BEN—Being candid, there was a long period of time where I simply didn’t appreciate the importance of exceptional photography. I hate to admit this as it’s a bit odd to spend so much care on the design and material of an object and then think of the photos as an after-thought. I now see it as effectively indispensable and really almost the crescendo of creating and launching an object. And I can’t imagine working with anyone else at this point [Laughter]. What makes a great product photo?

CHRIS—First, thanks. For the folks that didn’t read the zine where we asked and answered this… a great product photo is one that accurately depicts the product with a style that reflects the creator. I think the lead-in to the question gets at why I actually enjoy trying to make great product photography though. It takes so much effort to bring something physical into the world, and the majority of people will experience that only as an image or video they see online. I think it’s a disservice to the effort one puts into creating something, to not put an equal effort into sharing it with people. And to take it one step further, I believe the image is what often lives on as the expression of the object, and a better one is much more likely to last. 

BEN—Perhaps a better question is…do you consider what you do for the brand to be product photography? In a lot of ways it’s starting to feel more like campaign imagery as the quality of image you create and the way they’re used seems to go well beyond the idea of a simple product photo.

CHRIS—Well, it’s definitely one of the things I do, ha! I do love that we’re expanding beyond showing just the product by itself and trying to communicate more of a feeling through the images. I think as the brand grows/develops, so too should the world it exists in, and it’s fun to do that with the “lead images” as I’ve come to call them.

ROTENDA—This might be a basic one, but feels like the core trick to great photos. I’m curious, what informs your decision of the best angles and/or composition to showcase a product? 

CHRIS—Man, this is a tough one to articulate… If I were to draw out a decision tree - it starts with what feeling are we trying to convey with this particular image and then what are the physical qualities of the object? For the Object Company, we’re typically trying to impart that these are high-quality, precisely-engineered objects. We’re not trying to make the objects feel bigger than they are or smaller than they are, so I tend to stick to pretty traditional architectural 1 and 2 point perspectives: camera physically level with the object, no tilt or roll. I can then shift the lens to ensure the ground plane is at the right height in the frame (lower third / quarter). Once I find that exact perspective, I will move the object rather than the camera. This way the scene remains familiar when viewing the additional sides of the object. I also use a longer focal length, to flatten the perspective and minimize distortion by keeping the front and back of the object at a similar percentage of distance from the sensor plane.

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, and to use a car example that we can hopefully both relate to, let’s say we want to convey that a sports car is low and wide. You’d place the camera physically above the vehicle so you can see the roof and “look down” on it. You’d also probably want to have the camera physically close to the car and use a wide angle lens, which would make the relative distance of the sides of the vehicle much further away from the lens than the front center. 

Of course, all of this also needs the light to emphasize these elements, but the angle is almost always a result of feeling + physical qualities which then dictate lens choice + distance to subject.

BEN—Is it fair to say the 12345 gloves were the most challenging thing you’ve photographed for the brand? There is an irony in that with their relative affordability compared to the challenge it was to capture them.

CHRIS—Eh, yes and no. Soft goods are always tricky because they need something other than gravity to give them their shape. We could have shot the gloves lying flat on a surface and they still would have been captured in nice light with great detail, but that’s a bit dull. What made capturing the gloves difficult was that we wanted to show them “on a hand” and the literal mechanics of the rigging were tricky. If we had the specific hand mannequin that companies who regularly shoot gloves use to shoot gloves, it would have been significantly easier, ha. Big shout out to James Langford though for his 3D print that got us most of the way there.

BEN—I’ve been incredibly lucky to work with you for what must be over 4 years now at this point. The brand is in this interesting transition from a somewhat secondary/side-project to proper brand during that time. What’s something we haven’t really explored yet together that you’d like to?

CHRIS—I think we’ve spent a lot of time and energy on images that speak to each product individually, but we’ve yet to really explore multi-object, brand story imagery. I want to intentionally explore creating the context for a few objects to exist together and then see how we can translate that into a singular image. We’ve been doing a bit with the stool and some keychains here and there, but the former is sort of fit for purpose and the latter is more Easter-egg-like. 

I also want to do more print & out-of-home placements too.

BEN—The camera body, the incredible lenses, lighting, rigging, the software side of things. Can you talk about some of the equipment you use in studio? 

CHRIS—For sure. I have a Fuji GFX 100 II, which I primarily shoot with the GF 110mm Tilt/Shift Macro. On the lighting & rigging side, I use Profoto strobes and an ancient Cambo camera stand with an Arca Swiss d4 head. I’m always shooting tethered to my computer running Capture One, as remote camera control and immediate high-resolution review are essential to my workflow. The computer is on a rolling standing desk plugged into two monitors (one landscape and one portrait) and a wireless HDMI transmitter, which broadcasts to a third monitor on its own separate rolling stand. I also recently made all of these things battery-powered, so I can shoot for ~8 hours free from wall plugs with only one (1!!!) cord on the floor connecting the camera to the computer.

The landscape monitor (1) on the desk has the main window of Capture One open, where all of the editing tools and image browser live. The portrait monitor (2) on the desk is either full-screen image review or a live view of the camera’s perspective. The wireless monitor (3) on the rolling stand is split-screen with live view and the image viewer so I or the stylist can see both wherever we’re standing. And my laptop screen (4) will typically have the shot list or music up. 

