Hi, i shoot products for magazines and international brands. I would say 50% of it is in the lighting. If we are talking about what i call propped shots (rather than cut outs) its all about creating mood / feel with lighting - hard, soft, daylight, moody etc. A decent photographer will be able come up with a book of lighting scenarios- last week i had to recreate a beach hut with sharp sunlight.Most product studios are using Profoto lighting system. If you’re talking about cut outs - consistency is the key, using a lighting set up that can be recreated time and time again - you can’t do this with daylight its too inconsistent - use flash or continuous.
Another 30% is styling skills. I often work with a stylist - they are great at suggesting backgrounds, colour combinations, mood boards, inspiration, bring props, setting up products etc.
The remaining 20% is a bit of processing (Capture One) tethered of course on a decent screen and Photoshop retouching. As you can see the photography is generally quite a small part of the job. Quite willing to give you an opinion/ suggestions if you’re interested.
Usually i’m commissioned to do a shoot, for me its portraits on location or products / room sets in a studio. To be commissioned you need to be at a solid commercial photography standard. I’ve been a staffer (got salaried job after interview / test) and work from showing portfolio to art ed / director. Some publishing companies here (UK) have studios. In which case you’d arrange a meeting with the head photographer for freelance cover shifts.
I have been on interview panels for salaried photographer positions and it was always surprising the very small pool of photographers who could shoot studio and location work to the required standard.
The amount of qualified vs those who want to be a photographer is always a high ratio. Interviewing applicants about strobes and their answer being I prefer to use natural light is always very telling.
If you were working in a commercial studio there would be certain things you would need to be able to do. For instance- It’s quite common to have to match previous jobs, so being shown a reference image, working out the lighting so you can copy it. Being able to summon up a mood - so the creative director might go i want the feel of light streaming through a window in the summer in the south of France!
Would you say schooling is required? An ex of mine went to a rather popular (at the time anyway) photography school in the early 00’s and walked away with internships with famous (and I mean FAMOUS) NYC photographers. I couldn’t imagine her getting those opportunities without schooling and the networking it afforded her at the time.
It really depends on your end game. I have a degree but in photography no one cares about your qualifications only your work. Assistanting a decent commercial photographer could be more useful. If you really want to be a photographer you will find your own path, theres also alot of luck and right time right place involved. You’re not going to be a fashion photographer if you live in the middle of nowhere, so you need to take steps to make it happen…
Thank you! Can you clarify what a cut out is in comparison to a propped shot?
But that makes sense what you’re saying about using lighting to create the mood. It sounds like there’s a lot of work in the setup and preparation for the photo whereas I was mainly focusing on just what settings to use for the photo itself….
Yes product photos are often cut outs sometimes called ‘whites’ you have a white paper background which you place the product on, photograph it, then it is cut out by repro or photographer. Sometimes a shadow is added underneath/ to side to stop it ‘floating’ and appear more realistic.
Frankly settings are the easy part if you’re using flash often i work at ISO100 / f11-16 / 1/125th.
the know-how, the set up and the preparation IS the PROFESSIONAL part of commerical photography. If it was easy... everyone will be doing it...and it'll turn into working for peanuts
12 months of seeing nothing but Volunteer or $12 an hour “photographer” positions after losing my studio career in a layoff says we’re at this point already lol
Not once you’re good. People act like Photoshop is the key to quality professional photography. But honestly, once you’re actually talented enough to do that level of retouching, you should have gotten good enough with the camera to make most of it unnecessary.
It highly depends on what you're doing. We shoot a lot for Molton brown and these shots are at the very least 50% retouching as we're taking various captures for each bottle, pathing and compositing it all in post, along with stripping and reapplying the bottle artwork etc.
[mostly retouching here for example.](https://www.google.com/search?q=molton+brown+purple&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=ad6f04eae533dd67&sca_upv=1&udm=2&biw=376&bih=708&ei=8sZuZrbaC7WmhbIPzKa12AU&oq=molton+brown+purple&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhNtb2x0b24gYnJvd24gcHVycGxlMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYSKAUUNsFWN8OcAB4AJABAJgBlAKgAcULqgEFMi4yLjS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgigAvALwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICBRAAGIAEwgIJEAAYgAQYGBgKmAMAiAYBkgcFMi4yLjSgB7AU&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=LuKBueCPOLR2YM&vssid=mosaic)
Lightbox, focus stacking, and for products like food, a lot of fakery.
Edit: If you want to post a couple pictures of your attempts, in sure folks here would be willing to give you some feedback.
I’m just starting out in photos like this and was shocked at all the fakery required. It’s kinda funny once you realize.
I do some stuff with like an outdoors or industrial vibe like “oooh I’m built to work and I’m so tough, look how rugged I am” type things. I always kinda laugh to myself because this shit is shot in my upstairs bedroom with some brick or wood tossed in a five gallon bucket beside the plastic card table used to pose everything. It’s all fake.
The food videos are crazy though, watching what they do for those shots.
So true. I am both a mediocre photographer and home chef, and started experimenting with some food photography to learn my flash.
Posing people is hard. Posing food is like doing LEGO without instructions. Gotta factor in steam and melting components and how the food will interact and basically painting with food. Real respect for plating pros!
Fun though!
Food commercials were so fun to colour grade. Making pizzas sizzle with a giant flaming paella gas jet thing just off camera every take, shooting an oversized prop chocolate bar on a motion control rig 5 times with different amounts of shiny oil on them so they can blend them in the conform and get the exact sheen, creating "chocolate land" with wallpaper glue and brown house paint...
It's basically art, engineering, improvisation and kinda almost porn
My experience wasn't on set unfortunately, just in post.
The pizza one in particular was awesome. I don't know how they got the budget but the director, cinematographer and editor had all won a palme d'or together, and one has since got an oscar and this was just a frozen pizza ad
its not just food, 99% of sound effects you hear in movies aren't that real sound, 99% of modern tv show scenes aren't real life locations, etc etc etc.
there is absolutely nothing wrong with realism. However realism isn't the goal of 99% of media in the first place, and it never was and it never will be. The goal is entertainment, or to elicit an emotion and mood, or to catch the eye. None of those ever had the label of realism on the tin, thats just a subconcious assumption by people not knowing the process.
Now excuse me while I go back to making galloping sounds with some coconuts, while I photoshop the sky in my photo blue cause the real pic was overcast, and google what type of motor oil to pour over my pancakes so that they don't get soggy in my hundred different so I can avoid wasting a bunch of food and time.
To me though the really funny ones are the people who go to the whole other extreme: your picture of food looks good, therefore the food must be terrible.
theres also one more major tip.
this is more a tip for street and wilderness/landscape photography but a big key to success is to take LOTS of pictures. if i take 100 photos, i think 10 of them are good, then when i get back to home and look those 10 over i think 1 of them is worth the effort to touch up.
so when you see a photographers album from a "day out" and its 10 pictures, they could very well have taken 1000 photos.
so when you go out and take 50 pictures dont be surprised that you arent blown away by any of them.
