Is too good of photo's possible?

[edicehouse]

I am hoping this does not turn into a battle, but a legitimate discussion. Ed Street takes amazing photo's, there is no doubt about that. Below are some pictures he took of my Maj'K blanks. The first one is the same blank with different lighting, angles, ect. The other ones show different colors from lighting, angles, ect also. These are perfect pictures to show what we want to show.

Now here comes the question. In your opinion is it possible to take too good of a photo? Or zoom in too much?

 

[JohnGreco]

I don't think anybody has ever said, "Wow, that picture is good. TOO good." But yes, too much zoom is possible. If you can't make out what you're looking at, or if the zoom degrades the picture quality, then it is too much. Sometimes you want a lot of zoom to pick up fine detail, which is fine as long as the camera/lens can support that.

Blanks looks great btw!!!

 

[edicehouse]

Oh I am not even considering the air brushing, photoshop and that stuff that is done for ads in magazines.

I take it that the most allowed is a crop and stuff that does not manipulate what you are taking to give you an untrue picture.

 

[edstreet]

Tricky question, the answer is yes and no.

Yes because with higher quality photo's some will cry "You are doing advertisement!" or "you are getting kick back", also if your intention is to hide problems and detail and the like. Also jealousy and others can come out.

No because more details more zoom shows quality, attention to detail, 'truth' as I like to call it as in showing what is really going on where you have more speculation from a distance non-zoomed shot.

 

[Si90]

Now here comes the question. In your opinion is it possible to take too good of a photo? Or zoom in too much?

Absolutely. Although the question really is a bit ambiguous. What is too good of a picture?. The question should be does the picture accurately represent the product, in this case a blank or pen.

Currently HDR (High Dynamic Range Photography) is all the range but does it honestly represent what the product looks like when seen in person - No. Does it make the product more appealing - most definitely. If you are trying to sell an item this is what you are most concerned with.

After all that, we haven't even touched upon manipulated images. Take high end jewellery or watches. Non of them will be what is traditionally classed a photograph. They may have started out as a photograph but are retouched to the point of being an illustration or even further are completely 3D rendered especially in the case of high end watches.

I will finish with a question. How many times have you said "it doesn't look like that in the picture?"

If you have said this because the actual item does not measure up to the quality of the picture then you can only answer yes to your original question.

As a note so that people are aware of why I have made my comment above I should add that I make my living as a professional retoucher so my thoughts are gathered from my 20+ years of experience.

 

[Joe S.]

I use photoshop to crop and adjust colors and lighting to look more like the real thing. Never to hide mistakes and stuff like that.

 

[edstreet]

Oh I am not even considering the air brushing, photoshop and that stuff that is done for ads in magazines.

I take it that the most allowed is a crop and stuff that does not manipulate what you are taking to give you an untrue picture.

I wish that were true. Sadly it is not.

Watch this

[yt]http://youtu.be/hibyAJOSW8U[/yt]

Dove - Evolution Commercial (higher quality) - YouTube if the embedded link does not work

This is commonplace and this is one of the key problems with the whole 'beauty' issue.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onm-8xCTrCM[/yt]
Ugly Girl TRANSFORMED into a Hot Girl ( Taylor Swift ) - YouTube if the embedded link does not work

Also [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHLpRxAmCrw[/yt]
Extreme (Photoshop) Makeover - YouTube if the embedded link does not work

These examples in the video's are cardinal sins.

Things that I do is crop, resize, unsharp mask, level adjustment. I will add a few lines like name, url into the exif.

converting to black/white from a color image is also viable. No different than taking a color image and printing it on black/white reactive paper. Ansel Adams developed a 2 part process, one was on the camera, the other was on the photo paper printing.

 

[JohnGreco]

Now here comes the question. In your opinion is it possible to take too good of a photo? Or zoom in too much?

Take high end jewellery or watches. Non of them will be what is traditionally classed a photograph. They may have started out as a photograph but are retouched to the point of being an illustration or even further are completely 3D rendered especially in the case of high end watches.

That may be true for some high end jewelry/watches but you can't make a blanket statement like that. Alex Koloskov is a professional product photographer and his wife handles their post production- they offer entire BTS (Behind The Scenes) videos on setting up/taking the shot and the post production and I can tell you, the majority of the PP work is removing dust, and things of that nature. He has done work for Bulova and many well known brands, but his specialty is splash photography. His site is:

«Photigy: Online Studio Photography Lessons

He even has a DIY video series that shows how to get studio quality images using lighting equipment from HD or Lowes.

