# Tent / Diffuser material



## Marmotjr

I haven't setup a dedicated photo tent yet, but I happened to have a stack of Polysterene .010" sheets laying around from a vacuum forming project that never really got started.  They make for a good white background, and are translucent enough that nicely diffuse harsh bright lights.  

It's fairly cheap to get on Amazon and other suppliers, just figured I throw that out there if anybody was looking for material.


----------



## MDWine

I found thin sheets of poly at WalMart called "cutting boards", but are only as think as several sheets of printing paper.  Make reasonable diffuser but soak up a bit of light!


----------



## projectgrover

*I use artist vellum*

I use artist vellum as a light diffuser and paired white pieces of wood to defect back. This allows me to move the catch lights where I want them. For backgrounds I use crafting paper


----------



## jamesburger

*Industry Standard Diffusion Materials*

The standard material professional photographers use is similar to vellum, but it is made for consistency of light transmission and color temperature. The most common brands in the US are Lee and Rosco. They are not inexpensive, but given how long they last if you treat them well, they are a worthwhile investment and can be used as both diffusion and a surface/background.

The two most common types we use are TuffLux (or "frost"), which is very similar in texture to vellum, and Opal, which doesn't alter the shape of the light beam much, so you can still diffuse without losing all specularity. There are many other types of gels and filters, and another common one pen enthusiasts might like is called TuffSpun (sort of looks like loose dryer sheet).

Most of these diffusion materials will come in various densities that are measured in 1/4, 1/2, or full stops, and you can get them in heat resistant versions as well, for more powerful hotlights.

I recently built a light tent using opal, plexiglass, and adhesive, that I use that for high-voume watch photography I do for a client, but I have also shot a few expensive of his pens in it too, and it's worked beautifully.

Here are a couple of links to my most commonly used light filters:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/577560-REG/Rosco_102304104825_E_Colour_410_Opal_48_x25.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90644-REG/Rosco_102302504825_E_Colour_250_1_2_White.html

I hope this is helpful to someone.


----------



## Dalecamino

Welcome to the IAP James! No big deal, but you should find your way to the Introductions forum, and introduce yourself to everybody. I feel like I already know you :biggrin: 

Thanks for your suggestions and input. This may be an opportunity for a Group Purchase. I'm guessing there could be several photo booths made from a 25' roll of this stuff.


----------



## jamesburger

Dalecamino said:


> Welcome to the IAP James! No big deal, but you should find your way to the Introductions forum, and introduce yourself to everybody. I feel like I already know you :biggrin:
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions and input. This may be an opportunity for a Group Purchase. I'm guessing there could be several photo booths made from a 25' roll of this stuff.




Thanks, Chuck. Nice to find you here! I'll head over to the introductions forum shortly... 

James


----------



## farmer

*photography*

It really all depends on how much it means to you .

How important are your pictures of your pens  to you and how you market your pens .

How much available room do you have to set up all your photography lighting  stuff up and depending on your lens how close or far a way does the camera need to be.

Just so everyone knows normal  Fluorescent lighting flickers and pretty sure its the most unstable lighting we can use for or photography......




Tungsten lighting gets hot as is always a safety issue of catching stuff on fire or getting burned on.

Personally I prefer strobes or flash photography at night or in a dark room because I have the most control of the light striking the subject.
My strobes have air cooled modeling lamp built inside them .




Lighting is everything,, no shapes or colors would be seen without light, 
No shadows or reflections its all about lighting.......

I am not a fan of light tents ,  and yes I own one with a 3300w continuous fluorescent studio lighting system.


----------



## jamesburger

*Household vs Studio fixtures*

Household fluorescent lamps are indeed troublesome for photography. As Farmer mentioned, they are not full spectrum and they flicker at unpredictable frequencies, making consistency nearly impossible. 

