Necklace

[cargo]

Hi all.


I am looking for advice on the best way to go about lighting this necklace.


Necklace belongs to my better half, it is seldom worn but I quite fancied having a go at photographing it.


I had a try one evening during the week and a quick go earlier today.


Playing around with things I have lying around I came up with the rolled up card idea. This seemed (to my eye) to be better than laying it flat against a background ?


Recently I came across a few videos by this guy online for product photography. He seems to use his strobes fitted with a reflector dish and grid very often.


I have never used a reflector dish but do have one.


What ever I have photographed in the past as always been taken using a softbox and light bounced back via reflectors.


So I tried using the reflector dish with grid from straight above through two diffusers.


Earlier in the week I did try using my softbox very close placed above from the rear.


Basically I have taken quite a few photos now and can't see the wood from the trees so to speak.


The necklace is resin so reflects the light and I'm not sure how much reflection is acceptable.


I will leave my waffle there as I think / hope you get where I am coming from.



Kit wise.


I am using Canon 6d


24/105L lens @ f11


I don't own a macro.


Light: I am using a AD200


Any help advice would be really appreciated.

Gaz

1
Ad200 reflector dish grid two diffusres above.

2
AD200 softbox above from behind close.

3
Set up

edit.

After just posting this and reading it back. I decided to remove the dish in the above set up photo and replace it with my 80x80 softbox. I left the two diffusres there the box was just above them.

This seemd to kill a lot of the reflection. That said am I right in thinking we need to see some reflection ?

 

[Garry Edwards]

The lighting on the background - together with your choice of background - is excellent, but I don't think that the honeycomb is helping, I would try the shot without it, maybe with the light closer.

But the lighting is wrong for the actual necklace. It requires the largest possible softbox (or a silk) very close and probably off to one side of the camera a bit and probably with a WHITE reflector board on the other side, to mitigate the inevitable and unwanted shadow.

So, two shots, which you then comp together. This is pretty much the standard way of photographing jewellery in this situation, and is used whenever the background (or the person wearing them) needs different lighting from the jewellery. And of course you can un-sharpen the background to taste, to avoid showing its texture if you wish.

BTW, the "Reflector dish" is actually a standard reflector, not a reflector dish (whatever that may be) standard reflectors are also sometimes called "Spillkill" reflectors, though this is also wrong, a spillkill is in fact something completely different.

 

[cargo]

Thanks Garry.

I so wanted to use that reflector for some reason. I seem to have edited the post as you were replying.

So I will try and lower the light/scrim if possible, it is very close now ant lower and it may impede my view.

Can try and shoot it with the light and scrim to the one side. Although I think the background gradient may not look that good.

Gaz

 

[Garry Edwards]

I may not have made myself clear . . .
You need to take a shot exactly as per your example, but probably without the honeycomb, to get the right lighting on the background

You then need to take a separate shot of the necklace, lit as I suggested

You then need to comp the two shots together, so that both the necklace and background are correctly lit.
Don't want to keep being pedantic, but your diffuser is a silk, not a scrim. A scrim is a piece of solid black material with holes in it, a silk is a diffuser.

 

[Scooter]

I was just thinking similar things to Garry - the whole disc of the diffusion panel is lit up to the edges and visible in the reflection (just like a softbox) - so I'd get the light closer to the diffusion panel - and lower the whole lot closer to the subject (if you can't go lower, you'll need to make it bigger). I think the grid may be needed to create a nice fall-off on the panel - and ensure it drops to almost nothing by the time it gets to the edge of the panel. Or - as that is an AD200 you have there, consider using the bare bulb, with the diffusion panel, and just wrapping the flash tube glass cover in some diffusion paper. I did that recently on my larger SF600s to create a nice ball of light with a very gradual falloff for some water and product shots:

The gradient in the cap of this bottle is made like that - very similar to your setup, but the look can vary wildly with a few inches of difference on subject to panel distance or light to panel distance.

https://flic.kr/p/2jmYYEB

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/owenlloyd/50120561183/in/dateposted-public/

The background is also created using the same technique. BTS video tour here (but note the overhead light is an older Safari II light - which I swapped out for a faster light when I needed to sling water).
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CCR1f2CglG3/

I think this ball of light will look good in the pendants as they are ball-like in shape also (and experiment with laying black card on the panel to create a sharp edge to show the surface is glossy), but as Garry said - it won't be so good for the background - as it's a cylinder and probably needs the end-to-end light you currently have.

