BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Photography Question 

Adam L.
 

How to tame reflection on shiny round surfaces?


I am taking a product shot of some large shiny round objects (sorry I won't elaborate). The problem is that the Black objects in particular reflect the camera, me, lights, etc. I first tried using fabric, but the folds of the fabric were too much. Then I used one of those white boxes (name escapes me) that the light will diffuse through. Still too many reflections. Then I used photoshop, but in cleaning it up, the end result looked alright, but flat not glossy. I haven't tried this yet, but I'm thinking about setting up a piece of glass at a 45 degree angle to shoot through it and hopefully get the reflection of the sky. (Yes, outdoors.) Any other ideas?


To love this question, log in above
September 21, 2005

 
- Gregory LaGrange

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Gregory LaGrange
Gregory LaGrange's Gallery
  secret bowling balls


To love this comment, log in above
September 21, 2005

 

Adam L.
  Not bowling balls, but mind as well be. If fact, bowling balls might be a little harder than what I'm working on because they would have a downward reflection as well as the upward reflection that my project has.
Gregory, I've seen your name on a few posts so I hope that you would be able to give me some good pointers. Thanks.


To love this comment, log in above
September 21, 2005

 

Bob Cammarata
  You might try taking a large piece of black poster-board and cutting a small hole in the center,...just big enough to fit your lens through.
This will eliminate the reflection of you and your camera.
You can diffuse the lights to mimimize their effective glare.


To love this comment, log in above
September 21, 2005

 

Michael H. Cothran
  I recently had to photograph some large black goblets (drinking glasses). It is not difficult to do, but it does require time and effort to set up correctly.
First, you need to use only a large rectangular softbox as your only light source. It should be placed inches away from your secret black balls. It will reflect itself as a curved white rectangle, following the shape of your balls, and will add depth and shape. You then need to add a black top and side to your set, and possibly use a piece of white foamboard opposite the softbox to add another, less bright, shaping reflection on the other side of the ball. Your room needs to be pitch black with all other lights off, and you will need to cover your camera and tripod with a black cloth. Set your camera on self-timer, and once you trip it, step out of the way, preferably behind the set, so that you are not included in the picture. Be careful not to trip over anything.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net


To love this comment, log in above
September 22, 2005

 

Cyndee Wanyonyi
  just chekcing in so that I can know what's keeping me in suspense...curiosity kills the...


To love this comment, log in above
September 22, 2005

 
- Gregory LaGrange

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Gregory LaGrange
Gregory LaGrange's Gallery
  Softbox isn't your only option. If you did use one you wouldn't always need a reflector on the opposite side, especially if seeing it on the surface is something you'd want to avoid.
Yes to the sides being black, fabric or painted foamboard. Yes to having the same in front of stands and tripods, as well as shooting with the timer. Although longer focal lengths can get your picture without obvious reflection of the camera and yourself.
Without a softbox you could do it without spots or direct flash. Off hand I would do it with high angles. If I had more than one light, I'd try two behind and one in front. If I had a softbox, I'd try that as the only light source, coming straight from above.


To love this comment, log in above
September 22, 2005

 

Adam L.
  Michael, this was an approach that I had tried; however, I didn't follow it to the letter and it was awful. My problem was that I didn't have foam board and had to use sheets and muslin. This gave me too many wrinkle reflections. I think your idea would work better.

Gregory, I also tried multiple lighting sources, a single light source, and ambiant. My best result was bouncing my flash off the walls and ceiling.

The only reason I have not revealed the product was because of a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). The customer did not purchase the first round, so I'm going to try again. In the mean time, I don't want to violate any agreement by posting the product name or pictures... at this time.

However, when the job is done, I'll clarify with the customer my ability to post images and then you can see what I'm talking about.


To love this comment, log in above
September 27, 2005

 
- Gregory LaGrange

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Gregory LaGrange
Gregory LaGrange's Gallery
  don't have to worry about not saying what it is, it wasn't something that made a difference.
meant to say with a spot or direct flash. Some glass blowers don't like a softbox because of the wide highlights.
90 degree angle, be it high or from the side, sounds the best bet.


To love this comment, log in above
September 27, 2005

 

Adam L.
  I got another idea from a picture I saw of motorcycle chrome on the net.

What if I set the camera 20 or 30 feet away and used my 70-300mm lense and zoom in on the product.

Wouldn't my relection be negligable? Has anyone done this? Would anyone know how the distance might affect the other surrounding reflections?


To love this comment, log in above
September 28, 2005

 

Adam L.
  If anyone is interested, I reshot these pictures with the 70-300mm and it worked out pretty well. Neither I nor my camera showed up at all.

I figured since I couldn't eliminate the reflection I would use it to my advantage by placing my project objet where I would get a nice reflection of the sky. I found a large open field with minimal trees, place the object up so as to eliminate most ground clutter. No I have images with plenty of sky.

And I did not get a release to post the pictures here. The customer was very clear on this subject.


To love this comment, log in above
October 04, 2005

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.