# Beginner having issues taking photos for my eBay store :(



## Grizmix (Jul 21, 2013)

Hello!

I don't have the most expensive or best camera in the world and I'm just trying to accomplish crisp and clear photos of my products for my eBay store.

I bought ( 33" Photo Studio Soft Umbrella 2X 45W Bulbs Continuous Lighting Kit Photography | eBay ) and currently with my photos I'm having all kinds of problems figuring out which way the light posts are supposed to be facing for my products and how far they should be from the product.

Although I've gotten some half decent images, I've taken several images in one session and they all looked awesome on the cameras LCD screen but soon as I transferred them to my computer and opened them into Adobe Photoshop they all seem to look like this 



I honestly have no idea why this happens at all, It looks nothing like this in my camera after the photo has been taken. Any help for this beginner and noob would be very much appreciated!!

Thank you!


----------



## EIngerson (Jul 21, 2013)

Well, from this size photo sharpness seems adequate. If you are having color issues try adjusting white balance. What color is the wall behind the shirt?

Heres a quick exposure and white balance adjustment


----------



## Dinardy (Jul 21, 2013)

Also try lighting the backdrop separate from the softbox if you're looking for a white background.


----------



## Grizmix (Jul 22, 2013)

Unfortunately I'm unable to light the wall because I only have two lights, and the wall is an off white tone.

I've done the white balance over and over but the image does not look any different after holding the white card to it and pressing the button, I also noticed when i zoom in or get closer to the object the colors change drastically, like super over exposure or colors just get super bright.

I also notice with anything that's white or bright, the camera seems to exaggerate the white level so much that there is no detail to be seen, it also does this with some brighter colors, I'm guessing that i need a better camera?

Should I have my umbrellas facing at the object in question or away, should they be set at any specific distance from the said object?

Sorry if this is sounds real stupid but I don't want to give up with what i currently have available to me.


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Jul 22, 2013)

You could probably dodge the background in post processing to brighten it up.


----------



## EIngerson (Jul 22, 2013)

What do you have the metering set on? It sounds like you have it set to spot metering. I recommend evaluative metering.Also mind how close your lights are to the subject.


----------



## Grizmix (Jul 27, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> What do you have the metering set on? It sounds like you have it set to spot metering. I recommend evaluative metering.Also mind how close your lights are to the subject.



Yes, I had it on spot and switched to evaluative metering and it looks better now.

I just need more light, but don't know what I should be buying on a budget. My setup consists of two umbrellas 33" with two 5500k 45w bulbs and I can only get  the lighting fixed in the center of the mannequin, which leaves shadowing on the upper shoulder and lower torso portion and it's very aggravating. 

Not sure what I should do! Would replacing the bulbs with 6500k 105watt bulbs give me more light? Or should I buy a third light?

I've seen soft boxes mentioned some where before,  I've searched on eBay and have no clue nor idea what I'm looking for aside from a soft box and I'm unsure as to what size or what type of bulb should be placed into it or would a soft box even help my current setup?

Thank you guy's, I really appreciate the help!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 27, 2013)

What you should do is take that continuous light crap and pitch it out the nearest window, and buy something like this. That little strobe will put out WAY more light than your continuous set-up. Then buy a softbox like this for your key (product) light. Next move the subject away from the background. A lot; at least 6', and 8-10' would be better, then configure your studio like this:






with, as I said, at least 6' between subject and backbround. Place one light directly behind the item being photographed aimed at the background. Initially, set this to the same output level as the other flash. The other flash, or 'key light' should be set just a bit off to one side of the camera (left or right, no matter) and angled so that it illuminates the item, but so that the light from it that doesn't hit the subject doesn't hit the background until a point where it's out of frame.

Run a few trial exposures, and adjust the power levels of each flash until the clothing is correctly exposed and the background is bright, pure white. Once you've got a formula you're happy with, then mark each of the three points (key light, background light, subject) and the flash power levels and you'll be able to set this up in [literally] two minutes, and will always get identical results.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 27, 2013)

If you need more light, just extend your shutter time, and you'll get more light.  It's not like your subject is moving, so you don't need a fast shutter.

If you don't like where the shadows are, move your lights.  They're continuous, so you can see where the shadows fall as you move them.  You can add more light with a reflector or bounce card.  An inexpensive way to go is to pick up a couple of white poster boards at the local Walmart and arrange them so that the light bounces off them and onto your subject where you want to fill in the shadow areas.

For what you're shooting, you absolutely DON'T need to throw out your current lights and buy strobes.  You just need to learn to manage your current lighting and camera settings, which is common when starting out.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 27, 2013)

Buckster said:


> If you need more light, just extend your shutter time, and you'll get more light. It's not like your subject is moving, so you don't need a fast shutter.


