Just a thought about bracketing. For some reason, I find film
and developing to be expensive, and await the day when digital
cameras offer a reasonable solution. Nevertheless, I have
always done bracketing of my shots, for the reasons stated in
previous messages. I hope for at least a few excellent shots
from a roll of 36 exposures.
Now Iāve got a web site and it will be my primary method for
conveying images of my work. As one of my more savvy coworkers
pointed out, if Iām doing electronic image manipulation I donāt
have to do any more bracketing. Theoretically, any problems
corrected by bracketing can also be corrected in any decent
image editing software, making a single exposure adequate for
most purposes.
Food for thought if youāre living in the electronic world!
Iām looking into getting some lighting for photographing
jewelry.I have seen some "halogen"500 watt lights cheap.Is the
color of this type of light acceptable?Are there any other
problems?
You will have to use film that is color balanced to the Kelvin
rating of the lamps, or you will have to use filters to balance
the color. Halogen lamps are fairly good for photographic
lighting because they donāt change color much as they age like
tungsten lamps do.
The only lighting source that does not require special āindoorā
film, or filtration is strobe lighting. The difficulty with
strobes is that it is hard to see what the lighting looks like.
Some studio strobes have āmodeling lightsā to help, but they are
only approximations of what the strobe will show. Professionals
usually use Polaroid shots to preview a setup. That can get
expensive.
If you use incandescent light you will need filters for color
balance if you use daylight film. Most slide film is daylight
balanced. You will see what youāve got with the incandescent
lights, but flash may be easier, and no problems with shake and
blur with flash. Flash and tents for me.
I would agreee with you that sometimes one wants the ultimate in
quality. I have an 8x10 camera and process lenses, so I know
what that is. And I did fail to think of the need most people on
this list would have for slides for juries, etc. However, I see
lots of complaints here about money, and I think good results are
possible on the cheap, and my only point is that you ought to
spend the price of a roll of film and processing before you
decide you have to have a $300 macro lens.
As far as slides are concerned, yes, they do need to be
sharp, but one must remember that when they are projected the
viewing distance is larger and the screen has grain, so even
there the need for sharpness has its limit. I must say Iāve
forgotten how one figures what is acceptable in this situation.
With a slide on a box, the magnification woud usually be a 10x
loupe, right?
As to changing magnifications, etc., most of this work is
going to be done at a few different settings. You are going to
make rings, pendants, bracelets and each has a ballpark size.
You can have tables for the lighting and distances. Regardless
of how sharp you need these things, I would say that for $40 or
less you could rig a set of homemade extension tubes for a cine
lens (reversed) and I would challenge you to do better with any
macro lens re: sharpness.
The macro lens will certainly give you what you need and
some convenience in the bargain. And you can take it out and get
some neat photos of butterflies and dew in the mornings. I love
having mine. But do you really need it if the choice is between
that and getting a burnout oven to start casting?
I take my pictures outdoors
on a foggy or overcast day with my camera on a tripod, usually
looking down on the jewelry, hence, in my slides there is my
camera! Thanks in advance for all your help.
You can cut a hole in a sheet of paper and slip the lens through
that. It will hide the bulk of the camera. The only reflection I
havenāt figured out how to hide is the circle of the lens itself.
I take a large piece of white cardboard and cut a hole in it
slightly smaller than the diameter of my lens. Then I gently
push the lens thru, and it makes a nice white mask to prevent
any reflection (except a ~3" black dot where the lens pokes
thru).
A couple of the belt buckles on my web site show a yellow
reflection from the box the camera was mounted onā¦ the lesson
that brought about the implementation of this technique.
I would agreee with you that sometimes one wants the ultimate in
quality. I have an 8x10 camera and process lenses, so I know
what that is. And I did fail to think of the need most people on
this list would have for slides for juries, etc. However, I see
lots of complaints here about money, and I think good results are
possible on the cheap, and my only point is that you ought to
spend the price of a roll of film and processing before you
decide you have to have a $300 macro lens.
