I was messing around with my D90 today and was thinking about lightboxes. If you’re not familiar with a lightbox, it’s a controlled photo environment, like a pint-sized studio, that lets you take close up shots of items for sites like eBay or Craigslist. Most of the systems out there for amateurs rage from 25 –100 – which for what a lightbox does, seems awfully pricey. I decided to see what I could do at home with a small amount of materials on the cheap.
I started with my phone in normal daylight, no flash. This was shot with a Nikon D90, aperture priority, 65mm f/5.3, no flash, on a tripod.
Not phenomenal, but good enough for a basic auction site. Next, I added two sheets of white paper beneath it.
So far, still not breaking the budget. The white background does help isolate the phone from its surroundings, but it’s still not quite what I want. I got a dirt cheap acrylic photo frame – the kind you can buy in the office supplies section of Walmart for 3 for $1 – all clear plastic, L shaped – and taped a piece of paper to it. I put this behind the phone to filter some of the daylight.
All that screen glare and reflection has now gone away.
With a bit of judicious cropping and a quick auto adjust in iPhoto, my phone looks far better than it really is:
The actual cost of this project? Literally pennies for the paper and call it 50 cents for the acrylic frame as a light filter. Now, is this as good as professional lightbox system? No, not at all. Is it good enough for what most people need to put up an item on an auction site? You bet. Do this and you’re ahead of 99% of the crowd that takes a picture with a handheld and a way-too-close flash. You can add more lighting and photo frames as needed – you’ll probably end up buying the pack of 3 anyway.
Disclosure: any Amazon links in this post go to my employer, the Student Loan Network, and earn a nominal commission.
Did you enjoy this blog post? If so, please subscribe right now!
Get this and other great articles from the source at www.ChristopherSPenn.com
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
Chris, great post as always. One point you didn't mention is depth of field. You have done a remarkable job of putting together this shot, but you will notice both your front edge and back edges are out of focus. Not particularly important for this demo, but could be if you are selling something where detail is essential to the offer. One way to compensate is to back off of the shot to get more in focus and then crop into the shot when you load it. That is the easiest method.
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think you've done a good job for few dollars. It does wonders for the appearance of the product you're looking to sell.
But I have to ask, in terms of selling this on a classified or auction site, can this be construed as misleading in some way? Some will say all you're doing is reducing glare and reflections, which is completely fine. Where I think the question needs to be asked is in bumping up the color and contrast.
If what you've done actually mirrors what you're selling more accurately – more power to you. On the other hand, if the product is clearly worn and used, and you work digital magic to shine it up, I think that's dangerous territory.
Nevertheless, you've pointed out an important idea that most don't follow. The Donald says the same thing. Before selling your car, spend $100 to get it professionally cleaned and polished. It will look like a car that is worth much more than if you did a cursory wash & vacuuming job.
Thanks!
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
I think altering a product in some way that's untruthful is definitely crossing the line. Color and contrast – the phone is actually close to pure white in real life, under good lighting or sunlight, so I think in this case it's an accurate representation of reality, but you could definitely get in trouble if it were, say, grey.
Ultimately, as a seller, your product should evoke a “yay, that's exactly what I ordered!” response from the customer. Images that contribute to this are okay by me and images that evoke anything else are not.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Great post on improving photography for use online. It's actually the focus of my session at Podcamp London, April 25.
For even less money, my “ghetto lightbox” uses a cardboard box (with holes cut in the sides and top), a sheet of poster board and 3 sheets of tracing paper glued on the inside.
I found the box from my old 17″ CRT from Dell worked great. It was large enough and well built.
As far as depth of field goes it looks good. I am sure you know this, but for others reading using a smaller aperture also would have increased your DOF as well.
Have to say I do agree. Things like this just are what they are.