Getting sharp photos on a website

[Bubzeebub]

Most major websites have very sharp photos of items and many times without any background. Often times you can easily tell the difference between a professional shot and an amateurish one. Is this difference because of the camera used? the lighting? How do other websites get their photos so sharp?

[HarryM]

I'm only an amateur so professionals may know better, but I believe starting with a high-res crisp image is half the battle, which means in effect a quality camera and the skill to use it. Thereafter quality software such as Photoshop is essential, and once again the skill to get the best out of it.

Ah, if only I had all that...

[Bubzeebub]

Starting out with a great photo is probably half the battle. If you go to any popular commercial website and look at their items, it definitely different than what I would be able to do if I took a snapshot from my camera phone. However, I'd like to know the exact steps they take to get their images looknig so sweet and sharp.

[too much information]

by "sharp" I assume you mean "good looking" not resolution. (For the web your resolution should be 75-100 dpi)

For a photo with no background you can use a sheet that is the color of the background that you need. Lay the sheet on the ground and drape one end of the sheet over something taller than the item you are trying to photograph. The sheet should make a smooth curve so there is no edge to show up when you take your photo.

Then be sure to use at least two flashes when you take the photo, one to the right and one to the left of the camera, this will eliminate any shadows behind the item, and because of the curve in the sheet there seems to be no background in the image.

If you really want to spend some money you can buy a roll of paper in whatever color you need. The paper works much better than a sheet, but it is also much more expensive.

[HarryM]

You can also remove a background in Photoshop, adjust the colors of your image, crispen up edges, adjust contrast, play around at the pixel level, etc. By replacing colors one photo of a widget can be turned into a red widget, a green widget, or a blue widget, etc. But to do all this you need to start with a high-res largish-sized image that can stand the manipulation. You can then save it at a suitable res for the web as too_much_information suggests.

Once again this is only an amateur view. I only tinker with images to make the best of what I have. There are plenty of books on how to use the software, and for the photographic side there are probably articles in photography magazines.

[Bubzeebub]

thanks for your posts. I just wonder what the big boys do.

[Nutter]

A few tips from someone who has been there:

1. DPI in the FINAL image doesn't matter. It can be 1200dpi or 1dpi, it will still show the same on the web page. On the web, total pixels is all that matters. I've seen a web page that shows the same image side by side in 1dpi and 300dpi (I think), and the image is exactly the same. DPI only matters when printing. Of course, I didn't bookmark the page, so I can't find the link now.
   
2. Work with the biggest image you can handle, and scale it down to web-sized as the last step. This will help a lot with sharpness.
   
3. Depending on the size of the item, you might try a 'light tent' or 'light dome'. It's basically a big, white, translusent dome that goes over the object. The only thing going into the dome is the very end of the camera lens. All flashes are outside, which makes the dome into one, big, inside-out flash. I've done it by draping white sheets around chairs, and it was fairly effective.
   
4. If the item is too big for a tent, bounce the flash off of something big and white. If you look at the portrait studios, they never flash directly at their subject. They typically flash into an white umbrella, and the reflection lights the person. That gives a much more even lighting. And the suggestion of more that one light is very good. If you can't round up an umbrella, white foam core board works well; as does a white sheet, white ceilings, or pretty much anything white and pattern free. If you bounce off of something with a color, that color will show up on the image.
   
5. Equipment does matter, to a point. You need good stuff, but it doesn't have to be the latest and greatest. You don't need a $8,000 Canon 1ds-II with a $2k lense, but you can't get by with a camera phone either. And, you don't have to own it. Either rent equipment for the shoot or send off the film to get scanned. Personally, I use film and had it scanned at a pro level lab.
   
6. An unsharp mask filter will typically give you the best results. Most (if not all) digital images can benefit from a USM filter. This is not the same as a sharpen filter, but I don't know the difference; USM just winds up looking better.

- Ryan

[warrisr]

Photoshop's Unsharp Mask function is your best friend. It is amazing how much you can improve an image with it. Don't use the sharpen function.

I have found that the best general purpose settings to use for Unsharp Mask are Threshold 0, Radius 0.6 and Amount of 100%. Play around with the Amount setting and leave the Threshold and Radius settings alone.

Another control you should master are Curves (Found under Image > Adjustments). Use the blackpoint and whitepoint eydroppers to set your black and white points by clicking on the blackest and whitest spots in the image and then drag the line up or down to adjust the image.

With a bit of practice with these controls and you can turn even the most blah looking image into a great image!

