How to do studio photo of butterfly w/ no shadows?

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I have tried a coat hanger with a glob of blue-tack on both ends (one end to stick into a white holder and the other to the back of the butterfly). Besides the stress on the (dead) butterfly, it gives a greyish background. Tried putting a separate flash on the background to blow it out, but then I get a shadow of the coat hanger.
Lots of other variations (light tent, etc), but none have been satisfactory.

Any suggestions?

No suggestion, but technique

– To reduce the strong shadow you need to give a good distance between Object and Background. For example when photograph people you want them stay around average 6′ or more from the background, and BOUNCING will help softening the shadow too.

– If you have no room to move the object away from the background then you may need. Pick your choice

– Depending on where you place the Flash, you may need one or more flash directly to the background to soften or remove the shadow.

– If you have no extra flash for the above trick, then you may need to use the Boucning flash to send the light to both Object and Background

– *If* you don’t have extra flash, don’t know how to use Bounce Flash technique etc. then you may need some light souce without using 1 flash.

NOW, for your collection, you may need to BUILD a small BOX, inside the box you have Light Sources all around the object then it should work with most background (I say most because it may depend on the background material) then don’t use flash. Just Google for the technique people use to photograph small jewel, or other object like Coin, Stamp etc..

Joe wrote:

No suggestion, but technique

– To reduce the strong shadow you need to give a good distance between Object and Background. For example when photograph people you want them stay around average 6′ or more from the background, and BOUNCING will help softening the shadow too.

I have that. The problem is how to suspend the object (a dead butterfly in this case).

I tried a coat hanger — the long straight bottom portion cut off, stuck through a white foam board and held vertical with some clay. A small ball of clay on the top end then suspended the butterfly far enough from the background that I could isolate it.

Trying just a ring flash gave me a muddy background. I want that background stark, blown-out white. Close but no cigar.

I then added a side flash aimed just at the background. That gave me a shadow of the coat hanger. Bummer.

I added a second flash on the other side, also pointed at the background. Then I got two shadows of that blasted coat hanger.

hmmm… Now that I write this, I wonder if maybe I just need to crank up those background flashes so they really do blow out the background so much that the shadow is also blown out and pure white. I’ll have to try that tonight.

Meanwhile, any other suggestions are appreciated. Particularly a way to suspend that butterfly without the clay. That is rougher on the specimen than I prefer.

I "broke" the first specimen after too many attempts, and am now shooting him sans left forewing, letting him continue to model until I get the setup right… (Fortunately I had the foresight to use a rather drab moth first as a lighting experiment)

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I have tried a coat hanger with a glob of blue-tack on both ends (one end to stick into a white holder and the other to the back of the butterfly). Besides the stress on the (dead) butterfly, it gives a greyish background. Tried putting a separate flash on the background to blow it out, but then I get a shadow of the coat hanger.
Lots of other variations (light tent, etc), but none have been satisfactory.

Any suggestions?

Use white Plexiglas as the background. Light the background from underneath. Vary the intensity of that light until you get your nice white background.

—
JD..

"JD" wrote in message

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I have tried a coat hanger with a glob of blue-tack on both ends (one end to stick into a white holder and the other to the back of the butterfly). Besides the stress on the (dead) butterfly, it gives a greyish background. Tried putting a separate flash on the background to blow it out, but then I get a shadow of the coat hanger.
Lots of other variations (light tent, etc), but none have been satisfactory.

Any suggestions?

Use white Plexiglas as the background. Light the background from underneath. Vary the intensity of that light until you get your nice white background.

—
JD..

all of the above are good photography technique solutions but since this is a PS group I will give an alternate Photoshop solution

photo as you have done on the black or get the white as close as possible select color range
or other selection technique as you desire (wand, magnetic lasso, etc) inverse selection so butterfly’s selected
control+j to copy butterfly on it’s own layer
under that layer make a white layer

In article <1j60ztp.ad3a0r11wq927N%>,
says…

Joe wrote:

No suggestion, but technique

– To reduce the strong shadow you need to give a good distance between Object and Background. For example when photograph people you want them stay around average 6′ or more from the background, and BOUNCING will help softening the shadow too.

I have that. The problem is how to suspend the object (a dead butterfly in this case).

I tried a coat hanger — the long straight bottom portion cut off, stuck through a white foam board and held vertical with some clay. A small ball of clay on the top end then suspended the butterfly far enough from the background that I could isolate it.

Trying just a ring flash gave me a muddy background. I want that background stark, blown-out white. Close but no cigar.

I then added a side flash aimed just at the background. That gave me a shadow of the coat hanger. Bummer.

I added a second flash on the other side, also pointed at the background. Then I got two shadows of that blasted coat hanger.
hmmm… Now that I write this, I wonder if maybe I just need to crank up those background flashes so they really do blow out the background so much that the shadow is also blown out and pure white. I’ll have to try that tonight.

Surely if you mount the ‘background’ flash so it is behind and to one side of the butterrfly/coathanger, and the primary (ring or whatever) flash is close to the butterfly and far from the background, you won’t get the shadow problem. In badly drawn fixed-width font below.

