Jewelry Photography - Nikon Lenses

[tim_poitevin]

<p>Hi All,<br>

Need some advice on shooting a catalog of artisan jewelry.<br>

First, the specs. Nikon D300, tripod (of course), EZ Softbox with three lights (all low-watt natural light bulbs, pointing in from the sides and from the front), various props and velvet busts inside the softbox. The jewelry I'm photographing will be necklaces, rings, earrings, and loose stones.<br>

Problem: I have a 50mm 1.8 with a Hoya Macro screw-in filter, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 18-200 VR. I'm wondering if I need to have a dedicated Macro lens, like the 105mm VR, to take better photos in this setup?<br>

Anyone else here shoot jewelry photography that can lend assistance as to what lens (or other) equipment they use for the best results?<br>

Cheers,<br /> Tim</p>

 

[DEGREEFOTO]

<p>Hi Tim...<br>

I mainly use the Tamron 90 Macro but of more importance is the lighting setup. In most cases in todays digi environment, I have seen great work that has been lit carefully but that has been finsihed 'off' in retouching. If time permitts and if you are not aware of...may I suggest that you get your hands on a copy of Light, Science & Magic.....good starting point to help you light shinning, glass etc..subjects...<br>

Regards<br>

Artur</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I agree: reading <em>Light: Science and Magic</em> is an essential first step. That's going to help you get your head around the problem of shooting highly reflective objects (the main point... you're also taking photographs of what's reflected in the object's surfaces - and that can be a challenge!).<br /><br />Here's my main experience with artisan jewelry, though: the cloud box approach rarely produces a compelling image. The light can be exceedingly ... <em>blah</em>. Blah lighting is better than harsh shadows and out of control reflections, of course. But to the extent that the images are intended to help <em>sell</em> the artist's jewelry, you need to consider how the light is treating each piece, which textures on the piece are best flattered by harder or softer light, and so on.<br /><br />Obviously, you can get very bogged down, and spend hours per piece - and the economics of that are ridiculous when you're not talking about $2,000 pieces. But you can arrive at "recipes" that are well suited to particular types of work, and quickly shoot a series of similar pieces before re-arranging for the next. Mostly, think in terms of sculpting the light. <em>Allow</em> it to be a bit uneven, so that there actually are some shadows. That's how real life looks, and the brain (of the jewelry shopper) can more easily project the piece into the real life of owning the piece, that way.<br /><br />But the real driver for technique is the catalog's art director. Nothing looks worse than ten items on a page, all of which were shot from different angles and lit differently. So, it helps to know if the items are supposed to be shown in some sort of context, or if they're all supposed to show up in identical float-on-white, same perspective, same-cast-shadows unity so that a page full of them has some continuity to it.<br /><br />As for lenses, I've found that for artisan jewelry, a 60mm macro lens is the ticket for general purpose product shots on an APS-C-format body. It provides a comfortable working distance when you're dealing with larger necklaces, and can get you plenty close for pieces like earrings. Something in the 90-100mm range would be handy if you're working consistently with smaller pieces. If you have to get serious about it, though, a tilt-shift lens is the ideal tool, since it allows you to deal with awkward depth of field problems. But such lenses are very expensive, and if you've got that sort of budget, I'd be putting the money into a more flexible lighting rig, first.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I agree with the others about light. There are three big problems with "low-watt natural light bulbs".</p>

<ol>

<li>They have an "incomplete spectrum". They have enough color "peaks" to fool the eye into believing that they are "white", but anything that scatters light (all faceted gemstones and crystal jewelry, anything iridescent such as opals and dichroic glass) doesn't exhibit its full range of colors.</li>