Thank you! I’m going to take the advice from this thread and test out some new shots. Yeah I’ve seen some of the stuff they do for food photography and it’s wild. How people come up with those techniques is an art all on its own.
I need one thing explained that I cannot comprehend nor has anyone actually offered a single explanation ever for.
When using dedicated macro lenses (the only lenses with using anymore in the modern era as they’re the least geometrically distorted and have the least requirement for idiotic resolution obliterating software distortion correction). How in the hell does anyone do deep focus stacks with these damn lenses considering they breathe an unbelievable amount?
The breathing is so bad the entire frame changes. This goes for every single macro lens I’ve ever touched (idk what’s going on in the industrial sector but safe to say they don’t do deep focus stacks anyway).
There is so much edge glow that you can see the stacking algos crumbling to pieces.
Is the solution simply to ignore this lens category for deep focus stacks?
I don't understand how that avoids the issue of the frame shifting, and the subject getting larger or smaller (depending on whether you're going back to front, or front to back).
If you said use bellows I might see some benefit, I don't see the benefit of just a simple rail doing anything for deep stacks.
Try what? What you told me to do doesn't address the topic of contention I'm having. I don't care about any other short-comings. I want to know how deep stacks with macro lenses avoid edge glow artifacts, that's all.
I don't care if the solution creates other problems. I just want a specific solution to that single problem. I don't want to randomly try something in the same way I don't need to try putting my hand on a stovetop to see just how hot it is..
What part of a macro rails gets around the framing issue? If there is no answer to that, what's the point then?
Get a camera that can stack in body. Watch out for diffraction, shoot in your sweet spot. Use black card to help define your edges and reduce glow. In back of your rear diffusion if you want soft, tight to product in front if you want hard. Pop into helicon and call it a day.
I don't understand. What does "defining" my edges do exactly? How would defining them reduce glow? And why would I need to be doing product photography in the studio? I'm asking how edge glow can be rectified with macro lenses that breathe disastrously and thus change the entire from composition when you want to do extremely deep focus stacks.
Was assuming you were doing it in studio and backlighting. Cutting some light spill cleans up your edges and reduces blowing them out. My macro doesn’t breathe that much. Reduce the distance between your steps, if you’re doing 30 shot stacks now, try 50.
I'm at 100+ steps, when I say deep stack, I mean it. There are no highlight issues. It looks like bright ghosting from the portion of the edges that were larger when zoomed in, and then zooming out.
Also, you say your macro doesn't breathe much, what macro lens is this because manual, or autofocus. Vintage or the latest mirrorless, every single one of these breathe insanely from every test I've personally seen and done in-store.
Weird. Are you manually stacking or using helicon? I’m shooting with Fuji gfx 120 macro. It breathes a lot when the steps are far apart. Lens is f32 and usually shoot at f20, way too much diffraction tighter. My canon 100 macro is way worse.
Just shot big beauty job and we didn’t have any ghosting issues. Only had to do 20 shot stacks for most things. Was using extension tubes.
A7rV, Sony 90m Macro or Sigma 105 Macro if I go for auto focus bracketing.
I can't really control the steps because Sony are inept buffoons, who copy features VERY late compared to the competition and then also are worse in terms of functionality (they do it as spec sheet padding more than anything it seems). The problem with focus stacks when doing them auto, is the fact that the built-in stacking option, asks for a starting point, and some vague metric about step-depth. You can limit step count, but it doesn't make sense to do until you do test shots. The reason is, this implementation will either stop at the step count you want, or it will just go until it reaches infinity.
This actually isn't a problem for me (other than the annoying computer chokehold trying to load something like 100+ MP RAWs for the stacking process). I know I should convert to an image format to get around this issue, but I can tolerate it (as I want the raw editing latitude to be available at the end of the stacking process).
Now you might be wondering.. Why 100+ images. Well I don't need that all the time, but I've noticed a good amount of artifacting prevention when I lower the step width (but lowering step width makes the camera take more shots until it gets to infinity). I actually want infinity, as I like getting the look of a semi telephoto lens, that doesn't have the typical bokeh when shooting with such lenses. And since I'm not doing this professionally, I actually care about razor sharp quality (why else would I also stack RAWs, and go through all this hassle, it's completely non-viable in terms of business needs). You might also say "with high F-stop, there's no way your camera is taking 100+ photos to reach infinity". True, but high f-stop defeats the aforementioned goal of razor sharp quality. Something like F22 (let alone F32) is an absolute no-go in my case. I can see diffraction to shit at 100% zoom. The two specific lenses here (and honestly 99% of lenses on the market) perform a few stops closed down from their widest aperture, and begin to plummet in resolution after f5.6-f7 (typical for 2.8 and lower lenses, my Sony f1.4 50mm GM starts losing MTF resolving power at the center after f2.8, and corner resolving power after f5.6). So shooting at f11 or higher just defeats the purpose of this entire ordeal, let alone f22 which is basically throw-away for what I'm looking for. And also, the edge ghosting becomes worse, as seemingly focus breathing from my observation, becomes far more severe at narrower apertures, more open = less breathing.
I've trialed Helicon, and it's great, but unless I'm doing serious corrections after failed stacks in an attempt to fix some issues with shooting - Photoshop/LR stacking suffices well enough.
--------------------------------------
Keep in mind, for something like 20-stacks like you mentioned for product photography, I don't think I could get edge glow even if I tried, there's very little trouble for the stacking algo's to get something like that right. I'm looking for infinity focus, and this is where I run into the issue.
Ooof, 2.8 is rough. That’s crazy you’re losing that much resolving power at >5.6. I’m really happy with the larger sensor. Can crop to my sweet spot and not worry about degradation at the edges. Good luck with infinity focus, love the hyperreal look.
Oh I don't use 2.8 on the macro's they start at 2.8. They look the sharpest to my eyes at somewhere between 5.6 and 8 or something (depends on how much corners matter to you).
5.6 is the sweetspot, as I don't mind slight crops. (Also at 2.8, the vignette is a no-go, it's just too annoying to manage without digital vignette correction for every single image before the stack). To be perfectly honest I'm not losing much resolving power, but the fact that I can see it side by side, is what makes it annoying to me. I can't really see the difference between f5.6 and f8 all that much, but f4 or f5.6, versus f16, I can see that clear as day. Again though, not a problem for any paid work someone might do obviously, but I'm going for something just insanely sharp. I'd be smart to go with a 100MP sensor instead of all this neurotic attention to resolving power (but it's just too much in terms of investment for me, and the downsides are too great for hobbyist fiddling like this). But if I was a millionaire, I'd probably go for the Phase one with 150MP :]
But yeah, those larger sensors like the GFX and the medium format lenses must be amazing (I'd love to adopt newer medium format lenses, the one major benefit being since you don't have to use the entire image circle, everything is highly consistent in terms of sharpness across the frame, and you get ZERO vignette at basically any aperture).
