photos of diamonds

Hi Enzo,

You don’t say how the photo was lit and if any kind of artificial light or flash was involved so it is difficult to say, especially without seeing the pic-can you post it here or on Flickr or somewhere similar?

Diamonds are like glass-tricky to photograph as you have discovered. You would generally need a light just for the sparkle, possibly snooted, and positioned fairly close to the camera-just shining on the necklace so that you can see it’s effect in camera. It does’nt need to be amazingly bright-just enough to get the sparkle.

Best wishes,

JR.

PS…. I love your photo of the model in stripey tights!!

Thank you John,

I just visited your gallery and I really like your eye, congratulations!

About the diamonds: I haven’t used any flash light or any light at all, I photograpèhed the all thing in the shop.
I couldn’t find how to attach a picture here in this message so I am going to send you an email…

thank you for your advise

enzo

You could help yourself by using a Diamond Dazzler LED bulb positioned on bottom of the piece ( Diamond – Although there is a kind of Ruby which would only look the way it is if exposed to direct sunlight, otherwise would look as glass-). The above mentioned led light would help it sparkle and add brilliance to the gemstone. You could use another lights for the subject and this just for the jewel.
Good luck with that ( It is kind os a nightmare)
Cheers,
Pupo

Thanks Enzo-as Jorge says, lights are the way to go with glass or diamonds. Light the subject then add the sparkler light onto the diamond necklace so that you can see it’s effect in the camera. I’ve never heard of the LED bulb light but it sounds like a good solution.

Thank you Jorge,

I will try! Still I am surprised that what I clearly see with my eyes is not seen at all by the lents…

Enzo-I got the pic and hope you will not mind me posting it here. Lights are what you needed here I think.
Like I said-diamonds are very tricky, same as shooting glass objects.

Cheers,

JR.

“http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents/jewelry_photography.htm”
Remember a lens sees more then anyone eyes. I have been using the led light myself recently, and you could notice the difference, you don´t have to go to any “special store” to get it ( If you get it at a photo store price would be twice higher). Another thing, try to underexpose half a point.
you´re wellcome,
Cheers,
Pupo

Sorry Enzo-I could’nt resist a quick tinker around in photoshop. Jorge’s link has lots of good tips. If you don’t have lights you could always try using a maglight flashlight,(torch as we call them in the UK), aimed at the diamonds or even try messing around with the light bounced off of mirrors. I’d try and photograph the diamonds against a dark background too.
Ciao,
JR.

Jorge thank you for the tip !<br /> John, your photoshop touch is very impressive but.. hmmm that’s not how they looked like “live” lol… anyways, I’ll try your tips as well, right now I don’t have to photograph any jewel but it will happen soon.. thank you again :o)

Try lighting from under or behind your subject… get rid of the background and replace it with white paper. Use silver boards to bounce back some light to create highlights.That last pic that JR showed would have worked even better if there was a white card behind the subject. With jewelery, glass, and metal it’s all about the light and reflections that define your subject. Hope this helped a bit.

will try, thank you Gregory !

What Greg says is exactly right and I have some examples here that I thought I’d never have the opportunity to show.

So let me just dig up my jewelry photos, Enzo, to illustrate Greg’s point.

Oh boy, my favorite(!) a diamond thread! ((((::::

There is a cheap and friendly tool with is white polystyrene one side, black on the other, silver boars Greg is talking about could be even aluminium paper.

Gayle, come on, show it up!
Lol!

lol! I’m almost there! lol

Sorry, I really had to dig for these, as I don’t get my CS3 for this laptop till tomorrow.

_{ghegland copyright 2002}

_{ghegland copyright 2002}

WOW!!!!!!!

Oh, Jorge! lol.. You are so sweet to me always… here’s a diamond I give to you, because it reminds me of your brilliant firewalker. (:

_{ghegland copyright 2002}

_{ghegland copyright 2002}

The thing with diamonds and faceted stones is that they are customarily set (or hung as in the earrings above) so that light can get under and around them somehow, especially (or hopefully!) when they are being worn. Since it is, as Greg says, the light against the facets that make them reflect that light to your eye and is what causes them to “shine”.

As long as you can get light under or around them, they will look good,,, and on dark background or skin, doesn’t necessarily have to be white. In a difficult circumstance a white background may reflect more available light if artificial light cannot be found, but I don’t find much difference in the value of the background rather it’s the NON contrasting shapes between the environment and gems that create more of a problem…I think anyway.

Of course, I’m using a macro here with focus only on the gem, but still with plenty directional light exposing the facets you should be able to get some sparkle at least on a posed image, with luck on a non posed… (o:

You all who are more knowledgeable than I about camera specifics would have better advice than I here, and of course distance would be a huge factor, so if too far away, some fancy footwork like JR has done here might be in order…lol Or that light that Jorge speaks of sounds interesting… they must use those on the Red Carpets, huh?

Anyway, not necessarily high contrast, but some contrast and variation of tone between the facets is what our eye catches and determines how much the gem “twinkles”. Medium to large and not tiny facets are what we notice more especially in movement (that is what Enzo is referring to, the changes of light through time and movement that your eye records as opposed to the non temporal single shot that the still camera records). Like in those tennis bracelets the diamonds never seem to shine much because the planes of the facets are so small, although they certainly do cost an arm and a leg (sadly, literally, in some countries).

So the contrast not just between the facets but also between the gem/s and the background or environment will help enormously. That is, the actual or visual texture (noise or patterns) and shapes between the subject and the gem should vary significantly. That, I believe is one of the reasons why Greg proposed (pun intended Ha!) a solid white card behind the image that JR (Enzo’s?) has posted here for our benefit.

Thanks, was very interesting subject, and I got some old gem shots scanned in too! (:

I’ll post a more casual shot of diamond or diamonds being worn if I can find what I did with them….

