Best Point-and-Shoot Camera Options for Colored Stones?

[ChrisA222]

Help!!

Now, I did a search on this topic, but I found old threads (you know how quickly electronics are upgraded) and others more diamond-oriented.

I really am ready this time to bite the bullet and buy a digital camera to take nicer pictures of my gems. After this really nice Tsavorite that I bought from Gene, that looks so nice in person, but like an army green peridot in the pics from my Smartphone, I am frustrated and ready to try something else.

Its upsetting because my Camera Phone is one of the latest Androids, has an 8MP Camera with HD capability video etc etc. It has a decent macro as well..I have zero problems catching detail. But the color representation is not even close. I can do OK with Reds, sometimes blues but greens or oranges do not work. It desaturates usually, too. Ive tried all the settings...I can come closest using the incandescent setting under CFLs to get the closest, or natural light and flourescent setting...but it is just not anywhere near accurate. Plus using the camera phone is awkward and I am ready for something easier and better.

Anyone have reccomendations? Good results as far as color representation??? I am not looking for professional quality like Kenny has, as I am not ready to invest in a lightbox and a DSLR, macro lens, bellows, and all of that. I just want a good point and shoot to post decent pictures of my stones so I can post them online. This hobby is fun, I wnat to be able to share my collection either on my webpage or post them here and so on.

I appreciate whatever direction and/or experiences with specific cameras you all can give me and THANKS!!

 

[minousbijoux]

Hi Chris:

My camera is in the other room, and I have a dog on my lap right now (well, he's 100 lbs, so kinda across my lap and hanging off on both sides, lol), but its a Nikon. I think its a Quick Pix perhaps? If you search for Nikon here, it should return threads where TL is talking about her camera. Several of us bought the same one after seeing her pics. I love mine, but in night time light, I still can't take good pics because I don't have a tripod or understand how to manually slow down shutter speed...

 

[minousbijoux]

I should say low night time light is the problem.

 

[chrono]

I am afraid I'm of little help because my Point and Shoot camera is at least 5 years old and my iPhone takes better pictures than it does. All the pictures posted on PS for the last two years are from my iPhone. No light box and no fancy get-up. As Minou said, a good light source is important (strong enough).

 

[LD]

Cameras differ wildly. For example every Canon I've owned never photographs green well but blues and reds no problem. Having said that I think that getting a camera to photograph green is like a holy grail search. I can't recall the camera TL bought in the last year but I know it took great photos but not green again! If you can find one of her posts then that should tell you which one she got.

 

[colorluvr]

Do you want to take the time to take photos in RAW and then download them into the appropriate program on your computer to get the colors perfect? If so, make sure you get a P & S that is able to do this. Many of the nicer P & S Canons have this capability. The most expensive ones however, do not necessarily take the best macro photos, as some of the extra money is because of their video capability, which may or may not be of interest to you.

Mine is relatively new (last spring) but it is currently at the "doctor" because the lens froze and stopped retracting so it stopped working, however, for once in my life, the insurance I bought at Best Buy is covering the repair (or sending me a new one).

This is mine: http://www.techhive.com/article/116...00_provides_a_near_perfect_pocket_camera.html
It has RAW capabilities, but I have never taken the time to learn how to do that. For my use, the macro/auto settings are good enough. I have a nice (but older DLSR) so if I want to take the time to really mess with my photos, I use that.

If you check out Cellentani's photos (she uses a bit older Canon P & S and takes her photos in RAW), you will see the quality of photos that can be taken with a nice P & S if you want to take the time to learn to shoot in RAW.

The price of mine has come down a lot because it is no longer brand new..... one suggestion, no matter which brand you choose, try to get one in silver (not black) or you will get black reflections on many of your photos. I got a black one because they didn't have any silver in stock and I regret it. Thank goodness my cell phone is white, so if I want a quicky photo, I don't have to worry about the reflection.

