Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Jewellery Light Box

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    Sorry George,....but it's a good buy!! Mine wasn't the smallest, but I definitely should have gone bigger!!

    Jules,.....it turns out it's a Canon (my previous camera was a Lumix, had this one 2 years and had that one ages, so probably considered antique now!!), those were taken with a Canon SX500 IS. Hope that helps

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    142

    Default Photography

    Photography has always been one of my passions, I even put it before jewellery! I had a dark room and spent hours developing and printing my 35mm pictures, and I still own 2 light boxes which were used to look at my negatives and transparencies.
    I always inform folks when they tried to equate my camera to a satisfying image that it is only part camera and part individual.
    The bottom line to taking good pictures is no different to making fine jewellery "Practice " experiment with light both natural and artificial, take notes, draw diagrams of your light source in comparison to your piece that you're photographing.
    Below are 2 pictures, the beaded "Dragons Eye" (made by my partner) was taken with my Canon 450d zoom lens, (I never use macro) and the one on the right is taken on my Samsung pad at work with natural light.
    The object of taking a photograph can differ from let's say, the Dragons Eye will be put on the Web site for sale and the "ER" will be used for a reference (how it is made and what fittings are used.
    .Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_270315_093309.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	61.7 KB 
ID:	7546Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	48.3 KB 
ID:	7550
    Carlton
    Be careful what you wish for.......... It might come true

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    3,168

    Default

    Thank you Carlton. Both are nice and clear.

    The trend now though is definitely for "lifestyle" shots. I think the image is probably more important than the actual work. There are some large jewellery companies I could name (but won't), whose actual jewellery is very ordinary but the lifestyle images are amazing, so the jewellery sells. They also have beautiful websites which are SEO'd within an inch of their lives.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Forgive my ignorance but what is a "lifestyle" shot?

    James

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caroleallen View Post
    Thank you Carlton. Both are nice and clear.

    The trend now though is definitely for "lifestyle" shots. I think the image is probably more important than the actual work. There are some large jewellery companies I could name (but won't), whose actual jewellery is very ordinary but the lifestyle images are amazing, so the jewellery sells. They also have beautiful websites which are SEO'd within an inch of their lives.
    It's strange how some folks see things, a necklace around a celebrity's neck might be a sort after piece of jewellery although they can't really see it, and that brings us back to the question "What is a acceptable picture"
    A few months ago I put a photo of a copper and silver dragon bangle on the forum which you could see what it was, I then said the texturing was made with a letter "S" punch so folks zoomed in and could clearly see what I meant, this is why I don't use macro, I leave it up to the viewer.
    Carlton
    Be careful what you wish for.......... It might come true

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    3,168

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1957.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	22.5 KB 
ID:	7555

    This is a lifestyle shot. Not a good one, which is why I need help but you get the idea. Instead of the piece of jewellery being shot on a flat surface, it has to be staged with some props to make the image more interesting. Although I used to think that a lovely piece of jewellery shouldn't be upstaged by props, I now realise that people want the picture to tell a story.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Thank you Carole. I am not in tune with modern language terms. I look forward to seeing your new photos when you get your lightbox. I am living in the dark ages with a garage full of old style photo equipment, studio flash lights and backdrops along with various film cameras and tripods.

    James

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    3,168

    Default

    Not dark ages James. Those things are still relevant and I think my photographer will use studio flash lights etc. Your photos are amazingly good and your pictures in the park are actually lifestyle shots. Just put a ring in the foreground and you're there!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    I've been researching lots of photos online lately, as I'm in the process of going online and the one thing that doesn't seem to be prevalent on a lot of sites is scale, so you can see the size of the jewellery photographed.
    Jules

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    724

    Default

    There's an interesting thread on engraverscafe on "light painting", It's basically taking a couple long exposure pictures in the dark & running a light source over the subject briefly from different angles.
    Then the 2 or 3 pictures are combined in Photoshop.
    Quite abit of faffing about but depends if your interested in the possibilities you can't otherwise get.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •