Adding Sparkle To Diamond

R
Posted By
Rick
Oct 23, 2007
Views
4595
Replies
46
Status
Closed
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

P
pico
Oct 23, 2007
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
F
frederick
Oct 23, 2007
pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.

Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.
RM
RC Moonpie
Oct 23, 2007
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.

Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
JT
Jim Townsend
Oct 23, 2007
Ali wrote:

I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

What editing software are you using?
R
Rita
Oct 23, 2007
Ali wrote:

I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

Photographing diamonds, especially the internal fire, can be tough. Your best bet is to do some experimenting with multiple flash and snoots. There are a bunch of other tricks to get it just right. You can try www.strobist.com for the ultimate in jewelry and other flash photography tips.

Here is what I got with my first attempt with multiple flash. While it is nowhere near good, it is a good starting point that demonstrates to me what can be done with multiple flash and a little patience.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/stoned.htm>

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

Just be careful adding cheesy effects in post. There are too many product shots of diamonds that look way too phony. Stick with getting close to where you want with lighting techniques and practice. You get the shot right and you will be more pleased than what you would if you butcher it in post with crappy effects.

Rita
JM
John McWilliams
Oct 23, 2007
Ali wrote:
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

Shoot them over. Experiment with light at different angles. Unless you’re an expert in PS, you’ll get better results this way.


john mcwilliams
F
frederick
Oct 24, 2007
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
AM
Andrew Morton
Oct 24, 2007
Ali wrote:
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

How about using a star filter on the lens?
http://www.tiffen.com/star_filters.htm

Andrew
B
bugbear
Oct 24, 2007
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Ali wrote:

I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

Photographing diamonds, especially the internal fire, can be tough. Your best bet is to do some experimenting with multiple flash and snoots. There are a bunch of other tricks to get it just right. You can try www.strobist.com for the ultimate in jewelry and other flash photography tips.

Here is what I got with my first attempt with multiple flash. While it is nowhere near good, it is a good starting point that demonstrates to me what can be done with multiple flash and a little patience.

You can always use a single light source, and multiple
photographs, if you can’t afford multiple
light sources.

The photographs can then be composited, if all
taken from a locked out tripod.

You’ll want a dark frame for this to be easy.

This from 1992… (!!)

http://www.graficaobscura.com/synth/index.html

BugBear
BW
Bob Williams
Oct 24, 2007
Ali wrote:
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Do what the jewelery stores do.
Use 2-3 TINY halogen lights positioned about 5-6 feet away at various angles to the diamond.
Bob Williams
RM
RC Moonpie
Oct 24, 2007
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:32:11 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?

a lot of graphics professionals

Did the OP ask this?

who cares?

Most people have no need for CMYK
files. If you do, then use PS.

I guess thats a NO.
A
Allen
Oct 24, 2007
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen
K
KYPMbITC
Oct 24, 2007
On Oct 23, 2:22 pm, "Ali" wrote:
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

in The photoshop there is brush and you can add as many sparkles you want :)there is no need for filters
OC
Olivier Croquette
Oct 24, 2007
bugbear wrote, On 24/10/07 10:56:
This from 1992… (!!)

http://www.graficaobscura.com/synth/index.html

Thanks, the page is nice!
F
frederick
Oct 24, 2007
Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen

LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.
RM
RC Moonpie
Oct 24, 2007
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen

LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.

and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
JM
John McWilliams
Oct 24, 2007
frederick wrote:

The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process" Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.

What are those "better tools"?


john mcwilliams
N
noone
Oct 25, 2007
In article ,
says…
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

Depending on the rez. that you have to work with, I’d go in at near the pixel level and create a mask for the area, that you’d like the highlight to appear. Might start with the Ellipse Tool and keep it small. Feather a pixel, or two. With this Selection active, go to the Adjustment Layer icon (bottom of Layers Palette) and work with, say Hue/Saturation. Play with all aspects of the dialog box. If your "highlight" is too hard-edged, make the Layer Mask (for the Adjustment Layer) active and run a Gaussian Blur on it. You may also want to create a "star" as your Selection, and use that, instead of the Ellipse.

A tip, as has been stated: it’s better to do this in the production phase, rather than in post. I have a little jig, that was designed for soldering, with a weighted base, and arms with alligator clips. I took of the alligator clips and added dental mirrors. I use these to cast little catch lights on my subject. The bright side of aluminum foil can also work, but the mirrors do a better job, especially in macro/micro.