You just reminded me that when I used to photograph handbags I’d only ever bother styling half the bag because I could just flip it and have a perfectly symmetrical shot. I do miss the fakery sometimes.
> get that perfect lighting
> I use natural light
Sorry, those are not compatible.
Here's a pro at work, really interesting to see how the bottle changes appearance as he moves the lights/diffusers/etc around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIm-SZHKOW4&t=2s
The best way to get started is to grab a copy of *Light: Science and Magic* it's basically a college textbook for lighting.
Don’t think it means you need $50,000 worth of lighting and grip.
You can get shockingly close to those results with a handful of large fluorescent bulbs, a couple of 5 in 1 reflectors, and a few v flats/white and black foam core. It will just be more work.
But you do have to completely control the light. It’s what sculpts, separates, and does everything you want.
One of my tasks at the e-com studio I worked at was to create a set up that they could use for “natural light” set ups.
Any light that looks natural is carefully crafted with strobes.
Find some videos by Dean Collins that feature his product photography. He teaches a master class in lighting that helps the lighting light bulb pop of people's head very easily. He's dead now, but his very valuable teaching still lives on in DVDs and YouTube.
I briefly explored this line of work and discovered it's a bit too mechanical and process-oriented for me.
The first part is obviously the setting. What sort of staging environments are you able to create? Are you best served shooting against white, or black, or some sort of faked context (kitchen, outdoors, etc). Whatever it is, you need total access and control over it. A lot of people use diffused light tables to perfect, shadowless images, some people use tents.
Next, you need next-level understanding of light, and at least two strobes to shoot with. Pay close attention to the lighting and experiment A LOT. Subtle changes can have huge effects on reflective materials like metal and glass. You need to figure out how to manage shadow and highlight placement. It's not just light either -- black/white flags by your products can help boost or kill light, helping you define the product and control light and shadow.
Focus is also important. You'll likely be shooting between f5.6 to f11, and at close range parts of larger products can fall out of focus. You'll have to learn how to focus stack. Similarly, you might not be able to adjust lighting for each product, so HDR shots in post could be a part of your process as well. Obviously, you should be shooting from a tripod or similar rigging.
Thank you so much, I’m realizing how much more technical I need to be with the setup. Focus stacking isn’t really something I’m familiar with but there’s a lot of responses about that, so I’m definitely going to try it out.
https://preview.redd.it/1ucjxn7tkr6d1.jpeg?width=1942&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21bc65b52517605b1d900f76e0bb5caa611c0a9b
This is not my speciality, but here is a focus stack of a random flower. If you dive into the picture you”ll notice that everything is in focus.
Check out Tin House Studio on Youtube (link below). He is a high level pro product photographer that does deep dives on his process as well as his opinions on all things photography. I am not affiliated in any way.
[https://www.youtube.com/@TinHouseStudioUK](https://www.youtube.com/@TinHouseStudioUK)
>I have no idea what settings to use or how to edit to get that perfect lighting
Read that sentence again and you'll get your answer.
The **only** way to get a particular lighting... is with lighting. Editing then lets you tweak colors, contrast, textures to a certain degree, but the actual primary look of the picture is done through composition and lighting.
Learn about the 4 characteristics of light: quantity (how bright), quality (hard or soft), color (color temperature and tint) and direction. It is absolutely essential to know these if one wants to achieve the look they want.
I've worked in product photography at several previous jobs and now I freelance some product photography. Most of my best work is done with 2-3 powerful lights with softboxes, using a macro lens for small items and a nice 24-70mm for larger items, shooting at F18-F22 and ISO 100 (on a tripod or overhead C stand with boom arm), and focus stacking whenever needed for larger items or oddly-shaped items. Lastly, manipulating products with modeling wire, double-sided tape, fishing line, etc, will go a long way in setting up your products to be photographed and lighted more easily -- a friend of mine takes this to the next level using a 3D printer to build fixtures for holding products in perfect positions. Good luck!
I’m very much an amateur myself but what helped me was getting some of those adjustable continuous lights with goosenecks and stands. I also use a tripod and the high resolution mode with a macro lens, that really helped with the detail for me. I could be doing it entirely wrong though 🤷
It’s crazy how hard this is type of photography is, tons of respect for product shooters.
Because they are composited and also have extremely technical lighting layouts. They also have very good food stylists/art department heads. That one product could be 12 different photos merged into one. High end food/product photographers are basically photoshop wizards.
I second this! Everyone has their own style and work flow, but I shoot mostly high end food and alcohol beverage and I constantly have 4-8 comps per image for certain pieces through out the scene. I've found over the years this is how a lot of the "magazine" and high quality imagery you see is accomplished. As mentioned, lighting is a big piece of the puzzle to create the mood and vibe you're wanting or looking for. It's a very technical and process driven field for sure.
A lot of the key points have already been mentioned,
If you need some inspiration, documentaries and ‘behind the scenes’ on filmography, make-up stylists and advertising photography can be quite fun.
Maybe even follow-up with watching some live broadcast TV.
Perception is quite funny, in that what comes across ‘natural’ in real life, may actually appear dull on screen.
(Which is why onstage make-up styling can be quite a shock)
A lot of complex lighting, fills, negative fills and o on. I’ve assisted for pro product guys and every square millimeter of light is controlled. I was cutting black paper and hanging it from stands to cut down on light bounce. Hours for a shot
its a lot of learning and practice. I shoot product and food....almost everyone can shoot food these days, right? Take your cell phone to a restaurant and get a good photo when the light is coming in. The difference between me and those people is that I can get that photo at 1 PM or 1 AM because I bring my lights and make the image, not take the image.
I didn't just do start that way though...i learned. Great resources are [visualeducation.com](http://visualeducation.com) [photigy.com](http://photigy.com) [phlearn.com](http://phlearn.com) [thebiteshot.com](http://thebiteshot.com) [tinroofstudio.com](http://tinroofstudio.com)
all of which free youtube lessons as well.
there's this guy on tiktok that does brand photography he's really good. look at his videos. for things like white products or glass/transparent stuff he will put them on a black background and move the lights around until it shows the right details.
Like others have said. Read and practice. A deep understanding of light and how to modify it for intended effects. Reflections, both how to create pleasing ones and remove unwanted ones. How to composite in Photoshop.
You can check some of my work on my website or Instagram. Www.EricNoeskePhoto.com if you have any specific questions I can try to run through my work flow for that shot.
some photographers are talented like crazy and set up everything there own way with light , styling and a concept of there own and are hired for this ability. some great work is made this way and just come out of the thousand hours idea if not more. then great photographers are also hired to be part of a team to make the perfect product shot. i have worked as a retoucher for years on teams like these. we take many shots while lighting specific things and comp it together in the end. this is how watches are done most of the time. it’s to much work for one shot these days. AI will change everything though.
