Still having light box issues.

[Valvaren]

So been playing with my D90 in my light box and am still getting the less then stellar pictures what i'm wondering is if there is anything I can do with the camera/light box to help improve or am I really going to have to rely on PP to get a good image. I included a before and after editing shot.

I'm hoping to get a macro lens soon to help take better pictures of these guys but i'm still unsure of what to look for as it seems there are two different ways to go in macro, for images of things like flowers and then things that move like insects and stuff (this is what I want) so if anyone could help me out with that too, I have about a 500-600 dollar budget for a macro lens.

Anyway pictures and any help appreciated, the composition isn't the best as I was just trying to figure out how to improve the picture by playing with the settings on the camera. Didn't realize how bad they actually were coming out until I edited them ;\.

1. Original

2. Edited

 

[cgipson1]

How are you lighting the light box? F5.6 60 450 ISO Auto WB

is it a homemade light box? What material? Looks undexposed... and a bluish color cast.

Try using a cloudy day white balance.... that will warm it a bit.... try adjusting EV on the plus side a step at a time see what happens....

 

[Kerbouchard]

I would take it a step further. Use a custom white balance for some immediate improvement.

As far as the rest of it, you are limited by your gear. Looks like you have moving subjects and I'm thinking you are attempting to use continuous lighting. This makes it very difficult to get the DOF you need. You don't need a Macro Lens. You need a well lit subject so you can use an aperture appropriate for what you are trying to capture. This shot should have been around f/13 or so, and yet, you were at f/5.6.

Yes, the shots can be done better with the equipment you have...(proper white balance, proper curves adjustments, higher ISO, smaller aperture), but really, it's not going to get a whole lot better.

You need better lighting before you are going to make any significant improvement.

 

[Valvaren]

I have a Dynaphos DPL-005xl Lightcube with three light, one on top and two on both sides, the box is well lit in reality much much more then it comes across in the photos which is why I wondered if it was a setting I had wrong.

I was told I could use lights from walmart as long as long as they were above 5100, which I'm guessing was the color of the bulbs (how white they were type thing)

Can I use the light box or is it not worth it? Can changing the bulbs make a difference? If I do get the lighting fixed will the macro lens help me to get closer up pictures (that is what I meant when I mentioned the lens, I did not mean that it was causing my problem just that I hope to get a macro to take the shots of these guys that I want like full detail close ups instead of having to be so far away from them to get them in focus)

I did notice the blueish cast and I do think it is the lights causing it, I will try some more pictures tomorrow fixing my aperture, white balance and ISO.

 

[cgipson1]

funny how we all think differently...

I assumed they used the 5.6 because they wanted the head in focus, and the body soft. You assume it is because they don't have adequate light.

I do agree that they need better lighting.. that is why I asked how they were lighting this, so I could make a informed answer instead of a guess.

Custom white balance is a good idea.. if they know how to do it, which I doubt based on the very questions they are asking in this thread.

I would even say lose the light box.. and use a shoot through umbrella or two with flash..... or use a quality light box, with flash to light it. Using continuous on a lightbox can lead to heat issues.. (not for the snakes so much) as damaging and yellowing the material the lightbox is made of, depending on what kind of light you are using.

 

[cgipson1]

You may need to up the wattage on the lights if you insist on using continuous. Are they fluorescent? I have some daylight balanced 250 watt fluorescents in my kitchen that are BRIGHT! Something like that would probably provide enough output...

Flash would be better though.


macro lens would be good for closeups of the head / face if that is what you want.. but wouldn't be the best for whole snake shots. Do you want the whole snake in focus.. or just the head? Do you know how aperture affects your DOF? Check out http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[Kerbouchard]

I have a Dynaphos DPL-005xl Lightcube with three light, one on top and two on both sides, the box is well lit in reality much much more then it comes across in the photos which is why I wondered if it was a setting I had wrong.

I was told I could use lights from walmart as long as long as they were above 5100, which I'm guessing was the color of the bulbs (how white they were type thing)

Can I use the light box or is it not worth it? Can changing the bulbs make a difference? If I do get the lighting fixed will the macro lens help me to get closer up pictures (that is what I meant when I mentioned the lens, I did not mean that it was causing my problem just that I hope to get a macro to take the shots of these guys that I want like full detail close ups instead of having to be so far away from them to get them in focus)

I did notice the blueish cast and I do think it is the lights causing it, I will try some more pictures tomorrow fixing my aperture, white balance and ISO.