Hunt
F
frederick
Oct 25, 2007
John McWilliams wrote:
frederick wrote:

The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process" Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.

What are those "better tools"?

FlareFX, GFlare, Lighting effects, Sparkle, and Supernova. There are probably other script-fu plugins, but I’ve never looked for them.
F
frederick
Oct 25, 2007
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen

LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.

and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".
RM
RC Moonpie
Oct 25, 2007
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.

Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen

LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.

and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".

do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online that you could post a link to?
F
frederick
Oct 25, 2007
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.
Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen
LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.

and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".

do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online

Yes, lots.

that you could post a link to?

No.
RM
RC Moonpie
Oct 25, 2007
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.
Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen
LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.

and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".

do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online

Yes, lots.

that you could post a link to?

No.

theres another shock.

its the greatest app ever for photographers yet you cant show us any examples of you using it.

LOL
F
frederick
Oct 25, 2007
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.
Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen
LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.
and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".

do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online
Yes, lots.

that you could post a link to?
No.

theres another shock.

its the greatest app ever for photographers yet you cant show us any examples of you using it.
You just got suckered in to betraying yourself as the troll that I thought you were.

I never said it was the "greatest app ever for photographers".

(BTW, Photoshop isn’t either)
B
burt
Oct 25, 2007
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Here is what I got with my first attempt with multiple flash. While it is nowhere near good, it is a good starting point that demonstrates to me what can be done with multiple flash and a little patience.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/stoned.htm>

I am trying to use multiple flash, and so far not been very impressed with my results. Can you give some indication of the setup for this shot? Or recommendations in general for using multiple (low cost) studio flashes?


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
P
pico
Oct 25, 2007
Rita
P
Pat
Oct 25, 2007
On Oct 25, 4:39 pm, (Burt Johnson) wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Here is what I got with my first attempt with multiple flash. While it is nowhere near good, it is a good starting point that demonstrates to me what can be done with multiple flash and a little patience.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/stoned.htm>

I am trying to use multiple flash, and so far not been very impressed with my results. Can you give some indication of the setup for this shot? Or recommendations in general for using multiple (low cost) studio flashes?


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Go get a book on photographing glass. It’s the same basic thing. Also, Rangefinder had a story on it, seems like a year or so ago (glasses, not diamonds).

Here is what I would suggest, to start.

Put the diamond in the setting and set the camera up. black background behind it. Put a piece of black card stock (a big piece) between the camera and the diamond. cut a whole in it to shoot through, but not any large than necessary. This is sort of the ultimate "reflection control" device" to cut out all lens flare.

Then go look through the lens as someone shines a flashlight on the diamond until it glitters. Put in flash 1. Go to the other side and do the same thing.

In the end, I think you’ll have two lights pointing at you, backlighting the diamond. I’m betting at about 45′ to 60′ range, but that’s just a guess. I’d start at the 90′ angle and work out. Plus I’d try various heights — and you might end up with one up higher and one a little lower.

You purpose is to get the light into the diamond and let it bounce around a bit, then hit a sharp edge to concentrate on and come out your direction. Remember, you can’t photograph the bulk of the diamond — only the edges. And you want the light coming out of an edge/angle, not going it.

If I wasn’t explicit enough, I would use totally side and back lighting and leave off all front lighting.

Good luck.
P
Pat
Oct 25, 2007
On Oct 25, 5:16 pm, Pat wrote:
On Oct 25, 4:39 pm, (Burt Johnson) wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Here is what I got with my first attempt with multiple flash. While it is nowhere near good, it is a good starting point that demonstrates to me what can be done with multiple flash and a little patience.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/stoned.htm>

I am trying to use multiple flash, and so far not been very impressed with my results. Can you give some indication of the setup for this shot? Or recommendations in general for using multiple (low cost) studio flashes?


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Go get a book on photographing glass. It’s the same basic thing. Also, Rangefinder had a story on it, seems like a year or so ago (glasses, not diamonds).

Here is what I would suggest, to start.

Put the diamond in the setting and set the camera up. black background behind it. Put a piece of black card stock (a big piece) between the camera and the diamond. cut a whole in it to shoot through, but not any large than necessary. This is sort of the ultimate "reflection control" device" to cut out all lens flare.
Then go look through the lens as someone shines a flashlight on the diamond until it glitters. Put in flash 1. Go to the other side and do the same thing.

