# What settings should I use with a lightbox?



## phnoob

I just finished making a lightbox today and am not sure what settings I should use on my Nikon D3000 for best results. 

Here's a picture I took with settings f22, exposure time 1/10, ISO 100, white balance 5k (that's what the bulbs are supposed to be), no flash:







I put it in Photoshop and went to Layer->New Adjustment Layer -> Levels, created the layer, and set the white point (I read how to do this in a tutorial today), which considerably lightened the image. However, as you can see, the image still doesn't have a completely light background, it seems a little blurry, and also seems a little washed out like when the ISO setting's too high (IMHO).

I would really like to be able to take pictures like this:



Do you have any recommendations as to what settings I could use to improve the images?

Thank you for your help!


----------



## BekahAura

I think that your photo is a tad underexposed. Look at the blacks and the whites in your photo compared to the photo you are aiming for. The blacks are too black and the whites are grayish (and I mean the letters on the computer chip thingy not the background). Either increase your light or change your aperture to allow for more light to enter the lens.

As for the background... even though you may be shooting on a completely white surface there are probably always going to be some gray areas. The image you have posted has most likely been silhouetted and placed onto a white background.

Also try sharpening the image for more clarity.


----------



## EIngerson

What camera and lens are you using?


----------



## PictureBox

bump the iso up some


----------



## phnoob

EIngerson said:


> What camera and lens are you using?



I'm using a Nikon D3000 with the lense that came with it.



BekahAura said:


> I think that your photo is a tad underexposed ... Either increase your light or change your aperture to allow for more light to enter the lens.



I found yesterday that a lower f-stop than about f22 results in part of the image being out of focus. So I don't think I can lower the f-stop..

For the lights, I'm currently using two 1600 lumen 5000k bulbs. They seem really bright, but the pictures I take are all dark. It doesn't make any sense.. 

Here's a picture I took earlier this morning where I didn't do any editing at all:

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8959/dsc1693.jpg

The camera settings were:

F-stop: f/22
Exposure time: 1/20 sec
ISO speed: ISO-100
Flash mode: no flash

I took the picture in apurture priority mode, as I don't really know what the shutter speed should be..


----------



## Mach0

Lens? 1/10s and 1/20s are too slow for handheld. Get a tripod and a remote or up your shutter speed to reduce camera shake. Also, I don't see the need to shoot at f22. That might be why you are using to slow shutter speed to compensate. Try opening up the aperture some. Do you know the refresh rate of those bulbs?


----------



## phnoob

Mach0 said:


> Lens? 1/10s and 1/20s are too slow for handheld. Get a tripod and a remote or up your shutter speed to reduce camera shake. Also, I don't see the need to shoot at f22. That might be why you are using to slow shutter speed to compensate. Try opening up the aperture some. Do you know the refresh rate of those bulbs?



The lens says "AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G."

I'm actually already using a tripod and a remote 

I think maybe I do need to get brighter bulbs. I tried pointing my 23W/1600 lumen bulbs directly at the object and the colors in the photo came out better, but of course pointing the bulbs right at it resulted in an unacceptable level of glare. 

So, the question now is: how bright of bulbs should I get? Browsing on Amazon, there are lots and lots of bulbs. I see 45W, 65W, and 85W bulbs. Regarding the temperature, should I go for 5000k or 5500k?


----------



## Dao

You do not need a brighter bulb.  Just expose it for a longer time.

I will try to position the subject so that it is standing up and the top of the subject is facing more towards the camera.  In that case, you have a higher chance to have everything in focus.   Try it with f/8 or f/11.    Use Spot meter instead of matrix.  (With matrix meter mode, since you have a lot of bright white background, the camera will expose for that and try to turn that white background into gray) .  Maybe spot meter the green part of the subject.


