Unscrupulous?! Scandalous?! Status Quo?!

[chrono]

I think the entire discussion about photography was extremely useful; Kenny brought up a very interesting point about the reflective image which I did not even notice, and VL provided a very good explanation and which also proved to be the correct. From my perspective, it did not appear as though the lapidary was accused of any wrong doing in particular.

 

[T L]

I think the entire discussion about photography was extremely useful; Kenny brought up a very interesting point about the reflective image which I did not even notice, and VL provided a very good explanation and which also proved to be the correct. From my perspective, it did not appear as though the lapidary was accused of any wrong doing in particular.

I agree, and I think it's important to bring up the subject of photoshopping from any vendor. It doesn't mean the vendor is bad, or terrible, it just useful educational information in order to watch out for similar image altering. Many vendors use photoshop in an ethical manner to get the approrpriate color on their stones that they cannot capture with their camera IRL.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Kenny, is your picture cropped, or are you getting in that tight with those extension bellows?
I'd think you would shoot at a higher speed than 100 with that Nikon. I have a D700 and speeds of 500 or even 1000 show very little or no loss in quality, which would allow you to cut that exposure down.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, is your picture cropped, or are you getting in that tight with those extension bellows?
I'd think you would shoot at a higher speed than 100 with that Nikon. I have a D700 and speeds of 500 or even 1000 show very little or no loss in quality, which would allow you to cut that exposure down.

I really am getting (almost) that tight without cropping.
I LOVE having the bellows because it can blow this 3 mm wide stone and its reflection to almost full frame - which is shown above in the lower pic.
Everyone shoudl have a bellows extension for gem photography.
Plus it makes focusing a breeze without changing magnification.
(BTW I wonder if you can also stack bellows.)

FWIW the lens is a 30-year old Nikon Nikkor-micro 105mm f2.8.
There are also two PK-13 extension rings.
The body used was a D200 which has a smaller sensor than your D700.

I want to buy a new Nikkor 200 mm micro but I don't know how to solve the tripod problem.
That lens is so heavy that it has it's own tripod ring - you are supposed to mount the lens to the tripod, not the camera body.
As you can see in the pic on the previous page, my bellows ALSO must to be mounted to the tripod.
What's the answer? TWO tripods?
I could make a plate with two mounting screws, but that would only work for ONE position of the bellows extension.
If anyone has a solution to this problem I'd love to hear it.

Yes I could bump up the ISO to reduce the exposure time.
Your D700 has MUCH lower noise in higher ISOs than the D200 in part because you have a larger sensor.
I just bought a D7000 which I think shares the High ISO-lower-noise properties of your body, though it does not share your large sensor size.
I'm just phasing in the D7000 now but will experiment with higher ISOs.

Also your larger sensor means my lens, bellow, and tubes would not fill up your larger sensor as much.

 

[kenny]

Gene, in case you're considering buying a bellows I have some more info for you.
I just took this pic of a stainless steel metric scale at my gear's maximum magnification.
This means the bellows is fully extended and the 105mm lens is focused as close as possible.
Note the left edge of the ruler does not reach the left edge of the pic.

At max enlargement my sensor can "see" 6.5 mm in the long (horizontal) axis.
That means a 1-ct round diamond would fill my entire field of view's long side but extend beyond the short side.
A 1/3-ct diamond would fill up the short (vertical) side of the view.

My sensor is 23.6 x 15.8 mm
Yours is 36.0 x 23.9 mm

This means my optics blow up a 6.5 mm thing to 23.6 mm, or 3.6x.
I think (check my math) with your larger sensor the same gear would magnify by 2.4x.
This is the enlargement onto the sensor - not how magnified it is in the final pic or screen.
Anything over 1.0x is considered true macro.

For the noobs: You may be thinking, why are we talking about this since you can just crop pics?
It is better to magnify stuff before it gets to your camera than after because you get superior resolution by using more of those pixels you paid for.
Blowing it up later by cropping in the camera or on your computer results in lower resolution because it does not use all of your camera's pixels.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Wow, that's quite impressive with the bellows. How many stops do you loose fully extended?

I use a 105 f2.8 lens too, and have and extension ring. I really think the Nikon 200 mm macro is the ticket for gems. The further you can have the lens from the stone the better.

I thought maybe your camera was a D700, it looks large in the photo. The D700 does wonders with low light and high speeds.

As far as the tripod mount, I have a Nikon 70-200 or 80-200 f2.8 zoom that weighs a ton, and has a tripod mount on it. I'll often use the camera mounted on either the lens or body. My tripod was originally bought for a 4x5 view camera, so it's a very robust mount and can handle the heavy cantilevered load.

 

[ooo~Shiney!]

My GOODNESS !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[T L]

My GOODNESS !!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yes, and Kenny, your photo on the sink looks like you're about to kill something with a deadly laser weapon. Also, why take photos of tiny gems on the sink!!? What if they fall down the drain?

Besides, you guys have nothing on me with your photos, I took these pictures of atoms last week with my Nikon s6000 point and shoot. I made sure I used several loupes to get a close up.

 

[kenny]

Wow, that's quite impressive with the bellows. How many stops do you loose fully extended?

I use a 105 f2.8 lens too, and have and extension ring. I really think the Nikon 200 mm macro is the ticket for gems. The further you can have the lens from the stone the better.

I thought maybe your camera was a D700, it looks large in the photo. The D700 does wonders with low light and high speeds.

As far as the tripod mount, I have a Nikon 70-200 or 80-200 f2.8 zoom that weighs a ton, and has a tripod mount on it. I'll often use the camera mounted on either the lens or body. My tripod was originally bought for a 4x5 view camera, so it's a very robust mount and can handle the heavy cantilevered load.

The camera in the pic is my D200, not my D7000.

Yes the increased working distance you get with the 200 mm would really make the camera almost vanish from gem reflections and allow more light to get into the gem's table.
That is a very important improvment to gem photography and I want one.
I hear they are raaaaaaaaaazor sharp.
Too bad that lens costs $1,600.

BUT, I think once you get a bellows and watch a 4.8 x 6.5 mm gem fill up your view you will also be permanently addicted to the bellows.
No cropping and using all of your D700's pixels means amazing eye-popping resolution.
Then if you still want to get a 200 mm you will also be facing the 2-tripod problem I mentioned above.

I don't know how many stops the light falls off at full bellow extension, but you could probably google that up.
I just shoot and let the camera determine the exposure.
Of course mirror lock up and a wireless remote are essential to reduce camera vibration.

TL that looks like more than one atom to me.
At least 23.74653 to be exact.

If I drop some FCDs down the sink I'll just buy some more.

 

[T L]

TL that looks like more than one atom to me.
At least 23.74653 to be exact.

If I drop some FCDs down the sink I'll just buy some more.

It's an atom corral actually. Some say atomic particles are standing waves, I think this photo is exemplary of that. Okay, I have to sound somewhat smart next to you.