 

[cargo]

I may not have made myself clear . . .

You did make yourself clear Garry. I just didn't fully read what you had written until I calmed down and re read it later.


Unfortunately you need to be a bit pedantic with me as it takes me a while to latch on to things.


@Scooter


Thanks Owen for the detailed reply. Your product work is fab. I just watched the bts it is a great insight into the set up.


I will have another try either tonight "if I have time after work" or tomorrow.



Maybe if I can pull the diffuser forwards somehow this will move the visible edge towards the camera and out of the pendant ?



Gaz

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Hi Gary,

I shot this - ( practising lighting for Macro etc) with a single strobe with a beauty dish and the key for me use to use some highly reflective Perspex

Maybe an ideal BG for the neckless?

Les

 

[Garry Edwards]

Hi Gary,

I shot this - ( practising lighting for Macro etc) with a single strobe with a beauty dish and the key for me use to use some highly reflective Perspex

Maybe an ideal BG for the neckless?

Les

That's a nice shot..
Have you considered adding local specular reflections, which I think would suit this type of subject? One way of doing this (if you have plenty of flashes) would be to use extra flashes from all sorts of angles to create high local contrast, but another way is simply to place bits of broken mirror, or tiny balls of rolled-up kitchen foil, to create tiny specular reflections. It works!

The choice of background is entirely subjective, but personally I feel that Gary's choice is a good one.

You did make yourself clear Garry. I just didn't fully read what you had written until I calmed down and re read it later.


Unfortunately you need to be a bit pedantic with me as it takes me a while to latch on to things.


@Scooter


Thanks Owen for the detailed reply. Your product work is fab. I just watched the bts it is a great insight into the set up.


I will have another try either tonight "if I have time after work" or tomorrow.



Maybe if I can pull the diffuser forwards somehow this will move the visible edge towards the camera and out of the pendant ?



Gaz

Being "Pedantic" in this sense simply means being a bit of a t*** and correcting your use of words, e.g. it's a standard reflector, not a reflector dish, it's a silk, not a scrim.

Yes, Owen is doing very well with a mixture of creative thought and technical expertise and we can all learn a lot from him. But your shot is far simpler than his excellent example, so don't get too bogged down with detail and approach that doesn't apply to simpler shots.

 

[cargo]

@Lez325 Well that is close for sure. You captured lots of deatil in there.

I do have a very cheap set of tubes. I did try a photo using the smallest tube. It was a faff and to be honest it showed up way to many imperfections in the resin.

Which you can't see with the naked eye.

Well not with mine !

Made the charm look nasty if you know what I mean.

I see what you mean regarding the use of a reflective surface.

Thanks for the tips.

 

[cargo]

Well I have just had another play.

This was the result of taking an image with my softbox above firing through the two diffuser discs.

Then taking an image with my largest softbox off to the side as far back as space would allow "not far" firing through a shower curtain hung down from the cieling, close to the product. A small bounce card held next to the charm.

Merged the two layers in pshop.


I will post the blurry set up photos later when I get them off my phone. As I may not have explained very well.

Gaz

 

[Scooter]

Yes, Owen is doing very well with a mixture of creative thought and technical expertise and we can all learn a lot from him. But your shot is far simpler than his excellent example, so don't get too bogged down with detail and approach that doesn't apply to simpler shots.

Sorry - Garry is right I think I added a bit to much to that - the important bit was getting the light to fall off to nothing before it gets to the edge of the diffusion panel - then you don't see an edge to it in the reflection in the subject.

 

[Scooter]

Well I have just had another play.

This was the result of taking an image with my softbox above firing through the two diffuser discs.

Then taking an image with my largest softbox off to the side as far back as space would allow "not far" firing through a shower curtain hung down from the cieling, close to the product. A small bounce card held next to the charm.

Merged the two layers in pshop.


I will post the blurry set up photos later when I get them off my phone. As I may not have explained very well.

Gaz

This looks really good Gary. I think we maybe still see the reflector above - illuminated by the softbox off to the left, but this is nitpicking tbh. I like this.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Well I have just had another play.

This was the result of taking an image with my softbox above firing through the two diffuser discs.

Then taking an image with my largest softbox off to the side as far back as space would allow "not far" firing through a shower curtain hung down from the cieling, close to the product. A small bounce card held next to the charm.

