Cannot get sharp pearls on a white background

Can someone please tell what went wrong?

 

Two pictures are presented here.

 

One with darker background and unclear edges. MyPearl

 

One with clear edges and white background. TheirPearl

 

Can some tell me how the sharp image can be achieved?

 

My settings:

 

Canon Rebel XT

 

EFS 18-55mm

 

Aperture: 25

 

Shutter: 1/6

 

Distance to object: 12-16 in

 

Fluorescent light above the object and below the background( acrylic sheet)

 

 

 

Thank you for your help!!<div></div>

Oops one more image<div></div>

You need more expose to make whites white. In camera meters are calibrated to make everyhing grey. They make grey snow also.

 

The meter always assunes you are pointing it a grey object. In this case it thinks it is a grey object with lots of light on it. So trick it and give more expose than is called for. 1 to 2 stops more should do it.

And their light source is larger than yours, therefore produces larger specular highlights, which better illuminate the tops of the pearls.

 

There are distinct reflections in several pearls and the halos around the front pearls have to go.

 

<Chas>

Hey, they do have better pearl than yours. You can't fix that with just a camera (wouldn't be right). Also notices how

much time they spend on arranging their pearl into a perfect circle. That person also spend as much time on the

lighting set-up as well. Those things make big difference.

I cannot express my appreciation to the quick response. Thank you so much. I tried the following:

 

Aperture: 8

Shutter: 1/8

 

If you notice the background is white but the left side is a little bit gray which is OK.

 

But the object is now overexposed. I just cannot get the perfect combination.....

 

Should I change other things? Thanks for the wisdom in advance.<div></div>

Their photo was done differently in a few ways. Theirs was NOT on a lightbox with a light coming from below. Looks to

me like one small softbox directly over the pearls on a boom. The surface is either white seamless, or white formica. (A matte

surface.) The light does not extend too far behind the pearls - the reflection of darker areas of the studio is happening on

the top edges - helping to provide a cleaner outline on the top edges. The image was probably shot RAW or with a high

quality medium format back for more bit depth and to permit more aggressive curves to be applied to boost contrast

(deepen the blacks) while still preserving smooth gradation. In my opinion the image also has received Photoshop work

to make the whites whiter on the background area around the necklace. Exposure must be done carefully to make sure to maintain

highlight detail.

 

Rich Quindry

 

www.Quindry.com

Thank you all for the answers. I agreed with Rich that the light was close to the object. The dark areas of the reflection indicates a high contrast was set up purposely by having a dark area around the top light.

 

I am not sure though how it can eliminate shadow from the top light without light from below the surface. Maybe the top light is very big and diffused in someway.

 

Also, thanks for Tommy's comment. I agreed that their pearls are better. What I want to acheived is to have a well-defined outline and a white background. I will try to shoot some nicer pearls later. Thank you for the input.<div></div>

I don't know what kind of gear you have available, but here's how I would do it as a commercial photographer.

First the mechanical. Use a super white background, preferably one with more reflective properties than just

white paper. Walmart actually has some coated white poster papers that will do this quite nicely on a small job

like this. Art supply stores will also have it. The paper almost looks polished.

 

If you want this to be a perfect circle, go to a cooking supply store and find the spring form cake pans, like

for cheese cakes, and get one with about the same diameter as the necklace....a fraction bigger is actually best.

Then lay the necklace down on the background and using just the sides of the cake form, pull it into a circle

just a bit smaller than the necklace, hold it inside the pearls and control how you ease up on the pressure until

the spring action makes it into the perfect circle. Then pull it tighter to get it away from the pearls and lift

it out. You can always repeat if things shift out of round or you need to move it forward or back.

 

Next set up the camera and compose where it is going to stay and leave your tripod or camera stand there.

 

Now, the lighting.

 

Something this reflective benefits from at least a double layer of diffusion. If you don't have large pieces of

translucent fabric to shoot through, check to see if your town has a plastic supply company. If so, they will

stock a product call Choroplast (not certain of the spelling) and have it in many colors. It is the product that

is often used for the small realtor's signs and political signs you see all over town. It's like corrugated

cardboard only in plastic.

 

If you don't have a plastics company, check with the local sign companies although you probably will have to pay

a higher price.

 

The three types that I use are black for making shades, pure white for reflectors, and translucent for modifying

my lighting.

