LED continuous or Studio Flash/strobe lights ?

[Kieranstandishphoto]

What I have learned from this thread:

1. There's more than one way to do commercial photography
2. People who have spent a long time doing it one way aren't well qualified to advise on the other.

hhaha, I like it

 

[HoppyUK]

@Garry Edwards
"
Well, what can I say?
All credit to you for doing things your own way, it's your business and not mine.
But your latest post is revealing, because it's now clear that you are using continuous lighting for photographing people as well as inanimate objects, which I find even more strange, especially as you earlier said that flash is the only way to go with live models. "

Sorry there must be some confusion, probably on my part, we use flash on live models, unless its babies/toddlers, continuous is used for product, 360 rotations, macro, video and the like.

This changes everything really. If my work included even a small amount of video, I'd find a way of doing all similar shots with continuous light - it's the only way to achieve consistency between stills and video. I'd find a way of matching continuous light to flash as well - not that hard really. It's in situations where you can compare the same product images side by side when differences really stand out. For most work, colour consistency is more important than accuracy.

As this thread progresses and Kieran reveals a little more each time it sounds like he's got most things covered

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

Interesting, and yes I may be a bit out of date, I retired 2 years and 5 days ago and things may have changed - but the demand is in fact increasing, it's just that I no longer want to work.

Obviously you have much more in depth knowledge of your speciality than I do, perhaps I have a wider general knowledge. Certainly though in house photography is the best and sometimes the only solution for many businesses and, in part, I blame the quality standards of photographers for this - and this is a general, rather than a specific comment because there are A LOT of photographers out there who seem to take on product photography work that they simply can't do adequately. This poor standard of allegedly professional photography has caused enormous damage to the industry, sometimes it's partly the clients fault because they've assumed that their local wedding photographer can do product photography and sometimes its the difficulty that really large, often global companies have in sourcing photographers who can produce the required quality standard to the required consistency - so much so that, increasingly, large companies are ditching product photography altogether and going for rendering instead.

Your own experience of your particular clients needs and expectations serves you well but there are plenty of firms out there who have tried contracting out their photography but, for various reasons have decided to bring it in house, and this trend is increasing.

I can only speak for the fashion industry, but in house is expensive, and we are reaping the rewards of that problem not many have the ability to do what we do (in volume) as you do need a team, this isn't a job for one person. but your right regarding large product it is certainly being rendered and more of it will be as time goes on, it gives the client much more scope when the image is finalised, and as everything it is getting cheaper.

If you were a photographer shooting room sets you would be a very very scared bunny indeed, i think you may have a few years left, but not many. We don't do editorial stuff, the stuff that takes time to set up and light, it takes too long, its not what we are good at, so we leave that to the other guys, we rarely go onsite again leaving that to others, we are good and successful I think because we are very specialised.

Its funny you mention the local wedding photographer, because we have a price guarantee but only like for like, we will not match uncle bob in his back room, he may well be able to hang a couple of hundred garments in the shed and get them done, but is he there every single day of the week when you need him, what happens when hes on holiday or sick? part of a successful business sometime comes down to simply how you do business.

 

[Garry Edwards]

For most work, colour consistency is more important than accuracy.

But surely, accuracy is vitally important when selling clothing?
I'm just as guilty as any other commercial photographer when it comes to changing colour and contrast, but this is done for drama and effect, and is always deliberate - selling shots, not illustrative ones. The illustrative ones are the ones that the consumer relies on when making their purchase and if the colour is wrong then the consumer will be unhappy and is more likely to return the goods, the cost of which can be crippling to the seller. Therefore, the colours need to be accurate.

I haven't been invited to offer critique on Keiran's website photos so it would be wrong of me to do so. All that I will say though is that there are a lot of mannequin shots on there and it is obvious that they have been shot using continuous lighting. If both he and his customers are happy with the inevitably inaccurate colours then that's fine, and none of my business, but it isn't something that I would personally do.

Which leaves me with one unanswered question, to satisfy my curiosity, and maybe Keiran can help with this . . . Is his approach unique or do some or most of his direct competitors also use continuous lighting?

 

[Garry Edwards]

I can only speak for the fashion industry, but in house is expensive, and we are reaping the rewards of that problem not many have the ability to do what we do (in volume) as you do need a team, this isn't a job for one person. but your right regarding large product it is certainly being rendered and more of it will be as time goes on, it gives the client much more scope when the image is finalised, and as everything it is getting cheaper.

