Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.
I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Joe wrote:
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.
I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"?
The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom.
I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to
look for imperfections?
Bob

Joe <joe at (no spam) dontspam.com> wrote:

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.
I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams
Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Exactly. That was my first approach. I was not happy with the result.
I could clean it up, but that would take a LOT more time and effort per
image than I really want to put in here.

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for
you? I'm just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could
you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Joe wrote:
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.
I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams
Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.
Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"?
The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom.
I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to
look for imperfections?
Bob

Even for my grandma I wou;dn't want to waste the time to create something
not acceptable. And you should spend the time to learn the professional
technique not dirty quick trick to fool some newbie.

Joe <joe at (no spam) dontspam.com> wrote:

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Exactly. That was my first approach. I was not happy with the result.
I could clean it up, but that would take a LOT more time and effort per
image than I really want to put in here.

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always
be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS
1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?....Why not?

Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your
client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable
image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be
delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist.
Good luck on your Mom's project.............Bob

Joe wrote:
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Joe wrote:
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:
I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would
like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I
can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer
sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus
2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I
have have no real luck with white backgrounds.
I'm surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background.
But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand
to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White.
Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be
quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams
Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain't the best way for
professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.
Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"?
The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom.
I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to
look for imperfections?
Bob

Even for my grandma I wou;dn't want to waste the time to create something
not acceptable. And you should spend the time to learn the professional
technique not dirty quick trick to fool some newbie.

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always
be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS
1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?....Why not?
Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your
client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable
image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be
delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist.
Good luck on your Mom's project.............Bob

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always
be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS
1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?....Why not?

Close. Actually Canon 5D MKII. And yes, I always shoot RAW...

Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your
client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable
image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be
delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist.
Good luck on your Mom's project.............Bob

FWIW, she is a perfectionist. She was president of the West Coast
chapter of NAME (National Association of Miniature Enthusiasts) for
years, and delights in all thngs small that are done to perfection.

She wants her miniature scenes to look good enough that a tightly
cropped photograph makes you look twice to even realize it is not a full
size live scene.

Why not? because I made $$$ to feed my family before RAW was born, and I
have been seeing many RAW worshippers destrying the good photo by praying to
the RAW God when they don't even know how to use it.

So don't use RAW to scare me, but I would suggest you to spend more time
on Photoshop instead of burrying your head in the RAW bucket. Yes, RAW has
some good points, but you have to know Photoshop well to enjoy the RAW more.

However, let's go further. RAW gives wider dynamic range.

It doesn't matter as long as you snap a good quality image. If not, then
RAW or not RAW is not worth to snap in the first place.

With RAW I can do more with the image in the future than I may be even
considering today.

Most RAW converters don't give the same result, some version of RAW
converter or overdoing can easily damage the photo.

JD <JD at (no spam) example.invalid> wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for
you? I'm just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could
you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I'll upload a
couple somewhere and point a link to it.

Burt Johnson <burt at (no spam) mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:

JD <JD at (no spam) example.invalid> wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out
for
you? I'm just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could
you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I'll upload a
couple somewhere and point a link to it.

These turned out well enough that I decided to upload them to iStock in
addition to supplying my mother's purposes.

I sent up one for an initial test to see if it would be accepted. I
received the acceptance notification today, so here is the image from
that butterfly:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10648041

As a reminder, this was done by placing the butterfly specimen on a
sheet of glass. The glass was laying on an aquarium frame that I use as
a table when I want a light underneath. The stand was sitting in a
light tent that was laying on its back. (The light tent was mostly
because I was too lazy to fold it up, so I just turned it on its back
and used it to envelope the base below the glass.)

I used a strong studio strobe on the bottom, pointing to a sheet of
white foamcore board that was sitting at 45 degrees to reflect the light
upwards.

Initially I planned on using a ring flash in front, but it was too
strong. Even at minimum settable level, I had too much light. I ended
up using another variable strobe above to the right, at about 30 degrees
to illuminate the front.

I set my camera first. Tamron 90mm macro lens. Canon 5D MK II set to
ISO 100, f/11.

Then I dialed up the background light until the camera LCD shows the
background was completely blown out (overexposure indicator on, so it
was all flashing red).

I then dialed in the front/side strobe. I could not use the histogram
because of the blown out background. I therefore dialed up the front
flash until I started to get blown-out indication on the wings. I then
dialed it back 1/2 stop. I took two images, just in case there was
something wrong with the first.

i next flipped the butterfly over and shot the back, then moved to the
next butterfly. There were about 80 specimens in all.

Each flip (front and back) and each butterfly required an adjustment of
the front flash, since dark wings needed more front flash than light
ones. The background flash did not change in the series though, nor did
the camera setting.

I started with the smallest butterflies, then raised the tripod as
needed for the larger ones. I first shot a sheet of paper that showed
the name of the butterfly, then the butterfly itself.

For each butterfly, I selected the best image and took it into
Photoshop. I then tweaked levels to make sure the butterfly itself used
the entire exposure range. I used healing and cloning to fix little
tears and imperfections caused by handling, then used Fluid Mask 3 to
create a mask, which was fairly easy given the way it had been lit.

--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson <burt at (no spam) mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:

JD <JD at (no spam) example.invalid> wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for
you? I'm just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could
you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.
Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I'll upload a
couple somewhere and point a link to it.

These turned out well enough that I decided to upload them to iStock in
addition to supplying my mother's purposes.

I sent up one for an initial test to see if it would be accepted. I
received the acceptance notification today, so here is the image from
that butterfly:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10648041

As a reminder, this was done by placing the butterfly specimen on a
sheet of glass. The glass was laying on an aquarium frame that I use as
a table when I want a light underneath. The stand was sitting in a
light tent that was laying on its back. (The light tent was mostly
because I was too lazy to fold it up, so I just turned it on its back
and used it to envelope the base below the glass.)

I used a strong studio strobe on the bottom, pointing to a sheet of
white foamcore board that was sitting at 45 degrees to reflect the light
upwards.

Initially I planned on using a ring flash in front, but it was too
strong. Even at minimum settable level, I had too much light. I ended
up using another variable strobe above to the right, at about 30 degrees
to illuminate the front.

I set my camera first. Tamron 90mm macro lens. Canon 5D MK II set to
ISO 100, f/11.

Then I dialed up the background light until the camera LCD shows the
background was completely blown out (overexposure indicator on, so it
was all flashing red).

I then dialed in the front/side strobe. I could not use the histogram
because of the blown out background. I therefore dialed up the front
flash until I started to get blown-out indication on the wings. I then
dialed it back 1/2 stop. I took two images, just in case there was
something wrong with the first.

i next flipped the butterfly over and shot the back, then moved to the
next butterfly. There were about 80 specimens in all.

Each flip (front and back) and each butterfly required an adjustment of
the front flash, since dark wings needed more front flash than light
ones. The background flash did not change in the series though, nor did
the camera setting.

I started with the smallest butterflies, then raised the tripod as
needed for the larger ones. I first shot a sheet of paper that showed
the name of the butterfly, then the butterfly itself.

For each butterfly, I selected the best image and took it into
Photoshop. I then tweaked levels to make sure the butterfly itself used
the entire exposure range. I used healing and cloning to fix little
tears and imperfections caused by handling, then used Fluid Mask 3 to
create a mask, which was fairly easy given the way it had been lit.