In the end, I think you’ll have two lights pointing at you, backlighting the diamond. I’m betting at about 45′ to 60′ range, but that’s just a guess. I’d start at the 90′ angle and work out. Plus I’d try various heights — and you might end up with one up higher and one a little lower.

You purpose is to get the light into the diamond and let it bounce around a bit, then hit a sharp edge to concentrate on and come out your direction. Remember, you can’t photograph the bulk of the diamond — only the edges. And you want the light coming out of an edge/angle, not going it.

If I wasn’t explicit enough, I would use totally side and back lighting and leave off all front lighting.

Good luck.

Go to google images and look at some picture of diamonds and look for the shadows. That will tell you where the light it coming from.

Here is an example. Seems to be light from the front.
http://esoriano.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/diamond1.jpg
P
pico
Oct 25, 2007
wrote in message

I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post

That’s ‘Rita’ again.
B
burt
Oct 26, 2007
Pat wrote:

I am trying to use multiple flash, and so far not been very impressed with my results. Can you give some indication of the setup for this shot? Or recommendations in general for using multiple (low cost) studio flashes?


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Go get a book on photographing glass. It’s the same basic thing. Also, Rangefinder had a story on it, seems like a year or so ago (glasses, not diamonds).

Actually my question was more general than just diamonds. I have trying to photograph flowers in my (newly created) studio, and been unhappy with the results. Very flat. I don’t seem to have enough control.

I keep thinking maybe I need to go with LED gooseneck lights, but the $1200 price keeps me looking for other alternatives.

Here is what I would suggest, to start.

Put the diamond in the setting and set the camera up. black background behind it. Put a piece of black card stock (a big piece) between the camera and the diamond. cut a whole in it to shoot through, but not any large than necessary. This is sort of the ultimate "reflection control" device" to cut out all lens flare.

Cool tip — thx!

Then go look through the lens as someone shines a flashlight on the diamond until it glitters. Put in flash 1. Go to the other side and do the same thing.

Though I am not looking at glitters myself, I can see where the flashlght idea might be useful in getting a better handle on the flash results.


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
P
Pat
Oct 26, 2007
On Oct 25, 9:33 pm, (Burt Johnson) wrote:
Pat wrote:
I am trying to use multiple flash, and so far not been very impressed with my results. Can you give some indication of the setup for this shot? Or recommendations in general for using multiple (low cost) studio flashes?


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Go get a book on photographing glass. It’s the same basic thing. Also, Rangefinder had a story on it, seems like a year or so ago (glasses, not diamonds).

Actually my question was more general than just diamonds. I have trying to photograph flowers in my (newly created) studio, and been unhappy with the results. Very flat. I don’t seem to have enough control.
I keep thinking maybe I need to go with LED gooseneck lights, but the $1200 price keeps me looking for other alternatives.

Here is what I would suggest, to start.

Put the diamond in the setting and set the camera up. black background behind it. Put a piece of black card stock (a big piece) between the camera and the diamond. cut a whole in it to shoot through, but not any large than necessary. This is sort of the ultimate "reflection control" device" to cut out all lens flare.

Cool tip — thx!

Then go look through the lens as someone shines a flashlight on the diamond until it glitters. Put in flash 1. Go to the other side and do the same thing.

Though I am not looking at glitters myself, I can see where the flashlght idea might be useful in getting a better handle on the flash results.


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Woah. Hold your horses. The last thing you need right now is big, fancy lights. The problem isn’t the light. I repeat, the problem isn’t the light. You can do everything you want with a pair of 60 watt desk lamps, if you wanted to.

Too flat can mean a couple of things. I would start with the light being too flat — too soft. You need shadows for contrast to add depth to images. It could also be too much light reflecting into your lens and glaring. That’s were I would start.
B
burt
Oct 26, 2007
Pat wrote:

I have trying
to photograph flowers in my (newly created) studio, and been unhappy with the results. Very flat. I don’t seem to have enough control.
I keep thinking maybe I need to go with LED gooseneck lights, but the $1200 price keeps me looking for other alternatives.

