Need advice about jewellery photography kit.

M

mickmick

Messages
6
Name
michael
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
First post so be kind.
I have been tasked by my partner with starting to photograph a new jewellery collection she is currently making, mainly wedding rings.
The ability to click onto a ring and view a detailed, much larger close up of a small section of the band, is a feature she wants to be able to utilize on her website. Not all jewellery businesses bother with this, but my partner is adamant about this level of detail. I would link to an example but I am new, so can't post links.
What level of camera equipment am I looking at to acheive these kinds of results? Can I get away with crop frame and good glass or do I really need full frame and the large megapixels of a more recent camera?

Here is a setup I have been considering:
-Nikon D800 with a Tokina 100mm F2.8 = about £1000 used

However I have seen on a forum that someone was using:
Nikon D7200 with a Tamron 60mm = £550
Will I get the results I need with this cheaper setup.

Oh and don't worry, I have done a lot of research and learning on light boxes and setup etc. so I am aware that this is where a lot of the work is.
your help much appreciated
Mick
 
Last edited:
I realise this is your first post and this may come across as unhelpful, but here goes......So, after you doing some reading on the Internet lightboxes are the way to go, well they are not that’s the first point, now all you need is advice on the camera plus lens and bingo, you are good to go as a commercial product photographer. I can tell you, as a product and photographer studio owner, for the last 14 years, your in for a steep learning curve. if you and your partner value the business you wouldn’t be entertaining doing this, jewellery is one of the most difficult things to get right, it is lighting critical. You don’t mention in your post the level you are at in terms of post production or photography level? Both will need to be way beyond competent.

I realise this sounds negative, but it’s the like asking what size spanner set do I need, because I want to change the engine in my car.....

So the helpful bit, although not really, we use lots,of kit, full frame canons, a number of lenses covering pretty much the whole range, 100mm is good, but can be too good,we have used pretty much every other lens as well, tripods, led,heads, flash, we have even used torchlight, without an example it’s very hard to say. Your images will be fairly small for the web, so no more than say 1500x1500 maybe a bit bigger, depending on how you shoot, full frame may not be needed, jewellery is full of imperfections so plenty of post production if you go full macro and why would you want that? People don’t shop in store with magnifying glasses so why give them that level of detail online......... and on and on it’s goes, there is a lot more to this.
 
Last edited:
ring example.png
This is the kind of curser scrolling magnification that is wanted. As you can see it is all white background, as will be all the shots in the collection.
I have some photography experience using a Canon 70d at work. I have a lot of post production/photoshop experience.
IMHE of learning in general, having a very specific goal, not too wide, that has a budget, is great way to aquire skills. Even if it takes me 3 times as long as a professional, I will be happy as I have bought and learned how to use equipment in a specific situation and to a very useful goal, rather than flailing around wondering what kind of photography I want to start doing etc.
I am probably going to go with the D800 setup.
 
Everything posted above.

I’ll add the actual kit advice;

A 10 year old camera and quality macro lens is more than enough for web quality images (a d800 is overkill imho)

You will need at least that budget again for lighting gear.

In short - if you’ve got £1500 to spend and you’re spending a grand on a camera; that’s stupidity. £500 lighting £300 lens and £300 camera will do the job.
 
For this kind of thing I would use a macro lens adapted onto my Nikon 1 V2... That's a 16MP 1" sensor; miles away from a D8xx, or anything else FF, but still much more than adequate (and the smaller sensor is actually preferable in some aspects).

I have never used a light box/tent; occasionally/rarely a diffusion dome/cone...
 
Last edited:
Or even go used something along the lines of a used D7200 + a Nikon 60mm macro probably about £600 combined ,would still be overkill for the job .
 
A Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm would reduce the cost even further and be well up there in terms of IQ with the 60mm Nikkor.
 
Sigma do a 70mm macro 1:1 which can be picked up for around £240 and it's extremely sharp....no os but you won't miss it on a tripod anyway....but the 105 is also a great lens
 
mickmick said:
Thanks for the advice on suitable equipment, much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I’ll recount a tale from a similar thread:
Bloke has already rented a studio (too small as it happens) and bought a brand new D810. His opening question was about a sub £100 lens for ‘product’ photography. Was given loads of advice re a much more suitable but more expensive lens. Wasn’t prepared to budge, he had no more money - then it transpires he’s got no budget at all for lighting.

When several people explained he needed to send back the camera to re distribute his budget, he point blank refused - asserting he’d bought the best camera for the job’.

