
I`m not slagging anyone off , so many people have joined the thread with so many different answers , Do I run out and start spending money on stuff I don`t need ? who do I listen to ? do I take your advise Phil v ? .. do I take the advise of Scooter or swanseamale47 ?
Phil V how can I run an experiment when I don`t know what experiment to run in the first place . couln`t you have had the decency to guide me in that direction to begin with instead of pointing your finger at me and accusing me of being ungrateful and slagging people off ..

I came here with a genuine question Phil - and I`ll say it again - are you telling me that I cannot take a decent photo with a D500 and a 16-35mm f/4 lens ? theres nothing arrogant or being ungrateful to anyone nor slagging anyone off about asking any questions .. You`re the only person in this thread thats taking the holier than thou attitude ..

So it now appears to me that sk66 has hit the nail on the head - So , just for 100 percent clarification @sk66 ,you`re saying I can produce an image something along those lines that you have done if I use my D500 and 16-35mm f/4 lens and with a little bit of tweeking here and there ?

Sincere thanks to everyone that has contributed to thread especially @sk66 Respect to you for conducting the experiment , you`ve definitely given me a better insight and understanding of what I need to do, thank you ..

As for @Phil V .. I respectfully ask that in the future you please STAY AWAY from any other threads of mine, I no longer care for your input nor your arrogance


Coho - Blue

 

[Deleted member 95743]

You could try a Reversing Ring, they only cost about £10.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVYtgJi2rLc&t=593s

 

[Coho-Blue]

You could try a Reversing Ring, they only cost about £10.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVYtgJi2rLc&t=593s

Thank you for that

 

[Garry Edwards]

I`m kinda confused at this moment in time ? I always assumed that unless I have a Pro/Semi Pro camera that I cannot produce decent images (My naivety)

So now I need a Macro lens and some lighting ? - I`m about to go onto Amazon/eBay and buy a lens - are you sure about this @ Phil V because now you`ve changed your mind ..

So now I don`t need a macro lens ? Or do I ? I`m now totally confused ..according to Phil I do need one but now you`re saying I don`t Garry



Coho - Blue

I'm sure that a top pro snooker player (or even a good amateur one ) can perform better with a broomstick than I can with my hand-made snooker cue so no, you don't always need "professional" equipment to obtain "professional" results. Professional photographers tend to buy top equipment for a range of reasons, and people like spending money on their hobbies anyway, that's human nature.

The real question about your equipment concerns its suitability. It has a cropped-frame sensor, not the largest but possibly too large to provide the required amount of depth of field.
Whether you need a macro lens or whether you can manage with your 16-35 is a question that I can't answer with authority because I don't have one and don't have any fishing flys - but you do, so you can work it out for yourself just by trying it. If you can almost fill the frame then you're fine, if you need to crop it dramatically you're not, it's that simple.

As various people have explained to you, you can manage without flash, but our photography will then be weather-dependent and even then you'll struggle to get consistent results. Your choice.

I came here with a genuine question Phil - and I`ll say it again - are you telling me that I cannot take a decent photo with a D500 and a 16-35mm f/4 lens ? theres nothing arrogant or being ungrateful to anyone nor slagging anyone off about asking any questions .. You`re the only person in this thread thats taking the holier than thou attitude ..



Coho - Blue

I've known @Phil V on this forum for quite a few years and have always found him helpful. We've also met a few times and he helped me on a shoot once, maybe more than once. I think that you've summed him up completely wrongly.

 

[Faldrax]

@Coho-Blue You've had a a number of 'different' answers because there are a number of different possible solutions, depending on what equipment you have, and what you are aiming for in the final image.
1) Use a smartphone.
Modern smartphone cameras are a surprisingly good option for shots like this, if you want 'reasonable' quality - see post #26.
As with all photography, the light is key - but nothing fancy was used here, just a piece of card and a window.
The downside is you have to rely on the sun / weather to provide suitable light, but a setup as shown in post #28 allows artificial light to be used instead.
2) Use your DSLR and existing Lens
Set it up in a similar way to the smartphone, and see how it goes. Try with the two lenses you get.
It will require more 'work' are you'll want to spend time editing the images to get the best from them (a smartphone does this automatically, which is easy, but removes control from you, so is ultimately limiting)
3) If 1 or 2 don't get the images you're after, then it's time to consider additional kit - this could be just a close up filter on an existing lens, or a dedicated macro lens, perhaps an flashgun for lighting - if you do need to go down this route, then look to the advice from the lighting experts (Gary, Phil, etc), they've been doing this sort of thing for a long time, and really do know what they're talking about (even if Phil V can be a bit 'blunt' at times, what he writes is worth reading).

 

[Phil V]

As the OP’s comprehension skills are clearly not of an adult standard I’m out

 

[GreenNinja67]

I'd buy a secondhand macro lens and use flash behind an inexpensive macro flash diffuser.

But that's just me.

 

[GreenNinja67]

@Coho-Blue

This may help you.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3Rm1xN6fdXs

 

[sk66]

So , just for 100 percent clarification @sk66 ,you`re saying I can produce an image something along those lines that you have done if I use my D500 and 16-35mm f/4 lens and with a little bit of tweeking here and there ?

Yes, but it's going to be the hardest option of the three I showed. You might want to get a program like qDslrDashboard for remote control, zoomed viewing, and focus shift/stacking.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Focus stack, open as layers in PS, auto align and auto blend.

 

[Tulipone]

You know when you go through a thread and realise that you know so little about anything worth knowing about? The trouble is that it generally fuels my GAS.

I don't really care if the OP was pleased with the feedback here or not - but it is pretty much gold and I am. Kind of wishing I had a fly to take pictures of though now.

 

[Garry Edwards]

You know when you go through a thread and realise that you know so little about anything worth knowing about? The trouble is that it generally fuels my GAS.

I don't really care if the OP was pleased with the feedback here or not - but it is pretty much gold and I am. Kind of wishing I had a fly to take pictures of though now.

I took a picture of a fly once . . .