chris_acord Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I have been slowly upgrading our in-house photography now for 4 years. When I first started they were shooting t-shirts lying on a floor with a lowel tota light and a cool pix camera. We now have a full studio with permanent sweep and plenty of space for overhead, full mannequin shots and table top work. I have upgraded the camera a while back (thank God) to a Nikon D5000. Photos were still not coming out the way I wanted. Crisp, and plenty of detail. I managed to do some homework and had a local photographer recommend changing to a 50mm lens. I did. Photos are good, but I think could be better. We shoot apparel pieces to watches to Stylized catalog cover shots. Something to me is still missing. Still long for a better shot. Any ideas on lens? Below is my current set up.<br> Nikon D5000<br> Nikor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G<br> (so so tri-pod)<br> Tethered to laptop using Nikon software<br> Lights are continuous (3) Interfit Super Cool 5 with softboxes.<br> Any help is much appreciated.</p> <p>Thanks</p> <p>Chris</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_momary Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Chris -<br> Pony up some sample pics, that'll help you get meaningful responses.<br> Jim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_acord Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Not sure how to post images to this forum. Sorry. Newbie to the site. I do have examples.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_acord Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Color whacked out on the first upload. Here are a couple more.<br> Thanks Jim, look forward to feedback.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devon_mccarroll Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Chris, what do you feel is missing from the shots? Do you feel it's the photography, or more about styling the shot for the photography? Because overall, at least to me, the lighting on the sweatshirt shot looks fine.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_acord Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>The photos at hi res have a "noise" or "grain" to them at times. For the larger shots with the 50mm I have to be pretty far back to get everything into the frame. Then when I go to post production I notice that things like zipper pulls or fabric details are blurred or just lack that pop. I can get away with a lot with the online images it is the print images that I struggle with sometimes. I feel like I need to be closer to get the detail but can't. Thought that a different lens would help in this matter.<br> Thanks Devon</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>What ISO are you shooting at? What are your typical settings (ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed)? Are you shooting RAW or JPG?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_acord Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>The white polo piece for instance was shot at F9 1/10s with an ISO of 1EV under 200. I am shooting tethered on a tripod.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>A "so so tri-pod" and 1/10 shutter speed and 1Ev under 200 are possibly not the best combination. Try the base ISO (probably ISO 200 on your camera, faster shutter speeds and a solid tripod. Most lenses are at their best at about 2 stops from their widest aperture. As good as that lens is, using it at f9 is probably robbing a bit of sharpness. (diffraction).</p> <p>As a test, up the ISO a bit, shoot at 1/160 or 1/200, open your lens up to f4 and see if you get the sharpness you are looking for. This is a test to see if you can increase the sharpness to where you want it only - depth-of-field may be an issue at f4.</p> <p>I don't know if you can lock your mirror up with your body - that would help as well at the slow shutter speeds you are using.</p> 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_mann1 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>a) One reason you are having trouble with the colors on the 1st image you posted is that you set the color space to "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2". For posting on the web, and display on monitors, you essentially must output to sRGB if you want to have a reasonable chance that your images will look good when viewed by others on their monitors.</p> <p>b) I completely agree with Elliot B that 1/10th on a "so-so" tripod is really asking for trouble. However, I disagree completely that using f/9 will contribute substantially to the blur because of diffraction at this aperture. Under your conditions, the blur due to camera motion almost certainly will be many times larger than the blur due to diffraction at this aperture with this lens. Diffraction is a red herring. Don't worry about it. The curve for diffraction limited spot size vs f-stop is quite broad. As long as you are a couple of stops above wide-open and not into f/16 and above territory, you'll be fine. If economics force you to stay with hot lights, at least get a really solid tripod and head.</p> <p>c) WRT sharpness, are you aware that the de facto standard for high quality work these days is three stage sharpening. If you are not doing at least *some* sharpening, your images will be soft, even with theoretically perfect lenses. For more info, Google {three stage bruce fraser site:photo.net}. Then, see, for example, http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00UZQR, a nice tutorial by Patrick Lavoie, one of photo.net's PP gurus.</p> <p>d) To be honest, I'm not impressed by the lighting. It looks too flat. You need more & better defined shadow areas. By any chance are the walls and ceiling of your studio white (or some other light color)? In addition, the highlights in your 2nd shot are just about completely burned out, with large, no contrast areas where the RGB values are all above 250, 250, 250. Bring this down a bit to bring contrast and texture into the highlights.</p> <p>HTH,</p> <p>Tom M</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_brown Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>++ Elliot an Tom on the shutter speed and so-so tripod. Are you pushing the shutter with your finger on this tripod, or a non-intrusive (off-camera) release? Also, what is the lighting? If you are in the studio, why the slow shutter speed and fairly wide open lens? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_brown Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Chris: One of my over the shoulder experts here says also try not all three soft boxes ... soft ... possibly making everything a liittle flat ... one direct or contrasting from the side to reduce the flat look and make a little more "pop" ... FWIW she is trying to teach me this very thing with multiple flash, and my progress is slow, and your results are much better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariel_s1 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>I'll agree with everyone else. First, use a better tripod. Expect to spend at least $150, and you'll know you're going in the right direction when you're buying the tripod legs and head separately. Second, there is a shutter delay mode on your camera which helps reduce the effect of mirror slap and your finger on the shutter, which will help reduce blurriness. In addition, the Nikon ML20 remote is only $20, and this way you don't even touch the camera to fire the shutter.</p> <p>Turning up the ISO and underexposing your photos is what causes noise, so keep your ISO at 200 and make sure that the histogram is not all bunched up on the left side in your photos. Why are you shooting at 1 EV under? This darkens the photo for no reason, especially if you're just going to brighten up the photo later on your computer. Shooting at f/9 *could be* causing diffraction, try shooting at f/5.6 and see if the sharpness increases (as long as the depth of field is deep enough).</p> <p>For new lenses, do you happen to have a zoom lens that came with your D5000, like the 18-55mm or 18-105mm? If you want a lens that isn't so long, my first recommendation would be for you to consider picking up the 40mm micro, which will allow you to not have to step back so far, and it also focuses much closer. But, check this focal length with your zoom lens (zoom it to 40mm and see how that view works for you). In fact, stopped down to f/9, you may find that even your zoom lens has enough sharpness for you. Otherwise, the 35mm is also sharp, but not much wider than the 40mm and no macro capability like the 40mm has.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_mann1 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 <p>Of course, I can't argue with a suggestion to perform an experiment to determine whether diffraction makes a significant contribution to image blur under the circumstances described above. However, a simple calculation shows this is unlikely. One can use programs such as Barnack (http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/) to get the diameter of the diffraction limited spot (12 microns at f/9). At the stated magnification (= 60x = 300 cm object distance divided by 5 cm image distance), this turns into an equivalent (ie, projected) size of 0.7 mm on the subject. My experience with mediocre quality tripods tells me that the blur due to camera shake at 10 feet away and 1/10th second is almost always going to be much more than 0.7 mm (on the subject).</p> <p>Tom M</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 <p>Use strobes! <em>So</em> much of these problems go away when you get away from continuous, low-power lighting. Yes, a serious tripod is important. But it's close to meaningless when you're using strobes that light the scene in 1/2000th of a second. Something to consider. Especially if you ever end up having a human being in one of your shots.</p> 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 <p>Is there anything like Barnack running on Macintosh?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>BTW, with a relatively small camera and lens combination in a studio setting where you're not exposed to wind or placing the tripod on an unstable surface prone to lots of vibration… I bet you could get away with a fairly cheap tripod and head and the self-timer function.</p> <p>KEH had some older Benros on closeout (and they may still), and a decent pan+tilt head is going to be pretty cheap (I expect you could find a decent used one for about $50). I picked up an A-157 for $50, and an undersized Manfrotto ball head (484, oops) for another $50.</p> <p>As for diffraction, DPReview claims max sharpness on the 50/1.4G is around ƒ/5.6-ƒ/8.0. Nikkorlensreview.com says ƒ/4.0. If accurate, definitely try opening up the aperture a bit (which will definitely allow for a faster shutter speed). If you're finding that the working distance is too long, try a wider lens (for sharpness and minimal distortion there are lot of macro lenses to choose from, or even something older like the 28/2.8 Ai-S which is typically well regarded).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsouri Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 I would recommend using at least 2 strobes if you can use 3 ( Paul C buff are great strobes) Simple winner setup 1. Two strobes on the side behind two diffusers(I am using Savage Translum Medium-Weight Grade). 2. Surface - I am using an Acrylic Sheet. 3. Background, I am using Savage Seamless Background Paper I make sure the last strobe point to the background of course. 4. Never put the product too close to the back ( background paper ) because you will have a light spill that creates a nasty halo around the product. 5. You can use either 50mm or macro all depends on the shots you are taking. From what you posted 50mm is fine. 6.You have many ghost mannequin out there that can make the shirts/ pants loos great! make sure you steam them before to remove any wrinkles. 7. Focus stacking when needed. very important to create a fully sharp image. Camera settings: If you have 3 strobes you can go low on the ISO which will remove ALL noise (snow) like issues. I would recommend also under ISO200 / F10-F12 / Shutter 1/200 or 1/100. don't go over 1/250 because the flash is not fast enough for the camera and you will have a nasty black line in the image. You can view some of my work here and see what a simple setup can do Good luck! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 OP last seen March 2012 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 8 and a half years later, meanwhile back in the studio....:D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Not keen on the 'black stripe down the middle' effect from using two side lights. A big frontal reflector - maybe grey? - with a hole for the lens would cure that. But keep the 'black reflector' edge outlining. The clamshell side lighting works for the clothing, but it's not ideal for more reflective subjects IMO. Drop shadow behind and underneath the scent bottle PhotoShopped in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 I would recommend using at least 2 strobes if you can use 3 ( Paul C buff are great strobes) Simple winner setup Great work. Clear directions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsouri Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 Wow, I just realized this post was from 2012 LOL. I gotta look at the dates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_niemi1 Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 I wonder if he has upgraded his equipment since his original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now