Absolutely true, HOWEVER, let me explain further why I said what I did....



Buckster said:


> If you don't like where the shadows are, move your lights. They're continuous, so you can see where the shadows fall as you move them. You can add more light with a reflector or bounce card. An inexpensive way to go is to pick up a couple of white poster boards at the local Walmart and arrange them so that the light bounces off them and onto your subject where you want to fill in the shadow areas.


Good advice!



Buckster said:


> For what you're shooting, you absolutely DON'T need to throw out your current lights and buy strobes. You just need to learn to manage your current lighting and camera settings, which is common when starting out.


While I hope that no one actually thought that my use of the term "throw out" was meant literally, I do stand by my assertion that two 45 watt CFLs are insufficient for this work (and even the 105 watt versions would be lacking).  If the OP has a high-end, FF body that can shoot clean at ISO 3200 and above, well, that's a whole different story, but assuming he/she is going to want to keep ISO low, then...

Of course you can move your lights around to control shadows, spill, etc, but 45 watts is so little light that you're going to require quite a long shutter speed, and I have found that long exposures, especially with CFLs (and even regular incandescent bulbs) tends to impart a colour cast on the image.  Of course this can be dealt with in post, but why bother if you can get it right in-camera?  Another issue is the fact that most CFLs are not dimmable, which means the only way you can control light output is to move your lights.  While this does work, when you're trying to shoot high-key, or high-key esque, you will likely find that you don't have enough light when you move one light far enough away to balance background and foreground.  

You can most definitely do what you want to do with your current set-up, but it will take longer, and be more difficult.  The $300ish dollar investment in equipment that I have suggested, once you've spent a weekend practicing, will allow you to get it right in camera, first time, virtually every time.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 27, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > If you need more light, just extend your shutter time, and you'll get more light. It's not like your subject is moving, so you don't need a fast shutter.
> ...


"Longer shutters".  Six questions: Yeah? And?  So?  What?  How long?  And who cares?  His subject isn't moving.

Dude, imagine if he left the shutter open for 45 minutes at ISO 100 and f/16, just for example.  Would he have enough light then?  Ya think it might be overexposed at that point, even with "only" 45 watt lights?  WTF part of the exposure triangle don't you get?

It doesn't matter that they're only 45 watts, and white balance is best controlled in post anyway, no matter what.  He should set up a simple white paper background to use for a WB sample in post, or include a white balance target on the edge of the shot and then crop it out in post after using it to achieve white balance if, for some reason, he wants to retain that off-white wall color, but correctly white balanced.  That way, it simply doesn't matter if he gets any color shift from the lights.

None of your "reasons" make his current lights unmanageable for this kind of shooting.  It's pretty obvious he's on a budget.  Help him work what he has if you want to be useful.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 27, 2013)

I "get" the exposure triangle very well Buck! I do! Honest!! BUT... this person is talking business. Time is money; is the $300 investment worth the ability to create the image in 1 second as opposed to 45 minutes? I can't speak for the OP, but I know it would be for me. And,as I mentioned, there is often a problem with colour casts forming during prolonged exposures with CFL and incandescent bulbs.  There is also the issue of camera shake/subject movement during long exposures; this can be as simple as someone walking across the floor in the next room!

I'm NOT trying to argue with you, nor am I saying you're wrong. I am saying that I _think_ perhaps there is another route that the OP can take which will lead to more consistant, and better results in a shorter time. You approach the problem one way, I have another... we'll let the OP decide which is best for him or her.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jul 27, 2013)

the bulb that came with that kit is nothing special.  Just buy another light from home depot that takes similar bulb.  It can be just lying on the floor or put it on a desk lamp.  Put the light on the floor behind your subject.  I probably get higher wattage light for this background.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 27, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I "get" the exposure triangle very well Buck! I do! Honest!! BUT... this person is talking business. Time is money; is the $300 investment worth the ability to create the image in 1 second as opposed to 45 minutes?


I knew you'd go there.  I knew you'd actually think that this shot will take a 45 minute shutter speed if I used that as an example, because you don't seem to know even the basics involved with shooting a static product like this.  Amazing.



tirediron said:


> I can't speak for the OP, but I know it would be for me. And,as I mentioned, there is often a problem with colour casts forming during prolonged exposures with CFL and incandescent bulbs.  There is also the issue of camera shake/subject movement during long exposures; this can be as simple as someone walking across the floor in the next room!


It's a simple matter of learning white balance and as for camera shake, maybe NOT SHOOTING WITH A 45 MINUTE LONG SHUTTER SPEED while people are bouncing around in the same room!!!   LOL!!!!  

