# Product Photography Beginner Set



## Frontrunner

Hi all,

My company is setting up a webshop. This webshop will have a wide range of shoes (approximately 450). I've been doing some research and I was wondering what you would advice me.

At this point I'm looking at a "studiokit" from interfit. This set contains a fotocube and two daylight lamps. We are interested in a kit like this, because we don't want to modify the photos with photoshop to get an almost perfect white background.

Is this the way to go, or would you advice me something else? Any other tips regarding product photography for a beginner?


----------



## Don Kondra

Object Photography Kits by Alzo Digital

Cheers, Don


----------



## Imaginis

Frontrunner said:


> Is this the way to go, or would you advice me something else? Any other tips regarding product photography for a beginner?



I would recommend your company to hire a professional photographer instead of putting you on the spot to do the job (presuming you are not actually a professional photographer).


----------



## musicaleCA

Imaginis said:


> Frontrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the way to go, or would you advice me something else? Any other tips regarding product photography for a beginner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend your company to hire a professional photographer instead of putting you on the spot to do the job (presuming you are not actually a professional photographer).
Click to expand...


QFT. That, and many products are photoshopped to hell and back so that they look pristine. No shoe doesn't have wrinkles in the outer material, so why do all those shoes on billboards look so perfect?


----------



## Don Kondra

Nah, product photography on a small scale is fairly straightforward.  

A tripod, light tent, three CF bulbs in clip on reflectors and shoot in Aperture mode.

If you can, get them to spring for a tethered computer, that helps alot 

Cheers, Don


----------



## epatsellis

Don Kondra said:


> Nah, product photography on a small scale is fairly straightforward.
> 
> A tripod, light tent, three CF bulbs in clip on reflectors and shoot in Aperture mode.
> 
> If you can, get them to spring for a tethered computer, that helps alot
> 
> Cheers, Don



My $.02, fwiw. 

Easy and straightforward, perhaps, perhaps not. About 80% of my clients come about by bailing out somebody who thinks the same thing. Once you have worked with sufficiently consistent and quality lighting and light modifiers, as well as having the real world experience, then it gets somewhat easier. 

Shoes and anything else that's highly reflective demand extreme skill in the use of fill cards and flags, as well as knowing how light will react and knowing how to shoot to eliminate unwanted reflections. Creating highlights and shadows to show shape doesn't automatically happen by itself. A shooting table is always extremely helpful as well. While you can do it, do yo bring that level of expertise to the table, so to speak? If not, it's far better to let those who have spent their lives learning and doing shoot it.

My preference is for getting it right in camera, if you have to photoshop it to remove a background or adjust levels, you screwed up.


----------



## Park

Don Kondra said:


> Nah, product photography on a small scale is fairly straightforward.



You got it almost right. I think the statement would be more correct as

Nah, bad product photography on a small scale is fairly straightforward.  

Shoes, particularly women's shoes, are traditionally shot creatively not just like something you are selling on eBay. They should outsource this to a good product photographer and have images that help sell the shoes not just photos taken inside a light tent.

They are not real but the shoes on this site are examples of what a great product photographer can do. michel tcherevkoff studio :: 212.229.1733


----------



## Christie Photo

epatsellis said:


> Easy and straightforward, perhaps, perhaps not. About 80% of my clients come about by bailing out somebody who thinks the same thing.




Yeah...  this is true.

There's no "one-size-fits-all" for this sort of work.

-Pete


----------



## Imaginis

Don Kondra said:


> Nah, product photography on a small scale is fairly straightforward.



Well, that completely depends on the end result you expect. If you are looking to get a commercially usable shot, it is much more involved than just setting up a light tent and shooting in Aperture Priority (which will yield a gray background, instead of the desired white). Of course if you don't mind how the shot looks like in the end, it is certainly straightforward.


----------



## Don Kondra

Oh, I care....

And did just fine with continuous lights before moving on to studio strobes.

