Cannot keep a consistant BG color.. Help?

[ErikB97]

Hi, new to this forum, I'm a decent photographer with a few years of practice but I quit for a long while and now I've been tasked (by a friend) to take about 6,000 images of Burl Wood for his company or more technically, his website. So although I have a bit of knowledge retained, I did more 'cinematic' looking images and did actually lean towards motion picture and cinematography and film making.

My issue is:

We're building a website to purchase burl wood so all backgrounds must be consistent with each other or it just looks unsavory on a website but at the same time when I'm shooting it's (more) important to capture the proper colors and lighting of the wood.


Either I focus on the the color/lighting/visibility of grain of the wood and adjust the cameras settings to 'match' realistic color/lighting/visibility of grain.
But then each images background is either gray when settings are lowered or it is very white when settings are increased, I understand the settings on a DSLR and I understand how to adjust in accordance to the need to do so but I feel like I either have to capture the realisticness of the woods features consistently or I must focus on capturing the backgrounds features consistently if that makes sense..?

How can I capture all of these images with good quality of the color/grain and still keep my background looking the same in every picture? I use photoshop and the only option I could think of is to mask the piece of wood in every picture and then invert and adjust the background but it's unrealistically time consuming and it seems to give the image a very dissatisfying "floating object" kind of look so I really need some help here.


BTW: We have a large allocation of funds but we're trying to be as smart as possible with it so any purchases must be completely necessary in order to justify a purchase, if that makes sense...

We're starting a business so we are hoping to need to spend $0 and use what we have but if someone knows of a tool or piece of hardware that makes it easier to capture real color and light, that'd really help.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hi and welcome to the forums.
I had to google burl wood . I assume they come in different sizes and forms, correct?
Does it have reflective surface?
Can you give us some samples of what you achieved by now?
With floating effect you mean the typical look of isolated in photoshop with the pen tool, right?

My guess would be if you shoot it on white background you´d achieve the best and most consistent look.
It does involve spending some money, but 6.000 images - wow. You´d better get a decent setup, otherwise you´ll end up with a lot of work - and time is money too - a lot of money. Plus: bad product images reduce the sales potential and don´t look professional.
If you want to save you could buy used and then resell after you´re finished. But then again I suppose that you will continuously have to photgraph new burl wood.

 

[ErikB97]

Hi and welcome to the forums.
I had to google burl wood . I assume they come in different sizes and forms, correct?
Does it have reflective surface?
Can you give us some samples of what you achieved by now?
With floating effect you mean the typical look of isolated in photoshop with the pen tool, right?

My guess would be if you shoot it on white background you´d achieve the best and most consistent look.
It does involve spending some money, but 6.000 images - wow. You´d better get a decent setup, otherwise you´ll end up with a lot of work - and time is money too - a lot of money. Plus: bad product images reduce the sales potential and don´t look professional.
If you want to save you could buy used and then resell after you´re finished. But then again I suppose that you will continuously have to photgraph new burl wood.

Wow, sorry I guess I should have been more detailed. We are shooting on a white backdrop when I got here they had rigged up a giant "lightbox" with big sheets of paper, basically a giant paper box with a wooden structure and a white backdrop it's a 'semi-reflective' surface so to speak.. we have a 5 point lighting system to emphasize more light on the backdrop. It's basically two lights on the backdrop and a 3 point lighting system.. all 5500k but two are big 120w bulbs (I think) and then three of our light fixtures have four sockets on each one so we are using four 45w 5500ks in each of those. I'll attach a picture of our setup and a few example images of our work if this site will let me

 

[ErikB97]

I'm trying to post some of the photos I've taken but I'm getting a security warning from this site that says they cant upload my image... maybe because they're PNGs? I can convert them if I have to but I don't want to lol

 

[photo1x1.com]

here is a test-png

So it works on my side. Strange - maybe try to use a different browser, or dropbox, etc. I hope it´s no virus that infected the images .

 

[ErikB97]

here is a test-png
View attachment 136213
So it works on my side. Strange - maybe try to use a different browser, or dropbox, etc. I hope it´s no virus that infected the images .

hmm well I cannot see your png so maybe it's something funky on my end... I'll try jgps

 

[ErikB97]

Nope.. maybe I gotta wait since I'm new or something? I could try to PM them to you

 

[photo1x1.com]

Nope.. maybe I gotta wait since I'm new or something? I could try to PM them to you

let´s try that - maybe I can post them for you, so that others can chime in.

