Advice on setup for product photo

[adam_donovan1]

<p>Hello,<br>

First of all please have in mind that i'm a newbie. I have small business and need to take a photo of my pictures, which look like this:<br>

http://www.badpony.pl/161,youre-my-heart.html ( it's not in english but you can still see the photos )</p>

<p>I would like to arrange the scene to come up with an effect as on this photo :<br>

http://cdn.home-designing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/blue-red-poster-prints.jpg<br>

It's bright, clear and crisp.<br>

Would You please advise me what lamps and setup should I have, but please have in mind that i'm on budget here, so can't afford anything fancy.<br>

Thanks a lot</p>

 

[Mattman944]

<p>I would help if you told us what you already have. Camera, flash, tripod, etc.</p>

<p>The 2nd link appears to be lit with very soft light, probably two large soft boxes. On a budget, the effect can be simulated with Home Depot clamp-on lights and a translucent shower curtain. Many effects can be done with do-it-yourself techniques if you are handy and have more time than money.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>If you have a digital camera I would take it outside on a bright day but without the sun shining on the work. If you cannot get close enough try holding a magnifying glass in front of the lens.<br>

That way you should have no costs at all. <br>

You need to support the camera, either with a tripod or sitting firmly on a chair or something, likewise the picture which should be square to the camera. <br>

If you have a zoom lens I would use the zoom to keep the camera away from the subject and when using the zoom you could need the CU lens .... this is how I take close-ups all the time. <br>

While without the CU lens the camera will focus at full zoom from infinity down to perhaps a metre or two metres when you use the CU lens the range changes from infinity down to the focal length of the CU lens and depending on the focusing ability of the camera to some distance closer. My camera in this situation focuses between 500mm and 325mm with a 500mm CU lens. But I have a x12 zoom and it is less effective with lenses with less zoom.<br>

Remember that your target is a tight framing around the subject and coming in close is not the only way to achieve this. Further if you want the photos for web use you can probably afford to crop off waste space ... a cheap and easy editing programme to do this could Irfanview from Europe or Paint.Net from the States ... both free downloads.<br>

This link shows you the various ways cameras focus and why to use a CU lens with a fixed lens camera<br>

a bit old now but the info hasn't changed. just the camera models :-)<br>

<a href="http://jcuknz-photos.com/LOOKSEE/focusingsystems.jpg">http://jcuknz-photos.com/LOOKSEE/focusingsystems.jpg</a><br>

and<br>

<a href="http://jcuknz-photos.com/LOOKSEE/targetarea.jpg">http://jcuknz-photos.com/LOOKSEE/targetarea.jpg</a></p>

[Mattman944]

<p>Like JC said, open shade makes for nice soft light also. A porch or something similar works good. </p>

<p>How big are the objects you are shooting? The pictures you are shooting look large to me, you shouldn't need a close-up lens.</p>

[adam_donovan1]

<p>Thanks a lot for replies.<br /> Actually I'm not that newbie :) ( didn't think that you would explain me the tripod or irfan stuff :) )<br /> I have tripod, my DSLR is 60D with kit 18-55 mm and canon's 50 mm prime, 100 mm macro and easy access to 24-70L. Don't any flash or lamps yet ( besides the flash on the camera )<br /> My products are 30x30 cm. ( about 12x12 inches )<br /> I can't take my product and furniture outside because of the weather. Anyways I'd like to buy some cheap softbox(es) and lamps, just don't know what kind of stuff would be fine for me.<br /> PS.<br /> It would be nice if I could later use softboxes for macro studio photo if that's even possible.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>It is difficult to give exact recommendations when the field is still wide open. Here would be a nice setup using speedlights.<br>

2 Canon 430EXII <br>

2 Softboxes<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/716877-REG/Lastolite_LL_LS2480M2_Hot_Shoe_EZYBOX_Softbox.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/716877-REG/Lastolite_LL_LS2480M2_Hot_Shoe_EZYBOX_Softbox.html</a><br>

2 Light Stands (I get mine from Chinese ebay stores, not lightweight for use with a softbox)<br>

2 Yongnuo RF-602 RF flash triggers (Amazon)<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Wireless-Trigger-Receiver-Shutter/dp/B0042TYNJ4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1327150940&sr=8-4">http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Wireless-Trigger-Receiver-Shutter/dp/B0042TYNJ4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1327150940&sr=8-4</a></p>

