Photography for an online clothing boutique....

[nycphotography]

Ah then I'm afraid I don't know anyone who can help you out first hand.

 

[Steve5D]

A lot of online clothing retailers don't use models at all, and there's no mention of models in the OP.

I have a friend who owns a guitar store up in Canada, and he takes some pretty impressive photos of guitars using a walk-in closet as his "studio". He's got a couple of lights with diffusers, and some reflectors. His total investment in "studio equipment" was probably less than $600.00...

The OP had two pictures with models as the "desired result", and working with models takes considerably more room than working in the flat.

Oh. Well, the photos had been removed, and no link was provided in their place.

Still, I'd ditch the models and buy some mannequins. They don't complain, don't need bathroom breaks, and they do exactly as directed...

 

[stringmusic24]

If I decided to go with mannequins instead of models, should I then opt for continuous rather than strobe lighting given that I'm a novice?

NYC, when you say high/medium powered monolights, how many WS are we talking? Any brands or models that are cost effective and of decent quality?

Thanks a bunch.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, if you were going to go with mannequins, then constant lighting may be a valid option. But I still think strobes are more useful if you may ever shoot anything else.

Check out the Flashpoint line from Adorama.

 

[Designer]

If I decided to go with mannequins instead of models, should I then opt for continuous rather than strobe lighting given that I'm a novice?

NYC, when you say high/medium powered monolights, how many WS are we talking? Any brands or models that are cost effective and of decent quality?

Thanks a bunch.

I don't think being a novice makes using continuous lighting any easier than learning strobes. I think NYC's comment "high/medium powered monolights" was for live models. If you use mannequins or even just pin the garments to a board, you can get by with less power. If less power, then you might want to mount your camera on a tripod.

Another well-known poster on here likes the Speedotron line, and there are others. Get real lucky and find good equipment lightly used for half of new.

While you're doing all this research, have a look at how other retailers show their wares. Pay close attention to how the merchandise is photographed, and try to emulate it.

 

[nycphotography]

Alien Bees come in 3 power levels. b400, 8600, b1600. medium is a b800, high is a b1600.

Some say alien bees have color balance issues. I find color is subjective to a greater degree, and monitors vary to a greater degree, than the alien bees are actually "off". shoot raw and you can "fix" the color to whatever you think it should be.

To "get started" I'd suggest a b800 ($270), a 13' air cushioned stand ($69) and a 30x60 softbox ($159), and a $10 sync cord.

background stand and paper for $100. Flashpoint 10' Background Support Stand with White seamless background #BS10KIT BS10KIT
I'd find this to be rather narrow, in which case the larger, wider stands Flashpoint 13ft High, Standing Background Support Stand BS13 which can accomodate both wide (10') and narrow paper.

Use your wife as a model to practice posing, lighting, makeup, hair, etc until you care getting good exposures (excepting the background which will tend to be underlit and gradient gray with falloff to the edges rather than pure white. You can "fix it in post", using photoshop (or gimp which is free, but harder to get lessons on) to make the background white, but that's way labor intensive.

Wider paper comes into play when you have the lights how you want them but you want a different angle... with wider paper you have more latitude to move yourself around the model and lights and still stay on the background. With narrow paper, you almost always have to move the model (could be a pain and miss a good "look") and often then move the lights (definitely a pain / delay / mood killer).

Once you are getting good exposures, you can pick up a b400 and maybe a 10x36 strip box and a grid set. This can be used either for background lighting (make the white really be white) or for accent / fill / hair lighting. You won't need it until you start posting pictures and people start pointing out the important details being lost in the shadows or how you can make the images pop w/ accents / fill.

Someone else will have to suggest cameras, but I expect a suitable used 10MP DX Nikon Body that works well w/ sync flash with a DECENT kit lens to be $500 to $750 at the high end. If the kit lens seems soft, not to worry, you can sharpen in post and you'll be downrezzing considerably as your web site won't likely show images over 1024 pixels in height (and probably always in portrait orientation). It will be more than suitable for your intended use.

 

[stringmusic24]

Thanks again, NYC. I'm researching all of these suggestions.

I read Zack Aria's tutorial on white background photography and I must say it was incredibly helpful. Just utilizing a couple tips I went from this:
to this:
Obviously I've done no styling of the clothes. This is taken with just an iPhone 5 and 3 utility lights. Clearly not professional quality, but clearly a step in the right direction.