 

[ErikB97]

Alright well it was a little more work but I'm just going to use facebook as a third party upload source lol

As you can see the backdrop looks completely different in every image, some were not even edited and came out 'too white' or just different. I need my background to be the same color every time but it's seemingly impossible because I have to make adjustments to alter the look of the wood it seems like the settings that make certain pieces look more realistic make others look worse.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hmm - nr. 2 for example is overexposed, while Nr. 3 is rather underexposed.
Do you use manual exposure for your images?
Usually you should be fine using the same light for every piece of wood (at least of the same size). BUT: I see the problem with the texture of the wood - seems to shimmer a bit like permute and I understand that it might be beneficial to bring out the detail in every single piece. I´d ask myself though if I would really like to change the lighting for 6000 different photos. I guess it depends a lot on the sales price of every single item. Spending too much time might not be economically reasonable.
Anyway - here is what I would do:

1. Get a flat piece of plastic that is semi-reflective as a "floor" and put it flat on a table.
   
2. Use a piece of semi-transperent paper, or cloth and tacker it on a wooden frame to remove wrinkles - use that as a backwall 90° to the "floor" and light it evenly with 2 or 3 lights from the back.
3. Set your aperture (and shutter speed if it is continuous light) to create a nice white background and close to white floor (the reflection of the background will make your semi-reflective surface almost white too)
4. Put the wood on the "floor"
   
5. use the remaining lights to create the shimmer on the wooden texture - don´t change the exposure!!! If your lights don´t give you the option to change the power settings, work with distance - the further the lights are away, the less light will arrive at the object PLUS the more contrast the light will create (like the sun - it is very far away and that´s why it is smaller and more contrasty than a softbox close by).

The added light from the foreground lights might overexpose the background a bit - adjust it accordingly for the first image, but after that you should be fine and don´t do anything to the background anymore.

 

[ErikB97]

Hmm - nr. 2 for example is overexposed, while Nr. 3 is rather underexposed.
Do you use manual exposure for your images?
Usually you should be fine using the same light for every piece of wood (at least of the same size). BUT: I see the problem with the texture of the wood - seems to shimmer a bit like permute and I understand that it might be beneficial to bring out the detail in every single piece. I´d ask myself though if I would really like to change the lighting for 6000 different photos. I guess it depends a lot on the sales price of every single item. Spending too much time might not be economically reasonable.
Anyway - here is what I would do:

1. Get a flat piece of plastic that is semi-reflective as a "floor" and put it flat on a table.
   
2. Use a piece of semi-transperent paper, or cloth and tacker it on a wooden frame to remove wrinkles - use that as a backwall 90° to the "floor" and light it evenly with 2 or 3 lights from the back.
3. Set your aperture (and shutter speed if it is continuous light) to create a nice white background and close to white floor (the reflection of the background will make your semi-reflective surface almost white too)
4. Put the wood on the "floor"
   
5. use the remaining lights to create the shimmer on the wooden texture - don´t change the exposure!!! If your lights don´t give you the option to change the power settings, work with distance - the further the lights are away, the less light will arrive at the object PLUS the more contrast the light will create (like the sun - it is very far away and that´s why it is smaller and more contrasty than a softbox close by).

The added light from the foreground lights might overexpose the background a bit - adjust it accordingly for the first image, but after that you should be fine and don´t do anything to the background anymore.

So in essence I should re arrange the lights instead of changing settings? Either way major adjustments will constantly need to be made in order to set any sort of color/grain quality standard. I guess my point is that I wouldn't be asking this question if it was for anything else besides wood..

If settings *A* and lighting *A* (for example) make Burl Wood *A* look good, it will make Burl Wood *B* look crappy.

Each piece of wood is tremendously different from one another so what might make a yellowish-lightly colored piece of madrone or maple wood look great would then make a really dark colored, red/brown piece of redwood or walnut wood look terrible on the same settings/lighting.

So if one is too dark how do I brighten it without changing my settings or using large amounts of time on PS? I have tried tinkering with the lights but even if I get them extremely close they don't pull out any of the details that I need to see in my images

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hmm - nr. 2 for example is overexposed, while Nr. 3 is rather underexposed.
Do you use manual exposure for your images?
Usually you should be fine using the same light for every piece of wood (at least of the same size). BUT: I see the problem with the texture of the wood - seems to shimmer a bit like permute and I understand that it might be beneficial to bring out the detail in every single piece. I´d ask myself though if I would really like to change the lighting for 6000 different photos. I guess it depends a lot on the sales price of every single item. Spending too much time might not be economically reasonable.
Anyway - here is what I would do:

1. Get a flat piece of plastic that is semi-reflective as a "floor" and put it flat on a table.
   
2. Use a piece of semi-transperent paper, or cloth and tacker it on a wooden frame to remove wrinkles - use that as a backwall 90° to the "floor" and light it evenly with 2 or 3 lights from the back.
3. Set your aperture (and shutter speed if it is continuous light) to create a nice white background and close to white floor (the reflection of the background will make your semi-reflective surface almost white too)
4. Put the wood on the "floor"
   
5. use the remaining lights to create the shimmer on the wooden texture - don´t change the exposure!!! If your lights don´t give you the option to change the power settings, work with distance - the further the lights are away, the less light will arrive at the object PLUS the more contrast the light will create (like the sun - it is very far away and that´s why it is smaller and more contrasty than a softbox close by).

The added light from the foreground lights might overexpose the background a bit - adjust it accordingly for the first image, but after that you should be fine and don´t do anything to the background anymore.