I will admit I probably spent more time learning to use them than the casual shooter is willing to spend 

Having said that, I still maintain someone reasonably competent with their camera can get good results fairly quickly with a light tent, some CF bulbs and a paper backdrop, the $50 tent comes with four backdrops. 

I groan every time I read another "I built a tent" thread. Add up your time, cost of the PVC pipe, cutting up a perfectly good cardboard box, etc. and what have you got 

For what it's worth, this is a very early test shot I think with 45w CF bulbs. 








Cheers, Don


----------



## Christie Photo

Don Kondra said:


> ...this is a very early test shot I think with 45w CF bulbs.



And (remember, we love you, Don) it demonstrates how the lighting is lacking.

It doesn't communicate the shape of the nozzle or the twist cap, nor the knurls on the twist cap.  The label needs some more "pop," and the printing on the back is bleeding through.  Also, the top and thumb-side of the sprayer is lost.

I guess what I'm tying to say is this lighting, while "adequate," is not particularly "good" lighting for this product.

-Pete


----------



## Don Kondra

Thanks for that Pete 

You do bring up some good points on my test shot.

The blame for those shortcomings lie more with my amateur attempts at post processing at the time rather than the lighting system. 

I'm not sure this is even relevant anymore since we haven't heard back from the OP but I still maintain, if on a budget, one can get "acceptable" results with continuous lights and a tent at a cost less than the price of one brand name studio strobe. 

The "acceptable" results will take some experimenting to achieve, no matter the lighting system.

Cheers, Don


----------



## CygnusStudios

Imaginis said:


> Well, that completely depends on the end result you expect. If you are looking to get a commercially usable shot, it is much more involved than just setting up a light tent and shooting in Aperture Priority (which will yield a gray background, instead of the desired white). Of course if you don't mind how the shot looks like in the end, it is certainly straightforward.



I could not agree more. I make my living shooting products, and I get most of my clients who came from the "it is pretty straightforward" mentality. There is a huge difference in what is done for websites to print to packaging material. Then you have to understand what an editor or designer is going to do to take that image and add the text, blend whatever color is finally going to be used, and make it conform to their needs beyond the image itself.


----------



## epatsellis

Don Kondra said:


> I'm not sure this is even relevant anymore since we haven't heard back from the OP but I still maintain, if on a budget, one can get "acceptable" results with continuous lights and a tent at a cost less than the price of one brand name studio strobe.



Don, 
you might be surprised, if you can live without .1 fstop adjustability and a little scrounging, you can shoot with broncolor for less than $150 for a pack and two heads. I've used broncolor for years, and if someone really feels that they need 1/3 of a stop ability, a .1 and .2 ND gel are cheap, and give you 1/3 stop adjustments. 

The 5 304 and 404 packs, a dozen heads and tons of modfiers cost me less than $1000, most people would only need one pack and a couple of heads for product work. Depends on your ability to get creative, and how much you're willing to compromise on image quality and quality of light.


erie


----------



## Imaginis

CygnusStudios said:


> I make my living shooting products, and I get most of my clients who came from the "it is pretty straightforward" mentality.



A little bit off-topic: I recently had a small company inquire about my prices for a "pretty straight forward" product shot. In the end they decided I was too expensive and that an amateur photographer will do it cheaper. Now I am just waiting for a call back because they are not happy with the result.


----------



## CygnusStudios

My personal favorite is when a potential client will tell me what they are currently paying. My response is that if they were happy with the results that they were getting at that rate level we would not be having this conversation.


----------



## epatsellis

Ironically, I had that same conversation yesterday with a potential client. They thought my prices were too high, after all _soandso_ shoots them for (get this) $25 an hour. This guy traveled 100 mile, shot 450 pictures and charged her $125. At my standard rate, in studio it's not unusual to spend alot of time with reflectors and flags, getting shadows and reflections just right and charge more than that for one product.

I asked her why we were even talking, her reply was she liked the price, but most of the pictures didn't look all that great.