 

[edicehouse]

Yes because with higher quality photo's some will cry "You are doing advertisement!" or "you are getting kick back",

I tried getting them to charge you double LOL.... :biggrin:

 

[BayouPenturner]

blanks like that can be sent here. I can handle the product photos. I hate to see you struggle photographing them, just kidding too much zoom can be ones enemy. it is a skill to know when enough zoom is enough. I take them poorly blame the flaws you see on the photo.

 

[Si90]

That may be true for some high end jewelry/watches but you can't make a blanket statement like that.

Sorry, you are absolutely right I didn't mean it to come over as a blanket statement, I apologise, but you have raised excellent points for conversation.

As regards your link, there are some interesting images on the web site along with some interesting statements.

"there is almost no way you can deliver an outstanding shot by using an "as-is" image. Of course, some subjects do not require much of post-production, but every photo shot needs to be "polished" to make the product look like a million dollar piece."

I do note that they say "almost no way" and indeed I have many images land on my desk that only require a small colour tweak or grey balance adjustment and a little sharpening to make the depiction accurate to the product which is what many of my clients require. There are still a majority though who "want the product to look as good as it can" irrespective of what the actual item looks like.

Does highlighting the facets on a diamond within a ring constitute enhancement and hence giving a false representation of the crispness of a product. Would this be classed as being "polished". While not creating the facet you are making it look better than the original.

Getting back to the initial question here is how I would see it. If a single mark/blemish created in the making of a product has been removed from that product or a particular feature highlighted beyond how it would appear in person then that constitutes enhancement and that makes the picture "better" than the product. This still means that my answer to the original question is still yes, a photograph can be "too good".

 

[Smitty37]

I would almost think this thread would go better in the Photography forum. I see a lot of details that are meaningless to me.

That being said - If all you are doing is showing a picture of your work, who cares?

If you are making a picture to sell items or win contests etc., yes a picture can be made to look better than the item photographed and that is sort of dishonest --- it's done all the time in catalogs though.

 

[PenPal]

Personally Ed I am glad you commenced this post. Lets start from the premise that presentation is vital in every house commencing with our lovely wives who share our bathrooms a quick gaze will give anyone a clue how important it is to our wives and naturally ourselves especially since the initial impact she had on us was already obvious.

When I see a product on television, on brochures and catalogues it is pleasant to identify easily especially if is near colour and lit adequately then the pic has succeeded. Now when we are bombarded with lots of pics of the one item is this necessary for a forum to flourish I say no it sometimes goes into excess.

Do I need to have qualifications in Photography to make an item , display it on a forum I say No. I have formal training and expertise in photography but publicise an open light box (oxymoron) to show an easy to make 10 minute including set up and pics to record one or two pics for the forum.

I agree this is not a Photo Forum there is facility on the site for this for those inclined.

To encourage or advertise an improved technique in every aspect of forum life is great in the right place, moderation the key to contentment.

Appreciate the efforts that Ed Street shows in his pics as defined by you I doff my hat when I see him assisting others with his pics and help as he has with Toni a fine example of cooperation.

Thank you Ed for thrashing the vex subject of how far how high to push this envelope we call sharing we all have this notion called fair average quality and see it as a minimum standard to acheive.

Kind regards Peter.

 

[Joe S.]

If you think the forum should be moved, use the yellow triangle! I see it as a casual discussion about messing with pictures to achieve the perfect photo, not on how to take a picture.

 

[edicehouse]

The evolution of a thread. My initial question, in my minds eye, was can you take a picture that shows imperfections that your eye can't see and if that is good or bad. I might not have asked it, presented it right, but that is what I wanted to see what people thought. Now the thread has morphed into a topic about using editing software.

(These are the kind of threads I like where different ideas come out in a direction not initially planned)

 

[edstreet]

More often than not if you could indeed see things on a magnified level you would be able to find problem areas, not just now but perhaps down the road. flaws, weak areas, and the like. While these problems do exist they are not always a 'bad' thing.

 

[Dan Hintz]

He even has a DIY video series that shows how to get studio quality images using lighting equipment from HD or Lowes.

My lighting setup consists of several of those wok-shaped clamp-on reflectors and some 100W daylight CFLs... all from Home Depot (or was it Lowe's?). Adding in the eBay photo tent, I probably have about $100 into my photo setup.

 

[edstreet]

Often times, for me at least, good close up shots is enough to quality and how good the manufacture is. Or is not in many cases.

For example. I took these shots to show some areas but not enough to show what the part is.

Shots like this tends to steer the topic from 'who' and puts more focus on 'ouch' or 'wow'

 

[Haynie]

I think the answer to the question is "it depends on the purpose of the photo."

