# Product Photography Advice



## Jessica332

Greetings everyone! I'm in need of some product photography advice and I hope that this is a good place to ask. I'm not a total "beginner," although I don't do paid shoots either... this sub-forum seemed to be the best fit.

I work in a small business, and we are trying to get some of our products online so that we can sell product in e-commerce direct to consumer. Of course images sell products online, so that's where we are stuck right now. We have an Olympus E-M10 Mark II camera with a M.Zuiko ED 30mm f3.5 macro lens, and a tripod. Not the best, but it's what we have to work with. We also have three Andoer light diffusers and a small plastic infinity curve.

We are trying to get images that are similar to these: Lapis Facial Oil

You can look over product images there to get an idea of what I mean. They are nice, striking images often with pronounced shadow and apparently direct lighting (possibly direct and diffuse both). They are well lit and seem to shimmer a bit, although without excessive glare.

Meanwhile, it seems that product images that we take in house just feel...well, dull. We take our shots on a tripod, manual settings at F22, ISO low, and adjust the shutter speed for lighting. We've tried varying the shutter speed up and down for brightness, and a little brightness does help some.

We've tried placing two of our light diffusers in the front (45 degrees left and right) and the third coming up through a plastic infinity curve to give a backlight effect. Still not really vibrant in the sense as the ones linked above.

Should we be shooting in sunlight? Any tips you can offer would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## tirediron

Your examples look pretty straight-forward and simple to replicate.  Some examples of your current images as well as a photo of your set-up and details of the gear would help greatly.


----------



## Jessica332

I guess my main question is: what are they doing to get their lighting effect? It looks bright like daylight, and clearly isn't coming from a diffuser. Every one of their products has this effect, with the shadow essentially in the same place.

They also have an interesting backdrop. It's not a curve, but rather a 90 degree corner. I don't know how they constructed it...

I don't have access to a photo at this moment but when I can I'll post.


----------



## Derrel

Do not use two lights each at 45 degrees.


----------



## Jessica332

Sorry I meant each was 45 degrees from the "front." So a total of 90 degrees (maybe more). Is that still bad?

I'm beginning to conclude that the lighting is the culprit all along. We have diffuse lighting but I think direct would work better. The thing is I have no idea how to work with direct lighting. How do I get it? The sun isn't reliable enough where I am...


----------



## Jessica332

I found this: https://www.amazon.com/NEEWER-Studio-Flash-Strobe-Modeling/dp/B0043GZQOC/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_421_bs_t_1

Would using it instead of the diffusers do a better job of creating the desired effect?


----------



## Cody'sCaptures

I'm confused on your gear. Is this a constant light source or speedlite or strobe with this  "Andoer light diffuser"? The main photos look pretty straight forward with one light off axis to right and above camera. Some of the other product shots look like composites or were at least cut out in Photoshop.  I dont know a whole lot about micro 4/3 (or product photography) but f22 sounds high. The high aperture could be causing diffraction thus less sharp and/or saturated.  Like TiredIron has said some samples would help to diagnose the issues at hand


----------



## Derrel

Two lights can create either competing shadows, or create almost shadowless lighting. You don't want either, but you want one shadow, and that means one light. Period.


----------



## KmH

If the product you are wanting to make photos of is like the example you linked to open the lens aperture to f/8, because the camera you are using has a small 4/3 image sensor and you're likley losing focus sharpness because of diffraction at f/22.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks


----------



## Designer

Jessica332 said:


> Meanwhile, it seems that product images that we take in house just feel...well, dull.


Please post an example of what you are getting now.  Include as much information as you can.  At least one shot of your product, and a shot of the overall setup.  (can be made with a mobile phone camera)

No, sunlight is not the answer.  

I'm guessing that your lights are continuously on, and are simply not producing the amount of light you need.  Also, editing is part of the process.  

Besides the angle of view, the frame, and the focus, of course, the lighting type, staging, background, and editing are all important.


----------



## Jessica332

Thanks for the responses! I'll get a sample product shot and a shot of our setup up later today. The lighting is continuous.

Here are the lightboxes: Buy Products Online from China Wholesalers at Aliexpress.com

And the curve: Buy Products Online from China Wholesalers at Aliexpress.com


----------



## Designer

O.K., it looks like you should have plenty of light, so there is something else that is happening.  I'll be waiting for the example.


