# my "photo booth"



## duncsuss (Nov 13, 2013)

Several people have asked about what kind of photo booth they should get. Mine is really simple and doesn't deserve to be called a booth -- but it works for me.

I took this snap of it to show how simple it can be. It's nothing more than a wire shelving system, I think it was originally used for vegetable storage. I taped some bright white paper to it. (Recently I changed to using pale gray construction paper, it seems to cause less glare.)

My camera is visible on the left edge of this snap, sitting on its tripod. I have a ring flash unit but often take photos without flash. Being able to color correct (I used Photoshop Lightroom) is important to me -- I want the colors to be correct, not garish orange when the wood is beautiful pale maple -- but that's personal taste.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Molokai (Nov 14, 2013)

So you use only one light source? or do you add more lights?


----------



## duncsuss (Nov 14, 2013)

Molokai said:


> So you use only one light source? or do you add more lights?


I sometimes use natural light only -- we have a large window and I place this "booth" with its back towards the window. This avoids direct light (which I find causes glare) hitting the item.

Other times I use the ring-flash which you can see in that photo -- the battery pack sits on top of the camera, but the flash tube itself is circular and mounts on the lens filter threads. This gives light from multiple angles, and some people say it produces "flat" photos. I like it, as it produces less harsh shadows. For example, here's a picture that I took of the candle holder in the configuration you can see above -- you can see it has a shadow, but it's softer than if I'd used a regular flash.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## duncsuss (Nov 14, 2013)

By the way, I know of people who use a regular flash but "soften it" by making a diffuser from a piece of plastic bottle. It fits around the lens and spreads out the light, making it less directional and softer. Check out the one I'm thinking of HERE...


----------



## Blueglass (Nov 16, 2013)

Can you pass on any tricks to bringing the figure out?


----------



## duncsuss (Nov 16, 2013)

Blueglass said:


> Can you pass on any tricks to bringing the figure out?



I'm not sure I ever consciously do anything, but it's quite possible that some of the things I do without thinking about it make a difference.

First, I am a strong believer in non-competing backgrounds. Perfectly smooth, no pattern, and no colors: white, gray or black -- matte rather than high-gloss.

Second, I use a tripod. Always.

Third, I try to avoid using a "built-in" flash, which typically drives light straight at the piece and it bounces straight back. A glossy surface on the piece will produce some glare, which at a minimum will result in loss of contrast of figure underneath the surface. Either a ring flash, an off-camera flash (e.g. at 45 degrees to the side & slightly elevated), or no flash at all.

Maybe that's something to try if you're having trouble getting figure well represented in photos -- shoot without flash in decent uniform light (not in direct sunlight).

Oh, and I always take full control of the camera settings -- "auto" never gets it right as far as I'm concerned. I use manual settings all the way -- and since with digital cameras it costs nothing to make a bad guess, and you get instant feedback, I can't think of a good excuse not to.

Oh #2, and use the camera's histogram function to tell you if the shot you just took is too dark or light. A good exposure has a histogram that doesn't pile up at either edge of the graph, except a pure white background will cause a spike on the right hand side (which is okay.)

HTH

Reactions: Like 2


----------