The ability to remotely operate a camera + see a live view from its perspective are things I no longer wish to go without. Not having to be physically next to the camera makes oddly high or low angles easier to shoot, and lets me get out of the way + put diffusion up to better control reflections. The live view bit is great so you can adjust the composition without having to go take a photo every time. Having all of the large screens makes it much easier to critically evaluate a high-resolution image. And being able to do so while you’re shooting also makes it easier to make physical changes while you can still make them.

Do I need all of this to do my work? No.
Do I need all of this to make the kind of work I want to make? Ehhhhhhh.
Does having all of this make it so I can make high-quality work, efficiently, with as little compromise as possible? Absolutely.

I will always want to use the best tools available to me.

BEN—What is your take on the AR / render world of product images rather than real product photos? We’re seeing it with really high end watch brands like Rolex, Audemar, etc where the products are incredibly difficult to photograph well. It seems like it will likely start creeping into every type of product. I have my opinoins…

CHRIS—Well, the best renders these days are almost indistinguishable from high-end commercially retouched photography, at least as far as man-made objects go. This is as much a statement about the current aesthetic of commercial photography as it is about renders. I can’t tell you how many times I get client edit direction, and I have to bite my tongue to expound on the reality of the physical product.

In the watch examples you gave, I actually think a render is better for everyone involved. Most manufactured goods do not hold up under the scrutiny of modern high-resolution cameras and lenses. This is true at the high end with jewelry, and especially true at the low end, like canned beverages and cosmetics packaging. 

So, a brand like Rolex using a render is great for them as they get to show their most ideal version of the watch. The watch gets to exist in a world where the time is always 10:10. The watch gets to be free from dust, non-uniform wrist shapes, body hair, skin flakes, oily fingerprints, and micro scratches. And  there are completely perfect, physics-defying reflections because two of the greatest tricks about rendering engines is that you can specify which surfaces are affected by which light sources(!!!), and the lights can also pass light through solid objects (!!!!).  

The customer ultimately doesn’t mind because they don’t see any of that when it’s on their wrist in real life. And when they tell their friends about it, the image they pull up when they search it later is perfect.

The luxury good and its perceived value are built on the imagined perfect image of it. 

Whether it’s more or less difficult to have someone create the render with the talent, eye, and taste level to make it feel as real to a photograph as possible is more of a budget decision these days.

In the same way that the rise of highly produced visuals created a desire for more of an “authentic” & “candid” aesthetic, creating a photo of an object that allows it to transcend its physical characteristics into a perceived idealized version itself… where you know that the thing you’re seeing is real,
and yet you almost can’t believe how good it is.

To me, that’s the glory of a good photograph.

ROTENDA—You’ve also worked a variety of other clients - and maybe some, required highly specific brand aesthetics. How did you ensure their vision was captured?

CHRIS—Well, with most of my client work, it’s not just me making sure that happens, but a whole team of people and a couple weeks’ of preproduction. In that time, we’re working with the brand team, their art department, the stylists, and my producer to figure out exactly what we’re trying to convey, how many photos we’re going to make, and how long we think that will take. When we do get to set, we’ve got a full production deck spelling out for each photo: the art direction, the products that need to be in it, the props that will be used, what background / surface is needed, and potentially any copy direction that needs to be accounted for in the composition. Then, while we’re on set, I’ve got one of my monitors set up for clients to see the photos as they’re created, as well as a link for anyone not physically present on set, but still a stakeholder to follow along live online. For each photo, I typically like to get to 80-90% of the finished shot, at which point, I’ll specifically ask for the client to review the image and convey any notes. Then, when we’re done, I ask for final sign-off, and then we clear the set and start again. A good day is 8 to 10 unique images.

More abstractly, during the brief, I ask them what specifically they like about each of the references and inspiration they show me. I want to be sure that what they see in the image is what I’m seeing in the image, whether it’s the camera angle, or the quality of the light, or the colors, or the saturation, or the style of props, etc… 

ROTENDA—Where some may look at your work as service to them, I do believe there’s a personal drive we harness internally to even get to do what we may call “work”. What inspires you as a photographer to photograph?

CHRIS—Fundamentally, I want to participate in contemporary creative output, and my photography is the best way I’ve found to be able to do that. I deeply enjoy getting to spend time with people who are making the things and cultural moments that are shaping the world during my lifetime. Getting to play a small part in that by documenting it is personally very rewarding.

I truly believe that the higher quality and quantity of documentation we have around cultural items, products, and events makes their relevance more likely to endure into the future, and/or their specialness to be fully realized when enough time has passed to recognize it as a unique moment. The best case for any of my images is that they become the reference for the subject of the image, at the particular time when I was alive, for when the subject is either extremely rare, significantly changed, or gone from this world altogether.

BEN—To close it out. Fast-foward 10 years from today. What will be the biggest innovation or change in photography?

CHRIS—On the innovation front… not sure what changes more resolution and even higher quality displays will bring. Maybe by 2035, we’ll have figured out affordable augmented reality glasses, apple’s spatial photography format will get mass adoption, and we’ll all enjoy viewing our “photos” as semi-3D environments?