If you were a photographer shooting room sets you would be a very very scared bunny indeed, i think you may have a few years left, but not many. We don't do editorial stuff, the stuff that takes time to set up and light, it takes too long, its not what we are good at, so we leave that to the other guys, we rarely go onsite again leaving that to others, we are good and successful I think because we are very specialised.

Its funny you mention the local wedding photographer, because we have a price guarantee but only like for like, we will not match uncle bob in his back room, he may well be able to hang a couple of hundred garments in the shed and get them done, but is he there every single day of the week when you need him, what happens when hes on holiday or sick? part of a successful business sometime comes down to simply how you do business.

Yes, you've made a good point about clothing shots, they do need a team and they also need product knowledge, steaming and a good workflow.

But, for the untold thousands of odds and sods sold online, in-house photography is becoming ever more popular. It's always appealed to the cheapskates who were happy to sacrifice quality for price but now it's about quality and convenience as well as price. It looks like you've chosen the right speciality

 

[sk66]

For most work, colour consistency is more important than accuracy.

And this is a significant weakness for LEDs currently, especially cheap ones. There is (can be) a lot of variance between samples (two of the same model), between models (same design), and at different power settings. It doesn't matter much if the cause is W/B color shifts or CRI differences, for product work mixed lighting can be a nightmare.

It might not matter much for standard video work where the LED panels are all running at/near max and flooding the scene. And there's no perfect answer really, even strobes exhibit some color shift. But there's no point in making life that much harder.

 

[sk66]

Is his approach unique or do some or most of his direct competitors also use continuous lighting?

I only know one other in the industry who specializes in the high volume/low price area and they are using strobes (inexpensive models); but that's not to say their work is great/better... they have the biggest light tent I've ever seen.
Interestingly, he also owns the business that does all of the photography at Hershey Park/attractions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I once saw an illustration of a light tent that was blown up like a bouncy castle. most of the lights were outside but the car and camera were inside.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

But surely, accuracy is vitally important when selling clothing?
I'm just as guilty as any other commercial photographer when it comes to changing colour and contrast, but this is done for drama and effect, and is always deliberate - selling shots, not illustrative ones. The illustrative ones are the ones that the consumer relies on when making their purchase and if the colour is wrong then the consumer will be unhappy and is more likely to return the goods, the cost of which can be crippling to the seller. Therefore, the colours need to be accurate.

I haven't been invited to offer critique on Keiran's website photos so it would be wrong of me to do so. All that I will say though is that there are a lot of mannequin shots on there and it is obvious that they have been shot using continuous lighting. If both he and his customers are happy with the inevitably inaccurate colours then that's fine, and none of my business, but it isn't something that I would personally do.

Which leaves me with one unanswered question, to satisfy my curiosity, and maybe Keiran can help with this . . . Is his approach unique or do some or most of his direct competitors also use continuous lighting?

You have missed the bit about what we shoot with continuous, not your fault this thread is so long my dad retired half way through it !!!
All our mannequins are shot using flash we have two mannequin rigs that both use two 6x3 soft boxes and a smaller head with a standard diffuser to ensure the top is lit.

 

[sk66]

You have missed the bit about what we shoot with continuous, not your fault this thread is so long my dad retired half way through it !!!
All our mannequins are shot using flash we have two mannequin rigs that both use two 6x3 soft boxes and a smaller head with a standard diffuser to ensure the top is lit.

I missed that as well... I would have thought garments/mannequins would fall under "product" and not "live models." Not that it much matters.

But let me show you the kind of thing we are (I'm) talking about... note the very large shift in the a*/b* values in this image with two samples not very far apart.



One might be inclined to say that is due to the difference in exposures, but it is not. If it was only due to exposure the shift should be only in the L* (luminance) value. The majority of this shift is due to mixed lighting. But I cannot say if it is due to LED's/CRI/WB or anything else specifically w/o knowing the situation.

For comparison this is a high level studio shot of a blue car using strobes. Note that there is much less shift in the a*/b* values even though the sample points used are much farther apart in exposure.



If your clients (and their customers) don't care, it may very well not be worth messing with. But it is a real factor that could be a real problem for others.
IME, it's very uncommon for there not to be some color shift... the only question is how much is acceptable.

