lighting on stock photography

[loki1982]

I started trying to do some stock photography and Im having a really hard time. Very frustrated and looking for some advice.

First off here is my equipment.

Canon Mark 5d II
kit lens
tripod
home made light box
2 possibly 3 desk lamps with 100 watt equivalent energy saver bulbs.

Ive submitted a whole bunch of shots of various items to about 10 different stock sites. All of the low class sites have accepted atleast some if not all of my photos. All of the more reputiable sites have denied all of them. Mostly they say lighting balance is off. Blurry or out of focus.

This is how I have my lights setup(first thumbnail)
I have tried both setting the lights on either side and shining the light onto a white sheet to diffuse the light. I also have tried pointed the lights directly at the object without anything to diffuse the light.

I always use a tripod and I set my iso to 100. Should I use a higher iso? I set my mirror to lockup. I turn my image stabilization off. and put a 2 second delay since I dont have a remote. There is nothing more that I know of to get any more shake free pictures.

Next I have tried focusing by my own sight, and by using the focus indicators inside my camera. I usually take a picture at an aperature of min 5.6, 8,11, and the max 32. I do this so that I can see how the dof for the image changes and see which looks best.

So look at thumbnail 2 the orange cookie jar. I thought I did a good job on this one. But these are the responses I got from sites.

shutterstock said "Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best."
Bigstockphoto said "Blurry: Image is not very crisp or is blurred when viewed at full size."

Second image of a dinner plate

bigstockphoto said "Blurry: Image is not very crisp or is blurred when viewed at full size."

shutterstock said "
Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.
Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect. "

Out of all the the images I have submitted these three are the most common reasoning they are denying them. How can I improve in these areas?

Is my kit lens just not sharp enough? Is my judgement of focus really off? Is it my lighting? A combination of these things?

I can deal with the limited commerical value deal, but the other parts I just cant seem to correct.

[ttosifa]

I have never shot for stock, but I think I agree on their assessments. (However, the pictures you posted are small and might not look as good as the originals.) On the jar, for instance, the ribbon would seem to be an important part of the picture. But the writing on the ribbon doesn't seem to be completely in focus, especially near the front (the focal point seems farther back). Plus the lighting is such that there is a shadow on the closest part of the ribbon, making it more difficult (relative to the lit areas) to read the writing. Also, you've got a specular highlight on the right side and (I think) it probably reveals the sheet and your light on that side.

For the food, the focal point seems to be on the near side of the leftmost biscuit. The risotto (?), on the other hand, is not in focus, and the blur makes it look mushy and unappetizing. The lighting is such that you have shadows going several directions -- some going towards the camera, some away. The background has uneven gradation of dark gray at top to light gray in the middle to dark gray at bottom.

None of these things by themselves, IMO, are necessarily bad, but it's how they come together with the subject and the interpretation of the photo that matters.

You might find it useful to learn about lighting and the placement of highlights and shadows from various sources. For me, the best source of information was the Dean Collins DVDs "The Best of Collins on Lighting" from Software Cinema. My recollection is that most of that used strobe lighting. The DVD "3-D Contrast" from Software Cinema is also very good, and contains information you can ONLY do with continuous lighting (e.g., moving your light during the exposure so you don't have to iron your white sheets). The Strobist blog also has some info you might find useful.

As for sharpness, it's hard to say. Part of it might be the kit lens. Part of it might be your sharpening workflow (you do sharpen in post, right?). My favorite book on this is "Image Sharpening" by Bruce Fraser. I suspect a big part again has to do with your lighting. Two or three 100-watt bulbs is nothing at f/32. I sometimes have to use full power on my AB1600 at that f-stop! I can't image how long your exposures are. You could get shake from gusts of wind, or maybe something happens to the sensor at long exposures. I know that for some product shots, Collins had to use multiple pops of lights more powerful than ABs.

I hope I have helped. My personal opinion is that you should learn more about the placement of lights first (it's significantly cheaper), and then explore other types of lighting. Good luck!

[loki1982]

Thanks for all your input. I think my eyes are just not keen on the details. I have perfect vision 20/20 but it seems my mind blocks out the little details that they, and you habve noticed.

Again thanks for your advice