£100 camera will take awesome images with £300 lens and £500 lighting.

£700 camera with £100 lens and £100 lighting will be an exercise in frustration.
 
Ok I'm learning me.
A friend recommended the Fujifilm X-E3 with XF 60mm f/2.4 macro
 
Last edited:
mickmick said:
Ok I'm learning me.
A friend recommended the Fujifilm X-E3 with XF 60mm f/2.4 macro
Click to expand...
Decent enough camera, but I’d go dslr rather than mirrorless in a studio. To make a mirrorless work in a studio you have to turn off its default behaviour. Easy to do if you already ‘get it’ but could be frustrating for a learner.

An optical vf is just easier in that setting.
 
I suggest getting the longest quality macro lens you can afford... I use the Sigma 150/2.8. The reason for that is because it increases the working distance, which increases the DOF of the images and makes lighting easier. That's also the reason for using a camera w/ a smaller sensor.
 
mickmick said:
Ok I'm learning me.
A friend recommended the Fujifilm X-E3 with XF 60mm f/2.4 macro
Click to expand...

A mirrorless camera with WYSIWYG EVF/Rear Screen is possibly a good way to go, The Fuji 60mm macro is a very sharp lens but it is quite slow to focus compared with more recent Fujifilm offerings, that said I'd probably go for an X-T2 in preference to the X-E3 as the tiltable screen would be of useful benefit and the focus stacking image acquisition might very useful as you progress. I sold my X-T2 for £375 so its within your outline budget

But as others have said, lighting and understanding how to use it is the biggest challenge, I'd be looking at spending at least 50% of your budget on lighting, modifiers, and how to present the light to the subject. Then the rest of budget split over camera/lens/tripod, and the latter needs some thought, the ability to move the camera slightly without moving the tripod will make composition easier - macro rails, etc
 
in the days I shot jewellery I always used large format. mostly a 5x7 Plaubel pico.. ( even for stud earings)
Any camera can serve with a suitable lens.
Jewellery Photography is 90% about lighting. and even then it is mostly about the quality of the lighting not the amount. so it need not be that expensive... though good kit always helps make things easier. Most of the surfaces in jewellery are shiny, so need carefully placed and chosen reflectors. direct light needs great care.
But can add texture and form.
High end jewellery looks more expensive against Dark graded backgrounds.
Only catalogue stuff is usually shot on white grounds.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
in the days I shot jewellery I always used large format. mostly a 5x7 Plaubel pico.. ( even for stud earings)
Any camera can serve with a suitable lens.
Jewellery Photography is 90% about lighting. and even then it is mostly about the quality of the lighting not the amount. so it need not be that expensive... though good kit always helps make things easier. Most of the surfaces in jewellery are shiny, so need carefully placed and chosen reflectors. direct light needs great care.
But can add texture and form.
High end jewellery looks more expensive against Dark graded backgrounds.
Only catalogue stuff is usually shot on white grounds.
Click to expand...

Cartier.co.uk would disagree as its all shot to white :)
 
Phil V said:
When lighting with flash; the screen set to WYSIWYG will be black.
How helpful is that?
Click to expand...

phil agreed, though you can put most mirrorless cameras into a mode where the image will be shown

but, supposing the OP invests in a continuous lighting system rather than a flash, since we don’t know then perhaps neither of us should be presumptuous
 
Mr Perceptive said:
phil agreed, though you can put most mirrorless cameras into a mode where the image will be shown

but, supposing the OP invests in a continuous lighting system rather than a flash, since we don’t know then perhaps neither of us should be presumptuous
Click to expand...
I know you can change the setting - but if buying a camera for a specific purpose (flash photography) recommending mirrorless based on WISYWIG is strange advice.

In fact a bright optical viewfinder is both more convenient and cheaper

Likewise; the use of flash at such small distances means lower ISO, and producing images for web also negates the advantages of a newer high end camera.

This all means a £100 DSLR will provide the results required, so no need to buy an expensive new mirrorless body.

Why would they buy a continuous lighting system when all the experts would recommend flash?
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I know you can change the setting - but if buying a camera for a specific purpose (flash photography) recommending mirrorless based on WISYWIG is strange advice.

In fact a bright optical viewfinder is both more convenient and cheaper

Likewise; the use of flash at such small distances means lower ISO, and producing images for web also negates the advantages of a newer high end camera.

This all means a £100 DSLR will provide the results required, so no need to buy an expensive new mirrorless body.

Why would they buy a continuous lighting system when all the experts would recommend flash?
Click to expand...