Merged the two layers in pshop.


I will post the blurry set up photos later when I get them off my phone. As I may not have explained very well.

Gaz

Yes, that's better, although the bounce card may have been too small or at the wrong angle. Personally I would blur the background a bit, but that's just personal taste.

I've found a very old example of this technique, an advertising shot for the jewellery manufacturer - much more difficult as the background here wasn't a static subject, and only possible because she is a very good pro model who could keep still, but the principle is identical.

She was lit by a single light, a fresnel spot, with a honeycombed light on the background, and the separate shot of the jewellery was lit as needed, with the two shots then comped together. It looked much better at full page advert size than in this small low res depiction here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I may not have made myself clear . . .
You need to take a shot exactly as per your example, but probably without the honeycomb, to get the right lighting on the background

You then need to take a separate shot of the necklace, lit as I suggested

You then need to comp the two shots together, so that both the necklace and background are correctly lit.
Don't want to keep being pedantic, but your diffuser is a silk, not a scrim. A scrim is a piece of solid black material with holes in it, a silk is a diffuser.

Scrim has many meanings
To a window cleaner it is an unbleached linen open weave cloth for polishing glass
to a theatre it is a back drop that can appear solid or filmy depending on the lighting
in film it is some form of general purpose light modifier or shade

Scrim (lighting) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

With due care on a suitable background. you can combine the directional and textural light of a fresnel spot, with the use of suitably lit reflectors.
I used to use small 500w Mole Richardson spots to throw light on to the reflectors rather than the jewellery.
One spot lit the subject and background to give shape and texture,
and the others lit the reflectors placed to reflect in the Jewellery surfaces.
judiciously placed black strips were used on the reflectors to delineate difficult to define edges.
If you let the other spots directs hit the Jewellery you would get uncontrollable spectral reflections.
Inordinate or unavoidable spectral reflections from the main spot could be minimised with a dab of putty or a spot of dulling spray.

 

[cargo]

This looks really good Gary. I think we maybe still see the reflector above - illuminated by the softbox off to the left, but this is nitpicking tbh. I like this.

Thanks Owen.
I am liking the challenge but would love to get to point where I knew instinctively what sort of modifier to use for each subject. I do realise that is a long way off and I would have to take many many images before I even start to get there.

I will pop the set up photos below so you can see where I could improve.

es, that's better, although the bounce card may have been too small or at the wrong angle

Thanks for coming back Garry.

The card was very small in the above image. I did take a shot with a much bigger one but I seem to have deleted that one whilst shooting. I do this all the time as I take that many photos with minor light position moves. I then get frustrated when looking back through the images.

1
This image was used for the background. Blurred background a touch.

2
Set up for the above background image.

3
This image was of the necklace. With bounce card.

4
Set up image for necklace. The curtain was pulled forwards onto edge of the table. "not shown here"

On a side note my Ad200 in the softbox was on full power in the last image. Is that normal. I just thought it may have more pwoer than that ?

100 iso f11

Baffle in softbox too.

Thanks for everybodys help on this.

Gaz

 

[Garry Edwards]

Scrim has many meanings
To a window cleaner it is an unbleached linen open weave cloth for polishing glass
to a theatre it is a back drop that can appear solid or filmy depending on the lighting
in film it is some form of general purpose light modifier or shade

Scrim (lighting) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Good old wikipedia, we can always rely on it to be right - that page shows a shoot through umbrella, which is a diffuser but which they describe as a scrim
But regardless of other trades, in photography it's basically a mesh, used as a local neutral density filter. For example, erected out of shot over a car photographed in bright sunlight to balance the amount of light on the roof and bonnet with the rest of the car.

With due care on a suitable background. you can combine the directional and textural light of a fresnel spot, with the use of suitably lit reflectors.
I used to use small 500w Mole Richardson spots to throw light on to the reflectors rather than the jewellery.
One spot lit the subject and background to give shape and texture,
and the others lit the reflectors placed to reflect in the Jewellery surfaces.
judiciously placed black strips were used on the reflectors to delineate difficult to define edges.
If you let the other spots directs hit the Jewellery you would get uncontrollable spectral reflections.
Inordinate or unavoidable spectral reflections from the main spot could be minimised with a dab of putty or a spot of dulling spray.

These are valid points, but shooting on digital allows us to light different parts of the subject specifically and separately, combine things in PP and make the process much quicker, easier and better.