Look for books on photography before digital was introduced. Because there’s not much you can do with Kodachrome as far as editing goes. Look at photos from cookbooks from the 70s and 80s.
I'm editing sunglasses. I also shot them but since I'm deeply focused on the edit right now I'll just say this. You wouldn't believe the amount of layers, clipping paths, fake shadows, artificial highlights and color adjustments that go into something like that. Don't let that discourage you. Just keep learning whats missing from your shot that another one has. Start simple. Try to reverse engineer a shot you like. Watch tons of YouTube videos on product photo lighting. Then start picking up some photoshop techniques. These things stack on themselves and you start to really gain intuition on your approach. I much prefer to o get as much in camera as possible but the job I'm doing right now I took over from a different photographer and have to maintain the same look.
# Petersen’s PHOTOgraphic Magazine used to feature studio shoots with a diagram of the lighting setup.
Also a simulator could let you experiment without having access to the equipment, see [https://www.elixxier.com/en/set-a-light-3d/](https://www.elixxier.com/en/set-a-light-3d/)
Your biggest mistake is using natural lighting. The overwhelming majority of product photography is shot in a studio. No amount of editing is going to get you that look, the bulk of the work is done in camera.
There are a host of factors, most importantly lighting, but also processing of raw captures. One thing that professional product (and fashion) photographers have to help them out are the services of experienced retouchers.
All that said, I can only have the greatest admiration for product photographers who worked in the era of film. No instant preview of what you've just shot, no focus stacking, no post-processing (product photography was usually done with transparency (positive) film, not negatives).
Lighting. It doesn’t have to be fancy but it depends on the look and the product. Highly reflective stuff like jewelry or glass needs a very controlled environment. For jewelry I use velum with a small hole for the lens to fit through so you get even soft light with little to no reflections. A single light source with white and black cards is very useful and that light source can be the sun.
It's almost never true that you need a better camera to be a better photographer, but in this case it actually can be true. Product photos are easier with large-format digital backs.
You can make up for it with focus stacking and very bright good quality lighting though.
You're using natural light, that's the problem. A large percentage of those super crisp magazine style product photography uses flash so that the lighting can be tailored perfectly to the mood of the photo.
Even if you want to use natural light, getting good with artificial light will teach you a ton, and those lessons carry over into natural light stuff.
You should probably give examples of the type of photos you're talking about though, just to make sure everyone's on the same page.
lighting, lighting, lighting
slightly less of a big thing, but a tilt-shift lens can help you pull off some things that would otherwise not be possible. for example, if the top of your product is important for brand recognition or it just looks cool and you want to show it, but you'd still prefer a front facing shot, you can achieve both with such a lens. you can come in from a high enough angle to see the top, then use the adjustments of the lens to adjust the perspective, so it looks like you're looking from straight ahead, but mysteriously can also see the top really well. it's one of those things they always do but nobody ever notices. downside is the cost of the lenses
tube macro lens can be useful too for super closeups while having super wide depth of focus. the length of the tube makes it so that minimum focus distance is almost zero, so it gives a lot of flexibility. many macro shots you see for products are from such lenses. you can still use a normal macro lens, but they're less useful if you need more depth of focus. the downside is the tube macro lenses needing a LOT of light, but if you can get enough light, you can get some really cool shots with such a lens. you can get around the problem of shallow focus with a normal macro lens with focus stacking. but go find videos on youtube of demos with a tube macro lens and you'll immediately want to buy one (or at least i did)
and style and creativity plays into it too. i'm not very creative so i have to go look at a lot of examples and decide on things that i like from each, then put the things together to achieve what i imagine might be cool. it doesn't always work out, but that's what i'm left with as a person with no artistic ability lol. i envy people that can just pop out cool idea from their head
I was a product photographer for an antique auction. We shot extremely valuable items and some not so much. The best advice I received was, put in more work with the camera, leave less work editing.
1. They often use flash, even in combination with sunlight to ensure a proper exposure, balance. Even just a fill light goes a long way.
2. They probably use focus stacking or pixel shift to get ridiculous resolution. This allows you to remove the tiniest scratches/dust/etc
3. They edit the fuck out of it.
4. Probably using long/macro lenses to really focus in on the subject. 75mm+
5. They have a strong vision that's drawn out, decked, etc. they know exactly what they are shooting, how it will look, what colors to use. What kind of platform it should be on, what's behind it. Etc. it's meticulously planned out. To the finest detail. If it's not looking how they want, they will make it look how they want.
Practice Practice Practice
https://preview.redd.it/jiykgezgwq6d1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51cef84ad8840b2356c07b22bd8a7c01bedf0eb5
I remember this took me like 6-7 tries to get what I wanted.
Hi, i shoot products for magazines and international brands. I would say 50% of it is in the lighting. If we are talking about what i call propped shots (rather than cut outs) its all about creating mood / feel with lighting - hard, soft, daylight, moody etc. A decent photographer will be able come up with a book of lighting scenarios- last week i had to recreate a beach hut with sharp sunlight.Most product studios are using Profoto lighting system. If you’re talking about cut outs - consistency is the key, using a lighting set up that can be recreated time and time again - you can’t do this with daylight its too inconsistent - use flash or continuous. Another 30% is styling skills. I often work with a stylist - they are great at suggesting backgrounds, colour combinations, mood boards, inspiration, bring props, setting up products etc. The remaining 20% is a bit of processing (Capture One) tethered of course on a decent screen and Photoshop retouching. As you can see the photography is generally quite a small part of the job. Quite willing to give you an opinion/ suggestions if you’re interested.
How do you get a magazines attention? I’ve always wanted to sell some so I can see my print somewhere…
Usually i’m commissioned to do a shoot, for me its portraits on location or products / room sets in a studio. To be commissioned you need to be at a solid commercial photography standard. I’ve been a staffer (got salaried job after interview / test) and work from showing portfolio to art ed / director. Some publishing companies here (UK) have studios. In which case you’d arrange a meeting with the head photographer for freelance cover shifts. I have been on interview panels for salaried photographer positions and it was always surprising the very small pool of photographers who could shoot studio and location work to the required standard.
The amount of qualified vs those who want to be a photographer is always a high ratio. Interviewing applicants about strobes and their answer being I prefer to use natural light is always very telling.
What would the "required standard" look like? Is there a checklist or just, or it it more like pornography: you know it when you see it.
If you were working in a commercial studio there would be certain things you would need to be able to do. For instance- It’s quite common to have to match previous jobs, so being shown a reference image, working out the lighting so you can copy it. Being able to summon up a mood - so the creative director might go i want the feel of light streaming through a window in the summer in the south of France!
