Adding Sparkle To Diamond

RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Allen wrote:
>>>>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>>>>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pico wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Ali" <me.RemoveThis@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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>> 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)
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

In article <1193364684.630723.101600 DeleteThis @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Pat
<groups DeleteThis @artisticphotography.us> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

"Tom Nelson" <ludibund.RemoveThis@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:261020071253284344%ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid...

> 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!
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

Tom Nelson <ludibund.RemoveThis@xintegraonline.com.invalid> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

On 10/25/07 4:02 PM, in article 13i2135tjh8pc4b.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com, "pico"
<pico.digoliardi.net> wrote:

> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04.TakeThisOut@aol.com> 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...
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

RC_Moonpie wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:32:52 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:35 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:27:52 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Allen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> RC_Moonpie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 +1300, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> pico wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ali" <me.RemoveThis@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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>> 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.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: RC_Moonpie <rc_moonpies.RemoveThis@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.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
References: <VPadnX7LQbyF14PanZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d.RemoveThis@pipex.net>
<13hsjo0nu4df65a.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>
<1193170116.60585@ftpsrv1>
<iimsh3lcebs43tdtdh9rnc1kkq5q20i8nn.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
<1193192758.83519@ftpsrv1>
<471f5bdf$0$26367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
<1193257299.350609@ftpsrv1>
<2edvh31da0uo7e5rbj4j9da7d9vtuorls6.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
<1193283381.744075@ftpsrv1>
<e591i3hhjoq61flnrs5q649fm7f17n014k.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
<1193341047.207106@ftpsrv1>
<hvu1i3dir35d7aqvaep7t590k1i3so62mp.RemoveThis@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
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/)
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

Pat wrote:

> On Oct 25, 11:03 pm, b....DeleteThis@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
>
>>Pat <gro....DeleteThis@artisticphotography.us> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

Rob <mesa RemoveThis @mine.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:22:49 +0100, "Ali" <me DeleteThis @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.
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

Burt Johnson wrote:
> Rob <mesa.RemoveThis@mine.com> 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_FPO07AA7_Fib...Optic_A

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond 

Rob <mesa.DeleteThis@mine.com> 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_FPO07AA7_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
 >> Stay informed about: Adding Sparkle To Diamond