Digital cameras

John,

Thank you so much for compiling all that info on the digitals and
sharing. I’ve been using my little Kodak DC120 for a little over a
year now and for what I paid, it has been fantastic. I have been
thinking about upgrading but fear and trepidation of trying to “figure
it all out” have been a major deterrent (not with standing, the
bucks, too ).

You are always there when we need you!! Thanks,

Nancy

Nancy Bernardine-Widmer
Bernardine Fine Art Jewelry

What you have is one version. Below is a part of a post I did to one
of the craft newsgroups that you may be interested in.

Check out Abrasha’s photo setup at
Photo set up to shoot jewelry and Amy’s at
Amy O'Connell Basic Jewelry Photography to see two nice setups.
Amy explains in her demo how to do the earrings. She also has a very
inexpensive photo service if you do decide to get a few pieces done
professionally.

Also you can see my extra cheap setup at
Rough photo booth to prove that anyone
can set one up you just have to experiment with your camera and
software.

I do use a scanner sometimes at
http://shiningmoon.safeshopper.com/11/cat11.htm?499 you can see the
results. These pendants were done on a scanner. I use it for two
main reasons. The most often use is because it is fast and always set
up. I don’t keep my photo booth set up all the time. I need to, but
I’ll need to clean up another space and my new lapidary equipment is
going in the next one cleaned. The other reason is it is easy to
change the background color by placing colored paper, cloth, etc.
over the pieces before scanning.

Hope this helps, Paul Ewing Shining Moon Creations

Hi again and thanks ahead to everyone who is taking time to post
info.

Lisa - he light box was just a “figure of speech” - what you have
described (your tent setup) is possibly similar to what I will be
making as well. I like your idea of having it on wheels and tucking
it away when not in use - good one. To save you online searching time

For your interest - when I did the professional photo shoot this past
summer, I had some clean, new white and also new black plexi (sticky
paper still attached) with me and asked the photographer to run an
experiment. As I recall the white plexi gave some interesting
reflections - very 3d effect. The black plexi background became a dark
gray in the result - somewhat consistent - but the tone did change
with the light changes. (2 of those images are in the LJ Nov
article.) I’d like to mess around with the plexi background again
when I get the home set up going.

Thanks for the making of slides input, Cathy, Etienne and Carol.
Will check into it for sure. Will check out the local processing
options and do a price comparison. Thanks for any remote (by mail or
email) leads on any processing sites that you have been happy with the
results. Glad to know the potential is there for results. I don’t
think my learning curve will involve a 35mm camera as well - so, will
have to be selective if the digital image results seem workable for a
slide.

Carol - I found that the scanner is fine for documenting some things

  • but with a reflective piece - it doesn’t work well at all - gives
    rather interesting, though unwanted, “special effects”! I do use the
    scanner now for quickly documenting work - it is better than the xerox
    machine. However, before owning a scanner, the xerox machine was
    better than no documentation! :slight_smile:

Speaking of reflective pieces, once, there was mention of putting
reflective pieces in the freezer (to tone down the shine?) and that
there are commercial freeze sprays (something like that) - that I
haven’t looked into yet. Am just stretching the memory from having
read many bits of info in the past. Any feedback on that idea? Also,
there are cans of “air” spray that are great for blowing away specks
of dirt and dust in the image field.

Just for your amusement. . . when we took the images for the Nov LJ
-JJ article - my husband was so far away, that I made sure I had all
the safety gear on - to be a good example . . . however, little did I
know that the image would be strictly fingers! In fact the resolution
was so amazing even from the distance the image was shot at, that if
you zoomed in in photoshop - you could see the dirt under the
fingernails. ie: check out the spiral of metal on the drilling the
hole image. The camera macro feature is a must, I would think, in
keeping the reflection of the camera itself out of the image of the
jewelry - as was mentioned as being a problem.

Thanks also, Dan for the input on the Olympus and lighting feedback.
Too bad about the interchanging of lenses. Shucks, guess I’ll find
out what the limitations will be. Major learning curve ahead, I can
tell. :slight_smile: I’m quite sure that the lighting factor and angle of the
light is extremely critical for the results. So, am crossing my
fingers on the results of the home setup!

Thanks ahead for any other new input on taking digital images from
those who are knowledgeable. . . I’m 'a taking notes. :slight_smile:

Aloha, Cynthia

Thank you. Both sites you suggested were well worth looking at, for
and well done. I just bought my digital camera and I want
to have a setup that is simple, yet one where I can have a professional
looking photo to the jewelry that I work so hard to make. I
photograph everything that I make. Thank you again. Karran, UHR Designs

There are several pricey solutions to toning down reflections such as
“Dulling Spray” by 3M ($8 U.S./can), or you can get a freezing spray
from an electronics supplier. The freezing causes condensation on the
surface of the piece to cut reflections, but it may crack sensitive
stones. The best and cheapest thing I’ve found is Charles
Lewton-Brain’s suggestion of underarm deodorant aerosol spray, such as
Arrid Xtra Dry. Works beautifully, lasts a long time and wipes off
with a soft cloth, and the wiping trick is an effective means of
putting in a selective highlight where you want it.