 

[HoppyUK]

But surely, accuracy is vitally important when selling clothing?
I'm just as guilty as any other commercial photographer when it comes to changing colour and contrast, but this is done for drama and effect, and is always deliberate - selling shots, not illustrative ones. The illustrative ones are the ones that the consumer relies on when making their purchase and if the colour is wrong then the consumer will be unhappy and is more likely to return the goods, the cost of which can be crippling to the seller. Therefore, the colours need to be accurate.

I haven't been invited to offer critique on Keiran's website photos so it would be wrong of me to do so. All that I will say though is that there are a lot of mannequin shots on there and it is obvious that they have been shot using continuous lighting. If both he and his customers are happy with the inevitably inaccurate colours then that's fine, and none of my business, but it isn't something that I would personally do.

Which leaves me with one unanswered question, to satisfy my curiosity, and maybe Keiran can help with this . . . Is his approach unique or do some or most of his direct competitors also use continuous lighting?

Of course colour accuracy is important, sometimes very important or even vital, but so long as it's ballpark, that's acceptable for most things. However, any shot to shot colour inconsistency sticks out like a sore thumb and will rightly get picked up on straight away.

As I know you know, the way we perceive colour overrides and compensates for technical accuracy every time we open our eyes (and technical accuracy is a very narrow definition anyway) but let's not go into the psychology of vision.

What I will say though, is we're in danger of telling the client what they need. Maybe even in on-line clothes retail critical colour is not as important as we might think it is. Just off the top of my head, the colour of an object is the colour of whatever light is reflected from it, and that changes a lot (but our brain compensates). What we call technically accurate colour is under midday sun at 5500K, but garments are not always viewed in sunlight and perhaps more often they're viewed under a wide variety of technically hopeless artificial light sources. So how important is technically accurate colour really, especially when we also know the chances of the buyer having a calibrated monitor is close to zero? And what about colour variances in batch manufacture anyway? Returns are a very real concern for on-line retailers and they can quickly run up crippling costs, but by far the biggest problem there is garment sizing. I heard the other day in a TV report on post-Xmas returns that customers buying three sizes of one item are not uncommon.

My wife often buys two and returns one, but I'm not sure colour has ever been the problem - I'd need to check that but she's gone to bed. However, what I can say for sure is she bought me a bow-tie to match her peach dress (from Amazon, using her iPad) for a 30th birthday party a couple of weeks ago. I'll admit to being surprised, but it was a perfect match.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

I missed that as well... I would have thought garments/mannequins would fall under "product" and not "live models." Not that it much matters.

But let me show you the kind of thing we are (I'm) talking about... note the very large shift in the a*/b* values in this image with two samples not very far apart.

View attachment 236332

One might be inclined to say that is due to the difference in exposures, but it is not. If it was only due to exposure the shift should be only in the L* (luminance) value. The majority of this shift is due to mixed lighting. But I cannot say if it is due to LED's/CRI/WB or anything else specifically w/o knowing the situation.

For comparison this is a high level studio shot of a blue car using strobes. Note that there is much less shift in the a*/b* values even though the sample points used are much farther apart in exposure.

If your clients (and their customers) don't care, it may very well not be worth messing with. But it is a real factor that could be a real problem for others.
IME, it's very uncommon for there not to be some color shift... the only question is how much is acceptable.

Maybe if you selected a second image further round in the set the side panel would be correct? Spinning the item clearly reveals hot spots in the exposure depending on the angle your at, not sure if that introduces the colour shift you mention, but what I do know is that if your rotate the item, it isn’t changing colour as it spins around. These are 360 rotations and are fixed lighting for 60 images it’s a balancing act in terms of exposure for the background and everything else, because the lighting is fixed and the image moved, things are not always perfect, and these were shot a while ago using 5500k fluorescent lamps NOT led.

http://studio488.co.uk/home/product-photography-360-rotations-10.html

Fashion/garments worn we class as is clothing, model or mannequin it’s the same, the rest is product. And for the billionth time clients DO CARE it’s just that in the real world it’s not an issue. So are we now at a stage where ALL continuous lighting is being ruled out due to inacurate colours? We would go out tomorrow and spend 50 grand on kit if it A: speeded things up or saved money and B:stopped customer issues about colour..... oh hang on B has NEVER been an issue

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

Of course colour accuracy is important, sometimes very important or even vital, but so long as it's ballpark, that's acceptable for most things. However, any shot to shot colour inconsistency sticks out like a sore thumb and will rightly get picked up on straight away.

