DIY Desktop Studio mock-up --C&C desperately needed

I didn't watch the video, but that setup is a great idea, Gretchen. It's similar to a commercial light tent, the primary difference being that one side is completely open. A fully enclosed light tent allows you to leave an opening so small that you can fit only your lens barrel through the opening. That provides greater control and flexibility. As an example, a glass object in the setup provided at your link will reflect objects located in other areas of the room.

I also like the use of clamps attached to the chairs if you want to avoid purchasing light stands.

Thanks for the idea about Mr. Sticky, John. I'll be sure to purchase it, though I fear my biggest problem is that I'm working in a storage room that has decades of dust that has settled on all of the shelves and the objects stored on them. Any movement probably stirs up at least a little dust. Worse yet, the door to my storage room opens to the outside. Now you understand why I call it a makeshift studio. :D

I did watch the video, and as I said before, I've never used a light tent, because (like a number of other areas of photography) is not something I have a need or interest for. I've obviously had a very close look at them because I like knowing how things work.

It is not built of designed quite the same as a commercial light tent; the ones I've seen are completely enclosed, without any gaps so as to provide completely even light distribution, and as Mike says, the front is closed as well, and there were a number of places where you can point your camera through.

The largest variables in any of these designs is the quality of light that gets in. The covering should ensure good light diffusion without affecting the colour of the light. The other factor is the light source. I have not had any good experience with any fluorescent light sources, and that is based on the way that they work. Our eyes are designed to work with daylight, which has spectral curve that includes all colours from red through to violet. Fluorescent lights (tubes and compacts) uses phosphors that emit light at very specific wavelengths and even in the "daylight" lights tend to have spikes in the greens and to a lesser degree in the blues. Their performance in the reds and yellows are usually pretty mediocre, so photographs taken with this type of lighting often looks really strange. There are some high end lamps (put out by companies like Kinoflo) that use fairly exotic phosphors that are not too bad, but their tubes are extremely expensive. LED lights work differently than fluorescents, but the lower cost units share some of the issues; if you look carefully, "white" LEDs have a heavy blue colour cast and if you look at the pro photo LEDs, these do compensate nicely, but again are very pricey.

When all is said and done, the old overrun photofloods do provide good lighting, but as Mike said, they get extremely hot and have a very short bulb life.

I seem to remember that my hot lights have a life of only 6 hours. You can appreciate why I use them judiciously.

By the way, the hot lights are so hot that if you accidentally allow one to touch the fabric of a commercial light tent, it will instantly burn a hole in the fabric. I know from personal experience.

Grumpy and Mike. Thanks for looking and responding! I mostly liked the easy of storage and light weight of this frame. I think it could be easily and cheaply covered to totally enclose it and black velvet or foam boards could be used as well when necessary to remove reflection from glass. I think the frame itself is practical in every respect. I'm not adverse to a little sewing or glue gunning when necessary. I have plenty of varied sorts of fabric from my quilting days.

I've also come to the conclusion that the investment is going to have to be in good lights. They also, will have to be small and portable (light weight & easily stored) which are features that probably increase the price.

I'm going to have another very busy week, so I don't know what I'll be able to accomplish. Perhaps I'll ge to redo the awful PP I did on the kitty pictures I posted. :)

Thanks again for your input. Always appreciate your thoughts!

One question - -have you ever worked the the full-spectrum lights or bulbs? OTT light is one brand and I know one can purchase just full-spectrum bulbs.

I know they work well for other art endeavors, but not how they work with photography . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggt

One question - -have you ever worked the the full-spectrum lights or bulbs? OTT light is one brand and I know one can purchase just full-spectrum bulbs.

I know they work well for other art endeavors, but not how they work with photography . . .

---

Sorry, I don't know either product. I'm pretty well 100% flash for the "studio" work that I do. Strobes with modeling lights are my preferred tools for indoor lighting. The only time I use hot lights is when I do video work.

I have never heard of full-spectrum bulbs, so that should give you a clue about whether I have actually used them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggt

One question - -have you ever worked the the full-spectrum lights or bulbs? OTT light is one brand and I know one can purchase just full-spectrum bulbs.

---

Beware of any package that has "full spectrum" written on it. Very few lamps get anywhere near to the spectrum of natural light. Most real photographers prefer flash a.k.a "speedlights" which give a light close to that of sunlight. Beware also of CRI (color rendition index) claims - it is possible, for example, for an unscrupulous manufacture to adjust phosphor dopings to get a good CRI but yet a really bad light! I have found a CRI of 85 quite adequate for my purposes.

My Rig, just for information, quite un-professional:

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...ig_7-06-12.jpg

Heavy tracing paper diffusers just lean up against the tripod. LED floods. Some diffused light from an overhead Philips TL950 fluorescent.

The victim:

http://kronometric.org/tcw/mil/altus/an640.jpg

Part of the rather flat look is due to the non-reflective finish on this military watch case.

Ted, very cool! Thanks for posting. I love the blue tape everywhere!

I think I managed to get the concept into my brain. I got 2-$2.99 LED flashights and a used, but cleaned frozen dinner container (white). Cut a whole in the bottom and turned it over. The result:

http://i49.tinypic.com/15mo189.jpg

Yes, this is one of my beading projects from way back. They are called amulet bags. I miss beading.

Looks great, Gretchen; that seems to have done the trick! That's as good as anything you are going to find on a site like eBay or any other website selling such items.

John, thanks. I think I finally understand!!!

I appreciate everyone's help and patience!

You still have quite a noticable difference in light colour intensity from left (cool tone) to top right (warm tone) in your bead image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggt

Ted, very cool! Thanks for posting. I love the blue tape everywhere!

---

You're most welcome.

Interesting reflection in the round beads - makes them look rather organic (frogspawn, e.g.)

Manfred-tsk, tsk. Wasn't it you that said to work on one variable at a time? I think I got the image the way I wanted it as far as shadows and reflections are concerned --that is two variables!!!! LOL

Yes, you are correct about the color. Still learning . . .

Thanks!

Ted, the beads are very cool that way. I think the ab finish combined with the pinkish color produce that effect. The seem to have a green/gold reflection to the naked eye as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggt

Manfred-tsk, tsk. Wasn't it you that said to work on one variable at a time? I think I got the image the way I wanted it as far as shadows and reflections are concerned --that is two variables!!!! LOL

Yes, you are correct about the color. Still learning . . .

Thanks!

---

In my book, getting even lighting is one variable...:):)

The main reason for my comment is that while the cool tone of the light works well for the green beads, your work is predominantly red, and the cool tones give those more of a muddy look, whereas warm tones would give them more "pop".

Gretchen,

I wasn't going to mention the uneven color balance in the lighting because I didn't think that was your immediate concern. Now that it might be...

It seems to me that you have two different light sources -- one coming from the left and one coming from the right -- producing the cool and warm colors, respectively. I find it more objectionable in the background but eliminating the issue also might improve the rest of the image.

When producing an image such as this, you're best off working in a dark room at night to eliminate all light sources other than the lights you are controlling. (Either that or make darned sure that the light sources you're controlling are overpowering all other light sources beyond your control.) Also make sure all of the light sources you're controlling are producing the same color temperature, assuming of course you want the same color balance throughout the image.

grumpy --arghhhh! I haven't even begun to think in terms of the color output of the lights ---LOL.

Thanks, I think.:)

Other light sources?????

oh geez.

:)