Beer, etc.

[Brownbear]

I forgot to mention the heavily panting Cheetah in the background, trying to keep up with the shoe, but lagging behind by a second or two (as indicated by timer in the image)

PS Mark... My apologies for the diversion. I am not able to delete this post so I made it brief.

Mark,

The easiest way to implement Christina's idea is to rip a big hole in the top of the light tent, tell your wife to put on the shoe, to stand on one foot and to raise her heel. Then remove her leg during post-processing. It won't do anything for your marriage but the divorce lawyers will love you.

[Loose Canon]

Mark, that has to be one of the best opening statements for a submission I have ever read. It sums up the way I feel just about every time I get behind a lens!

You have some good stuff here and you have received some seriously excellent comments from some of the biggies of this Forum. Can't even remember last time I read Bill critique a shot! Nothing much I would add because as I read through what everyone has written the general gist is coming through.

So I’d like to add an overall thought for your consideration if I may.

Mark, lose the light tent buddy. Take the walls and make individual diffusion panels out of them.

It has been said (not by me) that a light tent is for people who are not photographers and never have any intention of learning to be one, but need photos to put on Ebay or something.

I didn’t say it but I have to agree and this is why:

They have their uses (if I were going to use something like this for a particular application, say jewelry, I would use a bottomless cone and a way different BG setup) but more important they are much too limiting with what you can do.

You can’t get enough distance between the background and subject. You can’t really get a pure white background/surround without affecting the subject. Either overexposing, getting bad hot spots, bad edges, chromatic abberations, losing detail, color washout, low contrast, etc.

But most importantly you will never be able to completely control your lighting, highlights, shadows and gradients in one. Impossible with all that light bouncing around inside there. They are small and difficult to set up flags and bounce/reflectors inside.

The "Wow I Wonder How They Did That" product shots you see in the magazines done professionally are never done in a light tent and these are a few of the very important reasons why.

[Mike Buckley]

Terry,

I have a feeling that it's my misleading post that causes you to think that Mark used a light tent. Instead, I think he used a light box. Even so, most everything you mentioned remains true, especially the aspect of being so limited. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with getting started using a light box for a particular style of photography.

I actually hate the phrase, "light tent," because, as you know, it has two meanings. One is the prefabricated kind that is literally a tent. The other kind is the kind you and I can make that isn't necessarily enclosed and may be made only of reflectors that gather the light where needed. In fact, I wish people would refer to the latter as a light gatherer instead of a light tent.

[Downrigger]

What kind of lamps are you using? .

$5 Home Depot shop lamps with Phillips 60W el cheapos. Obviously not the best, and I'll try setting WB to match what's hitting the tissue. But I want to keep this light.

How did everyone know those are my wife's shoes - is shoe gender that obvious? Anyway, she's on the road, which gives me a couple days to waste time rigging a solution.

And yes - light box - 2 ft cubic box with sides/top replaced with tissue put on a tripod height "custom" table made from available shop scraps. Fits great in the room with the water softener and furnace.

[Loose Canon]

Terry,

I have a feeling that it's my misleading post that causes you to think that Mark used a light tent. Instead, I think he used a light box. Even so, most everything you mentioned remains true, especially the aspect of being so limited. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with getting started using a light box for a particular style of photography.

I actually hate the phrase, "light tent," because, as you know, it has two meanings. One is the prefabricated kind that is literally a tent. The other kind is the kind you and I can make that isn't necessarily enclosed and may be made only of reflectors that gather the light where needed. In fact, I wish people would refer to the latter as a light gatherer instead of a light tent.

Whether it's a light "box" made out of a box as described or a light "tent" made out of fabric, commercial or DIY in this case it equates to the same thing and with the same inherent limitations.

Mark you could keep your lights, move out of the tentbox, get much better results and vastly increase the scope of what you are doing.

[IzzieK]

Mark, you mentioned "live view"...three days ago I came upon a remote control software for $19. It is called CameraRC. I do not know if you have a Nikon but I do so I got the 30-day trial version.

http://www.camerarc.com/

It is good so I bought a lifetime (?) version for $29.95. I didn't have a paypal account so I asked hubby to pay for it. You might want to try this. It's got some video tutorials too on how to use it. Just thought you (ad others) would like to know...

[Mike Buckley]

How did everyone know those are my wife's shoes

I remembered, apparently mistakenly, that you had mentioned in this thread that the shoe was hers.

And yes - light box - 2 ft cubic box with sides/top replaced with tissue put on a tripod height "custom" table made from available shop scraps. Fits great in the room with the water softener and furnace.

Yet another confusing term. I would call that a light tent, though perhaps not accurately so. For me, a light box is the box that is barely large enough to hold fluorescent tubes and the top is translucent white acrylic made for reviewing slides.