As I know you know, the way we perceive colour overrides and compensates for technical accuracy every time we open our eyes (and technical accuracy is a very narrow definition anyway) but let's not go into the psychology of vision.

What I will say though, is we're in danger of telling the client what they need. Maybe even in on-line clothes retail critical colour is not as important as we might think it is. Just off the top of my head, the colour of an object is the colour of whatever light is reflected from it, and that changes a lot (but our brain compensates). What we call technically accurate colour is under midday sun at 5500K, but garments are not always viewed in sunlight and perhaps more often they're viewed under a wide variety of technically hopeless artificial light sources. So how important is technically accurate colour really, especially when we also know the chances of the buyer having a calibrated monitor is close to zero? And what about colour variances in batch manufacture anyway? Returns are a very real concern for on-line retailers and they can quickly run up crippling costs, but by far the biggest problem there is garment sizing. I heard the other day in a TV report on post-Xmas returns that customers buying three sizes of one item are not uncommon.

My wife often buys two and returns one, but I'm not sure colour has ever been the problem - I'd need to check that but she's gone to bed. However, what I can say for sure is she bought me a bow-tie to match her peach dress (from Amazon, using her iPad) for a 30th birthday party a couple of weeks ago. I'll admit to being surprised, but it was a perfect match.

Finally, I salute you sir and you get the common sense badge of the week, the above comment is bang on. I fully understand were others are coming from, and with a lot of time and money, sure you can get a 100% accurate colour representation on YOUR monitor, but not the one in the house or office next door, at the same time, now try to do it with hundreds of thousands of devices. 100% colour accuracy for the general public is not achievable, by anyone, and if you can do it, then your wasting your time here, you would be a zillionare overnight. Sort of makes the whole debate accedemic don’t you think ?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think the more interesting questions and almost certainly the more important ones are:-
Is a calibrated monitor a closer match to the average Joe's home screen, or is a new one straight out of the box closer.?
the second question is, does using one, or the other, create greater sales of the product.? (and or satisfaction of the clients)

I would suspect, that as most calibrated monitors are set far less brightly than home computers in general. that they would seem less accurate to the average punter, than the one straight out of the box. They would be very hard pushed to distinguish between subtleties of colour as against larger changes in brightness.

It would seem to me that the best compromise would to use a calibrated monitor, but one set closer in brightness to those of the average user.

The second question relates to Sales and Returns.. it is clear that even a small reduction in returns would have a massive affect to the bottom line. What I do not know, is how more accurate colour matching would improve this situation.

Within the business model that we have been presented with, knowing the answers to these questions could have a significant impact.
It is easier and quicker and more consistent to balance colour to a standard screen than to use perception alone.. Secondly improvement in profit margins is what we are all seeking, what is good for our customers is also good for us, and vice versa.

It is clear that Studio 488 has been down this calibration path, and have ended up doing what they do because it works, So I have no intention to teach them to "suck eggs" however small changes can often be beneficial especially ones that save time and effort.

 

[juggler]

but your right regarding large product it is certainly being rendered and more of it will be as time goes on, it gives the client much more scope when the image is finalised, and as everything it is getting cheaper.

This is an interesting point: my employer uses a very, very good product photographer for our stuff - which sells for 5-7 figure sums. Recently there have been internal comments that the some of the shots look too much like perfect renderings.

That's a problem with the brief rather than the execution - but it does indicate that renderings might be sufficient for half of our needs.

It wouldn't surprise me to see a lot of the high volume product photography - clothes excluded - get replaced by renderings too, in time. If you've already got a 3d model in a design package then it's reasonably straightforward for a designer to produce a rendering of sufficient quality.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Maybe if you selected a second image further round in the set the side panel would be correct? Spinning the item clearly reveals hot spots in the exposure depending on the angle your at, not sure if that introduces the colour shift you mention, but what I do know is that if your rotate the item, it isn’t changing colour as it spins around. These are 360 rotations and are fixed lighting for 60 images it’s a balancing act in terms of exposure for the background and everything else, because the lighting is fixed and the image moved, things are not always perfect, and these were shot a while ago using 5500k fluorescent lamps NOT led.