 

[Designer]

Oh, yes, I see an improvement! You've still got room for improvement.

Possibly customers would not notice, but photographers will notice the neckline shadow and the backdrop shadows, and some uneven lighting, but you're on the right track.

Now some styling and accessories for props, and you'll have it.

 

[joel28]

.

A GOOD (fixed f2.8 preferred) zoom lens in an appropriate focal length for your studio space. Longer lenses are better (you really don't want to shoot catalog at less than a 85mm equivalent), but longer lenses require a deeper shooting space so compromise will likely have to be made. The lens may cost between $500 and $2000 depending on your camera, new vs used, and the focal lengths you end up with.

Why minimum 85mm? Because of the distortion?

 

[nycphotography]

.

A GOOD (fixed f2.8 preferred) zoom lens in an appropriate focal length for your studio space. Longer lenses are better (you really don't want to shoot catalog at less than a 85mm equivalent), but longer lenses require a deeper shooting space so compromise will likely have to be made. The lens may cost between $500 and $2000 depending on your camera, new vs used, and the focal lengths you end up with.

Why minimum 85mm? Because of the distortion?

More or less. You also want to flatten the field somewhat. I'd say (85mm equivalent) isn't so much a rule as a guideline.

But as you go wider (and therefore closer with the camera), you tend to get more weird effects like tapering legs and arms and small feet and hands that can make the catalog seem off.

Unless your whole motif for the fashion line is "funky", in which case who knows what you could get away with. But then those would be the editorial shots... and you'll still probably want normal shots (and flats) for the individual products.

 

[stringmusic24]

Ok, so I'm making some progress....I think.

I bought a D5100 and I'm really immersing myself in a bunch of photography literature. My photos have gotten better, but I think it's time to spring for some high quality lighting if I'm going to go from this:

to something more like this:
http://productshots0.modcloth.com/p...d994a17534f2dbf66936d6c91f3c81.jpg?1369172601

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I probably need a fill light opposite my main light and I need a light capable of blowing out the background. The Alien Bees Busy Bee package looks intriguing to me and I've found it used for about half price of retail. Would this be a package that you would recommend for this kind of studio photography? It seems to be highly thought of.

Thanks for the continued assistance.

 

[tirediron]

You're definitely making progress! For what you're doing, a simple high-key setup can be acheived with three lights 200 w/s per light will be more than adequate. Alien Bees, Flashpoints, or Elinchrom 'D' Lites will work just fine for this. Two lights into softboxes for the background and one into a large softbox (>48x48") as the key for the clothing and you'll be in business. Set your key so you get an nice, bright, but NOT blown even subject and then set your background lights 1/3 stop over that and you should be in busines. If you want to get really tricky, you can gel the background lights with different colours to produce all sorts of interesting effects.

 

[Designer]

The Busy Bee package looks like a good place to begin. As you are talking to the Buff people, tell them what you're doing, and they will make suggestions, and perhaps make a few substitutions in the package.

 

[de_tec_tive]

i don't know what to suggest in terms of the equipment side of things, i've but i've done alot of product photography (although it was all similar products) and i did clothing for a little while. once you've perfected getting the photo to look good, you might want to also consider having the background removed with a clipping path, and also watch out for the pole on the mannequin showing through the fabric. when i did clothing for magazines we shot it on a mannequin, then shot the clothing flat and photoshopped the back into the first shot so you can see the neck line and tag (if that makes sense).
i'm assuming you don't have much experience with editing though, but this is something you can outsource - i use Clipping Path | Photoshop Masking | Raster to Vector | Image Manipulation Service and they're cheap and quite good.

at the end of the day though, professional images portray a professional business. there's so many times where i've dealt with clients to did things themselves and thought their photos looked good enough, but when you compare them to what else it out there, they're just not good enough.
i think it's great that you want to learn, but i think in this case you should really get a professional to do it. perhaps you could find someone to do the initial shots to get the site up and running, and continue to learn and try to emulate what the photographer did for the future?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Wow. That last shot really is an improvement. Also, I think I might have to snag that lighting set up for myself for the stuff I'm going to be working on soon. O_O Thanks for the link!