C – camera and primary flash

B – butterfly/hanger

s – secondary flash

————————————————- white background

you might want to tilt the background so it is more square on to the secondary flash, to ensure the white is even rather than a gradient.
I.E.

C

B

s ……..
……..
…….
…….
…….
……

Cheers,
Mike

mike wrote:

Surely if you mount the ‘background’ flash so it is behind and to one side of the butterrfly/coathanger, and the primary (ring or whatever) flash is close to the butterfly and far from the background, you won’t get the shadow problem. In badly drawn fixed-width font below.
C – camera and primary flash

B – butterfly/hanger

s – secondary flash

————————————————- white background
you might want to tilt the background so it is more square on to the secondary flash, to ensure the white is even rather than a gradient.

I like the idea of tilting the background. Other than that, you have pretty much described my setup. The problem is that the B <–> background distance is only about 17" — the length of the longest wire on a coat hanger.

I haven’t thought of a better way to suspend the butterfly in space.

I’m going to be doing over 100 of these critters, so I am trying to set it up for miniimal Photoshop work, and am thus trying to avoid using a pair of nylon wires suspended across with the butterfly resting on them.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

JD wrote:

Use white Plexiglas as the background. Light the background from underneath. Vary the intensity of that light until you get your nice white background.

I actually tried putting it on a light table in one setup. In fact, my black background that worked best was to put a polarizing film on the light table, and then a polarizing filter on the lens rotated 90 degrees. Worked like a charm. 🙂

I wasn’t happy with the white result though.

Your comment is making me rethink that approach. It was my first attempt, and now that I remember, I was using lower power side flash to keep the exposure proper (ISO 100, f/16, which is as small as I want to go).

Since I had no control over the light of the table (simply on or off), it was too bright. I’ll bet I can try that again with the stronger ring flash and a ND filter to control the relationship of the two sources.

Thanks for the idea — another one to try tonight.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Kabuki wrote:

all of the above are good photography technique solutions but since this is a PS group I will give an alternate Photoshop solution

OOPS!

Sorry. I monitor both apps.photoshop and alt.photograhy. I had intended to post this to the photography forum last night. Didn’t even realize I was in the "wrong" group until your comment…

photo as you have done on the black or get the white as close as possible select color range
or other selection technique as you desire (wand, magnetic lasso, etc) inverse selection so butterfly’s selected
control+j to copy butterfly on it’s own layer
under that layer make a white layer

Thanks for the suggestion. I have actually done that, with reasonable results. I will be shooting over 100 of these critters though, so am trying to get the shot set up properly so that I will not have to do any more Photoshop than absolutely necessary, such as getting the clipping paths.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson wrote:

JD wrote:

Use white Plexiglas as the background. Light the background from underneath. Vary the intensity of that light until you get your nice white background.

I actually tried putting it on a light table in one setup. In fact, my black background that worked best was to put a polarizing film on the light table, and then a polarizing filter on the lens rotated 90 degrees. Worked like a charm. 🙂

I wasn’t happy with the white result though.

Your comment is making me rethink that approach. It was my first attempt, and now that I remember, I was using lower power side flash to keep the exposure proper (ISO 100, f/16, which is as small as I want to go).

Since I had no control over the light of the table (simply on or off), it was too bright. I’ll bet I can try that again with the stronger ring flash and a ND filter to control the relationship of the two sources.
Thanks for the idea — another one to try tonight.

One problem with white plex is you can sometimes see the upper light source reflecting in the plex. It’s like a mirror. But you just move the upper light source around until you can’t see it from the camera angle.

Since I don’t know what strobes(flash) you are using, get the exposure for the butterfly correct first and then adjust the light under the plex to make your nice white background.

I used a set-up like this for shooting glassware but I had pro strobes where I could adjust the output of the upper and lower heads independent of each other with separate sliders on the power supply.

The beauty of this is, once you get it set up, each shot is just replacing a butterfly and a few clicks of the shutter!

—
JD..

JD wrote:

One problem with white plex is you can sometimes see the upper light source reflecting in the plex. It’s like a mirror. But you just move the upper light source around until you can’t see it from the camera angle.

I tried two things tonight, but both failed to give me the results I wanted.

1) Went back to the light table, and varied the flash power on the front of the butterfly. At one extreme (all light table and minimal flash), the butterfly became too transparent. At the other extreme (massive overpower of the flash), there were shadows showing where the wings were not flush with the table. I could find no middle ground that eliminated both — the middle ground just gave me the worst of both (shadows _and_ transparency).

2) Tried usng a light tent on its back. Used two white monofiliment wires taut across the front. Laid the butterfly on the wires. Put two studio strobes on the sides of the tent, and a ring flahs in front. Almost worked, but the wires show through the wings, and would be a real PITA to clone out… 🙁

Since I don’t know what strobes(flash) you are using, get the exposure for the butterfly correct first and then adjust the light under the plex to make your nice white background.

I’ve got a variety. I have 3 Canon 580EX flashes (top end Canon battery powered, variable level), 3 Flashpoint 320A studio flashes (AC variable power — one turned flaky on me tonight, but still have 2 working), and 1 AlienBee ARB800 ring flash (AC, variable power that packs a whallop).