However, don't dismiss all fluorescents as being created equal. There are some very reliable fluorescent fixtures made specifically for photography and videography. I do prefer strobes to virtually any other type of light, but there have been occasions when a fluorescent was preferable to meet a certain jobs requirements (couldn't use transmitters in one location, didn't have reliable circuitry at another location, needed a large light source but had no room for a soft box at another), and at those times we will usually use a KinoFlo or similar fixture. These are fuller spectrum, flicker free lights. They are not inexpensive, but very few really dependable tools are, especially in photography.


----------



## farmer

*photography*



jamesburger said:


> Household fluorescent lamps are indeed troublesome for photography. As Farmer mentioned, they are not full spectrum and they flicker at unpredictable frequencies, making consistency nearly impossible.
> 
> However, don't dismiss all fluorescents as being created equal. There are some very reliable fluorescent fixtures made specifically for photography and videography. I do prefer strobes to virtually any other type of light, but there have been occasions when a fluorescent was preferable to meet a certain jobs requirements (couldn't use transmitters in one location, didn't have reliable circuitry at another location, needed a large light source but had no room for a soft box at another), and at those times we will usually use a KinoFlo or similar fixture. These are fuller spectrum, flicker free lights. They are not inexpensive, but very few really dependable tools are, especially in photography.



Hi and welcome to the forum .

I very much enjoy photography, and by no means do I know 1/10th there is to know about photographing exotic wood products .
But I do actively study product and/or commercial photography.

I do appreciate a educated discussion about photographing non metallic smooth surfaced wood subjects will a glass like finish..
Which I consider there are experts in photographing highly reflective surfaces .
And requires different technics that are not used in most other sections of photography.

If I had to start all over buying photography equipment .
The very first thing I would do is buy the book Light Science and Magic ..
From there I would know exactly what lighting equipment I would want.
I would of by passed the fluorescent lighting and a light tent and went straight to using flash photography with soft boxes ..........
Professional equipment right from the start, and by passes the junk china made waist of time and money crap photography products.

The other issue is with light tents is the only way to control polarized reflection is to move the lights around on the outside of the tent..
Its called angle of reflection.
And adjusting 3 lights to get away from the camera getting blinded by polarized reflection in a light tent is easier said then done ......

Only issue is not everyone understands polarized light and its effect on all non metallic smooth surfaces .
That being said if you understand the effects of polarized light on smooth non metallic surfaces, and spend the time to adjust for lines of reflection then a light tent can take good quality photographs.
But I do stress it takes light to see colors ...

On to what I consider is the best lighting ....
 I prefer flash photography on all indoor product photography and most other kinds of photography..

Strobe photography 
I use a technic called cross polarization so I can see the wood through the finish.
Linear polarized film over my strobes soft box and a CPL on my lens 
I don't have to mess around with angle of reflection because I filtered out the polarized light ...
That is something I cannot do with fluorescent lighting because its not bright enough ..






I am always trying to improve my photography, and product photography isn't something that cant be learned over night .
I am not a professional photographer, just sharing what I have learned .
One line of reflection is more then enough 






1 out of 3 products I make end up over seas, there is no room for bad pictures .


----------



## Sylvanite

farmer said:


> I use a technic called cross polarization so I can see the wood through the finish.
> Linear polarized film over my strobes soft box and a CPL on my lens
> I don't have to mess around with angle of reflection because I filtered out the polarized light ...
> That is something I cannot do with fluorescent lighting because its not bright enough ..


Polarized reflection off metallic surfaces is different than off non-metallic surfaces.  Try taking a photograph of a pen - which has both metallic and non-metallic glossy surfaces - and you'll discover why nobody else uses cross-polarization for pen photography.  

Once you learn to control glare by manipulating the size and position of your lights, you'll find you don't need the polarizing filters at all.  Each one acts as a 50% (one stop) neutral density filter for diffuse reflections, so dropping the sheet film and the lens filter yields the same result with 1/4 the amount of light.

I agree that _Light--Science & Magic_ is an excellent book.  I recommend reading Chapter 6 "Metal", particularly the section titled "Using a Tent".  The purpose of a light tent is to produce a "large" (a.k.a. diffuse) light source -- which is unrelated to polarization.