 

It comes in 4x8 sheets so you can make an enormous light source for very little money..... just a few dollars for

the whole sheet.

 

Now, cut the 4x8 sheet in two (box cutters are perfect) and prop the first 4x4 sheet over the pearls at an angle

where the front is perhaps

a foot or so above the pearls and the rear only a couple of inches above the back of the table well behind the

circle. This wont show because you are shooting down over the product and will crop very tightly to just that

image area. Next, set up the second sheet over the first. They will be separated so tape the back edge together

if you like to anchor the second one and then prop it up in front so that it's front edge is about a foot over

the front of the first one. Duct tape and small background light stands make this easy to do.

 

At this point, I would take a piece of white Chorplast or foamcore and cut it to fit the front opening between

the two translucent sheets and tape it in place. When you set the light to go through the two layers, this front

piece will capture light that would have shot out toward you and force it to go downward toward the pearls from

the front edge.

 

Next you set the light itself. It can be a straight flash, a soft box, an umbrella, pan reflector....what ever

you have to use. I would opt for a large soft box directed toward the top Choroplast at a down angle to nearly

match the angle of the top piece. A soft box would give you yet a third layer of diffusion to allow the shimmer

of the pearls to come out in all of its delicacy. Set your flash at a high output so you achieve a large front

to back depth of field. All of these diffusers will subtract light, so a high power setting will be extremely

helpful.

 

Finally, a wide but short white card needs to be propped up in front of the pearls to kick light back into lower

parts of those gems. (Used up nine volt batteries covered in black masking tape (art store) make great little

devices to prop up reflector cards and to put under products to get the tilt that you need.)

 

You can continue the cards around the sides (only toward the front area) to add this illumination all around the

lower parts of the necklace that can be seen. Moving the cards in will brighten that reflected highlight, moving

them back will

keep it dimmer and make the highlight smaller, so observe the effect.

 

If you have a flash meter, use it in the incident mode to measure the light falling on the pearls from above.

That's it. It will be accurate in incident mode, but I would still bracket by two stops in half stop incriments

on each side of the given exposure so you can choose the density that most shows off the very delicate beauty in

the colors in

the pearls themselves.

 

If you measure this in reflected mode, as correctly said by Ron, it will want to turn everything gray because

that's what

is set to produce since it is assumed that you will be mostly measuring faces and landscapes in mid tones.

 

Good luck. This is a challenge to do right and I think you will enjoy figuring out the process.

Obvious difference to me is that 'theirpearl' was shot with a view camera, or a tilting lens, hence it's in focus from front to back. Have I got this wrong, or am I missin' something?

Tim certainly challenged me here. Thank you for sharing the technique to make the object round. That was a great idea. I really appreciate the openness in this forum.

 

About the lighting setup, I have tried to put the object on the poster paper and surround it with poster papers. It eliminated the shadow and made the lower part of the gems brighter! Tim. I wonder if you have done similar projects. You are right on!! Amazing!

 

Now about the lighting. I have a diffused light on top for now and I have removed the light from the bottom. I do not have the coroplast right now. I will try the two layers diffusion later. I took a picture.

 

Please take a look. I think I am closer. But the sharpness is still an issue. One reason is that I do not have a meter now. I was trying to figure out the best setting by hand.

 

Aperture is now 36

 

Shutter is 1/5

 

ISO 100<div></div>

f 36 is way into refractive unsharpness for the EFS 18-55. In effect your aperture is so small that it acts as a lens and you then get two slightly different lenses and the image gets unsharp. But at the same time you want all of the necklace in focus, so you have to use a small aperture to get the depth of field.

 

It is probably undoable with your current lens. As Dave says their image was probably shot with a tiltable lens, either a view camera or an SLR tilt-shift lens. Your best choice is probably to either shot from straight above to get all in focus or to willfully create more of a perspective with the back part of the necklace out of focus.

 

Yours,

 

Michael

Thur,

 

I would follow Tim's advise together with what Michael has just mentioned as he beat me to the keyboard. Take a

look at Tim's webpage if you need to know if he has done this before.

 

Nice work Tim...and I couldn't agree more in regards to your assesment re Photoshop...

 

All the best

 

Artur

Hi Thur,

 

You're getting closer but still have several issues to overcome.

