 BetterPhoto Member |
Camera for Shooting Close-ups of Jewelry If you have the time to respond, that'd be great ... I sure appreciate this site. I'm looking to buy a digital camera I plan to use for shooting close-ups of jewelry and gems. Some of these photos will be used for sales online, and some will be representational photos of my art for my portfolio. I'm looking in the $300 range. I'm wondering what factors a higher quality photo (sharpness, clarity, detail) - higher megapixals, or brand name for better quality lenses? I've been looking at the Rollei 4200, and the Nikon Coolpix 5200. Any suggestions? Thanks for your time, Mary
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
You may be able to get by with the little cameras you have suggested, but don't expect professional results (and that may hurt your sales). First, I do jewelry photography for jewelers who set up and sell at juried Fine Art Shows. Since the intent of these images is to entice customers to buy online, and the intent of your portfolio is to highlight your art at its finest, I presume you want fine quality, professional results. Sorry, not on $300. You're going to need a lens with extreme close-up capability (up to 1:1 for really small pieces), and for best clarity, one that is optimized optically in the close-up range (called macro or micro lenses). And equally important, you'll need to have lighting equipment conducive to lighting jewelry, and you'll need to master some jewelry lighting techniques. You can buy one of the cocoon-type light boxes that have proliferated online due to all the Ebay-type product photography. These are catch-all light boxes that make lighting jewelry a lot easier. If you want professional jewelry images of your pieces - that is, images which will sell your jewelry - I'd recommend just holding onto your $300. Sorry, Michael H. Cothran www.mhcphoto.net
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Robert K. Bemus Contact Robert K. Bemus Robert K. Bemus's Gallery |
Mary, Not to diss the last guy because he's a professional and I'm not, my first question would be, 'do you have to go digital?' Robert Bemus
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Rick S. Francis |
Mary, First off some pictures will do a lot more for you than no pictures. I think that the lighting and composition of the pictures will be the most important part of the equation. No one will really care what camera they were taken with if they are good looking. You can produce good pictures with a cheap camera. It may require more effort or doable in more limited conditions (i.e. outdoors with full sunlight). As for Robert's suggestion on getting a film SLR- it's true that $300 gets you a lot more of a film camera, but it sounds like you are just starting with photography. You will learn a lot faster with a digital camera because of the near instant feedback. Also to use film images on the web you have to get a scanner and learn about scanning too. I wouldn’t advise it. >what factors a higher quality photo (sharpness, clarity, detail) - higher megapixals, or brand name for better quality lenses? Image quality is a VERY slippery topic! Michael represents one extreme the professional that has very exacting standards. The other end is that the images just have to be recognizable. Most snapshots are poorly lit, badly focused, taken with low quality lens, but the shooters love them anyway! Where do you fall? Where do most of your customers fall? I would worry more about how to arrange and light your pieces so that they look attractive. You don't have to buy someone else's lighting solution- most are just boxes with some diffusive material and some lights. You can make something yourself much cheaper. You could even start out trying with sunlight on an overcast day with the pieces against a sheet of black velvet or a white sheet for dark pieces. As for MP- if you have at least 3MP it should be enough unless you want prints larger than 8x10. Having more MPs does make a difference and can be useful to allow cropping but after 3MP you have diminishing returns. Lenses tend to be the absolute limiting factor for image quality, but the truth is even a cheap lens is better than most photographers' skills. So unless you are really good your picture quality is likely to be limited by your skills rather than your lens. I would be most concerned about what pictures the lens CAN'T take. Looking on dpreview.com the Nikon Coolpix 5200 is rates as having "good" macro performance so that is a possible candidate for you. The thing you DON'T seem to get with this camera is much control over aperture, shutter speed etc. It really looks like it is made for snapshots. Not having manual settings will eventually limit you, but you could get this camera as a starting point and get another if you outgrow it. -Rick Francis
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stephanie Sherwood |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stephanie Sherwood |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||