Here is my opinion. If you are selling the item the picture had better be Fawless, true to color, and untouched. This can be done in camera and with lighting. It does not need to be done with photoshop. As soon as you say, "I can fix that in photoshop" you have failed. This is my opinion, based on my hate of photoshop.

If you want to show your work to the community then some wrinkles are fine.

Too much zoom is a matter of taste.

 

[76winger]

Now here comes the question. In your opinion is it possible to take too good of a photo? Or zoom in too much?

Absolutely. Although the question really is a bit ambiguous. What is too good of a picture?. The question should be does the picture accurately represent the product, in this case a blank or pen.

This, to me is the goal I try to achieve (with lots of room for improvement still). I had one pen returned because it was a darker red in real life and the customer didn't care for the way it look in real life. Another customer was concerned about how close my photos were to reflecting the actual shade of white in a pen because she had been dissappointed from purchases from other sellers. So I went out of my way to try and reflect it as close as I possibly could for her, even sending some underexposed shots that showed details in the blank that normal exposure hid.

So, reflecting what it looks like in real life is my goal more than glitzy photos that just look pretty but don't reflect reality.

I will finish with a question. How many times have you said "it doesn't look like that in the picture?"

If you have said this because the actual item does not measure up to the quality of the picture then you can only answer yes to your original question.

As a note so that people are aware of why I have made my comment above I should add that I make my living as a professional retoucher so my thoughts are gathered from my 20+ years of experience.

As my experiences mentioned above attest. This is a very important question.

 

[edicehouse]

Photoshop has a huge importance in the world. I mean how else are you going to take a picture of two coworkers and get them riding a two seat bike together? But I don't agree with it being used to enhance photos (other than crop or something like that).

 

[Dan Hintz]

For example. I took these shots to show some areas but not enough to show what the part is.

Shots like this tends to steer the topic from 'who' and puts more focus on 'ouch' or 'wow'

Looks like your lathe's chuck...

 

[edstreet]

For example. I took these shots to show some areas but not enough to show what the part is.

Shots like this tends to steer the topic from 'who' and puts more focus on 'ouch' or 'wow'

Looks like your lathe's chuck...

One would think such but it would be grossly incorrect. It is actually a pen part, also it is 'new'.

 

[Joe S.]

For example. I took these shots to show some areas but not enough to show what the part is.

Shots like this tends to steer the topic from 'who' and puts more focus on 'ouch' or 'wow'

Looks like your lathe's chuck...

One would think such but it would be grossly incorrect. It is actually a pen part, also it is 'new'.

I'm guessing some sort of a finial? The threads are metal so that rules out several kit cap threads...

 

[mikespenturningz]

I believe that you can get too much detail in a photo. I try to show flaws in my pens in my listings so that there is no doubt but you can get carried away with this. It is possible to show things that you cannot see without magnification in photos. I have to hope that my customers understand that they can make my photos bigger than the pen itself. You can make a flaw that you can not hardly see look like a grand canyon.

 

[Dalepenkala]

Now here comes the question. In your opinion is it possible to take too good of a photo? Or zoom in too much?

Absolutely. Although the question really is a bit ambiguous. What is too good of a picture?. The question should be does the picture accurately represent the product, in this case a blank or pen.

This, to me is the goal I try to achieve (with lots of room for improvement still). I had one pen returned because it was a darker red in real life and the customer didn't care for the way it look in real life. Another customer was concerned about how close my photos were to reflecting the actual shade of white in a pen because she had been dissappointed from purchases from other sellers. So I went out of my way to try and reflect it as close as I possibly could for her, even sending some underexposed shots that showed details in the blank that normal exposure hid.

So, reflecting what it looks like in real life is my goal more than glitzy photos that just look pretty but don't reflect reality.

I will finish with a question. How many times have you said "it doesn't look like that in the picture?"

If you have said this because the actual item does not measure up to the quality of the picture then you can only answer yes to your original question.

As a note so that people are aware of why I have made my comment above I should add that I make my living as a professional retoucher so my thoughts are gathered from my 20+ years of experience.

As my experiences mentioned above attest. This is a very important question.

I'm by far NOT a great photographer, but this is exactly what I try to do. Take a pix of the pen/item that looks as it does just sitting their waiting for the shutter to open and close.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dan Hintz]

One would think such but it would be grossly incorrect. It is actually a pen part, also it is 'new'.

Well, show us the rest of it. Do a series of "animated" shots, so to speak, where each shot is backing away form the subject a little at a time so we can see the progression.