Diamonds and sapphires

[eastcoast909]

Bloo:

I like the arrangement and the perspective, but it still looks washed out on my monitor, especially at full size. This might be the compression from the web image.

Might a darker background help?

Do you get to keep the jewellery?

[iwatkins]

Bloo,

Also looks washed out and quite noisy here as well.

Ian

[mjordan]

I agree with the others on the washed out appearance. It's really hard to get a real look at the image though because it's so big I have to scroll back and forth.

I also agree that a black background might have been better. With so much white and light color areas of the chain and diamonds, it just all blends together. You are lucky to have owners of jewerly that expensive that they will let you play with it. Even those that use large format cameras that take the pictures you seen in the big fashion magazines don't just get to handle the expensive stuff like this.

If I was taking a picture of this and getting paid for it, I'd do a lot of masking of the light and/or painting with light to just light the chain. Then I would light the Sapphire from underneath so that it was lit up without reflecting light back from the light source.

Mike

[gramps]

Maybe not a black background but how about a different color background, a bit of contrast between the gem and background might help.

[eastcoast909]

Bloo:

Thanks for the explanation on what you had to do and consider in order to get this shot. There is obviously a lot more than meets the eye going on here in order to take these photographs. I know that there are others who have asked questions regarding the photography of jewellery and I know that this will be valuable information for them also.

p.s. Still looks washed out on my monitor, but now I know that it is not a problem! lol

[caesars0331]

Hmm..If I remember looking at the Tiffanys catalogue, all of their jewels are shot on a white background.

[iwatkins]

Bloo Dog,

The sapphire looks washed out here as well and there is quite a bit of image noise on the image. And I know for a fact there isn't a problem with my monitor set up. Maybe the image uploaded isn't right one, or something has happened to it while hosted ?

Quality of the image aside, I love the way it is setup, I love the way the chain snakes about. This is what would make me buy one. :)

Cheers

Ian

[marie]

is hanging it around a neck allowed
without showing the face ?

it should show more emphasis on the necklace detail

it's very washed out looking here too.
but as you say the proof looks great , fine when you print it, I just wondered what's the problem , why show it knowing we don't see it the same way

in the very nicest way possible I ask that
and if I missed something already said as to why.... sorry

as the catch at the back cannot be seen here anyway ,
like it wouldn't be seen if around a neck ,
is there a problem with having a neck to hang it around ?


hope you understand I am just reacting to my view of it, shown here,
and giving an opinion
(as I think was asked, but not sure, inexperienced and all as it is... in this type of matter)

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

[marie]

Hmmm...

Something must be lost in the transmission. I checked it from another location on another service and it looks fine. Different monitor, different set computer. Different IP.

Let me post a new one.

Marie,

No, that sort of presentation would require a model. There are "necks" which jewelers use in their display cases, but there isn't room for that sort of representation. As you suggest, the final judgment of the piece would be from the retail buyers' perspective. Though these images will probably be turned into slicks for retailer's advertising, the first use will be for the catalogue or catalogues.

I have a provision in my contract for future use of images.

BTW, a "slick" is a glossy print furnished with the piece when the wholesaler or retailer buys the piece. In turn, the retailer will give the photo (usually a finished advertisement) to a publication as a predesigned advertisement.


thank you very much
all the information you give above will be very valuable to all who are interested in photographing jewellery,
and will be very much appreciated . I have no doubts about that.
it seems a very difficult task and I don't envy you

someone has to do it and it's great that you can

many thanks again.

:)

[marie]

And you know what, marie? I don't know why I put it up, now that you ask.


the other picture is no better ...as far as I can see
I tried to compare it with your first one but it's gone

I am not mad about the necklace as displayed either
looks a bit like a snake crawling along the ground
as you say you already are ok with everything you are doing there is not a problem
(except new ideas in showing the necklace to it's avantage)


but make no mistakes we are all glad you posted it
to hear all the details alone was worth it
so please keep doing it ...
letting us know.

right now I bet there are many who are so glad to read all you said
so
thanks a bunch
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

[Claire]

It doensn't show for me, but it's probably the computer I'm on that's stupid. Will look at home.
Shame you don't get to keep any of the jewellery, your wife would have been a very happy woman!

