I'm not an expert in photography. Some friend/client asked me to do some photos for an online catalog (mainly supermarket food thing, that is packages, some bottles, etc).I have no lighting equipment and in my zone is not easy to rent a studio or equipment, so more or less i'll charge my client the cost of the lights. i'm pretty sure i won't do product photography again so the idea of buying studio stuff is not on my head right now. I was wondering if a couple of canon speedlite 430 (maybe with some difusers or umbrelas?) will do the trick. if that works, i'll be able to use them in other ocasions and i'm sort of interested in strobist system. i'm aware of the batterys charging issue.
i'm not looking for pro results, just enough to be online with a white background with a decent look.
also any imput about non canon flashes will be appreciated. nissin, sunpak, metz?
thanks. excuse my english, i'm not native english speaker.
430's blow. 580's are far better. If you can pick up a few old Sunpaks or Nikon SB-24/25/26/28's, you'll save quite a bit, but don't forget about triggers. You can pick up a set of CTR-301P's for chump change and they've got a built-in hotshoe adapter and optical trigger and a screw mount on the bottom.
Have you considered availible light? You should have plenty in Spain...
If you set up the shooting table sidely to a north facing window you get pretty much constant, even light. All you'd have to add is reflectors from opposite of the window. White or silver boards will do. And a tripod for longish shutter speeds, of course.
I would suggest suggesting to your friend to hire a professional to shoot their catalogue. I know that's not good advice for you, but this is the type of thing that's devaluing photography. You never mentioned if you're charging them or not, so I'll assume not. You should charge, because your friend will be using your images to make money.
@cineski: my friend won't hire a pro. if he has to hire someone, he'll do the photos himself with a p&s. and i've said "more or less i'll charge my client the cost of the lights"
i completly understand things like this are devaluing photography, but you also should know not everyone can/would afford a pro. i think there is a HUGE market of people who can't afford a professional because of several reasons. i'm not the one who will do those jobs. i've never been paid for any job, i haven't done any. i'm just a person who likes to shot. also i'm not saying professionals are overpriced (like some non photographers that can't understand why a wedding costs 6K when a cousin has a dslr with the kit lens)
i work in a IT company. it took me several years to understand why some people wouldn't buy a mid-high end computer. the reason is clear: they don't needed it. you can say that's not the same in photography, and maybe it's not, but just think about it for a while.
no offense taken, just explaining my point of view
If you want a white background I would also suggest finding a location near a window like was already mentioned. Add light with reflector or block it off for a nice balance. Sure if you want to spend $750.00 on 2 lights go for the Canon 580 model but I bet he could hire someone for the close to the same with product experience. Window light and reflectors would be effective and low cost. With some photoshop work you could make the food pop as if done with better lighting. On camera lighting takes a lot of time to learn and can be very harsh with close up shots unless you understand how to bounce it and control it.
Bottles can be a little tricky. You want to highlight the shape of the bottle without getting glare on the label. I usually light off angle from the front of the bottle. In between the flash and the bottle I put a piece of black cardboard that will cut off the flash from the label area. This creates a nice subtle shadow area that reveals the label while still giving the highlight to the edges. If you look at almost any ad with a bottle you will see a variation of this type of technique.
cineski wrote:
I would suggest suggesting to your friend to hire a professional to shoot their catalogue. I know that's not good advice for you, but this is the type of thing that's devaluing photography. You never mentioned if you're charging them or not, so I'll assume not. You should charge, because your friend will be using your images to make money.
They want it cheaper/faster/better and "it" will probably come back after this damn recession is over, but that's a whole different topic. Anyone coming out with a new product is up against some tough odds in this economic climate.
As already mentioned, available light and reflector can be a great choice for you. If you decide to go with the flashguns then you'll need to find a good spot to bounce them off of walls and ceiling. You can buy flash diffusers. There are plenty of them out there. For product photography you can try, for example, LumiQuest Softbox III
I did a product job like this about 2 years ago. I was just getting started, and thought I knew it all. I went back and looked at the images and boy was I embarrassed that I had given those images to the client. I fixed a couple of them in photoshop (now) in about 5 minutes, but boy I had no clue.
I don't think you're going to get the results you're looking for just by buying a couple 580s. Going to take a little more than just that. With a little creativity though you could get good results. I shot this in my bathtub using nothing more than 2 580s triggered by pocket wizards.
Your friend should know that he gets what he pays for, too...if we wants nothing more than point and shoot quality, then by all means let him shoot the images himself.
mauro stucchi wrote:
BTW, for same examples you can see my pics here, in my porfolio
www.maurostucchi.com
Mario, your portfolio is very nice, but your web site has the most annoying interface I've encountered in a long time. The slow loading of thumbnails doesn't help.
I went there to see your pictures, but left because I got tired of guessing about how to navigate and waiting for thumbs to load.
alvit wrote:
cwebster, may be the interface is a little "original" but, on my 3 years old machine, is doing good! It's your comment a little "becero" IMHO
In your original post you ask about product photography on a budget with a white background. Attached is a photograph done with a simple $15 desk lamp as the key light, cardboard covered in white for fill (reflecting off the key), and draped on a white paper background. $30 or so in equipment.
The key is to use a tripod (because it will be a slower exposure), use AV or Manual mode and shoot away. If you drop in a shot of a gray card it will be easier to grab the white balance color in post production.
This paticular shot had some photoshop to straighten the two products. If shooting one, won't probably be an issue.
I have to jump in here and say that I don't find either of the last examples to be good examples of product photography and lighting.
On the IPhone, if you look at the chrome bezel around the screen, you'll see reflections of all sorts of stuff. Not cool. All that stuff has to be controlled and smooth for a professional product shot.
on the camera and lens, the direct overhead light and reflection from the b/g creates an unnatural "dark in the middle" effect on the lens barrel. When we see cylinders in natural light, the center is bright and the sides are dark, and that's what clues us that it's a cylinder. And if it were a camera ad, the camera and lens would be required to be sharp.
You can see some examples of shiny metal objects in the "Product" gallery on my website and some examples of not so shiny objects in the "Strings Attached" gallery. My specialty is guitars and similar stringed instruments. They are generally not so shiny as the phone, and are substantially larger.
Product photography is about details. Every detail and every reflection and every shadow must be controlled. You can do product photography on the cheap, but most of the time it comes out looking cheap.
For really good product photography, often done with just one or two lights, look at advertisements for high-end men's wrist watches, such as Rolex, Phillipe Patek, Breitling, etc.
It's not about the equipment, it's about the ability to control the light and make it do what you want.
Read "Light -- Science & Magic" to learn how light works, especially for studio photography.
Chas,
You are right about the iPhone shot not being a "product" shot. My point was that it does not require investment in lighting and studio background equipment to get an acceptable shot.
Just a bit of thinking.
If I had taken the time to spray something on the chrome to defuse the reflections, and maybe a couple of strips of paper to keep the chrome white the result would be harder to separate from something done in a studio with lots of resources.
Spending some time planning and visualizing the desired result goes a long way.
Mirrors, white and black card stock, tape, wire hangers etc. are just a useful for going small product shots as lights.
Your definition of "acceptable" might vary from client to client and seems to be way different than mine.
I can guarantee you that if I shot that iphone with my not needed lights, it would be vastly different in appearance than your version. Whether or not it would be better is up to the person paying the bill.