http://studio488.co.uk/home/product-photography-360-rotations-10.html

Fashion/garments worn we class as is clothing, model or mannequin it’s the same, the rest is product. And for the billionth time clients DO CARE it’s just that in the real world it’s not an issue. So are we now at a stage where ALL continuous lighting is being ruled out due to inacurate colours? We would go out tomorrow and spend 50 grand on kit if it A: speeded things up or saved money and B:stopped customer issues about colour..... oh hang on B has NEVER been an issue

Yes, 360's are different, exposure varies a lot depending more on the lighting angle and lighting distance, plus the reflectivity of the subject and this is both inevitable and unimportant.

I flirted with 360's a couple of years ago. Firstly we had a couple of products shot by one of your competitors, it worked as proof of concept but we were very unhappy with the quality, partly because of poor internal communication, the person who actually did the jobs obviously hadn't been briefed properly and the products were shot at the wrong angles, they were also flooded with light and could have looked much better. Again, horses for courses, their kind of approach would have worked perfectly for subjects such as shoes but weren't good enough for our specific needs.

We then looked at buying in off-the shelf solutions, which were not only very expensive but also produced overexposed and overprocessed images, a very easy way of doing it but not good enough.

So, we made up our own kit. We set up the subject so that it was lit perfectly for the very first shot (the one seen by the customer before the rotation starts) and used pretty hard lighting to add drama and to make the subjects look as interesting as possible. Ours were 36 shot animations, move the turntable by 10 degrees for the next shot and the lighting became wrong, another 10 degrees for the next and it became hopeless, but none of it mattered at all because the "wrong" lighting just made the product look more interesting. The colours (using flash) hardly shifted at all but they looked as if they did, again it didn't matter, it just added to the visual effect. The shots below effectively have little colour but some other products were fairly colourful.
The hard light, set up to make the softbox have a bright white interior created over-bright diffused specular highlights on the fabric but again this added to the effect instead of detracting from it.

Each of our 360's was a one-off, lit specifically for the qualities of that particular product and we didn't overexpose or overprocess the images to get a white background - we cleaned up the background for each individual image instead, which gives much better results but which cost about an hour of labour per product - which was well worth it for us but which obviously isn't practicable for everyone.

Unfortunately this is no longer being done so I can't show you any finished animations but here are the individual images for one of them. It's a softbox fitted to a flash head, which is fitted to a spiggot for support, later removed in PP. If the pic is big enough you'll see that at various points we removed and replaced both the inner and outer diffuser, providing more info to the customer.

 

[HoppyUK]

Finally, I salute you sir and you get the common sense badge of the week, the above comment is bang on. I fully understand were others are coming from, and with a lot of time and money, sure you can get a 100% accurate colour representation on YOUR monitor, but not the one in the house or office next door, at the same time, now try to do it with hundreds of thousands of devices. 100% colour accuracy for the general public is not achievable, by anyone, and if you can do it, then your wasting your time here, you would be a zillionare overnight. Sort of makes the whole debate accedemic don’t you think ?

Yay

Also, surely if monitor colour calibration really was a widespread problem, then manufacturers would sort it because customers would demand it, and so would Amazon/ebay and every other on-line seller. And it's very easy to fix.

I've peddled the calibration mantra myself often enough, but I'm now coming round to thinking it's more in our imagination with modern devices.

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes, 360's are different, exposure varies a lot depending more on the lighting angle and lighting distance, plus the reflectivity of the subject and this is both inevitable and unimportant.

I flirted with 360's a couple of years ago. Firstly we had a couple of products shot by one of your competitors, it worked as proof of concept but we were very unhappy with the quality, partly because of poor internal communication, the person who actually did the jobs obviously hadn't been briefed properly and the products were shot at the wrong angles, they were also flooded with light and could have looked much better. Again, horses for courses, their kind of approach would have worked perfectly for subjects such as shoes but weren't good enough for our specific needs.

We then looked at buying in off-the shelf solutions, which were not only very expensive but also produced overexposed and overprocessed images, a very easy way of doing it but not good enough.