I can light up the moon, let alone a butterfly! 🙂

I used a set-up like this for shooting glassware but I had pro strobes where I could adjust the output of the upper and lower heads independent of each other with separate sliders on the power supply.
The beauty of this is, once you get it set up, each shot is just replacing a butterfly and a few clicks of the shutter!

Yeah, that is exactly what I am after. Haven’t found that magic setup yet though.

Lighting is causing more of a headache than I expected, but suspending the butterfly in a way that doesn’t cause shadows and causes minimal stess to the specimen is an even bigger problem…

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson wrote:

JD wrote:

One problem with white plex is you can sometimes see the upper light source reflecting in the plex. It’s like a mirror. But you just move the upper light source around until you can’t see it from the camera angle.

I tried two things tonight, but both failed to give me the results I wanted.

1) Went back to the light table, and varied the flash power on the front of the butterfly. At one extreme (all light table and minimal flash), the butterfly became too transparent. At the other extreme (massive overpower of the flash), there were shadows showing where the wings were not flush with the table. I could find no middle ground that eliminated both — the middle ground just gave me the worst of both (shadows _and_ transparency).

2) Tried usng a light tent on its back. Used two white monofiliment wires taut across the front. Laid the butterfly on the wires. Put two studio strobes on the sides of the tent, and a ring flahs in front. Almost worked, but the wires show through the wings, and would be a real PITA to clone out… 🙁

Since I don’t know what strobes(flash) you are using, get the exposure for the butterfly correct first and then adjust the light under the plex to make your nice white background.

I’ve got a variety. I have 3 Canon 580EX flashes (top end Canon battery powered, variable level), 3 Flashpoint 320A studio flashes (AC variable power — one turned flaky on me tonight, but still have 2 working), and 1 AlienBee ARB800 ring flash (AC, variable power that packs a whallop).
I can light up the moon, let alone a butterfly! 🙂

I used a set-up like this for shooting glassware but I had pro strobes where I could adjust the output of the upper and lower heads independent of each other with separate sliders on the power supply.
The beauty of this is, once you get it set up, each shot is just replacing a butterfly and a few clicks of the shutter!

Yeah, that is exactly what I am after. Haven’t found that magic setup yet though.

Lighting is causing more of a headache than I expected, but suspending the butterfly in a way that doesn’t cause shadows and causes minimal stess to the specimen is an even bigger problem…

Since you have over 100 specimens I would vote against any kind of "suspension". It’s not a good photograph if you damage your butterfly and suspending 100 of them will surely grow tiresome after about 10.

I didn’t think about them going transparent when lighting them from underneath.

You never have said if this is a paying job or just for yourself but I think it’s time you decide what you can "accept" as a final shot.

Personally, I’d try lighting them with a really soft light box located right over the lens which should create a light shadow around the butterfly and try to lessen the shadow using some kind of softened copy lighting on the background. Since they’re going transparent I wouldn’t use the plex and under light. I’d try it on smooth, white paper.

I’d have to be there to talk to into light shadows. 😉

—
JD..

JD wrote:

Since you have over 100 specimens I would vote against any kind of "suspension". It’s not a good photograph if you damage your butterfly and suspending 100 of them will surely grow tiresome after about 10.
I didn’t think about them going transparent when lighting them from underneath.

You never have said if this is a paying job or just for yourself but I think it’s time you decide what you can "accept" as a final shot.
Personally, I’d try lighting them with a really soft light box located right over the lens which should create a light shadow around the butterfly and try to lessen the shadow using some kind of softened copy lighting on the background. Since they’re going transparent I wouldn’t use the plex and under light. I’d try it on smooth, white paper.

I think I may have stumbled onto a solution last night. It was pretty late, but the results are better than I expected. Some more tweaking tonight may give me the final solution.

And it was found by accident… 🙂

I have one of those EZCube "light tent" used occasionally for photographing small specimens where I want to minimize shadows. I tried it early on but had trouble getting a decent result.

Last night I set it on its back and stuck an aquarium stand in it. Mostly I wanted to clear the light tent space, since it is rather large, but was too lazy to fold it up right then. I then placed a very clean piece of glass over the stand and placed the butterfly on the glass.

The intent was to angle a piece of white foam board on the lower shelf, and bounce a light off it to light from beneath. The light tent was just a distraction, but I figured it wouldn’t hurt.

Actually the tent worked to give a nice even light, and the glass disappeared, with no wing shadows. Just the effect I was after.

I think I can now just dial in the lighting and be good to go.

And yes, I was really dreading any suspension of that many items. Placing them on a sheet of glass should work fine, with just the need to pull it out and windex it after every few specimens.

I am getting paid in Brownie Points for this one. It is for my mother… 🙂

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson wrote:

JD wrote:

Since you have over 100 specimens I would vote against any kind of "suspension". It’s not a good photograph if you damage your butterfly and suspending 100 of them will surely grow tiresome after about 10.
I didn’t think about them going transparent when lighting them from underneath.