So in essence I should re arrange the lights instead of changing settings? Either way major adjustments will constantly need to be made in order to set any sort of color/grain quality standard. I guess my point is that I wouldn't be asking this question if it was for anything else besides wood..

If settings *A* and lighting *A* (for example) make Burl Wood *A* look good, it will make Burl Wood *B* look crappy.

Each piece of wood is tremendously different from one another so what might make a yellowish-lightly colored piece of madrone or maple wood look great would then make a really dark colored, red/brown piece of redwood or walnut wood look terrible on the same settings/lighting.

So if one is too dark how do I brighten it without changing my settings or using large amounts of time on PS? I have tried tinkering with the lights but even if I get them extremely close they don't pull out any of the details that I need to see in my images

Yes in regard to rearrange. Keep the background lights constant at all time. You can rearrange the rest. But I think if you can set the background so that it will be 99% pure evenly lit white, there won´t be that much to rearrange.
Anyway I´d group my shots. Collect all wood that is similar in size, color and structure. That would save you quite some time.

The white balance will be the same in every image, because the color of the light you are using is the same. However, from your experience I wonder whether it might be your daylight bulbs that make the difference. Good photography lamps emmit a relatively evenly distributed spectrum. Bad lights can create awful color casts that are really hard or even impossible to remove in post.

 

[ErikB97]

Hmm - nr. 2 for example is overexposed, while Nr. 3 is rather underexposed.
Do you use manual exposure for your images?
Usually you should be fine using the same light for every piece of wood (at least of the same size). BUT: I see the problem with the texture of the wood - seems to shimmer a bit like permute and I understand that it might be beneficial to bring out the detail in every single piece. I´d ask myself though if I would really like to change the lighting for 6000 different photos. I guess it depends a lot on the sales price of every single item. Spending too much time might not be economically reasonable.
Anyway - here is what I would do:

1. Get a flat piece of plastic that is semi-reflective as a "floor" and put it flat on a table.
   
2. Use a piece of semi-transperent paper, or cloth and tacker it on a wooden frame to remove wrinkles - use that as a backwall 90° to the "floor" and light it evenly with 2 or 3 lights from the back.
3. Set your aperture (and shutter speed if it is continuous light) to create a nice white background and close to white floor (the reflection of the background will make your semi-reflective surface almost white too)
4. Put the wood on the "floor"
   
5. use the remaining lights to create the shimmer on the wooden texture - don´t change the exposure!!! If your lights don´t give you the option to change the power settings, work with distance - the further the lights are away, the less light will arrive at the object PLUS the more contrast the light will create (like the sun - it is very far away and that´s why it is smaller and more contrasty than a softbox close by).

The added light from the foreground lights might overexpose the background a bit - adjust it accordingly for the first image, but after that you should be fine and don´t do anything to the background anymore.

So in essence I should re arrange the lights instead of changing settings? Either way major adjustments will constantly need to be made in order to set any sort of color/grain quality standard. I guess my point is that I wouldn't be asking this question if it was for anything else besides wood..

If settings *A* and lighting *A* (for example) make Burl Wood *A* look good, it will make Burl Wood *B* look crappy.

Each piece of wood is tremendously different from one another so what might make a yellowish-lightly colored piece of madrone or maple wood look great would then make a really dark colored, red/brown piece of redwood or walnut wood look terrible on the same settings/lighting.

So if one is too dark how do I brighten it without changing my settings or using large amounts of time on PS? I have tried tinkering with the lights but even if I get them extremely close they don't pull out any of the details that I need to see in my images

Yes in regard to rearrange. Keep the background lights constant at all time. You can rearrange the rest. But I think if you can set the background so that it will be 99% pure evenly lit white, there won´t be that much to rearrange.
Anyway I´d group my shots. Collect all wood that is similar in size, color and structure. That would save you quite some time.

The white balance will be the same in every image, because the color of the light you are using is the same. However, from your experience I wonder whether it might be your daylight bulbs that make the difference. Good photography lamps emmit a relatively evenly distributed spectrum. Bad lights can create awful color casts that are really hard or even impossible to remove in post.

Well here's my problem and I'm not really sure what I'm doing wrong. Obviously the wood photos above are crap but here's some little rocks and they're all the same in the background and they also represent the absolute color and detail. I can capture it in basically all other items but burl wood is just waaay different somehow.
Clearly there's focus issues here and there in these photos but my entire focus is color and detail.

 

[KmH]

Your depth of field is very shallow, hurting the detail, and the darker objects on a white background are likely fooling the camera's light meter that is calibrated for an average reflectance equal to 12% to 18% gray.

What light metering mode are you using and are you using Exposure compensation?

 

[Derrel]

The stones have very shallow depth of field. Cannot get any EXIF info, but it looks like the f/stop is too wide for this degree of magnification. Keep in mind; on a camera that has no movements, like forwrd tilt for the lens, the DOF plane is "angled", relative to the subject, and so the already shallow DOF is made even more shallow! This is a great example where a view camera, or a Tilt/Shift lens or T/S accessory, could help a lot.