Newbie taking glitter shots needs help

Hi, my name is Bonnie and I am very new to this. I've only ever taken photos for fun but recently I've started an online business for my

painted lace products. The problem is that the lace also has glitter and rhinestones. I had been using either my iPhone 5 or my old

Canon Pwersho with 3mp. Then I borrowed my daughters Polaroid with 7mp. Yesterday my hubby bought me a 16mp Nikon Coolpix

S3300. It's great but I'm still having trouble getting the glitter dust to sparkle. I want the photos to look like they do in person. We all

know without great pics no one will buy. My equipment is ok I think. 2 75 watt halogen lights with 5100 K color temperature. An Ott

light and recently I've added my husbands garage work light. I hace a light box but it doesn't seem to help in this case. I also have

Corelle Paintshop Pro 5.

 

So what am I doing wrong? I've tried all the settings with and without flash. With out is the best so far......

Bonnie

<p>Sparkly elements in photos are bright reflections. Your camera's metering system has no idea what it's looking at, and is simply reacting to those bright spots by lowering the exposure to compensate. The only way to make this happen right is to put the camera entirely in manual mode. The Auto-ISO setting has to be off. Manual aperture, manual shutter speed.<br /><br />Since you're working with non-moving subject matter, you have the luxury of putting the camera on a decent tripod to keep things looking crisp. Do that, and keep the ISO setting on the camera low (say, no higher than 200). Then set the aperture to something around f/8 or f/11, and start some test shots. You'll have to keep adjusting the shutter speed until you get it at a speed that lets in enough light to make the image you're after. Might be 1/30th of a second, might be half a second, might be 1/200th. All depends on the lighting. If the shutter speed is quite slow, be sure to take care in how you release the shutter, as handling the camera introduces vibration, which robs you of sharpness. Sometimes the self-timer is your best bet.<br /><br />The other half of your work is the lighting. As you've discovered, using that light box isn't helping. That's like shooting on a cloudy day. It <em>reduces, </em>rather than improves your chances of getting bright, specular reflections from the objects you're shooting. <br /><br />Each of those tiny pieces of sparkle is a tiny mirror. Light bounces to your camera at the same angle it hits from the light source. Sit in the position of your camera, and watch what you see as you move the light sources around. You can get that part right without even looking through/at the camera. Without seeing an example of what you're getting now, I have to assume that most of what's troubling you is the exposure. If you can post an example (attack a scaled-down JPG image to one of your comments on this thread), we can get a LOT more specific on how to proceed.<br /><br />If you think you'll be doing a fair amount of this, run - do not walk - to Amazon and get yourself a copy of <em>Light Science and Magic</em> and read it (twice!). As much as you want to get specific tips for your specific situation, what you really need is to tackle some of the basic theory so you can feel more in control. </p>

<p>I'm going to take a guess, not having photographed this kind of thing before, but I'm going to back up some of what Matt said: Small light sources are your friend - as with photographing jewelry. Skin is fairly diffuse (partly because of sub-surface scattering). Wherever a light comes from, it'll be spread in all directions. Glitter is highly reflective (specular), and bounces light only in a specific direction. When the glitter is at the right angle to bounce the light into the eye, it'll look very bright; when it isn't, it'll look dark. Shoot with a diffuse light - like cloud cover - and the skin and the glitter will bounce roughly the same amount of light around. Under a spotlight, the skin will be spreading the light in all directions, and most of the glitter will reflect the light away from you - but a little of the glitter will be at the right angle to sparkle very brightly. Put a small spot light at a distance and you should see the sparkle. (This is why jewelry stores have small spotlights over the counters rather than fluorescent strips. They also have dispersion effects to worry about, to make diamonds and opals show rainbows.)<br />

<br />

The disadvantage if a small distant light is that it'll be a very hard light, showing up any blemishes in the subject's face, so if you want a flattering result you might want to be ready to do some image editing. I wouldn't be so worried about the metering as Matt is, though playing with the exposure may help. If you stop the lens down to a smaller aperture, you'll likely both get enough depth of field to pick up all the sparkles and get some diffraction from the aperture blades, so the sparkles will look like they're glowing. To do that with a distant light, it has to be pretty bright, which probably means the flash gun (or the sun). If you want to fill shadows, finding a way to do it that doesn't shed light on the side of the face that's directly lit might help with the sparkles (e.g. light slightly from behind).<br />

<br />

Those are just suggestions, and I don't claim any expertise in this (though I know a bit about modelling complex surface reflectances on a computer), but I hope it helps. Good luck.</p>

Matt, I could be mistaken, but I don't think the Coolpix she has offers any manual settings.

