Photos of work

Jewelry Discussion
21 
   It depends on what you're shooting of course.  I found that
my 35 mm macro is great for shooting earings, but terrible for
necklaces.  You've got about 2 inches of clear space to work
with.

That’s the problem You’re so close that you no longer have room
to adjust the lights, and any high polished areas on the earring
will surely show you a reflection of the camera. Also, even with
the exceptional quality of today’s lenses, at a macro setting,
any 38 mm or other wide angle lens is going to have at least some
detectalbe spherical abberation. And working so close, in
macro mode, you loose the depth of field advantage that wide
angles normally give you with normal distance shots. A longer
lens solves these problems. You just have to be sure that the
macro mode is actually a useful level of magnification. Look for
the reproduction ratio. Many longer lenses have a macro mode
that’s only 1:4 ratio. Not enough for smaller items. A lens
made to actually be used as a macro as it’s primary function,
rather than as a telephoto most of the time with a convenience
macro function added on, will generally be able to deliver a 1:1
reproduction ratio. That means the image on the film is the
same size as the actual object at full magnification. Few
jewelry objects need to get that close. My Vivitar Series One
Macro, for example, goes from that all the way out to infinity,
giving me a range of magnifications allowing everything from a
clear shot of just an earring post all the way to a good shot of
my house… And even the earring post will have me working from
almost a foot away from the post, leaving room for lights,
tripods, etc.

   If you have really steady hands you can hold the telephoto
turned backwards up to your camera.

Huh? You’re tryong to hold the lens manually just in front of
your camera? Not only is it not real steady, at best, but it’s
not light tight either. Also, reversing rings are designed for
use not with telephotos, but with the standard 50 mm lens, for
when you’re working at such a close distance that the distance
from the film to the focal plane of the lens is greater than the
distance from that plane to the object. The lenses are designed
so that they are corrected for distortion with the distance from
the focal plane of the lense to what’s in front of it being
longer than that behind the lens. If you’re working very close,
turning the lens around works to not only allow the lens to
focus closer but also to again correct the distortions involved
with close up work. With most telephotos worthy of the word, the
working distance in front of the lens will be greater than the
distance behind the focal plane even at closest working
distances, so reversing the lens then makes no sense. If you
need to get closer with a telephoto (as with a normal lens) you
don’t need a reversing ring, you need simple extension rings.
These can be simple screw ons, in which case automatic exposure
functions of the lens no longer are coupled to the camera, as
with the reversing ring, or you can get extension rings that
include the couplings, so your automatic diaphram (f-stops) still
work. Extension rings are, in general, a fine way to get close
focus, better than add on “diopter” lenses that fit in front of
the lens.

Hope this helps.

Peter Rowe

22

HI! Peter Rowe: Thanks for the great critique. I really
appreciate it, as I already know what the pieces look like. Good
to hear from someone who has never seen the work and perhaps now
I can make corrections accordingly. Please read my notes below
along with a question at the end if you would be so good as to
read.

 Consider your low bowls page.  The top one is a beatuful
image.  Is it of a flat tile? Could be.  The fact that it is a
bowl must be taken on trust, as it doesn't leave any clue to
this fact in the scan.

This was actually scanned, but maybe I need to add a sketch of
the piece from the side to show actual side profile and
porportions? Would that help?

   The second one down says it's 4 inches high.  There is
absolutely NO visual clue to this in the very pretty image. 
You say it's a bowl, I'm sorry.  It's a tile, from your scan.

My error, this was a professional photo of the piece as a fused
flat piece before it was made into a bowl. I take your
suggestion and will change description to include this fact, also
can add a sketch showing the side profile?

 The third one down does have some weird shadows, that make it
appear either as a depressed bowl or a raised top hat shape. 
Can't tell.