----------



## jamesburger

*Polarized Light*

I've seen some discussion of polarized light and cross-polarization in other threads and since it was also brought up here I'd like to try to clarify for anyone who's interested. 

There are several common misconceptions about polarized light, and one of the most prevalent is that direct reflection is synonymous with polarized light. The terms are not interchangeable.

Indeed, polarized light most often reveals itself in obvious direct reflection, but not always or exclusively. Polarized light is basically a limited subset of direct reflection, but even reflections that appear to be diffuse reflections can contain some degree of polarization.

Polarization occurs under very specific conditions, which can either be a hindrance or an enhancement to a photograph, depending on the style, skill, and intention of the photographer. 

The simplest way to control polarized light is to eliminate it by changing the direction from which the light is cast (move your light). When that is impossible, another reliable (albeit finicky) method relies on polarized filters on the camera lens and/or polarized gels over the light source.

Cross-polarization can be achieved by using both, in perpendicular coordination with each other. In ten years of professional photography, which has taken me around the world working on all sorts of editorial and commercial shoots (celebrities, cars, jewelry, artwork reproductions, food, lifestyle, interiors, architecture, special effects, and more), I can remember only two jobs on which we were forced to use cross-polarization to achieve the results we needed. Both of those jobs were artwork reproductions.

Artwork reproduction are probably the most common type of photography that relies on this technique, and for good reason. On both jobs we were working with a very large painting in a fairly small room. This meant that we didn't have a ton of options for positioning our lights without causing significant direct reflection. Because artwork reproductions need to stay very true to the original, it is not desirable to show any sort of blown highlights or glare, as might occur on a thickly brushed oil painting. Because we could not avoid such highlights under the conditions at our location, the best solution was to polarize those direct reflections by putting polarized gels on our lights, so that the now-polarized reflections could be removed with the twist of our polarized filter on our lens.

If you want to know whether your light is polarized, place a circular polarized filter over your lens and twist. If a 45-90 degree rotation radically changes what you see, that's an indication there is polarized light in your picture. The more subtle the changes, the less polarized light is present.

Disadvantages of using polarized light are that both the filters and gels have a neutral density aspect to them, meaning they cut your light, so this means the exposure needs to be opened up (generally 1-1.5 stops per layer). Changing exposures this much can have adverse affects on other details you are tying to capture that have nothing to do with polarization. Polarized light can also mess with colors, which is why it's very tricky to use for artwork reproductions and it considered a last resort. Polarized light is naturally perfect, but man-made gels and filters are not, so even at their best, they can't be a magic bullet.

As a topic of interest, I view polarized light to be akin to gravity, in as much as we know it exists, have learned to use it to our advantage (or at least work within its parameters, somewhat), but don't really fully understand where it originates, how it works, or its implications beyond our limited view of reality. There are scientists who devote their entire careers to the study of polarized light. Most photographers are content to gain a basic understanding of how to identity it and how to use it or tame it.

Perhaps the thing that polarized light is best at, though, is polarizing people's opinions.  Because of our limited understanding of it, and because so much information can be misread or misleading, it tends to become one of the most hotly contested subjects on photography forums. 

Recently, I was experimenting with mother of pearl watches and polarized light, really just for fun, and part of my research took me online, where I found that the amount of authoritative sounding incorrect information available about polarized light rivals possibly any other topic, except religion and politics.

"Light: Science and Magic," by Fil Hunter, Steven Biver, and Paul Fuqua, is a good book, and I would recommend a thorough reading by anyone who wants to improve their photos and is willing to work for a more solid understanding of how light acts and can be controlled. The book is not the end-all-be-all, but if I were teaching a class, I'd be happy to include it on my curriculum. 

I think the best way to learn about polarized light, in addition to reading, is to experiment. For most people's purposes, a standard, inexpensive circular polarizing filter is adequate to play and learn with. Filters can get expensive, but that is more about optical clarity (quality of glass) than the polarizing effect itself. And note that the "circular" in circular polarizer does not refer to the shape of the filter, but rather to the construction of the filter (as opposed to a linear polarizer). This is a whole other discussion, but suffice it to say, putting a linear polarizer on a modern autofocus lens can create focusing problems.  The only thing you need to know to find a filter that will fit your lens is your lens' diameter, which will be marked on your lens using a diameter symbol (Ø).

