Shooting clothing for website help

D

dellydel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
166
Name
Dale
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I'm after a bit of advice.

I am not a professional but I do take internal show home pictures for my work as I work for housing developer. As a result my MD has asked if I would take some pics of clothing for his wife's clothing business. I told him I wasn't at professional level by any stretch of the imagination but he insisted I had a go.

So I have a 60d with a few lenses inc. a 50mm prime, plus I have a softbox (can get hold of another one if required) and a flash unit.

I have asked how they want the shots to be taken i.e. laid out flat, on a manikin, natural light, studio light etc. and I am waiting to hear back.

My question is, how am I best to shot the clothing in each situation? Would a softbox either side do the job? And also what about background choice, i.e. is white old fashioned? Would I be better using greys or colour to complement each garment?

Finally, he insisted on paying me for my time as I would be doing it out of work but I have no idea of how to charge? Would you charge per garment shot? How much would a professional charge, I could then do it for half price or less?

Would really appreciate any advice from pro's or anyone else who has experience in this field of photography.

Cheers,

Del
 
I'm doing a shoot like that right now, except that these particular products are shot on models (because lumps of moulded plastic don't look sexy). 3 models, at any given point one is being photographed and the other two are getting in or out of the products.

But sometimes I have to shoot on mannequins too.

There's no such thing as a standard setup, but a starting point is as follows.
2 gridded strip softboxes, 1 each side and in the rimlight position
1 large (150cm) softbox to camera right, skimming across the surface and also lighting the R/H/F edge
1 large silver beauty dish, camera left and lighting the model's face from fairly high
1 large softbox for fill, on axis

And then a couple more lights playing on the white background. Not bright enough to render the background pure white, which can reduce contrast etc., but enough to make it easier to cut them out later.

As for your charges, you should charge per day, not per hour. How much you charge depends on how much your work is worth, I charge £850 per day, which is an average price for a pro in my area.
 
Just a thought, but maybe, after reading Garry's tips, you realise you need a few bits of kit, get the MD to pay for a few new toys, sorry, essential lighting equipment, instead of paying you outright?
 
When I used to do this it was 50 products in a day either on a mannequin or on a model. One photographer, one stylist, one model. You'll want to hire a stylist, they're essential for this kind of work. If I can't afford to hire a stylist I'm normally slowed down to about 20 garments a day, sometimes less, because I'm not so good at manipulating fabric.

Two soft boxes on the product, two on the background.

Backgrounds for cutouts are usually white on websites. But you'll need to shoot to the website/catalogue design.

When doing product work for my own business I generally charge by the product. Charging by the day often makes people baulk. It all adds up to the same anyway.
 
Thanks for your response Garry, very helpful and informative, much appreciated.

It does seem that I am a few bits of kit short. Maybe I could blag a few bits and pieces through work, especially if there is going to be continued work, great idea! :D

There definitely won't be any models involved, so I wonder if I can get away with the two softboxes either side and a bit of fill from a diffused or bounced flash off a reflector?

What about if the client just wants the items photographed flat on the floor, that would reduced the kit?
 
dellydel said:
What about if the client just wants the items photographed flat on the floor, that would reduced the kit?
Click to expand...

It depends on the style. You might be able to get away with one - I used to shoot it this way for one client with a soft box without a scrim to get a hard drop shadow.

The best thing to do is to get your client to send you the websites of people that they want to emulate.
 
CharlotteM said:
When I used to do this it was 50 products in a day either on a mannequin or on a model. One photographer, one stylist, one model. You'll want to hire a stylist, they're essential for this kind of work. If I can't afford to hire a stylist I'm normally slowed down to about 20 garments a day, sometimes less, because I'm not so good at manipulating fabric.

Two soft boxes on the product, two on the background.

Backgrounds for cutouts are usually white on websites. But you'll need to shoot to the website/catalogue design.