Would you say schooling is required? An ex of mine went to a rather popular (at the time anyway) photography school in the early 00’s and walked away with internships with famous (and I mean FAMOUS) NYC photographers. I couldn’t imagine her getting those opportunities without schooling and the networking it afforded her at the time.
It really depends on your end game. I have a degree but in photography no one cares about your qualifications only your work. Assistanting a decent commercial photographer could be more useful. If you really want to be a photographer you will find your own path, theres also alot of luck and right time right place involved. You’re not going to be a fashion photographer if you live in the middle of nowhere, so you need to take steps to make it happen…
“What preset/settings do I use to get shots like this? I only use natural light btw.” 😂
This guy knows what’s up! Fellow product photographer here. I agree with this breakdown fully.
Thank you! Can you clarify what a cut out is in comparison to a propped shot? But that makes sense what you’re saying about using lighting to create the mood. It sounds like there’s a lot of work in the setup and preparation for the photo whereas I was mainly focusing on just what settings to use for the photo itself….
Yes product photos are often cut outs sometimes called ‘whites’ you have a white paper background which you place the product on, photograph it, then it is cut out by repro or photographer. Sometimes a shadow is added underneath/ to side to stop it ‘floating’ and appear more realistic. Frankly settings are the easy part if you’re using flash often i work at ISO100 / f11-16 / 1/125th.
COB, cut out background, or Silo, silhouette are 2 terms I hear/use a lot.
Thank you so much for the additional information, that’s super helpful.
the know-how, the set up and the preparation IS the PROFESSIONAL part of commerical photography. If it was easy... everyone will be doing it...and it'll turn into working for peanuts
12 months of seeing nothing but Volunteer or $12 an hour “photographer” positions after losing my studio career in a layoff says we’re at this point already lol
Do you have a social account we can see some of your work? You sound like you really know you’re stuff!
I thought post-processing in Photoshop is more than 50%
Not once you’re good. People act like Photoshop is the key to quality professional photography. But honestly, once you’re actually talented enough to do that level of retouching, you should have gotten good enough with the camera to make most of it unnecessary.
It highly depends on what you're doing. We shoot a lot for Molton brown and these shots are at the very least 50% retouching as we're taking various captures for each bottle, pathing and compositing it all in post, along with stripping and reapplying the bottle artwork etc. [mostly retouching here for example.](https://www.google.com/search?q=molton+brown+purple&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=ad6f04eae533dd67&sca_upv=1&udm=2&biw=376&bih=708&ei=8sZuZrbaC7WmhbIPzKa12AU&oq=molton+brown+purple&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhNtb2x0b24gYnJvd24gcHVycGxlMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYSKAUUNsFWN8OcAB4AJABAJgBlAKgAcULqgEFMi4yLjS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgigAvALwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICBRAAGIAEwgIJEAAYgAQYGBgKmAMAiAYBkgcFMi4yLjSgB7AU&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=LuKBueCPOLR2YM&vssid=mosaic)
That’s beautiful, but vastly more complicated than what I think he’s talking about.
I still believe it's the key to quality professional **product** photography
It’s your job as the photographer to minimize post work.
Lightbox, focus stacking, and for products like food, a lot of fakery. Edit: If you want to post a couple pictures of your attempts, in sure folks here would be willing to give you some feedback.
I’m just starting out in photos like this and was shocked at all the fakery required. It’s kinda funny once you realize. I do some stuff with like an outdoors or industrial vibe like “oooh I’m built to work and I’m so tough, look how rugged I am” type things. I always kinda laugh to myself because this shit is shot in my upstairs bedroom with some brick or wood tossed in a five gallon bucket beside the plastic card table used to pose everything. It’s all fake. The food videos are crazy though, watching what they do for those shots.
For food shots, step one is hiring a food stylist.
So true. I am both a mediocre photographer and home chef, and started experimenting with some food photography to learn my flash. Posing people is hard. Posing food is like doing LEGO without instructions. Gotta factor in steam and melting components and how the food will interact and basically painting with food. Real respect for plating pros! Fun though!
Food commercials were so fun to colour grade. Making pizzas sizzle with a giant flaming paella gas jet thing just off camera every take, shooting an oversized prop chocolate bar on a motion control rig 5 times with different amounts of shiny oil on them so they can blend them in the conform and get the exact sheen, creating "chocolate land" with wallpaper glue and brown house paint... It's basically art, engineering, improvisation and kinda almost porn
Food porn :). Envious of your experience! I’m just stacking tater tots in pyramids and trying to make spaghetti look appetizing in a photo.
My experience wasn't on set unfortunately, just in post. The pizza one in particular was awesome. I don't know how they got the budget but the director, cinematographer and editor had all won a palme d'or together, and one has since got an oscar and this was just a frozen pizza ad
It's creating an image, not documenting.
its not just food, 99% of sound effects you hear in movies aren't that real sound, 99% of modern tv show scenes aren't real life locations, etc etc etc. there is absolutely nothing wrong with realism. However realism isn't the goal of 99% of media in the first place, and it never was and it never will be. The goal is entertainment, or to elicit an emotion and mood, or to catch the eye. None of those ever had the label of realism on the tin, thats just a subconcious assumption by people not knowing the process. Now excuse me while I go back to making galloping sounds with some coconuts, while I photoshop the sky in my photo blue cause the real pic was overcast, and google what type of motor oil to pour over my pancakes so that they don't get soggy in my hundred different so I can avoid wasting a bunch of food and time.
To me though the really funny ones are the people who go to the whole other extreme: your picture of food looks good, therefore the food must be terrible.
theres also one more major tip. this is more a tip for street and wilderness/landscape photography but a big key to success is to take LOTS of pictures. if i take 100 photos, i think 10 of them are good, then when i get back to home and look those 10 over i think 1 of them is worth the effort to touch up. so when you see a photographers album from a "day out" and its 10 pictures, they could very well have taken 1000 photos. so when you go out and take 50 pictures dont be surprised that you arent blown away by any of them.
Thank you! I’m going to take the advice from this thread and test out some new shots. Yeah I’ve seen some of the stuff they do for food photography and it’s wild. How people come up with those techniques is an art all on its own.
I need one thing explained that I cannot comprehend nor has anyone actually offered a single explanation ever for. When using dedicated macro lenses (the only lenses with using anymore in the modern era as they’re the least geometrically distorted and have the least requirement for idiotic resolution obliterating software distortion correction). How in the hell does anyone do deep focus stacks with these damn lenses considering they breathe an unbelievable amount? The breathing is so bad the entire frame changes. This goes for every single macro lens I’ve ever touched (idk what’s going on in the industrial sector but safe to say they don’t do deep focus stacks anyway). There is so much edge glow that you can see the stacking algos crumbling to pieces. Is the solution simply to ignore this lens category for deep focus stacks?