I would far rather use continuous light for fine jewellery as the placement is so critical. A movement of a millieter can make an important facet on a diamond go dark or sparkle. You simply do not have that control with flash.
The fine control of the plane of focus was why large format was so good for this work.
White backgrounds by their nature restrict the tonal range available to bring out depth and sparkle.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would far rather use continuous light for fine jewellery as the placement is so critical. A movement of a millieter can make an important facet on a diamond go dark or sparkle. You simply do not have that control with flash.
The fine control of the plane of focus was why large format was so good for this work.
White backgrounds by their nature restrict the tonal range available to bring out depth and sparkle.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why it’s easier to move a continuous light a millimetre but not a flash.

I’m clearly missing something.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Something like a Dome (or cloudy day illuminator) could work very well with jewellery, and a continuous light has many advantages as far as composition/framing goes.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t use a dome, it’s the opposite of controlling light.
 
I use a Canon 80d and sigma 150mm 2.8 lens (the non stabilised version) for macro work (admittedly not jewellery). The lens was bought used for about £260 and the camera was also bought used for about £650. A cheaper camera would do just as well, 60d, 70d. I don't even think the light set up needs to be particularly expensive, it just needs to be the right set up. But I'll leave that set up down to the people with much more knowledge on that sort of thing than me.
 
Phil V said:
I don’t understand why it’s easier to move a continuous light a millimetre but not a flash.

I’m clearly missing something.
Click to expand...


With continuous light you can watch the effect as you move the light. Not so with flash. Even modeling lights are inaccurate at jewellery scale.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:


With continuous light you can watch the effect as you move the light. Not so with flash. Even modeling lights are inaccurate at jewellery scale.
Click to expand...
I’ll take your word for it, my preference for flash would be based on not wanting to work in a completely dark room.

I know the flash will knock out unwanted extra light sources and their reflections, with continuous I’d have to eliminate them physically.
 
Thanks for all your help. I can see from this thread/reading/research, that there are quite a few ways to get to the top of the mountain. I have joined a photography meetup, so getting advice from there as well now.

I tried a X-T2 today and liked it. So am leaning towards that as I think I would use a lighter, mirrorless, more in other situations as well.
I am going to use a lightbox, camera on tripod, macro lens, tethering software (preferably app for adobe), focus stacking, photoshop/lightroom.

My big question at the moment is that if I go with Fuji, can I put together a 1:1 macro lens that will still be able to be controlled via tethering software re. focus stacking?
I have read threads where people are getting good results with Tamron 90 mm SP f2.5 with a Fotodiox adaptor, but do you loose the ability to control/tether with these adaptors? Same question for possibly using the Fujifilm Macro Extension Tube 16mm (MCEX-16), with this create tethering problems?

Lastly, am I making my life hard by going with Fuji? Seeing as they have minimal Macro offerings? I see that the latest 80mm is raved about, but I won't be shelling out that cash.
Will the Fuji 60mm with MCEX-16 work with the Fuji app for Photoshop/Lightroom? Or do the adaptors, extensions, diopters, mess the tethering unworkable?
 
Focus stacking using the Fuji stacking program uses the focus mechanism in a fuji lens so will not function with third party lenses.
I did a test using an old manual pentax macro lens and came across a number of fusion problems using photoshop. Focus stacking is an art in itself with a fairly large learning curve. See my thread https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/solving-a-problem-with-focus-stacking-fusion.687369/
Since then I have done some tests using the Fuji program and found that it needed a remarkable number of shots.

The pansonic's G8 and G9 has a remarkable feature for doing focus stacking See this thread https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/focus-stacking.690576/#post-8357638
With some people getting exceptional results even hand held. @GardenersHelper posts in it are especially interesting.
I would definitely look into his production methods if I wanted to specialise in macro work.
 
Last edited:
There is also a useful video from Kevin Mullins on X-T2 focus stacking



And do you actually need 1:1 many objects will be larger than the sensor to start with and unless you are printing them big (ie using them mainly for web use) then a heavy crop can be applied anyway.

You have 3 autofocus Fujifilm Macro Lens options:-

Fujifilm XF60mm 1:2
Fujifilm XF80mm 1:1
Zeiss Touit 50mm 1:1
 
Last edited:
mickmick said:
I am going to use a lightbox, camera on tripod, macro lens, tethering software (preferably app for adobe), focus stacking, photoshop/lightroom.
Click to expand...

so you’ve decided to put least effort into the most important factor :thinking:
Please share your results, it’ll be interesting to see your journey towards the results you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top