When doing product work for my own business I generally charge by the product. Charging by the day often makes people baulk. It all adds up to the same anyway.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I normally shoot at least 240 per day, with an average of 5 moving shots of each product, but then I do have 3 models, plus of course assistants to move lights etc, plus the client. But my lighting seems to be more complex, I would never ever even consider lighting clothing with a softbox each side, it just produces flat, boring results.

I don't need a stylist for the clothes, all that I need is the right kind of body inside the clothes, and models who know how to move.

What about if the client just wants the items photographed flat on the floor, that would reduced the kit?
Click to expand...
It would, dramatically, but people buy clothes because they want to look like the person who's wearing them - which is why I don't like mannequins - but simply laying the clothes flat is even worse.
Anyway, back to my shoot. If you have any other questions, I'll be able to take a look later.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Interesting. I normally shoot at least 240 per day, with an average of 5 moving shots of each product, but then I do have 3 models, plus of course assistants to move lights etc, plus the client. But my lighting seems to be more complex, I would never ever even consider lighting clothing with a softbox each side, it just produces flat, boring results.

I don't need a stylist for the clothes, all that I need is the right kind of body inside the clothes, and models who know how to move.

It would, dramatically, but people buy clothes because they want to look like the person who's wearing them - which is why I don't like mannequins - but simply laying the clothes flat is even worse.
Anyway, back to my shoot. If you have any other questions, I'll be able to take a look later.
Click to expand...

I suspect all clients will think differently and will want different things.

I used to shoot for one of the UK's biggest department stores (as part of a team of people) and we were shooting between 300-500 products daily for them as stills (with the garments it was five model shots plus a mannequin image).

Moving shots would clearly be a different ballgame though. I'd be quick to add that shooting video is nothing like shooting stills.

I'd also add that most large companies want quite flat lighting. In their catalogue shots they *want* to shot the product, not the creative lighting. The more offbeat designers generally called for more interesting lighting.

We were also billed out at more than £850 a day per photographer.
 
Is the question about using models purely a question of cost? If so, why not find a budding model who wants some pictures for her portfolio? Worth a try!
 
trevorjb1406 said:
Is the question about using models purely a question of cost? If so, why not find a budding model who wants some pictures for her portfolio? Worth a try!
Click to expand...

When you're shooting garments for catalogues you hire models based on their dimensions.

Your average 'budding model' is unlikely to fit properly into sample sizes of clothing. Hence why agencies are used.

There is, for example, no point in using a model with a 44" chest, if all the suit jackets the company sent me to shoot are 40".
 
CharlotteM said:
I suspect all clients will think differently and will want different things.

I used to shoot for one of the UK's biggest department stores (as part of a team of people) and we were shooting between 300-500 products daily for them as stills (with the garments it was five model shots plus a mannequin image).

Moving shots would clearly be a different ballgame though. I'd be quick to add that shooting video is nothing like shooting stills.

I'd also add that most large companies want quite flat lighting. In their catalogue shots they *want* to shot the product, not the creative lighting. The more offbeat designers generally called for more interesting lighting.

We were also billed out at more than £850 a day per photographer.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about video, I'm talking about stills of the model moving.

trevorjb1406 said:
Is the question about using models purely a question of cost? If so, why not find a budding model who wants some pictures for her portfolio? Worth a try!
Click to expand...
It isn't really so much about cost as about the client's perception of cost. I find that models actually speed the job up, as long as there are 3 per photographer and someone to dress them, Also, like most commodities, models cost less these days than they used to. And the right photographer with the right models will produce better shots that result in much higher sales for the client.

We don't bother with wannabe models. Most of them look nothing like their webpage photos, which are usually over-retouched shots taken by amateurs, and they turn up (if they turn up at all) looking as if they haven't slept in their own bed for a week and they don't know how to move, or how to flirt to the camera.
Also, the way we work is that with most clothes, they don't wear anything underneath them. And they get changed on set, there's no time to waste on them disappearing to get changed, so we need professional models who are happy about that - we don't want models who are doing something that they aren't happy about and we don't want amateur 'glamour' models who are happy to walk around naked but who don't have the right look. The cost of pro models who just get on with the job and who play a vital role in getting the shots right is pretty insignificant, compared to the total cost of the shoot itself.

