How to have a sharp product image? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? ...
Can we hide a text first in a picture and then hide that image again in one more image?
Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?
Approximating integral with small parameter
Reattaching fallen shelf to wall?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?
What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
Is it possible to cast 2x Final Payment while sacrificing just one creature?
How would this chord from "Rocket Man" be analyzed?
How to open locks without disable device?
Arriving in Atlanta after US Preclearance in Dublin. Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?
Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?
Could moose/elk survive in the Amazon forest?
Tikz positioning above circle exact alignment
Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?
Why doesn't the standard consider a template constructor as a copy constructor?
Does Feeblemind produce an ongoing magical effect that can be dispelled?
Did the Roman Empire have penal colonies?
Why does Arg'[1. + I] return -0.5?
Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?
Why do distances seem to matter in the Foundation world?
Do I need to protect SFP ports and optics from dust/contaminants? If so, how?
First instead of 1 when referencing
How to have a sharp product image?
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Proposal: Rules for *New* Photo Contest on Main SiteHow can I get non-blurry gymnastics pictures with my entry-level DSLR?How do I use the manual exposure setting in the new Google Camera app?How can I get my colours true for product photography?What's worse for post-processing blurriness, graininess or softness?How can I “unblur” these pics of the Northern Lights?How to take sharper images indoors, scene with all objects in focus?How can I get consistent exposure while allowing aperture changes on Fujifilm X-T2?Which camera (and lens) mode or settings for moving subjects?What is the possible optimal range for shutter speed, aperture, and ISO settings in product photography setting on white background?How to shoot nice shots in indoor nightclub?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.
I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.
Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000
Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft
ISO: 100
Shutter Speed: 0.5"
Aperture: F14



camera-settings product-photography blur
add a comment |
I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.
I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.
Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000
Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft
ISO: 100
Shutter Speed: 0.5"
Aperture: F14



camera-settings product-photography blur
@xiota edited the main post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does
– mattdm
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.
I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.
Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000
Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft
ISO: 100
Shutter Speed: 0.5"
Aperture: F14



camera-settings product-photography blur
I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.
I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.
Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000
Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft
ISO: 100
Shutter Speed: 0.5"
Aperture: F14



camera-settings product-photography blur
camera-settings product-photography blur
edited 1 hour ago
Pherdindy
asked 3 hours ago
PherdindyPherdindy
343
343
@xiota edited the main post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does
– mattdm
1 hour ago
add a comment |
@xiota edited the main post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does
– mattdm
1 hour ago
@xiota edited the main post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
@xiota edited the main post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
1
FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does
– mattdm
1 hour ago
FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does
– mattdm
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.
You could tackle this issue in three ways:
1) Close down the aperture
An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.
In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus
2) Apply the focus stacking technique
As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.
3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens
Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.
How to determine DOF
Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.
Best of luck!
1
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
You need to increase Depth of Field.
- Increase F-number (decrease aperture).
- Increase distance.
- Decrease focal length.
I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.
Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.
Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.
Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.
And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107828%2fhow-to-have-a-sharp-product-image%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.
You could tackle this issue in three ways:
1) Close down the aperture
An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.
In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus
2) Apply the focus stacking technique
As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.
3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens
Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.
How to determine DOF
Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.
Best of luck!
1
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.
You could tackle this issue in three ways:
1) Close down the aperture
An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.
In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus
2) Apply the focus stacking technique
As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.
3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens
Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.
How to determine DOF
Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.
Best of luck!
1
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.
You could tackle this issue in three ways:
1) Close down the aperture
An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.
In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus
2) Apply the focus stacking technique
As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.
3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens
Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.
How to determine DOF
Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.
Best of luck!
It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.
You could tackle this issue in three ways:
1) Close down the aperture
An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.
In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus
2) Apply the focus stacking technique
As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.
3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens
Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.
How to determine DOF
Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.
Best of luck!
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Tim StackTim Stack
1616
1616
1
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
1
1
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
1
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
1
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.
– xiota
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
You need to increase Depth of Field.
- Increase F-number (decrease aperture).
- Increase distance.
- Decrease focal length.
I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.
Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.
Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You need to increase Depth of Field.
- Increase F-number (decrease aperture).
- Increase distance.
- Decrease focal length.
I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.
Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.
Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You need to increase Depth of Field.
- Increase F-number (decrease aperture).
- Increase distance.
- Decrease focal length.
I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.
Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.
Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.
You need to increase Depth of Field.
- Increase F-number (decrease aperture).
- Increase distance.
- Decrease focal length.
I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.
Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.
Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
xiotaxiota
12.4k41865
12.4k41865
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera
– Tim Stack
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.
Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.
And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.
Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.
And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.
Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.
And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement
Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.
Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.
And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Romeo NinovRomeo Ninov
4,23931328
4,23931328
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo
– LuZel
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align
– Romeo Ninov
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
ok that's a good point.
– LuZel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107828%2fhow-to-have-a-sharp-product-image%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@xiota edited the main post
– Pherdindy
1 hour ago
1
FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does
– mattdm
1 hour ago