[Andy_T]

Nope, doesn't work for me either (The page you are requesting cannot be found!)

Dang, now that I'm really interested.

Best regards,
Andy

[marie]

Okay. Let's try this one on for size. Photobucket enlarges things to billboard size if you click onto the image. maybe it's doing something esle I don't know about.




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/BlooDog/DiaPendBluStone4.jpg


Claire and Andy,
it's on this one above here

Bloo Dog replaced the other (testing another view of it )

[Claire]

Marie,
Thanks! Now I could see it. :) And yeah, it's a bit blown out. Not bad necklace though. Would match my ring. lol

[marie]

Marie,
Thanks! Now I could see it. :) And yeah, it's a bit blown out. Not bad necklace though. Would match my ring. lol



:lol: :lol:

congratulations Claire?
;)

so you will need BlooDog for the wedding shots after all ?

and soon ?

[Claire]

Marie,
Nope, won't need Bloo Dog's wedding service in a long time. Need to find a vict...*cough*...man first. ;) But let's just say the women on my mom's side are very much into jewellery. I personally love rings. Have a ring with a blue stone like Bloo's necklace here. Got that ring for my 21st birthday. It's one of my favourites (the other is the ring I got for my 18th/25th).

[marie]

Marie,
Nope, won't need Bloo Dog's wedding service in a long time. Need to find a vict...*cough*...man first. ;) But let's just say the women on my mom's side are very much into jewellery. I personally love rings. Have a ring with a blue stone like Bloo's necklace here. Got that ring for my 21st birthday. It's one of my favourites (the other is the ring I got for my 18th/25th).


the vict........ *cough* when *caught * really will be *coughing up* then


:lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen::lol: :lol: :lol:

[Claire]

the vict........ *cough* when *caught * really will be *coughing up* then


:lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen::lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: Yeah, probably! My cousin's husband complained to me when we met them in New York last year. "I'd really like to get her some nice jewellery, but no matter what I get I won't ever be able to beat the stuff she got from her mom!"

My mom laughed when I told her and said he wasn't trying hard enough, after all she'll love anything he gives her! On the other hand, my aunt in US really have expensive taste in everything. She's a brand person and loves Ralph Laurent. My mom didn't even notice the gifts we got were all RL stuff. Let's just say my mom and I find it a waste to dress small children in designer wear... ;)

[marie]

:lol: :lol: Yeah, probably! My cousin's husband complained to me when we met them in New York last year. "I'd really like to get her some nice jewellery, but no matter what I get I won't ever be able to beat the stuff she got from her mom!"

crazy:lol:

My mom laughed when I told her and said he wasn't trying hard enough, after all she'll love anything he gives her!

most would but maybe her mother's traits fell on her also:confused:



On the other hand, my aunt in US really have expensive taste in everything. She's a brand person and loves Ralph Laurent.

:rolleyes: :eyes:rolleyes:



My mom didn't even notice the gifts we got were all RL stuff.

if she had she could have sold them

:oops:
:lol: :lol:



Let's just say my mom and I find it a waste to dress small children in designer wear... ;)


I agree
also not to give kids the wrong idea of what's important in life.
filling their little heads with 'grand' ideas which last for all their lives ,
which would not have been there in the first place





:)

thanks Claire

[PMarriott]

Hello Bloo Dog,

I have seen the pendant pic and it looks good to me. Like the idea of creating something less boring than usual pendant pics are, yours encourages the eye to look at a product.

Reading through some of your thoughts I notice you say diamonds sometimes go black when photographed. Could you help me with some answers to these questions: Why is this? How to you stop it happening? Does this only apply to unset diamonds or will they go black if they are set in a ring or pendant.

Many thanks,

Paul.



This is a diamond and sapphire pendant that I wanted to do something a little different with. The combination of platinum and diamonds presents a problem. In a high key setting it tends to flare if slightly overexposed. Underexposed, it looks like aluminum. I sharpened it a bit to add contrast where it was needed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ndBluStone4.jpg

[mjordan]

And you'd probably be sued for misrepresentation or the photo would be rejected by the art director. This is a manufactured piece which will be sold to distributors.Light painting, etc. just isn't done. The prospective buyer will probably buy several of these articles and he needs to know what the piece will look like in his clients' jewelry cases.