I am liking the challenge but would love to get to point where I knew instinctively what sort of modifier to use for each subject. I do realise that is a long way off and I would have to take many many images before I even start to get there.

You'll get there, but it takes time, experience and an understanding of basic physics. Personally, after a lifetime of experience, I can never be sure how to light a job until I start doing it - but I save a lot of time by knowing what CANNOT work.

The card was very small in the above image. I did take a shot with a much bigger one but I seem to have deleted that one whilst shooting. I do this all the time as I take that many photos with minor light position moves. I then get frustrated when looking back through the images.

That explains the over-bright specular highlight. We always need a BIG light source (and a reflector is a light source) when lighting something that has a convex shape, because the shape compresses the specular highlight into a much smaller area. I think that the specular highlight was in fact from the softbox, but it doesn't matter - same problem, same cause. The softbox or the (redundant) silk could and should have been almost touching the jewellery, the light from that would have ruined the background lighting but that doesn't matter in a comped image.

 

[sk66]

Your first examples show the edge of the lighting; this is either the edge of the diffusion material, or the edge of the gridded spot on the diffusion material. Based on the BTS shot I'm guessing it's the edge of the gridded spot.
The last example is similar except this time it has a notable hotspot to it. This means the softbox is showing on the second layer of diffusion. Basically, all of that means that your lighting is not large enough, and not even enough.



In order to eliminate the defined edges, you need to make the illuminated area (diffusion) larger. Because the surface being illuminated is curved it can help immensely to have the diffusion also curved; to be more parallel to the surface so that the object doesn't see the edges of the panel... That is very difficult with a silk/sofbox, but angling the diffusion can help. With basic flat diffusion, it has to be HUGE relative to the size of the curved object.

In your last image I think the second layer of diffusion is probably large enough. It might be a bit far away and not quite angled right, but the main issue is that it appears you are not really using all of it. In order to have "dual diffusion" the second layer has to be separated far enough that the first layer has done all it can before the light hits the second layer. And you (generally) want even illumination across all of it. The closer together they are, the more they just act like a thicker/denser single layer of diffusion the same size as the softbox. Based on your BTS shot, I would move the table and second diffusion to the far Rt side of the room; and I would move the necklace to the left side of the BG as close to the diffusion as possible. If the wall to the right is light/even enough, that could possibly work for bounce fill. When you start lighting up the entire room you may very well find you need to add negative lighting (black bounce cards) to block unwanted spill and provide dark reflections.

Personally, I think I would use a diffusion dome or create a curved surface using diffusion paper. And I would just light it with a bare reflector; from far enough to get the size I wanted on the diffusion. When you illuminate curved diffusion it automatically creates a nice gradient with more "wrap."

All of that is just to get the base image of the jewels with translucent lighting/highlight that you can see through cleanly. You would then also need your second BG shot for the area/falloff you want there. And possibly a third "hard light" shot to create any specular reflections you want (to emphasize facets/angles/texture).

 

[cargo]

Good old wikipedia,

It's no wonder i'm confused !

You'll get there,

Hopefully. My Mrs reckons it would be no fun if you got the image first time every time !

silk could and should have been almost touching the jewellery,

I thought with the item being so small, the light as it was would be huge in comparison. I get what you mean though. It's all about the shape of the resin that requires the size.

@sk66
Hi Steven.

That is one hell of an explanation you have posted. I am very gratefull for your time and experiance.

In your last image I think the second layer of diffusion is probably large enough. It might be a bit far away and not quite angled right, but the main issue is that it appears you are not really using all of it. In order to have "dual diffusion" the second layer has to be separated far enough that the first layer has done all it can before the light hits the second layer. And you (generally) want even illumination across all of it. The closer together they are, the more they just act like a thicker/denser single layer of diffusion the same size as the softbox. Based on your BTS shot, I would move the table and second diffusion to the far Rt side of the room; and I would move the necklace to the left side of the BG as close to the diffusion as possible. If the wall to the right is light/even enough, that could possibly work for bounce fill. When you start lighting up the entire room you may very well find you need to add negative lighting (black bounce cards) to block unwanted spill.

I understand this and it now makes sense to me.

Thanks again

Gaz

 

[sk66]

I understand this and it now makes sense to me.

