Best Lens For Photographing Gemstones

<p>I am an avid collector of all things natural, but my collections are getting too large and I'm looking to sell some. One of the items I'm selling are gemstones. I have both an SLR and a Kodak EastShare P850. It is much easier to download photos off the Kodak, but I can't seem to get really good quality close-ups of the stones. I read a couple of articles about using an enlarger lens with a helicoid mechanism attached to the camera with an adaptor ring. Since enlarger lenses are pretty cheap, this seems like a pretty good choice. <br>

1) Is this my best and least expensive option?<br>

2) The articles suggest a 75mm lens, but not the aperture. I am looking at a 1:3.5, 75mm and a 1:4.5, 90mm. Which is better and is there an even better option?<br>

3) I'm not really sure how to make these judgements going forward for other small items (like mineral specimens). Issues, such as depth of field, I understand, when speaking of normal family or landscape photos, where the elements of the picture are distinctly separate and the focal point, or point of interest, is pretty obvious. But when dealing with ultra-closeups of relatively tiny objects, where the focal point is not really more important than the surrounding surfaces of the oblect, they kind of lose their meaning for me. With these objects, the field is very small, so the 3-dimensionality or depth of the object is in almost the same spot as center of the object, or focal point. How do I get 3-D when there is only a single object with no surrounding ojects to provide perspective?<br>

4) Any other pointers would also be appreciated.<br>

Hopefully, I've made my questions clear enough, but if they're not, I'll be happy to try to clarify to the best of my ability.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Greg</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes you can use an enlarger lens for this but you don't really want to. They don't come in a camera mount and would require an adaptor that might or might not be available depending on your brand of SLR. They also won't couple of autofoucs (not that you really need AF for macro) or exposure except in stopped-down mode. It can be done, but not nearly as convenient as a real macro lens.<br /><br />Nikon and Canon and third parties make a number of excellent macro lenses for extreme closeups like this. Expect to pay around $200 and up. If you are tying to hold down costs, older manual focus macro lenses are available cheap, at least in Nikon mount. Focal lengths range from 50mm to 200mm. Around 50 is traditional but closer to 100 gives you more room between the camera and subject. Max aperatures are usually around 2.8 or 3.5, but you usually end up shooting closed down to f/16 or smaller to maximize depth of field, so being "fast" is more a convenice for viewing and focusing than exposure.<br /><br /></p>

<p>More important than the lens, when photographing gems and other shiny objects is the lighting. I suggest you buy and read "Light -- Science & Magic" bu Hunter, Fuqua, and Fils before you do anything else.<br>

Digital SLRs can be tethered to a computer or laptop so you can see a full screen representation of the photo immediately after the shot, which helps get the exposure, focus, and lighting right without repeated experimentation.<br>

Gemstones are among the hardest things in the world to shoot, it will take lots of practice before you get results comparable to a pro.<br>

<Chas><br /><br /></p>

<p>Yes, a dedicated true "macro" lens like the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or the manufacturer-made similar lenses will be most useful. (see http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/primer )</p>

<p>But <em>lighting</em> is the other half of the equation, as Charles says. It makes all the difference between a result that looks 'professional' and the usual, crappy photos most people post on eBay or other auction sites.</p>

<p>Greg,<br>

Is the SLR digital? If not, I'd try to get the best I can with the Kodak. If you aren't shooting from a tripod, then you'll probably want one. You can then shoot at smaller apertures (I'd go to f8, the lowest your camera will go), and a daylight CFL in a lamp holder with clamp might be the only lighting you'd need. You can always play around with the light and play with the shots in post processing. Yes, a macro lens would be great, but if you aren't shooting with a digital SLR, it'll be a pain to get the shots to the web. Plus, there is some expense involved. If you do get a macro lens, then you probably want one with a 1:1 ratio for greater flexibility.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is the SLR digital?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It is much easier to download photos off the Kodak, but I can't seem to get really good quality close-ups of the stones. . ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Issues, such as depth of field."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are using the final image solely for web presentation or for small prints, then you can afford to CROP the image from the Kodak Camera.<br>

