Gem Photography

[Pandora II]

Having just seen some beautiful photos of gemstones - yes I mean you GemRite, and you Zeolite!

Spill the beans, how are you getting such fabulous shots.

I can spend hours messing about with a light-tent, diffusers and bouncy flashes and can''t get anything that does enough justice to my stones (or their suppliers) to want to post them!

I''m using a Canon Rebel xti and have macro (with macro flash) normal and zoom lenses and various other bits of kit (all ''borrowed'' off my husband), so it''s definitely me and not the kit that is going wrong. I can focuse them fine, but can''t get the stones looking clean or avoiding reflection off some of the facets.

Any handy hints or full instructions gratefully recieved - I have googled away and not really found a lot of help.

 

[MonkeyPie]

My suggestion (not to interrupt!) is a lightbox, and a macro lens.

Look at this. Anybody can make a lightbox!

Edit: Oh, and it's virtually impossible not to bounce light off at least one facet - look at my avatar, and Jeff took that one. Lol when there are dozens of different surfaces for the light to touch, it is inevitable that one will be lit up.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I have a cannon - one of the small ones, but has lots of cool features....here are some thing I have learned.

I have 2 macro settings, One that is manual, and "digital macro"

For some reason, the digital macro does a better job of picking up the color of my stone. Another plus is that I can zoom in more and get a better "close up shot" but it does not focus as well, I need a tripod

The manual macro is better for indirect light, and it focuses better, I can take the picture without the tripod.

One of these days I want to learn how to play with the lighting of the camera to pic up the color I see a little better.

I know i am not who you asked about, but I was hoping this would help

 

[zeolite]

I''d say it is about 70% lighting setup, 20% Photoshop, and 10% camera and tripod.

I only got the proper lighting set-up yesterday!!!

I use a very high quality Canon 5D, and dedicated macro lens, and solid tripod. I shoot in raw (which no point and shoot camera will do), not jpg. By shooting in raw, I can change the white balance, exposure, saturation, and contrast after I take the picture. Raw provides a huge level of control. But that isn''t the important part. See below:

After my camera is set on the tripod, pointed at the gem, I use a special light diffuser. It is two feet on a side (4 square feet) of 1/8" white acrylic diffuser, with a hole cut to poke my lens through. From the gem side you only see the white acrylic sheet and the lens poking through.

I set the camera on 10sec self timer, and right now, hold up two incandescent 60W lamps on each side of the camera body by hand, and point at the white diffuser. The lamps contain GE Reveal bulbs, which are common, but full spectrum bulbs. Manual focus with a usual exposure at f11 at 1/2 second at ISO 100. The gem is sitting a black or very dark gray cardboard. I need to reseach a better base, perhaps some black or gray textured plastic. I have two more lamps to use, but haven''t tried them yet.

Now here''s the neat part. Photoshop is very expensive; maybe Photoshop Elements is cheaper. There is a special measuring, leveling, rotating feature I use to get the gem (say an emerald cut) parallel to the top of the frame, after the picture is taken. And finally, only since yesterday, I use Photoshop image>adjust>hue/saturation. I hold the gem, illuminated with the Reveal bulb right in front of my computer monitor and continually adjust the hue and saturation until the picture color matches the gem in front of my eyes! That is powerful!

 

[GemRite]

I have been faceting for years now, but didn''t realize that I would have to become a photographer as well. The trick that i learned is focusing is easy, but the lightening is 90%, I use photoshop only to size and use little or no adjustments to color or contrast. The trick that I have learned is diffusing the light. I made my own light ring and I use a cone shaped opaque plastic. It diffuses the light and allows for the entire gem to recieve the light. If you don''t diffuse the light it will be bright and a lot of dead spots in the stone. You can also put 2 lights on each side of the cone about 1 foot away and below the stone. The light hitting the cone will diffuse the light and take a nice photo. The cone i made is 2''- 2 1/2'' long and on the top end it is 1''-1 1/2'' and the bottom end is 2 1/2'' -3''. I used a plastic milk container (Opaque white). Just place the cone with the small end near the camera lense and the other end covering around the stone. And just play with the light. The reason if you are not suing a light ring and instead using a lamp or something just put the light source so it will not come in on the stone. The cone is the key and playing with the light source until you get it right. I spent a ton of money on different things and light boxes. Ya''ll may laugh, but this 50 cent solution does the greatest job. I am letting go of my secrets to good photo taking of gems.

