This is Like BAD Online Dating!

[T L]

You can't pull the wool over an informed PS'er.

Sure you can, (it happens daily from the looks of it), that's why they get so mad when pictures are obviously Photoshopped. The trick is to get good at Photoshop and use it so that it isn't obvious, (or at least use it so that the stones look like the picture when they are holding the stone in their hands).

I had no idea, it's amazing what they can do with photoshop these days. My big issue with my photography isn't just getting the color correct, which can be frustrating, but getting in focus shots. It's also very difficult to show off dispersion, sparkle, scintillation and luster in a photo. I guess with photoshop anything is possible?

 

[lelser]

You can't pull the wool over an informed PS'er.

Sure you can, (it happens daily from the looks of it), that's why they get so mad when pictures are obviously Photoshopped. The trick is to get good at Photoshop and use it so that it isn't obvious, (or at least use it so that the stones look like the picture when they are holding the stone in their hands).

I had no idea, it's amazing what they can do with photoshop these days. My big issue with my photography isn't just getting the color correct, which can be frustrating, but getting in focus shots. It's also very difficult to show off dispersion, sparkle, scintillation and luster in a photo. I guess with photoshop anything is possible?

One thing I've seen done, that I find particularly butt-chapping is to merge shots together. One has focus on the culet, the other on the crown, so the entire gem is in focus in the merged image. It's gorgeous, but nothing will ever look like that in the hand. Tom shoots anywhere from 15-50 shots freehand on a neutral gray background with no backlighting. From that, we get several good images which look more realistic compared to what we see in hand than more strategically lit shots taken with a tripod. That's what we use in the catalogue and the website gallery.

For publications, like magazine articles or marketing materials where we need to be able to blow things up, the photos are much more carefully staged. I would never use those photos to advertise a stone for sale, though.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com

 

[Michael_E]

It's also very difficult to show off dispersion, sparkle, scintillation and luster in a photo. I guess with photoshop anything is possible?

Dispersion is hard because your brain merges two images from different angles and so dispersion can be broader or even doubled in real life compared to what a camera sees. Sparkle is a bright spot that your eye can see but which will overwhelm a camera and be seen as glare. You can get it a little bit by using a polarizing filter so as to keep from overwhelming your cameras sensor, (or just fake it and draw the sparkle where ever you want it...somewhat like "painting a star" if you get my drift). Scintillation is a movement based effect and so is not possible to capture with a still camera. Luster can be shown a bit by getting a reflection from a facet surface of the edge of some back lighted, frosted plastic or paper as this shows some reflective properties of the gem's surface.

Anything IS possible with Photoshop. You can change focus, color, intensity, hue, saturation and anything else you'd like and do so in a selected area. You can effectively change a ruddy garnet into a fine emerald if that is what you want to do. It's really cool and makes for some neat shots when you have the time and want to give the client something to show to their friends. Art shots are great for "after the sale" images, since clients get a big kick out of seeing their stuff presented in fashion magazine style. It does take a lot of time, but can be neat for those higher end pieces.

This shot was designed to show surface luster with the diffused light across 1/2 of the table. It's not as good as I would like it to be, but was the first thing I came across today.

 

[Michael_E]

One thing I've seen done, that I find particularly butt-chapping is to merge shots together. One has focus on the culet, the other on the crown, so the entire gem is in focus in the merged image. It's gorgeous, but nothing will ever look like that in the hand.

I don't think that anything ever looks like the pictures we take in the hand in any case. Our pictures are usually magnified by 20 times or so over what ends up on someones hand and so the pictures are only really good for showing color, clarity and cut quality. The downside is that they also show every little inclusion, most of which you will never see when the stone is in hand. Pictures actually allow too much analysis, and never show reality. I think that anyone looking at pictures should also shrink them down to the scale that they will be seeing them at on their hand and only then start to get critical about inclusions, etc.

Tom shoots anywhere from 15-50 shots freehand on a neutral gray background with no backlighting. From that, we get several good images which look more realistic compared to what we see in hand than more strategically lit shots taken with a tripod. That's what we use in the catalogue and the website gallery.