Now I wonder what Travis is using.

[Mike Buckley]

Mark you could keep your lights, move out of the tentbox, get much better results and vastly increase the scope of what you are doing.

True, but he would probably need vastly more space at least relatively speaking, which may not be available.

[Mike Buckley]

I asked hubby to pay for it. You might want to try this.

That's very generous of you, Izzie, to suggest that your husband might be happy to pay for Mark's software.

[Shadowman]

Terry,

I have a feeling that it's my misleading post that causes you to think that Mark used a light tent. Instead, I think he used a light box. Even so, most everything you mentioned remains true, especially the aspect of being so limited. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with getting started using a light box for a particular style of photography.

I actually hate the phrase, "light tent," because, as you know, it has two meanings. One is the prefabricated kind that is literally a tent. The other kind is the kind you and I can make that isn't necessarily enclosed and may be made only of reflectors that gather the light where needed. In fact, I wish people would refer to the latter as a light gatherer instead of a light tent.

To be made even more confusing by Mike Wheeler's "Light Table", which could be used for this type of project.

http://www.diyphotography.net/light-...tudio-project/

[Mike Buckley]

Mike Wheeler's "Light Table"

It's really sad to see his photo of the clear glass being used as an example. A far superior photo could have been made using one light source (he used three) and with no need for the cardboard contraption. Most important, the middle area of the rear rim of the glass completely disappears, at least at the size he posted on the Internet.

[IzzieK]

That's very generous of you, Izzie, to suggest that your husband might be happy to pay for Mark's software.

Watch out folks...Mike is on a roll.

[Shadowman]

It's really sad to see his photo of the clear glass being used as an example. A far superior photo could have been made using one light source (he used three) and with no need for the cardboard contraption. Most important, the middle area of the rear rim of the glass completely disappears, at least at the size he posted on the Internet.

For smaller objects I've used a flashlight with a ND filter over the beam.

[Downrigger]

It is good so I bought a lifetime (?) version for $29.95. I didn't have a paypal account so I asked hubby to pay for it. You might want to try this. It's got some video tutorials too on how to use it. Just thought you (ad others) would like to know...

Good help, Izzie. Thanks. Would make a world of difference for me. If I were more skilled, I'd probably see or infer my results better and not need it as much.

[Downrigger]

It's really sad to see his photo of the clear glass being used as an example. A far superior photo could have been made using one light source (he used three) and with no need for the cardboard contraption. Most important, the middle area of the rear rim of the glass completely disappears, at least at the size he posted on the Internet.

Exactly consistent with my original post: "learned a lot about my ignorance in a very short time" and have gotten good help here deepening that learning and understanding possible remedies. Right, Mike, by the way, there was no way to find that back rim of the glass.

Anyway, thanks for all the pointers and corrections.

[Loose Canon]

True, but he would probably need vastly more space at least relatively speaking, which may not be available.

Guess it depends on your definition of "vastly"! Any of the objects shot in this post could have been shot in the space of a dining room table. In fact could have been shot on the dining room table (if you have one), or a coffee table, and if you have enough space to sit around it then you have enough space to use it for this purpose.

And man! You're right about that shot of the glass Mike! Not the greatest example!

[Downrigger]

Guess it depends on your definition of "vastly"! Any of the objects shot in this post could have been shot in the space of a dining room table. eek:

I get it, but I was having fun. I thought the highlight was really just the label on the beer, which is uniquely Utahn, and I think, humorous. For the record, I wanted soft light and reduced shadowing and the tissue on the box was a way to get it, I wanted extraneous light controlled so I worked on a table in the basement. I was just experimenting with a new way to try to achieve increased control in the setting of still life images - the latter altogether new to me. I learned something from doing it, and a lot more from the critiques and analysis, again, mostly about what I don't yet know very well.

[IzzieK]

I get it, but I was having fun. ........

THAT! is the main point Mark -- have fun while you are at and it and learning that different strokes from different folks is not really as stressful as one may think. When the "fun" is gone, time to hang in the towel and/or go in a different direction. Have fun You actually taught me something today. I am in the process of setting up the same wine bottle for three days now and thinking of what I might add to it to make a story, dreamt of what to do last night, how to set it up and it got to me. Then my contacts hurt when I put it in this morning and that wasn't fun either. Now I maybe blind as a mice but I can have fun. There is always tomorrow...

[Downrigger]

Thanks Izzie - now I'm trying to think of a story for that wine bottle - maybe two? One on its side?

Here, by the way, is as far as I got with your idea...

[Mike Buckley]

In this latest version of the shoe, you lost the detail, grunge and texture that is displayed so nicely in the first version. The color cast also leans more toward the green tones, which is unappealing for me.