You never have said if this is a paying job or just for yourself but I think it’s time you decide what you can "accept" as a final shot.
Personally, I’d try lighting them with a really soft light box located right over the lens which should create a light shadow around the butterfly and try to lessen the shadow using some kind of softened copy lighting on the background. Since they’re going transparent I wouldn’t use the plex and under light. I’d try it on smooth, white paper.

I think I may have stumbled onto a solution last night. It was pretty late, but the results are better than I expected. Some more tweaking tonight may give me the final solution.

And it was found by accident… 🙂

I have one of those EZCube "light tent" used occasionally for photographing small specimens where I want to minimize shadows. I tried it early on but had trouble getting a decent result.

Last night I set it on its back and stuck an aquarium stand in it. Mostly I wanted to clear the light tent space, since it is rather large, but was too lazy to fold it up right then. I then placed a very clean piece of glass over the stand and placed the butterfly on the glass.
The intent was to angle a piece of white foam board on the lower shelf, and bounce a light off it to light from beneath. The light tent was just a distraction, but I figured it wouldn’t hurt.

Actually the tent worked to give a nice even light, and the glass disappeared, with no wing shadows. Just the effect I was after.
I think I can now just dial in the lighting and be good to go.
And yes, I was really dreading any suspension of that many items. Placing them on a sheet of glass should work fine, with just the need to pull it out and windex it after every few specimens.

I am getting paid in Brownie Points for this one. It is for my mother… 🙂

Cool! Sounds like you figured it out!

—
JD..

Here’s one more technique to try. It works especialy well if your subject has both light and dark areas.

1. Place your butterfly on a sheet of white plex. Lock the camera down firmly on a tripod. Light as you wish to bring out the form and texture. Put a light (or lights) behind the plex that will burn out the background but turn them OFF for this exposure. Don’t worry about any shadows on the plex. Use a cable release to trip the shutter.

2. Reconnect the flash so only the backlit plex is illuminated. Don’t touch anything on the camera. Take a second exposure of the butterfly’s silhouette.

3. In Photoshop, drag the silhouette onto the top-lit image. Hold the shift key as you drag to drop the silhouette exactly in the center. Change the blending mode of the top layer to Lighten. Merge the layers and you’re done.

This eliminates problems with specular highlights or near-whites on the subject, as well as shadows or highlights on the plex. As long as the camera doesn’t move between exposures you’re golden.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

Tom Nelson wrote:

Here’s one more technique to try. It works especialy well if your subject has both light and dark areas.

1. Place your butterfly on a sheet of white plex. Lock the camera down firmly on a tripod. Light as you wish to bring out the form and texture. Put a light (or lights) behind the plex that will burn out the background but turn them OFF for this exposure. Don’t worry about any shadows on the plex. Use a cable release to trip the shutter.
2. Reconnect the flash so only the backlit plex is illuminated. Don’t touch anything on the camera. Take a second exposure of the butterfly’s silhouette.

3. In Photoshop, drag the silhouette onto the top-lit image. Hold the shift key as you drag to drop the silhouette exactly in the center. Change the blending mode of the top layer to Lighten. Merge the layers and you’re done.

This eliminates problems with specular highlights or near-whites on the subject, as well as shadows or highlights on the plex. As long as the camera doesn’t move between exposures you’re golden.

I was trying to minimize Photoshop, but your technique sounds simple enough to create an Action for. That would make the problem small enough to make it viable.

Thanks for the suggestion — I’ll give it a try.

Again though, sorry for even posting this here. I had intended to post in alt.photography, since I was really trying to minimize Photoshop usage in this particular project.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

JD wrote:

Use white Plexiglas as the background. Light the background from underneath. Vary the intensity of that light until you get your nice white background.

I actually tried putting it on a light table in one setup. In fact, my black background that worked best was to put a polarizing film on the light table, and then a polarizing filter on the lens rotated 90 degrees. Worked like a charm. 🙂

I wasn’t happy with the white result though.

Of course BLACK will always work best with shadow because the BLACK background is usually darker than shadow. Now with WHITE or whatever color, all you need to do is reducing the darker shadow then you will like them as much as BLACK.

Your comment is making me rethink that approach. It was my first attempt, and now that I remember, I was using lower power side flash to keep the exposure proper (ISO 100, f/16, which is as small as I want to go).

Since I had no control over the light of the table (simply on or off), it was too bright. I’ll bet I can try that again with the stronger ring flash and a ND filter to control the relationship of the two sources.

As I have mentioned in the first message that you may want to use regular light source instead of flash, then photograph without flash. That’s the technique most jewel, stap, coin etc. colletors use to photograph their small collector abjects.

Thanks for the idea — another one to try tonight.

Joe wrote:

As I have mentioned in the first message that you may want to use regular light source instead of flash, then photograph without flash. That’s the technique most jewel, stap, coin etc. colletors use to photograph their small collector abjects.

Basically my studio is set up for flashes. My non-flash lights are a hodge podge of desk lamps. Also, I thought this would be a perfect use of the ring flash, since it is macro with a very short camera-to-subject distance.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Joe wrote:

As I have mentioned in the first message that you may want to use regular light source instead of flash, then photograph without flash. That’s the technique most jewel, stap, coin etc. colletors use to photograph their small collector abjects.

