MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Two Photos Rejected for Poor Lighting/White Balance  (Read 9596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 13, 2016, 11:08 »
0
I just submitted my first photos to Shutterstock and three of the six submissions were accepted.  I am happy about that, but I have questions about two of the photos that were rejected (one is attached). 

Both of them were shot in my homemade light box and were rejected for "Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance" and "White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used".  My light box is a fiberglass bathtub that I cut in half and painted with flat white latex paint.  The light source is a single 40w florescent bulb in a 16" galvanized metal reflector, with the light diffused by a white cotton t-shirt (I know, I know, but I live in a developing country in West Africa).  The photos were edited in Lightroom 6.

So, based on that, I have two questions:

1.  Is there anything I can do in Lightroom to rescue these photos?
2.  What do I need to change in my light box setup to improve my results and reduce post-production time in Lightroom?


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2016, 11:14 »
+4
In Lightroom, go to the develop module, chose the sampler under the white balance, click on the background on your photo.
Set your exposure, add a little vibrancy/saturation and maybe 5 points of clarity.
(That's all)



__
You also can try to set the WB to auto in your camera
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 11:22 by Chichikov »

« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2016, 12:11 »
0
In Lightroom, go to the develop module, chose the sampler under the white balance, click on the background on your photo.
Set your exposure, add a little vibrancy/saturation and maybe 5 points of clarity.
(That's all)



__
You also can try to set the WB to auto in your camera

Hmmm... I went to the Develop Module, but I don't see anything called "Sampler" under white balance.  I am using Lightroom 6.  Maybe there is a sampling option on CC?

Here are the changes I made:
-Dropped white balance from 7350 to 6600
-Increased exposure from -0.20 to +0.70
-Increased clarity from +10 to +15
-Increased vibrance from 0 to +20
-Increased saturation from 0 to +10

I placed my cursor on the white background to see the effect my changes were making on the RGB values.
Before:
R- 79.2
G- 80.7
B-73.6

After:
R- 89.6
G-91.2
B- 88.3

This shows the background data is much closer to 100 in each category, which I would assume is perfect white, so it is a good improvement in that area.  However, as you can see from the attached updated photo, it makes the subject look a little blown out (but maybe it's just in comparison to the original edit).

In looking at the RGB data for the white background, it makes me wonder if there is a target I should be aiming for.  Does anybody else look at this data when editing light box photos?

Any other thoughts?  Advice?


« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2016, 13:05 »
0
Good for you on thinking outside the box (no pun intended) to get the shot you want! A bathtub and a tee shirt...use what you've got to get it done. I love it!

Your second sample the white balance looks a bit worse than your first unfortunately. It's very green on my monitor. The sampler tool you are looking for looks like an eyedropper. Select that tool then click on a spot in the image that is white. In this case, click your backdrop. It's not perfect but it will get you more in the ballpark for correct white balance. Adjust it accordingly.

Good luck!

Mat

Ahhhh!!!  Thanks!

OK, so I did as you and Chichikov suggested and it made a big difference.  Both the temp and tint were adjusted, which I think took care of the green (I am stuck using a laptop monitor, but plan on picking up a 24" Dell Ultrasharp when I'm back in the states in a couple months).  Anyway, after the improved white balance, I dropped the exposure from +.70 to +.55.  I think that is better, but you can judge on your monitor better than me.    :D

Thanks a million!

« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2016, 13:06 »
+5
Yes, that's much better.  Now you need to learn about "commercial value".

« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2016, 15:39 »
0
Yes, that's much better.  Now you need to learn about "commercial value".

I'm open to any resources or advice you have to offer, Sean.   :)

« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2016, 17:33 »
+2
One tip I read on a ss board that has helped me with commercial value issues is to come up with 3 things that the image could be used for.  Ask yourself why somebody might want to buy it.  If it's just a pretty image, it is unlikely to sell well in the microstock market.   Hope that helps you get started!

« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2016, 17:43 »
+1
Yes, that's much better.  Now you need to learn about "commercial value".

I'm open to any resources or advice you have to offer, Sean.   :)

Go look at any magazine or website and see what images they use. Images found there often have (high?) commercial value. So if you were going to take photos of small objects, it should be things that are often used by people in real life. For example, smart phones, beer bottles, cup of coffee, coffee beans, small plant, post it pads, pen, food, vegetables, fruit, notebook, clipboard, laptop, monitor, stack of towels, different color pens together, etc.

« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2016, 17:48 »
0
One tip I read on a ss board that has helped me with commercial value issues is to come up with 3 things that the image could be used for.  Ask yourself why somebody might want to buy it.  If it's just a pretty image, it is unlikely to sell well in the microstock market.   Hope that helps you get started!

Great advice!  Thanks for the feedback!

« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2016, 17:50 »
0
Yes, that's much better.  Now you need to learn about "commercial value".

I'm open to any resources or advice you have to offer, Sean.   :)

Go look at any magazine or website and see what images they use. Images found there often have (high?) commercial value. So if you were going to take photos of small objects, it should be things that are often used by people in real life. For example, smart phones, beer bottles, cup of coffee, coffee beans, small plant, post it pads, pen, food, vegetables, fruit, notebook, clipboard, laptop, monitor, stack of towels, different color pens together, etc.

Thanks for the constructive feedback.  I will definitely take this into consideration as I make my shoot list.

« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2016, 03:32 »
+3
By the way, glass objects are one of the hardest things to light correctly. If you are going to shoot still life with glass in it you need to study how the lighting should be done and get lots of practice until you can get it right almost automatically. For one thing, your background here was under-exposed, you need to light a white background separately from the main subject, so move the background further back and use a slave flash that's shielded from the subject to get the background white. You can't just increase the power of the lightbox  (or open the aperture) to make the background white because the inverse square law means that correctly exposing the background from a single light means that the foreground will be over-exposed (because there is a significant difference in the distance of the two from the light source).
If you use daylight you don't have the same problem, because both the subject and the background will be 92 million miles from the light source and even if one is six feet further away from the sun it makes sqat-diddly difference as a percentage. But then you have issues such as diffusing the light and getting it coming from the correct angle.
Oh, and don't light the subject from straight in front, light from an angle to emphasise textures, and use reflectors to balance the fall-off in light across the frame.

« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2016, 12:57 »
0
By the way, glass objects are one of the hardest things to light correctly. If you are going to shoot still life with glass in it you need to study how the lighting should be done and get lots of practice until you can get it right almost automatically. For one thing, your background here was under-exposed, you need to light a white background separately from the main subject, so move the background further back and use a slave flash that's shielded from the subject to get the background white. You can't just increase the power of the lightbox  (or open the aperture) to make the background white because the inverse square law means that correctly exposing the background from a single light means that the foreground will be over-exposed (because there is a significant difference in the distance of the two from the light source).
If you use daylight you don't have the same problem, because both the subject and the background will be 92 million miles from the light source and even if one is six feet further away from the sun it makes sqat-diddly difference as a percentage. But then you have issues such as diffusing the light and getting it coming from the correct angle.
Oh, and don't light the subject from straight in front, light from an angle to emphasise textures, and use reflectors to balance the fall-off in light across the frame.

Great Advice, thanks!  How much do I owe you?   ;)

« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2016, 23:58 »
+2
BTW there is a commercial value. This photo is a perfect match for some blogs, i saw articles exactly related to collection of pieces of glass on beaches!

« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2016, 11:14 »
0
By the way, glass objects are one of the hardest things to light correctly. If you are going to shoot still life with glass in it you need to study how the lighting should be done and get lots of practice until you can get it right almost automatically. For one thing, your background here was under-exposed, you need to light a white background separately from the main subject, so move the background further back and use a slave flash that's shielded from the subject to get the background white. You can't just increase the power of the lightbox  (or open the aperture) to make the background white because the inverse square law means that correctly exposing the background from a single light means that the foreground will be over-exposed (because there is a significant difference in the distance of the two from the light source).
If you use daylight you don't have the same problem, because both the subject and the background will be 92 million miles from the light source and even if one is six feet further away from the sun it makes sqat-diddly difference as a percentage. But then you have issues such as diffusing the light and getting it coming from the correct angle.
Oh, and don't light the subject from straight in front, light from an angle to emphasise textures, and use reflectors to balance the fall-off in light across the frame.

Great Advice, thanks!  How much do I owe you?   ;)

38 cents ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3613 Views
Last post December 26, 2009, 17:56
by cathyslife
5 Replies
4643 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 10:18
by sc
13 Replies
4159 Views
Last post January 21, 2011, 02:02
by luissantos84
22 Replies
8590 Views
Last post November 17, 2011, 17:59
by rubyroo
5 Replies
3017 Views
Last post November 23, 2011, 23:16
by Morphart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results