Product Photography

>>2884175
BJDrew's product photography YouTube video is a good primer. It doesn't matter that this video is for shooting small products. The general principles are going to be the same. You need to control your light well. That's key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekNbGad2Lk

As far as a good focal length, that all depends on the size of your studio, how big your mannequins are, what your lighting situation is, etc. Without knowing that, we really can't give you solid advice. If you're shooting full body mannequins, you're going to need a shit ton of space and a wider lens, something less than 50 even. If you're going to be shoot a detail on a tie to show the weave of the fabric, then you may need something much tighter, like an 85 or a 105 macro or something.

What's your setup?

File: uomo-collezioni-SS16-suit1.jpg (250KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 560x560px

>>2884182
I reckon the mannequin is life size and the would probably be shot like the pic uploaded. I havent seen the setup yet, i reckon they'll give me a couple soft boxes/umbrellas, and ive been told i'll get a canon with a generic zoom lens (not constant f-stop), probably 18-105 or something similar, and a 50mm prime.

What would be the ideal focal for a medium shot, 35mm?

>>2884189
>What would be the ideal focal for a medium shot, 35mm?
Honestly, that depends on how much space you have in the studio. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but there's really no way to answer that question without knowing more.

If you don't have any space, then you may need a 35 to get it all in frame. But a lot of times something as wide as a 35 will distort things too much and look a little wonky. For product stuff, I'd get as long of a focal length as you can get away with in your space.

For studio stuff, if I'm shooting somebody's upper torso, I like to stay in the 50-85 range. But a lot of times you may not have enough room to back up to get that in.

>>2884192
I see, i always thought distortion started at around <20mm. But, yeah, thats some good advice actually. Do you have any lighting tips?

File: tile1.jpg (537KB, 1985x1800px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1985x1800px

>>2884196
Well, distortion is going to exist to some degree at every focal point. See pic related. (I fucking hate that girl's face, but the chart has been around forever and makes the point well.) And remember that distortion isn't just wide angle. Longer focal lengths are going to stretch stuff out and widen your subject, so you'll get some form of distortion or another the further in either direction you go.

As far as lighting advice, for product photography you want things to be lit evenly and smoothly. That doesn't necessarily mean flat lighting, but you probably don't want crazy harsh, dramatic lighting. That YouTube video I linked to really is a good intro to some basic concepts. I'd start with the softboxes and try to get as even of a light as you can get. Perhaps one on either side with a bare reflector behind and below to outline the mannequin. Or try one softbox over your head and pointed down and one right below you pointed up.

Clothing isn't the time to get crazy creative. It's the time to show balance and technical precision.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2008:07:25 00:37:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1985
Image Height	1800

File: Witman-Kleipool--Bart-Oomes--Prestage05.jpg (19KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x533px

>>2884199
i see thanks alot for your advice! I do want to get a little creative, like the product in this photo. But, you are right.

>>2884202
Well, good luck to you. The last bit of advice I'll give you is this: Before you can get creative, you need to have mastered the basics. I'm not saying that you shouldn't strive for creativity, but the most effective creativity comes when you know the basics and know how to manipulate things purposefully. Mastering the basics will give you the tools to explore your creativity more fully.

It may be a cheesy, simplified example, but think about Picasso: He's known for his crazy, abstract, transformational work. But do a Google image search for his early paintings. He knew how to paint a straight up realistic portrait. He knew out painting worked. He really knew what he was doing. Then, when he wanted to push boundaries, he had the tools and skills to do it effectively. Having a creative idea is only half the battle. You've got to be able to execute the creativity well, otherwise it's just shit.

>>2884205
yeah, youre absolutely right, thanks for all your help!

>>2884199
>for product photography you want things to be lit evenly and smoothly

it depends... when shooting something made out of (i.e.) leather, you want some of that crazy harsh, damatic lighting, so you don't kill the texture of the product.

>>2884199
>distortion is going to exist to some degree at every focal point.

That's deep, man.

just found this guy. he is giving nice tutorials and pretty good explanation
https://www.youtube.com/user/techcompanytutorials/videos

>>2884248
Yeah, dude, physics is deep.

I found this excellent video on product photography! Its a bit long though.
https://youtu.be/YOHQ25b5-Ak

I did some basic product photography for a shop i worked for once, small objects in clinical positions. I recommend to anyone doing similar things that you should start by focusing on your lights. I started with several small led lights behind a white diffuser and you can learn a lot about showing and hiding texture as well as accentuating scale. if you are starting from scratch i suggest at every opportunity you look at how your lights are set up and link about how they are affecting your result.

Hi OP.

HI! - this is a gift for you. If you read, re-read, re-re-read and absorb this book - you will be in a good place. I hope this link works: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AIKtTrIwZGEOpRA

Few things. One - dress the clothing perfectly. There is nothing worse than sloppy styling. The first image >>2884175 isn't very good. The 2nd >>2884189 is much better.

Don't look at the item(s) like a person - look the way a camera does. It sees everything and ignores no flaw.

Second - I'd work at 85mm or 135. I know this means being far away. Try to if you can. Even 50mm isn't as flattering.

Third - Don't get fancy. You'll probably fuck something up. The only way I can get anything done in a studio is understanding my own shortcomings and staying simple. Each light you add more than doubles the complexity for you.

Fourth - Look at the work of and teaching/clinics/blog/etc. of JEFF ROJAS. I saw him with some frequency when he was just starting. He shoots mostly men and does is well. Learn from him.

CONT'd

>>2884477

Now, for the lighting. I don't know what you're doing for background, so hard to say for sure. I have very little talent, so my strategy is "don't fuck it up"

In the interests of "don't fuck it up" - a large, constant ring light would probably be the easiest and most foolproof.

Outside that, think that you need both texture and volume. Soft, giant modifiers won't do this. Think beauty dish probably. A wide gridded reflector on the flash and a bounce reflector can work in a pinch. Don't go strights on, but not totally oblique.

If you want to get nutty, you can do a rim if necessary - even two strip boxes at 45deg from behind works. Flag everything to keep each light in its own "box" - just for simplicity and not fucking it up.

If you must have a visible background, keep it simple, keep it dark. Keep it (the light) from spilling into the foreground. Fucking up the background lighting will make you sad.

But really, read that book and good luck!

>>2884199
Does everybody notice that whole upper row is literally same picture copied ? I know that differences are suposed to be miniscule, but i would be nice to see that in example not a simulation.

>>2884576

uhhhhhhh what