Basically my studio is set up for flashes. My non-flash lights are a hodge podge of desk lamps. Also, I thought this would be a perfect use of the ring flash, since it is macro with a very short camera-to-subject distance.

You can always make a simple BOX with regular lights. Because flash and strobe often give strong light souce which will create stronger shadow. And as I have mentioned if you have enough distance between the object and background then you should be able to reduce the shadow to no shadow.

Macro flash to be able to send light to object too close to the lens that regular flash can’t, it’s better than flash(es) but still not as good as no flash.

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"? The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom. I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to look for imperfections?
Bob

Bob Williams wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"? The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom. I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to look for imperfections?
Bob

Even for my grandma I wou;dn’t want to waste the time to create something not acceptable. And you should spend the time to learn the professional technique not dirty quick trick to fool some newbie.

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Exactly. That was my first approach. I was not happy with the result. I could clean it up, but that would take a LOT more time and effort per image than I really want to put in here.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Exactly. That was my first approach. I was not happy with the result. I could clean it up, but that would take a LOT more time and effort per image than I really want to put in here.

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for you? I’m just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

—
JD..

JD wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for you? I’m just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I’ll upload a couple somewhere and point a link to it.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"? The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom. I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to look for imperfections?
Bob

Even for my grandma I wou;dn’t want to waste the time to create something not acceptable. And you should spend the time to learn the professional technique not dirty quick trick to fool some newbie.

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?….Why not?
Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist. Good luck on your Mom’s project………….Bob

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Exactly. That was my first approach. I was not happy with the result. I could clean it up, but that would take a LOT more time and effort per image than I really want to put in here.

I have never used the Magic Wand for ages cuz it just isn’t the right tool for professional use.

And as I have suggested, one of the best is to use the technique the jewel, coin, stamp, toy etc. collectors have been using for century by making a simple BOX, put some light source inside the box and photograph without flash. You will have no problem with shadow, no transparency, no see through, and no simpler than just put the object inside the box then press the shutter button (remote cable release or timer may be needed).

Bob Williams wrote:

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?….Why not?

Close. Actually Canon 5D MKII. And yes, I always shoot RAW…

Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist. Good luck on your Mom’s project………….Bob

FWIW, she is a perfectionist. She was president of the West Coast chapter of NAME (National Association of Miniature Enthusiasts) for years, and delights in all thngs small that are done to perfection.

She wants her miniature scenes to look good enough that a tightly cropped photograph makes you look twice to even realize it is not a full size live scene.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Bob Williams wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

I have a collection of butterflies from around the world that I would like to photograph without any shadows against a white background. I can make a nice sharp image with a black background (I use a polarizer sheet on a light table and a cross-polarlized filter on the camera, plus 2 side flashes on the butterfly front). That works like a charm, but I have have no real luck with white backgrounds.

I’m surprised that the cross polarizers give you a jet black background. But if your black background works like a charm, just use the magic wand to select the black background. Then EDIT > FILL with 100% White. Takes about 10-15 seconds to do the steps and the results should be quite satisfactory.
Bob Williams

Neah! you may be able to fool some newbie but it ain’t the best way for professional use.

You try it then ZOOM IN to see for yourself.

Of course the result is not Perfect, but how good is "Good Enough"? The images are not for Salon Display or For Sale. They are for your Mom. I assume that your Mom is not going to print 8x10s.
Do you think that she will really ZOOM IN on the images you send her to look for imperfections?
Bob

Even for my grandma I wou;dn’t want to waste the time to create something not acceptable. And you should spend the time to learn the professional technique not dirty quick trick to fool some newbie.

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?….Why not?
Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist. Good luck on your Mom’s project………….Bob

Why not? because I made $$$ to feed my family before RAW was born, and I have been seeing many RAW worshippers destrying the good photo by praying to the RAW God when they don’t even know how to use it.

So don’t use RAW to scare me, but I would suggest you to spend more time on Photoshop instead of burrying your head in the RAW bucket. Yes, RAW has some good points, but you have to know Photoshop well to enjoy the RAW more.

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:

No matter what "Professional" technique you use, the result will always be a compromise. Are you going to capture your images with a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Camera? Will you shoot in RAW?….Why not?

Close. Actually Canon 5D MKII. And yes, I always shoot RAW…

Because your image does not HAVE to be THAT good!
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider the sophistication of your client and try to match the effort required to produce an enjoyable image, rather than striving for perfection for a viewer who would be delighted with a lesser quality image.
Maybe that is just the view of a Pragmatist vs that of a Perfectionist. Good luck on your Mom’s project………….Bob

FWIW, she is a perfectionist. She was president of the West Coast chapter of NAME (National Association of Miniature Enthusiasts) for years, and delights in all thngs small that are done to perfection.
She wants her miniature scenes to look good enough that a tightly cropped photograph makes you look twice to even realize it is not a full size live scene.

Me? if I have to spend time to photograph something then good enough won’t be good enough for me, but they have to pass my minimum requirement. Or it may not be the best the camera can do, but have to be very close to the top.

