The illusion of Simplicity

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="100%">

<p >Hi All,<br /><br />This may be an incendiary post but I have to share it. Most of the world's best product photographers toil in relative obscurity. Rarely does an advertising image have a credit line, rarely do you get to see the onion that is a product image peeled back layer by layer so someone interested in shooting products can see what actually went into the creation of a specific image, and you never get to see what the journey that goes into creating (including the missteps) a polished, professional, product image actually is! <br /><br />Forgive me for saying this, but there is a lot of...how should I say this? I know... junk! on the Internet about creating still life, product images! There are reasons for this happening. Some, but not all of them, are:<br /><br />1. Many amateur product photographers are so infatuated with their latest and greatest DSLR (regardless of the brand) that they don't realize their DSLR is just a simple recording device used to capture something that represents the real work they do. In truth, their latest and greatest DSLR is probably the smallest part of what they are assigned to create.<br />2. Few up and coming photographers have been on or seen a professional cinema set, nor actually seen the set-ups required to create a complicated still life, studio, image of a product.<br />3. Many digital photographers believe that everything can be created in (or fixed) using Photoshop or some other image-editing program. This and their desire for instant gratification, in turn impedes their ability to critically look at what they are taking a picture of!<br />4. Photographic equipment, computer, electronic device, and camera manufacturers, are interested primarily in selling the equipment they manufacture. They often advertise their products using images of the product that are created not with the equipment featured in the ad but using other, more specialized, professional photographic equipment instead!<br /><br />One of my Facebook friends, Ellis Vener, posted a link to an interview and a behind the scenes time-lapse video look about a photographer named Peter Belanger who, among other things, shoots products for Apple.<br /><br />Having just finished my latest book, <em>Digital Still Life Photography: Art, Business, & Style</em>, I was extremely happy to see that many of the tools and ideas I suggested using in my book (from using Fun-Tak®, to using C-Stands, to using grips, to using booms, to using diffusion frames, to using fill cards, to the whole process (including missteps) of creating a polished, professional product image) were illustrated in Mr. Belanger’s video. In addition to confirmation of what I wrote in my book, this interview and the time lapse video shown at this link is a great learning tool.<br /><br />The link is here:<br /><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4311868/the-illusion-of-simplicity-photographer-peter-belanger-on-shooting" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4311868/the-illusion-of-simplicity-photographer-peter-belanger-on-shooting</a><br /><br />The attached image is NOT mine but one of Mr. Belanger’s images showing the rear of one of his sets.<br /><br />Regards to all,<br />Steve<br /><a href="mailto:steve@stevesint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">steve@stevesint.com</a> </p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table><div></div>

<p>Yes, too many people are obsessed with megapixels and sharpness and have little regard for composition and lighting. I see this in all types of photography, not just studio product shots.</p>

<p>There are many posts where someone posts an image that is important to them and complains that it is not sharp. I am thinking to myself, even if it was sharp, your image would still suck.</p>

<p>I enjoyed your book. I am just an amateur who shoots still lifes, but there was plenty of good information in it for me. </p>

<p>Well, simply put, it takes work to create an image, intelligent and informed work. Unfortunately, I do often think there is just too much emphasis on quick fixes, rules and "tips" that will magically make our photography better. Hard work and an understanding of the fundamentals is what makes our photography better.</p>

<p>Thanks for the post, Steve. Table top is hard work...to do right! A lot of students tell me " I'll just fix in in Photoshop". I say, "get it right in the camera". The photo you posted reminds me of the illustration on the rear cover of the old Kodak's softcover Photographic Illustration book where an artist rendering has a photographer working on a small table top set with a jillion lights around him focused on the set.</p>

<p>I wonder if we might consider the "good enough" syndrome. Clients driven by budget concerns will accept almost anything that is cheap and fast. Apparently, no thought is given to their companies brand, image or reputation. We can only dumb down the work so far, shooting ourselves in the foot as we do, and as we cut rates and subsequently quality this lower "economical" standard becomes the new normal. Oh, it's good enough.</p>

<p>I recently viewed an article in the Denver Business Journal highlighting movers and shakers with a short bio and images of each. What an embarrassment for both the pub and the subjects. Cell phone images, snapshots - garbage. From the look of it, I wouldn't trust one of these up and comers to park my car! But for the pub it's good enough I quess. No standards anymore.</p>

<p>Major manufacturers printing lovely brochures with garbage images. They spend thousands in printing costs, thousands, yet have the guy from accounting shoot it with is point and shoot and a flood light.</p>

<p>Yes, proper image creation takes time and money and if "good enough" is indeed good enough then the craft will suffer. Money hungry amateurs with little common sense and virtually no scope exacerbate the problem by taking assignments that they are totally unqualified to shoot with post processing skills that are embarrassing at best. How many posts have we seen from these folks asking advice on shoots that are way beyond their skill and perceptual level. Yet, pages are written be well intentions "pros" trying to bail them out. Obviously, we're at fault as well.</p>

<p>Nikon, Canon and yes, Photoshop have automated the craft to such a mundane level that the girl in HR is able to cobble together the brochure that lacks design, concept and any hint of effective corporate brand.</p>

<p>"Good enough" decisions are made not by art directors or designers anymore (they cost money) but by visually uneducated folks who - while in power - have no idea what's good or the harm they are doing to their brand. </p>

<p>It's a shame - and it won't go away anytime soon. Idiocracy.</p>

<p>I agree with the concept of 'get it right in the camera' with the proviso that what comes out of the camera in getting it right should have considered what and how the editor will complete the job.<br>

