Frustrated photography - pink and green velvet

[Porridge]

Bracelet?

 

[Arcadian]

Date: 1/27/2010 2:23:43 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
Are there any point and shoots with a good sensor? I do not want an SLR.

Yes there are. Very good place to read about sensors in general:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensors This gives a good breakdown of what to look for in a sensor.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes Sensor sizes this is really important especially for p & s!


Also, when taking pictures of gemstones and croping the file, you start to see a bit of pixel loss. All cameras suffer from that, but you can see it more with a smaller sensor camera than a larger one. The sensor has to make a decision on what to provide color for and what to throw away. The smaller the sensor, the less information it takes in at a deeper depths of field.

What can be done? Get the best camera you can for your budget.

TL, I do recommend you look at cameras that have at least 12MP and nothing under 10MP as you''re not ready for a DSLR. Look specifically at ones that have larger sensors and more pixel density.

Granted, you''re going to probably spend more money for that sensor but still, thats what makes your camera do what you want it to do aside from the lense.

The overal megapixel does play a part but its a small one. A crap picure is just that, crap, no amount of pixels will save that.

You may also want to look at a camera that is not exactly a point and shoot but also not a DLSR either, which can give you a better sensor, a smaller camera, but won''t cost DSLR money. (until you start wanting more lenses).

Panasonic and Olympic fits in that category as they have cameras that aren''t DSLR but not P&S, they use micro 3/4 technology (look mom, no mirrors!), and do shoot in RAW.


-A

 

[T L]

Thank you Arcadian. You seem to know a great deal about cameras. I''m very impressed!!

 

[T L]

Date: 1/27/2010 5:23:31 PM
Author: cellentani
We have 2 Canon Powershots, and I''ve been beyond pleased. The majority of my photos are taken with the older SD1000, but we also have the SD1200 with Image Stabilization (which mine lacks), but they pretty much have the same features. I''m able to adjust the ISO, white balance (there''s auto-adjust, pre-set adjustments depending on the light source, and custom), and positive/negative exposure compensation, just to name a few. The only other camera I''ve tried was a Sony (no contest), so I can''t really offer any comparisons. I''m a stickler for color accuracy (not just enhancement), so I do use those features all the time. For shooting gemstones, you will definitely need to make adjustments, and there''s no one-setting-fits-all, but it''s a nice size and easier than a DSLR.

ETA: Here''s a link to a fairly technical, but easy to understand review on the Canon SD1000 features (including the sensor), but you should be able to search for your own camera model as well: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD1000/SD1000A5.HTM

Thank you Cellentani!!

 

[PinkTower]

TL,
I just gotta say:
You have got to set that emerald and start wearing it.
My dealer finally purchased an emerald for me today in Tucson. It does not have the "fancy pedigree" yours has, however.

Emeralds seem to be becoming very popular again.

 

[T L]

I practically give up photographing green. I went to an electronics store with my tsavorite ring in tow. Well, I took pictures of it with just about every camera in macro mode, and all of them could not capture the true color (sony, nikon, canon, fuji, casio, etc. . . ) The saleslady saw my grief and she agreed that none of them could capture the color at all. I go over and try a very expensive SLR, and then and only then, could it capture the true bluish green. However, it weighs a ton and costs a lot. I guess it all has to do with the digital sensor, and the bigger, the better.

. . . frustrated.

I guess I should get my emerald retreated. I'm waiting a bit since I have other projects ongoing. PinkTower, how did your new emerald at look?

 

[PinkTower]

I've not seen it yet, not even a photo.
I know it is Zambian, 7x7, and a radiant cut. The dealer said it was clean and bright, and I trust his eye.
We had almost settled on a emerald cut that was great color and over 6mm square, but it had a grey inclusion on the crown and I was afraid it would bug me. So, I just decided to go ahead and get the nicer 7mm, even though it was a radiant, and that was not my first choice in cut. But, with an emerald, unless you have a very ambitious budget, something's gotta give.

The dealer had told me that, at the big shows earlier in the week, he was seeing lots of Brazilian emeralds that were economical and beautiful. So, I was surpirsed that when he finally came to a final decision, the stone was not Brazilian.

 

[cellentani]

So, somewhere in the windy city is a store with pics of your jewelry on every camera? That cracks me up!

 

[T L]

Date: 2/7/2010 8:30:42 PM
Author: Pink Tower
I''ve not seen it yet, not even a photo.
I know it is Zambian, 7x7, and a radiant cut. The dealer said it was clean and bright, and I trust his eye.
We had almost settled on a emerald cut that was great color and over 6mm square, but it had a grey inclusion on the crown and I was afraid it would bug me. So, I just decided to go ahead and get the nicer 7mm, even though it was a radiant, and that was not my first choice in cut. But, with an emerald, unless you have a very ambitious budget, something''s gotta give.

The dealer had told me that, at the big shows earlier in the week, he was seeing lots of Brazilian emeralds that were economical and beautiful. So, I was surpirsed that when he finally came to a final decision, the stone was not Brazilian.

I actually prefer Zambian emeralds to Brazilian. The Zambians are a nice rich green and typically cleaner than Columbian. Sounds like a very nice stone.

 

[T L]

Date: 2/7/2010 8:35:17 PM
Author: cellentani
So, somewhere in the windy city is a store with pics of your jewelry on every camera? That cracks me up!

No, just my tsavorite ring. There's some Costco demo cameras with it as well.

 

[cellentani]

TL, after you mentioned your emerald in the other thread, I came back to look at your pinks and green. Would you consider any of those tourmalines to be rubelite? Do you happen to have a shot of the tourms next to your set rubelites?

 

[T L]

Date: 2/15/2010 10:58:41 AM
Author: cellentani
TL, after you mentioned your emerald in the other thread, I came back to look at your pinks and green. Would you consider any of those tourmalines to be rubelite? Do you happen to have a shot of the tourms next to your set rubelites?

No, I consider them to be hot pink tourmaline. My one smaller stone, I consider more of a rubellite. I would defer to LovingDiamonds though since she owns more rubellite. I can try to get a picture of all of them together, but it''s hard. Let me see what I can do. I don''t have your extraordinary photographic talents!!

 

[PrecisionGem]

Date: 2/7/2010 8:05:12 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
I practically give up photographing green. I went to an electronics store with my tsavorite ring in tow. Well, I took pictures of it with just about every camera in macro mode, and all of them could not capture the true color (sony, nikon, canon, fuji, casio, etc. . . ) The saleslady saw my grief and she agreed that none of them could capture the color at all. I go over and try a very expensive SLR, and then and only then, could it capture the true bluish green. However, it weighs a ton and costs a lot. I guess it all has to do with the digital sensor, and the bigger, the better.


. . . frustrated.


I guess I should get my emerald retreated. I''m waiting a bit since I have other projects ongoing. PinkTower, how did your new emerald at look?

I have a Nikon D70 SLR and it has problems with green stones. I picked up a Lumix (Panisonic) to take to Africa over the summer, and it actually does much better with green than the Nikon.
With a SLR, you will need a macro lens, figure $400 to $600 for the lens. Depending on the lens, you may also want extension tubes, another $160. With a point an shoot camera, the sensors are so small, that a much less expensive lens is required to cover the sensor, and the depth of field is much greater since you are using a much wider diameter lens.

I''m thinking of buying the Nikon D700 which should at $2400 for just a body, provide better color than the D70.

I think for the type of pictures that most people take with the stone on your hand etc. a good advanced point and shoot would be better than a SRL. With the SLR, the camera MUST be on a tripod, the stone still since exposures are going to be pretty long.