E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Yeah! Beaten up old Jpeg file. The original was made on 8X10 Chrome- Sharp and clean as heck but the scan was not too great and the file is rather worn out. Perhaps theses attached images are better examples of the lighting I have suggested. This one (Coins) was made with a digitized view camera. The same lighting was used on the image of a medical testing device. I also made a corrected version of the stamps. In each case, a cyclorama background was used.

Sorry for the lousy reproduction on my other post. The point I wanted to make is about the lighting setup and the need for good composition in a sales website.

I use a newer MAC for client files, editing and transmitting images to printers etc. This post comes from my old worn out PC- it is on its last legs and I doubt if the screen is properly calibrated. I hope theses are better. Thanks for the heads up guys! I hope this information proves to be useful to the OP! To reiterate- One large softbox- overhead and slightly in back of the subject- light is feathered toward the camera. Fill is provided by reflectors. For food shots, I add a gentle kicker spotlight.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Beaten up worn out old JPEG files look exactly the same 20 years later. They will also be the same in 200 years.

Those images are all very good examples of a number of things. Lighting and composition are great, most particularly in the image of the coins though maybe not in the food shot.

Otherwise these constitute a great example of why someone should invest in modern digital equipment vs. using film that will be scanned. Technically all but the image of the coins show very poor dynamic range, almost certainly in this case due to either a poor scanner or poor scanning technique and just as certainly from inadequate digital editing.

Product photography is not a simple undertaking. The quickie solution to everything is unlikely to produce a professional product. Cheap cameras and cheap lenses can be used by someone who really knows what they are doing. They are not good learning tools. That approach to lighting has exactly the same pitfalls. Trying to learn with a minimal quantity and quality of lights and accessories is not the best route. A budget of $1000 is fine for a hobbyist. Have at it and have fun! And it is great for learning basics. But that just will not get it for professional work.

DJO

Sky wrote:
Yes, thank you, in spite of being aware of that, would still like suggestions for a camera that would be great for this situation. Good color and crisp professionalism are really important.


I will stick with the recommendation in my first post, which is the Nikon D200. Good color and crisp professionalism? Absolutely. Is there newer technology? Of course there is. Is newer always better? I will say no. I'm not about to argue the merits of "x" feature or "y" improvement, but simply because not every photographer has the same wants or needs.

The design and capability of the D200 CCD sensor is specifically well suited for product photography. You would be able to use, and afford, Nikkor Micro (and all other) Ai lenses that are extremely high in quality, built like tanks, and, even in the year 2016, not only widely respected but still widely in use.

I certainly wish for you nothing but good fortune and success.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Any DSLR and a decent flash will do just fine!