----------



## CygnusStudios

There is a part of me that would love to accept one of these $25 shoots and show up with a Kodak disposable camera


----------



## Dominantly

IMHO, it doesnt really get any easier then small product photography.
People may THINK it's hard, or that they have some special touch that only 500 years of experience and the most expensive equipment can buy.... But the truth is, you can create damn good photos with materials you can find at your local arts and craft store. Sure you can spend alot more money on a setup from some company, but that's not really worth it unless you have the money to blow on it.

For the materials, white foam core boards, white bristol paper for the sweep, other colored/textured paper for different effects, clip on lights from a home improvement store (I use 4 of various sizes), and 100W Daylight bulbs.
Pretty simple.


----------



## Christie Photo

Dominantly said:


> IMHO, it doesnt really get any easier then small product photography.
> People may THINK it's hard, or that they have some special touch that only 500 years of experience and the most expensive equipment can buy....   But the truth is, you can create damn good photos with materials you can find at your local arts and craft store.



Well, crap.  All these years I've been wasting my money when I should have going to Hobby Lobby.

Could you show us some of those "damn good photos" made with the Home Depot equipment?

Thanks!

-Pete


----------



## Dominantly

Christie Photo said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, it doesnt really get any easier then small product photography.
> People may THINK it's hard, or that they have some special touch that only 500 years of experience and the most expensive equipment can buy....   But the truth is, you can create damn good photos with materials you can find at your local arts and craft store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, crap.  All these years I've been wasting my money when I should have going to Hobby Lobby.
> 
> Could you show us some of those "damn good photos" made with the Home Depot equipment?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Pete
Click to expand...

Well, that would depend.... Could you be the type of person that would be able to take the concept of how something manufactured works, and recreate it with your own labor and materials?

Well, here is the VERY FIRST photo taken in my VERY FIRST lightbox. Well, it was actually a Frito Lays cardboard box I had picked up when purchasing items at Costco. So this one wasn't a "Hobby Lobby" version. Maybe $10 in materials to make take this photo...


----------



## Christie Photo

Oh...  I saw this one already.  I was looking for an example of the "damn good" stuff.

-Pete


----------



## Dominantly

Christie Photo said:


> Oh... I saw this one already. I was looking for an example of the "damn good" stuff.
> 
> -Pete


 Well, I browsed a link you have in your Sig, and have come to the conclusion, to get a "Damn Good" shot, we might need outside assistance.

:thumbup:


But while it is up, please do provide your expert diagnosis on the lighting:mrgreen:


----------



## epatsellis

Well Pete, at least the light has come on for one....

I might add that for somebody to think that having a few gadgets and a digital camera makes you a professional photographer, in contrast to those of us who have literally ate, slept and breathed photography for (alot) more than a few years is simply silly.


----------



## Dominantly

epatsellis said:


> Well Pete, at least the light has come on for one....
> 
> I might add that for somebody to think that having a few gadgets and a digital camera makes you a professional photographer, in contrast to those of us who have literally ate, slept and breathed photography for (alot) more than a few years is simply silly.


 Quick question, what would you use define a "Professional Photographer"?


----------



## Christie Photo

Dominantly said:


> But while it is up, please do provide your expert diagnosis on the lighting



Well...  your lighting is a pretty good start.  You have a tough subject presenting a few challenges.  There's the black drive with texture and embossed logo and the shiny bits of the swivel and clasp... plus the woven texture of the strap.  You've done a fair job with the drive and kept the metal parts from clipping.  Overall the lighting is on the flat side.  The best way I can tell you to see this is simply squint at the image.  There's not a whole lot "poppin'" aside from the printing on the strap.

More though... aside from the lighting...  is the composition.  I'm not certain what you're showing us here...  the strap or the drive?  I suspect both.

I like the angle of the drive.  I'd bet we all know what a USB plug looks like, buy I think it should show in the view.  I think there's a missed opportunity with the strap too.  It's pretty much in a clump.  Did you try some other positions?...  something a bit more flowing?  Perhaps creating some lines leading to the drive?

These are some things to think about.