Iāve never used an 8x10 camera but I did have a 4x5 and several
medium format cameras years ago, and they are painstaking to use
in comparison to a 35mm system.
I just happen to like fine quality tools- owning them is never a
mistake. When something works well, does the job, it makes life
that much more rewarding. A macro lens is, in my mind, one of
those tools. The other essential item on my photography list is a
motor driven camera.
I am not reccomending that someone go and spend a lot for a
system- though (not) having someone else shoot your slides at
$35-$50 an image can pay for a macro lens very rapidly, and you
donāt have to make an appointment.
Iāve enjoyed reading all the info on photographing jewelry. I
do have a question though. How do you keep the camera
reflection off the jewelry piece. I take my pictures outdoors
on a foggy or overcast day with my camera on a tripod, usually
looking down on the jewelry, hence, in my slides there is my
camera! Thanks in advance for all your help.
I sometimes cut a round hole the diameter of the lens in a large
sheet of drawing paper, os that lust the lens is aimed at the
subject. Iāve also draped everything with a sheet if necessary-
10 years ago I photagraphed an entire collection of paintings in
reverse on glass, the most reflective thing Iāve had to deal
with.
I agree, Rick. There are two choice for professional quality
slides-get a macro lens, tripod, lights, etc and learn to shoot
like a professional or pay someone at least 50.00 an hour not
including materials to do it for you. Scrimping wont get good
enough results.
You can cut a hole in a sheet of paper and slip the lens through
that. It will hide the bulk of the camera. The only reflection I
haven't figured out how to hide is the circle of the lens itself.
Trying to avoid refletions of the camera in your pieces? try a
zoom- macro lense. You donāt have to be quite as close to the
piece and then your reflection, if any, ends up much smaller. Use
a higher aperature setting f 11-f 22 and lower shutter speed
setting 60-125 otherwise you will reduce your depth of field.
Iāve heard dulling spray also helps but donāt use too much. Used
diffused light if possibleā¦thatās about all i can think of at
the momentā¦ later! William
Thought I would throw in a thought on the photography issue.
Recently a photographer came to my house to do a photo shoot for
the Chicago Tribune (right after itās too late to take advantage
for the summer show season) and his attitude was thisā¦oh, he
knows my studio was a little dark and the lights I work under are
the wrong kind but itās O.K. Everything the Trib takes is
"developed" digitally and they just use photoshop to correct the
color/lighting or whatever. I am signing up to take a class and
become more knowledgable before I invest but I am thinking that
this sort of manipulation is the wave of the future.
Mmmmā¦I am imagining the juries I have served on in the past,
can you imagine wondering if they managed to finish a piece that
perfectly or if it is touched up? On the other hand some of my
pieces have mirrors in them. How convenient to be able to wipe
out the reflected distractions, and that is not really cheating
like touching up a solder blob, or is it?
Of course, the article hasnāt been published yet so I am still
waiting to see if I come out looking funny. My galleries and
myself are all waiting to see if this article impacts my sales at
all, wish me luck!
How do you keep the camera reflection off the jewelry piece
I do it indoors and use paracute material with a slit for the
lens, daylight bulbs outside paracute material. I try to position
the peice so you dont see the camera.
I work in photofinishing and have taken a good many pictures
myself. Let me say thisāif you want to get quality pictures of
your jewelry, use the equipment designed to take pictures of it.
A macro lens on one of the smaller f-stops does great. If you
want to waste time fussing with reversed lenses, cardboard
extension tubes, go ahead. But it will take you many rolls of
film to expose a good picture. If you use a piece of equipment
designed for it, you should get good results early on.
You can move the jewelry so the reflection doesnāt show in your
viewfinder or ground glass or at least is less recognizable. You
can also (and probably should) tent the jewelry. In one of my
posts I talked about a rolled up paper tube to diffuse the light.