Ron

[tbear]

Nutter>>>Equipment does matter,

I'd agree with that 100%.
As far as camera equipment goes, your standard film camera relies on a good lens for the image, I imagine that digital is the same.
If your camera has good optics the image that is passed to the storing medium (film/light cells) will be of good quality, just like the old 'rubbish in = rubbish out' philosophy! I still use my old (very old) Pentax SP1000 with quite good lenses rather than invest the (lots of) money needed for a comperable digital camera. When I have the money or the prices drop, I will be looking to make life easier for myself and go digital.
I believe also that the best cameras use optical zoom, as opposed to digital, for best quality.
Once you have good equipment, you then have to learn how to use it, of course..... ;)
With good gear and using the PS tips above you can begin to get good results.

[smokeyb]

I agree totally with every suggestion made in this post, and I usually take 3 pictures of whatever at different settings, and one of them is always good enough. But to answer your initial question: a lot of what you see on major company websites and in their brochures, aren't photos at all. They are exact replicas made with 3D software such as Maya and 3ds Max. They then have a model they can plant on any background - view from any angle - and change to any colour all the time at perfect quality. You would be hard pushed to tell the difference until the car changes into a robot before your eyes and dances... Anyone seen that advert?

[Bubzeebub]

Nope..haven't seen that one but I'm sure it's pretty amazing. Ok, let's say you get the good camera and take the good quality photograph. Does the type of scanner you use to scan the image matter now? I mean, if I scan a great photo on a rinky dink scanner will I still see a great photo?

[tbear]

Wow, I'll have one of what smokeyb is having, whatever it is, LOL :)
Seriously, would that 'car to robot' effect be 3d morphing?
As to scanners, I wondered about scan quality, when my 'top of the range', disgustingly expensive (8 years ago) scanner gave up the ghost (or rather the related SCSI board died) and I went out and bought a dead cheap HP ScanJet 3300C, second hand!
To tell the truth, the only difference I noticed was the increase in speed (well I upgraded the 'puter at the same time). Quality appeared the same. I was well disappointed in a roundabout way.
Perhaps one of the more technically able members can offer some words of wisdom on that subject....

[smokeyb]

Ok guys, check this The Car [citroen.co.uk]
Although this doesn't show the TV advert, in which you see the car (3D model) in it's full glory, you can see it on this page and see how clean and realistic it looks.

[smokeyb]

My God! there is a link to the advert on that page, and I have to say that this is my favourite Ad of all time.
PS. Make sure you speakers are on...

[swoop]

You may find that you don't have to spend too much on the camera. Even a 1 megapixel camera will take better pictures than many folk's monitors will display...and it's hard to find a 1 MP camera anymore.

I think the ideas of photographing in front of a smooth background and/or using a light tent will provide the big boost in image quality that you are seeking.

Good luck!

[Bubzeebub]

I'm going out to buy a beginner's digital camera instead of paying the local photo shop to snap pics. Anyone can recommend a good (perhaps a bit outdated) digital camera for UNDER $100?

[bird]

Equipment does matter

To some degree, it does, but you can get good results with cheap equipment as well.

In my experience, the contrast curve of an image has the biggest influence on its appearance. The Phothshop "curve" tool has already been mentioned. I use ght Gimp myself, but the principle is the same.

In the general case, the ideal image will contain all brightness levels from black to white and in between. More importantly, the relevant parts of the object shown should show good surface structure. This means that the contrast curve should be a bit steeper in those areas where it matters. This will make it look "sharper" to the eye than an image with dull contrasts.

This contrast management is basically how a professional photograph differs from one made by the average amateur. A pro knows how to measure the light levels correctly, and he has the equipment to add light where it's needed.

But even if the original picture is not optimal, quite often it is possible to improve it drastically by using the curve tool or one of the other digital tools that change the contrast. You can't add information that is missing in the original, but you can strengthen the existing information for maximum impact.

[Bubzeebub]

So you're saying that it's not necessary to buy a digital camera to take photos that will ultimately end up on the web? Ok...well I guess I'll just keep going to the local photo shop to take my snapshots then. (and start learning my way around Photoshop) ;O)

[bird]

A digital camera just makes it simpler and faster, because you're skipping the chemical processing and scanning procedures. In the end it's all the same pixels, though, and most photo chains offer to put your pictures on a CD for very little money.

[whoisgregg]

AND a digital camera is much cheaper over time for web product shots because you NEVER have to pay for photo processing again. It makes a $200-$300 digital camera cheaper than a $100 film camera in most scenarios.

<added> AND you don't need a scanner. </added>

[tomda]

Same than Bird,

I often use the curve tool, but the one in Fireworks. Just to enhance the contrast by making dark colors darker and light color lighter.

About the sharpening, I sometimes use the sharpen tool though sometimes it can make horrible thing when compressing the quality of the pic.

Could someone explain how I can use the sharp mask methor in Fireworks.

Finally, as said above, lighting is a must to take professional picture. You should follow the well known three-lights method. For easy transparency, you should have a smooth background, the color of the background should be a color you do not have in your product - like a flashy blue background.