White balance will be the death of me...

[ORourkeK]

Thank you all for taking the time to try and help. I really appreciate it. I do not believe screen calibration is the issue. If I go into PS and set the background to 255:255:255 I see "Pure White". My problem isn't that I believe I am seeing the wrong color. I know that the background in those images is grey and not white. The issue is that it should be white. So I need to learn how to make it white every time I take a shot. If you look at the picture with the teacup, it is the closest I have come to achieving 255:255:255. That photo was taken in the exact same place as the other photos. I have a white tent set up where I place all of the items. I am starting to believe that this may be an exposure issue rather than a WB issue. I am using a pretty cheap softbox set that I bought on Amazon. Maybe its time I buy a few flashes or an actual light setup.

 

[smoke665]

I am starting to believe that this may be an exposure issue rather than a WB issue. I

Which is why I make sure the exposure on my target is correct and not in shadow, before I use the dropper tool to adjust WB. If the exposure is off it will have a bearing on how LR adjusts the WB. Even then I use the curve channels to make final color adjustments to an image, based on what I perceive to be the correct WB.

 

[ORourkeK]

View attachment 167914

How did you adjust the right side of the image?

 

[Ysarex]

Thank you all for taking the time to try and help. I really appreciate it. I do not believe screen calibration is the issue. If I go into PS and set the background to 255:255:255 I see "Pure White". My problem isn't that I believe I am seeing the wrong color. I know that the background in those images is grey and not white. The issue is that it should be white. So I need to learn how to make it white every time I take a shot. If you look at the picture with the teacup, it is the closest I have come to achieving 255:255:255. That photo was taken in the exact same place as the other photos. I have a white tent set up where I place all of the items. I am starting to believe that this may be an exposure issue rather than a WB issue. I am using a pretty cheap softbox set that I bought on Amazon. Maybe its time I buy a few flashes or an actual light setup.

I suspected this. You don't have a WB issue you have an exposure issue.

Testing your display for a color cast by setting full white (255, 255, 255) isn't a great idea. Set the color to (230, 230, 230) and look for a color cast -- you should see light grey.

Moving on: you want your exposure to render the the background full white (255, 255, 255). You have the EC control in the camera you can use to increase exposure and you have post processing controls when you process the CR2 file.

Problem is you also have white subjects sitting on white paper. If you blow out the paper you'll blow out the subjects. A lighting answer is to light the paper separate from the subjects but that will require some work -- the best solution but difficult.

In post you can mask the subject and then adjust the background.

Joe

 

[ORourkeK]

I have been practicing masking now for a couple of hours. I do fine on the top part of the items, but the bottom parts where I have shadows, things get rough.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

View attachment 167914

How did you adjust the right side of the image?

It's not really how you want to proceed. Not only does it take time but you have to be very careful to produce the same output for all images if you are looking at multiple products to be displayed on the same web site. Slight colour differences are very noticeable when you have two images side by side, and nothing communicates that you are not looking at true colour more than slight differences in the white background between images...

What you need is a colour calibrated work flow combined with a lighting system that will produce a slightly over exposed background against a correctly exposed product. For this there are far more knowledgeable members on this site.

For the colour managed work flow consider using a colour passport. It is a swatch of different known colours and when used correctly will produce a consistent WB adjustment (so your target or finished image has the same consistent WB and look). It is easier and more accurate than adjusting each image individually.

 

[Ysarex]

I have been practicing masking now for a couple of hours. I do fine on the top part of the items, but the bottom parts where I have shadows, things get rough.

Don't try and mask a shadow -- just the subject. You're using LR. Use the brush, set it very large and first mask over the entire image. Then switch the brush to erase and erase out the subject. This can still get tricky and become time consuming so back to taking your photo: If I were doing this: the lighting solution is to place the subject on translucent white plexi and light that from behind or lift the subject off the background (shadow issues) so that you can direct lights on the background that do not light the subject. I would use the option in bold.

Joe

 

[Designer]

I have been practicing masking now for a couple of hours. I do fine on the top part of the items, but the bottom parts where I have shadows, things get rough.

That is WAY too much work.

I think your backdrop is white, is it not? Why not simply use that as your WB target? Or if you prefer going through all the tedious work of matching some numbers, just put a styrofoam plate, box, or cup in the first frame (why move the main subject?) and snap off the first shot to give you a WB target. After removing the cup, take all the shots you need using the same exposure settings, and then match away!

Personally, I just use my WB adjustment tool, and make the backdrop white, and call it good. Takes about 15 seconds for everything I need to do for each photo.

 

[mrca]

Use a color checker passport. The color will be correct. Not close, dead on. You must be working on a properly calibrated monitor as well, that includes brightness. Get a calibrating system that dials in brightness. If you ever are going to print, I never was satisfied with what I got with spyder calibration, but with the i1studio nailed my monitor brightness, color and for printing, no more laborious test prints, it creates custom profiles that produce prints matching my monitor. It includes a small color checker target to nail color. It is one of those buy right once rather than buying twice.

 

[Derrel]

Your issue (your problem) is not so much one of white balance, but one of exposure. White looks white when it is given more exposure than a camera's reflected light metering system tends to indicate. The camera's built-in exposure meter will tend to make a white paper look gray. Adding exposure, by slowing down the shutter, will "lift" the exposure for the paper, and make it look white. If the shutter time is sped up, the paper will be rendered darker and darker, first as slightly dark gray, then darker gray, and so on. Now...this is the thing...with MANY small light boxes and setups that have the lights placed fairly close to the shooting area, the light is not very even in its intensity, as measured by a photographic light meter. The light produced by a small lightbox type of setup will appear, to the human eye, to be quite even in intensity. Human vision is incredibly adept at adapting to differences, and we see things differently than does a camera.

As I see your problem, your gray issue is one of un-even lighting, and un-even,different degrees of camera exposure value. In close-range lighting, there is a well-known issue that arises from the Inverse Square Law. The ISL is what you're running into here. Because the lighting is coming from bulbs that are physically CLOSE TO the subjects, the rate of fall-off in light intensity is VERY rapid, even across distances as short as a few inches, and THAT is why (according to basic science,not personal opinion) your background paper is going from white, to light gray; your first teacup shot shows this effect VERY obviously, and is a classic example of the problems associated with lighting small products with simple lighting that is placed too CLOSE, physically, to the subject.

If you want more-even, and more-white lighting, you need to 1) increase the distance of the lights from the subject. Increasing the distance of the light source will lead, directly, to light that is more-even across distances. Again...this is a very well-known issue, and it's a drawback that the makers of small light boxes are not going to emphasize. A quick and fast lighting set-up, like a light box, or one softbox just plopped down close to the shooting table, will often lead to un-even illumination that the human eye will accommodate for, but which the camera,and the light meter, can and will "see" as un-even.

When dealing with white paper: even a slight degree of under-exposure, or under-lighting, will very rapidly, introduce a gray tinge to the image. Look to your early image, the one of the beautiful teacup: proxy.php the white-white areas have the most light. The areas that are less-white? Those are/were receiving LESS light, and are being rendered AS-EXPECTED, by science.

There are solutions to the problem...and the solution is NOT a white balance correction. The solution is different lighting strategy!

 

[ORourkeK]

Thanks for the info Derrel. I definitely agree that it is a lighting and exposure issue. Even before I take the shot I can see that one side is darker than the other. I think if I had one more lightbox I could make it work, but when I try to use one light just for the background, and the other for the subject, the subject is unevenly lit. I even tried a bunch of different options tonight and I could not get the results I want. Before I even went to take the pictures I knew the lighting may be an issue, but after talking for a while with someone at my local shop we decided to give it a go before purchasing things I didn't need. But, it looks like I will be heading to the shop tomorrow to pick up a real light setup. Now I have to decide if I am going mono or speed... I am thinking I need a minimum of three regardless of which option I choose. You have all been a ton of help. Thank you.

 

[Strodav]

What are you seeing on your display? I see the first of the 2 images (top) you posted are toward the fluorescent green side and the second set of images are on a much more neutral gray background and I don't see any color cast at all. I am seeing significant vignetting on all 4 images. The front and the back of the top 2 images (plates laying flat) are very soft and the top of the silver handle is soft. The bottom two images are nice and sharp and I can easily read the print. Exposure on all 4 images is fine, in fact, I like the exposure on the bottom 2 images - nice reflections.

 

[ORourkeK]

What are you seeing on your display?

I am seeing the same as you. The vignetting is due to the exposure in each. I shoot the items in a 3x3 ft tent. I have one softbox coming through the back of the tent, and another on top of the tent. I think I need to start closing off the front of the tent and shotting through the slit more. That is what I did with the teacup. Its just overexposed a bit. I picked up a ProMaster Unplugged 300 tonight. Pretty excited to start playing around with it.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, your most recent photos are so much improved!!! Awesome progress. Just wondering : about how far would you say that the mono light is placed from the light tent?

 

[ORourkeK]

1.
IMG_0626 by KC ORourke, on Flickr

2.
IMG_0628 by KC ORourke, on Flickr

3.
IMG_0637 by KC ORourke, on Flickr

4.
IMG_0638 by KC ORourke, on Flickr

EDIT: Not sure why my pictures aren't showing properly. I will take another look tomorrow.