If you want to experiment further with polarizing gels on your lights, be aware that they don't like heat and they are not inexpensive, but if treated kindly they'll last a long time. If you need to cut them into separate pieces for multiple lights, keep track of their orientation by drawing a discrete arrow on each piece pointing the same way. This way you can make sure to align them in parallel on your multiple lights. Also, be aware that many people think they have found a good deal when they buy less expensive Neutral Density (ND) gels, which can appear similar to polarizing gels but are entirely different. Polarizing gels provide neutral density, but ND gels do not polarize light. Here is a bit from one of the horse's mouths about Polarizing Gels (note, Roscoe calls their gels "filters" but that shouldn't be confused with lens mounted filters): 

https://www.rosco.com/technotes/filters/technote6.html

In the instance of pens, I could definitely see how some people might want to fool around with polarized light, whether for gem/crystal embellishments, polished wood, painted surfaces, etc. But I would not recommend diving in too deeply without first understanding the basics of proper general lighting, otherwise it can confuse things unduly and cause issues that are hard to identify... frustration is probably the worst learning tool. I also would not recommend using cross-polarization all the time, because that will miss many opportunities for more thoughtful and narrative lighting, in my opinion. I have never found one technique to be totally superior to all others, or that any one technique could be properly employed in all instances.

This is a deep and fascinating topic, so if anyone has questions, just ask  - I'll let you know when we reach the limits of my own understanding and try to find you some trustworthy and comprehensible reference materials.

Yikes, I didn't mean to write two pages and that barely scratches the surface! Hope this helps.


----------



## farmer

*Metallic surface and wood*



Sylvanite said:


> farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use a technic called cross polarization so I can see the wood through the finish.
> Linear polarized film over my strobes soft box and a CPL on my lens
> I don't have to mess around with angle of reflection because I filtered out the polarized light ...
> That is something I cannot do with fluorescent lighting because its not bright enough ..
> 
> 
> 
> Polarized reflection off metallic surfaces is different than off non-metallic surfaces.  Try taking a photograph of a pen - which has both metallic and non-metallic glossy surfaces - and you'll discover why nobody else uses cross-polarization for pen photography.
> 
> Once you learn to control glare by manipulating the size and position of your lights, you'll find you don't need the polarizing filters at all.  Each one acts as a 50% (one stop) neutral density filter for diffuse reflections, so dropping the sheet film and the lens filter yields the same result with 1/4 the amount of light.
> 
> I agree that _Light--Science & Magic_ is an excellent book.  I recommend reading Chapter 6 "Metal", particularly the section titled "Using a Tent".  The purpose of a light tent is to produce a "large" (a.k.a. diffuse) light source -- which is unrelated to polarization.
Click to expand...


Hi how have you been .

As the pictures show above I am not really a pen maker .
And the few pens I do make I don't use a kit.
I hate using metal in with my wood working, so the chances are slim that I ill be doing photography on custom exotic wood with any kind of metals .
I know that really isn't the point .

As of cross polarization technic and you know anything about it .
Last time we argued this point , I asked a straight up question about exactly how much experience you had doing the cross polarization technic,.
Your answer was you hadn't.
What bothers me you came off as a expert knowing all about doing the cross polarization technic when you had never done it once in our life using a sheet of linear polarized film over a high powered strobe ....

You have argued with me on this from day one , publicly when you have never really tried to apply the technic ..

If you don't mind ,, I don't need expert advise on the cross polarized technic from anyone that has zero experience ..
Your opinion has always been bias ....


----------



## Sylvanite

farmer said:


> As the pictures show above I am not really a pen maker .
> .
> .
> .
> I don't need expert advise ... from anyone that has zero experience ..


In all the time you have been active on the IAP I have never seen you post a single photograph of a pen.  I have repeatedly seen a few pictures of your cues and chalkers, and of of your strobe softbox, (and several wiki page reposts), but no pens.

I challenge you to take a photograph of a pen using cross-polarization and to post it.  It need not have much metal, but if you wish to give credible advise on pen photography, it must have some reflective metal components because the overwhelming majority of pens do.  The wood and the metal parts must both be well lit (no dark regions), and your filters must be fully crossed (that is you can't cheat and only partially cross-polarize).  I don't believe you can do that - but I invite you to prove me wrong.

Cross-polarization has its place, and it is a useful technique for eliminating unwanted direct reflection when you cannot move lights or add sufficient reflectors.  You can find a thoughtful and well-written explanation of cross-polarization (from someone with far more photography experience than both of us put together) at Polarization in Art Reproduction.  I direct you particularly to the section titled "Metallics with Polarization" starting on slide 57.  This presentation nicely covers when and how cross-polarization works, and when it doesn't.

If I appear antagonistic towards cross-polarization for pen photography, it is because there are easier, less expensive, and more effective ways to control glare in pen pictures.  You have always denigrated fluorescent lights, continuous lighting, light tents, and any other photographic technique besides yours.  I have tried on numerous occasions to correct misinformation you have posted, to demonstrate how polarization really works in pen photography, and to suggest educational experiments.  You have steadfastly refused to  try even one of them - or to demonstrate your assertions on polarization (such as light tents polarize light) in any way.

I have tried cross-polarization, described the process at Unpolarized glare, part 2: cross-polarization and explained how it breaks down in pen photography at Unpolarized glare, part 3: how cross-polarization fails .  I usually try to include demonstrative pen photographs in my threads on pen photography.  You, on the other hand, have not posted any - ever.  The IAP is a forum for penturners - that is, people who make pens.  This subforum is titled "Pen Photography" - that is, photographs of pens.  Since you don't make pens, and don't photograph them, why present yourself as an authority on the subject?

I submit that the rest of us (to paraphrase your statement above) "don't need expert advise from someone with zero experience".


----------



## farmer

*To funny*

Sylvanite

Please read carefully .

Electromagnetic polarized waves only create polarized reflection ( Glare ) on all non metallic smooth surfaced subjects.

The Cross polarization technic has zero effect on polished metals .

And if you had ever studied the Cross polarization technic or actually done it yourself in person with you setting everything up and taking the photos with the proper equipment,  you would of known that . 

PS I don't do pen kits , and I have made pens and posted one of them on this forum .
And if you haven't seen them that is not my problem.


----------



## Sylvanite

farmer said:


> Electromagnetic polarized waves only create polarized reflection ( Glare ) on all non metallic smooth surfaced subjects.


Wrong.



farmer said:


> The Cross polarization technic has zero effect on polished metals .


Wrong.



farmer said:


> And if you had ever studied the Cross polarization technic or actually done it yourself in person with you setting everything up and taking the photos with the proper equipment,  you would of known that .


I have, and I do.  I refer you once again to Unpolarized glare, part 3: how cross-polarization fails.



farmer said:


> I have made pens and posted one of them on this forum .


Where?


----------



## Sylvanite

Sylvanite said:


> farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have made pens and posted one of them on this forum .
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
Click to expand...


I think I found it! There's a pen photo at http://www.penturners.org/forum/f24/...9/#post1726819 right? Ok, I take it back - in all the time you've been on the IAP, you _have_ posted *ONE* pen photo. 

 I presume this picture was taken using cross-polarization, is that correct? If so, let me point out that the majority of the nosecone and refill are unlit. The only part that is illuminated is the reflection of the backdrop material the pen is laying on. It shows up simply and solely because the diffuse reflection off the backdrop (because it has a matte surface) depolarizes the light from your softbox/polarizing film. The bottom of the nosecone is lit with depolarized light and therefore (being shiny metal) produces a depolarized direct reflection. The CPL filter on your lens only filters out half of that light, leaving the other half visible in the final photograph.

 The top of the nosecone, however, is lit with polarized light (from your softbox/polarizing film). The nosecone (being shiny metal) produces a direct reflection that preserves the polarization state of the source light (i.e. it is polarized). The CPL filter on your lens filters out the polarized light almost entirely, leaving the top of the nosecone nearly black.

*That* is the problem with using cross-polarization to photograph pens. The same optical process that removes the direct reflection off the wood finish (which presents as glare), also removes the direct reflection off the shiny metal components - leaving them dark. The wood of the pen barrel(s) produces diffuse reflection that sill shows up, but the metal components do not.


----------



## farmer

*Never ending*



Sylvanite said:


> Sylvanite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have made pens and posted one of them on this forum .
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I found it! There's a pen photo at http://www.penturners.org/forum/f24/...9/#post1726819 right? Ok, I take it back - in all the time you've been on the IAP, you _have_ posted *ONE* pen photo.
> 
> I presume this picture was taken using cross-polarization, is that correct? If so, let me point out that the majority of the nosecone and refill are unlit. The only part that is illuminated is the reflection of the backdrop material the pen is laying on. It shows up simply and solely because the diffuse reflection off the backdrop (because it has a matte surface) depolarizes the light from your softbox/polarizing film. The bottom of the nosecone is lit with depolarized light and therefore (being shiny metal) produces a depolarized direct reflection. The CPL filter on your lens only filters out half of that light, leaving the other half visible in the final photograph.
> 
> The top of the nosecone, however, is lit with polarized light (from your softbox/polarizing film). The nosecone (being shiny metal) produces a direct reflection that preserves the polarization state of the source light (i.e. it is polarized). The CPL filter on your lens filters out the polarized light almost entirely, leaving the top of the nosecone nearly black.
> 
> *That* is the problem with using cross-polarization to photograph pens. The same optical process that removes the direct reflection off the wood finish (which presents as glare), also removes the direct reflection off the shiny metal components - leaving them dark. The wood of the pen barrel(s) produces diffuse reflection that sill shows up, but the metal components do not.
Click to expand...


So you dug up the first pen I made and the first practice photos I took when I was just started using the Cross polarization technic .
And embarrassed with it ..
WHY ????????
To prove what ?  
Before you found the photo of the pen I posted  you thought I shouldn't be posting in here because according to you  I am not a pen maker ..
Don't you think its the moderators job to decide stuff like that ?

I asked how many pens does one have to make to be a pen maker ??
I said I didn't consider my self a pen maker because I have only made 5 or 6 pens in my life.
I don't think making 5 or 6 pens make's me a pen maker..

Man you are on a witch hunt ..


Personally I want this bad blood between me and you to stop .
Think you can handle that ???


----------



## Sylvanite

farmer said:


> [So you dug up the first pen I made and the first practice photos I took when I was just started using the Cross polarization technic .
> And embarrassed with it ..
> WHY ????????
> To prove what ?


I challenged you to produce an evenly lit pen photograph using cross-polarization and that is the only pen picture you have provided.  The wood portion is very attractive, but very few pens are made solely out of wood.  My comments were to explain why cross-polarization is not a good tool for photographing reflective metal components.

I'm not proud of my earliest pen photographs and would not like them dredged up for criticism either.  If you have a better pen photo, by all means please post it.



farmer said:


> Before you found the photo of the pen I posted  you thought I shouldn't be posting in here because according to you  I am not a pen maker ..
> Don't you think its the moderators job to decide stuff like that ?


Turnabout is fair play.  You attacked me first.  I simply turned your words around.  If you're going to promote your pen photography technique as an example to be followed, you should provide some example pen photographs.



farmer said:


> Man you are on a witch hunt ..


Cross-polarization is not the panacea you present it to be, and most of the claims you've made about polarization and about glare are incorrect.  I have nothing against you personally -- I'm only trying to correct misinformation.



farmer said:


> Personally I want this bad blood between me and you to stop .
> Think you can handle that ???


Believe me, I take absolutely no pleasure in this exchange, and would be overjoyed to stop.  I will now.

To the original poster, and everybody else interested in constructing light tents, I apologize for my part in hijacking this thread.  I hope the discussion can get back on topic now.


----------

