Different ways to present your props on photographs

[Robbie TPC]

Hi all, I’m looking for (inspiration) different ways to present props on pictures. Many of the propmakers/collectors on this board are very creative with photographs and photoshop.

I always try to squeeze the best pictures out off my simple Casio camera, like I sad on another thread, a good picture can make a difference between a good looking prop or a bad looking prop. Even if the prop is not so screen-accurate, a nice presentation can make the prop look good. And off course, a bad picture of an accurate prop can make the prop look bad or inaccurate.

I made some new pictures of a few props in my collection, I’m still learning how to use PhotoShop to make a nice presentation.

I hope this thread will become a source of inspiration to present our props :thumbsup

 

[Gigatron]

Photography is about 1 thing - lighting. If you can get good lighting, the rest is easy. Almost every time, the difference between an ok picture and a great picture, is the lighting.

For product photography, which prop photography falls under, you ultimately want 3-4 lighting sources - left, right, above and behind. If you get lucky, you can get the left, right and above sources to also provide the back light. You'll want to get daylight temp. bulbs. You can get them at most grocery stores - they're not some wierd specialty item.

Get a seamless background (even an ironed bed sheet will work) and 3-4 of those clamp lights from Home Depot (usually about $1 each). Support the item away from the background and set the lights so that you not only light the subject, but eliminate the shadows.

This should make the most of any point and shoot without the need for spending major cash on a new camera - though I may have a Nikon D90 up for sale if anyone's interested :love :cool (need to fund a D300s).

-Fred

 

[Robbie TPC]

Thanks for the tips :thumbsup

I use (almost) always natural daylight, the light in my house comes from two directions.
My house stands on the corner of the street, so I only get light from behind and from the left side windows. If the weather in my town is rainy and cloudy I get bad lighting, daylight temp bulbs is a great solution.

I never use the flash of the camera, the flash takes away the depth in the props and the colours don’t look natural anymore. My camera has sometimes problems with photographing black items and metallic items, probably because I’m using a cheap camera and bad lighting.

I took a picture a few years ago of a Royal Guard helmet, using one of the first generations digital camera’s, Canon PowerShot S20 with a lousy 3.3 MP.
The lights I used came from (if I recall correctly) 4 directions, up, left and right and from the front. The lights I used were white LEDs, with a dark cloth as backround, the picture came out pretty good. It’s dark yes, but it gives a nice atmosphere.

 

[Gigatron]

Use photoshop to clone out the hotspots and you'll have a really great picture.

I know you can't do this with a P&S, but with a dslr and a hotshoe mounted flash, you can get lots of light without flattening the image. It's a simple matter of pointing the falsh straight up, or up and backwards, and bouncing the light off the walls and ceiling. The surfaces act as huge diffusers, giving you a nice, soft light.

-Fred

 

[CB2001]

Or you can do what I did, actually including yourself in the pictures with the prop (such as I did by showing me wear my Indiana Jones fedora, my Wayfarers, holding the picture of Laurie Strode from Rob Zombie's "Halloween" and me reading from my Book of the Dead edition of "Evil Dead).

 

[Robbie TPC]

I am not as hansom as you to show myself on the pictures (just kidding)

No seriously, a person (or a hand) that shows a small prop on a photo draws my attention away from the actual prop. It’s the prop that matters, not the person.
Off course in some cases it’s good to see the person behind the prop, for example the Tumbler created by Bob Dullam. The photo’s with Bob and his creation shows how big his Tumbler actually is.

Just my humble opinion

I think that some props look their best shown in their natural environment, my General lee (1/10 scale model) for example.
I took the pictures in direct sunlight, the orange colour of the car gives a great contrast between the green and black/brown colours in the backgrounds.

 

[Dyonisis]

Use photoshop to clone out the hotspots and you'll have a really great picture.

-Fred

Your wish is granted. This is a low resolution version of the original,but I cleaned it up as good as I could with photoshop. I removed all the flash,and imperfections from this,but somehow it came out a little fuzzy.

 

[franz bolo]

By editing out the specular highlights, you are losing the very thing that tells what type of material the piece is made of. Without it it looks softer like fabric and loses it's hardness.

