Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Photographing Diamonds

seaglass

seaglass

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
48
I did multiple searches and came up empty.

Thanks for everyone who helped with my recent ring purchase. However, I am having significant difficulty taking photos of the diamond, most especially the arrows. Pictures from WF and other retailers make it look so easy to get a sharp photo. I've tried in multiple lighting with a mirrorless camera and with my phone. All are lacking. I can't seem to get a good, distinct shot of the arrows on the fiance's ring. I even went out and bought a 10x triplex loupe. With it I can see the arrows, but not distinctly like I see on retailers' pages.

Any suggestions? I've set the aperture to f22 as recommended on other threads I've read.

And I'm blaming all of you for my new obsession. The fiance loves the ring and it meets all criteria that I know of. But it bothers me about the arrows.
 
Ooops. It looks like my web browser was blocking some of the search functions. I did find some good past threads.
 
Brilliant Flyingpig! Thank you!
 
I find you can see the arrows more clearly if light is coming from behind the diamond
 
jim bones said:
Any suggestions? I've set the aperture to f22 as recommended on other threads I've read.
Click to expand...

Where’d you see that?
Better question - what camera are you using?

Smaller to a point is better, sure - a (big) wide open lens is going to yield a soft, blurry dreamscape... but an arrows shot requires only diamond depth from table plane to girdle plane to be in focus - depth of field does not need to be huge! Most lenses are sharpest ~f8, and with small apertures you’re going to have to expose for much longer which of course leaves your photo vulnerable to even slight vibrations.

Use a white sheet of paper with a cutout for your lens to ensure you’re creating optimal obstruction, back off, and zoom in.
If you really want to make like the pros do - read everything @kenny has written on the subject - his photos are things of beauty and envy :love:
 
Yssie,

I've read it more than once on Rocky Talk. But I did wonder about that. Seems like I have been going about it all wrong. For one thing, I've been facing the ring to the light instead of the other way around. I'm using a Samsung NX200. It has an APS-C sensor. I tried a 20mm lens, an 18-55 lens, and a 50-200 lens.

Thanks for all the input.
 
Good luck!
We all know macro photography is a finicky thing - macro photography of light-reflecting substances could only be even more persnickety! :bigsmile:

To be honest I cheat - I take most of my diamond pics with my trusty ol’ Canon S95 P&S and a handful of closeup filters. Just so much easier to photograph at close range... since I don’t need to worry about scaring the diamond off... ::)
 
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/

I do some gem photography with high end Nikon macro gear including a bellows, see above link.
Pics and photography advice are scattered throughout this 10-pg thread.

I'd never use f22!
Picking the best f stop is more complicated than just going for greatest depth of field.
I'll attempt to make this post understandable, but in the past my photography-splainin posts like this one only generated crickets.

Basics:
f stops are the setting steps of the diameter of the adjustable hole, aka aperture, in the lens of better cameras.
Lower-cost cameras have a fixed hole, often f8, which is a compromise that greatly limits artistic expression.
The bigger the lens' hole the more light is allowed in.
The other way to control how much light gets in is the shutter speed, which adjusts how long the shutter is open allowing light to strike the sensor or film.

We set f stop and shutter speed to one of the several combinations that give us the desired exposure, amount of light.
For decades high end camera bodies have been able to 'automatically' set both SS and aperture, but again this limits artistic expression, especially for subjects with specialized demands like gem photography.
The best photographic art often requires thoroughly understanding your tools and manually controlling everything ... but this scares the heck out of most people.
I blame Kodak's Brownie camera of 1900, which convinced the public photography was easy and instant requiring only pushing one button.

f22 does give you greater depth of field (which should be named depth of focus) than f8 but:
1. f8 gives you sharper pics where it is in focus.
2. f8 allows a faster shutter speed than f22, reducing blur from camera vibration ... even on a tripod if you are going for very high magnifications.
3. Allows you to use a lower ISO setting, delivering pics that have less noise (aka electronic grain).

Confusingly, the f numbers are backwards; the higher the f number the smaller the hole.
A small hole brings more in focus in front of and behind the plane you focused on.
For instance, f22 gives more depth of field than f8, and much more than f1.4.
BUT
If you set the hole too small f22, f32, f64, another optical phenomenon starts to kicks in, diffraction.
Diffraction blurs the image.
Light normally travels in a straight line, but when light passes next to something its path bends a little.
With a large hole, f2.8, little of the light is near the edge of the hole.
With a smaller hole, f22, a higher percentage of the light passes next to the edge of the hole.
This bending of light blurs the entire image at f22.

Lenses are sharpest at their mid aperture which is usually around f5.6, f8, or f11.
Figure it out for your lens.

Also, having a super sharp region and a softer region makes the sharp part seem even sharper.

Lastly, since I'm recommending f stops with less depth of field the following will help you get more of the diamond in focus.
Compared to a lens' widest aperture, say f2.8, f8 does not bring stuff into focus in front of and behind the plane of focus equally.
The deeper focus reaches 2/3 behind the plane of focus, but only 1/3 in front of it, so adjust where you focus accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Great explanation, @kenny :)

The F22 thing always confuses me slightly, as some of the classic landscape photographs seem to be taken using F22 but they still look sharp!
 
Thanks OS.
I don't expect responses to my phtog posts since nearly nobody has these cameras any more.
It's a pleasure when someone takes an interest in what this dinosaur posts.

I'm sure many landscape pic are taken at f22.
Photography is art.
Learn the rules then break, them I say.
Better yet, thoroughly learn your tools and keep your mind open.

Each shot requires decisions and compromises.
For my gem photography I've arrived at my preferred settings.
If another gem photographer prefers the deeper focus of f22, and feels the slightly softer overall focus is of less importance, so be it.

When a photographer feels something very near and very far must be equally in focus, then f22 it is ... or even f32, or even f64 if your lens goes there.
We decide on the aesthetic priorities for each subject and each shooter will strike their own compromises.

Landscape being associated with f22 may be explained.
In a landscape you probably do not want the very near and the very far areas to go at all out of focus.

With large-format cameras (huge film negative or sensor) and the highest quality lenses, f22 will look quite sharp, especially if the print is not too large or the computer screen is not huge.
For some of his most famous landscapes Ansel Adams lugged around a massive view camera with a negative measuring 10" x 14" and maybe even larger.
Keep in mind the sensor in apple's best iPhone is only a small fraction of an inch.

Next, Adams often did not even enlarge the negative when printing it.
He placed the negative directly over the paper and exposed it, aka contact printing.
Not enlarging during printing dramatically increases the sharpness since the image is not blown up, and does not to through yet another lens (the enlarger's).

But that same f22 pic would be even sharper, at the distance the lens was focused at, if shot at f8.
This is not apparent because we never get to see the results of the two f stops displayed side by side.
You photographers can easily set up this test if you have a camera with adjustable aperture.
 
Last edited:
I guess Depth of Field is also a focal length thing as well - I've got one of the Vivitar / Ssamyang F3.5 8mm lenses and while it's a little soft at f3.5, anywhere from F5 onwards and it's basically sharp across the frame! Great for landscape photography and night-sky photography :) I don't envy Adams and those of a similar vintage - it must have been a massive amount of work to get images 'in the old days' so full respect is due!

At the opposite end of the spectrum, shooting F1.8 at 100mm means a wafer-thin DoF that is sometimes hard to work with but very useful at picking things out of an image :)
 
Yes, wide angle lenses have greater DOF than a telephoto at the same f stop.

Lens focal length is yet another thing to consider when taking any pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top