Photographers: I built meself a light box :)

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Mark R
About your framing:

How did you attach the photo to the back board? Did you use spray mount, DS tape? Or did you leave it unfixed.

I screwed up the attaching to the backboard the first time, so I just hang them from the mount with some paper tape, and just use the backboard for support.

That works fine, but occasionally, the photo bends a bit, and if you're not careful can end up touching the glass.

I went out and got archival acid-free tape. I lightly taped it at the corners and the top to the mat board, making sure that the sides and bottom of the photo hung free. If you tape all sides securely, changes in temperature can warp the photo, so it's best to leave it hanging. The mat board was cut about 1/4 inch smaller than the photo itself rather than flush with the photo, so taping was easy.

Since my tape was double-sided, I lined the backboard with the mat board, sandwiching the photo between them.

I got my frame from http://www.framedestination.com/

I don't have experience with frames without mat boards

 

[GTaudiophile]

Wow, congrats on both.

What was your primary reason for making the light box? To photograph stuff you want to sell?

And as for printing the large print, how is the quality? 300 DPI? Could your XT handle such a large print without too much noise?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Fuzzy, you also write, Just MAKE SURE to submit your photos in sRGB color space, not Adobe RGB. Also get your monitor calibrated and stuff.

Could you explain more about monitor calibration? How is that done? Does doing that minimize the problems that arise when trying to edit a photo on different monitors?

 

[keeleysam]

I guess I'll do the tub with my 50mm f/1.8 on an XTi.

Do you think that the flouresent bulbs are the best?

 

[Mark R]

If your monitor is calibrated, you can rely on the image it displays to be accurate in terms of color and contrast. This way it should be an accurate representation of the scene, and also the final print (if printed on a calibrated printer). If you have multiple monitors, if they are all accurately calibrated, then the image should appear identical on each.

Windows can manage the calibration, but you need some form of colorimeter device (e.g. Spyder2) to measure the performance of the monitor.

Some high-end monitors designed for graphical work, can perform the calibration corrections in hardware. Some may even come from the factory ready calibrated for major standards (e.g. sRGB) - but this doesn't take into account aging of the monitor, and a serious user would recalibrate their system every year or so.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Mark R
If your monitor is calibrated, you can rely on the image it displays to be accurate in terms of color and contrast. This way it should be an accurate representation of the scene, and also the final print (if printed on a calibrated printer). If you have multiple monitors, if they are all accurately calibrated, then the image should appear identical on each.

Windows can manage the calibration, but you need some form of colorimeter device (e.g. Spyder2) to measure the performance of the monitor.

Some high-end monitors designed for graphical work, can perform the calibration corrections in hardware. Some may even come from the factory ready calibrated for major standards (e.g. sRGB) - but this doesn't take into account aging of the monitor, and a serious user would recalibrate their system every year or so.

a serious user would recalibrate way more than yearly. the light coming in through the windows can change how your monitor looks daily. with a spyder2 you can recalibrate very quickly, so doing it with each picture set is optimal. if you take printing seriously, recalibrating frequently is the only way to go. it makes a difference.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Mark R
If your monitor is calibrated, you can rely on the image it displays to be accurate in terms of color and contrast. This way it should be an accurate representation of the scene, and also the final print (if printed on a calibrated printer). If you have multiple monitors, if they are all accurately calibrated, then the image should appear identical on each.

Windows can manage the calibration, but you need some form of colorimeter device (e.g. Spyder2) to measure the performance of the monitor.

Some high-end monitors designed for graphical work, can perform the calibration corrections in hardware. Some may even come from the factory ready calibrated for major standards (e.g. sRGB) - but this doesn't take into account aging of the monitor, and a serious user would recalibrate their system every year or so.

Is that brand pretty much the standard or does a product exist that does the same job for half the cost?

Thanks for the info!

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mark R
If your monitor is calibrated, you can rely on the image it displays to be accurate in terms of color and contrast. This way it should be an accurate representation of the scene, and also the final print (if printed on a calibrated printer). If you have multiple monitors, if they are all accurately calibrated, then the image should appear identical on each.

Windows can manage the calibration, but you need some form of colorimeter device (e.g. Spyder2) to measure the performance of the monitor.

Some high-end monitors designed for graphical work, can perform the calibration corrections in hardware. Some may even come from the factory ready calibrated for major standards (e.g. sRGB) - but this doesn't take into account aging of the monitor, and a serious user would recalibrate their system every year or so.