And if you really need RAW for recovery some simple thing like photographing some dead butterflies, then I can saw that the photos ain’t that good to begin with. I am trying to say that there is nothing wrong with using RAW, but depending on RAW isn’t my style.

Yes, I know RAW and have done tens of thousands of photos using RAW, but all the final photos have to go through Photoshop which I have done hundreds of thousands of photos (probably pretty close to million).

Joe wrote:

Why not? because I made $$$ to feed my family before RAW was born, and I have been seeing many RAW worshippers destrying the good photo by praying to the RAW God when they don’t even know how to use it.

So don’t use RAW to scare me, but I would suggest you to spend more time on Photoshop instead of burrying your head in the RAW bucket. Yes, RAW has some good points, but you have to know Photoshop well to enjoy the RAW more.

I will probably regret even responding to such a troll (or ideological rant, which is the same thing)…

RAW vs JPG from the camera? Hmmm… every time you modify a JPG and save it, you are damaging the image more. Strike 1 against JPG in the camera (and actually strike 2 and 3 for me — no need to even go further).

However, let’s go further. RAW gives wider dynamic range.

With RAW I can tweak the image in Lightroom enough that I rarely have to go to Photoshop any more unless I need layers.

With RAW I can do more with the image in the future than I may be even considering today.

My camera (Canon 5D MK II) is set to RAW output and I never change it. This is not the days of needing to carry the Right Film, which often meant multiple camera bodies around my neck.

Use the camera and lt it produce the absolute best it can. Why the heck would I hobble an image just because I don’t happen to think I will want it later? Disk is so cheap that is no longer an issue — I have 3TB just for photo storage (on a Drobo with 4 TB space — 1 TB is used for redundancy).

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Joe wrote:

Why not? because I made $$$ to feed my family before RAW was born, and I have been seeing many RAW worshippers destrying the good photo by praying to the RAW God when they don’t even know how to use it.

So don’t use RAW to scare me, but I would suggest you to spend more time on Photoshop instead of burrying your head in the RAW bucket. Yes, RAW has some good points, but you have to know Photoshop well to enjoy the RAW more.

I will probably regret even responding to such a troll (or ideological rant, which is the same thing)…

RAW vs JPG from the camera? Hmmm… every time you modify a JPG and save it, you are damaging the image more. Strike 1 against JPG in the camera (and actually strike 2 and 3 for me — no need to even go further).

If you are good enough and been doing retouching long enough then you shouldn’t have to worry about damaging the JPG. And if you do then I don’t have anything else to say but you get a long way to go yet

However, let’s go further. RAW gives wider dynamic range.

It doesn’t matter as long as you snap a good quality image. If not, then RAW or not RAW is not worth to snap in the first place.

With RAW I can tweak the image in Lightroom enough that I rarely have to go to Photoshop any more unless I need layers.

Many newbie do, because they don’t know the difference between Photoshop and RAW Converter. I have been using Photoshop since around late 80’s

With RAW I can do more with the image in the future than I may be even considering today.

Most RAW converters don’t give the same result, some version of RAW converter or overdoing can easily damage the photo. Quite often I shoot without RAW, because to me if the photo isn’t top rate then it ain’t worth spending time to fix the poor image.

My camera (Canon 5D MK II) is set to RAW output and I never change it. This is not the days of needing to carry the Right Film, which often meant multiple camera bodies around my neck.

I have stopped using film, or have been using digital camera for around a decade or so now. Not always, but I sometime I use both cameras at same time (switching between cameras 50/50). IOW, I usually have 2 DSLRs with me, but usually around 80/20 or 90/10.

Use the camera and lt it produce the absolute best it can. Why the heck would I hobble an image just because I don’t happen to think I will want it later? Disk is so cheap that is no longer an issue — I have 3TB just for photo storage (on a Drobo with 4 TB space — 1 TB is used for redundancy).

I have couple tegas storage, and thousands of DVDs. I don’t use any 32MB memory card but (4) 16GB and around (6) 8GB memory cards I carry along in the backpacks or photo-vest (cuz they don’t take much space).

Joe wrote:

However, let’s go further. RAW gives wider dynamic range.

It doesn’t matter as long as you snap a good quality image. If not, then RAW or not RAW is not worth to snap in the first place.

Filler statement. Assume that anyone seriously considering and using raw wants to conserve maximum information while pursuing quality photography.

With RAW I can do more with the image in the future than I may be even considering today.

Most RAW converters don’t give the same result, some version of RAW converter or overdoing can easily damage the photo.

It’s non destructive. The original raw is available for other tries with different settings or programs so the photo is _not_ damaged at all.

Burt Johnson wrote:

JD wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for you? I’m just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I’ll upload a couple somewhere and point a link to it.

These turned out well enough that I decided to upload them to iStock in addition to supplying my mother’s purposes.

I sent up one for an initial test to see if it would be accepted. I received the acceptance notification today, so here is the image from that butterfly:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10648041

As a reminder, this was done by placing the butterfly specimen on a sheet of glass. The glass was laying on an aquarium frame that I use as a table when I want a light underneath. The stand was sitting in a light tent that was laying on its back. (The light tent was mostly because I was too lazy to fold it up, so I just turned it on its back and used it to envelope the base below the glass.)