There is a difference between well lit when looking at something and well lit when photographing something. Looking at the settings you used and the results, these were not well lit photographs.

What is the wattage on the bulbs you are using? Color temp should be listed on the bulb so you either set your camera to that directly or take a custom white balance.

Really, for this type of work, flash is just about required.

As far as Macro, you will run into even more issues when you get a macro lens. A continuous light setup simply does not put out enough light to utilize the apertures required to get an appropriate depth of field when using a Macro lens. It will increase your problems exponentially(literally, it's just the way light works).

My advice, start researching flash gear before you even think about a Macro lens. Your lighting simply isn't up to the task.

 

[Valvaren]

These aren't the photos I would like to take of my snakes, this was just playing around I would like macro to get nice headshots and scale detail.

My flash fired when I took these pictures if that counts for anything, should I just be using the flash alone?

The bulbs I use are 26W coils with a color temp (if thats the number i'm thinking of) of about 6200. I cheaped on the bulbs so if better bulbs would help then I would gladly look into it. I would like to continue using the light box as I've seen people who have great success and take great pictures with it but I can't see them being able to fit a bunch of umbrellas in a way that would make a difference unless its just to shine on the box.

I will admit I'm very new at this and i'm trying to learn as I go and I realize these were terrible for what they are and I acknowledged that in my original post I was simply providing an example to receive help and opinions on how to improve what I have right now, so should I just try the light box without the lights and just the flash? Any way I could figure out a way to incorporate the white background, I like the look of snakes on a solid white background like a stock photo. Any tips on how to make a set up like that. Obviously I know it wont just happen and I need practice but any tips are appreciated.

 

[EIngerson]

I would take it a step further. Use a custom white balance for some immediate improvement.

As far as the rest of it, you are limited by your gear. Looks like you have moving subjects and I'm thinking you are attempting to use continuous lighting. This makes it very difficult to get the DOF you need. You don't need a Macro Lens. You need a well lit subject so you can use an aperture appropriate for what you are trying to capture. This shot should have been around f/13 or so, and yet, you were at f/5.6.

Yes, the shots can be done better with the equipment you have...(proper white balance, proper curves adjustments, higher ISO, smaller aperture), but really, it's not going to get a whole lot better.

You need better lighting before you are going to make any significant improvement.

I say this too.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Wow, didn't realize how low you went on wattage. Well, yes, better bulbs will help in this case, up to a certain level, and then we'll be having the same discussion again, but looks like you could see considerable improvement with higher wattage bulbs. Also, color temp doesn't matter so much as long as you set your camera accordingly.

What does matter is the 'CRI' rating. It stands for Color rendering index. It basically describes how many wavelengths are present in the light emitted. A lower CRI means there are less wavelengths represented, which means those colors cannot be photographed because they aren't there in the first place.

If you can find a light about 3 times the wattage with a CRI in the 90's, you should be able to use your same setup and get much better results. Not sure if it would be up for Macro, but that's a bridge to cross when we get there.


Edited to add:Since most people outside of marketing and engineering don't really understand the CRI factor, I wanted to add a bit of extra info. You ever go to the store and it looks great when you buy it, but when you get home, it seems like it's lost some of it's color. How it's not quite as vibrant anymore? This happens all the time, and it's because in stores, and especially display cases, they use lighting that has a very high CRI. Your typical home lights don't have that. It's not all that much more expensive, but most people don't know what it is, and don't even look for it. I had the benefit of going to a GE Lighting Seminar and they had some amazing visual examples of display cabinets right next to each other with different lighting. The difference is hard to describe. Honestly, it looked like some sort of magic trick.

So, higher wattage, better CRI, smaller aperture, and a faster shutter speed if you can get away with it.

Just my .02

These aren't the photos I would like to take of my snakes, this was just playing around I would like macro to get nice headshots and scale detail.

My flash fired when I took these pictures if that counts for anything, should I just be using the flash alone?

The bulbs I use are 26W coils with a color temp (if thats the number i'm thinking of) of about 6200. I cheaped on the bulbs so if better bulbs would help then I would gladly look into it. I would like to continue using the light box as I've seen people who have great success and take great pictures with it but I can't see them being able to fit a bunch of umbrellas in a way that would make a difference unless its just to shine on the box.

I will admit I'm very new at this and i'm trying to learn as I go and I realize these were terrible for what they are and I acknowledged that in my original post I was simply providing an example to receive help and opinions on how to improve what I have right now, so should I just try the light box without the lights and just the flash? Any way I could figure out a way to incorporate the white background, I like the look of snakes on a solid white background like a stock photo. Any tips on how to make a set up like that. Obviously I know it wont just happen and I need practice but any tips are appreciated.

 

[cgipson1]

Go to your local home improvement store.. or whatever.. look for some really bright bulbs in a daylight balance... like the 250 watt bulbs I mentioned above. You will see a world of difference!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Oh, I missed your first question about recommendations for a Macro lens...My advice, the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro. It's an amazing lens and I use it all the time. It was my first 2.8 lens and is probably still my favorite.

If you go used, you might be able to find room in your budget for an SB600, which would really help out.

Here is a sample with a Nikon D90, Sigma 150 2.8, and an SB600.

 

[Valvaren]

I wish I could afford a lens like that, if I had 1200 dollars, I will for sure keep it in mind though as a goal to look forward to.

I will look into picking up new lights tomorrow and am also looking into better lighting as far as flashes.

What I was wondering is an opinion on a sigma 50MM F2.8 EX DG Nikon Macro lens, I was looking into getting one since there is a sale and I could possibly pick it up for $200, would it be worth it to look into? I can't afford high quality right now and I know I wont get the best out of it but I would like something that would atleast give me the ability to attempt the shots I would like (close up detailed head shots). Reason I ask is though i've read great reviews I still don't know what sets apart the macro lens from being able to shoot moving things instead of just flowers, now I might be wrong in thinking there is a difference but it was explained to me that way by a person at the store I bought my D90 from and I don't want to buy a macro lens that is better for still images as opposed to my live animals that I wish to work with.

Thank you guys, for everything and am really looking forward to tomorrow and putting all the advice you given me to work will post results.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I wish I could afford a lens like that, if I had 1200 dollars, I will for sure keep it in mind though as a goal to look forward to.

I will look into picking up new lights tomorrow and am also looking into better lighting as far as flashes.

What I was wondering is an opinion on a sigma 50MM F2.8 EX DG Nikon Macro lens, I was looking into getting one since there is a sale and I could possibly pick it up for $200, would it be worth it to look into? I can't afford high quality right now and I know I wont get the best out of it but I would like something that would atleast give me the ability to attempt the shots I would like (close up detailed head shots). Reason I ask is though i've read great reviews I still don't know what sets apart the macro lens from being able to shoot moving things instead of just flowers, now I might be wrong in thinking there is a difference but it was explained to me that way by a person at the store I bought my D90 from and I don't want to buy a macro lens that is better for still images as opposed to my live animals that I wish to work with.

Thank you guys, for everything and am really looking forward to tomorrow and putting all the advice you given me to work will post results.

The only valid difference I can think of in Macro lenses regarding moving vs still subjects would be focal length. Generally, when you are shooting subjects that can fly or move away, a longer focal length is preferred so that you don't spook them.

In any case, the lens I posted is about $600 but I understand that is quite an investment.

50mm is a little on the short end but with patience, I suppose it could work. I've heard good things about the Tamron 90mm 2.8 that is around 360 new and there are deals out there for used ones.

Personally, if I were you, I would try to get something 90mm or higher, but if the 50mm is something you can afford for now, I say go for it. Just think about your box and your setup before you do it. To get a true Macro with that lens, the end of your lens will need to be around 5 inches to your subject.

I don't know if that would be feasible with your setup or subjects.

 

[cgipson1]

90% of what I shoot with my macro lens is "Alive" and Moving". Where did you buy your D90? And are you sure that individual even had a clue?

Macro lens are like any other lens.. you can shoot anything with them. They do specialize in closeups and magnification... and have a resulting very shallow DOF. But I sometimes use my 100mm macro as a portrait lens also. It all depends on how you use it.

The bad thing about 50mm macro lens is that you have to get REALLY close to your subject to use it... just inches. The bad thing about that is that you:

#1 make your subjects very nervous!
#2 block a lot of light with your lens, camera and your body.

I don't recommend any macro lens under 90mm... unless you are only shooting coins, paper, etc....

YOu have a 50mm already, right? Buy a set of Kenko tubes for it.. if you want to try Macro.. or a Raynox 250 lens ... they rock! But you will only be able to get head shots, or small areas of body... etc.. with it. But it could be really cool!