# How was this shot?



## Quovadis (Aug 9, 2016)

Could you guys please give me an idea of how many lights he is using and where?
I see one from the top right, and one behind. Or is his light on top left?
How does he get the right and left bottom corners of the bag illuminated? Are the bottom corners being illuminated only by the reflection off the white plexi glass? Is that even plexi glass?
What lens do you think he is using? Do you think this is continuous light or strobes?
Anything else you can see?

Thanks
Quo

*Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights.  You may post a link.*


----------



## tirediron (Aug 9, 2016)

FWIW, I would say the bag was illuminated with a single light high and right, and a small kicker on the background.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 10, 2016)

not seeing the picture that was attached ...
the answer is in the shadow(s), so check the shadow(s).

just take a purse, and a flashlight, move it around at various heights and locations to visually duplicate the shadow(s).  If it's One light, you should be able to easily approx duplicate any shadow(s) though not the size and shape of the light source as easily.

Then use the flashlight to bounce it off of a surface onto a subject, and understand reflection lighting some more.

You may want to reread chapter 5 - Revealing Shape and Coutour in your light, science and magic book.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 10, 2016)

How did this Michael Kors bag spark a fashion phenomenon?


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 10, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> How did this Michael Kors bag spark a fashion phenomenon?


just the image ==>
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015..._tote_retails_from_260-m-16_1431199753789.jpg

Look at the shadows, and brightness going to darkness.
dark shadows underneath the left and right edges, and the emblem tag clearly show a light from above, and the angle that the light would be at.
You are getting white reflection at the bottom of the bag from light above bouncing off of the pedestal back up to the purse.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2016)

It was shot with a camera.  

This would be an excellent read: Light Science And Magic 5th Edition | B&H Photo Video

Not only will you learn how these things are done but how to do them yourself.  

Or you might want to ask the photographer. Graham Pearson Photography   » Contact


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 10, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This would be an excellent read: Light Science And Magic 5th Edition | B&H Photo Video


He has it ...


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > This would be an excellent read: Light Science And Magic 5th Edition | B&H Photo Video
> ...


I didn't see that in the OP's posts.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 10, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


yup, in another thread ...
but it nicely reiterates the importance of that book in understanding lighting.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 10, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> It was shot with a camera.
> 
> This would be an excellent read: Light Science And Magic 5th Edition | B&H Photo Video
> 
> ...



Yes, I contacted the photographer. What interests me most is how you see it.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 10, 2016)

Guys.........
started 9 feet away with the 55-200 as per KR suggestions. All of this, with a lack of light. I then joined this forum and many of you helped me. 
Bought a few lenses over the past few weeks and tried them.
I think I have finally found my sweet spot it's at 34mm with the 18-55 that came on the camera. 
I have a 35mm prime on order. I returned the 50mm prime.
My next investment are strobes. I'm just being super careful before I pull the trigger, and trying to learn as much as possible before spending the money.
I am now very close to the bags at 34mm. I'm shooting at 400 ISO, and yes, Robbins was totally correct about increasing ISO (in my particular case). I'm at f11 which seems perfect for the bags and s 1/60 or thereabouts.
The images require very little sharpening, I'm a happy camper for now...and ready to open a new can of worms with the strobes!!


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 11, 2016)

Strobes ... Perspective distortion ...


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

I just shot these up close at 35mm. Astro Nikon just warned me about distortion. I know nothing about distortion. Are these pictures suffering from distortion?
I do not understand how to detect "distortion". I know what the word means in English, but do not know how it applies to these bags.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

I read up on distortion...it's more what BULGE is in photoshop, a bulge effect coming at us....ummm


----------



## waday (Aug 11, 2016)

For future pictures, you may want to try to smooth the bag over with your hand or somehow get rid of some of the bulges. It looks very lumpy.

Also, the logo on that bag, which I'm assuming is probably the most important part of that bag, is not clearly visible with lots of reflections in it. Just something to consider if you reshoot.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 11, 2016)

perspective distortion.  more easily seen in people pics.
but something to watch for if you are shooting up close.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 11, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> What interests me most is how you see it.



Probably just one large overhead light--that's it.

It was basically shot like a portrait and not a product.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

Now something new has appeared in my view finder in the areas around the bag. I can only see this in the white areas around the bag.
It's like radio waves, lines ...very difficult to describe.


----------



## waday (Aug 11, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> Now something new has appeared in my view finder in the areas around the bag. I can only see this in the white areas around the bag.
> It's like radio waves, lines ...very difficult to describe.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

waday said:


> Quovadis said:
> 
> 
> > Now something new has appeared in my view finder in the areas around the bag. I can only see this in the white areas around the bag.
> > It's like radio waves, lines ...very difficult to describe.