I used a strong studio strobe on the bottom, pointing to a sheet of white foamcore board that was sitting at 45 degrees to reflect the light upwards.

Initially I planned on using a ring flash in front, but it was too strong. Even at minimum settable level, I had too much light. I ended up using another variable strobe above to the right, at about 30 degrees to illuminate the front.

I set my camera first. Tamron 90mm macro lens. Canon 5D MK II set to ISO 100, f/11.

Then I dialed up the background light until the camera LCD shows the background was completely blown out (overexposure indicator on, so it was all flashing red).

I then dialed in the front/side strobe. I could not use the histogram because of the blown out background. I therefore dialed up the front flash until I started to get blown-out indication on the wings. I then dialed it back 1/2 stop. I took two images, just in case there was something wrong with the first.

i next flipped the butterfly over and shot the back, then moved to the next butterfly. There were about 80 specimens in all.

Each flip (front and back) and each butterfly required an adjustment of the front flash, since dark wings needed more front flash than light ones. The background flash did not change in the series though, nor did the camera setting.

I started with the smallest butterflies, then raised the tripod as needed for the larger ones. I first shot a sheet of paper that showed the name of the butterfly, then the butterfly itself.

For each butterfly, I selected the best image and took it into Photoshop. I then tweaked levels to make sure the butterfly itself used the entire exposure range. I used healing and cloning to fix little tears and imperfections caused by handling, then used Fluid Mask 3 to create a mask, which was fairly easy given the way it had been lit.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

"Burt Johnson" wrote in message

Burt Johnson wrote:

JD wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for
you? I’m just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I’ll upload a couple somewhere and point a link to it.

These turned out well enough that I decided to upload them to iStock in addition to supplying my mother’s purposes.

I sent up one for an initial test to see if it would be accepted. I received the acceptance notification today, so here is the image from that butterfly:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10648041

As a reminder, this was done by placing the butterfly specimen on a sheet of glass. The glass was laying on an aquarium frame that I use as a table when I want a light underneath. The stand was sitting in a light tent that was laying on its back. (The light tent was mostly because I was too lazy to fold it up, so I just turned it on its back and used it to envelope the base below the glass.)

I used a strong studio strobe on the bottom, pointing to a sheet of white foamcore board that was sitting at 45 degrees to reflect the light upwards.

Initially I planned on using a ring flash in front, but it was too strong. Even at minimum settable level, I had too much light. I ended up using another variable strobe above to the right, at about 30 degrees to illuminate the front.

I set my camera first. Tamron 90mm macro lens. Canon 5D MK II set to ISO 100, f/11.

Then I dialed up the background light until the camera LCD shows the background was completely blown out (overexposure indicator on, so it was all flashing red).

I then dialed in the front/side strobe. I could not use the histogram because of the blown out background. I therefore dialed up the front flash until I started to get blown-out indication on the wings. I then dialed it back 1/2 stop. I took two images, just in case there was something wrong with the first.

i next flipped the butterfly over and shot the back, then moved to the next butterfly. There were about 80 specimens in all.

Each flip (front and back) and each butterfly required an adjustment of the front flash, since dark wings needed more front flash than light ones. The background flash did not change in the series though, nor did the camera setting.

I started with the smallest butterflies, then raised the tripod as needed for the larger ones. I first shot a sheet of paper that showed the name of the butterfly, then the butterfly itself.

For each butterfly, I selected the best image and took it into Photoshop. I then tweaked levels to make sure the butterfly itself used the entire exposure range. I used healing and cloning to fix little tears and imperfections caused by handling, then used Fluid Mask 3 to create a mask, which was fairly easy given the way it had been lit.
—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

great results- thanks for sharing

Burt Johnson wrote:

Burt Johnson wrote:

JD wrote:

So how did the shooting on glass with the tilted background work out for you? I’m just curious. I thought your solution was the best one. Could you post a final image somewhere? If not, no big deal.

Worked pretty well.

Fair enough request, given the help you all gave me. I’ll upload a couple somewhere and point a link to it.

These turned out well enough that I decided to upload them to iStock in addition to supplying my mother’s purposes.

I sent up one for an initial test to see if it would be accepted. I received the acceptance notification today, so here is the image from that butterfly:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10648041

As a reminder, this was done by placing the butterfly specimen on a sheet of glass. The glass was laying on an aquarium frame that I use as a table when I want a light underneath. The stand was sitting in a light tent that was laying on its back. (The light tent was mostly because I was too lazy to fold it up, so I just turned it on its back and used it to envelope the base below the glass.)

I used a strong studio strobe on the bottom, pointing to a sheet of white foamcore board that was sitting at 45 degrees to reflect the light upwards.

Initially I planned on using a ring flash in front, but it was too strong. Even at minimum settable level, I had too much light. I ended up using another variable strobe above to the right, at about 30 degrees to illuminate the front.

I set my camera first. Tamron 90mm macro lens. Canon 5D MK II set to ISO 100, f/11.

Then I dialed up the background light until the camera LCD shows the background was completely blown out (overexposure indicator on, so it was all flashing red).