 

[minousbijoux]

one suggestion, no matter which brand you choose, try to get one in silver (not black) or you will get black reflections on many of your photos. I got a black one because they didn't have any silver in stock and I regret it. Thank goodness my cell phone is white, so if I want a quicky photo, I don't have to worry about the reflection.

Darn, I wish I knew this before I bought my camera a few years ago - it never even dawned on me!

 

[colorluvr]

one suggestion, no matter which brand you choose, try to get one in silver (not black) or you will get black reflections on many of your photos. I got a black one because they didn't have any silver in stock and I regret it. Thank goodness my cell phone is white, so if I want a quicky photo, I don't have to worry about the reflection.

Darn, I wish I knew this before I bought my camera a few years ago - it never even dawned on me!

I have to tape a piece of white paper to the front of my lens when I take macro shots, or I get the black reflection.

 

[jbkhere]

I don't have any suggestions. I'm just thrilled you're finally getting a camera! And I'm watching this thread because I'd like one too

 

[ChrisA222]

Great info...thanks! Especially about getting a silver/white camera.

Heres my other irritation....

Im specifically working on getting ONE decent pic of Gene's Tsav. I got one where the color is bordering on close....but the camera is picking up a ton of nasty 'sugar' inclusions of which my eye cannot see. So the stone looks like it needs to be washed...when in reality, the stone is crystal clear to my eyes. So far, the best/only way I could think of to minimize that effect was to lower the size of the pic to the lowest size. <sigh> it really stinks when you finally get the Tsav that you've been looking forever for and you can't get one nice picture to show everybody!

I cant for the life of me understand why I was able to have no problems with the Chrome Tourmaline and forget the Tsavorite. THe only real differences in the color is that the Tsav has slight blue that the Tourm does not. The Tourm is without inclusions though under the cameras magnification.

Any other advice (if Im going to try to do it with this camera?) on how to minimize the look of those inclusions or am I destined to never have an attractive picture of this stone?

 

[FinewaterGems]

Now you know exactly what we vendors have to deal with every day! Many times I notice inclusions only after I've photographed the stone.

 

[kenny]

I'd get the Sony Rx100.
$650 is a bargain for this camera, which appeals to pros but fits into your pocket.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100

There are a zillion reasons I'd pic this camera besides macro mode.
The main reason is it has a huge 1" sensor which is MUCH bigger than the standard point an shoot.
A large sensor is VERY important.
It gives you cleaner and sharper low light performance.
You'll be able to take useable pics in candle light.
If you do not get this camera please please please make sensor size (Not megapixel count as in 16 MP) your NUMBER ONE priority when shopping for ANY camera.
Sensor size is how large the sensor is as in one third of an inch, or two thirds of an inch.



This camera also has a fast f1.8 Carl Ziess lens, one of the finest lens makers in the world.

This fast lens (the lower the f-number the faster the lens, or the greater its diameter) coupled with the large sensor can give you that beautiful shallow depth of field for lovely portraits where the eye lashes are sharp but the background just melts out of focus into a creamy blur.

It can shoot 10 pictures per second for following kids and sports action.

It lets you shoot in RAW mode, not just JPEG, for vastly superior images.
It has image stabilizing technology so you won't get blur when hand holding the camera for low light shots or macro.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/hands-review-sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100

One down side is the zoom is only 3.6x optical and 7.2x digital, but this camera has so much going for it I'd overlook this.

 

[minousbijoux]

Great info...thanks! Especially about getting a silver/white camera.

Heres my other irritation....

Im specifically working on getting ONE decent pic of Gene's Tsav. I got one where the color is bordering on close....but the camera is picking up a ton of nasty 'sugar' inclusions of which my eye cannot see. So the stone looks like it needs to be washed...when in reality, the stone is crystal clear to my eyes. So far, the best/only way I could think of to minimize that effect was to lower the size of the pic to the lowest size. <sigh> it really stinks when you finally get the Tsav that you've been looking forever for and you can't get one nice picture to show everybody!