Is that brand pretty much the standard or does a product exist that does the same job for half the cost?

Thanks for the info!

most of the people i see at the local camera/printing places use the spyder2. just my .02

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mark R
If your monitor is calibrated, you can rely on the image it displays to be accurate in terms of color and contrast. This way it should be an accurate representation of the scene, and also the final print (if printed on a calibrated printer). If you have multiple monitors, if they are all accurately calibrated, then the image should appear identical on each.

Windows can manage the calibration, but you need some form of colorimeter device (e.g. Spyder2) to measure the performance of the monitor.

Some high-end monitors designed for graphical work, can perform the calibration corrections in hardware. Some may even come from the factory ready calibrated for major standards (e.g. sRGB) - but this doesn't take into account aging of the monitor, and a serious user would recalibrate their system every year or so.

Is that brand pretty much the standard or does a product exist that does the same job for half the cost?

Thanks for the info!

most of the people i see at the local camera/printing places use the spyder2. just my .02

Okay, I added one to my newegg wish list

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Kaido
Also how do you like Adorama's service? I've been looking for a good online print shop...

It's quite good. Just MAKE SURE to submit your photos in sRGB color space, not Adobe RGB. Also get your monitor calibrated and stuff. The photos themselves are flawless, arrive in a timely fashion, and are packaged very well (my 11x17 was packaged in a box within another box with a DO NOT BEND notice on the outside). Every so often they have a promotion where they sell 8x10s for $1 and 11x14s for $2. One just ended about a month ago, so I guess you'd have to wait a few more months for the next one to come by.

I can vouch for Adorama, too. I took advantage of the December discounts as well and ordered a BUNCH of enlargements. They screwed up the printing, and there was a line on most of the prints (faint light line, from one side to the other -- something on the printer roller most likely). I was mad, but then Adorama said they'd ship out an entire new set of prints for free. So, I got some rejects that I gave away to coworkers for free along with a few good ones plus another entire set of enlargements. I'm sticking with Adorama at least in the short term.

As for mounting, I just bought some foam core and some spray adhesive so I'm going to try mounting some that way. I'll let everyone know how that works.

 

[mugs]

Really cool.

I use Adorama a lot... great sales.

 

[6000SUX]

Adorama is one of the worst companies I've dealth with. I won't order from them again. I stick to B & H for equipment and get my prints done elsewhere. If nothing goes wrong with your order, they will be fine, but they have some of the worst customer service in the industry. Just my experience, but if you read resellerratings and sort worst-to-best, you'll see plenty of what I'm talking about.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Wow, congrats on both.

What was your primary reason for making the light box? To photograph stuff you want to sell?

And as for printing the large print, how is the quality? 300 DPI? Could your XT handle such a large print without too much noise?

My primary reason was just to photograph stuff... period. Not necessarily to sell, but it works well for that as well. Flowers, bugs, products, whatever. The controlled environment is nice.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: keeleysam
I guess I'll do the tub with my 50mm f/1.8 on an XTi.

Do you think that the flouresent bulbs are the best?

It doesn't really matter. I go with flourescent because they are cooler and use less energy. I would get ones that pretty bright, maybe the equivalent of a 100W bulb or so? As for the color cast, you need to shoot in RAW so that you can change the white balance afterwards, as the white balance in-camera is seldom accurate enough.

Also make sure to get a power strip. After I had bought the bulbs and 4 lamps and got home, I realized that I didn't have enough power outlets in the vicinity. Good thing I had an extra power strip lying around.

 

[Demo24]

Nice light box!

Actually in the process of building one myself. Worked on it today, but I ran outta paper. Sadly mine won't look near as good, but it should work. Yay for extra box's lying around!

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mark R
If your monitor is calibrated, you can rely on the image it displays to be accurate in terms of color and contrast. This way it should be an accurate representation of the scene, and also the final print (if printed on a calibrated printer). If you have multiple monitors, if they are all accurately calibrated, then the image should appear identical on each.

Windows can manage the calibration, but you need some form of colorimeter device (e.g. Spyder2) to measure the performance of the monitor.

Some high-end monitors designed for graphical work, can perform the calibration corrections in hardware. Some may even come from the factory ready calibrated for major standards (e.g. sRGB) - but this doesn't take into account aging of the monitor, and a serious user would recalibrate their system every year or so.