Again, it's just amazing to me the things you actually say, and the lame justifications you make for those ridiculous notions that come flying out of your head when called into question.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 27, 2013)

Buckster said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I "get" the exposure triangle very well Buck! I do! Honest!! BUT... this person is talking business. Time is money; is the $300 investment worth the ability to create the image in 1 second as opposed to 45 minutes?
> ...



Who pissed in your coffee this morning?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 27, 2013)

Buckster said:


> I knew you'd go there. I knew you'd actually think that this shot will take a 45 minute shutter speed if I used that as an example, because you don't seem to know even the basics involved with shooting a static product like this. Amazing.


 :shock:  What?  You mean that wasn't a real-world example?  





Buckster said:


> Again, it's just amazing to me the things you actually say, and the lame justifications you make for those ridiculous notions that come flying out of your head when called into question.


Feel free to disagree with me any time you want, and on any subject; I post what I do based on my knowledge and experience.  I do not claim to be an expert, 'though I do think that in 30+ years I have learned a few things.  If I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it, and I know that I'm never too old to learn.


----------



## Grizmix (Jul 27, 2013)

Thank you for all the suggestions.

I can actually get the background white with no problems while taking photos, It's only sometimes i get that annoying RED/Magenta tint on the edges on my photos and I don't know why it's doing that, maybe I'm not supposed to be that close to the object with my lighting?

Here is the latest photo's I've taken with my camera 
 and now understand I should get a light to illuminate the background wall, but could you give me any idea or link to what I should buy?

I'm honestly confused about WHITE BALANCE, Am i supposed to set it for every different article of clothing? And I don't even know if i'm setting it properly, I chose the option "CUSTOM" And it says on top "DISP. Evaluate White Bal." so i just then aim my camera at something white and press the display button and i'm done? Because every time i do this, the white's have a bluish tint in them and i just use "Auto levels" in photoshop and sometimes it actually helps and sometimes the image looks like this after selecting auto levels and i have no idea why it does that,  but it should actually look like this 

Well thanks again for all your help and suggestions! I honestly appreciate it!


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 28, 2013)

You white balance for your light, here is an article to help you understand.  Understanding White Balance  And you shouldn't have to custom white balance with a grey card either, your camera should have certain lighting already programmed for white balance, like daylight, florescent, tungsten etc....
I don't know what camera you shoot with, but a lot of them will also auto white balance.  If you can shoot in RAW then fixing the white balance for true colors is a real snap in photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw as well.

Also, buy a more powerful bulb at home depot that is daylight balanced and that will help a lot too.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 28, 2013)

Grizmix said:


> I can actually get the background white with no problems while taking photos, It's only sometimes i get that annoying RED/Magenta tint on the edges on my photos and I don't know why it's doing that, maybe I'm not supposed to be that close to the object with my lighting?


It might be from color reflecting off the clothing and onto the wall.  Start by getting it further from the wall.  If the room is small, you can sometimes set up to shoot from another room through a doorway, or shoot corner to corner, rather than wall to wall, which provides a bit more distance.

ETA: It occurs to me that you may also be having a vignetting issue with that camera that may be contributing to the problem.



Grizmix said:


> understand I should get a light to illuminate the background wall, but could you give me any idea or link to what I should buy?


It's not a good idea to mix lights when true color achievement is the goal.  That said, you would either get another light with the same color temperature as those you have already, or start over with 3 other lights.



Grizmix said:


> I'm honestly confused about WHITE BALANCE, Am i supposed to set it for every different article of clothing? And I don't even know if i'm setting it properly, I chose the option "CUSTOM" And it says on top "DISP. Evaluate White Bal." so i just then aim my camera at something white and press the display button and i'm done? Because every time i do this.............................snip


Do this:

1. Get a true white balance target, also known as a gray card.  There are many on the market to choose from that fit every budget.  There are cards that fit in a wallet, collapsible targets in various sizes, the Color Checker Passport which is quite popular, and many, many others.  Helen, a true expert here, has done extensive testing and found that a white Styrofoam cup works perfectly, and it's cheap.

2. Position the cup (or other white balance tool) so that it's in the shot with the product, but placed where you can easily crop it out later (off to the side).

3. Shoot the shot in RAW, and don't worry about white balance at this point.  Set white balance on the camera to "Auto".

4. Open the shot in Photoshop's Camera RAW via the Bridge, then use the white balance eyedropper by clicking it on the Styrofoam cup.  Now you have proper white balance.

5. Adjust exposure to the brightness level that looks right to you.

6. Now open the image in Photoshop.

7. Crop it to get rid of the cup and to frame the clothing the way you want.

8. Resize it down to the size you will display it on the web.  I generally use 850 pixels tall, because that fits well in my browser window without scrolling.