----------



## Jessica332

It occurred to me that a better 1:1 comparison would come from a shot of one of their products. Since we have them, that's what I did - not sure why I never thought of this before. I attempted to emulate something like this: Orchid Facial Oil Roller only with our setup. I included two images of our setup. For the setup, the lightbox under the curve only has two of the four bulbs on, while the two front boxes have all four bulbs on.

I'm starting to think that both the curve and the indirect lighting are the primary culprits. I was thinking of running to the store and picking up a foldable poster board (one of the ones kids use at the science fair) and putting it on its side, setting the product on one flap and using it to get a nice white 90 degree angle. Could that work?

The second issue is lighting...I have no experience with direct lighting since I was always told product photography is almost exclusively diffuse light. I wouldn't know what kind of light to get, what temperature bulb, etc. Any advice? We're on a budget, but we would spend money to create a setup that produces decent product shots.

For this product shot I used F22, ISO Low, and 1/2.5 shutter speed. This resulted in a "+1.3" on the light sensor. I could have gone to even longer shutter speeds and brightened it up even more, which would have washed out the imperfections you can see on the curve and made it feel more like a continuous "light" effect, but I'm confident this would not have benefited the look of the product much. Also, I have photoshop, but I'm trying to get as close as I can without using it.

It was suggested that I use f/8, which I will have to try. I was led to believe elsewhere that f/22 was always the best thing for product shots. Any other advice is very much appreciated!


----------



## Jessica332

I continued to experiment. I went out and purchased a posterboard and I seem to have improvement - at least it feels like I'm going in the right direction 

Also I know the cap is scratched up, try to ignore that if you can. I meant to use a newer one but forgot to do it.

I'm attaching my recent shots with the posterboard. I shot two with ambient indirect daylight (just what's leaking in through the windows, didn't attempt to direct the shadow or anything yet), two with one Andoer lamp with the scatter shade removed and all four bulbs on, and three with the Andoer lamp, shade off, but with a 250W incandescence in place of the other four bulbs (they turned out really yellow).

I've named the files with the settings. F22 = f/22, F8 = f/8, 4s = 4 second exposure, 1,6s = 1.6 second exposure, Andoer = Andoer with shade and 4 bulbs, 250 W = Andoer with single 250W bulb, etc.

Feedback is welcome. Thank you!


----------



## Jessica332

I took another set (ambient daylight only) and I'm attaching the best shot of that set. It was shot at f/14 on 5 sec, ISO 100. (This one has a clean cap.)

However it still doesn't "pop" the way the product shot does at their website. At this point I'm not really sure what to do next. None of my shots really have a nice color pop. Which brings me full circle to my original post...


----------



## Designer

Two sheets of poster board (I use foamcore) will work if you don't mind seeing the juncture of two boards at the rear.  One of those shots is pretty good, but I didn't grab it out of the lineup for reference.  Probably the only thing it needs is a little carful editing.  

I'll run through the series again to see if I can grab it out.

This one is my pick:  




 

It needs straightening, and maybe a little touchup, but at least there is no shadow, and a reflection instead.  I like it.  

For the health of it, here is an example of a shot using foamcore.  You can easily see the joint, but for what this project was, I and the owner didn't care.  



 

This project has over two hundred objects d'art that didn't look real great until I did some editing.  My editing usually went like this; straighten (not needed for this), exposure, white balance, curves, crop.


----------



## Jessica332

Thanks for the feedback! Your image is vivid and really pops.  You chose the first shot taken on the plexi curve? That's my original setup. I did run out and buy the foamcore board (what I meant when I said "the boards kids use for science fair projects," didn't know the name). All of my other shots are token on that foam core material.

I'm really focused on trying to emulate what Herbivore achieved with the same product. In other words, they have a distinct shadow, nice color pop, crisp look, shimmer without excess glare, etc. We have a similar line of products (same industry etc) and if it's worked for them (they are a very successful company) then my reasoning is that it should work for us.

My plan is to try a few more shots tonight when the sun is down and I have full light control (the room I shoot in is full of windows on three walls). I'm going to try to use a single point source and see how that looks. 

I did a little touch up work to one of the previous images (attached here). I basically followed this guide: 3 Easy Steps Using Photoshop to Making your Images POP

I wouldn't say it's a huge improvement but it's a little better.

I also attached another one of their shots. It's bright and airy but the blue pops, you get a sense of shadow and light refraction - all effects I'd like to achieve.


