Photographic Conventions

[Jeffrey Hunt]

Hello! I admit that I’m a little afraid to post here on Pricescope.

My shots have been often described as glamour shots and I own that term with pride. I truly feel there is not one best way to shoot a gemstone – how can there be? Each is different. I think it is really a matter of photographic conventions. Photographs can range from glossy magazine shots to cell phone shots in natural lighting. The gemstone market in the US is BIG business and the individual faceter has a steep workload to bear to measure up.

Pricescope is a great consumer forum and I suggest a classification of gem photography conventions might be a way to tackle a difficult problem. There are shots with white backgrounds, grey and black. Mirrors shots, hand shots, flower shots, narrow and wide depth of field. There are shots using ring lights, reflectors, diffusion, and varying color temperatures. There are reduced scale photographs, collage photos styles and simply, grainy fuzzy photos that don’t show much at all.

From what I see each faceter develops a photo style and the feedback here is from familiarity with that style. It’s perfect really, reviews built on real life observation. It takes time to do that; I think this is the place.

I have my own pet peeves about photo styles. I do not like the white background shots – commercial, that make the stones look too cartoony. I don’t like the new collage type photos using ring lights – I think they actually disguise the problems with light returns. But worst of all I question the use of grainy out of focus shots by established faceters. This simply ignores pride of workmanship. Everything about a photo represents the faceter – especially if you’ve been in business a long time.

Here’s the trouble. The precision faceter is competing with big name houses for the gem market. It is impossible to produce high-end quality shots consistently needed for the upper end stones and market, or even to keep up with the assembly line production of photos. How does the individual faceter begin to find the time? I think this is to the advantage of the Pricescope community. Getting to know the work of each faceter within recognized conventions can work wonderfully – and shows the support of that community to that faceter. This type of support is wonderful.

Regards

Jeffrey Hunt

 

[VapidLapid]

Jeffrey, I have two stones that had the pleasure of being glamorously photographed by you. While the glamor poses are ideal, they also have a high index of truth value. Other photographers' pictures can have both less glamor, and a lower index.

 

[kenny]

Great topic.
I'm a gem photographer.
Some examples here. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/page-2']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/page-2[/URL]

Of course there is no single right way to photograph gems.
I guess the way that maximizes sales could be called best if your businesses is to sell gems.

What does that?
This interests me.

A face-up on-axis pic reveals windowing so IMO I as a customer want at least one of those … but please do not shine light into the pavilion of the stone because that can help hide windowing.
Maximum depth of field (which I like to call depth of focus) helps us poor Internet shoppers to have a tiny bit more info about eye-cleanness.
But recently a new vendor started posting pics shot at the widest aperture the lens has for the most-shallow depth of field and the crowd went wild.
Posters gushed how wonderful it was and how they wish all vendor pics were like this.
Emotionally it has a lovely dreamy feeling.
But this photography communicates less about the gems and more about the romance we feel about them.
Soft focus and shallow depth of field tells you less about the merchandise.

IMO a combination of clear in focus shots, and glamor shots would be best.

 

[RTFrog]

Jeffrey - I would also like to second TL's sentiment, as I have a stone also photographed by you. Not only is the composition beautiful, but the entire piece is like a masterful work of art. Your work truly represents the stone, and I very much appreciate it. I imagine each shot takes quite a bit of time to compose.

 

[chrono]

Nothing wrong with glamour shots as long as it looks like the gem itself and not something made out to look better that the gem can possibly look. Each vendor has their own technique and understandably, not everyone has the time to devote to photography, given that the lapidary needs time to facet his/her stones, update his/her website, answer emails and etc. but even so, photography plays an important part in advertising the gem.

I am not crazy about white/black/flowery/artistic backgrounds as the sole picture for advertising a gem. They are very pretty to look at but unless the buyer understands that the gem will not always look like that, they will have a different set of expectations, possibly unrealistic ones too. I love them as "glamour" shots but how often is a person going to view the gem under the same conditions? Highly unlikely. Ideally, it would be great to photograph the many different looks of the gem but that takes too much time away from running the business.

White background - can be difficult to find a reference colour-point.
Black background - tends to amp up the saturation of certain colours.
X coloured background - complimentary colours can amp up the saturation and/or undertone, which one might not see as often or as strongly under regular wearing conditions.
Backlit - hides too many cut and colour issues.

Keeping it simple and quick will be beneficial to all; photograph the gem under "general" light conditions that most people spend their time in - sunlight and fluorescent. Yes, fluorescent isn't a kind light to gemstones but it seems to be the trend these days as incandescents are phased out.