You can see my dilemma here, this was a photo of the actual bowl
taken by a professional photographer and scanned by him on his
expensive drum system, after which I had to spend hours
recreating the patterns in photo paint, the glass with the
lusters just won’t photograph. With glass, you are dealing with
both transparency and reflection, then add the subtle luster
patterns and dimension. I worked with him on the lighting and
set up and it took hours, and it just wasn’t there. Also cost me
more than any profit I could make on the bowl. This becomes
ridiculous. As a matter of experiment, I still have that bowl,
think I will just scan it and see what I get. I realize a view
from an angle would show the shape of the object, but loses so
much of what the glass colors and patterns of luster are about.
I was a jeweler and enamelist for 28 years, glass is really much
harder to photograph than jewelry. Just for the fun, I took a
ring, put it on the mandrel and scanned it. I attach it here. I
shrunk it down quite a bit, hope it doesn’t come through too
fuzzy. Straight up, no retouching, nothing.

   The last one comes closes, with that unfortunate bright
reflection giving it's 3D nature finally some identity for the
viewer.  But it's too bad it has to do it with such a bright
highlight instead of some more sublte depth and shadow that
one gets with a well lit slide.

Unfortunately I have spent thousands of dollars over the years
on quote: professional photographers. Even had a top
photographer in Chicago do a goblet and it cost me $2500! for the
photograph, as it also had to be airbrushed to show the
plique-'a-jour enamel colors. (pre computer days) Then he sent
it back to me without wrapping it properly and it was permanently
damaged! This was to go on the front of a brochure. Earlier I
had the top people in Milwaukee do a series of photos of
plique-'a-jour pieces in 18 kt with gemstones and he forgot to
put on a filter and all the photos had a green cast, which the
printers couldn’t get rid of. also pre-computer days. Of course
they wouldn’t admit what happened. Couldn’t re-shoot, because
the pieces had been shipped out by the time I got the photos. So
I ended up with 2500 brochures off color. I have looked for
photographers in the Mid-West and there just aren’t any. Not for
enamel or glass. Then last year I took a professional
photograph of a glass plate to a scanning place in Milwaukee, and
they charged me $150 for one scan. What am I? Stupid? :wink: There
really does have to be a way to do this without breaking the
bank. I have even set up a photo room, with lights, everything,
but it takes days, to get one good photograph of a complex piece
of glass. Too much time, and not enough time for production to
sell if I have to spend more time on photos or money on
photographers than I put into the product. QUESTION: What do you
think about scanning the fused glass flat to show colors and
patterns, then a porportional sketch of the profile from the
side to show shape after bowl or plate has been slumped? In the
description I can explain all this? Or just go with the flat stuff
like the pins. I am replacing some of the photos soon, and will
be getting rid of the ones with clear colorless glass which do
not show well. Those are the ones that have the objectionable
highlites. I also have several other items which are basically
flat that can be scanned well. I will be doing some photos in my
photo studio of other small items (paper weights) which aren’t so
complicated which I can then scan.

If you have a minute to answer I really appreciate your help.
Thanks

mucho, Pat

		Orchid Notice: 

		Attachment Removed!
23

For the light reflection problem on highly polished areas,
using a polarizing filter works wonders. Get an adjustable
one, circular if your camera will take it (talk to a
photography pro, they are usually kind about sharing
knowledge). Play with the filter and have fun, and your
photograpy will improve. My photography instructor in WV
says look for camera clubs in your city/area; they have
members from rank amatuers to accomplished professionals, who
delight in helping someone learn their hobby/passion.

Sharon

24

HI Dave;

Thanks for your I am working on improvement and all
I get from great people like you will help me to
provide the proper to the viewer. The main problem
is that I have spent thousands of dollars on quote: professional
photos, and it just wont’ work with “one of a kind” pieces which
will retail at $18.00 or so each. No money left for the poor
artist ;-). So the scanner is the only way. However, will take
all your info into consideration and get back to you soon.
Thanks mucho, Pat

By the way I did a scan of a diamond ring, and it turned out
fine, see attachment. This has no color correction or
re-touching done on it. But you probably will be more critical
than I, but think it looks pretty much like the real ring. Pat

		Orchid Notice: 
		Attachment Removed!
25

Hi

Further to Peter Rowe's comments to to which I agree I offer
the following two comments. 

1.....To find out exactly what the field, i.e.., the exact
area a camera [any camera and any lens] covers, do this. 

