On 29 Dec 2001 at 22:57, John Mustarde wrote: > I've experimented with underlighting for some of my digital photos. I > set the objects on a lightbox to reduce shadows from the main light > source(s). A background could be added later, after the objects are > photographed to satisfaction.
Hi John, Thanks for the comments (same for everyone). The light-box is an interesting idea, I did see one time a commercial sill-life table constructed of what appeared to be frosted acrylic sheet with a nice gentle bend at the back. This set-up allowed lighting from beneath as you suggested. However I really wanted to try to maintain the contrast between the objects and the background and try to keep it looking natural. > Maybe for this pen two shots could be married together in Photoshop - > one shot for the highlights, and one for the shadows. I was thinking > of shooting the tip of the pen exactly as you have it, then making a > second, higher contrast or lighter shot for the barrel and cap to give > them a little more punch. I did actually try this in that I placed a well exposed nib on an image with overall greater exposure except I lost the depth in my background. I really think that I need to add some really low long lights at the front left and right in order to fill in the shadows under the barrel of the pen. > Aren't you glad you don't have to burn a bunch of film, and wait for > processing, to see whether or not the lighting works? Digital is so > good for product photography - it gives instant viewing of the > lighting results. Heaven. On 30 Dec 2001 at 0:44, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Hi Tom, > Not bad at all. You're observations are pretty much correct. You can > consider digital as a direct positive type of media. There is a reason the > people who specialize in this sort of thing (jewelry) use light tents and > matte spray. A light tent sounds interesting, matt spray sounds messy, I would like to experiment with a water atomizer though, could be interesting as long as the lights are right since the reflections in the drops could be hell. On 30 Dec 2001 at 6:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To my untrained eye (I'm no graphic designer), I much preferred the second > one (smaller file). It seemed to show much more depth. Maybe that was > because it was a closer shot. The pen looked much more real to me in that > > one. > Which camera were you using, incidentally? The smaller image was much easier to shoot and I suspect that it looks more "real" as I didn't get the lighting as good as the first shot, I got irritated and put a hard light right out front to put a sparkle on the edges, you can see it plainly in the reflections. I have been using an Olympus Camedia E-10 because Pentax haven't produced a digital SLR yet :-( On 30 Dec 2001 at 8:06, David Brooks wrote: > Even though i have a "state of the art"(D1) digital camera, > i still have a lot to learn about lighting with it and PS digital > editing.Until i do however the 5 Pentax film bodies are staying > right were they are in my Lowepro. > My recent motto:When in doubt,film it. Hi Dave, I don't know about you but my digital camera has become my de facto P&S and has been relegated to the task of taking on shots not deserved of film, however I have gone out a few times now armed with a the digital and a 645 or 67 :-) On 30 Dec 2001 at 9:36, Ed Mathews wrote: > Wow, these look great on my monitor. Hi Ed, Thanks, they looked cool on mine too that's why I put them out to be scrutinized, I haven't got it all sorted out though, I had something different in my mind when I started. BTW you should see the high resolution files :-) Cheers to all, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
