Same setup yet different results... What am I doing wrong?

[OmbreFox]

I've been taking a lot of product photos this past week but today suddenly they're not turning out right.

I haven't touched my camera settings or anything in the scene by the window (at least, I don't think I have) It is quite possible I bumped something but I can't imagine what.

Up until today when I load photos into Lightroom all I had to do is hit the Auto button let it make a few minor adjustments and then everything is perfect. Today though I took a few new pictures and noticed right away they're a little different, but when I took them into Lighroom & clicked auto all the sliders went berserk and the results are HIDEOUS. Even if I copy & paste the settings from the good pictures they're not coming out right. I noticed the histograms are drastically different but since the aperture/speed/ISO are all the same I'm completely at a loss for what is going wrong. I had the white balance set to auto and I did try experimenting with it both in the camera and in Lightroom but still no luck.

If it would be helpful I can provide a couple raw files as examples of before and after. I'm new to the forum but it sounds like I'm not supposed to upload directly to the post, I'm still looking around figuring out the right way to go about it.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much!

 

[Derrel]

You cannot post a raw directly to a TPF post, due to size limitations, and most likely, format incompatibility, but you could upload a raw file to DropBox for example, and give us the link to the file.

I am wondering if the Lightroom import profile might have changed? But still, you say that the settings being pasted produces bad images, so, it sounds like there's a good possibility that the camera/shooting setting end of things might have changed. Maybe AUTO ISO has been enabled on the camera, or maybe a picture style/picture settings parameter has been changed on the camera?

 

[OmbreFox]

Thanks @Derrel I uploaded a couple examples to Dropbox here:

Dropbox - _DSC0369.NEF
Dropbox - _DSC0500.NEF

 

[Ysarex]

I don't see any problems with these. A smidge more exposure wouldn't have hurt. The EXIF data says the lens was a 60mm f/2.8 and I'm assuming that's a Nikon macro lens. Odd thing that the indicated f/stop is f/36 which isn't possible with a lens that only stops down to f/32. If you were using the lens stopped all the way down you should quit that. It isn't necessary and your image will suffer from diffraction.

I processed one of them. Does this look OK or HIDEOUS?

Joe

 

[OmbreFox]

@Ysarex Thanks for the reply! I didn't realize that about my lens so maybe I'll try backing it down a bit. I wonder how that's possible?

As for the picture which one did you adjust? The first one 369 is from the batch I took a few days ago, but 500 is from today and that's the one I'm having issues with.

 

[Overread]

I can't comment on the odd results in editing but a point about the aperture and quality.

As you stop down (use bigger f numbers - ergo a smaller aperture) a lens two key factors change:
1) Depth of field

2) Sharpness.

Depth of field always increases as you decrease the aperture (use bigger f numbers) - this assumes all other properties remain the same of course.

Sharpness however is a little different. At first it will increase in crispness/sharpness up till around f8 or so. Thereafter it will start decreasing because of the effect of diffraction; however results will remain usable/good up till around f16 or so and then you'll see sharpness trail off more significantly.
The limit points change from lens to lens and also depend on the photographers own standards and output medium; if you're just making 500pixel images for the internet chances are you can use a much smaller aperture and so long as you've got a good editing workflow you'll get usable/good results. Whilst if you're more critical or blowing photos up larger or cropping then chances are you might find the limit point much sooner.

 

[snowbear]

Before & after a quick adjust in Lightroom (exposure, vibrance & saturation). LR shows f/36 @ 6 seconds on this one.

 

[OmbreFox]

I added a couple screen shots to show what happens in Lightroom when I click the Auto button before making finishing adjustments, crop/align, clean it up, etc...

Dropbox - 369_Auto_Screenie.png
Dropbox - 500_Auto_Screenie.png

As you can see in example of image 500 the results are, well, undeniably hideous

Thank you @Overread I'm not going to pretend like I know what I'm doing or even how to use a Micro lens - but this helps a lot!

I guess the only reason I was using f/32 (or f/36 as the case may be) was so I could also slow the shutter time - I have my little set up next to a window so I was "fanning" a reflector* to shine on the top & right side to kind of even out some of the harsh shadows.

I'm sure there's a better way to approach this so I'd love to hear any tips!


*a highly technical application of aluminum foil + cardboard

 

[Designer]

f36? 6 seconds? It's kind of "no wonder" you're having difficulties.

I'm starting on file 500 now.

Here's a quick run through Aperture:

 

[OmbreFox]

Thanks @snowbear! Yea as you can see the Auto Exposure wasn't doing this photo any favors...

 

[snowbear]

Try different apertures from f/4 to f/8 and see what happens.

If this is about the size you are usually sheeting, get an inexpensive light tent (you can make one out of a cardboard box and tracing paper) and use a couple of clip-on type work lights (from a hardware store).

 

[Overread]

Light Science and Magic - 4th edition
Borrow from the library or get yourself a copy (I'd suggest the latter if I were in your situation). It's a book that goes into how to control and modify lighting whilst working with a variety of material surfaces and as such is not just an ideal getting started book; but a really useful reference book for someone in your situation lighting products which will likely come in a variety of shapes and materials.

The website Strobist Strobist: Lighting 101 is also a good reference site; esp since it often has a lot of budget friendly ideas on how to do lighting. Lighting is one of those areas where you can still get great results even on a modest setup.

 

[OmbreFox]

@Overread Brilliant - looks like the Light Science & Magic is precisely what I need!

This is the final image for 369 that I've been using as a target to adjust all the other images to:
Dropbox - TargetExposure.jpg

This new batch of photos just can't match it so obviously I need to start over - for the life of me I can't wrap my head around why everything worked until it didn't but now with everyone's help I know what to fix!

I know you pro photographers have some kind of mental formula for calculating exposure, I just haven't had that A-ha! moment yet where it all makes sense...

Thank you so much everyone for your input!

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex Thanks for the reply! I didn't realize that about my lens so maybe I'll try backing it down a bit. I wonder how that's possible?

As for the picture which one did you adjust? The first one 369 is from the batch I took a few days ago, but 500 is from today and that's the one I'm having issues with.

I adjusted the easy one first. Here's the hard one:

Your having a white balance problem and it's real easy to fix. Start shooting a reference target before you take the photos. Put a Styrofoam coffee cup on the tiles where the hearts are and just take a photo. Use that to white balance the photos. The easy one has the metal heart and right away I looked at both and realized that the metal in the 369 photo was the only thing close to a WB reference.

You're processing raw files and you need WB values. I used the metal heart to WB that photo. When I tried to transfer those WB values to the 500 photo I got very different colored tiles. That means the light color was different day one to day two. So for the 500 photo above I had to do a color match to the tiles from the 369 photo. All that grief goes away if you just shoot the reference target. You can buy one but whatever you buy won't be any better than the coffee cup.

Joe

 

[OmbreFox]

All that grief goes away if you just shoot the reference target

Thank you so much! I love tips like this - I definitely prefer simple alternatives (which come with a lesson in better understanding) over a fancy and expensive gadget!