 

1) The light - not sure what you're using, but a lightbox thats maybe three or four times the size of your subject would be

best - on a boom over the subject and above the camera. If you swing it closer to the camera, the shadows will recede.

The larger the light source and closer the light source the smaller and softer the shadow.

 

2) Exposure - Your exposures are all over the place. You need to learn to read the camera histogram. You want the

whites as bright as you can make them without "clipping".

 

3) The lens and depth of field - The quality of the lens and the aperture that you shoot with along with accuracy of focus

are very important. Some lenses are much better than others. Also lenses perform their best when they are not used at

their largest or smallest apertures. You need to close down your lens as much as needed to hold sharpness from front to

back but no more.

 

4) Tripod and vibration - since you're using slow shutter speeds you need to make sure your tripod doesn't vibrate and

your camera doesn't either. A cable release may help.

 

5) Shoot RAW - You're not going to get great quality shooting jpgs, especially with a subject like this.

 

6) Post-Processing - This is extremely important as no matter how well you do everything, photography has

shortcomings that require this. Part of the problem is the way cameras "see" differently than people. In the old days (I've

been in business as a commercial photographer since 1974) this was done in the darkroom and with traditional

retouching, now it's done with Photoshop. Without this step you'll never get the results you're seeing. What I would do is

too difficult to explain in detail here, but involves sharpening, boosting contrast and making the background much lighter

than the camera records it. I shoot a fair amount of jewelry and have a pearl shot on my website in my product/still life

section. It's treated a little differently than what you're doing, but there are more similarities than differences.

 

Most people think that the camera makes the picture, and while high quality equipment is very important, the reality is

that there is much more that goes into making shots that make the subjects look great.

 

Rich Quindry

 

www.Quindry.com

A little post processing to get rid of the gray would help.<div></div>

Hi, your best bet is Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting (Paperback)

It wont take you long to read the book, then buy, rent, macro lens, play with light, read it again.

Believe it or not then a lot of things will start making sense, at some point you will need help with photoshop, if you cant do it yourself, somone else will do it for you.

Best regards,<div></div>

Hi again, Thur.

 

As to your question about my assignments; Yes, I have done some jewelry and it's very tough to light well, get the

color balances correct due to all of the reflective and color response properties inherent in both the metals and

the types of gems, and to control the planes of focus throughout on such a small object. My career also includes

owning a successful portrait studio for 17 years and now free-lancing in marketing,product, architecture and food

images with my hand still in the portrait world for fun 'cause I enjoy people. Weddings are the only thing I no

longer do because I want the weekends for family, friends, fishing and landscape photography just for myself.

(So I like

to make believe that actually can shoot a bit like Ansel Adams.........I wish!!!!!)

 

I'm pretty new to this site, so I've been lazy and haven't yet posted any of my images, but you can see some of

them at my web site, www.cameraworksassociates.com. Please feel free to ask about techniques on any of them.

You're also welcome to rip them apart. I'm only 58 and expect to be learning from the ideas and expertise of

others for another twenty years at least! I am ALWAYS looking to improve!

 

I agree with Dave that it is very likely that this sample was taken with a view camera. One of the great features of

the view camera is that you can change the relative geometry between the lens and film or sensor planes. Instead

of parallel to each other, you tilt one in relation to the other which changes the plane of focus. This is

called the Scheimpflug Principal (takes longer to remember how to spell it than it does to do it).

 

A few 35mm and digital brands have what are called tilt shift lenses, notably Canon, and Nikon and there is a

really fun looking little guy called the 'lens baby' that just might do it as well. That one is made with a

universal mount for pretty much every camera. These also work based on changing that geometry and can help with

this kind of photography.

 

Anyway, you are photographing a small object with a fairly short front to back distance to keep in focus. The

problem is that you are currently using a lens of seemingly fairly short focal length so you are in close. It is

easy to get either front or back in focus, but bringing both to sharpness requires a very small lens opening to

have depth of field try to achieve the sharpness you need.

 

Michael's comment about diffraction had not occurred to me regarding sharpness, but he's absolutely right. When

you stop a lens way down, the light rays actually bounce around off the edges of the diaphragm blades since they

are so tight and that creates a hazing on the image. Most lenses perform their best in the mid ranges of f stops.

 

So let's take another approach. Let's first run a bit of math about relative distances. (I hate detailed math,

so I'll keep it simple, I swear.)