Slave driver! You're making that poor man work so hard that he's probably sweating over that darn camera all day long. Give the guy a break. I always figured 3 or 4 shots was good enough. If someone doesn't like the shots too bad. If they want to see them changed, it'd off to Photoshop! Want to see it in daylight...O.K. three keystrokes and we have daylight. A different background, not problem, cut and paste here we come. Want it mounted in a particular setting, clip, clip, snip, snip, stick, stick, all done.

 

[lelser]

One thing I've seen done, that I find particularly butt-chapping is to merge shots together. One has focus on the culet, the other on the crown, so the entire gem is in focus in the merged image. It's gorgeous, but nothing will ever look like that in the hand.

I don't think that anything ever looks like the pictures we take in the hand in any case. Our pictures are usually magnified by 20 times or so over what ends up on someones hand and so the pictures are only really good for showing color, clarity and cut quality. The downside is that they also show every little inclusion, most of which you will never see when the stone is in hand. Pictures actually allow too much analysis, and never show reality. I think that anyone looking at pictures should also shrink them down to the scale that they will be seeing them at on their hand and only then start to get critical about inclusions, etc.

Tom shoots anywhere from 15-50 shots freehand on a neutral gray background with no backlighting. From that, we get several good images which look more realistic compared to what we see in hand than more strategically lit shots taken with a tripod. That's what we use in the catalogue and the website gallery.

Slave driver! You're making that poor man work so hard that he's probably sweating over that darn camera all day long. Give the guy a break. I always figured 3 or 4 shots was good enough. If someone doesn't like the shots too bad. If they want to see them changed, it'd off to Photoshop! Want to see it in daylight...O.K. three keystrokes and we have daylight. A different background, not problem, cut and paste here we come. Want it mounted in a particular setting, clip, clip, snip, snip, stick, stick, all done.

I'm an indecently lucky woman. No joke.

 

[T L]

It's also very difficult to show off dispersion, sparkle, scintillation and luster in a photo. I guess with photoshop anything is possible?

Dispersion is hard because your brain merges two images from different angles and so dispersion can be broader or even doubled in real life compared to what a camera sees.

I credit this as one of the best shots I have ever taken. It not only shows some luster, but some dispersion and fluorescence as well. I have absolutely no idea how I got lucky with this shot, as this diamond is so incredibly difficult to photograph and it's green, which is another challenge. I only cropped it, no photoshop or other image editing software was used. I find the colors of the dispersion fascinating, like I captured some phantom phenomenon in a photograph. The dispersion shows itself as flat triangular shapes of color. This is such a dispersive diamond, and I was always so frustrated that my camera could not capture it that well.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Glamour shot??? hehehe..sorry couldn't resist

BWAHAHA.
I think everyone should do like artcutgems - one photo in regular light, one glamour shot to reel us in. I'd buy a lot more gems (if I had the cash, of course) if I could see them for real.

 

[gsellis]

I love videos as they allow you to view the stone from all directions as Michael stated above. I think it's really important to look through the pavillion as sometimes, it's easier to see modifiers that way. They're not always as obvious from the table.

Use Michael's same tips with video. I have the same tools for color correction and a slew of other techniques to really tweak a video. But, I sure do love my HDV video camera as it captures amethyst so much better than my still cameras. But the HDV Sony for stills is not so hot (see Avatar - that is a forum member's JXR that is a great purple, not that)

White backgrounds are your friend. A basic editor will apply a color correction to the whole video, so white can pick up a cast from the correction. You can get edges with purple, blue or red in color correction.

But, If I were trying to fool you, I would composite (multiple video tracks) a background to the correct white balance, mask out the gem, then create a new gem over the mask to the color I wanted. Think Pleasantville.

On the bright tweezers, another technique is sharpening and brightening the contrast. This makes a dull photo pop. The stone with bright tweezers will never look like that (unless someone is using well polished silver or platinium tweezers... I have never seen a pair )

 

[gsellis]

So, I've returned four stones in the last month, and it's starting to remind me of bad online dating; the photos are NOT living up to Real Life.

If the photos are not matching real life, they should expect returns. Grrr

Not making it your fault, but if you view it, then print the same photo, are they close? It could be your graphics display? I noticed it on my wife's laptop last night. The color of something she was looking at on the laptop was not even close. It was an amethyst that I know and it looked more like Prasiolite. Maybe her laptop irradiated it.

 

[brandy_z28]

Maybe her laptop irradiated it.

I'm over here! I'm so going to use that phrase somewhere again!