Enjoy. Just play with it a little and you will see what I am speaking of.
Good luck with the photos!

John B.
Faceter

 

[GemRite]

This is showing how i use it, I put cone in between the camera and the stone. Adjusting it around a little by moving the cone and playing with the lights (if you are not using a light ring). It is not for someone with out patience. This may help a little. I hope it does. Soon you will be putting out photos like me.
John B. (Gemrite)
Faceter

 

[Pandora II]

Many thanks to both of you - that''s very helpful and I will be off to play. I do have a ring flash for the macro lens, but I was getting better results using a hand-held flash outside the light-tent so maybe I just need to practice a bit more. Or, convince DH to do the photographing bit for me.

Zeolite, what are you holding your bulbs in?

I have full Photoshop and I''m shooting in RAW - agree it makes a big difference - but I''m never sure how correct it is to mega-photoshop my stones.

Just out of interest what is your take on the following scenario:

A gem dealer has an eyeclean stone which when photographed shows any inclusions to a point where they are far more obvious than you would ever see in real life. Should he/she:

a) Leave the inclusions in as that was how the photo came out

b) Photoshop so that the picture accurately represents what he is holding in his hand and seeing with his own eyes - and mention the inclusions in the blurb under the stone.

c) Some other option...

 

[GemRite]

Should leave them, never photoshop out inclusions. I know it makes them seems really big or more obvious. But that is the way the stone will appear under a 10x loupe. So when veiwing the stone you understand that the photo is like a snap shot under a loupe. I never change the colors either. I leave it, but if you take the photo correctly and use white balance it should be correct usually. I hope that helps. The less photoshop''ing the better
John B. (GemRite)
Faceter

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 8/21/2008 11:45:30 AM
Author: GemRite
Should leave them, never photoshop out inclusions. I know it makes them seems really big or more obvious. But that is the way the stone will appear under a 10x loupe. So when veiwing the stone you understand that the photo is like a snap shot under a loupe. I never change the colors either. I leave it, but if you take the photo correctly and use white balance it should be correct usually. I hope that helps. The less photoshop''ing the better
John B. (GemRite)
Faceter

Ah, but there is the crux of the problem.

A knowlegeable consumer will understand this, but your average buyer will presume that there is a great big ugly inclusion in the stone.

I''m not disagreeing with you at all by the way, just intrigued by people''s views on this. I''m not a seller/dealer or anything of that sort, but my interest comes from a photographing incident.

I have a very nice and good sized kunzite with incredible sparkle that is completely eyeclean and even looks good under a loupe. In my photographs you can see a good number of inclusions, that I didn''t even know were there until I went back and used the photo as a plotting device.

Had I seen said photo on a dealers site, I might have been swayed against the stone - and yet in real life it was fabulous.

 

[GemRite]

I understand, but I feel that may be decieving. I want it to be on the up and up. Most faceters I know never edit out inclusions, it''s just hiding the natural flaws of the stone. The customer recieves the gem expecting it to be super clean, and then they see the inclusions. In this industry reputation is everything, and honesty will carry you far. But it only takes one time and you can close the doors. I never want to play with fire, this is the reason i never do any editing with photoshop. A crop here and adjusting the size of the photo is about my limit.

John B. - Faceter
www.GemRite.con

 

[zeolite]

Zeolite, what are you holding your bulbs in?

I use cheap ordinary desk lamps if I use two lamps, and handhold two more aluminum reflector clip-on workshop lamps if I'm using 4 lights. I'm slow to respond because I've been trying to photograph my reddish-orange tourmaline, and that cut is very difficult to light evenly.

A knowlegeable consumer will understand this, but your average buyer will presume that there is a great big ugly inclusion in the stone.

I completely agree. The average consumer will think the gem is heavily flawed, by not realizing that the gem and inclusions are greatly magnified. I guess the only fair way is to leave the inclusions in, but stress under each picture, that in viewing the gem by a sharp well corrected eye alone, that no inclusions are visible.

On the subject of clarity (of colored stones, not diamonds), it seems that many people on this board are grading colored stones using diamond standards and diamond terms. They seem to think a clean colored stone is one that is absolutely flawless at 10X! They think an aquamarine is VVS and lightly included when you can just barely detect inclusions at 10X. That is diamond standards, not colored stone standards, and completely clashes with everything I was taught in earnng my gemology degree!