So, we made up our own kit. We set up the subject so that it was lit perfectly for the very first shot (the one seen by the customer before the rotation starts) and used pretty hard lighting to add drama and to make the subjects look as interesting as possible. Ours were 36 shot animations, move the turntable by 10 degrees for the next shot and the lighting became wrong, another 10 degrees for the next and it became hopeless, but none of it mattered at all because the "wrong" lighting just made the product look more interesting. The colours (using flash) hardly shifted at all but they looked as if they did, again it didn't matter, it just added to the visual effect. The shots below effectively have little colour but some other products were fairly colourful.
The hard light, set up to make the softbox have a bright white interior created over-bright diffused specular highlights on the fabric but again this added to the effect instead of detracting from it.

Each of our 360's was a one-off, lit specifically for the qualities of that particular product and we didn't overexpose or overprocess the images to get a white background - we cleaned up the background for each individual image instead, which gives much better results but which cost about an hour of labour per product - which was well worth it for us but which obviously isn't practicable for everyone.
View attachment 236371
Unfortunately this is no longer being done so I can't show you any finished animations but here are the individual images for one of them. It's a softbox fitted to a flash head, which is fitted to a spiggot for support, later removed in PP. If the pic is big enough you'll see that at various points we removed and replaced both the inner and outer diffuser, providing more info to the customer.

Hate to say this Garry, but the Lencarta website has some of the worst product photography IMHO. A lot of products are black of course, but too often they look like virtual silhouettes where important details are impossible to see. Somebody needs to discover the shadows slider

 

[Garry Edwards]

Hate to say this Garry, but the Lencarta website has some of the worst product photography IMHO. A lot of products are black of course, but too often they look like virtual silhouettes where important details are impossible to see. Somebody needs to discover the shadows slider

I didn't take those shots

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

Yay

Also, surely if monitor colour calibration really was a widespread problem, then manufacturers would sort it because customers would demand it, and so would Amazon/ebay and every other on-line seller. And it's very easy to fix.

I've peddled the calibration mantra myself often enough, but I'm now coming round to thinking it's more in our imagination with modern devices.

more and more people shop now using their TV..... god only knows what some of these are looking at

 

[HoppyUK]

Food for thought: is this the future of product photography?
https://fstoppers.com/originals/ultimate-tutorial-product-photography-216606

I've posted a link from fstoppers.com to this guy's work before, Brian Rodgers Jn, but here's another example of what the future of high end product photography looks like. Some of us will be horrified to see that he's using three different types of light simultaneously, including fluorescent, but he clearly knows exactly what he's doing. (This isn't quite 'rendering' as I understand it, but the result is much the same and the skills are very similar.)

It's a whole new way of working, compositing a montage of multiple shots (in Photoshop rather than rendering software) to create an image that would be literally impossible in-camera regardless of the photographer's talent. I'd say the computer skills with an artistic eye are no less than those of an expert photographer. It all looks alien to me, with a steep learning curve

I also read that in 2016 75% of the Ikea catalogue featured rendered images, probably over 90% now. But interestingly, they employ photographers to work the computer magic, after training them in CGI - because photographers understand light which is the key to a realistic result.

 

[sk66]

Maybe if you selected a second image further round in the set the side panel would be correct? Spinning the item clearly reveals hot spots in the exposure depending on the angle your at, not sure if that introduces the colour shift you mention,

No, the changing exposure should not cause the color shift... it should only change the L* (luminance) value.

and these were shot a while ago using 5500k fluorescent lamps NOT led.

Fluorescent lights are even worse than LEDs typically.

And for the billionth time clients DO CARE it’s just that in the real world it’s not an issue.

It exists, but it's not a problem... therefore no-one "cares."

You are correct in that changes in exposure do change color because luminance is a part of color. It's just that when you remove some light of one color (CRI/WB/etc) it's increasing the ratio of the other light of a different color, causing the a*/b* shifts, which look odd/unnatural.
One could say that it is "correct" for that situation with that lighting... because it is. And you are certainly correct in saying that how it looks to me on my calibrated monitor is different than it looks on your monitors, and pretty much every other one on the web. So your (and the client's) concern is really more "are the images representative" rather than "are the images correct."
With internet sales/digital display it's about impossible to get away from needing the disclaimer "actual color may be different"... But personally, I want to know that what I provide could not be a contributing factor. And that the images are also suitable for print if the client should want that.