9. Use the magnifying glass to display the image at full size.

10. Go to Filter, Sharpen, Smart Sharpen, and sharpen to taste.  I usually start with Amount 100%, Radius 0.3 px, Remove Lens Blur

See how that works for you.


----------



## Grizmix (Jul 28, 2013)

Thank you for the reply!

My camera is a Canon SD1300 IS and it unfortunately does not have any RAW option on it. I've been to Home depot and this was before I even purchased this kit and they said they had no lights at 5500k and I think all they had were the 5000k or 5100k bulbs? Not sure which light bulb home depot has that is daylight balanced as wyogirl mentioned, could you possibly link me to one?

Soooo hold on, I'm supposed to hold a white card in front of my item that I'm shooting and measure it that way?

Thank you!

EDIT: Ohhh and I'm using Adobe Photoshop 5.5 
I simply cannot afford to buy any of the new versions until my business picks up.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 28, 2013)

Grizmix said:


> My camera is a Canon SD1300 IS and it unfortunately does not have any RAW option on it.


You're stuck with JPG, so just use that instead.  Same steps though.



Grizmix said:


> I've been to Home depot and this was before I even purchased this kit and they said they had no lights at 5500k and I think all they had were the 5000k or 5100k bulbs? Not sure which light bulb home depot has that is daylight balanced as wyogirl mentioned, could you possibly link me to one?


Just make sure that all three bulbs are the same temperature.  Don't mix them.



Grizmix said:


> Soooo hold on, I'm supposed to hold a white card in front of my item that I'm shooting and measure it that way?


No.  Not in front of it.  Place it in the shot with the item, off to the side of the item so that you can crop it out of the photo later in photoshop.



Grizmix said:


> EDIT: Ohhh and I'm using Adobe Photoshop 5.5
> I simply cannot afford to buy any of the new versions until my business picks up.


All versions of Photoshop include the Bridge and Camera RAW, to my knowledge, including yours.


----------



## Grizmix (Jul 28, 2013)

I don't think photoshop 5.5 has the "white balance eyedropper", I looked but could not find anything with that name.

What exactly am I trying to get for the lights? Any specific 5000k or anything?

Thank you!


----------



## Buckster (Jul 28, 2013)

Grizmix said:


> I don't think photoshop 5.5 has the "white balance eyedropper", I looked but could not find anything with that name.


I had to look it up, but you're right - it turns out that your 14 year old copy of Photoshop doesn't have Camera Raw included.  I could show you how to do it in Photoshop without that, though my CS6 version is a long way off from your 5.5 version, so you'd have to convert some of the steps to find the tools, and I'm not sure you're ready to do that just yet, given your responses so far.

So, instead, I suggest you download the latest version of the FREE photo editor, GIMP.  Then go to any of the free tutorials on the web on how to use it to set white balance with it, like this one: How to Correct White Balance with GIMP  A Google search for "gimp white balance" (without the quote marks) will give you tons more, including video tutorials on YouTube.  https://www.google.com/search?q=gim...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb 



Grizmix said:


> What exactly am I trying to get for the lights? Any specific 5000k or anything?


It really doesn't matter, as long as they're all the same color temperature.  Everything in your shot needs to be lit by the same color temperature in order for the white balance to work properly.

Imagine if one light is blue and another is red, and the white balance target (the Styrofoam cup) is lit by the red light.  When you click on it in the editor to correct it to be pure white, it'll look great afterwards, but the stuff lit by the blue light will shift color in the wrong direction to make it right.  The reason is that when you click on the target lit by the red light, the software will adjust the whole picture by adding it's opposite color, cyan, and reducing some of the red.  Those shifts will produce pure white, according to what it sampled.  

But the stuff lit by the blue light needs a color shift by adding it's opposite color, yellow, and removing some of the blue.  Instead, it gets more cyan and less red, which doesn't get it to the proper color at all.

That's what's going on in the software when you white balance, and the color of the lights is more red or blue or yellow or whatever, as defined by the different temperatures - that's exactly what those different temperatures represent.

Hope that helps you understand it a bit better.


----------



## KmH (Jul 28, 2013)

Photoshop CS 5.5 has Camera Raw. (CS 5.5 = Photoshop 12)

Camera Raw can edit JPEGs and Camera Raw has a White Balance tool.
Using the White Balance tool you can adjust the white balance for whatever color temperature light you use, so you don't need to hunt down lights that have a specific color temperature.

Using the camera raw white balance tool - Bing

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5
Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers: A professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC
Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers: The Ultimate Workshop


----------



## Buckster (Jul 28, 2013)

Thanks Keith.  OP said Photoshop 5.5, rather than CS 5.5, so I took it at face value.


----------