But, getting back to the original thread, a product photographer has to be ready to consistently produce good (salable) images of all sorts of subjects, often with an art director standing behind you, looking over your shoulder.  We've all make do at times with chewing gum and paper clips, but it's not a good plan to make it your regular, exclusive gear.

BTW...  I do find your processing of your Bellwether shot interesting.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo

Dominantly said:


> Quick question, what would you use define a "Professional Photographer"?




OH... I know this was aimed at epatsellis, but just let me get in first with the assertion that being a professional has NOTHING to do with getting paid.  Whether its a professional electrician, heath professional, professional plumber...  whatever.  Its just NOT about being paid.

Whew!  Got that out of my system.

-Pete


----------



## epatsellis

Dominantly said:


> epatsellis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Pete, at least the light has come on for one....
> 
> I might add that for somebody to think that having a few gadgets and a digital camera makes you a professional photographer, in contrast to those of us who have literally ate, slept and breathed photography for (alot) more than a few years is simply silly.
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question, what would you use define a "Professional Photographer"?
Click to expand...


A professional artist/photographer/?, in my mind, is somebody who:

1.) derives a significant portion of their income from their art/photography/?

2.) has the depth and breadth of skills to effectively and consistently produce images that are visually effective as well as knowing the limits of your skills and equipment. As Pete mentioned, being able to do this while several people both on your payroll (stylists, prop dressers, assistants, etc.) and those that are paying you (AD, Marketing Manger, CEO and the like) stand around and maintaining a professional attitude while the AD (who took maybe one course in photography) or the designer tell you why your composition is flawed and how THEY want it.

3.) possesses the tools to allow the "magic" to happen, on time, in budget and on demand, without fail. (No excuses are ever acceptable) For a wedding photographer, that would mean at least one backup of everything you use on a shoot,with fully charged batteries and loaded with cards/film. For a commercial shooter, that means access to (rent, beg, borrow or steal) or owning backup equipment including multiple packs, heads, tripods, bodies, lenses, etc. The last point is critical, you cannot be considered professional if you don't have a plan that deals with equipment failure and a seamless integration of that plan. Yes, it's expensive, but it's part of the cost of doing business.


----------



## Dominantly

Christie Photo said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> 
> But while it is up, please do provide your expert diagnosis on the lighting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...  your lighting is a pretty good start.  You have a tough subject presenting a few challenges.  There's the black drive with texture and embossed logo and the shiny bits of the swivel and clasp... plus the woven texture of the strap.  You've done a fair job with the drive and kept the metal parts from clipping.  Overall the lighting is on the flat side.  The best way I can tell you to see this is simply squint at the image.  There's not a whole lot "poppin'" aside from the printing on the strap.
> 
> More though... aside from the lighting...  is the composition.  I'm not certain what you're showing us here...  the strap or the drive?  I suspect both.
> 
> I like the angle of the drive.  I'd bet we all know what a USB plug looks like, buy I think it should show in the view.  I think there's a missed opportunity with the strap too.  It's pretty much in a clump.  Did you try some other positions?...  something a bit more flowing?  Perhaps creating some lines leading to the drive?
> 
> These are some things to think about.
> 
> But, getting back to the original thread, a product photographer has to be ready to consistently produce good (salable) images of all sorts of subjects, often with an art director standing behind you, looking over your shoulder.  We've all make do at times with chewing gum and paper clips, but it's not a good plan to make it your regular, exclusive gear.
> 
> BTW...  I do find your processing of your Bellwether shot interesting.
> 
> -Pete
Click to expand...

Ah, I think we have some confusion as to what the photos intent was. I had just finished turning the cardboard box into the lightbox and was eager to try it out, I was in the office and looked around for something with color on it to put in there. The USB was on the desk and I literally picked it up and just put it in the box. This wasn't intended to sell a product, it was just a test to see how well the lighting worked and how the sweep looked.
But Thanks for your input on how to pick a focal point and point attention to it:thumbup:
As far as the lighting goes, I am completely happy with it. It did what it was suppose to do and it lit almost the entire "product" with little to no shadow while not blowing out or causing harsh reflections on the metal. The Blue and yellow do pop in my opinion, much more so then in person in fact as the strap is fairly old, and the additional aspects of the shot can be credited to camera setup and post production.

