excepy you ar wrong! The nice photos in magazines are made by using a grey background then developing the print as if the background is white. Check back issues of Modern photography. They have an article about using grey backgrounds in or around 1991. You may want to read up on the F16 rule also. Wher anything lighted by the full light of the sun needs an exposure of 1/250 at F16 or any combination that equals it like F8 and 1/500 or F22 and 1/125.
On Sun May 23rd, 2010 1:29 PM EDT Meteorites USA wrote: >Hi List, > >With all due respect Steve, normally you would be right. About >traditional art photography, or perhaps editorials, or such.... But >we're not talking about editorials or art. Or at least I'm not. > >I'm referring to the industry standard in "product photography" online. >I would guesstimate maybe 99% of ALL retail catalogs online have white >backgrounds for their product precisely because it adds greater contrast >and provides a sharper, clearer image, with more accurate color visually >to the consumer/viewer. If you don't like white, don't use white, it's >all personal preference. In my opinion of course...White ROCKS! And >white works... I've been in business online for over 10 years and we >would clip our product images backgrounds out completely. We've done >market tests "with backgrounds" and "without backgrounds". We've >experimented with all sorts of solid colored backgrounds as well, and >white backgrounds always pull a higher response rate. > >Again, I think it comes down to personal preference as Anne spoke of >earlier. I love other background colors, blues, reds, greens, grays... >One of the biggest "No nos" in the industry is using a mottled or "busy" >background for your subject. It detracts from the object being >photographed and the eye has a very hard time discerning the subject >from the background. > >I will agree however that a polarizing filter and/or a gray background >will bring out detail, but one with skill with the camera can do this >with any solid color background IF proper white balancing is used. > >Contrast is good, in my opinion. > >Regards, >Eric > >On 5/23/2010 9:42 AM, Steve Dunklee wrote: >> photography is always an experiment. It usualy takes many exposures to get >> an acceptable pic. Having a white background for a dark object is a >> photographic no no! Its like trying to photograph the moon and expect to >> see the stars around it. Too much contrast! If you use a grey background and >> develope as if it is white you get much more detail. I have been realy >> sloppy with my meteorite photos and can do much better. A polarizing filter >> used properly can cut out the scale cube problem. have a >> great day! Steve >> >> On Sat May 22nd, 2010 8:43 PM EDT Michael Blood wrote: >> >> >>> I've had some very positive flashes over the years.... >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> On 5/17/10 4:05 AM, "Met. Michael Gilmer"<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Peter and Greg, >>>> >>>> I've never used the flash a single time when taking meteorite photos. >>>> Flash is evil. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> MikeG >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/17/10, Peter Scherff<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>> >>>>> Have you tried taking the photos in manual mode? I see that you had >>>>> your FinePix S1000fd in auto white balance& auto flash. I believe if you >>>>> set the values yourself you will be able to recreate the look of the photo >>>>> you like even when using the scale cube. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg >>>>> Catterton >>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 10:06 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Photo color issue update - colored scale cubes >>>>> >>>>> I am pretty certain the issue is being caused now by my scale cube... >>>>> See pictures below, one is with a blue cube, one is without. >>>>> No other editing or anything has been done. Only change is removing the >>>>> scale cube... guess I am now in the market for a new cube that wont do >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> .92g Karoonda with cube >>>>> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/jedisdiamond/Karoonda92g2.jpg >>>>> >>>>> .92g Karoonda without the cube >>>>> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/jedisdiamond/Karoonda92g.jpg >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for all the input from everyone. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greg Catterton >>>>> www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com >>>>> IMCA member 4682 >>>>> On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________________________ >>>>> Visit the Archives at >>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________________________ >>>>> Visit the Archives at >>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> Visit the Archives at >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> Visit the Archives at >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >> ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