Woah. Hold your horses. The last thing you need right now is big, fancy lights. The problem isn’t the light. I repeat, the problem isn’t the light. You can do everything you want with a pair of 60 watt desk lamps, if you wanted to.

Interesting point. I come from a video background, where I needed huge, HOT lights. Took a lot of air conditioning to keep the studio and its occupants from melting. When I went to photography, my first thought was that I needed to go to flash to avoid wilting the flowers I was trying to shoot.

My mind somehow skipped over the fact that the subject isn’t moving (until I get into water and fancy shots, but that is a ways off yet), and my shutter speed can be pretty darn long if needs be.

Maybe I will go back and experiment with cheapie spots and see how that works out…

Too flat can mean a couple of things. I would start with the light being too flat — too soft. You need shadows for contrast to add depth to images. It could also be too much light reflecting into your lens and glaring. That’s were I would start.

I think it is the former. Again, my mindset (coming from video) was to use an umbrella to even things out. I probably did too much of it.

I was thinking along the lines of louvers or some such, to highlight the background separate from the petal, separate from the vase, etc. Again, video thinking driving me, I guess.


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
RM
RC Moonpie
Oct 26, 2007
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:32:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.
Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen
LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.
and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".

do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online
Yes, lots.

that you could post a link to?
No.

theres another shock.

its the greatest app ever for photographers yet you cant show us any examples of you using it.
You just got suckered in to betraying yourself as the troll that I thought you were.

heh. you’re the one getting your ass busted for being a loud mouthed arrogant SOB with nothing to back up your bullshit

I tried to ask a nice, polite, on topic question and you got all huffy and defensive, and then somebody else busted your ass about it.

Morons like you, dear frederic, i couldnt give a rats ass if you think i’m a troll or not.

I’ve got work to do…. and I no longer have time to listen to your idiocy.

over and out
P
Pat
Oct 26, 2007
On Oct 25, 11:03 pm, (Burt Johnson) wrote:
Pat wrote:
I have trying
to photograph flowers in my (newly created) studio, and been unhappy with the results. Very flat. I don’t seem to have enough control.

I keep thinking maybe I need to go with LED gooseneck lights, but the $1200 price keeps me looking for other alternatives.

Woah. Hold your horses. The last thing you need right now is big, fancy lights. The problem isn’t the light. I repeat, the problem isn’t the light. You can do everything you want with a pair of 60 watt desk lamps, if you wanted to.

Interesting point. I come from a video background, where I needed huge, HOT lights. Took a lot of air conditioning to keep the studio and its occupants from melting. When I went to photography, my first thought was that I needed to go to flash to avoid wilting the flowers I was trying to shoot.

My mind somehow skipped over the fact that the subject isn’t moving (until I get into water and fancy shots, but that is a ways off yet), and my shutter speed can be pretty darn long if needs be.
Maybe I will go back and experiment with cheapie spots and see how that works out…

Too flat can mean a couple of things. I would start with the light being too flat — too soft. You need shadows for contrast to add depth to images. It could also be too much light reflecting into your lens and glaring. That’s were I would start.

I think it is the former. Again, my mindset (coming from video) was to use an umbrella to even things out. I probably did too much of it.
I was thinking along the lines of louvers or some such, to highlight the background separate from the petal, separate from the vase, etc. Again, video thinking driving me, I guess.


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

I would also think, that if you took a really small, bright light (maybe a LED pointer or a fluted light with a colored gel (blue?)) and hit the right angle into the stone, you could throw some color into it which might help.
TN
Tom Nelson
Oct 26, 2007
In article , Pat
wrote:

Too flat can mean a couple of things. I would start with the light being too flat — too soft. You need shadows for contrast to add depth to images. It could also be too much light reflecting into your lens and glaring. That’s were I would start.

A few other considerations:

1. If your studio is small and has white walls, you might be getting too much fill light from the walls. If this is the case, you could paint the walls gray or black.

2. The closer the lights, the faster the intensity falls off with distance. You can use this to add drama.

3. On the other hand, the closer the lights, the broader they seem to be from the subject’s point of view. Broader light is not necessarily boring, but it can be. Restricting the size of the light with a snoot or gobo might be advisable.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography
P
pico
Oct 26, 2007
"Tom Nelson" wrote in message

1. If your studio is small and has white walls, you might be getting too much fill light from the walls. If this is the case, you could paint the walls gray or black.