Remember my original post was based on how you can spend very little on a box setup and achieve good results. I believe my photo (which many cant believe was taken in a Frito Lays box) shows it is possible to create a good alternative with ample lighting and a seamless sweep, product setup be damned.

Oh and I didn't receive a single comment on that photo. I figured people just opened it and were turned away by having to click the link.


----------



## Dominantly

epatsellis said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> epatsellis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Pete, at least the light has come on for one....
> 
> I might add that for somebody to think that having a few gadgets and a digital camera makes you a professional photographer, in contrast to those of us who have literally ate, slept and breathed photography for (alot) more than a few years is simply silly.
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question, what would you use define a "Professional Photographer"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional artist/photographer/?, in my mind, is somebody who:
> 
> 1.) derives a significant portion of their income from their art/photography/?
> 
> 2.) has the depth and breadth of skills to effectively and consistently produce images that are visually effective as well as knowing the limits of your skills and equipment. As Pete mentioned, being able to do this while several people both on your payroll (stylists, prop dressers, assistants, etc.) and those that are paying you (AD, Marketing Manger, CEO and the like) stand around and maintaining a professional attitude while the AD (who took maybe one course in photography) or the designer tell you why your composition is flawed and how THEY want it.
> 
> 3.) possesses the tools to allow the "magic" to happen, on time, in budget and on demand, without fail. (No excuses are ever acceptable) For a wedding photographer, that would mean at least one backup of everything you use on a shoot,with fully charged batteries and loaded with cards/film. For a commercial shooter, that means access to (rent, beg, borrow or steal) or owning backup equipment including multiple packs, heads, tripods, bodies, lenses, etc. The last point is critical, you cannot be considered professional if you don't have a plan that deals with equipment failure and a seamless integration of that plan. Yes, it's expensive, but it's part of the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

Do you ever browse around Ken Rockwells site? Interesting reads on there for sure, one that I read a while ago covering this very topic was rather interesting and gave me some facts I didn't know previously.

Here is the piece I am speaking of: How to Become a Professional Photographer

Some quotes I found interesting.
"[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]_Photography               is not a profession_. Anyone               can call themselves a professional photographer. There are no licenses             and not even a college degree required. See             my page on Why Photography is Not a Profession."

"[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]There are tens             of millions of photographers. Photographs don't usually earn a business             much money. Therefore there isn't much money there to employ photographers,             and when there is, there are so many photographers who often will             work for free that employers don't need to pay very much to fill           the spot."

"[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If you want to make money in photography, it's probably           not by doing photography."

"[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It's _exactly_ like             golf or surfing. Golf is fun, and it's almost impossible to  get             people to pay you to do it. Only one guy in ten million makes lots             of money in surfing, photography or acting. Everyone else who makes             the money does it in something allied to the field, like making or             selling product or the dream."

"[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]_According               to Education             Portal in 2002, the average annual salary of people employed             as photographers was $24,040."_[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
"[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If you want             to photograph professionally you'll make less money, have to shoot             the boring stuff in crappy locations for which you're hired,              shoot it the way the client wants, and probably have to shoot everything             as if it's some big emergency every time. You'll probably only be             able to afford beat up old gear that's "good enough.""



While I do like your description, I do think it is a bit much. I think you were describing a production company.

[/FONT]


----------



## kundalini

epatsellis said:


> I might add that for somebody to think that having a few gadgets and a digital camera makes you a professional photographer,...


I have a few gadgets and a digital camers......... and I DO NOT think that makes me a professional. But after reading through this thread I thought I'd take a whipping from Pete or whoever as well.

Here's my shot. Mind you, I didn't bother to clean the boots other than the last time I was tromping through the woods. I didn't have the little do-dads to get the boots at the precise angles that was needed, however, I did modify a couple pieces of styrofoam to get some angles I was after.





