A suggestion on how to say.. thank you!

Had a thought today and thought I'd put it out there to see what you folks think.

Since starting this jewellery caper ( which incidentally I love and am hopelessly addicted to now! ) I've asked a lot of questions on this forum and received a great many answers, as well as receiving assistance in other matters from generously minded individuals ( James, Dennis, Peter ).

As a small gesture of 'thanks' to the wider forum, I'd like to offer assistance to anyone who needs high quality product shots of their jewellery items, in other words in a photography sense.

Not an expert by a long shot in the jewellery field ( although give me a couple more decades and I'll show improvement ) but I am quite competent when it comes to photography.

Basically my idea is that if you need good quality well lit, high resolution shots of your jewellery, for a website or whatever else, then post me your items along with a pre-paid return envelope / bag. Include a short description of how you'd like the items photographed and I'll do my best to accomodate. If a memory card is also posted to me then that would be great for multiple shots. For the odd one or two shots, then email would work I'm sure.

Not sure if this is a REALLY stupid suggestion or not, but whilst presently sat at work on nightshift and suffering slightly from sleep deprivation, it seems a fair gesture. It goes without saying that I dont want any payment for it either as I enjoy this kind of thing, and my gear is permanently setup.

Just thought that some folks might not possess the camera gear or knowledge, and that its a small avenue whereby I can say a very big thank you to everyone on here who constantly helps ME out each week!

Cheers,

Nick

Very good offer Nick thank you, but as I don't have a web site or sell anything, I'm more into photography for my own satisfaction. So I would like to ask a question here instead:

My camera is just a Canon EOS 1100D and I don't use the macro function as it is automatic and the available options with it are rather limited.
Instead I mostly use AV (aperture priority) which is more versatile and allows manual focus for tricky pieces.

I use a table top studio, which comes with its own lighting and the camera is clamped to the table with a Manfrotto Magic Arm.

If I want to give my pictures more of an edge, can I do so with a similar 18-55mm lens but of a better quality, or should I go for a macro lens and which one?

Regards, Dennis.

Hello Dennis,

If I were you I would definately opt for a dedicated Macro lens for your DSLR. A more expensive variation on your 18-55mm kit lens wont produce any noticable improvement, and its minimum focus distance isnt ideal either.

I also use Canon cameras, and my macro lens is the 100mm 2.8L version. This is their top macro lens, although they also offer a 100mm macro lens in the non 'L' guise for about half price.

Until you use a macro lens, its hard to imagine the difference. Once you've done so though, you will be amazed at the difference one makes. Using a standard 18-55 lens means you either have to zoom in as far as possible ( which slightly degrades the picture sharpness ) or crop your final images to produce more of a closeup image.

Using a tripod ( as you do ) a remote control or timer function, turning off 'image stablisation' on the lens, and selecting 'mirror lockup' if your model supports it also lend to a sharper final image.

On a Canon theme, I also have a compact G15 camera. These dont quite produce as good an image as a DSLR of course, but their macro function is magnificent!

The G series cameras go way back, and a G10 that has a superb macro facility can be picked up second hand for next to nothing and is a cheaper option than maybe buying a dedicated macro lens.

Nick

Nooooo! don't use a macro lens Dennis ! you will see the tiniest fault then and have to start working under a scope! :rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist!
I think thats a lovely idea Nick :)

Thank you Nick.

Sounds a great idea. I constantly struggle with taking good pictures.
Might take you up on it for that that 'special' piece.
Thanks Nick.

That's a nice gesture Nick, I am a Nikon and Lumix Leica man myself since I started digital photos.

James

No problem Theresa and Id be happy to help.

As you know James, it's the lens money that makes sticking with one particular system the key choice isn't it, although I'm more than happy with Canon.

Nikon is of course the other top brand, and just because you're a Nikon user it doesn't make you a bad person :)

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enigma

Nooooo! don't use a macro lens Dennis ! you will see the tiniest fault then and have to start working under a scope! :rofl:

---

Well no Sarah. As I see it and the photographers here will jump on me if I am wrong, a macro lens will give you a 1:1 ratio, so that you see the object as it is in real life.

Only cropping the thing would magnify it and show the imperfections. Regards, Dennis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick martin

Nikon is of course the other top brand, and just because you're a Nikon user it doesn't make you a bad person :)

---

Oh good, I was worried there. There's all sorts of other reasons for that to be the case :)

Just spent most of my afternoon photographing pieces for the exhibition setup tomorrow.

Nikon D610 with 105mm f2.8 "Micro" as Nikon insist upon labelling their macro lenses...

Dennis

The 1:1 is based on the old days of film, on a digital camera its meaningless, its 1:1 on the sensor size.
The computer takes that to whatever size you want so what you see on screen will show you every tiny flaw I promise :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enigma

The 1:1 is based on the old days of film, on a digital camera its meaningless, its 1:1 on the sensor size.

