# It's edited why does it still look dull



## booda303 (Feb 10, 2018)




----------



## 480sparky (Feb 10, 2018)

Honestly, it looks more like a lighting issue than an editing problem.

What editing steps did you apply?  What does the original look like?


----------



## booda303 (Feb 10, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Honestly, it looks more like a lighting issue than an editing problem.
> 
> What editing steps did you apply?  What does the original look like?



Wow , you're good ! I don't have ceiling lights only lamps at home. This was taken by the window but it is cloudy.  Any thing I can purchase that's not expensive for lighting at home ?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 10, 2018)

booda303 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, it looks more like a lighting issue than an editing problem.
> ...



First step is to get the book _Light, Science and Magic_.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 10, 2018)

White poster boards can be used to bounce lamps off of, creating relatively large, soft light sources. A 20x30 inch or 30x40 (approximate measurements) poster board from an office supply store will be a big light source, compared to a bangle or ring or watch. Controlling the angle the light hits the jewelry is important; incidence angle equals reflection angle, and where the camera is positioned relative to the subject,and the lights, determines the reflections you will achieve, and determines the effectiveness of the lighting set-up for every shot.

The placement and size/shape of what is called the diffuse highlight (not the specular, but the diffuse highlight] reveals the majority of the shape and texture of all objects. Your jewelry looks flat because the lighting does not create a lot of visual excitement; the cloudy day window light is rather "flat", not dramatic.

Many stores that sell jewelry use a lot of small, point-souce quartz-halogen ceiling-mounted bulbs which create a good number of light sources that create specular highlights; this is a major difference, since your lighting is soft and low in contrast; some "punch!" from a small, brilliant light source might be a nice addition.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 10, 2018)

Furthermore, pretty much everything appears out-of-focus.  Sometimes that's the intent, for softness, but, in this case, it simply makes everything look... well... out-of-focus.

Just my humble, inexperienced, opinion.  ICBW.


----------



## zombiesniper (Feb 10, 2018)

The biggest issue I have with the lighting is that the light is on the left but the subject is turned to the right.

Try angling the subject a little more towards the light. Not enough to lose the shadows on the lettering but you need the subject to face the light more.

If you were to change the light source I would agree with Derrel that a bright point source is the best bet to give you the sparkle you are looking for.


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 10, 2018)

Yup definitely looks out of focus.


----------



## Designer (Feb 10, 2018)

booda303 said:


> View attachment 153560


When I first viewed the smaller version, I thought your camera focused on the box, but when I enlarge it, I see that nothing is sharp.  Jewelry should be sharp.  You might just have a soft lens.

I don't think you should try posing the bracelet along with anything behind it, as whatever is behind will most likely be out of focus, and will definitely be a distraction.  Figure out a different pose.

You can use diffused lighting, or direct lighting, or a combination of the two types, but you're going to have to set it up better.  I'd try both a softbox for general light, and a bare bulb to get some specular highlights.  

Learn lighting.


----------



## booda303 (Feb 10, 2018)

Cortian said:


> Furthermore, pretty much everything appears out-of-focus.  Sometimes that's the intent, for softness, but, in this case, it simply makes everything look... well... out-of-focus.
> 
> Just my humble, inexperienced, opinion.  ICBW.


Ahhhh , I didn't want to focus on the  pandora name  but I tried  to focus on the bracelet. . Guess I missed that too.


----------



## booda303 (Feb 10, 2018)

Designer said:


> booda303 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 153560
> ...



Too much junk in the back. I'm going to try to take it again soon and repost with the suggestions given to me.


----------



## espresso2x (Feb 10, 2018)

As Sparky said, the lighting.


----------



## KmH (Feb 10, 2018)

Both the light quality and the light direction are giving the image that dull look.
Boosting the mid-tone contrast will help make it look sharper, without introducing a bunch of sharpening artifacts.
It would really be helpful knowing what edits you did and what editing application you used.

The book recommended - _Light: Science and Magic_ is so often recommended it's in it's 5th edition.


----------



## booda303 (Feb 10, 2018)

KmH said:


> Both the light quality and the light direction are giving the image that dull look.
> Boosting the mid-tone contrast will help make it look sharper, without introducing a bunch of sharpening artifacts.
> It would really be helpful knowing what edits you did and what editing application you used.
> 
> The book recommended - _Light: Science and Magic_ is so often recommended it's in it's 5th edition.



I have light room but I haven't experimented much. All I know is the simple exposure and contrast.  I have learned not to use pop of flash and if i do I have to diffuse it.  I heard taking pictures with natural light is best. I tried that with the bracelet today but it flopped.


----------



## booda303 (Feb 10, 2018)

I will get the white paper soon to make this work and also read up on my lighting. For now I tried the not so much junk in the back ground but this was all I had with not so much junk. This time I focused on the little heart. I used flash but diffused it with paper.    Probably not much different.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 10, 2018)

booda303 said:


> This was taken by the window but it is cloudy.


Been there.  Done that.  Got the tee-shirt to prove it.



booda303 said:


> Any thing I can purchase that's not expensive for lighting at home ?


I have much the same problem, but for a different type of photography: Macros.

I _may_ have an "inexpensive" answer.  There are these lights I just discovered, regarded as expen$ive in muggles' terms, but not so much in terms of what photographers are used to paying: OttLite.  They're _alleged_ to emit light that emulates daylight.

_And_ they're on sale for 50% off right now at JoAnne Fabrics stores.