I cant for the life of me understand why I was able to have no problems with the Chrome Tourmaline and forget the Tsavorite. THe only real differences in the color is that the Tsav has slight blue that the Tourm does not. The Tourm is without inclusions though under the cameras magnification.

Any other advice (if Im going to try to do it with this camera?) on how to minimize the look of those inclusions or am I destined to never have an attractive picture of this stone?

I know this is a longshot, but could it be because you are taking it in low light conditions and the shutter is open wide? Did you try it out in shaded but bright daylight, if that makes any sense?

 

[kenny]

I would not bother searching for a white camera.
Even if the camera is white the gem will still pick up and reflect everything else around and behind the white camera, the tripod, your shirt and hair, the room behind you.

Get some white cardboard or foam core board.
Cut a hole of the perfect size in so it will fit snugly on the front of the lens.

IMHO this is essential for gem photography regardless of if the camera was $50 or $50,000, white, black or red.

Here's a pic of my white board.
The camera is behind the board and only the lens is peeking through.

It is amazing to see the difference with and without a white board.
Maybe I'll take a test shot now ...

 

[kenny]

Great info...thanks! Especially about getting a silver/white camera.

Heres my other irritation....

Im specifically working on getting ONE decent pic of Gene's Tsav. I got one where the color is bordering on close....but the camera is picking up a ton of nasty 'sugar' inclusions of which my eye cannot see. So the stone looks like it needs to be washed...when in reality, the stone is crystal clear to my eyes. So far, the best/only way I could think of to minimize that effect was to lower the size of the pic to the lowest size. <sigh> it really stinks when you finally get the Tsav that you've been looking forever for and you can't get one nice picture to show everybody!

I cant for the life of me understand why I was able to have no problems with the Chrome Tourmaline and forget the Tsavorite. THe only real differences in the color is that the Tsav has slight blue that the Tourm does not. The Tourm is without inclusions though under the cameras magnification.

Any other advice (if Im going to try to do it with this camera?) on how to minimize the look of those inclusions or am I destined to never have an attractive picture of this stone?

I'd experiment with changing the light.
Often a small pointed source will emphasize the texture of inclusions but a soft large source, such as putting the gem in a light tent or holding a white thin cloth over the light source, will conceal them.
Often back lighting will emphasize inclusions but lighting from the front will not.

Keep in mind good macro shots just see more than the naked eye.
That doesn't mean it's a bad picture, just an included gem.
If you want to 'cheat', excuse me I mean get more creative, you can retouch to vanish inclusions in post.

 

[colorluvr]

I agree that the camera that Kenny suggested is probably a great camera BUT if you aren't ready to fork out over $600 for a camera, I'd still consider the Canon S100 which is now $279.90 on Amazon. It certainly is not in the same ballpark as the Sony, but for the money, I think it's a pretty good little camera and most of the reviews agree. They have since released the S110, but it's more money so it pretty much comes down to deciding on a budget and getting the most bang for your buck within your price range.

Technology for P & S cameras is improving all the time as they try to keep pace / outdo the cell phone cameras and I'd hesitate spending $600 for a camera that may be somewhat obsolete (as in there will be a newer/better one within a year) for a P & S... just my two cents.

If you want to invest in a nice DSLR, then that's an entirely different thread and Kenny is probably one of your best sources of information for DSLRs and all the goodies that go with them.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Pay attention to the picture Kenny posted. This is the ticket. You don't want to shine lights directly on the stone, you shine them on the white board around the lens.

Another key is to get away from the stone. If you are right on top of the stone, you are shading it, and also it doesn't look as good. Take any stone, look at it with your eyes from 6 inches away, now move it further like arms length and looks much better. The problem with so many macro modes on camera's is they allow you to focus really close, but it's too close. The lens is 1 inch from the stone. You can't light the stone properly.

I bought my wife a little Lumix camera that has a telephoto macro mode. This works pretty well as it allows you to get away from the stone. I'll be taking this to Tucson with me.

I haven't tried this, but think it would help if you are using a smart phone. Put a piece of white paper over the phone with just a small hole for the lens.

