# Wedding rings



## mitsugirly (Oct 9, 2009)

I've tried several times to take pictures of wedding rings up close (I do not have a macro lens).

I'm having a hard time focusing on the ring and it takes forever for the lens to lock in. Then I don't think they come out as clear as they should.

I also tried the famous heart light with the ring in the bible. (Sorry, I know everyone does this-so I had to as well). I find it IMPOSSIBLE to get the rings to stand up in the middle of the bible. I've tried the 2 sided tape and it just didn't work. I ended up GLUING (yikes) my ring to the page. Maybe my ring is just too heavy. 

Another thing I was trying to accomplish was to get some type of glare or sparkle from the diamonds. It was very hard to do. Maybe I should have cleaned them before taking the pictures, but I would think I would see the glare from the light bouncing off the ring and take the picture only for it not to show up in the end. 

Let me know what I can do to improve these and any tips would be appreciated.


----------



## camz (Oct 9, 2009)

Personally I would never use flash for wedding rings.  The glitter on the diamond will usually come out too harsh.  Since it's fairly easy to transport just find a spot with natural light to shoot it then spot meter the ring on the diamond.  So far your ideas and themes that I see are really good.  You just need to get the exposure and lighting right.


----------



## mitsugirly (Oct 9, 2009)

I did not use a flash in any of them. 

I was in dim light on the last two, (which was planned-lights off in the room I was in) and only using a light on the ring to create the heart in the book. The first three was in a light room during the day with the same light on the subject only.

The light I used was a little tiny laser light type thing and I was holding it and taking the picture at the same time.


----------



## camz (Oct 10, 2009)

I see..

So in that case I find the first two...lighting was too uneven. I saw multiple angels of shadow casting so I automatically assumed that you used flash.  Try not to have any discrepancy of light in your frame and your shots will come out better.  The second group with the heart shaped shadows are really clever.  The only thing I would change there is the exposure on the diamond.  I would try to make it a bit more pronounced on the last one and less overexposed on the 4th.


----------



## mitsugirly (Oct 10, 2009)

Maybe the lighting was uneven because I took this picture on my island in the kitchen, which has a sliding glass door on one side and a light above it. That could be the issue.

Do you mind telling me how to change the exposure on the diamond and make it more pronounced?

I'm not sure what you mean abut the 4th being overexposed.

Thanks for your imput and help.


----------



## Billhyco (Oct 10, 2009)

i've only done a few ring shots, but if you just can't go outside.  find a light inside that is directly over the rings, but not fluorescent (sp),  this for me anyhow, always seems to make the diamonds really sparkle.  go walk into a jewelry showroom and look at the lighting they use.  all direct.

good luck!


----------



## mitsugirly (Oct 10, 2009)

Billhyco said:


> i've only done a few ring shots, but if you just can't go outside.  find a light inside that is directly over the rings, but not fluorescent (sp),  this for me anyhow, always seems to make the diamonds really sparkle.  go walk into a jewelry showroom and look at the lighting they use.  all direct.
> 
> good luck!




As stated in my post above yours, there was direct lighting above the rings. I might have to try going outside, as suggested, next time and see what I come up with.   Billhyco-do you have any pictures you did of rings you could show me?


----------



## rufus5150 (Oct 11, 2009)

This line confuses me:



> Personally I would never use flash for wedding rings.



Because light is light -- specular highlights and harshness are caused by the incidence, reflection and refraction of light. A flash can be softer or harder than natural light (and, naturally, vice versa). A slow exposure with poorly placed natural light will be just as harsh as a short exposure with a flash as the same amount of light is being recorded in either case (depending on the size of the light modifier from a strobe, and especially with something as small as rings, ambient fill can be eliminated as a factor). Or am I missing something? (I'm genuinely curious because I'm continually creating softer light with fewer specular highlights based on family of angles and such rather than natural vs flash... I'm wondering if I'm truly doing it wrong!)


