This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > October 2007 > Adding Sparkle To Diamond
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Adding Sparkle To Diamond
|
|
|
| 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.
| |
|
|
"Ali" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:VPadnX7LQbyF14PanZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@pipex.net...
>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.
| |
| frederick 2007-10-23, 6:14 pm |
| pico wrote:
> "Ali" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:VPadnX7LQbyF14PanZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> 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.
| |
| RC_Moonpie 2007-10-23, 6:14 pm |
| On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>pico wrote:
>
>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?
| |
| Jim Townsend 2007-10-23, 6:14 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?
What editing software are you using?
| |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz 2007-10-23, 6:14 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?
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
| |
| John McWilliams 2007-10-23, 10:14 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.
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
| |
| frederick 2007-10-24, 3:14 am |
| RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
| |
| Andrew Morton 2007-10-24, 6:14 am |
| 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
| |
| bugbear 2007-10-24, 6:14 am |
| Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Ali wrote:
>
>
> 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
| |
| Bob Williams 2007-10-24, 6:14 am |
| 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
| |
| RC_Moonpie 2007-10-24, 6:14 pm |
| On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:32:11 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>RC_Moonpie wrote:
>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.
| |
|
| frederick wrote:
> RC_Moonpie wrote:
> 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 address--lost@sea--certains 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
| |
| KYPMbITC@gmail.com 2007-10-24, 6:14 pm |
| On Oct 23, 2:22 pm, "Ali" <m...@privacy.net> 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
| |
|
|
| frederick 2007-10-24, 6:14 pm |
| Allen wrote:
> frederick wrote:
> Appropriate that frederick would chime in on this thread with such a
> "jewel" of a post; his phony address--lost@sea--certains 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.
| |
| RC_Moonpie 2007-10-24, 6:14 pm |
| On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>Allen wrote:
>
>
>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.
| |
| John McWilliams 2007-10-24, 6:14 pm |
| 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
| |
|
| In article <VPadnX7LQbyF14PanZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@pipex.net>, me@privacy.net
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
| |
| frederick 2007-10-25, 3:14 am |
| John McWilliams wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>
> 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.
| |
| frederick 2007-10-25, 3:14 am |
| RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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".
| |
| RC_Moonpie 2007-10-25, 6:14 pm |
| On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>RC_Moonpie wrote:
>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?
| |
| frederick 2007-10-25, 6:14 pm |
| RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> do you have any examples of your own work in Gimp online
Yes, lots.
> that you could post a link to?
No.
| |
| RC_Moonpie 2007-10-25, 6:14 pm |
| On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>RC_Moonpie wrote:
>
>Yes, lots.
>
>
>No.
theres another shock.
its the greatest app ever for photographers yet you cant show us any
examples of you using it.
LOL
| |
| frederick 2007-10-25, 6:14 pm |
| RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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)
| |
|
| On Oct 25, 4:39 pm, b...@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> Rita =C4 Berkowitz <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
is[color=darkred]
what[color=darkred]
>
>
> 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.
| |
|
| On Oct 25, 5:16 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 4:39 pm, b...@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
>
>
>
>
it is[color=darkred]
e what[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
> 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...05/diamond1.jpg
| |
|
| <me@privacy.net> 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.
| |
|
| On Oct 25, 9:33 pm, b...@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cool tip -- thx!
>
>
>
>
> 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.
| |
| RC_Moonpie 2007-10-26, 6:14 pm |
| On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:32:52 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>RC_Moonpie wrote:
>You just got suckered in to betraying yourself as the troll
>that I thought you were.
heh. you're the one getting your XXX 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 XXX about it.
Morons like you, dear frederic, i couldnt give a rats XXX 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
| |
|
| On Oct 25, 11:03 pm, b...@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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...
>
>
>
>
> 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.
| |
| frederick 2007-10-26, 6:14 pm |
| RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:32:52 +1300, frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
> heh. you're the one getting your XXX 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 XXX about it.
>
> Morons like you, dear frederic, i couldnt give a rats XXX 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.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: RC_Moonpie <rc_moonpies@hotmail.com>
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: <l1s3i3lqvalht69rc39d7ru19g1bqaaphu@4ax.com>
References: <VPadnX7LQbyF14PanZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@pipex.net>
<13hsjo0nu4df65a@news.supernews.com>
<1193170116.60585@ftpsrv1>
<iimsh3lcebs43tdtdh9rnc1kkq5q20i8nn@4ax.com>
<1193192758.83519@ftpsrv1>
<471f5bdf$0$26367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
<1193257299.350609@ftpsrv1>
<2edvh31da0uo7e5rbj4j9da7d9vtuorls6@4ax.com>
<1193283381.744075@ftpsrv1>
<e591i3hhjoq61flnrs5q649fm7f17n014k@4ax.com>
<1193341047.207106@ftpsrv1>
<hvu1i3dir35d7aqvaep7t590k1i3so62mp@4ax.com>
<1193343998.385126@ftpsrv1>
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
rec.photo.digital:1340652
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
| |
| testtesttest 2007-10-27, 6:14 pm |
| On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:22:49 +0100, "Ali" <me@privacy.net> 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.
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|