Thanks again

Gaz

When photographing reflective things like this I find it is easier if you do not think of it as conventional "lighting"... you're not really lighting the object in the same sense as when lighting a diffused subject (person/clothing/etc). Instead, you are creating the environment the object is going to reflect back to the camera.
E.g. if you want a portion of your reflective object to be lighter, place a white thing so it reflects there... if the white thing doesn't look right in the reflection, change the white thing... if the white thing isn't bright enough, light the white thing.

 

[Scooter]

Your first examples show the edge of the lighting;

This is exactly what I was getting at - you need to have the light fall off to nothing before the edge of the diffusion panel. Its the edge of the panel in all those shots.

 

[david1701]

There’s a lot of great knowledge in this thread, makes me glad I came back to TP

 

[sk66]

you need to have the light fall off to nothing before the edge of the diffusion panel.

I really think that's what's happening in the first shots... the gridded spot on the diffusion fading to ambient (rapidly/hard edged). Which brings up the point of starting with a black frame exposure... in order to really know what you are doing/causing the only light that should show in the image is the light you add. Once you've got the lighting (ratios/locations/falloff) how you want it, then you can bring everything up/down together.

 

[cargo]

There's a lot of great knowledge in this thread, makes me glad I came back to TP

Hi David.


You are so right. I have said it before and I will say it again the folk that frequent this area of the forum are so knowledgeable and willing to share it is quite unbelievable.


Plus "boy" they do have patience.


I'm sure they must be shouting at there screens every time I upload !!!!

Which brings up the point of starting with a black frame

Unfortunately I do always start with a black screen. I can get that right


Joking aside I do understand what you mean regarding the fall off.


It's putting it into practice that is proving more difficult.


Gaz

 

[Deleted member 34016]

That's a nice shot..
Have you considered adding local specular reflections, which I think would suit this type of subject? One way of doing this (if you have plenty of flashes) would be to use extra flashes from all sorts of angles to create high local contrast, but another way is simply to place bits of broken mirror, or tiny balls of rolled-up kitchen foil, to create tiny specular reflections. It works!

The choice of background is entirely subjective, but personally I feel that Gary's choice is a good one.

Being "Pedantic" in this sense simply means being a bit of a t*** and correcting your use of words, e.g. it's a standard reflector, not a reflector dish, it's a silk, not a scrim.

Yes, Owen is doing very well with a mixture of creative thought and technical expertise and we can all learn a lot from him. But your shot is far simpler than his excellent example, so don't get too bogged down with detail and approach that doesn't apply to simpler shots.

I have 3 flashguns ( Godox V860ii) and a trigger- I may well give your suggestion a go- Thank you

Les

 

[Garry Edwards]

Hi David.


You are so right. I have said it before and I will say it again the folk that frequent this area of the forum are so knowledgeable and willing to share it is quite unbelievable.


Plus "boy" they do have patience.


I'm sure they must be shouting at there screens every time I upload !!!!





Unfortunately I do always start with a black screen. I can get that right


Joking aside I do understand what you mean regarding the fall off.


It's putting it into practice that is proving more difficult.


Gaz

IMO this forum has changed for the worse since I joined about 12 years ago. Back then, there were loads of threads about lighting technique, and a few about gadgets and equipment. But, with the improvements to digital photography and the advances in post processing, this has now reversed.

So, (and speaking only for myself) it's great when someone who wants to learn asks technical questions, and I'm always happy to help where I can. Pro photography has been very good to me and I feel that I have an obligation to give something back. I'll be 75 tomorrow, I have time on my hands and often welcome having something to do. I feel that other contributors, several of whom hold down full-time jobs and also run photography businesses and who have far less time on their hands, are making a much greater effort than me.

As for you, with the greatest possible respect when you started asking questions and posting your examples it was sometimes hard work to understand what you were asking and it was even more difficult to write anything positive about your photos, but that's all changed now and you've improved beyond recognition - and you now have a much more positive view about your capacity to learn and improve.

It's putting it into practice that is proving more difficult.

I think that the main problem here is that photography is just a pseudo science. Yes, there is science involved, but photography is a mixture of the technical and the artistic and so, if we only apply our artistic knowledge the shot will usually fail for technical reasons and if we only use our scientific understanding it will usually fail for artistic reasons, and people sometimes struggle to combine the two elements. It's much easier in other skilled areas, for example there's only one correct sequence for tightening cylinder head bolts, so any careful worker is bound to get it right. You must know this, because you have your own skills. What you (and all of us) need to do is to learn the technicalities to the point where we don't need to think about them at all, which then puts us in the position where all that we need to concentrate on is the artistic side of things. This takes experience as well as knowledge and there aren't any shortcuts - but with time and effort you'll learn what can't work, and avoid a lot of frustration..