Set the camera [without film] on a tripod and open the back.
Take a piece of kitchen wax paper and hold it over the place
where the film would be and lo and behold there is your image
shown at the exact size it will be on the film. If the room
is too bright put a piece of clothing [a dark colored jacket]
over your head while looking at the image on the wax paper.
If you adjust the lens from say, f:5.6 to f:11 or f:16 you
will see the depth of field increasing although the object
you are viewing will become darker. In that case bring more
light onto the object. Most 35 mm cameras have a preview
button that will show exactly the depth of field at any lens
opening all the way to f:16 or f:22. 

Be aware that unless you process your own pictures the
picture area you get back will be less than what is on the
film frame, sometimes quite a bit. Compare a picture you now
have with it's corresponding negative. 

2.....Done correctly the image from a 35 mm camera will be
will always be far superior to one obtained from a scanner
now and in the future.

…Leo Doucet…Fredericton, NB…Canada…

26

Lots of sound advice from Peter. I made aa extension tube
from a cheap doubler (2x) picked up from the local camera
store used dept, for about $15, by just removing the lenses
from the inside. Auto diaphram still works, and is about the
right degree of magnification with my std. 50 mm lens. Cheap
and works great. Now if I could just get the color to come
out right…

Brenny McLaughlin

27

two comments: 1. for any subject a good place to start is the
juvinile (sp) section of your public library the main advantage
is that the author does not assume previous knowlege. I’m sure
everyone has gotton a beginners book that is not understandable
for a true beginner may not be sufficient to work with but
provides a quick background.

  1. for photos find a local lab not your drugstore send off deal
    and talk to them let them know what you are shooting and the
    results you want. then listen! It is quite amazing the level of
    expertise many have even in a smaller town. If they can’t talk
    and help try someone else. When you find someone that can do
    this also support them. They need business to stay open and
    answer your next question.

  2. (yes I know I said 2 but that just touched a sore point)
    For any services or product, you are the key to keep the small
    business open these are the people who are doing what they like
    (usually) and study what’s new. going to them for the hard
    projects and buying bulk from the discounts (K-mart Wal mart &c)
    means they won’t be there for your next question. any horror
    stories about extreme service for a ring customer you’ve never
    seen again? Remember price must be weighed against value.

28

There is an excellent pro photographer in Huntington WV. His
name is Larry Rees, you can reach him at his place of employment,
Mack 7 Dave’s, at 304-697-4211, Ex. 37. He manages their camera
dept. He also teaches photography in local schools, as well as
maintains his own studio. He’s a long-time member of the Ohio
Valley Camera Club. His work is exquisite, and if he can’t
photograph what you want, at a REASONABLE price, he has contacts
all over the east. Give him a call; tell him I sent you; if you
think he can help.

Sharon Holt aka @bootsie

29 
   HI!  Peter Rowe: Thanks for the great critique.  I really
appreciate it, as I already know what the pieces look like.

You’re welcome, though the news that some of the shots I had
problems with turned out to be done by professional photographers
has me wondering whether I should be serving myself some crow for
dinner tonight… (grin)

 Consider your low bowls page.  The top one is a beatuful
image.  Is it of a flat tile? Could be.  The fact that it is a
bowl must be taken on trust, as it doesn't leave any clue to
this fact in the scan. 

   This was actually scanned, but maybe I need to add a sketch
of the piece from the side to show actual side profile and
porportions? Would that help?

The whole ball game is communication to the viewer of what’s
going on. Whatever needs to happen to get that done is fair
game. There’s no rule against two shots, one from the top and
one from the side or from “perspective” viewpoint, to show the
profile… If it’s easier to use a drawing of the side view, or
a perspective view, then if that gets the across to
the reader/viewer, it’s effective and a good idea.

   The second one down says it's 4 inches high.  There is
absolutely NO visual clue to this in the very pretty image. 
You say it's a bowl, I'm sorry.  It's a tile, from your scan.

My error, this was a professional photo of the piece as a fused
flat piece before it was made into a bowl. I take your
suggestion and will change description to include this fact, also
can add a sketch showing the side profile?

Well, then, this sure is an accurate photo, isn’t it. I saw a
tile, and sure enough…! chuckle. Pass the crow, please…

 The third one down does have some weird shadows, that make it
appear either as a depressed bowl or a raised top hat shape. 
Can't tell.  