Are we still addressing Rita’s problem picture? There ain’t no fill at all!
F
frederick
Oct 26, 2007
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:32:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick wrote:

RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick wrote:

Allen wrote:
frederick wrote:
RC_Moonpie wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick wrote:

pico wrote:
"Ali" wrote in message
I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?

The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.
Filter – Render – Lens Flare (on a layer above. Create a spot, flare it. Change size. Change layer tranparency.) Not great, but maybe you can make it work.
Freeware "the Gimp" has much better choice and implementation of lens flare / starburst / sparkle etc flare effect filter choices than Photoshop without third party plugins.

I use both PS and Gimp – there are a few things where the Gimp exceeds PS, and for what you need to do, it’s one of those cases.
Does Gimp work on hi resolution CMYK files?
Who cares?
Did the OP ask this? Most people have no need for CMYK files. If you do, then use PS.
Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a "jewel" of a post; his phony describes him.
As to your question–I suppose you might be able to accomplish your goal with postprocessing, but for future attempts, lighting from just the right angle is probably the best approach. One of thebeauties of digital is tye ability to see results immediately, and to be able to keep trying until you get just the effect you want, at the expense of just a little battery life. Oh, goodbye, frederick–welcome to killsville, where you will find yourself amid many other gracious, helpful souls. Allen
LOL – you sanctimonious git.
The OP specifically asked for adding a "sparkle to it in post process"
Gimp offers better tools to do that job than Photoshop.
CMYK is of little use to most photographers.
Get over it.
and you’re either too arrogant or too stupid to notice that your hostile and condescending sneer of an answer was also posted to a graphics group. And I politely asked if the app worked in CMYK, which is a reasonable question from someone in such a group.

so now YOU get over it.
I’ve got nothing I need to "get over".
do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online
Yes, lots.

that you could post a link to?
No.

theres another shock.

its the greatest app ever for photographers yet you cant show us any examples of you using it.
You just got suckered in to betraying yourself as the troll that I thought you were.

I never said it was the "greatest app ever for
photographers".

(BTW, Photoshop isn’t either)

heh. you’re the one getting your ass busted for being a loud mouthed arrogant SOB with nothing to back up your bullshit

I tried to ask a nice, polite, on topic question and you got all huffy and defensive, and then somebody else busted your ass about it.
Morons like you, dear frederic, i couldnt give a rats ass if you think i’m a troll or not.

I’ve got work to do…. and I no longer have time to listen to your idiocy.

over and out

Just a reply so that your post is archived.
Trolls using X-No-Archive are the worst kind.

Path:
lust.ihug.co.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed.stu eberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-m ail
From: RC_Moonpie
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,rec.photo.digital Subject: Re: Adding Sparkle To Diamond
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:50:52 -0400
Lines: 102
Message-ID:
References:

<471f5bdf$0$26367$>

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net
fzV86e7cFfQj2vJMxeo+EAmN4MUYuxSMgJh8lf/W9BxpOUG40k
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z69pbqf9yUuewZyN0MONm0XjFyU=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: lust.ihug.co.nz comp.graphics.apps.photoshop:272632 rec.photo.digital:1340652
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
B
burt
Oct 27, 2007
Tom Nelson wrote:

A few other considerations:

1. If your studio is small and has white walls, you might be getting too much fill light from the walls. If this is the case, you could paint the walls gray or black.

Yeah, the room is a lot smaller than I would prefer. It is our guest room when not occupied by guests, which is all but a couple days per year. The walls are off-white. Not sure my wife would like it if I tried to paint it black though… 🙂

2. The closer the lights, the faster the intensity falls off with distance. You can use this to add drama.

3. On the other hand, the closer the lights, the broader they seem to be from the subject’s point of view. Broader light is not necessarily boring, but it can be. Restricting the size of the light with a snoot or gobo might be advisable.

Good points. I’ll have to do some more playing with lights. I had been thinking of baffles, but a snoot would probably give me more the effect I have been trying for.

The strobes I was using were more intended for portraits. I hadn’t really thought of it before, but this conversation makes me realize that means they were intended for soft, broad effect.

I think I am now seeing where I went wrong, and some ways to experiment with changes. Thanks for all the ideas!


