Got to redo a whole shoot

[ThePresence]

Text

Company sells hand-carved wood pieces for installation in wood kitchens and furniture, etc.

I am not very happy with how these came out. Most are made of one type of wood, but a few are from a different type and they look washed out. I should've realized at the time but I was too tired to notice anything at that point. Also, the angles are inconsistant. I called the client and told them I want to reshoot and they were shocked. Apparently they liked the pics. But I'm gonna redo it anyway.

 

[andylawcc]

not many people have excruciatingly high standard, and thankfully your client is one of them. The image quality flaw you mentioned doesn't bug me as bad as the inconsistent angle though.

 

[jpeyton]

Agreed, they look very flat, and that's probably because you used a white background for very light colored wood.

Did the client specify white? Using a different color would add more contrast and depth.

There are other ways to add depth, too. Use mixed lighting to cast some soft shadows. Add a neutral background element to convey size/distance to the viewer.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Ooooo... have you thought about taking 3D photos? One of the things that I didn't like all that much about your shots is that because the texture of the wood and the light is very homogeneous, I had a hard time telling depth.

http://www.feargod.net/3dhowto.php

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Agreed, they look very flat, and that's probably because you used a white background for very light colored wood.

Did the client specify white? Using a different color would add more contrast and depth.

There are other ways to add depth, too. Use mixed lighting to cast some soft shadows. Add a neutral background element to convey size/distance to the viewer.

Yes, they wanted it on white because their website is white.
I may try to convince them to do it on a darker color anyway.
Just because the site is white does not mean that the pics have to be on white.

I did use mixed lighting, and there is some subtle shadow.
Doesn't come across so well in the web pics after they were optimized.

It is not really necessary to show size in these images.
The specs will be listed right alongside them.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Ooooo... have you thought about taking 3D photos? One of the things that I didn't like all that much about your shots is that because the texture of the wood and the light is very homogeneous, I had a hard time telling depth.

http://www.feargod.net/3dhowto.php

Hmm... I've never done that and I don't know anything about that process.
I would want to be very comfortable with it before I offer it to a client.

 

[jpeyton]

My eyes hurt after looking at some of those 3D photos.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
My eyes hurt after looking at some of those 3D photos.

It takes some getting used to.

You know, the strange thing is that I haven't been able to find a site with really GOOD 3D photos. All the 3D photo sites I've been to are just crappy photos taken by P&S or really old film cameras. It sucks. Done right, it's really neat. But the sites just don't do it right.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: jpeyton
My eyes hurt after looking at some of those 3D photos.

It takes some getting used to.

You know, the strange thing is that I haven't been able to find a site with really GOOD 3D photos. All the 3D photo sites I've been to are just crappy photos taken by P&S or really old film cameras. It sucks. Done right, it's really neat. But the sites just don't do it right.

Maybe I'm stupid, but for the life of me I can't make the pics look 3d.

 

[Alyx]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: jpeyton
My eyes hurt after looking at some of those 3D photos.

It takes some getting used to.

You know, the strange thing is that I haven't been able to find a site with really GOOD 3D photos. All the 3D photo sites I've been to are just crappy photos taken by P&S or really old film cameras. It sucks. Done right, it's really neat. But the sites just don't do it right.

Maybe I'm stupid, but for the life of me I can't make the pics look 3d.

Me either, my eyes must be broken...

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: jpeyton
My eyes hurt after looking at some of those 3D photos.

It takes some getting used to.

You know, the strange thing is that I haven't been able to find a site with really GOOD 3D photos. All the 3D photo sites I've been to are just crappy photos taken by P&S or really old film cameras. It sucks. Done right, it's really neat. But the sites just don't do it right.

I think my eyes naturally gets crosseyed a lot more easily after viewing these 3d photos for an extended period of time.
It's often difficult for me to keep my eyes coordinated on small objects quickly changing in depth.
I really suspect it has to do with putting my eyes in crosseye for so long to view these photos.

 

[Fardringle]

I never have any problem making my eyes "crossed" to view the 3D Hidden Picture puzzles, but the photos on that site won't merge into a 3D image for me no matter what I do.

 

[Fardringle]

To get back on subject, I think you can "fix" those shots with a little bit of processing. I ran one of them through a quick adjustment in Lightroom and got what I think is a much better result. I'm sure it's possible to do even better since I only started using Lightroom a few days ago so I'm still getting used to it.


For reference, on this shot I moved Blacks level to 12, Clarity to 50 (100 is even more dramatic, but a little too much for my tastes), and Sharpening Amount to 20. I didn't make any other changes since I'm not sure what other settings might be appropriate. The result isn't perfect, but I think it shows the detail of the carving and the wood grain better.

before
after