Models are tall and size 10 for clothes, min height is 5'7", but most are taller than that. Lingerie models are size 10. Wedding dress models are size 12.
 
Interesting how this thread has developed. From a camera and flash in a softbox, to models and sylists and a big pile of lighting kit in a professional studio at £850 a day.

I strongly suspect that the boss has no idea of what's involved, and basically thinks, like so many do, that professional photography is a) easy, b) cheap, and c) all you need is someone with a decent camera. Maybe his missus has checked out the cost of getting a professional job done and hubby has said he's got a chap at work with a good camera who'll do it in five minutes for a fraction of that. The other thing is, he and his missus have probably been looking at professional work and will have correspondingly high expectations.

Good luck with this, and good luck with setting the right fee. Bet £850 per day is some way outside the boss's frame. Send him a link to this thread ;)
 
Last edited:
Wow, this thread got more attention than I expected. Thanks very much for all your input everyone!

I am waiting to hear back as to exactly what style shot they want, so I guess until then it's hard to know what's best to do. If they want something shooting with a model and quirky lighting, then I would strongly suggest a professional to them, but from what I gather it's just a case of photographing each item in a fairly basic style. I imagine that she will want something along the lines of these shots;





 
dellydel said:
Wow, this thread got more attention than I expected. Thanks very much for all your input everyone!

I am waiting to hear back as to exactly what style shot they want, so I guess until then it's hard to know what's best to do. If they want something shooting with a model and quirky lighting, then I would strongly suggest a professional to them, but from what I gather it's just a case of photographing each item in a fairly basic style. I imagine that she will want something along the lines of these shots;





Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly the kind of stuff I used to shoot. Two soft boxes on the product, pen tool it out of the background. Remember that people 'read' catalogues and webpages from left to right in the west, you want your lighting generally to fit that model.

I would again suggest the value of a good stylist when it comes to mannequins and flats. They are very hard to do precisely - as you can see by the yellow gillet which is all over the place!
 
IMO, the different types of lighting serve different purposes and accomplish different thing.
One is obviously simplicity/speed.
But if we apply it to the different product shots supplied here:
In the first image, the flatter lighting could be considered beneficial. It's helping minimize the wrinkles etc.
In the second image the flatter lighting is still acceptable IMO. the product is more about color/pattern than details...however, the flatter lighting is de-emphasizing the pattern in the black fabric.
In the third image the flatter lighting would be considered detrimental (IMO). This piece is very much about the textures/embroidery/lace etc...the side/rim/back lighting that Gary described would be much more beneficial in bringing out these details.

I guess the lighting could be equated to the product... The more expensive the items due to "greater attention to detail" makes lighting to emphasize the details more important.
 
Thanks Charlotte. Did you shoot RAW or JPEG and was there a need for much processing, I can't imagine so?

Once you 'pen-tooled' the item, did you then paste it onto a white background for web use I presume?
 
sk66 said:
IMO, the different types of lighting serve different purposes and accomplish different thing.
One is obviously simplicity/speed.
But if we apply it to the different product shots supplied here:
In the first image, the flatter lighting could be considered beneficial. It's helping minimize the wrinkles etc.
In the second image the flatter lighting is still acceptable IMO. the product is more about color/pattern than details...however, the flatter lighting is de-emphasizing the pattern in the black fabric.
In the third image the flatter lighting would be considered detrimental (IMO). This piece is very much about the textures/embroidery/lace etc...the side/rim/back lighting that Gary described would be much more beneficial in bringing out these details.

I guess the lighting could be equated to the product... The more expensive the items due to "greater attention to detail" makes lighting to emphasize the details more important.
Click to expand...

