Which photo is best

[The_Beast]

_MG_0329 by beastf32, on

_MG_0330 by beastf32, on Flickr

_MG_0331 by beastf32, on Flickr

_MG_0332 by beastf32, on Flickr

_MG_0333 by beastf32, on Flickr


Also, anyone recommend some good ISO, shutter speed and DOF for a light room type setting?

[HPE1000]

3rd or 4th picture is best 

[ComradeSniper]

4th IMO

[HipsterPunks]

1st one, dat suuuuper contrast 😎

[intelli78]

4

[scubaste]

I'd say the third is the best. You have the least amount of shadow in that one, notice the top left. You should try to keep ISO as low as possible to avoid graininess. It should be easy to keep the iso at 100 if you are on a tripod and the object isn't moving(YAY Keyboards). Depth of Field is really a preference thing on shots like this. Do you want everything in focus? Then keep you aperture more narrow like 6.3, 8, 11. If you want a shallow depth of field and some blur, then go with the more wide open apertures like 4.5, 3.5, 2.8. If you keep these tips in mind, and adjust your shutter speed to get your exposure meter at (-)----|----(+)even then you are good to go.

[dustinhxc]

2nd or slightly brighter. 

[The_Beast]

I'd say the third is the best. You have the least amount of shadow in that one, notice the top left. You should try to keep ISO as low as possible to avoid graininess. It should be easy to keep the iso at 100 if you are on a tripod and the object isn't moving(YAY Keyboards). Depth of Field is really a preference thing on shots like this. Do you want everything in focus? Then keep you aperture more narrow like 6.3, 8, 11. If you want a shallow depth of field and some blur, then go with the more wide open apertures like 4.5, 3.5, 2.8. If you keep these tips in mind, and adjust your shutter speed to get your exposure meter at (-)----|----(+)even then you are good to go.

Thanks a ton! I'll use those tips tomorrow. I'm shooting pretty much every keyboard related item I have. I played around with settings before I started to shoot, but every white object seemed to require a different shutter speed or it would become very very white.

[kitsun8]

4th for me

[HendyZone]

Third one for me

[Sifo]

they're all **** benis

#4

[Fnzzy]

#3 and #4 are the same picture, except the 4th is a bit warped (or at least taken at a slightly different angle). I vote for #3.

[Signature]

#3 and #4 are the same picture, except the 4th is a bit warped (or at least taken at a slightly different angle). I vote for #3.

I believe #4 have a different ISO setting than #3

[bianco]

4th

[Puddsy]

#3

[Dubsgalore]

2/3 win

[hwood34]

3 is probably the best, but the shadows on 2 are pretty cool

[user 18]

I like #2 at first glance, all the later ones look washed out to me, and I don't see enough contrast between the two colours of caps.

If I take the time to look more critically, I like #3, #4 and #5 as well. I definitely would have liked them first time around if they hadn't been right next to #2.

I just like looking at pictures of pretty things, okay?

[Coreda]

Would help to share what settings you were using for each shot, as after comparing 3-5 in Photoshop there is virtually no difference between them. 3 and 5 are slightly lighter than 4, and there are very subtle noise differences but that's about it.

You'll ideally want the lowest noise, so aim for ISO 100 and enough light that photos aren't dark (such as photo 1-2 above). From the images it looks as though the area to the left of the numpad is a white surface, so you'll want to make sure the photos display whites as light shades rather than dull/under-exposed (and the keycaps represent their correct color).

1/60 is the lowest recommended shutter speed for hand-held shots with lowish light, but it's better to use a higher speed with more light to reduce the chances of motion blur, especially for still shots like this.

Depth of field is up to you, as long as there is enough light. For full board shots I'd suggest a wider depth of field to keep the board in sharper focus all around (as it looks like you're taking them on a solid white background). For close-up/closer cropped keycap shots a shallower depth of field can look nice but that's totally up to what you prefer.

