New Studio lighting for photos.............

[tucker85]

Originally Posted by camille1585

Nice set up!! I still do everything the improvised way, so I need to take a zillion photos to get the good one. No tripod (I use various pieces of furniture for support), no lights (mirrors to reflect natural light) and an old point and shoot camera. I think that I need to start investing in some better stuff..

After using these for a couple of weeks I realize that I get better colors in natural light. I'm a little disappointed in the colors I'm getting with the studio lights. I may try using them for fill-in along with natural light.

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by tucker85

After using these for a couple of weeks I realize that I get better colors in natural light. I'm a little disappointed in the colors I'm getting with the studio lights. I may try using them for fill-in along with natural light.

I know nothing on these lights, but maybe it depends on the lightbulbs? If they aren't daylight spectrum then the colors might be a little off. Good idea though of trying to use natural light as your primary light source, that might help somewhat.

[silken]

I do almost all of my orchid shots beside a large window with good natural light but not direct sunlight. Then I use a disc that I got from a photographic place (brand is Interfit) that is 3 reflective surfaces, 1 black and one white diffuser surface all in one. It is a round flexible disc 24 inch diameter but with one quick maneuver, it folds into a 9 inch flat disc and goes into a little pouch with a holding strap so takes almost no space! The 3 reflective sides (silver, white and gold) and the black are a reversible cover over the thinner white diffuser. Affordable and very convenient. I almost always use a tripod to hold the camera in weird angles and then my hands are free to use the reflector/diffuser on the dark side of the plant or any angle. I use a remote shutter release to avoid movement and for freeing up my hands for the reflector. Also shutter speed is not an issue on a tripod so natural daylight is fine and you can get good depth of field with a small aperture. Tucker, your umbrella would make a lovely 'soft box' with a window for natural light.

[tropterrarium]

Too bad the image of your studio set-up seems to have disappeared. Anyway, re color, that is a very tricky aspect as it involves several variables.
- Object = flower for us
- Color of light of light source (the Kelvins)
- in mixed light: possible differences in color temperature of the different light sources
- color cast introduced by reflectors (white is not white!).
- White balance of camera.
- minor color casts introduced by lens, usually you can ignore that one.
- viewing condition: monitor, print.

The flower is given. Often memory skews the way we think the color is/was. So a different color from what we expect is considered wrong, even if it is accurate. If possible, hold the final image next to the flower to check.

Alternatively, photograph a piece of neutral grey card board, or a MacBeth color checker (or similar gizmo) with the flower. Then you have an objective reference.

White balance is crucial. Auto-White-Balance is surprisingly good in my camera (relatively hi-end SLR), but may be more of an issue with cheaper/older ones. Occasionally, one can set WB manually to flash, tungsten, anything in between. Experiment with it.

In mixed light situation, it is tricky to impossible to get the white balance right. Then adjust the color temperature of one source with color filters (orange or blue). This assumes that you know what the color temperature of each is, and that you can find out the necessary filtration (so-called Mired values = microreciprocal degrees). Sounds too complicated? Stick to light sources of the same color temperature. Mixed light is not for the faint of heart.

Reflectors and diffusors are critical tools. With home made diffusors, be careful about color casts that the diffusor introduces. The old white paper roll gives serious blue cast with flash, because the optical brighteners in most paper convert the UV from the flash to blue by fluorescence.

Last but not least, viewing condition cannot be omitted. If you are getting more concerned about color, invest in a monitor calibrating spider. I use a Monaco optics. Even two copies of the same monitor model are slightly different. Found that out when I recently bought 2 27" Apple cinema displays and calibrated them, then assigned the "wrong" profile to one monitor to see how much it differs. I could easily see the difference.

When you print them, also be careful with doing soft-proof, check for out of gamut warnings, and do proper assignment of print profiles. Thereafter, also consider that a print in daylight may look different than under fluorescent or under incandescent light. This is called metamerism, which ink producers try to minimize, but it still will change the look.

The Real World book series has a good one on color management in digital workflow. Quite tough read, but worth it. I got a lot out of it.

Also, if you shoot in RAW, you can pretty much salvage any color casts in RAW conversion.

Good luck!

P.S. Mirrors will reflect directional light very harshly (also polarized, but that's a different matter), but diffused light will be reflected as diffuse light as well.