<li>They have a "cheap" spectrum. The ability of a light to fool the eye into believing it can let you (or a camera) see color properly is determined both by the "fullness" and the "shape" of the spectrum. There is a popular measurement called CRI (the "Color Rendition Index") that describes a bulbs ability to render colors so that they look right. CRI is not "color temperature", it is a percentage of "rightness", a CRI of 85 mans that color is 85% right (or 15% of colors are wrong). A halogen bulb with a 3200K color temperature typically has a perfect 100 CRI, while a 5500K "daylight" fluorescent can have an embarassing 65 CRI. You can't "white balance" or "profile" low CRI away. If there's a problem, say a deficiency of spectral orange in the light, an opal with orange fire will look dull, even if the white balance is perfect and your profile brings the reds, oranges, and yellows into spec. I've never seen a compact fluorescent with a CRI over 85. and that is simply not something one can deal with in product work. Do your bulbs even have a CRI rating printed on them? Bulb makers with high CRI brag about it, bulb makers with low CRI often hide it.</li>

<li>Compact flourescent bulbs contain mercury, so after you realize how much harm they're doing to your photography, you can't just put them in your trash, you have to take them to your municipality's hazardous household waste drop-off location.</li>

</ol>

<p>So, the first thing on your agenda is to buy better lights, and learn to use them.</p>

<p>One thing I have to disagree with Matt on...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have to get serious about it, though, a tilt-shift lens is the ideal tool, since it allows you to deal with awkward depth of field problems. But such lenses are very expensive,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tilt/shift is insanely versatile, once you put the time into learning it. But it doesn't have to be expensive. I like some perspective and depth on jewelry shots, so I shoot most of my jewelry with an incredibly low cost tily/shift macro system. I have a Nikon PB-4 bellows. It's long out of production, and you can typically find them used for about $200. The "money lens" is a 105mm f5.6 El-Nikkor, a nice enlarger lens. That would have been a $600 item 10 years ago. But since the death of film, you can find these optical gems for 5 cents on the dollar, $25 to $50 on the bay of e... Add a 50mm for when you need higher magnification for a stone (up to 4x, and you can't do that with a 105mm VR Nikkor ;) and maybe an 85mm and 135mm so that you can change magnification without having to tear everything down, and you're in business for $300-400.</p>

[btmuir]

<p>Excellent answer from Matt.</p>

<p>When I was first starting I thought a light tent would be the best setup for a small jewelery shoot I was offered.</p>

<p>The shots looked blah to say the least and the color separation on the pieces that had white gold and platinum was subtle and not what the designer or I was hoping for.</p>

<p>I ended up using a mixture of softbox and hardlight but it took a lot of experimenting because I was still too green.</p>

<p>Addressing the lens issue, you could consider an older Ais 55mm f/3.5 or 2.8 Micro Nikkor. Most of this type close shooting will be manual focus anyway and these older optics perform VERY well.</p>

<p>As Matt said subject distance is important for this type work so the 55 on a cropper should work quite well.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[tim_poitevin]

<p>My goodness, such an amazing degree of detailed answers in just one short day. Thank you ALL so much!<br>

Now that I've read your responses, I may regret a purchase I just made two days ago. When I said I was using an EZ Softbox and natural-light bulbs, I was getting ahead of myself. What I should have said is that I "ordered" the Jewelry table-tent kit from TableTopStudio-Store.com. It's probably too late to cancel, but I suppose I could return it if the light I end up with is indeed "blah", as a few of you mentioned. So two questions remain:<br>

1) Does knowing that I bought that particular jewelry kit change your answers in any way?<br>

2) The lenses suggested (105mm f5.6 El-Nikkor, 85mm, 135mm, etc.), are you taking into account that I'm on a D300 with a 1.5x crop factor? That was my main concern with the 105mm VR - that I'd have to move my tripod back four feet and end up shooting wide open when from what I hear it's better to be closer to f8-f11.<br>