---

Not quite sure that I agree with that being meaningless. Given the sensor sizes in general use on DSLRs are APS-C and 35mm equivalent sizes, the 1:1 measurement is still relevant; if your lens can do that, then an object the same height as the sensor can use the full height of the sensor array. If it can only do half that, then you get the same image but only recorded on half the height in pixels.

At what level that becomes problematic in showing flaws will vary from kit to kit.

No offence, but Peters correct in what he's saying.

Imperfections just mean that we have to finish our pieces better :)

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick martin

No offence, but Peters correct in what he's saying.

---

You'd hope so, given the number of years spent working on image processing sw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick martin

No offence, but Peters correct in what he's saying.

Imperfections just mean that we have to finish our pieces better :)

Nick

---

or accept we are not perfectionists

I was pretty sure that someone said the other week that the perfection we seek under great magnification is pretty wasted unless our customers are looking at our work in the same way which is unlikely.. I'm pretty anal about a great finish but there is a limit to what the eye can see

Peter, it was my husband who said that and he used to be a pro photographer-more in the days of film than digital but a bit of both.
Im sure you could have an interesting conversation about it but all I know is that when I take a photo with my macro lens on my Nikon it shows up stuff that I can't even see under the Leica scope- and I am certainly no photographer.
So the question is does one really need to see in *quite* so much detail? given that once seen it can't be unseen LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJ57

I was pretty sure that someone said the other week that the perfection we seek under great magnification is pretty wasted unless our customers are looking at our work in the same way which is unlikely.. I'm pretty anal about a great finish but there is a limit to what the eye can see

---

I think I said something along those lines, working under magnification is generally to help make sure things are as they should be & eliminate guesswork when it comes to really small stuff.
Most of which is lost at normal viewing, however..with all this digital technology & amplified image advertising, imperfections don`t help much!

It`s a case of getting as good as you can results without going overboard.

Often get asked to do extra neat work for things being photographed for advertising, but otherwise it can be a timesink for no-one but yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemsetterchris

Most of which is lost at normal viewing, however..with all this digital technology & amplified image advertising, imperfections don`t help much!

---

A huge warts-and-all picture of pieces is tempting, but ultimately overkill for general sales use. Take the shot at max resolution, crop, edit as needed *then shrink it*.
There's a balance somewhere between the time spent tarting the thing up on the bench vs on the computer; as pointed out, the picture is probably the only time a piece will be seen at that magnification.

I dont have any form of magnification set up for making jewellery and some would say that sometimes the finish is a bit rough. I am not competing with the Aspreys of this world, all my customers have said how lovely they think the pieces are, some are friends as well and they would be honest if they thought it was "not quite finished", all have said they love my designs and I have quite a few return customers as I take my stuff to a local Craft Fair every month and people come back month after month, and as its a seaside town we also get a lot of coaches. Perhaps my prices reflect more what I am selling, I am getting better, but these things take time and patience, I do have a website but in three years have only sold one thing from it. Have a look and see what you think www.iscasilver.co.uk
I would be interested in your comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemsetterchris

I think I said something along those lines, working under magnification is generally to help make sure things are as they should be & eliminate guesswork when it comes to really small stuff.
Most of which is lost at normal viewing, however..with all this digital technology & amplified image advertising, imperfections don`t help much!

It`s a case of getting as good as you can results without going overboard.



Often get asked to do extra neat work for things being photographed for advertising, but otherwise it can be a timesink for no-one but yourself.

---

I thought it was you Chris but just wasn't sure :)
I'm more concerned about a piece that has been in the gallery for a few months and has scratches to the naked eye, it definitely didn't go in like that, bloody nightmare leaving your work to the mercy of other people and their dusters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemsetterchris

I think I said something along those lines, working under magnification is generally to help make sure things are as they should be & eliminate guesswork when it comes to really small stuff.
Most of which is lost at normal viewing, however..with all this digital technology & amplified image advertising, imperfections don`t help much!

It`s a case of getting as good as you can results without going overboard.

Often get asked to do extra neat work for things being photographed for advertising, but otherwise it can be a timesink for no-one but yourself.

---

Completely agree Chris!!

Plus side for working under a microscope is that once your satisfied, you know things will look at least 3x better if not much more.
Just takes a little while to re-learn what an insignificant scratch looks like.

I think the final finish on items can be subjective really.

If you're buying a piece of high-end jewellery that costs mega money, then it's reasonable to expect perfection.

However I've also seen very expensive pieces that show imperfections, along the lines of 'the marks of the maker' and some people like that also.

Although I'm a novice, I try to finish my pieces as well as possible and if they look fine to the naked eye, then I'm not fussed about any small imperfections if inspected under magnification.