How to increase contrast/brightness of product photos?

[480sparky]

It's a JPEG.

 

[snowbear]

Can your camera make a custom white balance reference photo? If so, try that.
For example, in the Nikons, you can take a shot of a plain grey (or white) surface, and select it as the WB reference.

 

[puregreen]

Can your camera make a custom white balance reference photo? If so, try that.
For example, in the Nikons, you can take a shot of a plain grey (or white) surface, and select it as the WB reference.

Yes, I tried it, it makes photos look similar to my 6500K adjustment. But I think doing this in Camera Raw is more accurate I just can't understand if I'm doing it correctly or not...

 

[puregreen]

It's a JPEG.

I still can't get what do you mean

 

[480sparky]

You posted a JPEG.

 

[puregreen]

You posted a JPEG.

I also posted the raw file in the previous message. Anyway, here it is one more time IMG_0300.CR2

 

[480sparky]

All I can download is a Jpeg. It's a moot point any way since I don't have anything that will edit CR2.

 

[Derrel]

You posted a JPEG.

Ummmm...I downloaded the .CR2 file from the OP yesterday...as my iMac shows, it was a 24.4 MB "Canon CR2 raw image"...

And to the OP...if you want a white white, exposing a raw file more, would help achieve that....your exposure time of 1/20 second is fairly "fast" for a continuous light still-life shot made at f/11, ISO 125...that's wayyyyy shorter a shutter time than many still-life shooters would shoot.


Use the self-timer delay, and do not be afraid to slow the exposure time way down, to say 1/8 second or so, to get that clean, bright white!

 

[480sparky]

You posted a JPEG.

Ummmm...I downloaded the .CR2 file from the OP yesterday...as my iMac shows, it was a 24.4 MB "Canon CR2 raw image"...
.............

Um.............. I downloaded it and it turned out a jpeg.

 

[Derrel]

You posted a JPEG.

Ummmm...I downloaded the .CR2 file from the OP yesterday...as my iMac shows, it was a 24.4 MB "Canon CR2 raw image"...
.............

Um.............. I downloaded it and it turned out a jpeg.

Maybe you downloaded it incorrectly....I downloaded it yesterday, and it is a "Canon CR2 raw image:, 24.4 megabytes in size...on a Macintosh with Safari as the browser, it was a simple download...just correcting the three,separate,individual allegations that the OP "...posted a JPEG". I am sorry, but those three,separate allegations were 100% incorrect...the OP uploaded a 24.4 megabyte, Canon-shot, raw image file.

I just now,tonight, tried importing the OP's raw file using an old copy of Lightroom that can NOT handle modern raw files...

Pretty conclusive evidence that the file uploaded was a .CR2 file, and not a JPEG...which this copy of Lightroom can easily import.

 

[WayneF]

128,128,128 is 18% gray, but any RGB set where all three colors are close is a neutral gray. 50,53,49..... 211,214,209....... 142,140,141.....

Alright, so I did a couple of test shots and looks like I'm getting RGB 100,100,100 with ~6500 K and tint +20... But that's a big difference, how is this possible at all, I'm shooting at night with no umbrellas, the manufacturer claims the lamps are 5500 K, I bought them just 3 months ago and used them only a few times.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong? Here's the RAW file: IMG_0300.CR2

I did not look at your raw image format, but your 100 value is doing OK in that regard. The fact that you see Equal values of 100,100,100 says that your white balance is very good. The 18% gray card is near a "neutral" value, but is NOT exactly 128,128,128. Both are casually called "middle gray" (which has no precise meaning), but 18% of 255 is in fact 46 linear, which just happens to compute 117 in gamma 2.2 (sRGB) histograms. Which is coincidentally close to 128, but only due to gamma, and NOT due to 18% being the middle of anything in digital.

Said another way, 18% is 18%, and is 46 in linear data [0..255], which is NOT 50% of anything in digital. However, what we need to realize is that ALL of our RGB data has gamma encoding applied. Even for raw images, our histograms only show gamma RGB data, NOT linear data. But this image will be made linear again by the time our eye ever sees it. Our eye expects linear data, same as the original scene.