Green is a real bugger to photograph, and especially the "chrome" type color green found in tsavorite and chrome tourmaline.

 

[kenny]

Yes Gene, that's a good low-cost technique, but shining lights directly at that card means shining them directly into the lens (a basic photography NONO) which will usually give you flare and ghosting and degrades the blacks and give you poor contrast, unless you have a very effective lens hood and are careful to somehow point lights at white card without point light into lens.
I use a light box to soften the light, another approach.

Here are some test shots I just took with and without a white card stuck on the lens of my admitted-large black camera.
Sure, with no white card a white camera would have resulted in less black reflect by the gems especially if your camera gives you only a couple inches between the gem and the lens at highest magnification, but again all the background stuff can be picked up and reflected by the gem without a white card.
The darker images are with no white card.
Notice in the top right pic below, with no white card; the diamond reflected back some of the red and blue of my shirt.

Of note; Canon, Nikon and Hasseblad pro cameras are not available in white, only in black.
Pros just use a white card and/or a light box with a small hole for the lens to look into.

Here's a white Solasfera 0.83 ct F VS1 diamond.
The only difference between these two pics is the one on the left had that white card on the lens.


Here are two super cheapo colored stones.
The only difference between these two pics is the one on the top had that white card on the lens.


White cards are nearly free and take 30 seconds to make.
If your point and shoot does not have a lens barrel you'll have to jerry-rig a card holder thingie to place the camera behind.
Even taping white paper with a hole in it to the front of the camera would offer an improvement.

About distance ... selecting a camera/lens that offers maximum distance between the lens and the gem at maximum enlargement is desirable.
It lets more light in and results in the gem reflecting back fewer black reflections of the camera/lens.
(Even a white camera will have a lens that appears black to the gem.)
That's why I use a 105mm instead of a 60mm macro lens.
The longer the lens the more working distance you get.
I'd love to get even more working distance with Nikkor's 200mm macro lens but the $1,800 price tag, and how to mount is with a bellows, is kinda slowing me down.

When shopping for a point and shoot for macro use you want the closest focusing distance possible, rather I'd pick the one that fills more of the frame of the largest sensor.
I doubt these cameras publish this spec so I would narrow it down to two or three cameras and buy all 3 and test the close focus distance myself and keep the one that gives you the most distance (and the largest image on the largest sensor) and return the other two.

 

[kenny]

For the record, this is the light set up and light tent used for the above test pics with the white card.



You don't need any of this fancy junk to benefit from a white card.
Everyone should use one.

 

[PrecisionGem]

My light set up was free, and simpler. It's a small cardboard box, lined with white printer paper. I shine the lights on the card in front of the lens. Not directly on the lens, but on the card. I dont have any flair problems or contrast issues. Here's a picture of a stone I just made with an iPhone 5 and a white piece of paper. A hole in the middle of the paper, and my lights shinning on the paper. No color corrections just some cropping in iPhoto.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Kenny, if you would buy bigger stones you wouldn't need all those extension bellows!

 

[kenny]

Gene, lovely results ... at least here on the Internets.
But keep in mind that compressed squished onscreen pics only a few inches across on PS is a great equalizer of low end and high end camera equipment.

Blow the images up and view them on a 27" monitor or print them on large prints and that's where the difference between an iPhone with it's tiny sensor, a point a shoot, a DX SLR, an FX SLR, or a zillion-dollar large format gear is obvious.

If you compare pics taken in candlelight with an iPhone and a full frame DSLR, or better yet a large format Hasseblad and there's no comparison.
The iPhone will look like pond scum compared to a large sensor.
Low light is another place where you'll see that you get what you pay for.

But yes, if all you do is post pics on an Internet forum that severely limits pics size and resolution then spending the big bucks is a waste of money! Totally!

 

[kenny]

Kenny, if you would buy bigger stones you wouldn't need all those extension bellows!

Dahleeng, I only do natural FCDs.