[Lurch]

3

[Joey Quinn]

3 or 4

[HoffmanMyster]

I'd say the third is the best. You have the least amount of shadow in that one, notice the top left. You should try to keep ISO as low as possible to avoid graininess. It should be easy to keep the iso at 100 if you are on a tripod and the object isn't moving(YAY Keyboards). Depth of Field is really a preference thing on shots like this. Do you want everything in focus? Then keep you aperture more narrow like 6.3, 8, 11. If you want a shallow depth of field and some blur, then go with the more wide open apertures like 4.5, 3.5, 2.8. If you keep these tips in mind, and adjust your shutter speed to get your exposure meter at (-)----|----(+)even then you are good to go.

Thanks a ton! I'll use those tips tomorrow. I'm shooting pretty much every keyboard related item I have. I played around with settings before I started to shoot, but every white object seemed to require a different shutter speed or it would become very very white.

What scubaste said is basically all you need to know.  In this setting, with a tripod, you have control over the shutter speed to an extent that you can choose the DOF you prefer.  I won't repeat what he said. 

But I will add that some people prefer the "softness" created by a slightly higher ISO.  This depends a lot on the camera and how it deals with high ISO though.  Some cameras will look soft, while some will look scratchy.

[pasph]

Buy a 18% gray card.
Put iso to 100.
Choose your preferred DOF (aperture).
Put the gray card over your kb.
Put the dial on aperture priority and focus on the gray card.
Take note of the shutter speed your camera choose.
Put the dial on manual and choose the previous settings.
Shoot and check, if needed adjust with +/- EV

[tbc]

if you want to minimize shadows, look into an external light source.  a standing adjusttable snakehead lamp from ikea is fine.

position it so that there are no shadows.

also consider putting that thin tissue paper stuff you use for wrapping over the lamp so the light is diffused (no hotspots that make it obvious you're using a lamp)

[The_Beast]

That's the setup I was using. A 5000 kelvin light up top and then 4 100 watt light bulbs on each side. I'm guessing some light diffusers would help with shadows. I would also help if the cords connecting one lamp to the other were longer so I could have one light high and facing down and one low.

But hey, it's not my setup so I can't complain too much.

[Coreda]

Great little setup there, and you'd have more than enough light for what you're doing. Hope the rest of the photo sessions go smoothly 

[jacobolus]

White balance is off on all 5 pictures, and the first 2 are quite a bit too dark.

[The_Beast]

Great little setup there, and you'd have more than enough light for what you're doing. Hope the rest of the photo sessions go smoothly 

I showed some pictures to some other GHer's on skype. They're all pretty yellow since I didn't do a custom white balance and the lamps seemed to be around 2500k. However, I did shoot in RAW+JPEG, so I think I'll be able to adjust the WB of the RAW images in a secondary program (I hope....).

[jonathanyu]

4th

[rowdy]

I don't photography very well, but any of them except the first one seems ok.

[The_Beast]

I took they tips from this thread and reshot. Which is best for these? I shot with the wrong white balance, but I did shoot RAW, so that's petty easy to fix.

Auto RAW balance


No white balance


fluorescent


tungsten

[HPE1000]

tungsten

[JinDesu]

Brighten up the auto-RAW and it'll look better. In general I find that white keyboards do well when the lighting is cooler. Yellow and green casts throw off the look of a white keyboard.

[jacobolus]

All of those are slightly off, unfortunately.

[jacobolus]

I’m not totally satisfied with this (it’s a bit tricky because your multiple light sources in the room have different characters so the shadows in your picture are a bit greener while the directly lit parts are a bit redder), but this is closer to neutral:

[HoffmanMyster]

I’m not totally satisfied with this (it’s a bit tricky because your multiple light sources in the room have different characters so the shadows in your picture are a bit greener while the directly lit parts are a bit redder), but this is closer to neutral:

Show Image

I like the colours in this edit a lot, though it does seem a tad washed out to me - but that's almost getting into personal preferences.

[jacobolus]

I like the colours in this edit a lot, though it does seem a tad washed out to me - but that's almost getting into personal preferences.

We can always zap some color in:


vs.