In colored stones, clean is no inclusions visible with the un-aided eye. Lightly included is eye visible inclusions with the naked eye, not 10X, in diamonds terms, I1, I2, I3.

There is a very good reason diamond clarity standards are different than colored stones. Diamonds are so naturally clean that using 10X was the only way to distingush one eye clean diamond from another. I'm not sure a single ruby or emerald of good color exists in the world that is Internally Flawless at 10X! If it did exist, it would be assumed to be synthetic.

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 8/21/2008 12:51:48 PM
Author: GemRite
I understand, but I feel that may be decieving. I want it to be on the up and up. Most faceters I know never edit out inclusions, it''s just hiding the natural flaws of the stone. The customer recieves the gem expecting it to be super clean, and then they see the inclusions. In this industry reputation is everything, and honesty will carry you far. But it only takes one time and you can close the doors. I never want to play with fire, this is the reason i never do any editing with photoshop. A crop here and adjusting the size of the photo is about my limit.

John B. - Faceter

I wouldn''t argue for editing out inclusions. I never do it for the reasons you state. But there are other things to consider. First, colored gems aren''t clarity-graded the same way diamonds are and very few consumers, including many people here, don''t understand the difference. As of 2002 the GIA changed from the old diamond grading terms for colored stones (FL, VVS, VS, etc.) to a totally new system: eye clean, slightly included, moderately included, heavily included and severely included.

GIA further says the clarity grade is to be determined WITHOUT USE OF MAGNIFICATION.

I always grade stones with a 10-power loupe as well, and write descriptions explaining how any inclusions might affect the gem''s appearance. But my camera''s lens is roughly equivalent to a 30-power loupe. Tiny blemishes that can''t possibly be visible to the unaided eye become very prominent in images. I guess I could shoot pictures at greater distance but that wouldn''t tell prospective buyers much about the stones. I can only hope consumers will allow themselves to be educated to colored gem standards and make the proper allowances. Consumers can''t expect every colored gem to be flawless.

Richard M.

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 8/21/2008 7:59:52 PM
Author: zeolite

Zeolite, what are you holding your bulbs in?

I use cheap ordinary desk lamps if I use two lamps, and handhold two more aluminum reflector clip-on workshop lamps if I''m using 4 lights. I''m slow to respond because I''ve been trying to photograph my reddish-orange tourmaline, and that cut is very difficult to light evenly.

A knowlegeable consumer will understand this, but your average buyer will presume that there is a great big ugly inclusion in the stone.

I completely agree. The average consumer will think the gem is heavily flawed, by not realizing that the gem and inclusions are greatly magnified. I guess the only fair way is to leave the inclusions in, but stress under each picture, that in viewing the gem by a sharp well corrected eye alone, that no inclusions are visible.

On the subject of clarity (of colored stones, not diamonds), it seems that many people on this board are grading colored stones using diamond standards and diamond terms. They seem to think a clean colored stone is one that is absolutely flawless at 10X! They think an aquamarine is VVS and lightly included when you can just barely detect inclusions at 10X. That is diamond standards, not colored stone standards, and completely clashes with everything I was taught in earnng my gemology degree!

In colored stones, clean is no inclusions visible with the un-aided eye. Lightly included is eye visible inclusions with the naked eye, not 10X, in diamonds terms, I1, I2, I3.

There is a very good reason diamond clarity standards are different than colored stones. Diamonds are so naturally clean that using 10X was the only way to distingush one eye clean diamond from another. I''m not sure a single ruby or emerald of good color exists in the world that is Interanlly Flawless at 10X! If it did exist, it would be assumed to be synthetic.

Thank you! Don''t worry, I don''t expect answers fast.

(Off to buy some MORE desklamps

)

Thank you also for posting the information about coloured stone clarity. I had a bash at it in another thread, but your explanation is a bit clearer than mine was!

It''s often a shock to find out that some inclusions are positive - horsetails in demantoid, subtle silk in rubies/sapphires, black spots in malaia/malaya garnets etc. (Are the black inclusions graphite or another mineral in malaia/malaya? ) I have a personal fascination for copper adventurescence in oregon sunstone...

I don''t care too much for flawless looking stones - my suspicious mind says ''synthetic'' very fast if it''s too clean!