If you wanna buy me some 5 to 10 carat pure red, pure green, and pure blue diamonds, intense and vivid please, with material and color of natural origin per GIA, I'll gladly be your bitch.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Sorry I don't do diamonds, too controlled of a market for me.

Totally agree about sensor size. I take my pictures for the website with a full frame Nikon. I also have an RB67 Pro S that shoots 120 roll film. I'm waiting for a decent price digital back for that camera, or a digital back for my 4x5 view camera. But the thrust of this thread was someone looking for a low cost means to take half decent pictures. My wife's camera is a Lumix SZ1. I'll try taking a picture of the same stone with that and see what I can come up with.

This is the same stone shot with the Nikon D700 with a 105mm macro lens, on short extension tube. This stone by the way is not for sale.

 

[kenny]

Sorry I don't do diamonds, too controlled of a market for me.

Totally agree about sensor size. I take my pictures for the website with a full frame Nikon. I also have an RB67 Pro S that shoots 120 roll film. I'm waiting for a decent price digital back for that camera, or a digital back for my 4x5 view camera. But the thrust of this thread was someone looking for a low cost means to take half decent pictures. My wife's camera is a Lumix SZ1. I'll try taking a picture of the same stone with that and see what I can come up with.

This is the same stone shot with the Nikon D700 with a 105mm macro lens, on short extension tube. This stone by the way is not for sale.

Gorgeous pic.
I have a Mamiya RB67 too, with 3 lenses and a CDS prism finder I'm going to sell, polaroid back too. Bought it all new in 1982 but rarely used any of it.

So, your 105mm on FF Nikon (I just got the D600) so how much of that big sensor did one extension ring and a 105mm fill up (and what's the width of that beautiful green gem?
20%?
30%?

Get a PB-4 or PB-6 bellows from KEH.com, move that 105mm away from the body and get the girdle to touch the top and bottom of your frame, and you won't have to crop in post.
A $300 bellows will use more of the pixels you paid for and the resolution will blow your head off.
Though granted, it will look identical on the 3 inch compressed pics that PS allows.

Sorry for the HJ.

 

[minousbijoux]

Kenny: Thanks for your examples. Who knew what a difference a white card stuck on the camera would make. But I will not doubt a master photographer such as you.

BTW, any more exploration of gem photography as a career path for you? If yes, and you feel like sharing, please start a thread here or in hangout. I want to be one of the first that buys one of your works of art when/if they go on sale...

 

[PrecisionGem]

There is a lot of cropping in my image. Actually a 3/4 sensor would be better for macro work than the full 35mm sensor. I have my photo editing pretty automated. I use Aperture on a 27" iMac. I have crop with a square crop, then have a predefined export to 400 x 400 x 72 with the water mark. I normally wait until I have 3 or 4 stones to shoot. Take 3 or 4 images of each, import them into Aperture, crop and export in minutes.

My fear with the bellows would be the depth of field would get too shallow. Right now I shoot normally between f14 and f20 at about 1/4 second.

 

[ChrisA222]

This is great info...but I have a better idea.

Gene, ill just return the stone back to you so you can take me some more pics. Lol, now that's the best idea so far!! I didn't get the nice 400x400 pic of the new stones!!

Just kidding...ill try the white paper and maybe the home made lightbox to
A $600+ camera is not what I want though so if I can't work with the phone I may go for colorluvrs camera recommendation

 

[vickygigi]

I wish I could help, but photographing gems/jewelry is difficult. I am glad you posted this question though because it seems a lot of experienced folks shared their tricks. I have no tricks. Thanks!

 

[minousbijoux]

Another thing that I recommend when you do get a camera is to keep an advice journal. About the same time I got my camera, someone else here got the same model and asked a question. TL answered the very basic information that was sought. Then someone else chimed in with another tip they had figured out. Over the next few weeks, in various threads, TL, Kenny, VL and others posted various tips and tricks and discussed some of the science behind the photography. Every time this happened, I would cut and paste the info into a Word diary and ended up with a few pages of tips and tricks that have helped me with my camera.