Good points, I see that the individual item shot may require a different lighting technique to bring out it qualities or hide it's bad point such as creases etc. Thanks!
 
dellydel said:
I imagine that she will want something along the lines of these shots;





Click to expand...
If that's what she wants, then you can achieve that, with a minimum amount of practice.
But my cat could produce better shots, and I haven't even got a cat...

There's a definite place for flat-lit shots. That place is for when the client needs to show what the product looks like, rather than sell it, i.e. record shots, rather than selling shots. It works well with computer leads, engineering bits and other gizmos.

And there are a lot of clients who want flat lit, illustrative shots too, for whatever reason, so the name of the game is always to find out their expectations, not just to do what you think they should have. Education comes later, once you've built up a relationship with the client.

And Steven has made some very good points, flat lighting can be beneficial, but it has the disadvantage that it makes the product look cheap, and the advantages of flat lighting need to be balanced against this. There is always a better way of doing things, if the client is prepared to pay for it, and in the case of the first example my approach would probably be to use a honeycombed strip softbox at an acute angle to add the 'punch' and to then mitigate that effect with a bloody great softbox as an on axis fill, adjusting the power until it showed the texture without making it look like a crumpled up mess. And of course I'd get the hem straight too:)

In lighting, there are people who do know how to do it and people who don't but there are no rules as such and people who understand how to do it often mix what appear to be opposing techniques to get a balanced look.

And Richard has made some very valid points too. Most people think that photography is simple, and that someone who has a good camera can do any kind of photography.
 
Garry Edwards said:
There is always a better way of doing things, if the client is prepared to pay for it
Click to expand...
I think this is a very important point.
I'm of a pretty firm belief that a lot of times a lot of the things we get twisted about just don't matter to the customer/end user (i.e. cellphone journalism, bokeh, highly refined lighting, etc). If it doesn't really matter, you could in fact be doing "more work" for the same pay.

Whatever, I'll always do the best I can in a given situation...my pride won't allow me to do otherwise.
 
Hi

I'm a pro photographer but my boss would like me to do some property development for him. Can't be that hard so I just want to know what to charge? If you could let me know the going rate I could just charge half of that.

many thanks!
 
photo si said:
Hi

I'm a pro photographer but my boss would like me to do some property development for him. Can't be that hard so I just want to know what to charge? If you could let me know the going rate I could just charge half of that.

many thanks!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, very useful :rolleyes:
 
CharlotteM said:
When I used to do this it was 50 products in a day either on a mannequin or on a model. One photographer, one stylist, one model. You'll want to hire a stylist, they're essential for this kind of work. If I can't afford to hire a stylist I'm normally slowed down to about 20 garments a day, sometimes less, because I'm not so good at manipulating fabric.

Two soft boxes on the product, two on the background.

Backgrounds for cutouts are usually white on websites. But you'll need to shoot to the website/catalogue design.

When doing product work for my own business I generally charge by the product. Charging by the day often makes people baulk. It all adds up to the same anyway.
Click to expand...


This is how we shoot clothing in work (2 softboxes on the product, and 2 flashes on the background). I agree that it may not be the fanciest way of shooting items, but if it gets the job done, and the bosses are happy then why over complicate unless the remit requires it.
 
Dale, this thread has got some valuable tips for you, but again it will turn into a debate. Pro photographers can only be expected to help so much, because at the end of the day it is their living, they have put hours & years of experience into this along with maybe making big sacrifices both time wise and financial to get where they are now. If they give out all their personal help, how would they manage to keep working, dslr's have become so cheap now, that everybody is buying them, and people sadly think everything is down to the camera rather than the skill of producing good photography. I do feel really sorry for photographers these days, my suggestion to you would be give it a go if you feel you would like to, or pass the job on. I am not out to cause a debate, I love photography as a hobby, but when I know I can't do a job I pass it on to my friend who is a pro tog. The satisfaction comes when I know the client will have fabulous shots produced by him, that will sell the products. Plus all the lighting, pro lenses etc.
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, just how I see things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top