Cabochon are gems that are polished but not facetted. Until the 14th century all gems were cut as cabochon. Today, clear stones are generally facetted while opaque and translucent stones are cut as cabochon. These samples are jaspers and agates.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fortnightly Challenge - Jan 22 thru Feb 4 - Topic: Bibelot and/or Soft
- Thread starter JohnMC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
From a long-ago shoot.
How do you get such great texture with your images? Also what was the lighting set up you used here? You know I'm your #1 fan here on these boards lol.
Love the flower picture. I was going to ask the same questions. On the 105MM....are you using it on a crop frame or a full frame? I've read great things about the 105 and the 85MM DX and can't decide which one to go for on my D90. Leaning towards the 85 since it's DX.
Again, love the ghostliness of that flower pic. Great job.
You are very kind.
I think the texture is 1 part planning, 1 part equipment (notably lenses), and then 10 parts trying to control this detail in post processing. The lighting setup was two sb-900s, one 45 degrees from off the head and the other 45 degrees off the feet; both shooting through umbrellas. An sb-800 with a light orange gel over the flash is behind the towels to pick up some of the background as well as add warmth. Most of the lighting effects you see were handled in post processing. I am shooting on a FF camera (D3). Pro's on the 105 are the macro capabilities, bokeh (simply amazing), and VR when used in portraiture. Cons are AF is slow (it hunts more than my other lenses). You wont be using AF for your macro photography (or VR for that matter). Post some pics when you pull the trigger and make your decision. If you have any thoughts about going FF in the next few years then perhaps you should consider the 105 over the 85.
This one is my favorite of the bunch. It's hard to explain but it reminds me of a particular style of animation (that I don't know the name of) with the elongated lines and harsh edges. When I look at it I see this animation of trees, jagged mountains and lightening strikes in my head. The only thing is the bottom right of the image. Is the blurriness a product of the image or of the rock itself?
A lot of times what looks like blur is really the texture of the sample. In this case, I think it is most likely lens blur. I was very tired and just wanted to get some stuff posted. If I had been more attentive, I would have cropped that out. Shooting these was very difficult. These were behind glass in a very large case. The only way I could shoot these without the specimens reflecting the flash was to shoot them at a significant angle, and bouncing the flash with a defuser. That meant shooting wide open and, therefore, limited depth of field.