    Carol - I found that the scanner is fine for documenting some
things - but with a reflective piece - it doesn't work well at all -
gives rather interesting, though unwanted,  "special effects"!  I do
use the scanner now for quickly documenting work - it is better than
the xerox machine. However, before owning a scanner, the xerox
machine was better than no documentation!  :) 

Try the trick with the deodorant spray for reflections. Several other
things which help is a small piece of clear glass on top of the
scanner glass to lift the piece from the surface, allowing more
dimensionality. Next tuck a piece of white cloth around the piece to
help reflect the scanner’s light back (white ripstop nylon is best),
or use the bottom of a white milk jug. Just cut off the bottom inch or
so and place it over the piece of jewelry, which is on top of the
glass plate.

We are thinking of buying a digital camera in the not too distant
future. Realistically speaking; is the image quality really as good as
images produced by a good SLR camera? SLR cameras are coming down in
price, so does it make realistic financial sense to buy a digital
camera at this stage considering that what customer are really paying
for at the moment goes towards the research and development budget of
the manufacturers. There are also hidden costs with digital in that it
is assumed you have a PC or a Mac to use it on, and probably a colour
printer. They are changing very quickly. Is it worth while waiting a
while before buying one when manufacturers have made the cameras so
good, there really is very little difference between digital and
standard 35mm? Like to hear folks views on this subject.

Richard

Hi Richard, Are Digital images printed on a photo quality printer as
good as the same image printed from film? The answer is an unequivocal
MAYBE. If you have a 3.3 Megapixel camera, photo editing software
like Photoshop, a really good printer like Epson 870 and you don’t
want to blow up greater than about 6X9 you can get a BETTER picture
than a same size print from Wal-Mart (and I consider Wal-Mart pretty
decent). The image can be better because you can do all kinds of
things with a photo editor that you can’t do with a machine print. Any
distracting elements can be removed, color balance and density can be
adjusted, the image can be sharpened, extraneous images can be added
if desired …ad infinitum. If you have a 1.3 Megapixel camera, an
entry level photo editor, a office quality printer and you want an
8X10 image, it’s no contest. The Wal-Mart print will look better.
Also, it depends on how critical you are about the finished images.
I’ve had friends who just loved my discards. Go figure. I strongly
suggest that you have a few rolls of 36 exp. film digitized to a Kodak
PHOTO CD at your drug store. It costs about $18 per roll. The
resolution is better than the BEST (under $1000) digicam. Make an
8X10 inkjet print on photo quality paper (not plain old inkjet paper)
and compare it to Wal-Mart’s 8X10 print and you be the judge…Bob
Williams

You will be amazed at the quality (clarity, etc) you can achieve with
a digital image.

Look for a couple of things in a digital camera. I would recommend
you get the ones that save to a “stick” which can transfer to things
like a printer (H-P). The stick is actually a small device that
stores digital messages similar to a hard drive on a PC. You can get
different sizes at different prices, i.e. 8 Mg, 32 Mg, etc.

Some cameras save to a floppy disk. Some will automatically down-
load to your PC in a wireless mode.

There are two kinds of “zoom”, being ‘digital’ and ‘optic.’ The
digital just enlarges much like a copier will and the resolution will
begin to fade rapidly. Optic will enlarge while keeping resolution
tight. Usually, an expensive camera will have a combination of the
two.

Resolution will determine your clarity and you should get a camera
that will reproduce to at least 2.1 mp.

I bought one with digital zoom only, and I am flabbergasted at how
’pure’ the images are and I’ve used Mamiya, Nikon, etc over the years.
I bought it because it was only about 200 bucks. There are some out
there in the 400 ball park that will make photos to rival any camera
in its price range.

Any digital electronic item is as good as it’s software. Olympus and
HP do a good job of supporting their hardware…as does Sony, etc.

Let the list know what you wind up getting…

Just a short note to say I’m still using my old Ricoh RDC 3000- only
about 1/3 of a megapixel - We recently started carrying Michael Good’s
Anticlastic Earrings - I just started taking digital images. I thought
it would be interesting if I posted a “before” and “after” graphic. the
before is here the after is here

Also just for fun I tried my hand at 3d anticlastic animation

Russell

Russell’s of Camden
20 Main St.
Camden, Maine 04843
207-236-4367
http://www.RussellsofCamden.com

hi friends

I wanted to know which is the best digital camera to take photographs
of jewelery. PLease tell me the model number of any camera you know!!
thankyou

regards
mithun

Mithum

Hello. The best camera I’ve found is the Nikon Coolpix 990. It is a
3.34 mega pixel. The pictures are large and clear. From there you
can reduce the size in a photo editor.

Mathew

Greetings,

I have learned from both jewelry and my other life as an apprentice
maker of simple system wooden flutes that your choice of digital
camera is only half the battle. Your lighting, and backgrounding will
probably be more complex than your camera choice.

There are a number of companies out there who sell systems
specifically made to photograph jewelry with the correct lighting and
backgrounding, and in a portable area. These systems are adaptable to
several camera types, ranging from digital to good, old fashioned 35
mm. The company that comes immediately to mind is Studio-in-a-Box in
California, but I know that there are others out there. Perhaps the
other listers can reference companies with whom they’ve had positive
relationships.

Take care,
Johh Harvey

Calumet Photo www.calumetphoto,com has a diffusion lighting accessory
called RedWing cocoon designed for small objects 5" x 7" some of you
might want to check out. They have these in larger sizes also. KPK

being isolated on the island where i live, as well as technically
challenged, i would love to be able to purchase an already set up
jewelry photo box system thingy. if i could get phone numbers,
address’s, or and email address for such systems would be greatly
appreciated.

Kim Holland, St. John, Virgin Islands.