Lighting 101

tab62

« on: March 23, 2011, 12:52 »

#link

Hi Stock Folks,

On this particular photo it was rejected do to the following reasons-

Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure

I am new to the photo world thus not sure what is might by the rejection in full detail? I had the exposure to 100 ISO and thought the lighting was good. Guess not.

Thanks.

Tom


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2011, 13:08 »

#link

you need to bring more light into the set.. it is dark dark despite a few blinks.. buy some strobes and you will see what I am talking about.. you can always place your set near a window and try to capture some of that light


	Ignore \| Logged

tab62

« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2011, 13:15 »

#link

The sad thing is that I had the lights and didn't use them- my fault. Lighting is an art by itself and I've got a lot to learn...


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2011, 13:26 »

#link

As mentioned in the other thread, why are you sticking slimy, uncooked fish with clean vegetables? What's the message here?


	Ignore \| Logged

cuppacoffee

« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2011, 14:25 »

#link

Check your monitor too. Are you seeing something different on your monitor as compared with the images on the websites? All of your images appear to be on the dark side. What colorspace are you working in? Do some measuring of your white and black values. Are you post processing your images on a decent monitor?


	Ignore \| Logged

tab62

« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2011, 15:49 »

#link

yeah, the composition is weak with the fresh veggies and uncooked fish. My monitor is a cheap Princeton $175 that I got from cosco a few years back. Any recommendations on monitors?


	Ignore \| Logged

aeonf

« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2011, 16:32 »

#link

The Dell u2210 is a great deal, or if you can afford it then the u2211.
if you have deeper pockets then we work with th u2410 which is a great monitor (saving up for the u3011)


	Ignore \| Logged

visceralimage

« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2011, 18:15 »

#link

I am looking at this image on an iMac 27"; I bet it does not look any better on my monitor than on yours. An expensive monitor is not going to light this shot; only light will do that. Look under all the vegs. and fish, there are dark areas, look at the fish, it looks dead (granted it is dead but the lighting sucks-)

Do you have a sliding glass door in your house; that is a big light source, use it with some reflector cards to study what the light does to the subject? If the sun is shining directly in, put a white bed sheet over the door, instant diffusion.

There are various ways to light food, this is not one of them. Some use a near over diffused head light with a rear quarter kicker, reflector and mirrors; other do 45 degree main and fill, etc.

When choosing items to put together in a set, choose items that go together. I can not think of one dish that uses these vegs. and raw slimy fish (just thinking of it makes me want to puke). Now, vegs, meat and totilla wraps go together; fish, knife and cutting board go together; fish and a cat licking the fish go together (smile); you get the idea.

BTW, not trying to be harsh, I just hate raw fish-it stinks, it is ugly, it is slimy, etc. So take my words with grain of salt.


	Ignore \| Logged

tab62

« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2011, 22:53 »

#link

LOL on the fish part. Yeah, I had to wash my hands several times on this shot! I don't like touching them too much- I much rather touched cooked fish for sure!

Here are my lights that I use in my very small studio- should these be good enough for most shots of did I get the wrong equipment? The two soft boxes have 5 bulbs in each one at 5500k and the spot light has one bulb at 6000k (75 watt).

Thanks.

Tom


	Ignore \| Logged

visceralimage

« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2011, 01:21 »

#link

Looks like some nice equipment; now you just need to cut the lights in the room and really look at your subject under different light. BTW, softboxes are great but sometimes you may need more raw light, more directional, etc.

The difference between 5500K and 6000K is enough to cause a white balance mismatch, better to have all the same color temp.


	Ignore \| Logged

tab62

« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2011, 08:58 »

#link

Good point on the different temps of the lights. My intent it to blast the background to really make it White. In the past I used to use the 'Curves & Mask' feature in CS5 and chose the White Dropper which really makes the White background turn white but it also hit the objects especially if they have any white on them.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2011, 11:37 »

#link

See the Tutorials Page
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photoshop-tutorials/

and Tyler's tutorial on isolating
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photoshop-tutorials/how-to-isolate-on-white/


	Ignore \| Logged

tab62

« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2011, 14:28 »

#link

Great tutorials! I used the 'Dodge' tool on some of my photos and thought I did a great job. Than one of the stock editors sent me an email telling me not to use the dodge tool and basically learn how to take a good photo with proper lighting. Now I wonder how many of you folks use this technique? Maybe I screwed up by touching the subject slighting?


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Lighting 101

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results