 

Here's the shot I was trying to emulate that REI uses on their website.
Asolo FSN 95 GTX Hiking Boots - Men's at REI.com​ 
How'd I do with my few gadgets and digital camera?


Hmmm..... after posting, I can see some greying in the foreground.  A bit of lighting adjustments needed.​


----------



## epatsellis

Dominantly said:


> Do you ever browse around Ken Rockwells site? Interesting reads on there for sure, one that I read a while ago covering this very topic was rather interesting and gave me some facts I didn't know previously.
> 
> Here is the piece I am speaking of: How to Become a Professional Photographer
> 
> Some quotes I found interesting.
> "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]_Photography               is not a profession_. Anyone               can call themselves a professional photographer. There are no licenses             and not even a college degree required. See             my page on Why Photography is Not a Profession."
> 
> "[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]There are tens             of millions of photographers. Photographs don't usually earn a business             much money. Therefore there isn't much money there to employ photographers,             and when there is, there are so many photographers who often will             work for free that employers don't need to pay very much to fill           the spot."
> 
> "[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If you want to make money in photography, it's probably           not by doing photography."
> 
> "[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It's _exactly_ like             golf or surfing. Golf is fun, and it's almost impossible to  get             people to pay you to do it. Only one guy in ten million makes lots             of money in surfing, photography or acting. Everyone else who makes             the money does it in something allied to the field, like making or             selling product or the dream."
> 
> "[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]_According               to Education             Portal in 2002, the average annual salary of people employed             as photographers was $24,040."_[/FONT]
> [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
> "[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If you want             to photograph professionally you'll make less money, have to shoot             the boring stuff in crappy locations for which you're hired,              shoot it the way the client wants, and probably have to shoot everything             as if it's some big emergency every time. You'll probably only be             able to afford beat up old gear that's "good enough.""
> 
> 
> 
> While I do like your description, I do think it is a bit much. I think you were describing a production company.
> 
> [/FONT]



Ever see this on KR's about  page? 
_"I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion."_
While I like some of Ken's writings, his over the top lack of objectivity makes it seem rather banal and pointless. $24k a year, not likely unless you really screw the pooch, I make more than that in a depressed, rural environment, and I have interviewed for positions that start at $45k as a studio shooter. All you have to sell is knowledge and solutions, having both in surplus helps. Experience to know how to handle those "so and so couldn't do this" issues, as well as using stylists for food and MUA's for talent is a given in today's market, doing any less is cheating your client, and yourself. 

There are many, many successful photographers, making a good living shooting, and surprisingly, enjoying their work. Yes, in commercial work you shoot lots of crappy stuff in a way you would have done differently, but as long as the client doesn't know that and pays the bill on time, who cares.

When I started as a professional commercial shooter, I paid my dues, worked in a studio (for more than $10 an hour, in the early/mid 80's) learned everything I could and went out on my own. Honestly, if you think that one person can run a commercial studio by themselves, you've never been to one. When I had my studio, I had one person that did nothing but processing (today that person would be doing post work), another that handled the incoming and outgoing product and built sets, and 4 shooters full time, as well as an office staff. 

During the April/May Christmas rush (yes, you read that right), we would expand to 7 full time shooters. So we varied from anywhere from 10 to 13 people, plus myself. And we were one of the smaller shooting houses, though we did have a pile of huge companies (Spalding Sporting Goods, Danaher Tool Group, American Bosch, S&W, Moore Drop Forge (made Craftsman tools), to name a few of the larger ones, as well as hundreds of other, smaller clients. Even having only a few larger clients, you need at the very least somebody to handle scheduling and AP/AR issues, as you should never, ever interrupt a shoot to answer a phone or questions, you are on the client's dime and they expect (and deserve) 120%.

In a "real" commercial studio, you have at the very least an Art Director overseeing his shoot, and his word is as if handed down from God himself, as well as a stylist (for hair or food/product, depending on the shoot), the photographer and others. Even in this day and age, shooting digitally, I still have at least an AD and VP of marketing present on most product shoots I do, sometimes the Graphic Artists as well. There used to be a time where you'd have a "blue line" to shoot to, basically a rough comp of the layout with the type positioning and where the desired placement for the product should be. These days, most use a Photoshop overlay, same thing really. 