HA!! f***** ha!


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 11, 2016)

waday said:


> Quovadis said:
> 
> 
> > Now something new has appeared in my view finder in the areas around the bag. I can only see this in the white areas around the bag.
> > It's like radio waves, lines ...very difficult to describe.


There was a 2002 Documentary Movie that reviews this phenomenon, called "Signs" with Mel Gibson.


----------



## Designer (Aug 11, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> Now something new has appeared in my view finder in the areas around the bag. I can only see this in the white areas around the bag.
> It's like radio waves, lines ...very difficult to describe.


Let's keep trying to learn the correct terminology. 

Distortion (not "bulge") is the optical distortion induced by the lens.  Some lenses produce more than others, and some focal lengths produce more than others in the same lens.

To minimize distortion, use a longer focal length and back away from your subject.  This is why your 35mm lens is probably not the best choice because you will be too close to your subject.

Moiré is the optical creation of patterns of lines that are not actually there, but the lens/sensor produces them.  Some sensors have a filter that minimizes the moiré.


----------



## waday (Aug 11, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > Quovadis said:
> ...


That's right! I forgot about that. In the documentary, I learned that the aliens would essentially die if they came into contact with water. I never understood why they came to a water-rich planet. They must have really good raincoats.

Sorry for the spoilers...


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 11, 2016)

waday said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...



The aliens came to steal our Aluminum Foil


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

Just received the 35mm prime. WOW! it's so sharp compared to the 18-55.
The pic is a tad too dark and under exposed,  but the sharpness and clarity is what I have been looking for.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

It's way sharper than the 55mm AF my friend lent me...I hope I did not get lucky with the "beginners first shot with a real 35mm thing"


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 11, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> Just received the 35mm prime. WOW! it's so sharp compared to the 18-55.
> The pic is a tad too dark and under exposed,  but the sharpness and clarity is what I have been looking for.


it is way sharper
the 18-55 is better than the 55-200.  But they are both low end regardless .. think that was mentioned before.


----------



## Designer (Aug 11, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> It's way sharper than the 55mm AF my friend lent me...


If you don't mind; please tell me exactly which lens that is.  I don't remember your having mentioned it before now.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 11, 2016)

Framing/perspective was hard since I didnt have a tripod handy but:





vs.






The biggest thing I can notice is the amount of foreground.  In the 200mm shot, you can actually see the front edge of the board I shot on.   In the 50mm shot, you're only seeing about half the front edge.  So the shorter the lens to closer you are to the subject and the more exaggerated things close to the lens get.

The other thing that you can notice between the two is the shadow cast by the handle.  Look at the distance between it and the bag on the 50mm vs the 200mm.  Shooting further away compresses (flattens) things down.

I grabbed a pretty sqaured up bag, so it's hard notice any other other difference between focal lengths, the edge of the bag looks much difference between the two, but that could have been due to the angle and height I was shooting at between the shots.

In the 50mm shot I was like maybe 3' away from the bag, in the 200mm shot--maybe 15'.



Now for lens sharpness.  My Tamron 70-200 is a sharp $1100 lens:






but it pales in comparison to a $150 prime:





_I need to double check my AF is accurate._



The setup was a just a single softbox directly above the bag pointed down.





I did not use that umbrella light you see.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Framing/perspective was hard since I didnt have a tripod handy but:
> 
> View attachment 125901
> 
> ...



Gosh!! You make it sound so easy...ONE LIGHT!! maybe I have too many lights...thank you for trying, I greatly appreciate it...


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

Why doe the bag here look pretty good, but the metal is too bright in front buckle?
How can i reduce the brightness of that metal (without photoshop I mean).
I also noticed the bag looks very elongate..compared to the actual bag...is this an example of distortion?


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

BTW
My cats are sleeping in the white tent, I trashed it. 
I have a new set up, maybe too much light. Those studio pro soft boxes are holding 7 x 100 watt bulbs.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

I'm setting up a boom stand for the very first time. Does one really put sand in the bags? Is it not messy?


----------



## Braineack (Aug 11, 2016)

Mine are filled with rocks I bought at Lowes.

The buckel is so reflective because your captures a direct reflection of light.



Look how significantly different shooting at 24mm made it look:






I was inches away from it.  Look how square it made it look, but look at the image i took above of the setup.  im standing maybe 20-25' away, it's more trapezoid shaped if anything.


Still very sharp, I need to put my 70-200 through the ringer and maybe send it in for adjusting


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 11, 2016)

You have a nice purse collection Braineack !!