Further to Gary's comment about automation I am amused and mildly disgusted when judges make comments such as 'it is all in focus' ... perhaps they are at a loss to find something good to comment about :-) <br>

I have been loving 'automation' ever since I got my first AE [only] camera back in the fifties and rarely use manual these days, except when I realise that auto is not going to get the result I want. But nothing I do these days requires the skills of Steve and his peers.</p>

<p>My agency does product photography for its existence. The imaging guys are now moving to continuous LED lighting which makes it a lot easier. The setup in the pic looks a bit extreme. To set up that we would change a lot of money...Maybe $5000 plus gear charges.<br>

This sort of stuff is expensive. Mainly because of the set up time and the labour required. Taking the images is only a few minutes. I also have a colleague who photographs cars in a massive cyclorama. He charges $10,000 a day. A car shoot might cost $100k. You get to play with the latest and greatest. Its definitely medium format digital...Phase One mainly. Cost of the camera system is only a small part of it.<br>

Modeling shots are also very difficult. We do a lot of that as well, and now the mags are saying that Photoshop needs to be used sparingly. Everyone now, including cosmetics houses is looking for the natural look, and that's really hard to do. A cover shot for say, Vogue would run to maybe $60000. </p>

<p>I do think that most people familiar with photography also appreciate what goes on behind the scene to make it happen. </p>

Thanks for the shout out Steve!

Thanks for the shout out Steve!

Thanks for the shout out Steve!

Thanks for the shout out Steve!

P.n went nuts.

<p>Yeah, P.n does that occasionally!...:) However... You're welcome! You're welcome!! You're welcome!!! You're welcome!!!! But seriously...I think the link and the included time lapse video are great learning tools, so the real thanks should go to you Ellis for posting it in the first place.<br>

SS</p>

<p><em>My main career was as an Art Director and eventually an Executive Creative Director in Advertising. I creatively supervised different accounts from Lincoln-Mercury automobiles, Johnston Outdoor products, high-end jewlery ... all the way to the other to end of the spectrum on various accounts for Unilever foods division, wine and beer advertising, and clothing/apparel.</em></p>

<p><strong>I've spent a lifetime on sets commanded by some of the best "unsung" still photographers in the world.</strong> One of my earliest encounters as a wet-behind-the-ears Art Director was with Phil Marco in NYC ... where I learned fairly fast that great work is a collaboration with the photographer as conductor of the orchestra. This is clearly indicated in the interview with Mr. Belanger when he works with the Apple ADs.</p>

<p><em><strong>IMO, THERE ARE SOME POINTS OFTEN OVERLOOKED IN DISCUSSIONS LIKE THIS:</strong></em></p>

<p><strong>1:</strong> <strong>Many emerging product photographers may have talent and skill, but often do not understand why they are engaging in certain photographic efforts</strong>. In the Belanger interview he touches on this when talking about all the materials Apple uses in their products, and the effort he goes through to showcase them. Grasping the marketing strategies and resultant visual personalities of a brand was often the Hallmark of the better still shooters I worked with ... especially for new brands and their products. </p>

<p>In addition, it is important to understand that when shooting products for an established Brand, the existing visual personality is an important element of communication continuity in the consumer marketplace. While Belanger states that he likes new products so he can be the one to establish the visual personality, it is important to grasp that many products already have one, and trying to create a new one is actually counter productive. It is more about applying a brand's visual personality to new versions of a product offering, while looking to apply constant photographic improvement and refinements. </p>

<p><strong>2:</strong> <strong>Not only are the photographers unsung, but the support infrastructure is even more so.</strong> Behind most every successful product shooter is a team of very talented and dedicated folks that help make it happen. Sometimes only one, other times a lot more than one. So someone struggling to recreate wonderful food photography they saw in a magazine, may not realize that a professional food stylists is a good part of why it looks so great ... and unless they are also a chef, their photos may <em>never</em> look as good. Hair and Make-up, prop masters, art directors, PAs, assistants, lighting techs, camera techs, wardrobe stylists, location scouts ... are some of the behind the scenes heros of many of the works we admire. Point is, it is important for the emerging photographer to build their infrastructure as they develop their photographic skills.</p>

<p><strong>3: Way too many photographers, including some experienced ones, jump to lighting and shooting to quickly.</strong> The best I've worked with study the product first. I recall Tony Scott on set studying a new car we were having him film. He spent hours at it. When he went to light it, he could tell the lighting grips exactly what light to place where, and lit the car in just a few minutes. </p>

<p>The above requires experience gained with experimentation and familiarity of the tools available to solve lighting applications prior to actually doing any real work when you are on the clock. No client wants to pay a day rate and have most of it wasted on redoing the lighting over and over.</p>

<p><strong>4: The time crunch that is used as an excuse in these more demanding financial times ... is no excuse for shoddy workmanship.</strong> A photographer needs to be fast at the things that can be done fast, and use the time left to concentrate on doing the best lighting possible in the time available. Masterful coordination of efforts and skill with the tools is what buys that time. I have a friend that runs the biggest product studio in town (9 stations running full time every day). He requires any photographer be able to set a view camera front and back movements in seconds as a small indication of the point I'm making. He is equally as demanding on how to light a product, wanting the best out of camera image possible ... and for that reason he is thriving in a dumpy economy, where his competition is going out of business on a daily basis. </p>

<p>I have a lot more suggestions, but that's enough for now ... : -)</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>