You are so right. I have said it before and I will say it again the folk that frequent this area of the forum are so knowledgeable and willing to share it is quite unbelievable.

What I especially like about this forum is that breadth of speciality that members have - we have a lot of people who have specialised knowledge about different types of lighting and different types of subject, so there's always someone who can answer every question well.

 

[sk66]

I'm sure they must be shouting at there screens every time I upload !!!!

Not at all... it's quite a pleasure to help someone who actually listens and puts it into practice... that seems to be pretty rare these days.

Unfortunately I do always start with a black screen. I can get that right

Good! Then the next thing I would suggest to help would be shooting tethered to a decent sized monitor... those little details are very hard to see when using the camera's LCD; and if you can't see them then you can't correct them.

 

[cargo]

So, (and speaking only for myself) it's great when someone who wants to learn asks technical questions, and I'm always happy to help

I'm glad you wrote that Garry. As I was sort of feeling I was becoming a pest. Not from anything anyone had said you have all been more than helpful. It as been a joy to log back in of an evening to read the advice.

As for you, with the greatest possible respect when you started asking questions and posting your examples it was sometimes hard work to understand what you were asking and it was even more difficult to write anything positive about your photos,

I never thought of it from your point of view before but yes you had a tough job of giving positive advice it could have been so easy to demotivate me.

What you (and all of us) need to do is to learn the technicalities to the point where we don't need to think about them at all

That would be a good place to be for sure.


You can take the day off tutoring me tomorrow being as it's your birthday !

Good! Then the next thing I would suggest to help would be shooting tethered to a decent sized monitor... those little details are very hard to see when using the camera's LCD; and if you can't see them then you can't correct them.

Yes I'm sure that would help greatly. I do have trouble buying gear though. Not that I can't afford it. More that I have to justify it to myself being as I am only doing this for fun. Hence me only having a desktop PC. No laptop, no tablet.

Am I correct in thinking a strobe with a modeling light would be more beneficial for a next move as I don't currently have one ?

Gaz

 

[sk66]

Am I correct in thinking a strobe with a modeling light would be more beneficial for a next move as I don't currently have one ?

Yes, a proper modeling light can be a big help.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes, a proper modeling light can be a big help.

I agree, it will make things massively easier

 

[cargo]

@sk66
@Garry Edwards

Thanks I know it makes sense if I am going to continue taking these types of photos.

I did clear everything away after my last upload but felt guilty as Steven gave a detailed reply after that.

So I had another final little go earlier.

It's not perfect as I can now see the board on the bounce side just a touch.

Plus I am not convinced it is that much better than the previous attempts. This is the thing, after I have got to a certain level I am unsure as to wether I am making progress or not. Maybe It is an experiance thing.

Anyhow here are the images.

Gaz

The outcome.

Set up 1. The image above was taken with a standard reflector and not the softbox as shown.

Close up.

 

[sk66]

Plus I am not convinced it is that much better than the previous attempts. This is the thing, after I have got to a certain level I am unsure as to wether I am making progress or not. Maybe It is an experiance thing.

"Better" is always subjective... but in terms of being able to see through the lighting to the details it is certainly better. Personally, I think you've gone a bit far with the fill and it's a bit flat... but this is only one of 2-3 images that would be required. Plus it's SOOC w/o any processing. And I did say that you very likely would find a need for/benefit from adding some negative lighting.

The only thing that really matters is that you learned some things about lighting a curved/reflective object and how to achieve a particular result... that's knowledge/skill in the bank; but you don't have to use it if it doesn't suit your goal.

Just a few tweaks of just the base image... I know you could do even better.

 

[cargo]

Hi Steven.

Better" is always subjective.

Thats good to hear as I sort of liked it when I did in fact see some kind of reflection on the surface. Like you say it is subjective and a case of getting the right amount so you are still able to see the product beneath.

This last image was extremely flat as had done some tweaks before I posted.

The only thing that really matters is that you learned some things about lighting a curved/reflective object and how to achieve a particular result..

Yes hopefully I have learnt something along the way.

Thanks again

Gaz