----------



## Designer

I don't think shadows help in all cases.  The well-defined shadows from the other website look rather amateurish to me, and I prefer no shadows at all if you can do it.

IMO, for product photography, the most important parts are focus, white balance, and exposure.  Whether there is a shadow or not is not terribly important.  

Focus, white balance, and exposure.  That's what will inform your customers about the product.  

To some degree, scale is kind of important, but for a bottle of fluid that has the volume measurement, maybe less so.  For some products, scale is very important.


----------



## Jessica332

Thanks again for your input. I agree that in a sense they do look amateur. Certainly compared to well manicured images on AliBaba they are - at least per conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, these images garner sales. Is it because a less manicured image looks more trustworthy? Is it because shadows add drama? Is it because direct light adds texture? I have no clue. I just know that in this product category they are selling product.

What I really want to do is learn to emulate them as a starting point, and then improve from there. At least at that point I will know that I am improving off something that already sells product in this category. From there I will be in a position to A/B test different kinds of images.

I will work on focus, light balance, and exposure as best as I can. White balance seems to be my biggest challenge (if I understand the meaning properly). My background should be perfect white in this case. The label should as well. I shot another round, this time with a single light bulb. Please let me know if you think any of them are superior to the others (I've done no editing yet).

Things I know I need to improve on: reflections off the cap are in odd colors. I need to move my shoot location or cover objects with a black sheet. Also, the shadow is fuzzy, so I need to move the light source back. This one taken with the light approximately two feet from the object.


----------



## Braineack

You now need to start reading about flags.   the reflections on the lid aren't great in any shot.


----------



## Derrel

Your camera lens is getting some flaring from all the light bouncing around at close range...your lens front is being struck by a lot of scattered light,and the lowered contrast is killing your so-called " color pop ".  THis is pretty common in setups like the one you have: the lens front MUST have a very,very good shielding from stray light! A compendium lens shade, or a cardboard with a ghole cut out for the lens to peep through, and the card suspended or propped in front of the lens is a good idea.

Overall, you've made a big improvement I think. If you WANT a crtisp shadow, you need a crisper light! Those softboxes you have a BIG, compared to the small bottles, so the light is "soft", anbd the shadowing is fairly controlled, yet, I think it's okay...


----------



## Jessica332

Derrel said:


> A compendium lens shade, or a cardboard with a ghole cut out for the lens to peep through, and the card suspended or propped in front of the lens is a good idea.



Great idea! I hadn't considered that. I need to see what I can make at low cost. I'll try to get creative!



Derrel said:


> Overall, you've made a big improvement I think. If you WANT a crtisp shadow, you need a crisper light! Those softboxes you have a BIG, compared to the small bottles, so the light is "soft", anbd the shadowing is fairly controlled, yet, I think it's okay...



Thanks! I took the cover off the softbox so now it's just one bare bulb. I think that's why it's not too bad. But I will try to move the light back more to see if I can get crisper light as a result. Two feet is probably too close.


----------



## Designer

Jessica332 said:


> Also, the shadow is fuzzy, so I need to move the light source back. This one taken with the light approximately two feet from the object.


I don't understand the desire for the shadow, but if you want the shadow to be sharper, use a smaller light source.  If you had a speedlight, then use just one speedlight without any diffuser.  Using a CFL, you can use the ol' "hole in a cardboard" trick.  Cut out a smallish hole (size of an orange, ?) in cardboard, and let the light shine through the hole.  Turn off/shield all other sources of light in the room.  

FWIW: I looked at the most recent 6 shots, but with all the variables in the shots and not knowing what you are going for, I won't try to select the "best" one.  I saw variances in exposure and the white balance, but I don't know what will be acceptable to you.  

Having that shadow right there is my problem with all of them.


----------



## Braineack

Jessica332 said:


> Great idea! I hadn't considered that. I need to see what I can make at low cost. I'll try to get creative!


----------



## Jessica332

Designer said:


> If you had a speedlight, then use just one speedlight without any diffuser.  Using a CFL, you can use the ol' "hole in a cardboard" trick.  Cut out a smallish hole (size of an orange, ?) in cardboard, and let the light shine through the hole.  Turn off/shield all other sources of light in the room.
> ...
> Having that shadow right there is my problem with all of them.