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
R
Rob
Oct 27, 2007
Pat wrote:

On Oct 25, 11:03 pm, (Burt Johnson) wrote:

Pat wrote:

I have trying
to photograph flowers in my (newly created) studio, and been unhappy with the results. Very flat. I don’t seem to have enough control.

I keep thinking maybe I need to go with LED gooseneck lights, but the $1200 price keeps me looking for other alternatives.

Woah. Hold your horses. The last thing you need right now is big, fancy lights. The problem isn’t the light. I repeat, the problem isn’t the light. You can do everything you want with a pair of 60 watt desk lamps, if you wanted to.

Interesting point. I come from a video background, where I needed huge, HOT lights. Took a lot of air conditioning to keep the studio and its occupants from melting. When I went to photography, my first thought was that I needed to go to flash to avoid wilting the flowers I was trying to shoot.

My mind somehow skipped over the fact that the subject isn’t moving (until I get into water and fancy shots, but that is a ways off yet), and my shutter speed can be pretty darn long if needs be.
Maybe I will go back and experiment with cheapie spots and see how that works out…

Too flat can mean a couple of things. I would start with the light being too flat — too soft. You need shadows for contrast to add depth to images. It could also be too much light reflecting into your lens and glaring. That’s were I would start.

I think it is the former. Again, my mindset (coming from video) was to use an umbrella to even things out. I probably did too much of it.
I was thinking along the lines of louvers or some such, to highlight the background separate from the petal, separate from the vase, etc. Again, video thinking driving me, I guess.


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

I would also think, that if you took a really small, bright light (maybe a LED pointer or a fluted light with a colored gel (blue?)) and hit the right angle into the stone, you could throw some color into it which might help.

use fiber optic and adjust that – its cheap and ideal for what you want.
B
burt
Oct 27, 2007
Rob wrote:

use fiber optic and adjust that – its cheap and ideal for what you want.

OK. I went online to find some source of cheap units. The first I find in Google is

http://www.fiberopticproducts.com/Lightunits.htm

To tell you the truth, I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I bought from anyone with THAT BAD of a web site design!

I have found a couple of other sites that sell this stuff cheaper than I expected. Is there any particular source, or even product, that you recommend?


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
R
Rob
Oct 27, 2007
Burt Johnson wrote:
Rob wrote:

use fiber optic and adjust that – its cheap and ideal for what you want.

OK. I went online to find some source of cheap units. The first I find in Google is

http://www.fiberopticproducts.com/Lightunits.htm

To tell you the truth, I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I bought from anyone with THAT BAD of a web site design!
I have found a couple of other sites that sell this stuff cheaper than I expected. Is there any particular source, or even product, that you recommend?

No don’t go buying the stuff from a photographic supplier.

I would not look at them either.

The stuff I was given is used for a strip light, its about 8mm diameter with a black outer sleeve. is only lit from one end, and the light will come out the other as a torch light. Ill have to ask during the week what its called.

But an example

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/369606-REG/Nite_Ize_FP O07AA7_Fiber_Optic_Adapter.html

This is the sort of stuff I am referring although this is only about 4mm diameter. Thats only $6.50. As you can see it fits over a torch with a cap. The larger stuff I use is cheap and effective.

I have made a bigger version of this plus a 3 and 4 fibre optic coming out of the cap. the optics are about 20" long and placed where there required all powered from a single light source. Something like a spider, in looks.

What I did was make a cap to go over my light source and drill a hole into it. Then place the fibre optic into that. What happens the enclosed light is directed when you want it to go with out any spill.
GK
George Kerby
Oct 27, 2007
On 10/25/07 4:02 PM, in article , "pico"
<pico.digoliardi.net> wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Here is what I got with my first attempt with multiple flash. While it is nowhere near good, it is a good starting point that demonstrates to me what
can be done with multiple flash and a little patience.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/stoned.htm>

Just a couple things. Black flocked paper might be better (if you really want black) because it won’t have lint on it, and when it does get lint, just throw it away and roll out another sheet. Velvet is better because you can sculpt it to make the little sheen work for you in the OOF area. Clean velvet with a dog-hair roller.

It appears you went for all the DOF you could get and diffraction sent sharpness to hell.