Again, the "washed out" part of the pendant has been deliberately overexposed for design purposes. If the sapphire looks washed out then you have a problem with your monitor.

Nobody is letting me "play" with the jewelry. I am shooting these articles for designers and manufacturers. This particular photo will appear in advertisements as well as in a catalogue.

The proof looks great.


You sure have a problem with getting comments and critisizums, don't you. If the images you showed are any example, then yes, you were just playing. I don't consider it any where near commercial quality work. If this stuff looks great on your monitor, then that is where you problem is. ;)

Mike

[Michaelmjc]

The page connot be found. Is it just me?

[Bob_A]

Nice pic Bloo ( DiaPendBluStone4.jpg ). On my monitor it might be a tad bright, but it could look spot on in print ... hard to tell.

Man, whenever I see a post from you I gotta make sure my wife isn't looking over my shoulder. She might get some "shopping ideas" and I won't have any money to buy new camera equipment! :)

Bob

[Michaelmjc]

Nice pic Bloo. On my monitor it might be a tad bright, but it could look spot on in print ... hard to tell.

Man, whenever I see a post from you I gotta make sure my wife isn't looking over my shoulder. She might get some "shopping ideas" and I won't have any money to buy new camera equipment! :)

Bob

How were you able to see it? I think my computer is screwed.

[Bob_A]

How were you able to see it? I think my computer is screwed.

This is the one I was looking at:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ndBluStone4.jpg

This link works ok, where the one in the first (original) post doesn't.

Weird! I copied and pasted it ... and it won't work here. But if I go back to page 1 and try the same link in the posted thread, it works.


Bob

[Michaelmjc]

Hmm.. It still doesn't work. Can yuo post the picture as an attachment?

Thanks,
Mike

[Michaelmjc]

Wow very nice. Looks like soemthing from a diamond store commercial.

[PhotosGuy]

FYI, I'm getting "The page you are requesting cannot be found!"

[PhotosGuy]

The 2nd link farther down works (image is really small) but the 1st one at the top still doesn't, which is the one I was trying.
Nice shot on the last one, but I'd like to see bigger images. (Just 'cause I LIKE big images) ;-)

[jfrancho]

This doesn't count as "commercial photography" since I didn't follow the rules and did some touch up to the stones in ps. I took a great deal of inspiration from this post, and learned a lot. It took me a total of 4 hours just to get the shot. I'm sure more experience would trim this down. As for the photo, I think it came out ok except cutting off the shadow. I originally posted this here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62848
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/17734547-S.jpg
Thank you Bloo Dog for the informative post!

[Aethyr]

I think they would look better sitting on black velvet, but that's just me.

[jfrancho]

It appears the image I posted isn't loading properly for some, so here it is attached. You could try to link to it here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/17734547-S.jpg) too.

[Aethyr]

Somewhere in these posts is the comment that most of the jewelry photography was either shot specifically for b&w web press (newspaper) publication or for glossy stock. If the products were shot on a black background, it would be lost in a newspaper advertisement. Whenever you work with newsprint, you have to minimize the amount of ink because of the generally poor quality of most web presses-- and because of the nature of the medium. Newspapers generally print photos on an 80 line screen.

Presently, in most jewelry trade magazines, the photography is high key.

Whenever you shoot reflective surfaces, you have to take into consideration the fact that reflective surfaces reflect the world around them. If you're working with platinum, you wouldn't want it to reflect black.

But I can understand the preference. A darker background would give a lot more contrast. pearls, on the other hand look wonderful on a dark background because the contrast gives form to the spherical form of the pearl.

My own preference for metal jewelry is for a textured background of some sort. It gives the eye a point of reference for a sense of up and down, as well as some sort of grounding which is a pretty basic artistic concept. Unfortunately, these considerations sometimes go right out the window when you're dealing with small products such as jewelry.

