photographing jewelry

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

Ive been working for almost a month and a half now attempting to get
crips picture of my rings with maximum depth of field. I originally
started out taking pictures with the Nikon D70 and the nikon micro
lens. This really limited my depth of field in that the bottom of the
ring was completely blurry.

I was told then that since i want maximum depth of field a macro lens
would not be the way to go. My family had an Olympus 5050 so i decided
to try it out by adding the adater to the olympus and attaching their
macro lens. Someone had also mentioned that since the chip-size in
that camera is smaller i may get better depth of field. Well they were
right my pictures are much better. This gave me much better pictures
than the Nikon, but they are still not where i'de like them to be. (ive
also tried the super-macro mode without the macro lens)

Someone mentioned that I should try using the canon G6 with close-up
lenses. I dont have a canon g6 and wanted to ask before going out and
trying this.

Has anyone had any luck with taking sharp pictures of rings with the
bottom also in focus. Here is an example (i realize this has been
photoshoped a great deal):

http/www.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500400_zoom.jpg

thanks,
-vikas-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Craig,

With the Olympus I am using the smallest aperature (F8.0).
Unfortunately the Olympus's manual focus is un-usable, but using
autofocus ive tried focusing at the edge of the rings. Ive also tried
using a card to make the camera focus in underneath the top of the
ring, but that hasnt been doing much.

Would a close-up lens do better than shooting in macro mode or with the
olymus adapter + macro lens?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<vsodhani@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> With the Olympus I am using the smallest aperature (F8.0).
> Unfortunately the Olympus's manual focus is un-usable, but using
> autofocus ive tried focusing at the edge of the rings. Ive also tried
> using a card to make the camera focus in underneath the top of the
> ring, but that hasnt been doing much.
>
> Would a close-up lens do better than shooting in macro mode or with the
> olymus adapter + macro lens?

The first thing you want is to put the camera on a tripod. The second
thing to do is realize that 'macro' is basically a euphemism for
'limited depth of field.' Pull the camera back as far as you can,
and zoom in. Don't be afraid to crop the picture later.

If you can get ahold of a camera that has an aperture smaller than f/8,
and/or a tighter zoom, use it. Smaller apertures and tighter zooms will
both yield wider DoF.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

vsodhani@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ive been working for almost a month and a half now attempting to get
> crips picture of my rings with maximum depth of field. I originally
> started out taking pictures with the Nikon D70 and the nikon micro
> lens. This really limited my depth of field in that the bottom of the
> ring was completely blurry.
>
> I was told then that since i want maximum depth of field a macro lens
> would not be the way to go. My family had an Olympus 5050 so i decided
> to try it out by adding the adater to the olympus and attaching their
> macro lens. Someone had also mentioned that since the chip-size in
> that camera is smaller i may get better depth of field. Well they were
> right my pictures are much better. This gave me much better pictures
> than the Nikon, but they are still not where i'de like them to be. (ive
> also tried the super-macro mode without the macro lens)
>
> Someone mentioned that I should try using the canon G6 with close-up
> lenses. I dont have a canon g6 and wanted to ask before going out and
> trying this.
>
> Has anyone had any luck with taking sharp pictures of rings with the
> bottom also in focus. Here is an example (i realize this has been
> photoshoped a great deal):
>
> http/www.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500400_zoom.jpg


Interesting thought to use a smaller camera for more DOF. Possibly a
valid approach for web images. If so I would see which camera has the
best sharpest lens. What was the sample shot done with? It's very nice
but not as sharp as it could be. Someone suggested not being afraid to
crop, probably that would be the approach to use with a D70, or maybe
shooting at as wide an angle as possible and again, chosing a very sharp
lens.

If you don't have a good tripod, set the camera on a table or bean bag &
put some weight on it to guarantee the absolute most stable conditions.
The ring is easy to move into whatever view the camera has set on a table.

I don't claim any expertise, just thinking aloud, it is an interesting
need you have and raises some unique questions about priorities and
trade-offs.


--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

With either camera ... what was your aperature and where did you focus ? You
should use the smallest possible aperature. And you should focus in 40% of
the way . If you were doing a group shot with 10 rows you would focus in 4
rows. Do the same with a product shot. Once photographed you can also use
un-sharp mask .