<p>A cheaper setup:<br>

2 Vivitar 285 flashes (even cheaper: any old used flashes with adjustable manual output)<br>

2 Umbrella brackets<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/298709-REG/Impact_3117_Umbrella_Bracket.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/298709-REG/Impact_3117_Umbrella_Bracket.html</a><br>

2 shoot-through umbrellas, 30-40 inch (ebay or B&H)<br>

2 Light Stands, lightweight would be ok here<br>

2 Yongnuo RF-602 RF flash triggers (even cheaper: scrounge some old flash pc cords and make a long Y cable)</p>

<p>This second setup is similar to mine. Shoot through umbrellas can have a similar effect as a softbox but they have some disadvantages, softboxes are on my wish list. It is more difficult to control the light with an umbrella, it will spill all over the room. For nice soft light, the umbrella needs to be close, often in front of the camera, then you need to shield the lens, you never want the bright light to hit the lens directly or you will get reduced contract or flare. When shooting shiny objects, an obvious reflection of the umbrella can occur.</p>

<p>Also note that both of these setups require you to set the exposure manually, trial and error works fine with digital.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Have you tried bouncing your flash off the ceiling, or off of white foamcore to soften and diffuse the light?</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>Yes, foamcore reflectors are another cheap option, although it is difficult to position exactly where you want it. Drawing is a top view.</p><div></div>

[adam_donovan1]

Well I think that 1500$+ would be out of my budget.

I can afford maybe 700$ ( it's just amateur stuff ).

 

I haven't tried anything yet, I'm trying to catch some theory first.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>No, no, no! To copy flat artwork you should use <strong>hard</strong> direct lighting. Soft reflected lighting will reduce the contrast and saturation of the artwork by reflecting off any surface texture or gloss.</p>

<p>Mathew's setup is partly correct, but you need to lose the reflectors and simply turn the open lights toward the copy. You also preferably want a darkly painted room to minimise any extraneous reflections from the surface of the artwork, because the more random light you have bouncing around, the more liklihood you have of unwanted reflections. Keep it simple. Just point two lights at the artwork, one light either side and placed well off to the side; setting each light about as far away as the diagonal of the artwork. The angle between the lights and the artwork should be 45 degrees or shallower.</p>

<p>Below is an example taken with such a simple direct two light setup. I used two portable flashguns. The pale pink circle on the greycard is an uncoated glass filter, and as you'll see, there's no sign of a surface reflection from the glass. If I'd used soft light from reflectors the glass would almost certainly have glared back into the camera. For larger paintings or drawings you might need four lights, one pointed toward each corner of the copy.</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>BTW, the lighting in that linked example is entirely from the top (notice the shadows). It appears to be from a single diffused light placed above and well away from the set. A single source of light such as this is only suitable for small objects, otherwise the light will vary too much in brightness across the image. Notice that there are some speckles apparent on the picture in the link. It's not obvious whether this is surface damage to the print or reflections from the lighting. Also bear in mind that your copy lights can be placed above and below as well as side to side - either will work.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>If you are only copying flat artwork, I completely agree with Rodeo Joe, two (or four) direct lights work best. If the subject also includes other 3-dimensional objects like the second link, I think soft is better. Link 2 appears to be 2 soft lights slightly higher than the subjects, I don't see any hard shadows. Soft lights will however have increased risk of reflections off the flat artwork. For some artwork, like oil paintings, this can be a serious problem. Other flat artwork with matte surfaces may be OK.</p>

[adam_donovan1]

<p>Well I definetely would like to have some other object in the scene to make the feeling right. Thanks for advice with hard like for copy artwork, it's usefull anyways.<br>

The material of my pictures is cotton canvas (printed). It's rather matte (it's not simulating oil painting). Do you think If I take two 300W lamps + 2 softboxes I should get the decent result ?<br>

BTW: are such lamps good for micro photography in studio ( e.g. for small figures http://www.tabletop-terrain.com/stu/archives/2009/orcDippingDry.JPG )</p>

<p> </p>

[Mattman944]

<p>300W lights are really hot, you will need to be sure the softbox is designed to handle hot continuous lights. Consider that for inanimate objects, you can use less light and a long shutter speed (assuming a sturdy tripod).</p>

<p>Two lights will suffice for many situations. Continuous lights do have the advantage of being able to see the lighting effect.</p>

<p> </p>

[adam_donovan1]

<p>THose lamps I mentioned are not continuous, but I don't really know which would be more versatile. Flash or continuous ?</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>Flash in general is more versatile, but costs more.</p>

<p>Flash power in specified in Watt-Seconds (WS), not Watts (W), although many people get sloppy and just say W when they mean WS.</p>