Another factor is that our digital cameras are busy doing other things too, like White Balance and Contrast and maybe Vivid color profiles, which are tone shifting operations (changing the nominal 117 gamma value we might expect). We might never see 117 either. But there is no reason to imagine your 100 value is not perfectly fine (not based on the number. Instead, look at the image).

Your raw file is linear data (which is not even RGB), but histograms only show converted RGB with gamma (using the camera settings which Raw data did not use). Because CRT and LED monitors are designed to accept RGB with gamma before converting to show linear data to our eye. Your raw software converts your JPG output image to RGB with gamma. All RGB images have gamma (to be compatible with CRT monitors. And LED monitors must go along with that).
The preview image on the camera rear LCD is also RGB, using the camera settings, but the raw data does not use camera settings (that's what raw is). Raw file data also includes an embedded JPG image from camera, for these histogram and rear LCD purposes.

Your 100 value is very ballpark in that situation, and NOT a numerical concern. But it will still vary somewhat, the next try may vary a bit.

White Balance use would use the approximated neutral factor, and WB tools would make RGB be equal again, i.e., 100,100,100 or 128,128,128, whatever it is.
If for example, it came out 90, 100, 104, that would be a blue color cast, not neutral.

Bottom line, you should not be very concerned what exact numerical value an 18% gray card will show in the histogram, because it will vary. Judge exposure by looking at the picture, preferably on a calibrated monitor. You might use the 18% card to correct WB, but a white or lighter gray actual WB card would be preferable for that.

Kodak 18% gray cards are designed to reflect 18% of the light incident on them (but there is no spec that says their ink is controlled to be neutral, but they are close to neutral - but rather dark for white balance purposes).

However, most all of our reflected light meters work to a 12.5% spec (including Nikon, Canon, Sekonic), and Kodak used to always include instructions that if metering on their 18% card in bright direct sun, that we should open up the exposure 1/2 stop more (converts 18% to 12%).
If you didn't do that, 1/2 stop is still sort of ballpark, but a bit dark. But again, WB and contrast and color profile settings will likely change it a bit.

However, Kodak sold all of their printing business nearly 25 years ago (and it has changed hands since, but today is owned by Tiffen, even if the card still says Kodak. Tiffen has the right to make and sell Kodak 18% cards, or to lease out the right to make same). This extra 1/2 stop instruction has been lost, but is still needed.

 

[puregreen]

I did not look at your raw image format, but your 100 value is doing OK in that regard. The fact that you see 100,100,100 says that your white balance is very good. The 18% gray card is near a "neutral" value, but is NOT exactly 128,128,128. Both are casually called "middle gray" (which has no precise meaning), but 18% of 255 is in fact 46 linear, which just happens to compute 117 in gamma 2.2 (sRGB) histograms.

Said another way, 18% is 18%, and is 46 in linear data [0..255], which is NOT 50% of anything in digital. However, what we need to realize is that ALL of our RGB data has gamma encoding applied. Even for raw images, our histograms only show gamma RGB data, NOT linear data. The preview on the camera rear LCD is also RGB, using the camera settings, but the raw data does not use camera settings (that's what raw is). But this image will be made linear again by the time our eye ever sees it. Our eye expects linear data, same as the original scene.

Another factor is that our digital cameras are busy doing other things too, like White Balance and Contrast and maybe Vivid color profiles, which are tone shifting operations (changing the nominal 117 gamma value we might expect). We might never see 117 either.

Your raw file is linear data (which is not even RGB), but histograms only show converted RGB with gamma (using the camera settings which Raw data did not use). Because CRT and LED monitors are designed to accept RGB with gamma before converting to show linear data to our eye. Your raw software converts your JPG output image to RGB with gamma. All RGB images have gamma (to be compatible with CRT monitors. And LED monitors must go along with that).