<blockquote>

<p>So what am I doing wrong? I've tried all the settings with and without flash. With out is the best so far...... Bonnie<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are trying to run a marathon without even learning to crawl. Or it's like trying to rebuild your car's engine. Could you do it if I gave you a set of wrenches? Why not? This is the situation you have put yourself in. You can't simply buy a camera and expect to get great images any more than you can buy a set of wrenches and then rebuild a car engine. It doesn't work that way. To be clear, I didn't make these rules! It's just life. You need a camera with the ability to do manual exposure. Then you need to know how to control the exposure. Then you need to now how to <em>light</em> the product (no matter how fancy the camera is, at the end of the day the only thing it does is record light) to obtain the result you want. If you think learning exposure takes time, learning lighting is a lifetime pursuit! Can this be done on a shoestring budget. Sure. But that brings up two questions. First, what <em>is</em> the budget. And two, how soon do you need good images? As you have pointed out, the better the images, the better the sales. Do you want to pay for good images now? Or wait until you can get them? Either way, you will need to invest in a DSLR at the very least. And then start learning all you can. Once place to start is <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html">Strobist.com</a>.</p>

<p>John, we're just hypothesizing that exposure might be an issue; while it's nice to have manual exposure control (or to be able to stop down the aperture, as I suggested), let's not assume that the camera is getting the exposure wrong until we know. A DSLR might be "the right tool for the job", but a lot of decent images are taken with an iPhone these days. There's no harm in seeing what we can suggest without spending money.<br />

<br />

Bonnie - if you're brave enough to share a sample image or two (so we know what's going wrong - we won't judge) then we might be able to tell you whether we think the exposure is a problem, or we might spot some other ideas. If my theory about the light position is accurate, you may do fine even with a low-end camera; you've not indicated that you're unhappy with your images other than the lack of sparkle, so let's hope for the best.<br />

<br />

For a no-money experiment, I'd suggest sitting the subject in direct sunlight, use a black (or at least, as dark as you can) sheet as a background - preferably wrapped around to the sides as much as you can to stop some of the reflected light (you just want light from the sun) - and use some sheets of white paper, behind the subject, out of shot, to fill in some of the shadows a bit. This is a horrible idea from the perspective of flattering the subject's skin, but it ought to make things sparkle if anything will. (A spotlight or off-camera strobe would be slightly better, but we're not talking "free" in that case.)<br />

<br />

If that doesn't work, you could try painting some sparkles on in Paintshop Pro...</p>

<p>If it's a problem with no manual control, there's always exposure compensation (right?). I hope! I haven't used (or taken time to research) that particular camera. If producing quality product shots of challenging subject matter (like sparkly bits on textiles) is important to the sales of a small business, a camera that's well suited to that kind of work is a very reasonable (and still modest) expense.</p>

Bonnie,

 

Some people seem to have been less than diplomatic in their responses to you, a beginner. I apologize to you for that.

 

The truth is, even knowledge isn't enough to capture glitter. Things glitter or sparkle due to movement. In a still photo there is no movement so there are no myriad sparkles twinkling on and off. Diamond rings have life and sparkle when viewed in real life, whether due to moving the diamond or slight movements of the head. Do a Google image search for "diamond ring" and look at the lifeless examples that you will see, all done by professional photographers with deep knowledge of lighting. This would be one example:

 

http://clatterrings.net/ring/floating-diamond-ring

 

Those are very nice professional photos but the diamonds themselves are lifeless with no sparkle.

 

If you go into a jewelry store and look at the ceiling, you will see that the light shining down is composed of many mini spotlights rather than large flat lighting. That is to have the facets on the jewelry struck from lights at different angles and when moved to have the facets struck by different lights and hence sparkle with the movements. Don't use a broad light source to light your painted lace. Several lights at different angles would light up different facets of the rhinestones and the glitter. That is about the best that you can do.

Wow all your responses are great! John I did not get offended I just can't get a new camera at this point but I hope to

someday. Right now I just need to get the best photo I can with what I have. I do want to learn how to do it right.

Everyone else your great too! So many suggestions! I added a photo for you to see. I like the way the glitter shows up bu there is much more on there that isn't shown. Also, how would I go about "painting" some sparkles on in paintshop?

 

Llo and behold the sun is out today! It's been raining for a week and yesterday it SNOWED! Maybe i can try shooting outside today. My poor flowers!