 

First let's take the distance from the front to the back of the subject, maybe 8 inches for the necklace. Now

let's take your current set up of camera to subject distance.....perhaps 2 feet. Now let's turn that into a

fraction of 8/32 inches (camera to the back of the subject) or a one to four distance ratio. That's a big chunk

of the total distance and hard for depth of field alone to include. Remember that depth of field works

differently when you are close as compared to far away from the subject. Far away, f11 will give you huge depth

of field on most fairly short lenses, while the same f stop in close will be a very limited depth.

 

Now, let's take a longer lens that allows you keep the same image size on screen or in the viewfinder, either a short

telephoto or farther out on the zoom range on your current lens. Now you have to move the camera farther away

which changes that distance geometry ratio. Now lets say you are twice as far away from the subject. The eight

inches of subject depth remains the same, but now you may have 48 inches of camera to subject depth for a

fraction of 8/56 inches or 1 to 7 ratio. At that distance, the necklace doesn't need the huge depth of field

because it is "flatter" in the relationship of the scene. So a much smaller depth of field is needed and the mid

range f stops will work, removing the refraction effects.

 

Let's go back a moment to the size of the light source.

 

You are working with very small, but perfectly round and enormously reflective objects. Imagine that you cut a

pearl in half and lay it on the shooting table. Now really use your imagination and look deeply into the

reflections you see. This is now a hemispherical almost-mirror and it sees and reflects everything on a 180

degree response. that means that even though your subject is tiny, it sees a huge physical range and reflects

that to your eye and to the camera, so you must use a relatively huge light source or huge diffuser that creates that

size from a smaller light source. Even that gigantic source will be reflected on only a partial area of the

pearls as you can see in the sample target image that you posted.

 

Richard Quigley made this point quite well as well as his good thoughts on the digital end of the process. I am

a film shooter with very limited digital experience and knowledge (I describe myself as an analog anachronism),

so please listen there to Richard and the other great digital experts here.

 

If I may make a very strong suggestion to you, Look on ebay, Amazon and other sources for tapes or DVD's by the

late Dean Collins. Dean was a brilliant commercial photographer from San Diego and an even better educator.

There is a whole series that he produced on lighting. Each tape was keyed to the challenges of different sorts

of subjects, but the whole series is about how to create the perfect lighting to show the qualities of that

subject. Don't worry about not understanding such an advanced series of tapes. There will be a few words or

phrases that may be new to you that you can look up later and then go back to the tapes with more understanding,

but the

concepts are very easy to watch unfold as Dean works step by step on what each change means and why he is doing it.

 

Getting to see him in a seminar was an absolute revelation to me even after having been quite successful in my

then portrait studio for several years. His knowledge radically changed my perceptions and direction within the

first half hour of sitting down..

 

Lastly, try to get the notion firmly in your head that you want to learn to 'get it right in the camera'! Again,

Photoshop, like dye transfer and other forms of retouching in the past, were largely a means to correct the

mistakes of the photographer and to salvage a project.

 

There are definitely some things that can't be done in camera and all faces need a bit of traditional retouching

for blemishes and shadows from facial lines, but when you learn your craft of lighting (the camera does not

matter except for your personal comfort zone) then you know how to really make the image and avoid the very

non-productive time that you have to spend FIXING things at the computer.

 

Put it this way. It's the really skilled photographer who can make the big bucks. The person at the computer is on

an hourly wage that often rivals fast food levels. If you are doing both, you are graphically subtracting from

your potential income level and far more importantly, from your family and leisure time.

 

Where would you rather spend your time?

I can't read all of this, so I skimmed it. I think almost everything's been mentioned, but I didn't see anyone mention that the image you are looking at ("their's") has the light flagged off too. It looks like their softbox (sized as mentioned above) is slightly behind the pearls and above. Just out of frame is some flagging, that possible could extend above the camera even. Looks like it wraps around the pearls just out of frame.

 

*shrug* Looks like it to me anyway, but I've never attempted a shot like this.

I am very impressed with what Photoshop can do. I "knew" it but I tried to avoid it. Thanks to Gary and Edgar. You guys are really good in this. I will try to get it as close to the target as possible and then touch up with Photoshop later. (I think the white background of the target picture was enhanced by Photoshop. Or else they did an amazing job.)