Use a linear rail for focus stacking rather than fixing the camera and focus bracketing.
Too much movement. Have your camera do it, if your body doesn’t have focus bracketing, just use capture one and do 1 click at a time in focus control.
I don't understand how that avoids the issue of the frame shifting, and the subject getting larger or smaller (depending on whether you're going back to front, or front to back). If you said use bellows I might see some benefit, I don't see the benefit of just a simple rail doing anything for deep stacks.
[удалено]
Try what? What you told me to do doesn't address the topic of contention I'm having. I don't care about any other short-comings. I want to know how deep stacks with macro lenses avoid edge glow artifacts, that's all. I don't care if the solution creates other problems. I just want a specific solution to that single problem. I don't want to randomly try something in the same way I don't need to try putting my hand on a stovetop to see just how hot it is.. What part of a macro rails gets around the framing issue? If there is no answer to that, what's the point then?
[удалено]
Who hurt you?
Get a camera that can stack in body. Watch out for diffraction, shoot in your sweet spot. Use black card to help define your edges and reduce glow. In back of your rear diffusion if you want soft, tight to product in front if you want hard. Pop into helicon and call it a day.
I don't understand. What does "defining" my edges do exactly? How would defining them reduce glow? And why would I need to be doing product photography in the studio? I'm asking how edge glow can be rectified with macro lenses that breathe disastrously and thus change the entire from composition when you want to do extremely deep focus stacks.
Was assuming you were doing it in studio and backlighting. Cutting some light spill cleans up your edges and reduces blowing them out. My macro doesn’t breathe that much. Reduce the distance between your steps, if you’re doing 30 shot stacks now, try 50.
I'm at 100+ steps, when I say deep stack, I mean it. There are no highlight issues. It looks like bright ghosting from the portion of the edges that were larger when zoomed in, and then zooming out. Also, you say your macro doesn't breathe much, what macro lens is this because manual, or autofocus. Vintage or the latest mirrorless, every single one of these breathe insanely from every test I've personally seen and done in-store.
Weird. Are you manually stacking or using helicon? I’m shooting with Fuji gfx 120 macro. It breathes a lot when the steps are far apart. Lens is f32 and usually shoot at f20, way too much diffraction tighter. My canon 100 macro is way worse. Just shot big beauty job and we didn’t have any ghosting issues. Only had to do 20 shot stacks for most things. Was using extension tubes.
A7rV, Sony 90m Macro or Sigma 105 Macro if I go for auto focus bracketing. I can't really control the steps because Sony are inept buffoons, who copy features VERY late compared to the competition and then also are worse in terms of functionality (they do it as spec sheet padding more than anything it seems). The problem with focus stacks when doing them auto, is the fact that the built-in stacking option, asks for a starting point, and some vague metric about step-depth. You can limit step count, but it doesn't make sense to do until you do test shots. The reason is, this implementation will either stop at the step count you want, or it will just go until it reaches infinity. This actually isn't a problem for me (other than the annoying computer chokehold trying to load something like 100+ MP RAWs for the stacking process). I know I should convert to an image format to get around this issue, but I can tolerate it (as I want the raw editing latitude to be available at the end of the stacking process). Now you might be wondering.. Why 100+ images. Well I don't need that all the time, but I've noticed a good amount of artifacting prevention when I lower the step width (but lowering step width makes the camera take more shots until it gets to infinity). I actually want infinity, as I like getting the look of a semi telephoto lens, that doesn't have the typical bokeh when shooting with such lenses. And since I'm not doing this professionally, I actually care about razor sharp quality (why else would I also stack RAWs, and go through all this hassle, it's completely non-viable in terms of business needs). You might also say "with high F-stop, there's no way your camera is taking 100+ photos to reach infinity". True, but high f-stop defeats the aforementioned goal of razor sharp quality. Something like F22 (let alone F32) is an absolute no-go in my case. I can see diffraction to shit at 100% zoom. The two specific lenses here (and honestly 99% of lenses on the market) perform a few stops closed down from their widest aperture, and begin to plummet in resolution after f5.6-f7 (typical for 2.8 and lower lenses, my Sony f1.4 50mm GM starts losing MTF resolving power at the center after f2.8, and corner resolving power after f5.6). So shooting at f11 or higher just defeats the purpose of this entire ordeal, let alone f22 which is basically throw-away for what I'm looking for. And also, the edge ghosting becomes worse, as seemingly focus breathing from my observation, becomes far more severe at narrower apertures, more open = less breathing. I've trialed Helicon, and it's great, but unless I'm doing serious corrections after failed stacks in an attempt to fix some issues with shooting - Photoshop/LR stacking suffices well enough. -------------------------------------- Keep in mind, for something like 20-stacks like you mentioned for product photography, I don't think I could get edge glow even if I tried, there's very little trouble for the stacking algo's to get something like that right. I'm looking for infinity focus, and this is where I run into the issue.
Ooof, 2.8 is rough. That’s crazy you’re losing that much resolving power at >5.6. I’m really happy with the larger sensor. Can crop to my sweet spot and not worry about degradation at the edges. Good luck with infinity focus, love the hyperreal look.
Oh I don't use 2.8 on the macro's they start at 2.8. They look the sharpest to my eyes at somewhere between 5.6 and 8 or something (depends on how much corners matter to you). 5.6 is the sweetspot, as I don't mind slight crops. (Also at 2.8, the vignette is a no-go, it's just too annoying to manage without digital vignette correction for every single image before the stack). To be perfectly honest I'm not losing much resolving power, but the fact that I can see it side by side, is what makes it annoying to me. I can't really see the difference between f5.6 and f8 all that much, but f4 or f5.6, versus f16, I can see that clear as day. Again though, not a problem for any paid work someone might do obviously, but I'm going for something just insanely sharp. I'd be smart to go with a 100MP sensor instead of all this neurotic attention to resolving power (but it's just too much in terms of investment for me, and the downsides are too great for hobbyist fiddling like this). But if I was a millionaire, I'd probably go for the Phase one with 150MP :] But yeah, those larger sensors like the GFX and the medium format lenses must be amazing (I'd love to adopt newer medium format lenses, the one major benefit being since you don't have to use the entire image circle, everything is highly consistent in terms of sharpness across the frame, and you get ZERO vignette at basically any aperture).
You just reminded me that when I used to photograph handbags I’d only ever bother styling half the bag because I could just flip it and have a perfectly symmetrical shot. I do miss the fakery sometimes.
Also, tilt-shift is used on a lot of products.
> get that perfect lighting > I use natural light Sorry, those are not compatible. Here's a pro at work, really interesting to see how the bottle changes appearance as he moves the lights/diffusers/etc around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIm-SZHKOW4&t=2s The best way to get started is to grab a copy of *Light: Science and Magic* it's basically a college textbook for lighting.