Bonnie<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Wow all your responses are great! John I did not get offended</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just can't get a new camera at this point but I hope to someday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just remember that it is far less about the camera and far more about the <em>light.</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Right now I just need to get the best photo I can with what I have. I do want to learn how to do it right. Everyone else your great too! So many suggestions! I added a photo for you to see. I like the way the glitter shows up bu there is much more on there that isn't shown. Also, how would I go about "painting" some sparkles on in paintshop?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't use Paintshop, but I would assume it has brushes? In Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, I would simply create a new layer, select the brush tool, find the appropriate "sparkle" brush, and brush/stamp some sparkles on. You can vary the size & color of the brush as needed. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Llo and behold the sun is out today! It's been raining for a week and yesterday it SNOWED! Maybe i can try shooting outside today. My poor flowers! Bonnie</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And therein lies the disadvantage to available (sun) light: the ability to consistently get repeatable results. Just keep in mind that the <em>principles </em>of lighting are all the same.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

Can you suggest a slat camera that would suit my purposes? I can keep my eye out at least.

<p>I don't know what you mean by "slat" camera? DLSR? For a DSLR, any of them. The camera is the least important part of the equation. Fundamentally, the hardest thing about choosing a DSLR is which system to buy into. As example, once you buy a Nikon camera and lens or two, it's harder down the road to switch to different system. For this reason, I typically recommend sticking with Nikon or Canon (I prefer Nikon; others prefer Canon!). Sticking with Nikon or Canon gives you the most peer-to-peer support, most third party support, and the largest growth potential. </p>

<p>That said, I have to stress, the camera is in no way responsible for the image. The <em>only</em> thing the camera does is record the light. The better the light, the better the image. </p>

<p>Bonnie, please check this out: <a href="http://www.tiffen.com/star_filters.htm">http://www.tiffen.com/star_filters.htm</a><br>

The simplest way to make what you want to happen is to get a star filter and to light your object with so-called "point source" lights. </p>

<p>Eugene: Yes... or you can put a nylon stocking over the lens. :-) With a camera with fairly flat aperture blades (a DSLR with a cheap lens for example...) you'll get this effect just by stopping down, but it's true that a star filter would let you achieve the same with a compact camera, or held in front of a cameraphone. In both the case of one of these filters and using a small aperture, the trick is to have some parts of the image a great deal brighter than the surroundings, so it'll work only if we can make the glitter catch the light - but it'll then turn the glitter from a white spot into a spectacular flare. You can achieve the same thing in software to some extent, but it's tricky enough that I think we can ignore that for now.<br />

<br />

As John says, a DSLR (or even a film camera, though film processing is getting expensive) would let you have a bit more control over the image than your current equipment, but in this case it's the light that's the difficult bit. The image that you showed <i>does</i> look a bit brighter than would be ideal for showing up the sparkles (they're bright, so the darker everything else is the more they'll show up), which I hope you'd be able to fix on most compact cameras or cell phones with exposure compensation; a DSLR would give you more control over details, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep at this stage except in that it'll make it easier for you to learn how to modify the effect.<br />

<br />

The image you showed does seem to have glitter catching the light (some areas are very bright); a star filter or small aperture would turn the bright patches into starbursts and make them more visible. The trick is getting more of them, short of moving the light around and combining the results in a paint package. I claim that you need a lot of small point lights, which will increase the chance of any one of them causing a reflection without adding that much to the total illumination. This may not work, but can you try using a set of Christmas tree lights as a light source? It won't be very bright, so you may have to rest the camera on something to keep it steady (a tripod would be ideal; some books would do).<br />

<br />

I'm afraid I also don't know how you'd use Paintshop to paint on fake starburst effects, but I'm sure it's capable of it (effectively it's pasting a semitransparent image over another image). You might have to be a bit careful to make it look realistic. If you can take a photo of a very small light in a dark room (or find one online that you can use legally), you should get the effect that you can then replicate. The ability to mess with it slightly so that all the highlights don't look identical may help the result be realistic. Getting the effect in the real world might be less challenging.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and sorry about the delayed reply. I hope you have fun experimenting, whether or not it works...</p>

<p>You may need some iPhone photography tips. So you can have a look at this iPhone photos topic: http://www.transfer-iphone-recovery.com/topics/iphone-photos.html<br>

This topic have many tips about how to take better photos with iPhone or how to share or manage iPhone photos like photo editing tips, blur photo background, sefile camera apps and more with iPhone.</p>