Your 100 value is very ballpark in that situation, and NOT a numerical concern. But it will still vary somewhat, the next try may vary a bit.

White Balance use would use the approximated neutral factor, and WB tools would make RGB be equal again, i.e., 100,100,100 or 128,128,128, whatever it is.
If for example, it came out 90, 100, 104, that would be a blue color cast, not neutral.

Bottom line, you should not be very concerned what exact numerical value an 18% gray card will show in the histogram, because it will vary. Judge exposure by looking at the picture, preferably on a calibrated monitor. You might use the 18% card to correct WB, but a white or lighter gray actual WB card would be preferable for that.

Kodak 18% gray cards are designed to reflect 18% of the light incident on them (but there is no spec that says their ink is controlled to be neutral, but they are close to neutral - but rather dark for white balance purposes).

However, most all of our reflected light meters work to a 12.5% spec, and Kodak used to always include instructions that if metering on their 18% card in bright direct sun, we should open up the exposure 1/2 stop more (converts 18% to 12%).
If you didn't do that, 1/2 stop is still sort of ballpark, but a bit dark. But again, WB and contrast and color profile settings will likely change it a bit.

However, Kodak sold all of their printing business nearly 25 years (and it has changed hands since, but today is owned by Tiffen, even if the card still says Kodak. Tiffen has the right to sell Kodak 18% cards, or to lease out the right to make same). This extra 1/2 stop instruction has been lost, but is still needed.

I'm actually getting slightly different results depending on the angle. I'm even getting something really close to 128,128,128 if I shoot the card flat. Is that normal?

 

[WayneF]

I'm actually getting slightly different results depending on the angle. I'm even getting something really close to 128,128,128 if I shoot the card flat. Is that normal?

Yes, the amount of light reflected will vary with the reflectance angle, how well the sun reflects towards the meter. An intermediate angle giving maximum light meter reading would be preferred, the card sort of aimed halfway between camera and sun (but still, 18% of the brightest 255 you can show still nominally computes gamma 117 in the histogram).

And still, white balance, contrast and color settings are still going to change the histogram value in unpredictable ways.

And of course, from a raw image, the final RGB result and histogram will depend on the settings that the raw software applies to it.

I just saw your image, of the three cards, occupying possibly 1/8 of the frame area. If trying to achieve the 18% value, then of course, the 18% card alone should totally fill the frame, without any other colors influencing the metering or the histogram.

But if only using it for white balance purposes, then it need not fill the frame, a small spot is adequate. Regarding the neutral accuracy, you might try the white card, possibly best. Regarding these inexpensive three card sets, you might notice that using each of the cards in turn likely gives you three different WB values. My bet on neutral is the white card (no printing inks used). Actually, your white background paper seems most neutral to me.

Your attempts to find some one most correct RGB reading is misguided, there is no good purpose of that. Judge exposure by looking at the final image, preferably on a calibrated monitor.

 

[480sparky]

Maybe you downloaded it incorrectly....I downloaded it yesterday, and it is a "Canon CR2 raw image:, 24.4 megabytes in size...on a Macintosh with Safari as the browser, it was a simple download...just correcting the three,separate,individual allegations that the OP "...posted a JPEG". I am sorry, but those three,separate allegations were 100% incorrect...the OP uploaded a 24.4 megabyte, Canon-shot, raw image file.......

I downloaded the file and opened it. it displayed something like "image00036.cr2.jpg" when I tried opening it.

I finally got it to open in RawTherapee, but it looked like I was viewing it through a couple of Wratten 25 filters. I couldn't get anywhere near a decent color rendition.

All my other raw editors refused to open it.

All I can get out of or is a JPEG. Why? I don't know. He's on third and I don't give a darn.

 

[puregreen]

Your attempts to find some one most correct RGB reading is misguided, there is no good purpose of that. Judge exposure by looking at the final image, preferably on a calibrated monitor.

That's my problem, I strive for perfection in everything and don't trust such subjective methods like visual judging