So are we now at a stage where ALL continuous lighting is being ruled out due to inacurate colours? We would go out tomorrow and spend 50 grand on kit if it A: speeded things up or saved money and B:stopped customer issues about colour..... oh hang on B has NEVER been an issue

Way back at the beginning I said: "Unless you are doing rather small product type stuff *and* color accuracy is not entirely critical, LEDs are just not suitable/cost effective." And it appears that is exactly your situation, so no... I would not be spending a lot of money for better lighting. It suits your needs and that is perfectly fine... but that is not the same thing as saying it is "good."

 

[Garry Edwards]

Food for thought: is this the future of product photography?
https://fstoppers.com/originals/ultimate-tutorial-product-photography-216606

I've posted a link from fstoppers.com to this guy's work before, Brian Rodgers Jn, but here's another example of what the future of high end product photography looks like. Some of us will be horrified to see that he's using three different types of light simultaneously, including fluorescent, but he clearly knows exactly what he's doing. (This isn't quite 'rendering' as I understand it, but the result is much the same and the skills are very similar.)

It's a whole new way of working, compositing a montage of multiple shots (in Photoshop rather than rendering software) to create an image that would be literally impossible in-camera regardless of the photographer's talent. I'd say the computer skills with an artistic eye are no less than those of an expert photographer. It all looks alien to me, with a steep learning curve
.

Yes, and that's what I call product photography. Presumably this taster version is expanded for those who pay for it, because the starting point isn't even mentioned in the video.
The starter point is always the question "What do we need to achieve here?" and that's about the concept, the approach, the image projected to the end consumer.
And the next stage is always the client brief, usually with a wad of paper with diagrams and so on, but this can vary.
The video starts with the "How do we do this? which is doing it backwards, because not only is the "How" just a technical exercise for a technician, without the starter point it can end up either a brilliant execution of a fuzzy concept or as a scaled down version, for reasons of difficulty or economy.

Yes, this is very much the future, in fact it's very much the present for high end work.
The photographic industry suffered when digital took over. Up to that point we had to have real lighting skills and good camera skills and we made very good money from the technical add-ons (film, polaroids, processing etc) and when digital cameras became good enough to produce the actual shots we charged for computer time - but inevitably the idiots took over, reasoning that post processing didn't cost anything, so a day of paid work turned into a day of paid work followed by a day of unpaid work. But the wheel has now turned full cycle with quality work and clients are happy to pay the same daily rate for PP work as for camera work, with the result that the money has come back and the quality has improved tremendously.

I also read that in 2016 75% of the Ikea catalogue featured rendered images, probably over 90% now.

Yes, this is what I was alluding to when I mentioned rendering earlier. My understanding is that the subject of product photography quality and consistency was raised at an IKEA board meeting. The problem was that their geographical spread meant that they had to use a lot of different photographers in a lot of different countries and, possibly because photography isn't a real profession with real training, they found that there was wide variance from different photographers, and sometimes from the same photographers, which left them with both a quality and a consistency problem. They then decided to try rendering instead.

At a subsequent board meeting the same people were making the same complaints, and this time they blamed the rendering - but it turned out that all of the images that they liked were rendered and all the ones they didn't like were genuine roomset photos. . . That's why they have now virtually binned photography altogether.

But interestingly, they employ photographers to work the computer magic, after training them in CGI - because photographers understand light which is the key to a realistic result.

Yes, so I understand, and it makes perfect sense. A few years ago, an adventurous young employee (not a photographer) tried his hand at rendering, with pretty unrealistic results. I gave him some intensive, detailed training in lighting and his next efforts at rendering were in a whole new class. It's relatively easy to train a keen young photographer to carry out computer work, much harder to train a computer type person to understand light, and all too often people spend years working as photographers but have zero idea about lighting, and are too set in their ways to change. Take that on board, and add in the fact that computer work is better suited to the young, and it makes sense to work with young, properly trained photographers (lighting technicians if you prefer) and then train them to apply their knowledge to rendering.

 

[sk66]

Of course colour accuracy is important, sometimes very important or even vital, but so long as it's ballpark, that's acceptable for most things...

All of this is just another example of "minimum requirement," and "fit for purpose/cost." It's not really any different from the question of whether a newspaper really needs/benefits from having professional photographers with proper kit, or just the journalist with their cell phone.
In this case it's the question of "does it require a highly skilled photographer with advanced lighting skill and kit?" And very similarly, a lot of the time the answer is "no, not really"...