   You can see my dilemma here, this was a photo of the actual
bowl taken by a professional photographer and scanned by him on
his expensive drum system, after which I had to spend hours
recreating the patterns in photo paint,

I really feel for you on your photographic debacle here. I’d
agree that finding a good photographer who knows how to shoot
your work is a trick and a half. Part of why I simply learned to
do my own work myself. Somehow, I learned ways that would
produce shots I liked. But it sounds like you’ve done the same
route, with different end results. Bummer. Maybe, in the end,
the scanner is indeed the best way for you to go. but I do like
the idea of using a second image, maybe a sketch is the simplest,
to get across to the view the rest of the graphic information
that misses out. I wonder, (just musing here) about perhaps the
possibility of doing something interesting, such as doing the
sketch and making it a background for behind the text description
of the bowl, for example. Might be one way to play with the web
sites appearance, (not that it’s bad or anything, just playing
here) in a way that increases it’s unique look as well as getting
more info to the viewer…

   The last one comes closes, with that unfortunate bright
reflection giving it's 3D nature finally some identity for the
viewer.  But it's too bad it has to do it with such a bright
highlight instead of some more sublte depth and shadow that
one gets with a well lit slide.

Unfortunately I have spent thousands of dollars over the years
on quote: professional photographers… There
really does have to be a way to do this without breaking the
bank. I have even set up a photo room, with lights, everything,
but it takes days, to get one good photograph of a complex piece
of glass. Too much time, and not enough time for production to
sell if I have to spend more time on photos or money on
photographers than I put into the product.

Here I think we get to the crux of the question about scanning
vs. traditional photography. given the experiences you’ve had,
I’d have to now agree with you that the scanner is a vastly
better approach for you than the other experiences you’ve had.
In the ease of use and the cost of it’s use, it just plain makes
sense for you. The trick is to use what you know about image
making to improve on the limits of the scanner to fill in it’s
shortcomings. In the case of these photo’s, the idea of a second
sketch or drawing or photo, or whatever is needed to fill in the
missing is a great idea, and could be done at
minimal cost and effort.

   QUESTION: What do you think about scanning the fused glass
flat to show colors and patterns, then a porportional sketch of
the profile from the side to show shape after bowl or plate has
been slumped?  In the description I can explain all this? Or
just go with the flat stuff like the pins.  I am replacing some
of the photos soon, and will be getting rid of the ones with
clear colorless glass which do not show well.  Those are the
ones that have the objectionable highlites.  I also have
several other items which are basically flat that can be
scanned well.  I will be doing some photos in my photo studio
of other small items (paper weights) which aren't so
complicated which I can then scan.

I think it’s a great plan. The flat stuff does seem to scan
well enough. I do have one thought re: highlights. Seems to me
I recall some spray can materials that some photographers use to
dull down highly reflective surfaces to reduce those reflections.
I wonder if those might help. The idea isn’t to get rid of
reflective surfaces, only matte them a bit so hot spots aren’t
so bright. Spiratone used to carry such a spray can, which had
the advantage of being harmless to the object and simple to clean
off again. As I recall, it was useful for glass and metal
objects…

Hope this helps.

Peter Rowe

30

HI! Sharon Holt

Thanks, but always a problem sending objects to be photographed,
as the photographer looks at it totally different than what I
feel is the most important part of the object. Such as the
carefree luster decal patterns, which are very soft and faint.
One time, I had to spend days redrawing a commercial photo of a
plate, as the patterns only showed up on one small section of the
plate. That’s why I have to work WITH the photographer and
actually check through the camera before he shoots! They ALWAYS
leave the lights so that there is NO glare. Which means it ends
up looking like a sand blasted finish. But still doesn’t show
the subtle patterns in the glass. It’s a matter of cost versus
outcome. I really can’t have photos of small fused glass
brooches(each one an original) pieces which only retail at $18.00
done by a professional. But have received many great suggestions
on how to improve the images, and am working on that next week.

If there is a “real” professional photographer in
Wisc./Illinois/Minnesota hope some one on this list will let me
know. I have to be able to drive there. I do have other works
going on-line for the catalog and they do need to be
photographed. Will keep Larry Rees in my file, but too long a
drive. Thanks, Pat