Craig Flory

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

vsodhani@gmail.com writes:
> I've been working for almost a month and a half now attempting to
> get crips picture of my rings with maximum depth of field. I
> originally started out taking pictures with the Nikon D70 and the
> nikon micro lens. This really limited my depth of field in that the
> bottom of the ring was completely blurry.
>
> I was told then that since i want maximum depth of field a macro
> lens would not be the way to go. My family had an Olympus 5050 so i
> decided to try it out by adding the adater to the olympus and
> attaching their macro lens. Someone had also mentioned that since
> the chip-size in that camera is smaller i may get better depth of
> field. Well they were right my pictures are much better. This gave
> me much better pictures than the Nikon, but they are still not where
> i'de like them to be. (ive also tried the super-macro mode without
> the macro lens)

You get greater DOF with the Oly because it has a tiny sensor,
but because it lacks useable manual focus. there is no way to
improve tings.

> Someone mentioned that I should try using the canon G6 with close-up
> lenses. I dont have a canon g6 and wanted to ask before going out
> and trying this.

Let this one pass. Results will be very similar to the Oly.


I would suggest you go back to the D70 and use a macro lens at its
smallest aperture (highest f-number). Put it on a sturdy tripod, use
manual focus and take several shots where focus lies at different
parts of the ring (e.g.: front, middle, rear).

Use Photoshop to stitch together the sharp portion of each image
to get a combined image where all the bits are pin sharp.

It takes some work (and skill) with Photoshop to get the portions to
blend seamlessly, but it is possible.


Alternatively - if money is no object - get a large format view

camera. This camera lets you use front or rear tilt to shift the
focal plane so that it is not parallell to the film/sensor plane for
DOF control: http/www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html .
But apart from cost, such a camera is not simple to master.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

vsodhani@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ive been working for almost a month and a half now attempting to get
> crips picture of my rings with maximum depth of field. I originally
> started out taking pictures with the Nikon D70 and the nikon micro
> lens. This really limited my depth of field in that the bottom of the
> ring was completely blurry.
>
> I was told then that since i want maximum depth of field a macro lens
> would not be the way to go. My family had an Olympus 5050 so i decided
> to try it out by adding the adater to the olympus and attaching their
> macro lens. Someone had also mentioned that since the chip-size in
> that camera is smaller i may get better depth of field. Well they were
> right my pictures are much better. This gave me much better pictures
> than the Nikon, but they are still not where i'de like them to be. (ive
> also tried the super-macro mode without the macro lens)
>
> Someone mentioned that I should try using the canon G6 with close-up
> lenses. I dont have a canon g6 and wanted to ask before going out and
> trying this.
>
> Has anyone had any luck with taking sharp pictures of rings with the
> bottom also in focus. Here is an example (i realize this has been
> photoshoped a great deal):
>
> http/www.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500400_zoom.jpg
>
> thanks,
> -vikas-
>
Depth of field is very dependent on f-stop.
(Higher f-stop = greater Depth of Field).
Your Oly 5050 has aperture values up to to f-10 and a Super Macro mode
that will allow you to get as close as 1", (or as far as 7")
Don't screw around with auxiliary Macro lenses. The 5050 doesn't need
them, and they will certainly degrade your image
Put your Oly 5050 on a tripod. Use the Super Macro mode and f-7 or so.
You may do well to capture the image from 4-5 inches away instead of 1-2
inches. (Depth of field also increases as the camera-to-subject distance
increases).
Take the picture at 5 MP using the lowest compression.
I'll guarantee that you will get a dynamite picture that is sharp from
top to bottom.
Bob Williams

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1115919674.215412.241700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
vsodhani@gmail.com wrote:

> http/www.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500400_zoom.jpg

If I were you, I would invest is some good lighting, a tripod, and a
zoom lens. The reason is that you need to shoot from afar in order to
avoid having the lens be reflected in the jewelry. You need the bright
lights so you can get a good depth of field and a fast shutter speed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) writes:
> The second thing to do is realize that 'macro' is basically a
> euphemism for 'limited depth of field.'

I see the smiley - but this is misleading.

It is true that when you move in close, DOF gets more shallow.
But designed-for-macro lenses such as the 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor
compensate for this by offering a smallest aperture of f/32 - which,
btw. should provide good enough DOF for the type of ring shot the
OP poster is pursuing.

I think he will get much better results by using a Micro-Nikkor macro
lens at f/32 and let the ring fully fill the frame, than using an
ordinary zoom with a larger aperture some distance from the ring, and
cropping.

After re-reading the original message, and in particularly the bit
describing the weird experiment with the P&S Olympus - I am beginning
to wonder if the OP is aware of the relationship between aperture and
DOF?. maybe there is a very simple solution for him: stop down.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) writes:
> > The second thing to do is realize that 'macro' is basically a euphemism
> > for 'limited depth of field.'
>
> I see the smiley - but this is misleading.
>
> It is true that when you move in close, DOF gets more shallow. But
> designed-for-macro lenses such as the 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor
> compensate for this by offering a smallest aperture of f/32 - which, btw.
> should provide good enough DOF for the type of ring shot the OP poster is
> pursuing.
>
> I think he will get much better results by using a Micro-Nikkor macro lens
> at f/32 and let the ring fully fill the frame, than using an ordinary zoom
> with a larger aperture some distance from the ring, and cropping.
>
> After re-reading the original message, and in particularly the bit
> describing the weird experiment with the P&S Olympus - I am beginning to
> wonder if the OP is aware of the relationship between aperture and DOF?.
> maybe there is a very simple solution for him: stop down.

The Olympus' smallest aperture is f/8.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

vsodhani@gmail.com writes:
> I've been working for almost a month and a half now attempting to
> get crips picture of my rings with maximum depth of field. I
> originally started out taking pictures with the Nikon D70 and the
> nikon micro lens. This really limited my depth of field in that
> the bottom of the ring was completely blurry.

What Micro-Nikkor and at what aperture did you shoot?

With a 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor stopped down to f/32, you should
get enough depth of field to render the entire ring shot at the angle
in your example below sharp.

> http/www.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500400_zoom.jpg
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[frederick]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:


>
> I would suggest you go back to the D70 and use a macro lens at its
> smallest aperture (highest f-number). Put it on a sturdy tripod, use
> manual focus and take several shots where focus lies at different
> parts of the ring (e.g.: front, middle, rear).
>
> Use Photoshop to stitch together the sharp portion of each image
> to get a combined image where all the bits are pin sharp.
>
> It takes some work (and skill) with Photoshop to get the portions to
> blend seamlessly, but it is possible.
>

I just tried taking some shots of a ring using a D70 with 105mm macro
lens. Stopped down to f32, with the ring at the same angle as the OP's
shot and filling the screen (1:1.4 approx), then there is plenty of
depth of field / sharpness across the shot for use in a small print, or
for a photo on a website. Viewed at 1:1 or for a large print, then
photoshop skills will be needed. A very solid tripod is also needed.

 

[frederick]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

vsodhani@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ive been working for almost a month and a half now attempting to get
> crips picture of my rings with maximum depth of field. I originally
> started out taking pictures with the Nikon D70 and the nikon micro
> lens. This really limited my depth of field in that the bottom of the
> ring was completely blurry.
>
> I was told then that since i want maximum depth of field a macro lens
> would not be the way to go. My family had an Olympus 5050 so i decided
> to try it out by adding the adater to the olympus and attaching their
> macro lens. Someone had also mentioned that since the chip-size in
> that camera is smaller i may get better depth of field. Well they were
> right my pictures are much better. This gave me much better pictures
> than the Nikon, but they are still not where i'de like them to be. (ive
> also tried the super-macro mode without the macro lens)
>
> Someone mentioned that I should try using the canon G6 with close-up
> lenses. I dont have a canon g6 and wanted to ask before going out and
> trying this.
>
> Has anyone had any luck with taking sharp pictures of rings with the
> bottom also in focus. Here is an example (i realize this has been
> photoshoped a great deal):
>
> http/www.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500400_zoom.jpg
>
> thanks,
> -vikas-
>

Not great works of art - neither the ring, nor my photo - but this was
reasonably simple with D70 and a macro lens:

http/www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ring.htm

IMO the original is sharp enough for a web image - but not for a large
print. Both the closest point at the top, and the rear of ring at the
bottom are not pin sharp. A white background probably doesn't work that
well for silver.