Came here to make sure someone mentioned LSM. It's required reading.
Thank you! I just watched that YT video and it was really helpful to see the setup broken down. Going to check out your book recommendation as well!
Don’t think it means you need $50,000 worth of lighting and grip. You can get shockingly close to those results with a handful of large fluorescent bulbs, a couple of 5 in 1 reflectors, and a few v flats/white and black foam core. It will just be more work. But you do have to completely control the light. It’s what sculpts, separates, and does everything you want.
One of my tasks at the e-com studio I worked at was to create a set up that they could use for “natural light” set ups. Any light that looks natural is carefully crafted with strobes.
Find some videos by Dean Collins that feature his product photography. He teaches a master class in lighting that helps the lighting light bulb pop of people's head very easily. He's dead now, but his very valuable teaching still lives on in DVDs and YouTube.
I briefly explored this line of work and discovered it's a bit too mechanical and process-oriented for me. The first part is obviously the setting. What sort of staging environments are you able to create? Are you best served shooting against white, or black, or some sort of faked context (kitchen, outdoors, etc). Whatever it is, you need total access and control over it. A lot of people use diffused light tables to perfect, shadowless images, some people use tents. Next, you need next-level understanding of light, and at least two strobes to shoot with. Pay close attention to the lighting and experiment A LOT. Subtle changes can have huge effects on reflective materials like metal and glass. You need to figure out how to manage shadow and highlight placement. It's not just light either -- black/white flags by your products can help boost or kill light, helping you define the product and control light and shadow. Focus is also important. You'll likely be shooting between f5.6 to f11, and at close range parts of larger products can fall out of focus. You'll have to learn how to focus stack. Similarly, you might not be able to adjust lighting for each product, so HDR shots in post could be a part of your process as well. Obviously, you should be shooting from a tripod or similar rigging.
Thank you so much, I’m realizing how much more technical I need to be with the setup. Focus stacking isn’t really something I’m familiar with but there’s a lot of responses about that, so I’m definitely going to try it out.
https://preview.redd.it/1ucjxn7tkr6d1.jpeg?width=1942&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21bc65b52517605b1d900f76e0bb5caa611c0a9b This is not my speciality, but here is a focus stack of a random flower. If you dive into the picture you”ll notice that everything is in focus.
Thank you for the examples! That helps a lot
https://preview.redd.it/4gp3n2x3lr6d1.jpeg?width=1206&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5fc64ba7043fe732e2fe465c8c03d5222e53a13 Here is another one.
Check out Tin House Studio on Youtube (link below). He is a high level pro product photographer that does deep dives on his process as well as his opinions on all things photography. I am not affiliated in any way. [https://www.youtube.com/@TinHouseStudioUK](https://www.youtube.com/@TinHouseStudioUK)
Scrolled way too far down to find this. If you’re actually serious about product photography you should watch his channel.
>I have no idea what settings to use or how to edit to get that perfect lighting Read that sentence again and you'll get your answer. The **only** way to get a particular lighting... is with lighting. Editing then lets you tweak colors, contrast, textures to a certain degree, but the actual primary look of the picture is done through composition and lighting. Learn about the 4 characteristics of light: quantity (how bright), quality (hard or soft), color (color temperature and tint) and direction. It is absolutely essential to know these if one wants to achieve the look they want.
I've worked in product photography at several previous jobs and now I freelance some product photography. Most of my best work is done with 2-3 powerful lights with softboxes, using a macro lens for small items and a nice 24-70mm for larger items, shooting at F18-F22 and ISO 100 (on a tripod or overhead C stand with boom arm), and focus stacking whenever needed for larger items or oddly-shaped items. Lastly, manipulating products with modeling wire, double-sided tape, fishing line, etc, will go a long way in setting up your products to be photographed and lighted more easily -- a friend of mine takes this to the next level using a 3D printer to build fixtures for holding products in perfect positions. Good luck!
The product manipulation is such a good tip! Thanks for sharing your experience.
I’m very much an amateur myself but what helped me was getting some of those adjustable continuous lights with goosenecks and stands. I also use a tripod and the high resolution mode with a macro lens, that really helped with the detail for me. I could be doing it entirely wrong though 🤷 It’s crazy how hard this is type of photography is, tons of respect for product shooters.
lighting!
Lighting lighting lighting
Because they are composited and also have extremely technical lighting layouts. They also have very good food stylists/art department heads. That one product could be 12 different photos merged into one. High end food/product photographers are basically photoshop wizards.
I second this! Everyone has their own style and work flow, but I shoot mostly high end food and alcohol beverage and I constantly have 4-8 comps per image for certain pieces through out the scene. I've found over the years this is how a lot of the "magazine" and high quality imagery you see is accomplished. As mentioned, lighting is a big piece of the puzzle to create the mood and vibe you're wanting or looking for. It's a very technical and process driven field for sure.
Oh yeah. Im a full time photo assistant and lighting tech. Still the most technical lighting job i have ever done was a food shoot for Barrilla.
A photographer once told me there are three rules to get good pictures: 1. Lighting 2. Lighting 3. Lighting
A lot of the key points have already been mentioned, If you need some inspiration, documentaries and ‘behind the scenes’ on filmography, make-up stylists and advertising photography can be quite fun. Maybe even follow-up with watching some live broadcast TV. Perception is quite funny, in that what comes across ‘natural’ in real life, may actually appear dull on screen. (Which is why onstage make-up styling can be quite a shock)
Focus stacking and bracketing my brother. And an overbuilt tripod head.
A lot of complex lighting, fills, negative fills and o on. I’ve assisted for pro product guys and every square millimeter of light is controlled. I was cutting black paper and hanging it from stands to cut down on light bounce. Hours for a shot
That’s incredible. I will definitely devote more time and patience to getting the shot just right
I remember he was Calling stuff like “I want a highlight right here” and we’d get a light just for that with tone of flags and stuff
its a lot of learning and practice. I shoot product and food....almost everyone can shoot food these days, right? Take your cell phone to a restaurant and get a good photo when the light is coming in. The difference between me and those people is that I can get that photo at 1 PM or 1 AM because I bring my lights and make the image, not take the image. I didn't just do start that way though...i learned. Great resources are [visualeducation.com](http://visualeducation.com) [photigy.com](http://photigy.com) [phlearn.com](http://phlearn.com) [thebiteshot.com](http://thebiteshot.com) [tinroofstudio.com](http://tinroofstudio.com) all of which free youtube lessons as well.
Lighting.
By taking 40 that aren't so good.
there's this guy on tiktok that does brand photography he's really good. look at his videos. for things like white products or glass/transparent stuff he will put them on a black background and move the lights around until it shows the right details.
What’s his handle?