----------



## Mach0

I don't know much about the continuous lighting set ups... Maybe you can get a couple of flashes that will give you better results and you can use faster shutter speeds. You can get the yn460 for cheap. KmH has one for sale. Or you can get some other flashes. I have a few 285hv's, a sb24, and Sb28. They aren't expensive and you can get a set of radio triggers. Ultimately, they will give you much more flexibility, you can take them outside too, and the power levels are adjustable. Pending the route you want to take, you can get 4 flashes and a trigger set up for about 200 bucks( depending the brand of flashes.)


----------



## cgipson1

use the same setting that you used for that last shot.. but raise the ISO to 400. If it is still a little dark then change your shutter speed, make it slower so that more light will come in. Are you just trying to learn this, or will you need to print these shots? Flash would be much better.. but would increase the learning curve.


----------



## mjhoward

None of those bulbs are going to be sufficient when you start increasing your shutter speed.  If you want a sharp photo, you need to shoot at f/8 with that lens.  f/8 is where that lens is sharpest over the entire frame.  The sample photo you provided likely made use of a strobe w/light modifier as well as a macro lens.  The macro lens gives a higher magnification and can focus closer but also gives a shallower depth of field.  DOF in your sample pic is less than 1" since that PCB is likely only 1"x1" or so.


----------



## jake337

For small parts like that I would learn about focus stacking or grab yourself a tilt/shift lens.  Focus stacking will save you alot of money though.


----------



## phnoob

cgipson1 said:


> use the same setting that you used for that last  shot.. but raise the ISO to 400. If it is still a little dark then  change your shutter speed, make it slower so that more light will come  in. Are you just trying to learn this, or will you need to print these  shots? Flash would be much better.. but would increase the learning  curve.



Here's a picture taken with settings: 

F-stop: f/22
Exposure time: 1/20 sec.
ISO speed: ISO-400
Flash mode: no flash

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7661/dsc1688j.jpg




Dao said:


> You do not need a brighter bulb.  Just expose it for a longer time.



By "expose it for a longer time," do you mean change the shutter speed?



Dao said:


> I will try to position the subject so that it is standing up and the top of the subject is facing more towards the camera.  In that case, you have a higher chance to have everything in focus.



The trouble with this is getting the picture to look natural when the object is on it's side. I tried doing this, but it just looks weird..



Dao said:


> Try it with f/8 or f/11.





mjhoward said:


> ... If you want a sharp photo, you need to  shoot at f/8 with that lens.  f/8 is where that lens is sharpest over  the entire frame.



Here's a picture taken with settings:

F-stop: f/8
Exposure time: 1/20 sec.
ISO speed: ISO-100
Flash mode: no flash

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/8451/dsc1689w.jpg

Finally, here's a picture taken with settings:

F-stop: f/8
Exposure time: 1/10 sec.
ISO speed: ISO-100
Flash mode: no flash

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/1567/dsc1690m.jpg


----------



## Dao

- Use Aperture pority mode
- Choose f/8
- Use Spot meter mode instead of matrix mode
- Meter the green
- Take a shot and see if it need any exposure compensation.


----------



## phnoob

Dao said:


> - Use Aperture pority mode
> - Choose f/8
> - Use Spot meter mode instead of matrix mode
> - Meter the green
> - Take a shot and see if it need any exposure compensation.



I did everything you said except for "meter the green," I'm afraid I don't know what that means, and here is the result:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9753/dsc1688m.jpg


----------



## Dao

Better.

Meter the green part.

i.e.  with spot meter, point the center spot to the green color of the circuit board.  And then lock the exposure.

Now, what you can do without meter the green is just dial the exposure compension to +1/2 stop or +1 stop and then retake it.


----------



## kundalini

I'm afraid that you are limited by your lens.  It is a good lens for general photography, but falls short for these types of shots.  A macro lens is needed IMO.

This was taken with a Nikkor 105mm and the part is ~4mm in diameter.   *Clicky

*Focus stacking is also another technique for these types of shots.  This had +30 exposures that were merged together in post.  The item was ~100mm on the long edge.  *Clicky*


----------



## phnoob

kundalini said:


> I'm afraid that you are limited by your lens.  It is a good lens for general photography, but falls short for these types of shots.  A macro lens is needed IMO.
> 
> This was taken with a Nikkor 105mm and the part is ~4mm in diameter.   *Clicky
> 
> *Focus stacking is also another technique for these types of shots.  This had +30 exposures that were merged together in post.  The item was ~100mm on the long edge.  *Clicky*



So a new lens is the only way I'm going to be able to get shots like the professional shot in my first post?

