Someone took pictures of a stores products using a lightbox.

File: sadf.jpg (229KB, 1800x1337px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1800x1337px

Im worried there is not enough contrast to make the lights white, and darks black.
I just tried bumping the light/contrast.

>>3033424
>How unprofessional are these photos when it comes to showcasing them on a store website?
Very.>>3033424
>If I color correct them perfectly are these salvageable?
It helps. You're better off using photoshop to bring up the levels, and mask out the light box seams/unevenness.

I hope she'll provide RAWs to fix this fuckup, but considering she fucked it in the first place, GLHF with your white balance fixed JPEGs.

File: b1a (1).jpg (239KB, 505x600px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 505x600px

>>3033424

>woman photographer

File: tumblr_m1bg9w56C01qads8no1_1280.jpg (62KB, 607x448px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 607x448px

How much did you pay this person?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	QuickTime 7.6.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:12:27 09:43:02

File: horse.jpg (857KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 2048x1365px

here its exposure and white balance shifted and also made the background brighter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:04 15:32:34
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

File: horse2.jpg (873KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 2048x1365px

>>3033441
here i made the background into a faggy color that helps separate the subject better.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:04 15:35:52
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

>>3033441
That looks alot better just by bumping those 2 values.

>>3033438
nothing, we are partners on a web project.
But the client payed a good amount for sure.

The images are high res... Im thinking with the right photoshop touch, these images can pop as intended. - nervous tone.

>>3033450
>with the right photoshop touch

Yeah, just ask the client for another $3,000 or so and have a retoucher fix all of them.

>>3033424
no joke, this is why women shouldn't be photographers, they fucking suck 90% of the time

>>3033424
honestly, these pictures are horrible, the depth of field is WAYYYY to small for good product photography. and she clearly didn't use the proper lens either.

Do NOT show these to your client, they will be upset. Get another photographer that knows what theyre doing, because she clearly knows nothing about photography, seriously, nothing at all.

>>3033425
Is this picture cropped? Or is that the whole photo??

This has to be bait

>>3033450
You better have the raw files, also I agree with >>3033478 on the depth of field issue.
If you can't do it all again then just do a mediocre job on photoshop. I've seen enough shitty photos on stores and nobody gives a damn. Don't waste your time.

>>3033450
How did you become partners with a person that doesn't know shit about photography and sucks at every attempt at it?

File: 1488650873139.jpg (196KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 2048x1365px

I can fix your problem.

I'm asking $300 and I'll remove the watermark.

PM me if interested.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:04 22:53:42
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

File: f86c3e1b7be61c4e5925358c63831b68.jpg (34KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x432px

>>3033424
The main problem is the background.

You are supposed to use a curved piece of paper inside the light box to eliminate any seams.

I would re-shoot them with a curved background.
You should be able to do a better job just using a piece of paper and your phone.

>>3033553
Shit

File: 1485819365224.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

Digislugs did it again

>>3033424
I agree with the person who said reshoot
it will take less time than your postprocess and the results will be better (no dof fuckup)
but considering the hilarious level of incompetence shown here, you should probably be the one to do it
your partner should have realized the problem 1 photo in.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-02 at 7.18.04 AM.png (2MB, 1374x1218px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1374x1218px

>>3033424
These are bad, really bad. What's worse is that from the examples you've shown is that the lighting was inconsistent meaning fixing the brightness will have to be done on a per image basis rather than setting up a batch process, or at least a batch for each time the lighting or settings changed. Further there are issues with depth of field which you can't fix in post. Ideally for these kind of product shots the whole object would be in focus. The lighting should be even as well to avoid the unpleasant shadowing on the objects.

You can get tolerable shots from shooting in a light tent but it requires some basic competency and knowledge all of which is easily found on the web. There's severe nubbery here... like you can see her light source in the reflections as being on camera and there does not appear to be any other light which when using a tent two can be used but three or more is ideal.

I wouldn't use these. These are bad craig's list tier photos.

File: 4bbf230d7239792f4b4e1261fea7d625.gif (33KB, 600x435px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x435px

>>3033424

OP, you'd be able to shoot better images on your own. Get a good light box like this, and be sure to get a refund from that photographer who gave you this dreadful set, absolutely no passion on her end.

https://fotodioxpro.com/products/studio-box-led