As you say, it’s down to personal preference. Really the thing to do is make 10 variants, print them out reasonably large on a high quality photo printer, and stick them up on the wall for a few days.

[The_Beast]

I like the colours in this edit a lot, though it does seem a tad washed out to me - but that's almost getting into personal preferences.

We can always zap some color in:

Show Image

Show Image

vs.

Show Image

As you say, it’s down to personal preference. Really the thing to do is make 10 variants, print them out reasonably large on a high quality photo printer, and stick them up on the wall for a few days.

That looks really good. Can you share the settings you used?

[jacobolus]

That looks really good. Can you share the settings you used?

Not really. :-)

I use a little photoshop action I made several years ago, but never wrote a book about, as it deserves.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jrus/colortheory/jl.html
https://github.com/jrus/jacobs-photoshop-actions

[Coreda]

Really depends what the original board color is, whether it's actually slightly yellowed (like the Tungsten version would suggest), more an off-white/grey (like the brightened version), or cream (like jacobolus' modified color balance).

Based on some color point samples of the whitest (top-left paper) and blackest areas (solid printed letters) of the Tungsten version, and then making a test with the highlights and shadows neutral it appears like the Tungsten is more correct of the initial white balance versions to me, just a little dark and with a slight green cast. Regular Tungsten lightened a bit:



I personally like the more neutral color balance you posted, as who likes yellowed boards 

[Larken]

I’m not totally satisfied with this (it’s a bit tricky because your multiple light sources in the room have different characters so the shadows in your picture are a bit greener while the directly lit parts are a bit redder), but this is closer to neutral:

Show Image

I like this edit too - very neutral.

@Beast
as far as post-processing is concerned, it really depends on what you're aiming to achieve - i.e. a certain look/tone, or trying to reflect the actual colors (wrt shooting conditions). Also keep in mind screen color temperatures are often inconsistent among different models, and would often need proper calibration for printing - or what appears white on your screen will probably not come out white on the printer. (calibration doesn't quite work out as well if its meant for publishing on the web, since almost every device has a slightly different tint to their screens.)

The pictures were all slightly underexposed imo, but its not much of a problem.

Had a go at the edits; a few tweaks here and there, and different white balance values ranging from warm, neutral to cool.

[jacobolus]

Had a go at the edits; a few tweaks here and there, and different white balance values ranging from warm, neutral to cool.

These are all still a bit off. warm = yellow-greenish, neutral = very slightly blue-greenish (but pretty good for this picture), cool = very green. I usually try to err on the red/yellow side of neutral; green casts in particular tend to be unpopular/unpleasant. White balance in the green/red dimension is generally harder to hit than the blue/yellow dimension, in my experience.

White balancing nearly gray things in mixed lighting is really hard.

Edit: here’s all three of your versions, with the top half converted to gray (in CIELAB space, so lightness is the same from top to bottom in each third):

[HipsterPunks]

*wrong thread

[Badwrench]

Had a go at the edits; a few tweaks here and there, and different white balance values ranging from warm, neutral to cool.

These are all still a bit off. warm = yellow-greenish, neutral = very slightly blue-greenish (but pretty good for this picture), cool = very green. I usually try to err on the red/yellow side of neutral; green casts in particular tend to be unpopular/unpleasant. White balance in the green/red dimension is generally harder to hit than the blue/yellow dimension, in my experience.

White balancing nearly gray things in mixed lighting is really hard.

Edit: here’s all three of your versions, with the top half converted to gray (in CIELAB space, so lightness is the same from top to bottom in each third):

Show Image

I think the neutral without the grey conversion probably looks the most true to color. 

[Larken]

Had a go at the edits; a few tweaks here and there, and different white balance values ranging from warm, neutral to cool.

These are all still a bit off. warm = yellow-greenish, neutral = very slightly blue-greenish (but pretty good for this picture), cool = very green. I usually try to err on the red/yellow side of neutral; green casts in particular tend to be unpopular/unpleasant. White balance in the green/red dimension is generally harder to hit than the blue/yellow dimension, in my experience.

