Product photography behind the scene video: Post production part.

7 comments to Product photography behind the scene video: Post production part.

• Tom Bako

  January 7th, 2011 at 10:38 am

  Genia you are the one who makes Alex look good. Sorry Alex but true. You are a great retoucher. photography here is 20% – retouching is 80%. Sorry I try not to hurt your feelings.

  Keep up the good work Genia and Alex. Alex needs to work more on lighting techniques. Product photography is harder than any other type of photography there is and also very under appreciated.

  Warm Regards, Tom

  [Reply]

  admin Reply:
  January 7th, 2011 at 1:57 pm

  Thank you, Tom:-) Yes, we both should work more on techniques and English:-). I am at the beginning of the retouching path too:-) But we very like a challenge of product photography, therefore we are here.

  [Reply]

  

  Alex Koloskov Reply:
  January 7th, 2011 at 5:55 pm

  Tom,
  Thanks for the good words about Genia’s work. I agree with Genia that we need to improve our techniques, endlessly. However, it looks like you may not have enough product photography experience, saying that it is only 20% of photography in that shot. It just may look so to you:-)
  Not sure if you watched our video how we shot this watch, but multiple exposures (this is what we used here) is a very common way to get a great product shots in a short time.
  In any case, I appreciate your comment:-)

  [Reply]

• Tom Bako

  January 7th, 2011 at 11:15 pm

  Alex & Genia, Thank you for posting my comments I wasn’t sure if Alex would be offended but he is a good sport. I like that he is committed to doing good work and that you are helping him and yourself achieve a higher level of discipline in the business of professional product photography. I am from the old school of film and we had to do 80% to 90% in-camera on film using 4×5 sinar and hasselblad. We would have to do multiple exposures and masking in-camera, when digital came along I switched to to a canon 10d my first digital camera and no photoshop experience, then I realized that photoshop was necessary because images looked like crap. Poor sensor technology, dynamic range not like film, image sharpness big problem, etc., but good for me because no more trips to the lab and wasting time. Now I shoot only digital and use photoshop. My point is that many photographers rely on photoshop instead of learning proper lighting techniques so they can make many mistakes from lack of knowledge and spend forever on computer to make the image look good. That does not make them a professional photographer. Any half decent photoshop user can fool the eye by fixing bad lighting.I think perhaps some photographers are just learning and are using their customers for practice? Maybe they are “weekend warriors” with a day job for main income? Anyway both of you keep up the good work. Thanks for your time, Tom

  [Reply]

  

  Alex Koloskov Reply:
  January 8th, 2011 at 12:30 am

  Tom,
  He-he, you sound so wise that I feel like a student here:-))
  Everything I know about photography I’ve learned while shooting, not reading or listening or watching. Yes, I am using our customers to learn and practice and experiment, and I’ll never stop doing that: I do not know other way to learn things.
  And speaking of “weekend warriors”, I know few with the photos far better than many of the professional full time photographers has. Sitting whole days in studio, does it make you a good photographer (talking about images, not a business side)? I am doubt, but may be its my luck of experience:-)

  Truly, I was not offended by your comment, you just sound like one of those “I know everything” guys, and I thought it was from luck of knowledge. Apparently I was wrong:-) Seriously, it will be really cool to see your work.. not to judge, but to learn. However, I can’t find anything online about you.

  All the best,
  Alex

  [Reply]

  

  Tom Bako Reply:
  January 8th, 2011 at 2:19 am

  Alex, You are a good guy and the way you’re learning by trial and error is the best way sometimes to learn because you remember not to make the same mistake twice. Some guys were fortunate enough to work for a large studio and watch the Pro’s work, others worked very hard and spent many hours learning their craft without help. The internet has allowed many bad photographers to learn a few techniques and all of a sudden they are professionals, very silly indeed. There are only a handful of great product photographers and there are too many mediocre ones, too many copy kats.

  The word “professional” has been abused by many amateurs and semi-pros and even by so called Pros who are in this business Nikon and Canon have seen to that ( great marketing to sell 10,000 cameras). A true professional photographer can use an inferior instrument (low end camera) and still ‘light’ his way out of a paper bag and create beautiful, powerful images. As for weekend warriors being better than full time professionals it depends on what your perception is of a professional.

  Our industry has been inundated with so called PRO’S, give them a half decent digital camera and 2 months of photoshop and bingo I’M A PRO. Some PRO’S were never PRO’s but they are pretty good business people. Many sell to an uneducated buyer who is only interested in the bottom line $$$$$$$. So for them if the photo looks good enough it is GOOD ENOUGH. Any professional worth his weight in salt knows the difference. It’s easy to fool the uneducated eye. That’s why some people buy Zirconia diamonds instead of real diamonds because Zirconia looks good enough …….but it’s not the real thing. A digital camera and photoshop doesn’t make a professional photographer just like a hammer and tool box doesn’t make a skilled carpenter. I’ll send you some photos before and after for your personal viewing.

  Thanks Again, Tom

  [Reply]

  

  Alex Koloskov Reply:
  January 8th, 2011 at 2:57 am

  Tom,
  Would be glad to see your work, thank you. you can send them to [email protected]

  Speaking of who to call professional: IMO, any guy with camera who makes his living from photography called a professional (it’s his profession, right?). Regardless of the quality of the photos he made. If he found a spot on a market, his photography “professional enough” to support his live. There is no good or bed, IMO: both words is very subjective.

  There are expensive, not expensive and cheap photographers, and this scale somehow can be used to separate “good” from “bad” professionals (still not 100% accurate though).
  This is how I see it:-)

  100% agree with that not a camera or other gear makes a good professional.. only the end result matters.

  Thank you,
  Alex