Harder/Smoother objects have smaller specular highlights. Rubber, for instance, would have a softer, diffused Highlight.

FB

Your wish is granted. This is a low resolution version of the original,but I cleaned it up as good as I could with photoshop. I removed all the flash,and imperfections from this,but somehow it came out a little fuzzy.

 

[darth_myeek]

By editing out the specular highlights, you are losing the very thing that tells what type of material the piece is made of. Without it it looks softer like fabric and loses it's hardness.

Harder/Smoother objects have smaller specular highlights. Rubber, for instance, would have a softer, diffused Highlight.

FB

I agree FB, but the specular highlight should emphasize the form, which leads the eye along the surfaces.

A lightbox is another tool that would help. Here is a DIY version.

You can block like to help control the specular highlights.

-DM

 

[franz bolo]

Here's an example. Dyonisis, you did a good job on yours and if you add some small highlights to your image, it will not look so fuzzy!!

I cleaned up all the old highlights and added new ones to make it glossy again. It could use more work but this is only an example.

FB

 

[Dyonisis]

I get what you're saying,but the sharp lines where I didn't retouch this at all are blurry all over. You can see along the edges that this is fuzzy,and grainy. I think that the photoshop I was using changed a few of the colour vectors,and attempted to alter them for more clarity in jpeg form.

 

[Jet Beetle]

There are so many talented photographers here. I can't snap a pic to save my life. You guys should be working in the union as cameramen. Kubrick would be proud.

 

[SithLord]

I like an old-fashioned look...

 

[Gigatron]

Dyo, it looks like a jpg compression issue.

FB, you do have a point, but there's a difference between a highlight and a hotspot. You can have an item still look like a hard material without having hotspots or highlights. Some of the best photographic examples of this were done by Boba Debt

Adding highlights afterwards is a tricky proposition. You have to determine the position of the light sources and how the angle of the light will determine highlights and shadows. This is the reason a photographer will spend $2k+ on a lens - and $10k+ on lighting rigs.

-Fred

 

[franz bolo]

Gigatron, your correct but every image is different. Most people take their own pics and don't have the lighting you mentioned. Hot spots need to be removed in most cases but highlights in the correct spots can definitely help define the form.

As for the red helmet that was posted, that's what I would do to make it look more regal and pristine. It's a shiny, hard material and needs small highlights. In my opinion, without them it will not look right.

I illustrate and it helps me figure out where the highlights will go so it's not to tricky.

Here's the original photo, the removal of hot spots and highlights and finally the specular highlights added. With the time I spent on it, I think it enhanced the image a bit.

FB

FB, you do have a point, but there's a difference between a highlight and a hotspot. You can have an item still look like a hard material without having hotspots or highlights. Some of the best photographic examples of this were done by Boba Debt

Adding highlights afterwards is a tricky proposition. You have to determine the position of the light sources and how the angle of the light will determine highlights and shadows. This is the reason a photographer will spend $2k+ on a lens - and $10k+ on lighting rigs.

-Fred

 

[thegreatgalling]

You should PM Jhusel. His pics of his pieces are prob the best I have seen here.

 

[Gigatron]

Don't get me wrong, FB - you're a fantastic illustrator. I've admired all your work, thus far.

But to be completely honest, I think I prefer the middle image, with the hotspots removed and no speculars added. Maybe it's just personal preference :cool.

-Fred

 

[SithLord]

Here's what I would do with that photo...

 

[SithLord]

Dyo, it looks like a jpg compression issue.

Can your camera take .tif or .tiff file as the image format? That's a lossless format in terms of compression. Also set the camera's ISO to 100 or the lowest ISO and use a tripod of course. The CCD naturally introduces unwanted noise at higher ISO.

 

[franz bolo]

No problem Fred! Just adding my 2 cents.

FB

Don't get me wrong, FB - you're a fantastic illustrator. I've admired all your work, thus far.

But to be completely honest, I think I prefer the middle image, with the hotspots removed and no speculars added. Maybe it's just personal preference :cool.

-Fred