Thanks again for all your help, this is exceptionally helpful!<br>

Tim</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Tim: you may still find that kit to be useful. It <em>is</em> useful, since certain types of shots are notoriously difficult without wrap-around diffusing and reflectors. What you can do with a light tent, though, is change the positions of the lights (even feathering one away a bit) to make for less of a 1:1 ratio between the two that are htting the object. Even though the light is bouncing around in that cloud, you can still set it up to produce some perceived directionality to the look.<br /><br />I even have a cloud widget (made by Lastolight). I use it once in a which for specific things, or when I'm on the road with just a couple of speedlights, and need to deal with certain situations. But you might want to get yourself a few sheets of white foamcore sheet from the arts/crafts store, so that you can play with panel-shaped reflectors when you want to use those same lights to get a bit more theatrical. <br /><br />As for the lens issue again... you actually have a very good testbed. The 18-200 will focus quite closely, and covers every focal length you might eventually buy as a more macro-oriented prime lens. Even though it's not optimized for macro use, you can still use it to establish a sense of working distances and focal lengths. Those won't change when you change lenses, though the behavior of the primes will be a bit different. <br /><br />Note: though the markings on the 18-200's barrel will <em>sort</em> of tell you the focal length, it's important to know that those are marked/measured when focused at infinity. When you focus up close, those numbers are off. That's a simple physics issue, not Nikon messing with you. So, use the EXIF data in the image (or page through the image info display on your D300 while looking at the shots on the LCD display) to see what the <em>actual</em> focal length was on a given shot. You'll soon be able to see if you're more of a 60mm guy, or a 100mm guy.<br /><br />I use a D300 and a D200 for this sort of stuff, and Nikon's older 60mm f/2.8 Micro AF (the older, screw-driven AF version, not the AF-S version) is my go-to lens when shooting jewelry. There are times when a longer lens makes more sense, and I'll sometimes use my 70-200/2.8 so that I can quickly play with different perspectives. Every now and then, when I want exagerated perspective to produce a certain look, I'll break out an ultra-wide lens like Sigma's 10-20 HSM. That can create a very different, non-typical look. But definitely use your 18-200 as a yardstick <em>before</em> you spend money on a different solution. That will tell you a lot about how you'll be physically working. Good luck!</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>In regard to that light tent, if you can't return it, modify it. It's possible to pin bits of dark construction paper on the inside to give contour lines to its reflection in the jewelry, and to cut out bits here and there to shine a little direct light through. A very common light modifier in shooting reflective objects like jewelry is a sheet or two of drafting vellum--translucent, easy to modify (as above) and cheap enough to throw away.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just to elaborate on something Charles mentions: contours and reflections. <br /><br />Especially with highly shiny stuff, you <em>need</em> to show some complexity in the reflected surfaces, or your eye loses the ability to understand what it's seeing. <br /><br />Here's a quick shot I did of some commissioned earrings as they were headed out the door:<br /><img src="http://shop.marylaurjewelry.com/sites/default/files/frothy_fish_post_earrings_full.jpg" alt="" width="374" height="550" /><br /><br />They're basically very gently curved sheets as cylindrical sections. But if I'd only allowed white material to reflect in the highly polished silver, you'd have no sense of their shape, nor a useful sense of the surface texture. So in that shot, you see the reflection of a 30" white reflector, and of a 24" black foamcore flag. Its shot against grey seamless, and there is a single large overhead octobox with a monolight providing all of the light. The white reflector is throwing a bit of it back into the scene, too.</p>

[tim_poitevin]

<p>Matt and Charles -<br>

Thanks for your continued contributions. I'm going to test the light tent when it arrives, and play with light distances as you mentioned. I also have a 30" white Lastolite reflector with gold and gold/silver covers that might be fun to stick in front of a light source. The jewelry maker says she has tons of fabric swatches, which if thrown out of focus (I love the bokeh on the 70-200 f2.8) might add interest. And finally, I'm thinking of throwing props into the tent, like large stones or organic materials that compliment the stones.<br>

Matt, very good feedback on testing with the 18-200, you've convinced me to NOT buy a new toy just yet (even though the wallet is aching to come out :). I was just attempting some macro flower shots this afternoon and the 50mm with the macro screw-in filter was just too close. Then again, it's a cheap macro filter I got for free so a dedicated macro lens would do much better.<br>

Anyway, thanks again, and very nice earring shot!<br>

Tim</p>