How much would I have to pay to get a lens that would work for these types of photos?

Thanks for your help, everyone


----------



## RichardsTPF

> How much would I have to pay to get a lens that would work for these types of photos?



SLR Lenses


----------



## phnoob

RichardsTPF said:


> How much would I have to pay to get a lens that would work for these types of photos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SLR Lenses
Click to expand...


Holy #*(^!


----------



## Dao

For macro lens, you can get by with a less expensive one.  If you are primary shooting object of small circuit board, you can choose a shorter focal length one.

3rd party macro lenses (made by Tamron, Sigma or Tokina) are good if not better then those from Canon or Nikon.


Before you go buy a new lens, work on how to light the subject and how to obtain a correct exposure first.


----------



## ph0enix

Would a Reynox 250 help here?  I don't know (just throwing in ideas).


----------



## kundalini

RichardsTPF said:


> How much would I have to pay to get a lens that would work for these types of photos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SLR Lenses
Click to expand...

You linked to the imported lens, which I'm not an advocate of in the least.

You also edited out a good question.  Why would I choose a macro lens from all that I have available?  For small detailed parts, particularly electrical pieces, sharpness is paramount.  The OPs lens has a minimum focusing distance of 11", which is not close enough IMO to capture all the necessary details.  Having the capability to get to a 1:1 ratio will be a boon for this type of product work.

If the OP is doing this as an enthusiast, there are alternatives to the 105mm.  I only referenced it because it is what I have.  There is a new Nikkor 85mm for DX for under $500.  Sigma, Tamaron and others make macro lenses which are less expensive.  There are also extension tubes to be considered.  I have no experience with them, but apparently they work great.  Hopefully someone will chime in about them.  There is also a screw-on lens adapter, but again no experience with them.

However, Dao is correct.  Understand your lighting first.  Work with what you have until you can go no further and are still dissatisfied.  That will be a good indicator of when to upgrade.


----------



## Vtec44

This was taken using Nikon's 35-70mm f2.8D lens.  They don't make them anymore but you can get them used for about $300.  It has a quick and dirty macro mode at 35mm (FOV of 52mm on the D3000).  Unfortunately, it won't auto focus on your camera but then you don't auto focus in macro anyway.


----------



## phnoob

Well, it sounds like I definitely need to get a new lens sometime in the near future. I really can't afford to spend more than $300 right now, which I guess means I will be getting a used lens, since the new ones are so freaking expensive. I don't know anything about buying lens'; is purchasing a used lens OK?


----------



## RichardsTPF

Looks like extension tubes will save you $$$$ for macro shoots. I am not in macro world yet. Just wondering if extension tube is able to give same/similar IQ as macro lens does.

extension tubes


----------



## RichardsTPF

I find the answer:
Macro Extension Tubes & Close-up Lenses


----------



## ad12

Hey this is a crazy old thread but I was recently in a similar situation and realized a very simple (often overlooked solution).  

Some people might think its dumb to even ask, but did you happen to have VR switched on when taking the picture?  VR destroys pictures taken at longer exposures on a tripod.  Im under the impression it should never be used on a tripod unless the base is vibrating (like if you were shooting on a tripod from a helicopter, or the stage of a crazy concert). 

Anyway I'm sure everyone has since figured this out or doesn't care anymore but I though I would post in case some one stumbles upon this in the future.  Also, it would save someone else from thinking they need to drop $$ on a lens when all they need to do is flip a switch to get better images.


----------



## KmH

Some of the newer Nikon lenses have a VR _tripod mode _that can be used so VR can correct for the small camera movement caused by the main mirror and shutter moving when the shutter is released.

Consequently be sure and check the users manual for the lens you have as far use of VR and a tripod.


----------