I then dialed in the front/side strobe. I could not use the histogram because of the blown out background. I therefore dialed up the front flash until I started to get blown-out indication on the wings. I then dialed it back 1/2 stop. I took two images, just in case there was something wrong with the first.

i next flipped the butterfly over and shot the back, then moved to the next butterfly. There were about 80 specimens in all.

Each flip (front and back) and each butterfly required an adjustment of the front flash, since dark wings needed more front flash than light ones. The background flash did not change in the series though, nor did the camera setting.

I started with the smallest butterflies, then raised the tripod as needed for the larger ones. I first shot a sheet of paper that showed the name of the butterfly, then the butterfly itself.

For each butterfly, I selected the best image and took it into Photoshop. I then tweaked levels to make sure the butterfly itself used the entire exposure range. I used healing and cloning to fix little tears and imperfections caused by handling, then used Fluid Mask 3 to create a mask, which was fairly easy given the way it had been lit.

Thanks for the follow-up. The shot looks great!

—
JD..

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Each flip (front and back) and each butterfly required an adjustment of the front flash, since dark wings needed more front flash than light ones. The background flash did not change in the series though, nor did the camera setting.

I started with the smallest butterflies, then raised the tripod as needed for the larger ones. I first shot a sheet of paper that showed the name of the butterfly, then the butterfly itself.

For each butterfly, I selected the best image and took it into Photoshop. I then tweaked levels to make sure the butterfly itself used the entire exposure range. I used healing and cloning to fix little tears and imperfections caused by handling, then used Fluid Mask 3 to create a mask, which was fairly easy given the way it had been lit.

The small photo look pretty clean as displaying, but with all those steps I may not impress with the technique. But I may be wrong.

Or if I have to go through the whole collection of butterflies then I may do.

1. Building a small BOX with some white background which won’t cause any flextor. Or seamless white paper may do?

2. Instead of using flash or strobe, I would put some light sources around the small box to brighten the background and the butterfly. Just enough to whiten the white background, and not too bright to cause wing transparency issue.

3. If there is any small brightness issue then a quick Photoshop adjusting should do.

I know Fluid Mask is a very good Masking tool, but I don’t think it’s necessary with this type of photography or it may be a disadvantage. Or if you really need to whiten the background, you may try Dodge/Burn tool which should be much quicker, simpler, and probably cleaner than Masking.

Or if you still having some background problem then it could be LIGHTING issue.

Joe wrote:

The small photo look pretty clean as displaying, but with all those steps I may not impress with the technique. But I may be wrong.

I’m afraid you would have to buy the large image from iStock to see it in full detail. Be assured that iStock does not accept any images that are not pretty near pixel perfect at 100% though, and full detail on this one is 3807 X 2979 pixels.

Or if I have to go through the whole collection of butterflies then I may do.

1. Building a small BOX with some white background which won’t cause any flextor. Or seamless white paper may do?

2. Instead of using flash or strobe, I would put some light sources around the small box to brighten the background and the butterfly. Just enough to whiten the white background, and not too bright to cause wing transparency issue.

You could do it a number of ways. Mine worked just fine.

3. If there is any small brightness issue then a quick Photoshop adjusting should do.

I know Fluid Mask is a very good Masking tool, but I don’t think it’s necessary with this type of photography or it may be a disadvantage. Or if you really need to whiten the background, you may try Dodge/Burn tool which should be much quicker, simpler, and probably cleaner than Masking.

The masking is for iStock. They pay more if you have a full clipping path.

Or if you still having some background problem then it could be LIGHTING issue.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Joe wrote:

The small photo look pretty clean as displaying, but with all those steps I may not impress with the technique. But I may be wrong.

I’m afraid you would have to buy the large image from iStock to see it in full detail. Be assured that iStock does not accept any images that are not pretty near pixel perfect at 100% though, and full detail on this one is 3807 X 2979 pixels.

Or if I have to go through the whole collection of butterflies then I may do.

1. Building a small BOX with some white background which won’t cause any flextor. Or seamless white paper may do?

2. Instead of using flash or strobe, I would put some light sources around the small box to brighten the background and the butterfly. Just enough to whiten the white background, and not too bright to cause wing transparency issue.

You could do it a number of ways. Mine worked just fine.

3. If there is any small brightness issue then a quick Photoshop adjusting should do.

I know Fluid Mask is a very good Masking tool, but I don’t think it’s necessary with this type of photography or it may be a disadvantage. Or if you really need to whiten the background, you may try Dodge/Burn tool which should be much quicker, simpler, and probably cleaner than Masking.

The masking is for iStock. They pay more if you have a full clipping path.

Or if you still having some background problem then it could be LIGHTING issue.

I sure understanding that the iStock size is larger size, and that worry me because in general the more detail the more errors be shown.

And that’s the reason why I said it looks good as small displaying, and that’s the reason why I suggest to make a BOX then photograph without flash, and no Masking. And that’s why I suggested to use Dodge/Burn tool over Masking cuz Masking may be good and necessary for other type but doesn’t seem to work pretty good on this type. Yes, it would be easier to mask, but I am talking about the error around the edge.