how long would it take to edit pics like this?

While we are on the subject of polywall and panels, I favor using 4 x 8 ft. sheets of white foamcore and C-stands. But that's just me. But again.....time saved in shooting can be made up in post, without the client having to stand around while one does all this setting up.

There is no reason to tediously draw a line around the subject. You select the white, and do a feathered selection as needed. If your only method to cut something out is to draw around it, then yes, my suggestions aren't going to help too much. But there are much better ways to select than to draw around the object, even if you use the "magnetic" option or whatever it is.

I can think of at least 4 ways to do selections using photoshop. Drawing around an option is the most tedious, using the brush in masking mode is a bit easier, especially since you can fill once you have the outline.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17930789
If your only method to cut something out is to draw around it, then yes, my suggestions aren't going to help too much.

That is exactly what I was looking to know. Thanks!

.

Foamcore works. I forgot about the white corrugated boards, they are nice too. There are many options. Polywall is virtually indestructible though. Since these options are light, they are easy to stand up. If you don't have an assistant and it is just you, or if the floor is cluttered and you don't have clear paths from one object to another, I could see the issues. If there are clear paths, there are tricks to make this easier with just one person.

Since this thread is blowing up, here's a pic of what kind of fun I use to have before I retired from video production.

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …horizon/fort-184.jpg.html

You worked for Mythbusters?

I don't think the thread blew up. There are many tricks to photography, and a vast majority of the time, if you can get something done right in camera, it ends up as a better result than post processing. I know, because it feels like I am editing photos every single day.

I keep trying to change things up, use new techniques, etc, and I have had some wins, but there is much more yet to do.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17930797
You worked for Mythbusters?

I don't think the thread blew up. There are many tricks to photography, and a vast majority of the time, if you can get something done right in camera, it ends up as a better result than post processing. I know, because it feels like I am editing photos every single day.

I keep trying to change things up, use new techniques, etc, and I have had some wins, but there is much more yet to do.

No, we were filming a documentary. But I did enjoy the Mythbusters episode about "blowing things up"! Actually it was more of a docudrama, but nevertheless, we had to "get it right" in camera because we didn't have all the fancy editing tools back then that we do now.

another shot of me behind the camera on the above shoot.

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …izon/horizon-109.jpg.html

Are you familiar with Topaz Remask?

Or in CS 5 (maybe 4?) and up, use the "Refine Edge" to establish a transition zone and paint with a brush to include or delete areas on either side.

Makes these jobs much easier than it used to be for sure.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17930498
I have learned that just because I have been doing something for 30 years, it doesn't mean I am doing it the right way, ie. software engineering and development. Somebody always invariably has a better niftier way to do something, as hard as it is to swallow during a design meeting.

Also, I am only suggesting what works when doing portraits, and the only difference here is that the products are inanimate.

Other references that work in real life, even using a translucent surface to put the products on and light from below:
http://www.innovatedca​ptures.com …-a-pure-white-background/
http://www.discoverdig​italphotography.com …ct-on-a-white-background/

Post Processing tip(s):
http://tabletopstudio.​com/white_backgrounds.​html

There is a way to light this without any real post processing, of that there is no doubt. Given enough flashes (1), strobes (2), softboxes, and remote triggers, this could be done.

Since you already have what you need from this thread, it will invariably follow that people are going to continue to share techniques and tips with others. There is alot to learn for this type of shoot that others might find interesting.

...given enough time its possible to do virtually anything correct in camera first time.

But lets take a closer look at what you are suggesting. The OP had a day, or about 8 hours, to shoot 100 products, and they managed to do this successfully. With no breaks, thats 9.6 minutes per product. You suggest it will take 3-4 additional minutes to "light each product" correctly. Without designing lighting diagrams for each product (which again, would take a significant amount of time as well) I think you are underestimating the time it would take to get it correct for 100 products of various sizes and shapes. But lets pretend that by some fluke you are able to get the lighting right in a small amount of time with limited tweaking of lighting set ups. By trying to get the lighting right you are adding at least 6 hours to the shoot.

So we can either add 6 hours to the shoot at the front end, where the warehouse has to be kept open longer, the client has to supply staff to stay on location for longer, the OP has to keep their team on location longer, or the OP can add that time to the back end, which involves only one person sitting on their computer anywhere in the world tapping on their computer. Which of these two options is better for the client, and better for the OP?

banquetbear wrote in post #17930828
...given enough time its possible to do virtually anything correct in camera first time.

But lets take a closer look at what you are suggesting. The OP had a day, or about 8 hours, to shoot 100 products, and they managed to do this successfully. With no breaks, thats 9.6 minutes per product. You suggest it will take 3-4 additional minutes to "light each product" correctly. Without designing lighting diagrams for each product (which again, would take a significant amount of time as well) I think you are underestimating the time it would take to get it correct for 100 products of various sizes and shapes. But lets pretend that by some fluke you are able to get the lighting right in a small amount of time with limited tweaking of lighting set ups. By trying to get the lighting right you are adding at least 6 hours to the shoot.

So we can either add 6 hours to the shoot at the front end, where the warehouse has to be kept open longer, the client has to supply staff to stay on location for longer, the OP has to keep their team on location longer, or the OP can add that time to the back end, which involves only one person sitting on their computer anywhere in the world tapping on their computer. Which of these two options is better for the client, and better for the OP?

It seems like it would take a more or less equal overall amount of time to do it either way.
However, less "on location" time seems to be advantageous.
In other words, it seems as though it is more profitable to spend 8 hours shooting and 6 hours editing than it would be to spend 14 hours shooting.
And remember that even if the OP shot it "right" in the first place, there would still be a little editing time, as the client wants cut-outs.

.

banquetbear wrote in post #17930828
...given enough time its possible to do virtually anything correct in camera first time.

But lets take a closer look at what you are suggesting. The OP had a day, or about 8 hours, to shoot 100 products, and they managed to do this successfully. With no breaks, thats 9.6 minutes per product. You suggest it will take 3-4 additional minutes to "light each product" correctly. Without designing lighting diagrams for each product (which again, would take a significant amount of time as well) I think you are underestimating the time it would take to get it correct for 100 products of various sizes and shapes. But lets pretend that by some fluke you are able to get the lighting right in a small amount of time with limited tweaking of lighting set ups. By trying to get the lighting right you are adding at least 6 hours to the shoot.

So we can either add 6 hours to the shoot at the front end, where the warehouse has to be kept open longer, the client has to supply staff to stay on location for longer, the OP has to keep their team on location longer, or the OP can add that time to the back end, which involves only one person sitting on their computer anywhere in the world tapping on their computer. Which of these two options is better for the client, and better for the OP?

Are you sure about that? I didn't mean 4-6 minutes per item, I meant 4-6 minutes extra up front once. I am sorry if I screwed that up previously.

Here is my set up, it took 10 minutes, from closet to shoot. I use 2 streaklights (battery strobes) and 2 reflectors on chairs, white fabric dropped onto a table with a vertical face, 3 wireless triggers, a 580EXII and a 7D with 70-200. On site, it would take probably about the same time, because you would already have the flashes hooked up to the battery and remotes before you arrive.

The time instead would be spent on setting up the table. I am using a pool table, but on site, you could use a 4x8 sheet of plywood on some stable strong foundation, or use 4 sawhorses. This would take any number of objects, large and small. This covers any object you can carry yourself over to the table and back again, or somebody else on scene. Or just leave everything on the floor, less time yet, you just have to get down to floor level to shoot.

Here is R2D2, with grays and whites and dark colors using my suggestions earlier. This is much easier to pull out of the scene. I could run 100 products of varying sizes through this set up at about 2-3 minutes per product and cut a ton of time during post processing. The lighting would be consistent and I would not have to tweak much of anything for each shot.

If I had a smooth white material instead of the white linty cloth I had here, I suspect the shadows under the products would be less than noticeable.

Did I mention how much I love these streaklights, they are useful for so many things!

Results and the scene:

BlakeC wrote in post #17927864
I'm pretty quick at doing this type of thing and it would be 2-4 minutes per photo.
A recent client just came to me from using another photographer. They didn't like his price for cutting them out. They didn't like my price either.

Hey, Blake

I am curious about something:

If it only takes you 2-4 minutes to do each photo, presuming you charge a reasonable (fair) hourly rate for the editing work, then your price for cutting these out would be quite inexpensive, wouldn't it?

If that's the case, then how could the client not like your price?

.

I thought this was fun, I stood way back to shoot the scene and didn't change my settings, and now R2D2 looks a bit more jazzed up!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17930852
Are you sure about that?

Here is my set up, it took 10 minutes, from closet to shoot. I use 2 streaklights (battery strobes) and 2 reflectors on chairs, white fabric dropped onto a table with a vertical face, 3 wireless triggers, a 580EXII and a 7D with 70-200. On site, it would take probably about the same time, because you would already have the flashes hooked up to the battery and remotes before you arrive.

The time instead would be spent on setting up the table. I am using a pool table, but on site, you could use a 4x8 sheet of plywood on some stable strong foundation, or use 4 sawhorses. This would take any number of objects, large and small. This covers any object you can carry yourself over to the table and back again, or somebody else on scene. Or just leave everything on the floor, less time yet, you just have to get down to floor level to shoot.

Here is R2D2, with grays and whites and dark colors using my suggestions earlier. This is much easier to pull out of the scene. I could run 100 products of varying sizes through this set up at about 2-3 minutes per product and cut a ton of time during post processing. The lighting would be consistent and I would not have to tweak much of anything for each shot.

If I had a smooth white material instead of the white linty cloth I had here, I suspect the shadows under the products would be less than noticeable.

Results and the scene:

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=179​30852&i=i35500527
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=179​30852&i=i221792516
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Two big problems with your example. First the light on R2D2 is harsh. Note the hard shadows. My client needed very soft lighting. Second, the background area around the feet still need to be cleaned up. I know that you didn't have a seamless background, but the exposure is still not "in camera perfect" around the feet. This is the same issue I've been saying all along. If you look at my shots, the lighting is consistent. So this should make the job of cutting out the products easier.

banquetbear wrote in post #17930828
...given enough time its possible to do virtually anything correct in camera first time.

But lets take a closer look at what you are suggesting. The OP had a day, or about 8 hours, to shoot 100 products, and they managed to do this successfully. With no breaks, thats 9.6 minutes per product. You suggest it will take 3-4 additional minutes to "light each product" correctly. Without designing lighting diagrams for each product (which again, would take a significant amount of time as well) I think you are underestimating the time it would take to get it correct for 100 products of various sizes and shapes. But lets pretend that by some fluke you are able to get the lighting right in a small amount of time with limited tweaking of lighting set ups. By trying to get the lighting right you are adding at least 6 hours to the shoot.

So we can either add 6 hours to the shoot at the front end, where the warehouse has to be kept open longer, the client has to supply staff to stay on location for longer, the OP has to keep their team on location longer, or the OP can add that time to the back end, which involves only one person sitting on their computer anywhere in the world tapping on their computer. Which of these two options is better for the client, and better for the OP?

Exactly!