You would do about the same thing, except use a sheet or
something more flexible and surround the jewelry, just cut a hole
in the fabric for the lens (only) to show thru. The reflections
you will get will be of the white sheet. Any good book on camera
lighting will show some of these setups so you can get the idea
ā a picture of it will be worth 1000 words. Techniques for
removing the little reflection of the lens itself would be real
complicated, but it shouldnāt be noticeable and if it is use a
longer lens and back off. The other thing you can do these days
is have your photo computer retouched and have them take out the
reflection of your camera. Depending on the time you have for
photography and your skill level, this might be easier if the
photos are OK otherwise. I donāt know what the cost would be but
one local retoucher told me they charged by the hour. cost would
depend on how complex the retouch was, and this doesnāt sound
very difficult ā fve minutes work. Hope this helps.
With Gary Dawson and Charles Lewton-Brain around this might be a
good time to discuss the art of jewelry photography.
I thought peoples comments on photography were very good, I
stashed a few items into a āphoto tipsā file from the
conversation. Sorry not to have chimed in before but its been
kinda busy hereā¦
See the tips pages for a bunch of extracts from āSmall Scale
Photographyā for my point of view, weāll get some more of it up
soon. The book is pretty thorough but like everything it changes,
and if I were doing it now Iād add some bits from yours and
others comments on the subject.
Thank you for the nice comments, Hanuman and Mike.
Iām looking into getting some lighting for photographing
jewelry.I have seen some "halogen"500 watt lights cheap.Is the
color of this type of light acceptable?Are there any other
problems?
Scott, the lights are very cheap (as low as $8.00 Canadian on
sale here) and will work for tungsten film photo purposes. I
find them ok for rooms and larger spaces and objects like people
(especially when bounced off walls) but too much for a small set
up like for jewelery. You can use an old slide projector and
mask the front to control the amount of light coming out but
mostly it is diffuse light that works, with highlights. I use a
ton of mirrors (see tips pages).
Iāve been using a copy stand for my photography, using a 1x or
4x lens over my 50mm standard lens. I marked places on the copy
stand for each of the two lenses. I bought a verylarge wooden
embroidery hoop, and then used a light weight nylon fabric, like
parachute cloth, place on the hoop. I cut out a place for the
camera lense to poke through. The copy stand comes with two
attached light fixtures, which can be individually positioned.
I use blue bulbs. I also use a remote cable to release the
shuttle. So far, so good! m I keep it on my dining room table,
so it is always ready for a shot, before the work is shipped out.
(this in a long line of invasions of my house-space!)
I loooove macro lenses. They work great. I wouldnāt ever, ever
sell mine until I sell my bedsheets first . . . . BUT bring your
macro lens over to my house, and Iāll put together a setup in
less than five hours that costs less than $40 and Iāll put it on
my old Canon FTb and Iāll get a picture spot on on the first
roll, in the first five pix. Iāll use my in camera meter, a hand
held meter, maybe if you dare me, a set of exposure tables. You
can take your pix with your camera and anything you want. then
weāll compute a cost per picture . . . On this list I hear a lot
of people complaining about starving doing art . . . how many
pictures are they taking in a year to justify the cost of their
macro equip?
In the June issue of Shutterbug I just looked up, for example, a
Canon 50mm macro and 100mm macro lens in the B&H ad. $319 and
$499 respectively. Once upon a time, my time was worth more, but
it is currently worth $15 --$20/hr. I can make my setup for $40
plus, at most, $100 for my time. Thatās a minimum savings of
$179. And many list members have more time than money. I
suppose everyone has their preferences. Iām not calling anyone
a fool for buying a macro lens ā if I had the money Iād have
four more of them. So please donāt imply that Iām a fool and
canāt get at least as good a picture with my rig as you can with
yours unless you know this to be true.
Maybe the solution is to borrow a macro lens from a friend.
HAVE A GOOD DAY.
