Sorry, but I have to disagree. I think we have seen some excellent examples of close up's against a white background and I can't think of any that have shown any of the problems you have said.My wife was a photographer for a newspaper and she also sees no problem with this Do you have any examples where this method has not worked?Benner
I can understand the point about viewing dark backgrounds and light text, but do you really spend more than a few minutes looking at a single picture like you would reading a text document? Although i don't have this problem myself, i do know people who can't proof read documents on screen due to this problem.
Edit: I will look for some better backgrounds to use tomorrow but its late and i don't want to disturb my housemates.
No offense Ring but who really cares about the pics! Its good if you want to buy a tool and you want to see detailed pics. Who gives a crap about the quality of it. Plus, the people that have homemade light boxes take really good pictures.. Just my thoughts...
Well you do have a point there, Leatherman123. For those folks that just want to get a quick look to see what to buy and what to avoid buying, almost any low resolution pic will be good enough.Some people do seem to care about tool pics, judging from some of the amazing photos posted here. There's no need for those higher resolution pics, running to hundreds of KB or even a MB, just to make buying decisions.
Thanks for the comparison pics Roadie!I'm always trying to upgrade my photography skills and this thread has some interesting points.Did someone say dark wood?With a regular finish tool I can't really tell the difference between the two. The camera doesn't really have a preference.Black oxide, on the other hand, really shows up a lot better on my camera when placed on the wooden background.
Here are a couple of photo's comparing different backgrounds with both a "silver" tool and a black oxide one....
Quote from: Roadie on January 30, 2008, 01:14:32 PMHere are a couple of photo's comparing different backgrounds with both a "silver" tool and a black oxide one....Excellent job Roadie.To my eyes, by far the best pics showing fine detail are the ones using the textured red background. Next would be the tan background, followed by yellow, with white being by far the worst!If you examine just the red and white bg pics side by side, there's really no comparison - the red bg pic is far superior.The white bg in grossly inferior to red and tan bgs, and slightly inferior to the yellow bg.
Did someone say dark wood?Black oxide, on the other hand, really shows up a lot better on my camera when placed on the wooden background.(Image removed from quote.)
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one! I can see just as much detail in both pictures, but if you prefer the red one there is nothing i can do about it and its your right to have your own opinion. The world would be boring if everyone liked exactly the same thing.Roadie
...close up photos of tools photographed against light backgrounds.Thought about posting this in the camera/photo forum, but thought it would get better exposure here.I'm not the greatest photographer - in fact, right now I don't even have a functioning digital camera.Nevertheless, I'm going to offer a tip on how to NOT photograph multis, knives, etc.Please don't set them against any light-colored background (white being about the worst) such as a piece of paper, white countertop, magazine page, etc.The contrast between the light background and the object in the foreground - multi, knife, flashlight, gun, etc. - typically OBSCURES the object being photographed.Black or darker colored objects fare the worst, but this is a problem with even lighter colored objects.Often, all that will be visible is the outline of the object and mere hints of surface details.If you're going to go to all the trouble to take and post photos, please don't do this.My thanks to all of you who do post photos, most of which are beautifully done..
Black oxide, on the other hand, really shows up a lot better on my camera when placed on the wooden background.(Image removed from quote.)
Roadie, I just carefully re-examined your red bg vs. white bg pics. I looked at them on three different monitors.I can't imagine how you can not see that the red bg pics show superior surface detail. Aside from esthetic differences, the greater discernable surface detail is clearly visible if you look closely.Look at the Victorinox shield logo in the white bg and red bg pics. Can't you see a big difference?Look closely at the pivots and rule marks in the other white bg and red bg pics. You really can't see a difference?
Quote from: Spoonrobot on January 30, 2008, 01:38:31 PMBlack oxide, on the other hand, really shows up a lot better on my camera when placed on the wooden background.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/redmodels/DSCF1750sdvdv.jpgSpoon, are you using automatic settings?This appears to be a poor example to me, because the focus in the second picture is clearly on the background, not the tool. The exposure and/or lighting are drastically different between the two pictures also.EDIT: Looking at it again, the focus looks good. The lighting on the tool makes all the difference.
Black oxide, on the other hand, really shows up a lot better on my camera when placed on the wooden background.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/redmodels/DSCF1750sdvdv.jpg
White back ground shots are a standard shooting style for any technical photo. That is the reason why light tents and light boxes are sold, not so much in your local photo equipment shop but pro shops will stock them.
I think you could have made your point better if you had mentioned that high contrast images were a problem for you and others that may have the same problem as you have, rather than saying a style of photographing this type of image was wrong.