There are damn few "real" commercial studios left anymore, mostly due to the friend of a friend that just got a camera syndrome. 

One of the reasons I started shooting again was as a working graphic artist, I couldn't find a photographer that was worth a $hit. So I got back into shooting commercially, and I combine both skills in my creative services business. Not ideal, but considering where I'm at geographically it works. I can honestly say that any client I can get to use me never has left yet. Yes, I'm a lot more expensive, but I deliver a complete, finished product. On time, in budget and to my exceptionally high standards.

I'll let you in on a little secret, it takes far less time (and looks far more professional as well) to get it right in camera, than to spend hours of post making something look good. Intimate knowledge of lighting, capture media (film or digital, both are still used extensively) and understanding the entire offset reproduction process (as in why you have to light flatter than you would think, 4C offset can only hold 4-5 stops max and if you don't make the decision on what stays, somebody else will) Knowledge that you can't find on a website or by searching Google. 

That is one of my pet peeves, everybody wants to take the easy way. Instead, go light a product, use some fill cards and flags (and/or black fill cards to kill light) and spend a day learning how each affects lighting a product. Take a class in artificial lighting and composition. Take a couple of drawing classes, learn how to reproduce a 3d object in 2d, and the role that value plays in the perception of depth and volume. Use that knowledge to light an object. Learn about warm/cool colors and how they advance/recede. Do some serious testing of your capture medium and see how many stops it can hold, where the sweet spot is when exposing to the right of the histogram, etc. Learn the sweet spot of every lens you own. Learn how to comp packaging, w used to use airbrushes and rub off lettering, now I can do the same thing with a color laser or inkjet. Go beyond that and take a class or two in print technology, understand (or at least get a hint about) 4 color offset reproduction. (you can't know how to shoot for something you don't understand)

The actual technical aspects of photography are the easy part, learning to light effectively to convey volume and depth, as well as good compositional skills and color theory isn't. It's all related, odd as it seems. 

There's an old adage that to become a good photographer takes about 10,000 pictures, that may be true, but you can stack the deck in your favor.


----------



## Sue Bruce

I have been a product photographer for a while.  I also take event and commercial assignments occasionally.

I will not claim to be an expert, nor claim that my photos are perfect ... but I think I do a reasonable job.  

My studio set up uses 4 lights - 2 to light a paper background, a strobe with umbrella and a strobe with softbox.  I also always use a tripod, always use a wired shutter button (or what ever it's called) and always spend a very long time fiddling with the layout before shooting.

Infact, I think I spend more time finding small heavy objects to prop/balance stuff and tearing off pieces of tape than anything else!!

Like many who have commented on this thread, I prefer not to photoshop.  I will remove specs, improve contrast and color saturation sometimes ... but I don't like to do lots of photoshop work.

You can check out my stuff at Sue Bruce Photography

(These are some of the product shots I have done) ... feel free to wander around any look at my other work too.  Would love some feedback!  (although I hesitate to ask, because I know I'll take it to heart ...)

Sue


----------



## Slavko Leon

Frontrunner said:


> Hi all,
> 
> My company is setting up a webshop. This webshop will have a wide range of shoes (approximately 450). I've been doing some research and I was wondering what you would advice me.
> 
> At this point I'm looking at a "studiokit" from interfit. This set contains a fotocube and two daylight lamps. We are interested in a kit like this, because we don't want to modify the photos with photoshop to get an almost perfect white background.
> 
> Is this the way to go, or would you advice me something else? Any other tips regarding product photography for a beginner?


Just imagine the actual wedding day has arrived. Here is a typical sequence of events to help guide you on the wedding photography process. 
*At the House :* If you want to take shots of the bride getting ready, you should be one of the earliest to arrive at the brides house, so that you can set up your positions, tripods or whatever equipment you have to use.


----------