Oh, one more thing…. CZ’s (Cubic Zirconias) will photograph better than real diamonds, because they, like simulated gems (Rubies in particular) have no natural flaws and so are too good to be true, ...lol.

WOW! what a gallery you have, Enzo! I love the Willem Defoe image…and the petal girl…and, the stripey girl, too, etc…

Thanks a lot for the Diamond Gayle!, I would always try to be sweet to people who cares on others. I am trying to find more fire. Enzo, pretty nice work!!, also DIFFERENT!
Cheers,
Pupo

Nice diamonds Gayle-are they from your personal collection? My 2 minute photoshop lashup bought back memories that in the dim and distant past we used to use a cross screen starburst filter on the lens to get the same effect,(no photoshop then!!) Looks a bit tacky of course these days.

“I would always try to be sweet to people who cares on others”- Thats a great thing to say Jorge and reminds me that it was Gayle who patiently explained to me how to post pics up on LS when I was a newbie here.

Diamond ‘geezers’ here on LS !! (London Slang – diamond geezer = a good ‘solid’ reliable person)

Does Gayle means help? haha!, It must be because she has been a hell of a helpfull person here on LS.

Cheers,
Pupo

lol… awww, you guys! thanks JR and Jorge! :)

No, John, not mine, tho settings are. They belong to the college where I taught fine art/design for seven years. I also taught jewelry rendering/design (goldsmithing) both non cad/cam and cad/cam….lol… ‘til my supervisor canned me for getting engaged of all things… lol

So, even if I don’t get paid for it anymore, I gotta teach somewhere, I guess. I just can’t help myself, you guys, and you are kind to put up with it. ;~D

...Sorry, but all the rest of my faceted gem jewelry pics (that I can find right now anyway) all seem to be on nudes… How’s that for casual?

Well, I’ll keep looking cuz I have to keep scanning and archiving all these old images before I can start making new ones, right?... ((::

Must’nt forget Gregory too whilst dishing out the LS most helpful person awards-he sorted out the switch to the new style gallery for me when I was being even more stupid than usual one day !

What is it with photographers and jewellery? One of the ladies who used to work on our picture desk at The Sunday Telegraph in London made and sold jewellery too. Maybe its sparkly things-lenses and diamonds :-))

That Gregory is a real good egg, isn’t he? Hey, wake up, Greg! It almost 6AM Brooklyn time! ;~D

Well, all I know about that JR, is that diamonds are a girl’s best friend, and the bigger and better the carat, the better and bigger the friend… Anyway, that is what I heard Madonna told Guy Ritchie when they got engaged…lol

I do love sparkly things, though, JR. Diamonds and pearls, I always say, and enough champagne to dip your potato chips and cavier in. ((::

wow, I can’t believe the amount of replies my thread has generated !
Thank you all, guys, will keep you updated on my diamonds shootings… :o)

Hehe-kind of digressed a bit did’nt it Enzo – sorry for turning your post into the LS most helpful person 2007 awards.
I look forward to you posting a new improved diamond pic on here now I’ve PM’ed you on how to upload pics to LS.

Very envious of where you live by the way-I love that area even though I got lost driving a dreadful old hire Fiat estate around Milano once ! Ended up asking directions in a garage where they were supremely helpful and friendly and the food in their cafe was something we can only dream about here in the UK. Try a motorway services area for food here and see what they dish up!! There I go again-off at a tangent.

Auguri sinceri,

JR.

I love tangents, JR. Enzo, we took the scenic route on this thread,but now we are back at your house…. lol

Can’t wait to see more diamonds, Enzo! ;~D

Well, it’s been really fun, guess I better get back to my painting, now.

Have a good night, see you all later. ...and thanks for the nice words. (:

Geezus…Gregory is about to hide under his desk from embarrassment. Your steak knife sets will be in the mail today

Ha! ( I did stole it Greg)
Cheers,
Pupo

_{ghegland copyright 2007}

_{ghegland copyright 2007}

Sorry, but these were the only ones I could find right now.

A flash obviously does weird flattening things to neck shadows, but my point here is that the topaz being a darker faceted stone definitely needs some light under it. Here it is against a light background of skin. There are two reasons why this topaz glistens here:

1.) The setting is completely open (hollow) in back and the gem is set high so that the crown rises above the bezel of the setting.

2.) The light not only can reflect through the sides and up but also can reflect light off of the skin through the large top (table) since the setting is open in the back (from the girdle down) to allow this to happen.

Now the diamonds do happen to have a closed setting in the back, but this time it works because the crown still rises significantly above the bezel of the setting, (both topaz and diamonds are set high with prongs) so that light can not only reflect through the sides but also off the top of the table.

Every type of jewelry setting can be quite different depending on the quality of the setting and how well it works to display both on and off the gem in it’s best sense. For example, with the earrings above that JR (Enzo) has posted, clearly the hanging baguette-pear shape diamonds are set differently than the topaz/diamond necklace that I have posted.

So in the earrings case, consider a change of background or lens that would create less noise as far as environment/background shapes are concerned. Maybe even a translucent screen of sorts behind the earrings displayed would still let some of the interesting background come through but with less pattern noise. Also consider increasing and changing the lighting direction so that the strongest facets are being lit or the smaller ones are lit stronger. In the earring example above, it looks as if the pavillion is being lit dimly rather than the table or sides of the crown is at all. I think that is why they, as Enzo says, look like simple glass (not crystal) and then the semi precious green bead looks almost plastic, since we can see the threading through the middle of it. This can also be changed through directional light and light strength.

What JR did in his “fancy footwork” is correct in a sense (even though he says it looks tacky these days) in that he has created a focal point for the major diamond that really didn’t exist before….