Also Take into consideration the fact that I often have 1-2 dozen pieces at a time to shoot for catalogue work, and I have very limited time in which to work. The pieces come in to the shop, then they ship out again the next day. In most cases, I am not working on my own premises, so I don't even have an entire day in which to shoot.

Okie dokie... didn't need a dissertation on it, just making a comment. :)

[jfrancho]

It appears the image isn't loading properly for some, so here it is attached. You could try to link to it here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/17734547-S.jpg) too.BTW: This is NOT the original image Bloo Dog started the thread with. His image is here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/BlooDog/DiaPendBluStone3.jpg):

[jfrancho]

jfrancho,

That's a pretty good shot. You need to back off on the light and then add a reflector to the rear or side to fill to even the light out --provided, of course, that even lighting is what you're shooting for.

The image as it is looks like a nice shot. The highly directional light accentuates the twist designed into the piece and adds a lot of drama. If you're looking for drama in the lighting, you've got it! The large highlights work for me and the piece as well. I think that the question here are these: is this effect satisfactory to you and does it fulfill the expectations you had for the image? Since you are working according to your own criteria, you are the one most qualified to judge the image.

Got another one?

That Yurman line is fancy stuff. Are you working a second job to pay for it?Bloo Dog,
First, thanks for the input. As I had stated in the original post, this shot took me about four hours. Granted there was some heated discussion between my wife and I about posturing the jewelry, but it was her idea to loop the bracelet through the ring. Directional light was the "magic bullet" for this shot, as I could not get the detail I wanted in the rope to show accurately. It is actually eight wires twisted and fused together, then capped on each end. The process must cause some darkening in the recesses of the twist, as I have seen this on new pieces as well. This isn't always true of all of his stuff - I'll try to take some shots of the others. I am very satisfied with the outcome, HOWEVER, I really wanted more cosistancy in the "wash" effect. My highlighting came from the right, and that's the effect I'd like all the way around. Same goes for the ring, the white gold below the moonstone has that same "wash" I was looking for, wheras the top doesn't even look the same. I have to agree, three, possibly four lights in a semi circle around the pieces. The other bit you mentioned was a reflector to the rear. I had thought about this, but figured since the seamless paper background went to vertical behind the pieces, it would be enough. I think next time I may try "wrap" the background around them to form a "C" if viewed from the side. I will try to do a little more with this, and some other pieces as well. I just can't imagine the pressure of needing shots like this in a day or less. BTW, what the heck do you do with earring? I'll have to do a little surfing to see what has been done.

As for the second job...someday I'd like that to pay all the bills. You'll have to look at my galleries to figure it out.

EDIT: I've been told by my wife that Yurman WOULD NEVER use something as cheesy as "white gold" and that they are silver.

[PhotosGuy]

Photobucket wants to enlarge everything to drive-in screen proportions and the quality seems pretty bad sometimes. I haven't noticed that, but I resize before I upload. Stay away from fotopic. It's the reason I went to photobucket.

[am_pitbull_terrier]

Bloo: Do you get to keep the jewellery?

How many times have you heard that? :rolleyes: :lol:

Although one could maybe just maybe toatally by accident slip into your pocket during a shoot:cool: :lol:

[jfrancho]

Got another one?I've got a few to post tonight. All at once, or one at a time?

[jfrancho]

Ok, here are a few more. I placed a few restrictions on myself this time. No more four hour shoots to get 10 bad shots of the same jewelry. I limited my time to about 45 minutes after setting up for each piece. Setup times varied from 10 to 15 minutes. I'm not a pro, nor do I have pro equipment, but I tried to stick within a reasonable time constraint that a pro might. In some ways the lack of equipment may have simplified the process of setting up each shot - there is only so much one can accomplish with two lamps, an aquarium striplight, paper, aluminum foil, and a roasting pan full of play sand. I also limited file manipulation to the rudimentary adjustments in RAW conversion. Actually that is an understatement since I used Capture One Pro - pretty powerful software - but you get the idea. In fact the only thing I used ps/cs for was the 16 bit TIFF to 8 bit JPEG conversion.