To manage the DoF issue do NOT force a really close shot, but rather allow greater shooting distance (thus allowing a greater DoF) and crop the shot tighter in post production to fill the frame.<br>

You will have to experiment a bit, obviously what will be suitable will depend upon how small the gemstones are: but at leats this is a technique (combined with good lighting) that will work in may situations.</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p>As mentioned cropping works. Also, many point and shoot cheapy cameras get rather close in their 'macro' mode and don't fare badly for being silly simple. In fact, they produce some pretty decent results. It's not a dslr with a macro lens, but then neither is the price.</p>

<p>Below is a pic taken with a Fuji FinePix P&S.</p>

<p>Took all of 30 seconds to set up and shoot, and a few minutes in Elements to reduce it to this. Camera was rested on a can of beans to give the right viewpoint and scene was illuminated by a 100 watt bulb in a desk lamp. Rocket science and precision it was not. :o)</p>

<p>Just a left field thought.<br>

Jim</p><div></div>

<p>As I said, the camera and lens are less important in photographing shiny objects than the lighting. The examples posted by Jim show that well. In his crop, the reflection of the "100 Watt desk lamp" is perfectly visible in the end of the ?capsule?<br>

Gems need a careful combination of indirect light and reflections of appropriately colored surfaces to show shape and texture and specular highlight to show the shinyness. You need much more than the on-camera flash or even a desk lamp to do that.<br>

Again, see my recommendation of "Light -- Science & Magic"<br>

<Chas></p>

<p>Agreed, the lighting is kindergarten grade. (... and that is how Ebay typically looks)<br>

For a $40 camera, it's not too shabby. Better equipment and certainly refined technique will make the gems 'sparkle', pun intended. The best shot possible is the one likely to result in top sales $.<br>

The book mentioned by Charles is a great one.<br>

<br />The green thingy is a tic tac.</p>

<p>I agree with Charles that the lighting will be at least as important as the camera / lens you use. Good lighting will not only give the image a professional look but also allow you to present the colour of the gemstones in an accurate and appealing way. Using natural daylight LED's for lighting may be worth investigating as a light source.</p>

<p>It would be helpful if OP can tell us:<br>

- the images' largest magnification, i.e. focus distance, etc.<br>

- the images' usage, e.g. for monitor display? for large prints? etc.</p>

<p>I second the recommendation of third party macro lenses, such as this one, a favorite of many including myself:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00HsSA</p>

<p>For critical focus and sharpness, a tripod and focusing rail are must haves.</p>

<p>I don't photograph gems, but this site seems to cover the subject quite well.<br>

http://gemphotography.com/</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"With these objects, the field is very small, so the 3-dimensionality or depth of the object is in almost the same spot as center of the object, or focal point. How do I get 3-D when there is only a single object with no surrounding ojects to provide perspective?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There've been lots of suggestions for you to buy and use a macro lens (for your SLR / DSLR - we still don't know which?).<br>

A Macro Lens, of itself, will probably NOT address the Shallow DoF problem - you should investigate:<br>

<strong>Focus Stacking</strong>.</p>

<p>A tripod certainly would be useful and make the job easier - but any solid stand could accommodate: the TRIPOD HEAD is a very important feature of the tripod set up. <br>

Focussing Rails could be used but are not necessarily a mandatory unit for what you have described that you want to achieve.<br>

<strong>Before acting on any of this advice and buying / renting any additional equipment, you do really need to supply more information.</strong></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Apropos the "3D Effect" - in the main that's achieved by: <br>

> the Lighting . . . combined with - <br>

> the positing of the Object<br>

> the viewpoint of the Camera</p>

<p>WW</p>

Couldnt he get away with a simple reversing ring instead of a macro lens?

<p>You might also explore a focus stacking program like Helicon Focus. It can do amazing things for depth of field issues.</p>