----------



## mbcreate (Oct 11, 2009)

I love the idea of wedding ring over the bible (pic #4). That's 100% right! 
But after all photography techniques applied, the heart shape shadow etc. Try to find a better text passage to place your ring. The _AFFLICTIONS UPON IDOLATERS tittle _doesn't look good in the composition. Try something like Psalm 23...
Wish you the best,


----------



## mitsugirly (Oct 11, 2009)

mbcreate said:


> I love the idea of wedding ring over the bible (pic #4). That's 100% right!
> But after all photography techniques applied, the heart shape shadow etc. Try to find a better text passage to place your ring. The _AFFLICTIONS UPON IDOLATERS tittle _doesn't look good in the composition. Try something like Psalm 23...
> Wish you the best,



I was just trying to practice the technique in these pictures and not focusing on the wording. I was having A LOT of problems getting the ring to stay up. I think it's just too heavy of a ring to do this kind of shot. So therefore, I was flipping and turning pages in the entire book to try to find a page that would get it to stand up. I tried the 2 sided tape and in the end I used some type of glue and glued my ring to the pages to get it to stand up (gasp). (Don't worry, the book is really really old, pages missing, cover gone and the glue came right off my ring when I was done). But I was aware of certain "pages" that you should use in doing this. I just didn't want to use any "good" passage pages when I had decided to glue the ring because I would never be able to use that page again.


----------



## camz (Oct 11, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> This line confuses me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's a matter of preference really for me. It's just how I take most of my wedding pictures. Lately I've been using alot flash for my shoots but I'm sure I will go back to natural light as soon as I get over from the fever of playing with my new toys like I did before. You're right you can do anything with flash and if that's your style there's nothing wrong with it. I've proven time and time that you can do just as good in natural light and I think personally shooting natural light is more convenient considering that it requires less gear, less set-up time, and I actually find myself having more keepers in natural light. It comes out less posed and more natural b/c subjects don't really know I'm there(oppossed to having all this equipment visible). Clients are really surprised when we present them with a 800 shot spread not even noticing that we were there. Flash gives away your position and I'm proud to deliver 700 - 800 shots as a final product and surprise the heck out a client. Natural light shooting is less intrusive. Guess it's just my style..

Believe me in the beginning I used to be a pure strobist myself so I know both sides of the story.


----------



## rufus5150 (Oct 11, 2009)

Oh, preference is fine and I definitely understand your stance vis a vis setup time and what the subjects are expecting. I really quoted the wrong part. I should have quoted this: "The glitter on the diamond will usually come out too harsh."

It's more of a technical question than a philosophical one. Natural light coming in at a certain angle is going to produce the same specular highlights as artificial light (at least that's my understanding). So... kudos on the natural light for natural light's sake, I'm just confused about the technical ramifications of your first post on the matter.


----------



## Billhyco (Oct 14, 2009)

mitsugirly said:


> Billhyco said:
> 
> 
> > i've only done a few ring shots, but if you just can't go outside. find a light inside that is directly over the rings, but not fluorescent (sp), this for me anyhow, always seems to make the diamonds really sparkle. go walk into a jewelry showroom and look at the lighting they use. all direct.
> ...


 

the following isn't a great example but here is something I posted the other day when I got a new lens.. the first photo I had a halogen light several feet directly above the ring http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/179281-playing-my-new-lens.html

I did some photos of a single setting ring a girl was trying to sell and used some direct lighting that, for that ring, worked very well. I am looking like hell trying to find those pictures and can't seem to come up with them. I'm sorry


----------



## camz (Oct 14, 2009)

Op another thing I forgot to tell you about... Canon also makes a 50mm Macro lens.  It's a must have(according to my partner:thumbup when wanting to include any details of the ring...engravings, small stones..etc etc

Don't know if the Sony you shoot as equivalent.


----------



## alexscott (Oct 22, 2009)

What are your reviews regarding NIXON D 40 ..
I had bought it some months ago, well i like it's lens and Clarity..


----------



## NiKOnSLR (Oct 22, 2009)

I like 4 & 5. Nice


----------