Here we go:
#1. The first is a continuation of the earlier post. These are more Yurman pieces. More of the drama. I was able to get the twist highlighted more evenly, but the back of the bracelet is soft. The top turquoise is a little "lost" but I like how the cardimine showed. I'm not real happy with the gold highlights in the bracelet quatrefoils and bands in the ring. This was the best of about 6 shots.
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/18696026-S.jpg

#2. I did this mostly for fun. I like the colors. Nothing else to say about it.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/18696027-S.jpg

#3. African Chevron Beads. These are used as currency where they are from. This was different for obvious reasons. I think they might look nice in the "sandbox" (see below). I'll have to remember to try that.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/18696028-S.jpg

#4. I thought sand would be a great substrate and background for some big clunky Yurman hoop earrings; it wasn't. In fact it was terrible, the sand absorbed and refracted the light. But I got this shot, and I think it's cool.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/18696031-S.jpg

#5. And finally a shot of the turquoise monster! I'm not sure about this one. It seems I could do better, but this is what I got.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/18696037-S.jpg

If you've made it this far, thanks for looking!

[PhotosGuy]

I'm sure you learned a lot by doing that, & that's the way it works! ;-) Good effort!

[jfrancho]

PhotosGuy - Yes I did, and thanks. I don't particularly like jewelry photography, but I do enjoy any problem solving process. Plus, my wife is quite the jewelry enthusiast, and I've begun eyeing catalogs and website more critically.

[PhotosGuy]

I don't particularly like jewelry photography, but I do enjoy any problem solving process. A lot of people find a comfort zone & hate to leave it & that's when the learning process becomes a plateau, which has a lot in common with a Flat-line EKG. I once suggested to someone to find something that's not interesting (to him) & make it look interesting. I'd like to see more POTN people experiment instead of asking questions like, "What's the best setting for shooting Gerbils from a parachute?" ;)
First, avoid shadows on both sides of the piece. Yery unrealistic, unless you come from a solar system with two suns! Although I once shot a pic with 15 different colored shadows, but that's another story.
I strongly recommend that you fashion a shooting dome or lose one of the lights and use a reflector fill card You'll be amazed by what you can do with just one light & a few cards. Try incorporating a black or gray one sometime along with the white/silver ones, too.
I placed a few restrictions on myself this time. Good idea, but I'd save it for a little later in the learning curve. When we shot film, we'd sometimes leave the set up 'till the client signed off on the pic. During that time my brain kept churning & produced new ideas that I'd try before the tear-down.
Other times I'd take a break when I knew the shot asked for was in the can. And I'd come up with more variations to shoot before I quit. The more experience you get, the more variations you'll come up with. Then you can just filter them through your bank of experience & shoot the 1-2 that have the most promise. Which leads to more variations to consider.
;)

[PMarriott]

Thanks for your useful reply.
I am a freelance photographer and occassionally get asked to do jobs which need a bit more specialised lighting than I can usually get away with. Photographing diamonds is something I have been asked to consider doing and it's always best to pursue all avenues and get advice before accepting a commission.
Your ideas have been noted and I will post some pics after experimenting.
Cheers.

[PMarriott]

Here's an example of diamonds in a bezel setting. The diamond is held in place by a ridge on the edge of the setting, and the diamonds sit fairly low to the shank of the ring. The diamond setting follows the curve of the shank, so they're all facing different directions relative to each other. No light strikes the sides of the gems and no light can pass through it from the bottom.

This is the perfect setting for the light dome.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/BlooDog/DiaSapphireRingcopy.bmp

All of the diamonds light, but some flare.

This image will require some adjustment in photoshop, but I posted it to show you how things turn out sometimes.

From your description of this pic., does it mean that you should not allow light to strike the sides of the gems. If not, where should the light source be coming from.

It's quite hard to practice this without a few different pieces like you have access to.

Many thanks.

[PMarriott]

Good question. When you photograph gemstones you have two objectives: reveal form and color. Sometimes you can represent only a fraction of the form; such is the case with sapphires . Because many sapphires are so dark, all that you can show about them is their general cut (round, oval, etc) unless you want to reveal the surface cuts by allowing glare to reflect from some of the surfaces. Then you lose color.

No light penetrates the really dark sapphires, so you have to make some hard choices: show either the cuts or the color.