 

Again, I thank Tim for the coaching. I am very thankful that all the masters of the field spoke. I found I have a lot to absorb and learn. You pointed out that the depth of field for the necklace required a different lens. I am working on this and I will post my pictures soon after I take some shoots with a different lens.

 

I have also checked on Dean Collins tape. I found a few VHS tape. I do not have a VHS machine any more. But I might borrow one later.

 

Thanks for the explanation of the reflection. It confirmed with other comments. I am working on a big diffuser/light source and see what I can get. It has been challenging and fun.

 

I also am learning from Richard's comment about the post processing. I will try working on RAW format with Photoshop. Yet, Photoshop is not all that easy. I will carefully work on it. Thanks for the detailed step by step post. As to the exposure, I am trying to narrow down the proper settings. I got a few better pictures but just can't figure the perfect settings. It seems like I have a hard time balancing sharp image and white background.

 

Thank you all. I sincerely hope the best to everyone.

 

Thur

Hi, Tim,

 

I forgot to mention that I looked at your web site. I saw many great shots with good control of colors. One of the studio picture that interested me was the one with white spoons with colors on white background. How did you get that white background? May I ask? The white was soooo nice. Just perfect. Thank you for sharing in advance.

 

Thur

Hi, Thur.

 

Thank you very much for the compliments on the site and the images.

 

I have done, and still do, a lot of lighting experiments just for fun and to further learn control on the various light modifiers and film emulsions that I use, also of the science involved in how that light responds and behaves, and how I can modify that response and create the behavior and direction of the light that I want in an image.

 

White on white is certainly one of the most difficult tonal ranges to reproduce accurately, so I came up with this shot to expand my abilities with that in mind.

 

It was a mind game but worked so well visually and compositionally that I put it in my portfolio.

 

The white background you mention has at least four elements that contribute to the near perfect whiteness.

 

First is the choice of paper which is a very shiny surfaced super white product from an art supply store. It had a surface that was like glass and in this case, was laid perfectly flat. The Walmart poster paper would work almost as well.

 

Second is the position of the lighting, a large softbox (40x40 inches). Go back and look at it again to see where the reflection of the light is on the food coloring. You will see that it is at the top of the curve of the liquid. That easily tells you that the light came from behind and above the image. (Surface tension on watery liquids forces them into a bulge called a meniscus curve. If they were flat, the reflection would have been across the whole surface.) The light IS from above and behind the set and is tilted downward which now incorporates an optical law of physics.

 

You have an angle of incidence (from the source of the light) and an angle of reflectance (the direction that the light reflects from the surface that it strikes). Those angles are equal to one another (if the source to the subject is at 45 degrees, then the reflected angle from the subject will also be at 45 degrees from a flat surface), and those angles can be used to create glare which in effect whitens light.

 

The reflection is especially at a perfect matched angle from a flat surface like this paper. So, I took advantage of that to to choose where to place the camera to have a bit of the edge of that bounce back glare which then brightens the white just by using the physics. If I had placed the camera on axis to that reflected angle, the glare would have bleached out everything just like the sunlight glaring off your car hood as you drive toward a very low sun.

 

Third is the fact that this is transparency film (Ektachrome 120 roll film) with a wonderful tonal range and palette that reproduces accurate colors and densities with great latitude, lovely contrast, and subtle beauty in all the ranges of colors. I don't use digital (yet, maybe never) but film and the digital chip have an identical function, to capture an image. You've got to experiment and then KNOW what your capture material is capable of in its ability to reproduce the contrast and color ranges in order to predict what your result will be and to figure out how to use the lighting to achieve your desired result.

 

Finally, because of the range of colors and the otherwise flatness of the white tonal scale, once I metered the scene with a flash meter using the incident mode; I bracketed this over five different exposures in one-half stop increments (two each on either side of the target exposure) to be certain that I captured both the depth of the color, the delicate shadow of the spoons on the white, and the purity of the white of the background paper.

 

At that point, I just chose the one that pulled everything together into what my hopes had been when I thought of the concept.

 

Look at the image again and you'll see that the spoons with no food coloring are also filled with liquid....clear water.... just to test myself to the limit on reproducing the most subtle of tonal changes in the white color scale.

 

It's very much like what you are doing with the pearls.....just an experiment from which to learn and file away in that CPU inside your head for future reference when you need to use the tool.

 

Thanks for your interest.