I just picked up an LED one that looked like it had good dispersion built-in, rated at 445 lumens (probably at the bezel), which is not too shabby, for $30.  Initially it looks pretty good.  I'm going to have to take a representative collection of objects, photograph them under sunlight (supposed to get some Monday), then this thing, to see how they compare.

_But_ these are not big lights.  I'm photographing small stuff, so small lights suffice, but bigger objects... not so much.  I _think_ they may work for some forms of product photography, which is what you're doing, too.  Might need more than one.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 10, 2018)

OttLight...they have a bunch of different types! OttLite - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

Which one did you get, Cortian?

OttLite® LED Task Lamp


----------



## Cortian (Feb 10, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Which one did you get, Cortian?


This one: http://www.joann.com/ottlite#174;-c...refn1=prod_type&sz=36&start=37&prefv1=Product


----------



## KmH (Feb 10, 2018)

For what it's worth, Lightroom (Lr) is one word and being the name of a product is a proper noun and gets capitalized.

Using Lr's Develop model, and it's Basic panel, the Clarity slider adjusts mid-tone contrast.
The Clarity, Vibrance, and Saturation sliders are collectively known as Presence controls, which is why they are together.
The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop (2nd Edition)

Martin Evening describes every feature & function Lr has.
The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic CC Book: Plus an introduction to the new Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC across desktop, web, and mobile


----------



## booda303 (Feb 13, 2018)

KmH said:


> For what it's worth, Lightroom (Lr) is one word and being the name of a product is a proper noun and gets capitalized.
> 
> Using Lr's Develop model, and it's Basic panel, the Clarity slider adjusts mid-tone contrast.
> The Clarity, Vibrance, and Saturation sliders are collectively known as Presence controls, which is why they are together.
> ...


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 13, 2018)

booda303 said:


> View attachment 153595 I will get the white paper soon to make this work and also read up on my lighting. For now I tried the not so much junk in the back ground but this was all I had with not so much junk. This time I focused on the little heart. I used flash but diffused it with paper.    Probably not much different.



This time is overexposed and the lighting is quite harsh. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## booda303 (Feb 13, 2018)

I'm going to order my little ottlite in the mean time I've found a dark background and my ISO was more than 1000.  Is this picture a little better ?


----------



## booda303 (Feb 13, 2018)

Ooo ... Is there a possible way for someone to edit my pic on their end so that I can see how someone else would have  taken this pic ?


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 13, 2018)

booda303 said:


> Is there a possible way for someone to edit my pic on their end so that I can see how someone else would have taken this pic ?



That wont tell you how someone else would take the photo all it would do it tell you how someone else would edit your photo. 

to know how someone else would take the photo someone else would have to set up the lighting, stage the item and take the photo.

Having someone edit a poorly lit etc image wont teach you what you need to learn.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 13, 2018)

If nothing else, I've sometimes opened blinds, turned lamp shades, etc. to get as much light on the subject as possible. 

The depth of field affects it too. I think it would be better to have the name of the product sharp too so there isn't lettering out of focus that your eyes and brain are trying to read. Look how much of the image is out of focus in the first composition. That to me makes a difference, to have a large part of the image out of focus, and I think it's noticeable here because you see thru the bracelet (if you know what I mean).


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2018)

booda303 said:


> View attachment 153740 I'm going to order my little ottlite in the mean time I've found a dark background and my ISO was more than 1000.  Is this picture a little better ?



If you have a tripod, or can keep the camera steady with a firm support, there is absolutely no need to go to ISO 1,000; using a tripod and the self-timer delay, it's possible to keep the ISO low, where the dynamic range is widest on the sensor of almost any d-slr camera, and then you can stop the lens down to f/11 or f/13 or f/16 and get pretty much everything into focus, and use a sloooow shutter speed, somewhere between 3/4 second and 3 seconds, depending on the brightness of the lights you have.


----------



## booda303 (Feb 14, 2018)

Thank you all for your much needed feedback. I will keep trying to achieve my goal on trying to get  this Picture that I'm trying to capture.  Hopefully the next photo will be an improvement.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 14, 2018)

In the ones you've posted, I would agree with Vintage snaps on DOF. On my camera for example with a 50mm lens, set f/8 with a distance to subject of 12 inches, only 3/8" total depth would be in focus. Drop to f/1.8 and you only 3/32" in focus, while f/16 that Darell suggested would give you 3/4" . Here's a good online calculator that will help you Online Depth of Field Calculator . Try playing with the numbers and you'll find that the DOF is a function of the lens and the distance from the subject which can also be used to gain DOF.

Darrel gave you some great advice above though he didn't explain why not to use a higher ISO. The higher the ISO the more noise you have in the image, which is not something that's appealing on a product shot.


----------



## bulldurham (Feb 14, 2018)

Some selective sharpening, a mid-tone correction and a square crop does wonders for this image.  I might suggest you change your editing preferences to it is OK to edit. Lots can be learned from others.


----------



## booda303 (Feb 17, 2018)

Sighh!! Okay , I still don't have my ottlite( in the mail ) I did use led light from my cell phone .  I did however use 1/10 shutter speed , no flash , 
F 10  and table top tripod one of these photos were self timer.  I know that it's still not near what it's suppose to be but I think I'm kinda getting the concept . I can see how lighting effects photo  I did try to edit the photo however  im not not in  the editing stages yet because I have to do some studying on that.  I do see now from the original picture I posted and now these , I see the difference between f 2.8 and f 10 little progress on my end with that but still a little blurry . If on a tripod  is this the sharpest it would get ?


----------