Is that brand pretty much the standard or does a product exist that does the same job for half the cost?

Thanks for the info!

most of the people i see at the local camera/printing places use the spyder2. just my .02

Okay, I added one to my newegg wish list

As previously stated, monitor calibration standardizes the colors on your monitor, so that hopefully the colors on your screen are the colors that are in your physical prints. If you don't calibrate your monitor, the prints that you get back will most likely have colors that are different from your monitor, and this is really bad from a photo editing standpoint. You spend so much time to edit the pictures to perfection, then spend the dime to get them printed, and they come out all looking... wrong.

I would not recommend the Spyder:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm

I have the Monaco Optix XR on my dual Dell 2001FPs and it works great. I got it for only $100 from Adorama, but now looking back, I have no idea how I got it for this price considering it's selling for $200+

Monitor calibration is something that you have to do frequently, like once a week. LCD monitors can be hard because color and brightness can change with viewing angle, as well as the fact that the cathode backlights in your monitor will dim over time, changing the way your photos look.

The problem with my dual screen is that they are not both the same age, and one is slightly dimmer than the other because its backlight is older and more worn. It took my old Dell 2001FP's backlight three years to grow unacceptably dim, just in time for a warranty replacement.

I've noticed that monitor quality also matters. I once got some BenQ monitor that was recommended in the LCD Monitor Sticky but found that while the picture was nice and bright and vivid, colors were simply not reproduced faithfully enough that I could use it for photo editing.

NOTE that simply calibrating your monitor isn't going to give your prints and screen a 100% color match. There're issues with colors spaces and monitor gamuts and printer gamuts and stuff.

 

[rootaxs]

Originally posted by: ghostman
I've always considered making one, but I was never sure... what bulbs are appropriate? Any old flourescent bulb at the supermarket? Does it have to be a certain wattage?

Homedepot sells "N:Vision" compact fluorescents that come in "Daylight" or roughly 5500k temperatures, this is the one you want. It comes in a blue/white box. They also have the sunlight and warmer temperatures that come in a green and white box.

They also come in 100, 90, 75 and 40w bulbs. I got my set of 100w Daylight bulbs for $11 for a two-pack. Individuals usually come out to $6.50/piece.

The yellowing effect you have is primarily because of the warmer compact fluorescents which is what most people tend to buy.

 

[keeleysam]

Do not go to the Home Depot if you want to do the tub. They don't have clear ones, and the lamps are $12 each.

I bought 100w equivatlent flourescents from Home Depot for $10, then went to Target and got lamps for $8 each, and a tub for $8.99, as well as some posterboards.

I have not put the sheet on yet, as it's in the washing machine, and I've no clue where my 50mm lens is.

Here's my first shot with my 28-135mm lens, shot as RAW, opened in Photoshop with Flourescent settings, and run auto levels:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/371202794_e2e9638c84_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/371202794_e2e9638c84_o.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Exposure: 0.25 sec (1/4)
Aperture: f/36
Focal Length: 105 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: 0/3 EV
Flash: Flash did not fire

 

[keeleysam]

Here's what it looks like so far:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/371214494_17483cb152_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/371214494_17483cb152_o.jpg

 

[MrDudeMan]

if you shoot the pictures in raw, the white balance isnt an issue, so bulb temperature isnt as important.

 

[GoingUp]

I got a bunch of 9x12 prints from Adorama and was impressed with the quality and speed of service.

 

[Demo24]

Finished mine up today. Doesn't look wonderful, but it does get the job done. I've kind of got a spotlight type setup going on. Sadly I haven't figured out how to really get the light directly on top of the box yet. The box really isn't sturdy enough to hold it up.

Still even with the light at an angle I managed to pull off some shots that didn't have any major shadowing going on. Pretty happy with the result and hopefully I can play around with it more tomorrow.


I'll post some pics tomorrow as well.

 

[Soybomb]

Nice work! Have you tried any without the sheet just to see what it looked like?

 

[keeleysam]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
Nice work! Have you tried any without the sheet just to see what it looked like?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/371416369_cbec90fa58_o.jpg

This is without a sheet.

 

[randomlinh]

blah, i bought a box, but it's just too rectangular. i thought i could make it work. s tupid target. maybe walmart will have better boxes.