Thank you for sharing. Tim. I can see that there are a lot of factors combined together to acheive that. That is indeed a great representation of white background manipulation. One thing I could not figure out is that light source setup. I meant in order to have even distribution of light on the background, you must have a way to diffuse it at a distance. Could you share how you did it?

 

With the pearls, I realize that the light source needs to be big and round to get that nice effect. Yet I encounter a difficulty on the white background because the light does not spread evenly on the background. So, what I am doing now is to move the light further back so the diffusion is more even. It will take some time because I need to buy some materials to fix the position of the light and the diffusor.

 

Thank you for your help and advice. It has been a rewarding experience.

Happy to share, Thur.

 

The only light source was the 40x40 soft box that was tilted down over the set. I don't remember for certain

whether I used a large white card in the foreground for a reflector as this was taken about 12 years ago, but

very likely I did.

 

One thing to remember is that the closer your soft box or diffusion screen is to the set, the more even the

lighting is likely to be, with reservations.

 

If you place the light as nearly vertical then there will be a strong fall off from near the soft box to the

front of the set, so it needs to be tilted out pretty far, at least 45 degrees. Use a white reflector in the

front and you will help the foreground somewhat, but the angle of incidence/angle of reflectance knowledge will

help much more. The reflector will help on the subject much more than on the white background.

 

Another is that for something as incredibly reflective as the pearls, if you are shooting the light from a pan

reflector or other smallish unit (especially something like a hot shoe or other portable small flash) through a

large sheet diffuser, the diffuser needs to be as close to the subject as possible without getting in frame and

the light source needs to be several feet (5 or 6 anyway) back so as to cover the whole diffuser and therefor the

set. Getting the light in closer will cause a hot spot in the center that will reflect off the subject and the

background and leave a dimmer area around that bright central core. That can be quite useful for some product

work if you want to use it, but right now, you are after the broad spread of light.

 

In my first post to you, I mentioned the use of two diffusion panels (three with a soft box). That multiple

diffusion is what creates the totally smooth spread of light. Even a soft box, unless it has an internal white

baffle, will have a 'hotter' center than edges. With this set up, the diffusion effect multiplies. First, the

soft box is quite smooth but concentrated on the first diffusion panel, The light that goes through that panel

is further scattered and smoothed and then going through the final diffuser; it just isn't going to get any

smoother across the large area.

 

You mention that the light source needs to be big and round....big certainly......round (?)....... you may be

seeing a near round highlight from the light source, but the 360 degree round pearls will reflect anything to

have a very rounded shape so a square or rectangular light source should be quite fine.

 

You mention needed to buy some addition materials for mounting the light and diffusers. One of the really fun

things for me is to jury rig a lot of my gear to fit my needs. I don't know anyone (least of all me) who has a

big enough budget to buy every stand, tripod, soft box, clamp kit, etc to be ready for any eventuality, so a lot

of this process for me is making one item serve multiple uses.

 

If you care to share a list of what light(s) you are using as well as the diffusion material, stands, etc.,

perhaps I and others can offer suggestions as to how to rig them together and with what materials that you have

available now. I dearly love buying new gear, but I don't have warehouse space or a champagne budget, so I try

to be inventive.

 

Just to review my set up for this shot, imagine that you at standing to the side of the set. The background and

subject are laying flat and the soft box is tilted above them starting at about a foot above the background and

tilted at about 45 degrees in about the same position as a partly open clam shell. That's about it.

 

If I can be of more help, please don't hesitate, whether through the thread or at my direct email at

Tludwigpix@yahoo.com.

 

Be well.

Sorry I am a newcomer jumping in to this thread.

 

I am really impressed with this discussion and for the quality of the images. I too struggle to get the backgound white as demanded by clients. Do you know what settings were used for th "TheirPearl" image?

 

Is photoshop the only solution? and then do you know if there is a discussion on the "learn" section on how to change a background, I thought (ignorance) that you could select the item, lift and replace onto a white background. Sorry again my simplistic view.

 

Have only just discovered that can control the level of grey using aperture and speed settings, and as a result want to buy (limited budget) a Canon Powershot S5 IS, or a Fuji 9600 any comments ?

 

Ken

I'm a newbee too, but are you using Fluorescent lights? It would seem the answer would be to use hot tungsten or real stobes. I don't think anything would look to good under Fluorescent lights, no matter how diffuse.

Sorry if misinterpreted you first post.