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

Yes it does look different @24mm....ummm

Funny you should mention Lowes, just got back with a bag full of Pea gravel 5 cubic feet....half of the bloody bag is filled with sand. I'm washing the gravel in the kitchen using a strainer. Do not buy this pea gravel from Lowes, it has an orange tint they add to the gravel. Now all my hands are orange, and My wife is really pissed because there's bits of gravel everywhere. To make matters worse the gravel is all wet now I have washed it. So can't put it in the bags !!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I should have used those LEAD lights i bought to counter balance my boom stand!!


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

Is this correct? The light is right above?
What is the advantage?
here is the set up, as well as the first picture taken using the boom stand. Now it seems the bottom of the bag is dark? Is the position of the top light correct?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 11, 2016)

First and foremost, you need to shape the bags properly.  Use nylon stockings, shredded newspaper, tissue-paper, and similar materials will make good filling so that the bag has an appealing "filled" (but NOT over-stuffed) look and a pleasing shape rather than the slightly sagging, pathetic appearance it has now.  

Don't cut off the tops of the straps!  If you want them in a suspended or 'carrying' position then use fishing line or similar to shape them in a more oval shape and then remove the line in post.  

As far as the lighting goes, continuous light is going to make this more difficult than it needs to be, but it's do-able.  Lighting always starts with the key light.  In this case, I would place the key about 15-20 degrees off-axis and angled at about 45 degrees.  I would use a reflector opposite to fill in the shadows, but depending on how that works, I would bring in a second light 2/3 - 1 stop below key about about 45 degrees off the opposite axis and probably almost parallel to the side of the bag.


----------



## Quovadis (Aug 11, 2016)

tirediron said:


> First and foremost, you need to shape the bags properly.  Use nylon stockings, shredded newspaper, tissue-paper, and similar materials will make good filling so that the bag has an appealing "filled" (but NOT over-stuffed) look and a pleasing shape rather than the slightly sagging, pathetic appearance it has now.
> 
> Don't cut off the tops of the straps!  If you want them in a suspended or 'carrying' position then use fishing line or similar to shape them in a more oval shape and then remove the line in post.
> 
> As far as the lighting goes, continuous light is going to make this more difficult than it needs to be, but it's do-able.  Lighting always starts with the key light.  In this case, I would place the key about 15-20 degrees off-axis and angled at about 45 degrees.  I would use a reflector opposite to fill in the shadows, but depending on how that works, I would bring in a second light 2/3 - 1 stop below key about about 45 degrees off the opposite axis and probably almost parallel to the side of the bag.



Sounds like a plan
Thank you


----------



## Braineack (Aug 12, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> Yes it does look different @24mm....ummm
> 
> Funny you should mention Lowes, just got back with a bag full of Pea gravel 5 cubic feet....half of the bloody bag is filled with sand. I'm washing the gravel in the kitchen using a strainer. Do not buy this pea gravel from Lowes, it has an orange tint they add to the gravel. Now all my hands are orange, and My wife is really pissed because there's bits of gravel everywhere. To make matters worse the gravel is all wet now I have washed it. So can't put it in the bags !!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I should have used those LEAD lights i bought to counter balance my boom stand!!




lol, i used larger gray drainage rocks, and put them in ziplock bags before putting them in the "sandbags" so i wouldn't risk pissing off the wifey.


to piggyback on what Tirediron said, when I was doing product photography for a retail website, we used reusable inflatable pouches to help fill in bags.  They had straws so once you put it in the bag you could add/remove air as desired and really helped with less-sturdy bags.  Having brand new product helps too.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 12, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> You have a nice purse collection Braineack !!


Thanks buddy, I was hoping you'd notice.


----------



## Designer (Aug 12, 2016)

Quovadis said:


> Is this correct? The light is right above?
> What is the advantage?
> here is the set up, as well as the first picture taken using the boom stand. Now it seems the bottom of the bag is dark? Is the position of the top light correct?


O.K., now this is where the artist (you) needs to make an executive decision.  What is the image you want to convey to the shopper?  How would that best be presented?  What "look" are you trying to create?

You can copy or emulate somebody else's lighting scheme, or you can develop your own, but the ultimate decision about where to position your lights is yours to make.  Try some different lighting plans that you have seen, (consult magazines, catalogs, etc.) and keep trying until you find a scheme that you like.


----------



## Designer (Aug 12, 2016)

Braineack said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > You have a nice purse collection Braineack !!
> ...


I can't wait until we have a thread about photographing shoes!


----------



## Braineack (Aug 12, 2016)

don't worry, i got that covered too:




Heel by The Braineack, on Flickr



I agree with you above statement.   The only reason I setup the lighting like I did was because @Quovadis asked how the MK bag was shot.  I'm pretty sure it was done in a similar manner.  It's not how I'd shoot most (if any) bags, it was a dramatic lighting pattern for a specific purpose -- not to sell bags.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 12, 2016)

Designer said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


he has matching heels to his purses.


----------