White balancing nearly gray things in mixed lighting is really hard.

Edit: here’s all three of your versions, with the top half converted to gray (in CIELAB space, so lightness is the same from top to bottom in each third):

Show Image

I definitely have to take a look at your links (though I highly doubt I'd understand much of it). Your results are definitely more pleasing to the eye.

I was just wondering how you arrive at the 'correct' white balance, and what is the reference point for white/black? I'm given to understand that photoshop/lightroom typically adjusts white balance according to the color profile of your computer (I may very well be wrong), which in turn is affected by how accurately your monitor is calibrated (or even uncalibrated).

Is there an objective/fool proof way of obtaining the most neutral tones? It would definitely help my processing since I'm mostly doing it by eye (on a monitor that keeps getting inconsistent calibrations on a datacolor spyder3; which despite my best efforts, shows vastly different hues on the two monitors I'm using); I'm not surprised my edits are still off - though I am a little surprised that you are able to pick it out so easily.

[jacobolus]

I was just wondering how you arrive at the 'correct' white balance, and what is the reference point for white/black? I'm given to understand that photoshop/lightroom typically adjusts white balance according to the color profile of your computer (I may very well be wrong), which in turn is affected by how accurately your monitor is calibrated (or even uncalibrated).

There is no objective “correct” answer. The color the eye sees for any particular spot depends on the lighting, your state of adaptation, what other stuff is in the scene you’re looking at, and of course varies from person to person.

You can get some helpful feedback by looking at numbers, for instance in Photoshop there’s an “info” palette, which will show numbers for the current mouse position, and for any spots under a “color sampler”. I recommend looking at the Lab numbers for a more useful reading than CMYK or RGB. (But it takes a bit of understanding/practice to figure out what they mean.)

Otherwise it just takes practice and careful observation.

[Coreda]

Is there an objective/fool proof way of obtaining the most neutral tones? It would definitely help my processing since I'm mostly doing it by eye (on a monitor that keeps getting inconsistent calibrations on a datacolor spyder3; which despite my best efforts, shows vastly different hues on the two monitors I'm using); I'm not surprised my edits are still off - though I am a little surprised that you are able to pick it out so easily.

This video on color balancing in Final Cut Pro X, as well as this on scopes cover the concept of color balancing, that can be applied in alternative ways in Photoshop as well.

As jacobolus mentioned using the Info palette is a handy way of seeing how much Red, Green, and Blue there is at a given point. This can be used to take some samples of white, grey, and black areas of the image and see how much color needs to be taken away or added to the channels to achieve a balanced color, with the channels in each range being more matched in number.

Nice thing about Photoshop is there are always multiple ways of doing something, so there's never one sole method. I tend to use either a Curves or Color Balance adjustment layer and reduce or add to the individual channels in the shadows/midtones/highlights to first create a more neutral balance based on the color samples noted, then add any extra changes in other adjustment layers.

[jacobolus]

One thing I will recommend to anyone looking to upgrade their Photoshop skills is Dan Margulis’s book.

http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/ (I haven’t seen his videos, but the book is great, as are his other books.)

I don’t 100% agree with all of his methods, and I find some of his output images a bit excessively colorful and contrasty, but there’s a ton of useful stuff in there. (Disclaimer: I helped proofread the first half of the book a couple years ago.)

[kitsun8]

One thing I will recommend to anyone looking to upgrade their Photoshop skills is Dan Margulis’s book.

http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/ (I haven’t seen his videos, but the book is great, as are his other books.)

I don’t 100% agree with all of his methods, and I find some of his output images a bit excessively colorful and contrasty, but there’s a ton of useful stuff in there. (Disclaimer: I helped proofread the first half of the book a couple years ago.)

What would you recommend to people that are just starting out with photoshop?

[jacobolus]

Lot’s of practice! :-)

I don’t know of any good “beginner” books, per se.

[kitsun8]

Hummm I think i will after i find some more time, i'm gonna be juggling another 1-2 languages next year though but hopefully i'll find some time for hobbies ^^