However, with lighter color stones, and stones which allow light to pass through the stone from different angles, it is a little easier to reveal color and form. The following image is of a tangerine garnet ring in a gold setting. Because the gem forms a multifaceted hemisphere. Light may enter it from many directions, and because of this fact, it is possible to reveal color and form. The light reflected from the surface allows the image to show the many cuts.The small globules to the side of the stone are seed pearls. Ain't that sumpin'?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/BlooDog/OrangegarnetringAlt.bmp


It is alright to show a little surface glare from a diamond, but one must be very careful not to photograph from an angle which is directly incidental to the light source. This will show as a blank, white spot. Because a light dome reduces specularity and softens the light, glare is easily controlled.

The following is an image which allows both the form and the interior structure of the crystal to be revealed. (Note: these images are being shown at a much greater degree of enlargement than that which they were intended to be seen, so they may not appear tack sharp).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/BlooDog/Diacloseup.bmp

Very interesting and very helpful. I will now make some time to do some tests.

Many thanks.

[jfrancho]

First off, Bloo Dog, I'm quite fond of the diamond ring. The facet reflections do indeed give me a good idea of what the cut will look like, first hand. I'm still a little behind in the lesson, but wanted to show some more work.
The first, following your suggestions on directional lighting (Nobody criticize the cropping, I'm not really concerned about that now):
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20261636-S.jpg

Plus the overhead. I wasn't thrilled with this one, perhaps it isn't the right piece for this angle.
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20261631-S.jpg

OK, now an improved setup: complete with cut up milk jug dome and softbox.
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20837651-S.jpg

Here are the results:
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20837647-S.jpg

A little less drama and contrast:
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20837654-S.jpg

One last one:

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20837650-S.jpg

They may not be a ton better, but I am starting to get consistent results...

Anyway, my birthday is coming up and wifey says there might be a tent and some lights if I'm good....

[jfrancho]

Thank You! Let me answer the reso query first. I'm not sure what the reso is. The best way to explain it would be to describe my workflow. I shoot in raw. I use Adobe PS file browser to preview the images on the card. I use the batch rename to download to my HDD. I then use Capture One to set up each image conversion, one at a time. They are all queued up and processed in a batch using Adobe RGB color profile to 16bit tiff files. I then go back to Photoshop and run my "Weberize16BitLandscapeTiff" action, which applys USM to the lightness channel (settings: 100%, .3, 1), resizes to 800px wide, converts to 8bit, saves as jpeg-7 progressive. I think the BIG step here is, besides raw, applying the USM to the lightness channel. These are then uploaded to my smugmug site. Smugmug then automatically creates 5 sizes that you can direct link to in forums. These are the "Small for forums and blogs" size. Hope that wasn't too much info.

I am going to try your suggestion to use the "porthole reflector." I can't believe I didn't think of this myself. Back when I used to shoot slides of tropical fish (I will eventually share with the forum this elaborate and unique technique someday) I had a big, black, felt hood with a hole for the lens to poke through to prevent any reflection in the image. Same idea, just in reverse.

I painted the highlites and added a slight gaussian blur to the very first piece I posted, but ceased that practice, since I wanted to show the pure images for criticism.

As for the postive reinforcement- WOW!!! Thanks!!! I hate emoticons, but in this case: :D :D :D

I am just starting to see the the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle changes that just a small white card can do for shot. I'm actually starting to like this. My wife really likes what I am doing. I think she is fishing for new subjects, though.

Thanks again for the advice.

[jfrancho]

You are the second person to recommend those lights in a week. My band hired a pro to shoot promo shots, and he was using these. He actually took a look at the stuff I was doing, and invited me over to take some still life props he was no longer using. I loaded up the the entire car with stuff. I got seamless backgrounds, frosted glass platforms, brushed aluminum, all kinds of other stuff, even an old window frame! He said exactly the same thing as you for lighting. He has upgraded two of his lights, but said he was hard pressed to see the sense in upgrading the rest.

As far as the technical challenge that this work presents, I have seen a huge improvement in my exporure control in all of the shots I take.

My wife just said if I cut any of her Tupperware, I'm cut off....I guess I'll have to go garage saling for my own, or just buy some.