It is interesting to note some recent posts on jewellery imaging
have been fairly emotionally charged. I understand that we all
come to believe that which works for us is the only true and
right way of doing things especially if our personal attempts at
alternatives have resulted in failure and even more so if there
is a general consensus amongst our peers.
I have no intention of arguing opinion as I believe the priority
of this forum is the interchange of useful however
I have to take issue with a couple of posts on this subject as I
do not understand the position being taken by the authors.
I visited the site of one of our members that featured some very
impressive enamel designs that had been imaged with a scanner.
This was as a result of a post that somewhat denigrated the
process based on an observation of this site.
Although a clear and erudite critique was supplied I failed to
see the problems outlined, even dropping to 800x600x24 resolution
failed to make these images lose the obvious representation of a
3 dimensiomal object. I sat and stared at my screen for a moment
and then it occured to me that perhaps the oversized 'thumbnails’
had been accepted as the discussed representation of this
process, indeed these images fitted the critique far better than
the ‘real’ clicked pictures could. This possibility was enhanced
by the fact that there was no invitation to see the full size
pictures and the ‘dead giveaway’ blue border was also missing.
This, to me, suggests poor web design and as many of us have
sites I think there may be a lesson to learn here.
A post on the use of cheap digital cameras (under $50,000.00)
intrigued me as I had been very disappointed with the results of
the real thing i.e. a camera capable of making a 50 megabyte
image. A visit to the site in question left my opinion
reinforced, I was unable to see any colours in the pearls shown
and reflections looked like splotches and stains on the pearls
themselves, not flattering as I am sure these pearls in reality
are superior to the ones shown on my site;
What I believe is important however is that there are those
immediately behind those of us that are experimenting, that
should be able to observe our results and make informed decisions
for their imaging and web site needs.
Flat bed scanning has only recently become a financial
alternative to traditional methods, but it would be a dreadful
mistake to assume that all scanners are created equal. 1200 dpi
optical 9600 dpi interpolated 30 bit colour scanners provide the
required resolution to show small pieces well but 3d imaging is
another matter, many scanners do not handle it well. I have tried
a few that were touted as suitable before deciding on the Umax. I
have built a cover box and have holding devices and several
types of backdrop material and have experimented with additional
lighting for pieces that extend several inches from the surface.
Subtle light shadings are obtainable if you hold pieces at an
angle to the glass and the direction of scan can also be used to
cast shadows in the desired direction. The scanner glass can
indeed be damaged by mishandling of the pieces in contact with
the surface, however a little care and there is no problem. I
have examined my scanner glass with a 15x loupe and there are no
scratches yet and I have scanned several hundred jewellery pieces
I do admit that their is no oppportunity for artistic expression
here and that any creativity you wish to display will have to be
in the piece, but then isn’t this what we are all trying to
\ () || |/
web site: http://www.opalsinthebag.com
Vancouver, B.C. CANADA.