I don't have a speedlight, I'm going to try to get by without one. I like your cardboard trick. We have plenty of boxes so this should be very doable. I was thinking I could take a toilet paper tube and put it in the hole to help. I have to wait for night time again to do another shoot (too much sunlight even with the shades down) but in the mean time I can construct everything I need.

On the shadow, I understand your dislike for it. This exercise is helping me to become a better product photographer, though. Without it I wouldn't have learned all of this from you guys! With everything I'm learning I will be able to apply the theory and techniques to other shots (including those without shadows).



Braineack said:


>



Incredible video. That opened my eyes. I'm going to see if I can use a big box to really isolate the camera from all these flags. I'm excited to see the difference.


----------



## Jessica332

Alright, update time! I did some more shoots trying my best to use the advice I've been given. I don't have a lens hood yet (its in the mail) but I did try to apply the rest of the advice.

I took one of the softboxes and removed both the front fabric and the reflective backing, so it was just four bare lights. I then removed three bulbs. I took a small box and covered the bulb with it, and then attached a tube of two toilet paper roll cores (which I had taped together into one long tube) to the box and closed it up, cutting semi-circles in the flaps for the tube to fit through. Its job is to provide direct light. I then covered the light leaks with notecards and tape, and wrapped the whole thing in swaddling. The image shows the swaddling with a little tube poking out (I'll try to get pictures of the box and tube later when it's not swaddled but I didn't want to undo it right now). I took two pictures with that setup (one without the swaddling, one with; the one without had some indirect light due to light leaking). Both required a full 60 seconds exposure on f/14 and f/13 respectively.

I then added one softbox back into the room, facing away from the setup, with only one bulb on. You can just barely see it at the bottom of the image showing the light tube with the swaddling.

I took five more pictures at roughly the same exposure with the single-light softbox on: +1.7 according to my camera. I went with +1.7 because I found that over exposing a little helps to brighten up the shot. If I go much lower then it looks too dark (whites look very grey) and if I go much higher it looks washed out.

I've labeled all the pictures to help. I simply went down varying shutter speeds while adjusting aperture to maintain exposure. You'll notice I placed a big box next to the product. This was my attempt to reduce flagging by blocking the majority of the light coming from the direct light source (based on where I expected it to bounce). It also gave me a place to hide while the shutter was open. I also tried to address flagging objects as I discovered them (same thing with dust - which I kept having to deal with).

Please let me know what you think, if you have more suggestions, how I can keep improving etc. Thanks for all the help so far! If you have an opinion on which picture is best (or which two or three) I would really appreciate it. I haven't done any editing on these at all (aside from making the file size smaller on a couple because they were too big to upload).


----------



## Jessica332

Of the above images, I selected "f13 with indirect" to adjust in photoshop. Please let me know if you have any feedback.

I applied a sharpening layer to help bring out the bottle texture a little, as well as two levels layers, a brightness/contrast layer, and a white point reference (levels). This is the result.

PS: There's a little dust that I didn't clean up, and it's not cropped.


----------



## Braineack

see how your cardboard box is reflecting back on the lid and creating a nice clean solid dark shape on the lid?  look at the opposite side that's open to the room -- it's very messy.


----------



## Jessica332

You're right. I need to work on that. I may try another shoot tonight, or I might wait for the lens hood to arrive since I will want to do another one then anyway. It's hard to set up a box on the right side due to space and not wanting to block the direct light source, but I'm sure it can be done with a little effort. I also need to move the direct light source to a bit more of a head-on angle, and that will help make everything else easier.


----------



## Designer

Jessica332 said:


> Please let me know what you think, if you have more suggestions, ..


Wow!  You've been busy!  So much effort!  

Just a thought:  I know you want the shadow, and you're doing fine so far, but what if you experimented some with the location of the shadow?  For instance; shadow on the table only, not on the backdrop.  You will need to move the table far enough in front of the backdrop so the shadow dies on the table.

I like most of them, but the one that caught my eye is #3 with the golden shadow with figure inside of it.


----------



## Jessica332

Thanks! Yes I'm trying my hardest. You're right about the shadow, I do want to play with it more. Your idea of table only is interesting. I think I'll give it a try and see how it goes. I also want to try one where the shadow is closer to "straight-on."

You liked #3 the most? If you're talking about the one I think you are, that's one of the shots that had no indirect lighting at all. I felt it was a little too dark, which is why I added the indirect bulb for the other shots. You don't think it's too dark?


----------