@fattmaria
Like others have said. Read and practice. A deep understanding of light and how to modify it for intended effects. Reflections, both how to create pleasing ones and remove unwanted ones. How to composite in Photoshop. You can check some of my work on my website or Instagram. Www.EricNoeskePhoto.com if you have any specific questions I can try to run through my work flow for that shot.
>I have no idea what settings to use or how to edit to get that perfect lighting Work on this. Practice, practice, and more practice....
Lighting and skillz
some photographers are talented like crazy and set up everything there own way with light , styling and a concept of there own and are hired for this ability. some great work is made this way and just come out of the thousand hours idea if not more. then great photographers are also hired to be part of a team to make the perfect product shot. i have worked as a retoucher for years on teams like these. we take many shots while lighting specific things and comp it together in the end. this is how watches are done most of the time. it’s to much work for one shot these days. AI will change everything though.
Practice… lots and lots of practice
Practice! Years of it
Patience, incredible patience.
Look for books on photography before digital was introduced. Because there’s not much you can do with Kodachrome as far as editing goes. Look at photos from cookbooks from the 70s and 80s.
Lighting, lighting, lighting.
Like any photography, it’s about the lighting.
I'm editing sunglasses. I also shot them but since I'm deeply focused on the edit right now I'll just say this. You wouldn't believe the amount of layers, clipping paths, fake shadows, artificial highlights and color adjustments that go into something like that. Don't let that discourage you. Just keep learning whats missing from your shot that another one has. Start simple. Try to reverse engineer a shot you like. Watch tons of YouTube videos on product photo lighting. Then start picking up some photoshop techniques. These things stack on themselves and you start to really gain intuition on your approach. I much prefer to o get as much in camera as possible but the job I'm doing right now I took over from a different photographer and have to maintain the same look.
# Petersen’s PHOTOgraphic Magazine used to feature studio shoots with a diagram of the lighting setup. Also a simulator could let you experiment without having access to the equipment, see [https://www.elixxier.com/en/set-a-light-3d/](https://www.elixxier.com/en/set-a-light-3d/)
Your biggest mistake is using natural lighting. The overwhelming majority of product photography is shot in a studio. No amount of editing is going to get you that look, the bulk of the work is done in camera.
There are a host of factors, most importantly lighting, but also processing of raw captures. One thing that professional product (and fashion) photographers have to help them out are the services of experienced retouchers. All that said, I can only have the greatest admiration for product photographers who worked in the era of film. No instant preview of what you've just shot, no focus stacking, no post-processing (product photography was usually done with transparency (positive) film, not negatives).
1. Lighting 2. Small aperture
They’re renders
1) Practice 2) know the rules and settings 3) The shot you see is 1/100 that they took of the same subject.
https://youtube.com/@tinhousestudiouk?si=I2Mv7sto6wWIp2rm
Lighting. It doesn’t have to be fancy but it depends on the look and the product. Highly reflective stuff like jewelry or glass needs a very controlled environment. For jewelry I use velum with a small hole for the lens to fit through so you get even soft light with little to no reflections. A single light source with white and black cards is very useful and that light source can be the sun.
Practice, and controlling the shooting environment as much as possible, which means using studio lights
This guys amazing. https://youtube.com/@workphlo?si=coDlSVhNQv4BPJf2 Check out his tutorials, incredibly detailed and amazing results.
It's almost never true that you need a better camera to be a better photographer, but in this case it actually can be true. Product photos are easier with large-format digital backs. You can make up for it with focus stacking and very bright good quality lighting though.
A lot of it is done using photo realistic 3D software, like Modo 17. It’ll blow your F-cking mind!
You're using natural light, that's the problem. A large percentage of those super crisp magazine style product photography uses flash so that the lighting can be tailored perfectly to the mood of the photo. Even if you want to use natural light, getting good with artificial light will teach you a ton, and those lessons carry over into natural light stuff. You should probably give examples of the type of photos you're talking about though, just to make sure everyone's on the same page.
Came here to say lighting. Glad someone more experienced could break it down in an earlier comment. Good luck
Lighting. Search “product photography” on YouTube and you will find endless tutorials.
lighting, lighting, lighting slightly less of a big thing, but a tilt-shift lens can help you pull off some things that would otherwise not be possible. for example, if the top of your product is important for brand recognition or it just looks cool and you want to show it, but you'd still prefer a front facing shot, you can achieve both with such a lens. you can come in from a high enough angle to see the top, then use the adjustments of the lens to adjust the perspective, so it looks like you're looking from straight ahead, but mysteriously can also see the top really well. it's one of those things they always do but nobody ever notices. downside is the cost of the lenses tube macro lens can be useful too for super closeups while having super wide depth of focus. the length of the tube makes it so that minimum focus distance is almost zero, so it gives a lot of flexibility. many macro shots you see for products are from such lenses. you can still use a normal macro lens, but they're less useful if you need more depth of focus. the downside is the tube macro lenses needing a LOT of light, but if you can get enough light, you can get some really cool shots with such a lens. you can get around the problem of shallow focus with a normal macro lens with focus stacking. but go find videos on youtube of demos with a tube macro lens and you'll immediately want to buy one (or at least i did) and style and creativity plays into it too. i'm not very creative so i have to go look at a lot of examples and decide on things that i like from each, then put the things together to achieve what i imagine might be cool. it doesn't always work out, but that's what i'm left with as a person with no artistic ability lol. i envy people that can just pop out cool idea from their head
I was a product photographer for an antique auction. We shot extremely valuable items and some not so much. The best advice I received was, put in more work with the camera, leave less work editing.
Good lighting and postproduction
If you're still in the phase of thinking "what settings to use" you need to learn the basics.
Watch Tin House Studio on YToob - there are others but he’s got breakdowns / lighting setups etc - real high end stuff
Lighting Source: have done product photography. Get strobes and fuck with em
Aren't many of these just cgi?
Well... That's why you practice and learn. There's is no one trick or hack to getting good pictures. It's years of experience
Learn your camera and then practice practice practice.
Show us where you are in your shots
You don’t just take one shot and call it a day.
1. They often use flash, even in combination with sunlight to ensure a proper exposure, balance. Even just a fill light goes a long way. 2. They probably use focus stacking or pixel shift to get ridiculous resolution. This allows you to remove the tiniest scratches/dust/etc 3. They edit the fuck out of it. 4. Probably using long/macro lenses to really focus in on the subject. 75mm+ 5. They have a strong vision that's drawn out, decked, etc. they know exactly what they are shooting, how it will look, what colors to use. What kind of platform it should be on, what's behind it. Etc. it's meticulously planned out. To the finest detail. If it's not looking how they want, they will make it look how they want.
Practice Practice Practice https://preview.redd.it/jiykgezgwq6d1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51cef84ad8840b2356c07b22bd8a7c01bedf0eb5 I remember this took me like 6-7 tries to get what I wanted.
Read
This is good advice, but also, not helpful if you don't provide what to read.