Lights? Man, put a light to the left. It looks like an industrial shot. Too dark, and off-color (naughty guy). I don’t see any ‘quality’ in the diamonds which should have some colors in it. Pinlights will help that.
And the goo holding the ring up… well, PS it outta there.
Even if this is for eBay it’s not good enough.
Agreed. Pretty sad…
R
Rita
Oct 27, 2007
Rob wrote:

What I did was make a cap to go over my light source and drill a hole into it. Then place the fibre optic into that. What happens the enclosed light is directed when you want it to go with out any spill.

Here ya go, try this. This stuff works great for macro flash. Just build a cap to go over your Speedlight and you got a winner.

<http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ150021561521>

Rita
B
burt
Oct 27, 2007
Rob wrote:

No don’t go buying the stuff from a photographic supplier.

I looked for photo suppliers of this stuff last month, which is when I decided it just wouldn’t work (read: too expensive). Last night I did some searching, based on suggestions here, and just looked at commercial and home lighting. I did find several that look pretty possible.

I would not look at them either.

The stuff I was given is used for a strip light, its about 8mm diameter with a black outer sleeve. is only lit from one end, and the light will come out the other as a torch light. Ill have to ask during the week what its called.

But an example
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/369606-REG/Nite_Ize_FP O07AA7_Fiber _Optic_Adapter.html

Yeah, I saw some items like that in my search last night. I was starting to wonder if that was what you were talking about.

This is the sort of stuff I am referring although this is only about 4mm diameter. Thats only $6.50. As you can see it fits over a torch with a cap. The larger stuff I use is cheap and effective.

I have made a bigger version of this plus a 3 and 4 fibre optic coming out of the cap. the optics are about 20" long and placed where there required all powered from a single light source. Something like a spider, in looks.

What I did was make a cap to go over my light source and drill a hole into it. Then place the fibre optic into that. What happens the enclosed light is directed when you want it to go with out any spill.

I did a "city search" and came up with several lighting stores in the area. I am going shopping today, and see what they have that can be adapted. I think I’d like to physically see them and pick a small selection to experiment with. If I come up blank in the stores, I’ll do the net shopping gig tonight.

Thanks for pointing me in this new direction!


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
T
testtesttest
Oct 27, 2007
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:22:49 +0100, "Ali" wrote:

I photographed a diamond ring recently, but the final images lack ‘sparkle’. Any tricks and tips for adding a ‘sparkle’ to it post process?
The ideal result I am looking for is very subtle. A bit like a catch light in the eyes, where it adds sparkle, but most people wouldn’t really notice it too much.

You’re looking for a post-processing "star-filter" effect.

http://www.andromeda.com/main/scatterlight.php

Options: Select a Preset > Stars > Bright Stars / Color Stars

Works in all editors.

And

http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/ 55mm FilmTools

Under the "Light" presets, options of Star & Varistar.

Unfortunately DigitalFilmTools is a PhotoShop ONLY plugin. So it can’t be used by 90% of the people doing editing work out there with better editing software.

You may find that the 55mm FilmTools legacy version (read OLD) sold to, and now by, Tiffen might be compatible with your non-PS editor. Though I’ve not tested this.

http://www.tiffen.com/products.html?tablename=dfx

Example: http://www.tiffen.com/dfx_star_ig.html

No matter, since the Andromeda filter for much less cost does it just as well.

I believe there are even some freeware plugins out there for this, but I have long since lost track of them.

You can also duplicate any of these effects in any decent editor by using a high-contrast selection or mask of only the highlights. Use any motion-blur filter to smear those highlights in any required directions to create the star-shaped patterns. Then overlay these light-spread layers on your original image.
B
burt
Oct 27, 2007
Burt Johnson wrote:

I did a "city search" and came up with several lighting stores in the area. I am going shopping today, and see what they have that can be adapted. I think I’d like to physically see them and pick a small selection to experiment with. If I come up blank in the stores, I’ll do the net shopping gig tonight.

I went to a few stores today. Didn’t find any that had fiber optic, but one had a nice selection of small halogen lamps. I bought two to experiment with, along with 10, 30 and 45 degree lamps for each.

I’m going to see what kind of results I get here. I think maybe this, plus one or two fiber optic lights for macro shots may get me in the direction I was hoping for.

I hadn’t thought of looking on ebay for the fiber optic lighting. I’ve actually never bought anything from eBay before, though I do buy online quite often. Looks like some alternatives there cheap enough to experiment with, and not feel bad if they don’t work out.


– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections