Hello everyone,
What would be a good choice for a not to expensive/cheapish not to fancy digital camera to get me some decent photos to post on forums/website, with the occaisional close-up ?
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
A year and a half ago I took a furniture photographing workshop with Michael Fortune, who shoots most of his work himself. One of the best investment I ever made. Since then the quality of my pictures have improved dramatically. At least that's my opinion ;-) I posted a number of them in the reader's gallery.
If using a point and shoot digital camera the recommendation was to have 6 Mega pixels minimum and use a camera that has control for depth of field (F setting) to allow you to keep the entire piece in focus. You never want to use the digital zoom so having a 3X optical zoom is the minimum in my opinion.
Even with that you really need two other things. Decent lighting and a tripod or some way to hold the camera steady because you always want to shoot without the flash. When you do so the camera often selects a longish exposure time which causes blurred picture unless the camera is very steady. Michael even suggests to use the timer so that you are not touching the camera when the picture is taken.
I don't think you could go wrong with a Nikon D-40. It has sufficient resoultion for anything short of full page shots in a magazine, and is a camera you can grow into. The following link has one with a kit lens at an almost unbelievable price (the camera and lens are reconditioned, but I have the same lens purchased reconditioned, and it has preformed flawlessly, and impressively I might add for something so cheap).
http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html
Rob Millard
http://americanfederalperiod.com/Photography%201.html
Edited 9/9/2009 12:35 pm ET by RMillard
Edited 9/9/2009 12:37 pm ET by RMillard
Rob,
Because I am new to digital photography, just curious, what resolution would one need in a digital camera for a full page magazine shot?
Further, what resolution equals 35mm film?
Roderick
Depends on the size of the magazine and how it's printed. Many magazines will want an image that has sufficient pixels to be twice the LPI at which they print. So, you back into the calculation by taking the size of the page (plus a half inch or so for full bleed) at that PPI. Typically, this ends up somewhere in the 16-24MP range. That is to say, above most 35mm-frame based DSLRs.Although digital-to-film comparisons are made all the time, the results are often misleading, IMHO. The conversion requires that the film be scanned, so the effect of another optical system is being introduced into the comparison. High quality drum scans of many fine-grained films stop producing additional image detail at somewhere in the 4000 to 6000 PPI range - well above the optical resolution of most consumer and pro-sumer scanners. Most of the digital-beats-film comparisons are done at much lower actual resolutions.
Roderick,
I'm not really qualified to say exactly, so what follows is based on what I was told. I do know that mega pixels is not a very accurate way to compare cameras. A P&S camera may have 10MP, but they are compressed on a tiny sensor, so the results will suffer. On the flip side, a 12 MP full frame DSLR can have better picture quality than a 15MP reduced sensor DSLR.
My 6 MP Nikon DSLR did not have sufficient resolution for full page magazine work. I got conflicting information on what would be the minimum. This is affected by how the photo is processed, with TIFF format photos, having lower required MP threshold, but a reduced frame sensor in a DSLR should be 8-10MP.
The reduced frame 12.3 MP sensor on my current camera has shot photos accepted for full page publication, even with photos saved as a JPEG.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Edited 9/15/2009 8:39 pm ET by RMillard
Roderick,Anything over 300 PPI (dpi) at physical size required for printing (keeping in mind bleed requirements)is lost when most magazines print at 150 line screen/CMYK half tone, Swop Standard (Specifications for Web Offset Publications) -- a web press being a high speed roll paper continous printing and binding press. A 8.5 X 11 (normal page size) file would be about 24.1 megs. A newspaper at same size but at 65 line screen would be about 1.13. Retouching should be done at around 600-800 ppi (dpi) or higher and then down sized for output.
Some magazines do print at a higher line screen. That info is always available from all magazines.
BBEdited 9/15/2009 8:45 pm by boilerbay
Edited 9/15/2009 8:50 pm by boilerbay
My shots are taken with my Nikon d80 not a cheapie, but The wife some time back complained it was to big and heavy to take around so I went shopping for a pocket camera that would take a decent photo and would be small and not too expensive. I looked at cannon, nikon, kodak and even a couple no names. For the most part down at that level they are almost the same. I ended up with a small cannon due to a rebate at best buy, otherwise I would have bought the kodak. Don't get caught up in the megapixle i'm bigger than you mentality. It won't make that big of a difference if you want to shoot and post on the web or 5x7's are your largest print. Also look at the features. Does one do better in the evening .vs. anti vibration if you can't hold it steady etc. Finally take a test drive. I really love best buy. Pick up the camera take a picuture and have them print it and just look at it. Again they are all pretty close. Although I have to admit at the beach last week my friend had a kodak and I had the cannon and we took some shots of the full moon on the beach and his shots looked a tad bit better than the cannon but not much. Good luck.
I was married by a judge - I should have asked for a jury.
George Burns
If you are limiting the use of the camera to posting pictures on web sites then even 0.5 Megapixels will do. Assume pics up to 600 x 480 pixels. This is 288000 pixels or 0.28MP.
So a 2MP camera will give you more screen area than you need, enabling you to crop your picture. With a, say, 6MP camera you have to throw away 5.7 million pixels.
The important thing is lighting. Almost any camera will give excellent shots in good, strong light. You may end up spending more on lights than on the camera. (forget the on-camera flash, it's as useful as those 1 dollar chisels).
On the other hand, if you plan to use the camera for other things, the above falls. Also, I don't know that you can find 2MP cameras on sale any more. I've just had a quick look at the Scan website and all the compacts are 8MP or greater, at prices far below what I paid for my first 0.5MP Fuji many years ago.
Children are a good source of older cameras :-) They will rummage through their drawers and say "Try this one".
I agree that the display size of images generally need to be no more than 640x480 in pixels, so even an older camera with fewer mega-pixels will suffice - as long as it meets the other important criteria.
First, IMHO, is the ability for the camera to focus accurately, either manually or in auto-focus mode. Second, is depth-of-field control. That is, being able to set the f-stop to control the depth of field (the area in front and behind the plane of sharp focus). Third, the lens needs to be able to focus in macro mode for close-ups. Finally, as noted earlier, forget about the built-in flash. You'll want to use separate lighting, the sophistication of which will depend on your budget. (Note that means being able to turn off the built-in flash by some means.) Being able to set/adjust the camera's internal "white balance" is important, as well. That allows you to use inexpensive incandescent lights, and still have the color accurate.
Having, and learning to use image editing software will help greatly with the photos, too. While Adobe Photoshop is the professional "standard", there are numerous programs available that are quite affordable (less than $100). Corel's Paint Shop Pro is a good chice, but there are others, too, some even free (e.g. Picasa).
In general, digital SLRs offer greater controls and better optics than point-n-shoot cameras that fit in your pocket. To keep the budget down, consider buying used from a reliable source. KEH (http://www.keh.com) is a good source, with accurate ratings and a good return policy.
Ralph, I cut my teeth on Paint Shop Pro back in the ... hmmmm.... Version 5 days, perhaps? Great program, but I have found a free program that is very reminiscent of the old PSP versions, and not as resource-demanding or complex and screen-hogging as the new versions. It's called Paint.net . I've been using it for about 3 years now for all my photo editing, and have been very pleased with it.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I agree that many of the photo editors have become resource hogs, mostly due, I'm convinced, to their desire to compete with the whiz-bang features added to Photoshop over the years. For simple edits, a simple, compact program is probably the better choice.Of course, after I scan my 8"x10" negatives . . . ;-)
I don't think that you could go wrong with almost any of the current point and shoot cameras. If you buy one today in the $150 to $300 range you are going to have more than enough detail, wether you need that much or not.
Some other considerations I find is how wide angle the lens can be. Cannon makes many point and shoots, but only one flavor has the wide, wide angle feature. A second thing I like that has disappeared from most cameras is a view finder. The Cannon PowerShot SD800 IS has both these features and can be had off of E-bay. But there are many many alternatives.
One final suggestion is that if you do end up with a point and shoot camera, don't settle for the wrist strap. Get a laniard, perhaps off a flash drive that you can clip on so that you can hang the camera around your neck. I slip my little camera strapped around my neck into my shirt pocket as I travel. I haven't lost it or dropped it off a table yet.
Peter
C,
To meet your criteria for a camera, buy a point & shoot from one of the major manufacturers such as Canon, Sony or Panasonic. If you want "inexpensive" avoid DSLRs like the plague as they are a money pit (endless add ons, lenses and other gubbins). They are also a sledgehammer to crack a nut - great big unweildy thangs that have a how-to manual twice as heavy as the camera.
For furniture and also the processes of making it, I recommend a Sony T series camera. Older models of 5 - 8 megap[ixels (rather tyhan the current 10 -12) can be found very cheaply now. The Sony T range are not the cheapest point and shoot cameras but they do have the advantage of being small, portable and very robust. They have built-in advantages such as:
a deep depth of field (everything in focus at all but the widest aperture)
close up capability (focus as close as the lens touching the photographed object):
stabilisation (anti-shake at low shutter speeds);
a big focussing/viewing screen;
live view (the exposure - brightness or darkness - of the picture on the screen before you shoot is what comes out of the camera)
a built-in flash with good squelch (cuts power for close ups so no burn-out of the picture).
There are many point & shoot alternatives, including some that are very sophisticated and capable (but also more expensive). I use a Panasonic LX3, for example, as it has a very good/wide lens, full manual control and an excellent build-quality, as well as all the usual attributes of point & shoots that most DSLRs don't have.
The pictures from even a cheap point & shoot from the large manufacturers are very acceptable for everyday use (i.e. not for professional work) and more than enough quality for web use. They have a number of auto or "scene" modes and tend to also take reasonable quality movies, which can be useful for recording WW processes and tool applications, amongst other things.
Lataxe
Lataxe:I agree with everything you said; however, you over looked one aspect of point and shoot cameras that is critical. I refer to shutter lag. To be sure P&S cameras have improved markedly on this but still do not compare to DSLRs.If you are trying to capture an exact moment, shutter lag will end up frustrating you.Regards,Hastings
H,
Shutter lag..... Hmmm. Well, you're right that its "greater" with even modern point & shoot cameras than with a DSLR. But we are talking fractions of a second are we not?
In practice I find that I can often anticipate the moment with a P&S so that the required transitory event is captured. Also, modern P&S have better multi-shot capabilities these days, with up to 3 frames a second (albeit not for too many frames) so one may do a bit of time bracketing in difficult situations, such as the cat clawing the nozzle of a passing dawg.
But we must recall what the OP wanted - a cheap and easy camera to take pictures of furniture. Now, my cabinets, chairs and even the odd bowl tend not to leap about a lot, so one has many moments (zillions) to compose the shot without them wriggling orf somewhere or changing shape. But perhaps you have had trouble from scuttle-legged items, which probably do dance away, just to annoy the photographer? :-)
For taking furniture pics I believe the P&S has one major advantage that we can add to all their other pluses: the inherently great depth of field caused by their small sensors. Even at wide apertures, most P&S will keep the whole piece in focus. Of course, artsy fellows will moan that they wish to isolate just a front corner or a knob, with the rest all blurry. Ha! They make a virtue of an inherent fault of them large format lenses!
DSLRs - great for professional quality or super-specialist work but otherwise a terribly slippery slope into gubbinsville. Also, don't forget the gym membership fee, as one must be a superman to cart about the bag full of stuff. Then there's the frustration of missing the shot because it takes 45.8 minutes to extract the gubbins from the bag and put it all together.
And then there's the weekly sensor-cleaning fees ($89.99 a go) to get off the muck that migrates in there when a lens is changed (or even when its not). Ah ha - triple these costs if the thing is used in a dusty workshop to photograph cabinets!
Lataxe, DSLR skeptic.
Lataxe:You exaggerate to make the point about DSLRs; but, in principle, you are correct. Today's P&S cameras, with their zoom capabilities are pretty awesome cameras that will serve very well for the majority.I still enjoy my Nikon D50, and I have managed to avoid the decent into gubbinsville!How are you enjoying your Domino?Hastings
A couple I took with the iPhone on the bike ride home tonight. Everyday on the way to work I pass this sports car repair place. It's like every day there is a little European car show. Life is rough.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Edited 9/10/2009 11:10 pm by roc
H,
That Domino has been played-with extensively but not really used in anger yet. However, The List now contains 4 items that are both M&T-heavy and also in a more modern style - that is, with the smooth perfection of machine-made attributes. (Pieces not for me but for various friends and relatives). So, Mr Domino will be doing a lot of his thang quite soon now.
I confess that I'll also be using dominos to form the many M&Ts in a much more traditional piece - a walnut double decker coffee table in a sort of Victorian style (a style copied from an existing wood-framed easy chair). This will have hand tool-made beading and some acanthus relief carving, as well as part-turned legs. Also, the visible surfaces will be planed rather than RO'd. However, its M&Ts are all blind therefore not visible, so the Domino will speed up the whole job.
I'm also trying to make a small jig which will allow me to cut the mortises for the slats of greenwood ladderback chairs using the Domino. It takes me ages to chop out eight mortises per chair by hand, in that green oak or ash, so Domino-help would be most welcome.
Lataxe
Good stuff Lataxe. Good points. You're correct about the small size sensors in P&S cameras. They do allow much deeper depth of field. Shutter lag for shooting furniture? Not a problem, as the furniture doesn't really move around all that much. At least mine doesn't. Maybe it's a design problem and I just make my furniture too heavy. Shutter lag is an issue if you're trying to capture action: sports, for instance, or wild-eyed children. My Nikon D3 has almost no shutter lag. A great sports camera, especially so considering its incredible low-light capabilities. For shooting furniture it's like taking a sports car to the corner store to buy a quart of milk. One thing no one touched on yet is the aspect of dust on the sensor. With a DSLR, you're continually changing lenses. That means you are continually introducing dust and other junk into the body. Eventually some of that stuff winds up on the sensor and you start to see #### in all your photos. For the most part, a fixed-lens point and shoot doesn't suffer this problem. Though, having said that, I have seen some photos - even some here on Knots - that exhibit dust on the sensor, and I know they were taken with P&S cameras. How that stuff got in there I don't know. And how the owner will ever get it out is beyond me, other than a trip back to the manufacturer. As others have pointed out, lighting is the key to good photography. It's worthwhile picking up a book or at least reading a magazine article on the subject. That alone, more than the camera itself, will do much to improve ones photography...ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Z,
You bring us down to brass tacks with your remark: "As others have pointed out, lighting is the key to good photography. It's worthwhile picking up a book or at least reading a magazine article on the subject. That alone, more than the camera itself, will do much to improve ones photography..".
That is just so. A look in any photo magazine or photography website will reveal many dire photos taken with sooper-dooper equipment, as well as some very good ones taken with P&S . And vice versa of course. To "good lighting" add "good composition".
As with other tools, a sophisticated and capable camera allows the product (photo in this case) to potentially be better than the same product from lesser tools. But, again as with other tools, the hand and mind of the maker have a Very Large Effect. Also, many products (photos of furniture for the web, in this discussion) are simple enough so as not to need the Fabulous Tool for optimum results.
For the purposes of taking good quality photos to illustrate furniture in the likes of this forum or other web places, a DSLR is like using an Altendorf to make a Shaker footstool - overkill. Also expensive and complicated to set up (unless you use it for many other things that do benefit such a Splendid Tool).
On the other hand, a very capable P&S (such as a Sony R1, Canon G10 or Panasonic LX3 - there are many others) will allow fine control of all the photographic parameters contributing to a good picture - the sort of capabilities DK mentions. Using a bog-standard P&S on auto (and especially with its built-in flash) can make for some ugly pics - or some acceptable ones if the photographer learns how to get the best out of such a camera.
******
Lighting and composition - they are easy once you know how. I have to say that flash is best avoided for furniture, unless it is illuminating mere photos-of-record (close ups of joints, for example). To flash-light a piece well takes a lot of sophisticated flash equipment. Better to take the tripod / natural light route.
Of course, one may make a temporary tripod out many things - a cushion on a chair, using the camera's shutter-delay timer to fire the shutter after the pic of the furniture has been composed.
In practice, I find that the anti-shake mechanism in the likes of a Sony T20, a Canon S3IS or a Panasonic LX3 means that a tripod (actual or contructed) is rarely needed these days. This is especially so if the P&S is good enough to allow the ISO sensitivity to be turned up to 400 or even 800. A quick bit of basic noise reduction in the photo editor produces pics that are certainly good enough for the web; and often good enough for my nice big computer screen.
Lataxe, who keeps glancing at them Panasonic micro four-thirds thangs but has so far denied the temptations.
EDIT PS The apparent dirt or other marks in P&S-shot photos is often more to do with flash catching dust motes in the air; another reason to avoid flash for furniture, at least in the workshop or even the hoosey. Of the 8 P&S cameras I've used over the past 5 years only one had internal dirt affecting photos - a smudge that was there from day-one so was probably due to dirt getting in during manufacture.
There are some quite good waterproof/dustproof P&S available these days - might be just the thing for the workshop....?
Edited 9/11/2009 6:44 am ET by Lataxe
I will admit, that I am obsessed with photography, so that colors my point of view.
The Canon G-10 you mentioned is an excellent camera, but its price is higher than the reconditioned Nikon D-40 kit and not quite as capable. Right now there is a reconditioned 8MP Canon DSLR kit on Adorama for under $370. If I were a Canon shooter I'd buy one just as a backup. Both of these are better cameras than my Nikon D-100 of 2003 and less than 1/4 the price( and it didn't come with a lens).
I have been very impressed with photos taken with pocket sized cameras, when used outside in good light, but less so on interior shots. Of course that has everything to do with lighting, and even the best camera takes a poor photo in poor light, but those tiny sensors can only do so much.
Weight and size aren't really factors for furniture photos, in much the same way shutter lag is irrelevant. I will say the D-40 feels toy like compared to the higher end DSLR's and it is surprisingly compact too.
As far as dust on the sensor, that is far less a problem on the second and third generation cameras than it was on the early ones. My D-100 required an extensive and expensive cleaning after only 3 months of use, which caused me to be far more careful with it after that, and today some 60,000 shots later, it has only a couple of small specks that are easy to fix in Photoshop and only apparent at very small apertures. The D-300 I use now, has taken just under 11,000 photos and I have used the built in sensor shaker only 3-4 times. I believe this has something to do with the spacing of the sensor and low pass filter, but whatever it is, dust is not the problem, it once was. Having said that, I'm still very careful of when and how I change a lens. To be honest, 99.99% of furniture photos could be taken with an inexpensive kit lens, so even changing lenses is not much of an issue. I bought my kit lens, a 18-55mm for $129.00 and I'm astounded at the photo quality it can produce, under some difficult lighting conditions. If you have high speed service see the link below for a sample, which has been reduced to 1MB from the 5MB original.
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii75/rayvac/Beech-AT-10-Wichita-2.jpg
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Rob,Good shot. Always wondered what really happened to Amelia.Now,about that guy in the black pants in the center of the shot...BB
BB,
You are an observant cuss. I have no idea who that idiot was. Doesn't he know there is a timer on the camera?
A little Photoshopping and he is now gone.
Rob Millard
Rob,Couldn't resist!John
Rob,
That is a luscious airyplane and a very good photo of it. I have added it to my smalll collection of "gorgeous machines" which also contains some of Dgreen's steam enjines, amongst other things.
Now, it is true that basic DSLRs can be got cheap these days, even with a kit lens. Those kit lenses seem to vary in quality, with those of Nikon generally getting better reviews than those of Canon. But as you say, all of them take photos that are at least as good as the best P&S (except for one or two exceptions, amongst which is the fabled Sony R1, a portrait-making machine-god. But I digress).
But, ya gotta admit that a DSLR is a lump; and a somewhat complicated lump at that. True, many can be put on "auto" and give a reasonable result. But they're still a lump. You may also be correct about better sensor cleaning; but you are the careful user, as you describe. I know many DSLR owners who still suffer from the dreaded spots despite their buzzing cleaner thang; and have to eventually creep off to a shop where them assistants grin and charge 50 or 60 quid a time.
Other chaps attempt to clean the things themselves and make a bodge - more spots and a new smear collection to boot.
And the temptation. SO easy to convince oneself that the 7mm fisheye and the 500mm telephoto are absolutely necessary, despite having to remortgage the house and sell a child to a desperate pop star. Tell me it ain't so! :-)
****
Still, were one to have ambitions to photograph lots of stuff and to a high quality then the DSLR has no rival, outside of specialist stuff costing two arms, a leg and some saleable organs. However, for we chaps seeking merely to have prosthetic memories (albeit to a standard better than those party photos mentioned by DK) a good P&S or two may suffice.
For swapping pictorial information via the web and email, its what you lads call "a no-brainer". (I always wonder what is used to decide the purchase instead). Any P&S from one of the well-established camera manufacturers will do a good job. I reckon there are many such P&S out there in the market now at between $120 - $180.
Lataxe, still with no DSLR and hoping to stay that way, despite his gubbins-lust.
PS you may be surprised what a bit of noise-reduction software and photoshopping can do to make higher ISO P&S pictures acceptable, especially if one has access to a 16bit RAW file from the said P&S.
Going somewhat counter to my earlier post there is another aspect to the cheap vs expensive, SLR vs P&S debate.In my younger days, in the days of Silver Halides on Celluloid, I used SLRs, sent my films to specialist labs rather than the manufacturers' labs, took great care over my shots and turned out reasonable pics.Today I use a digital P&S and frankly the results are unimpressive. Somehow I think that having a simple camera can make you lazy and sloppy. On the other hand knowing that you're shooting with a camera which doesn't leave you any excuses makes you more careful.
Rob,
I've had several film SLR's over several decades. I currently own a Pentax ME from the late 70's. I've always liked it although I'm nothing close to a great photographer. I've recently been thinking about getting into a DSLR and looked at the Pentax K200d because I can use the lenses I already have (normal, 80-200 and wide angle).
Do you think this is valid reasoning?
Thanks for you opinion,
Mack"Close enough for government work=measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe"
You had better check out the ability to use your old lenses. I don't know the Pentax per se, but lots of them, even if they did keep the same bayonet system, will only work in full manual, perhaps not even with the meter working on the modern camera.
Steve,
Another thing with using manual lenses on digital cameras is that - for me at least - it is quite difficult to focus accurately. Modern cameras all have auto-focusing, and the focusing screen in the camera is designed more for viewing the scene rather than for focusing; the old "split-screen" is nowhere to be found anymore (although it can be special-ordered for some modern digital cameras).
Some cameras (I only own Nikons, so that's the brand I know) have a "focus-assist" feature that uses a small light in the viewfinder to tell you when the object you're shooting is in focus. It's used when a manual lens is mounted on the camera. You deploy it by screwing the lens focus ring in and out until the light illuminates. Then you know you're at least close to optimum focus. It's not as quick and easy as autofocus, but probably a little better than trying to determine on a focus screen that was not designed for manual focusing exactly when things are sharp.
On a broader view though, I've found that as lens designs evolve they usually get better in terms of sharpness, contrast, color rendition, flare-avoidance and ease of use. Although I have a boatload of older, manual focus Nikkor lenses, I virtually never take them off the shelf. The new lenses (well, the upper levels of them anyway) are simply superb, and I have no desire to move backward in time.
Zolton
If you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Zolton,
My D-300 has the dot in the view finder to "confirm" focus, but it isn't very accurate. I use the live view and with it you can get a prefect focus. My D-100 had only a few focus sensors, so I often focused it by eye and came very close most of the time, but only if I opened the aperture up to its maximum, focused and then stopped it back down.
Some of the older lenses are excellent. I have a f3.5 55mm Micro(macro) that is simply superb; probably exceeding the resolving power of the sensor. I bought it for less than $100 which to me was a steal.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Rob,
Your experience with the "focus dot" feature in cameras mirrors my own. I never considered it all that accurate. And it is important to be spot on when you're doing macro photography, for instance.
I haven't used the live view feature on my D3, but your mention of it will spur me to learn about it. I know there is a section of it in the 450 page manual! These days, with the new housing market so moribund (and, as a consequence, so too the architectural photo market as well), I do mostly sports promotional photography. There's not much call for a live view camera in that field so I haven't done anything with it.
I have the f2.8 version of the 55 micro lens, and I agree that it is one of the best manual ones I own. Though I don't do much macro stuff anymore, I do pull it out when it is called for, and can't see replacing it with the updated 60mm version for the limited use it would see...
Zolton If you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Have to agree with you both on the 55.It was often said that in the era of film, no film, even Eastman's asa/iso 6 technical film could come close to the resolving power of that mytical optic. Not the Leica Summicrons/Summiluxs nor the Hasselblad's Zeiss Macro 100 nor the Goerz Golden Dagors could match the line pairs it could/can resolve.
Only the Hasselblad 250 Superachromat (which was originaly marked in angstroms for museum painting forgery detection at different wavelengths, now calibrated in F stops) is in the same league.55....Incredible lens -- still.
(cold dead fingers..etc)BB
Mack,
Earlier today I ordered a K200D for the exact reason you are considering one. I have several other Pentax SLRs: Zx5N and a K1000E (both film cameras) and a pretty good selection of lenses. The lenses will work, except there are some issues with "screw" mounts. I ordered just a camera body from Amazon.
T.Z.
Mack,
Already having lenses, certainly would influence a purchase, as long as you are sure they will be compatible with digital. From what I have read the K200D is a great camera; especially the built in shake reduction.
I often look at Canon's and think... but I have so many Nikon lenses that I just can't justify the brand change.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Lighting and composition - they are easy once you know how...
I split a gut laughing on that statement... How true it is! I fall into the 'have NOT the know to how' category.
My oldest granddaughter can take beautiful pictures with my old Olympic digital camera. She wanted it BECAUSE the built in flash failed. The external flash still worked and she likes it that way.
I payed half for her very expensive / By my standards / Nicon F6?
Not sure what model but it is a film camera. With the lenses she wanted... my half was about 5 grand! She sure broke my bank account.. But she have me a big hug and worth every penny!
She uses digital but her best work, I think, is her film shots in Black and White. She rarely uses color film. No.. she hates chemicals so does not do her own developing.. She has worked out something with a local photo shop to develop her pictures.
I think her photographs in black/white are stunning. But she is an artist and knows about composition... Even I, look sort of OK, in her pictures...
Her drawings are sort of Salvador Dali' style... I think.. I pointed her in that direction...
I love his work because I have a strange brain also....
My Edit:
I forgot to say.. She thinks wood is boring? to photograph... Dang woman!
Edited 9/14/2009 4:30 am by WillGeorge
"DSLRs - great for professional quality or super-specialist work"Actually, "real" professionals use view cameras and large format film. ;-)
Ralph,Yes, but now with the "eVolution 75 H" (Sinar) you can make any view camera digital. A 4 shot overlay is only a 260 MB shot. And that's only 4x5, not 8x10. Don't know what Bronimaging is charging for the eV but Hassleblad wants $37 K for it's new digital back. Fun and games.
I guess they no longer make bottles of Sharpenall for the darkrooms : )BB
Yes, digital backs used on view cameras are a little outside the "cheap" category. Interestingly, most actually use medium-format-sized sensors. They do produce nice images, though.Most of the traditional B&W films and processing chemicals are still available. But, B&W isn't useful for most furniture work. Large-format color film can still be processed at various pro labs, or by enthusiasts with appropriate equipment in their home darkrooms.
Ralph,All my great labs in Atlanta have shut down and the last pro lab in Portland closed two months ago. All the great NYC labs are gone. C'est la aperature digital. Maybe Ill make a 8 x10 Arca Swiss lamp -- on a turned mahog base of course.BB
That and once I got rid of my 4x5 and 8x10 cameras I could no longer use pencils to retouch my negatives:) Don't get me started on Sharpenall and nose grease for scratches.Have funTroy
<Actually, "real" professionals use view cameras and large format film. ;-)>Ralph, I respectfully disagree with you here. Because camera manufacturers are coming out with tilt and shift lenses (geez, I just typed in "shift" and omitted the "f." Is that Freudian?), it is possible to do studio quality small product photography with digital SLR cameras - without the need to go to a 4x5 back and digital camera body adapters, or scanning backs, or film...I'm not sure if the one professional photo lab in the city where I live even has an E-6 line anymore. Zolton If you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Zolton,Have to disagree there. PC lenses are great for a lateral or a horizontal one plane shift. Within their limits, they are great lenses. PC lenses only have the ability to shift on one axis and thus can only correct distortion in one plane where as a view camera can correct in three planes simultaneously and are critical for product and architectural photography.
The ability to do this is why they are still being made with prices that would make a fully gunned pro Nikon with all the lenses pale by comparison.
See "Stroeble's View Camera Technique", currently published and the defacto standard reference book for commercial photographers for about 45 years.BB
BB,
I'm very familiar with the workings of a 4x5, believe me. I've spent a lot of hours under a dark cloth...
Some of the newest PC lenses have not only the front element shift capability, but also moderate tilt (yes, only in one direction at a time, but still an advantage for, as an example, small product or furniture photography). Nikon's 45mm PC-E tilts 8.5 degrees. And, at only $2,049.00, it's a relative bargain! Well, compared to a SawStop anyway..
Canon has a few of these lenses in their lineup as well.
I own an older, manual 35mm Nikon PC, but don't use it much anymore now that I've gone digital. It wasn't wide enough on DX sensor bodies and, frankly, not sharp enough on the FX sensor D3. Plus, it's still not really wide enough for a lot of the interior architectural stuff I do. Maybe I should amend that though; I used to do a lot of architectural photography for developers and builders in my area. Since the bottom fell out of the housing market I've done very little of this work in the last two years.
At any rate, you can do a lot with a lens like the 14-24mm I now have, and some Photoshop magic to correct keystoning.
I fear I've wandered far off the subject here though, and I know this arcane stuff probably isn't too helpful for the orginal poster who was merely interested in purchasing a simple camera.
ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
You may have overlooked the winkie at the end. My comment was like saying "real" woodworkers only use cabinet saws, 48" bandsaws, and 18" log-bed jointers. I'd agree that perspective control (PC) lenses for SLRs are handy, but they have limitations and are rather expensive. I suspect that all of these options are beyond what the original poster had in mind, though.
Ralph,
I have a PC lens for my camera, and while it has made a tremendous improvement in my photos (no more "pinched" pieces and razor thin depth of field), it certainly does have limitations. Also, I know in the world of professional photography such a lens isn't a budget buster, but for me it was a substantial investment, and way beyond what most woodworkers would be willing to spend.
I will say this, if I were just starting out and wanted to really make good looking photos for highlighting the quality of the furniture I build, I would buy a nice Canon DSLR, a good mid range zoom, and a tilt shift lens (the Canon's are a fraction of the cost of the Nikons) and put the savings over the multitude of lenses and cameras I have bought, into a top of the line lighting set up. Also, I would have sought out experienced instructions, instead of thinking I could learn on my own. On the latter I have have gotten invaluable help here on this forum.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Rob,
For those just starting out as you've mentioned, what would your recommendations be for a lighting set-up?
Roderick
You might consider some used photo flood lights like Smith Victor they are inexpensive and you can always use them for illuminating a room when your painting:). Get some tracing paper diffusers and cloths pins to hold the paper and you can experiment with lighting. Get a feel for lighting and what your trying to accomplish before you get in to deep. The nice thing about incandescent or "hot" lights as opposed to strobes is that they are very what you see is what you get. Some heavy duty light stands and a 9 foot roll of light grey seamless paper for backgrounds will be a big help as well.Have fun.
Roderick - I'm not Rob, but I can offer a recommendation for a beginner that I think Rob will agree with - buy a couple of continuous-output color-corrected fluorescent lights and either a soft box for each, or an umbrella (and of course, stands for both). You will need to add a pair of stands and a cross-bar for the background if that's your preference. The backgrounds can be pricey if you go with hand-painted cloth, but the big rolls of paper are very economical, and can easily be torn off if they get dirty in the shop.
A set of two color-corrected fluorescent high outputs, stands, two flash umbrellas (of soft-boxes) and a background set-up should be purchasable for less than $400, total. You may even be able to beat that if you go to your local camera shop that deals in used equipment.
I use 3 Nikon SB-800 flashes, umbrellas, stands, and backgrounds, but I would not recommend that set-up for a beginner. Controlling multiple interactive flash set-ups can be a steep learning curve, and the SB-800's will set you back $400-$500 each.
Roderick,
I have been using tungsten lights, but they are extremely hot and have a fairly short life. I went to compact florescent lamps that have a daylight white balance . These run very cool and last 8000-10000 hours. I also have a few AC strobes, which are a poor mans studio flash. The advantage of this type of set up, is you can see the light, as opposed to a flash, where you can't. The disadvantage is there is no easy way to vary the output of each light to achieve a photo with depth; you have to move the lights closer to or away from the subject to achieve the proper ratio of light. You can also hang some kind of diffusion material in front of the lights to vary their output. In my case, I made some frames from plastic pipe and stretched sheer white fabric over them. Moving the light behind the panel, and or the panel itself will effect the way the subject is lit. Also, I can put a sheer black fabric over the panel to further alter the light. I also built a soft box from foamcore and a shower curtain, which has worked so well, I have no need to buy a factory made version. All of this is rather inconvenient and slow, but it is cheap, costing less than $200.00.
I'm going to purchase a good strobe outfit. These vary significantly in price, so I'm still unsure of exactly what I want, but the link below is what I'm leaning towards. Someone recommended a far more expensive set to me, and I'm sure they would superb, but I have to assess what my needs are and make a single purchase; sort of a measure twice and cut once type thing.
http://www.adorama.com/NT63V4003C.html
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Rob, the Novatrons are OK for strobes at the lower end of the price spectrum, meaning they have reasonable utility for the price. Their serviceability rep, however, is so-so. And, I seem to recall that the company was recently sold, creating some additional service issues. You might also look at White Lightning strobes. They are monolights, as opposed to power-pack units. The owners are a little eccentric, but the company has a great reputation for service. I've been using them for about 20 years.http://www.white-lightning.com/
Ralph,
Service is always a consideration, so it is nice to know where both companies come down on that issue.
I like that the White Lightning units are fan cooled. I doubt I will ever fire in rapid succession, but knowing they will stay cool is a good thing. I didn't really have a preference of monolight over a power pack unit.
Thanks
Rob Millard
Ralph,
Are we related? I, too, own White Lightnings! And have so since the mid-80's. Currently I have 1- Ultra 600, 1 - X800, 2 - Ultra 1200's and 1 - Ultra 1800. The Ultras are all over 20 years old and have been used extensively.
One of my original Ultra 600's blew the motherboard about a year ago and the company said it no longer produced those. So, they offered me an "upgrade path" discount on the X800. It's an OK unit, and is fan-cooled. But it's not built like the Ultras were. I can't tell you of the conditions I've used those Ultras in - cold and heat, machine shops with oil flying around, under greasy folding telescopic sports bleachers getting shots of the understructure...
So, highly recommended from this quarter as well. I also like the monoblock concept better than the powerpack kits. I owned a Speedatron Brown Line kit before I bought the White Lightnings and was always tripping over the connecting cords. Plus, I couldn't move the lights far enough away from the powerpack and each other when I was shooting larger rooms. Monoblocks, in my opinon, are more versatile in that regard.
For shooting furniture, all but the smallest studio strobes are likely to be overkill though. However, it's nice to have the extra power if you're shooting something on location.
And Rob Millard's technique of creating light-modifying diffusers from plastic pipe stands and lightweight fabric is a good, inexpensive way to go. To take this idea further, I ran bungee cord inside my plastic pipe portable background stand so the individual pieces all stay hooked together when it's taken apart. I can set it up in just a few seconds - like a set of tent poles. I like simple and I like cheap..
ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Related? No, you can't have my White Lightnings when I die. ;-)I started out with the so-called coffee-can models and went from there. I normally use X-3200s as my main lights, with smaller units for accents and such. The coffee cans still work after all these years, though.
For those just starting out, conventional tungsten lights, such as 150W floods, provide an inexpensive point of entry. These can be combined with the aluminum reflectors and clamp-on, shop light fixtures available at most hardware stores. And, there are adapters available that allow the fixtures to be attached to photographic light stands. They are, however, as Rob points out, "hot".As long as the digital camera allows you to set the white balance, the color temperature of the lights isn't a big issue - as long as all of the lights are the same. As one learns more about lighting, the advantages of a large, evenly-illuminated light source becomes more apparent. This can be accomplished by stretching thin white fabric on a PVC pipe frame, and putting the light(s) behind the panel - essentially, a poor man's "softbox". A matrix of compact florescent bulbs could be put behind the same panel. The real trick to lighting is to gain an understanding of the nature of different light sources and what different types of surfaces require. One of the best books on the subject is "Light - Science and Magic" by Hunter and Fuqua.
Hey Zolton I'll pile on here, having used view cameras professionally and DSLR's with the tilt shift lens as well. The tilt shift lens work well but are more limited in movements you can make. Also your limited in choice of lens if you want to tilt or shift with a DSLR. With a view camera you can use a wide range (pardon the pun) of lens and have tilt and shift capability with all of them plus you can focus much closer if you need to with a SLR or DSLR you need a macro lens for really close work. Over all though your right you can do a lot with a DSLR now that you used too and you can do work you used to have to use a view camera for. I got out of the business about 5 years ago and am glad I did, the change from film to digital really changed the industry and it was not as fun or profitable for me anymore. Of course the first poster must think we are really of track with this thread:)Take careTroy
Why would you say that small sensors of P&S give them greater depth of field? Smaller sensors, at the same pixel count, collect less light per pixel and so will be capable of less, not more, depth of field. That's why their performance falls off so rapidly in low light conditions where the aperture must open more than a camera with larger sensor.The only advantages of smaller sensors is shorter focal length, enabling a smaller, lighter camera body and lower cost.BruceT
Bruce,
Here is a brief summary concerning DoF (depth of field) in small-sensor (and hence short focal length) cameras. The summary is from an article about DoF on the Luminous Landscape website.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml
"A common complaint about digital cameras is that when using one it's not possible to get nice out-of-focus backgrounds. Why therefore do digital cameras have greater Depth of Field? The reason for this is that the imaging chips on most consumer digitals is very small, around the size of ones smallest finger nail. This means that a normal lens for a format that small is as short as 15mm. A 15mm lens at f/5.6 has Depth Of Field from about 2.5 feet to infinity. Not too much opportunity for selective focus, is there?
This is one of the unspoken drawbacks of low-end digital cameras. Only expensive SLRs ....have chips close to the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore offer enough DOF to allow creative control over out-of-focus backgrounds".
There is also a good technical article about DoF here:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Depth_of_Field_01.htm
In conclusion, the "drawbacks" of the large DoF inherent within small sensor/short focal length P&S cameras becomes an advantage if one wants to take pictures having everything in focus, such as pictures of furniture. A P&S with a wide angle such as 28 or even 24mm lens (35mm camera equivalent) has the most DoF because its real focal length is very short indeed. For example, the Panasonic LX3 with its 24mm (35mm cameras equivalent) focal length lens has a real focal length of 5.1mm.
Those Panasonic lads make some good P&S cameras with 28, 25 and even 24mm lenses (35mm camera equivalent). As you note, one of these would be very suitable for furniture.
Incidentally, the Panasonic LX3 (and perhaps some other wide angled P&S cameras of theirs) corrects the inherent distortion of the lens using the camera's own software, so the resultant pictures need no further fixing with PTLlens, Photoshop or whatever. The pictures appear on the screen with no distortion. Despite this software rejigging of the pixels, the Panasonic LX3 produces some very good (meaning good colour, sharp etc.) pictures. It's F2 Leica lens does help. -)
Lataxe
Edited 9/14/2009 5:06 am ET by Lataxe
I just love the picture of the Tiger!
Well you did say :
>not to expensive/cheapish not to fancy digital camera to get me some decent photos to post on forums/website<
Or I would keep my mouth shut. I obviously know nothing about cameras but here for comparison are three rather close ups taken with my iPhone first generation.
I keep the iPhone in a chamise pouch ( that I wash regularly ) inside a heavy cordura belt pouch. This is to treat the vulnerable lens as well as I can treat it to prevent scratches and " clouding " abrasion to the lens.
For posting here I am mostly happy with it. For some closer ups I could use more camera. The last pic with the lettering on the jig is an example. Probably the camera people here are thinking all are a good example of why to get a better camera than the iPhone.
I post just for comparison. I do want to get another better camera in the future.
roc
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
It occurred to me I should post a pic with iPhone at more of a " furniture " distance so here is one.
( I don't make furniture; just tools )
: )
PS: those shiny dots on the saw horse are domed and polished brass pins pressed through. ( Not screws; not wood dowels ) I suppose that is why they stand out in the photo.
roc
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )
Edited 9/10/2009 12:38 am by roc
"What would be a good choice for a not to expensive/cheapish not to fancy digital camera to get me some decent photos to post on forums/website, with the occaisional close-up ?"
You aren't saying what "cheapish" means. For me, that means less than $2k for the camera body, but I place a very high value on photographic equipment and have been doing it for many, many years.
And as you've surmised from the responses so far, for the web it takes almost nothing in the way of cameras to max out the resolution available to you to post with. So just about any point and shoot digital camera on the rack at Best Buy will be more than adequate.
However, if you want other than "birthday party shots" (these are the ones with excessively harsh front-lighting, really hard and black shadows, and no control over depth of field), you need three things out of the camera: decent optics (that pretty much eliminates those ultra-cool, ultra-tiny cameras with 0.25 inch lens diameters), the ability to mount it on a tripod, and the ability to use an off-camera flash.
You can get by without the off-camera flash if you only expect to photograph still-life (like furniture) in settings where you have control over the lighting - in other words, your shop or house, not a museum or a woodworking show.
But you really, really need a decent tripod and the ability to mount the camera to it with a 1/4-20 thread mount. Most "prosumer" models from the big names like Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc... will let you do this.
As for the optics, so long as the camera isn't chicklet-sized, you've a decent shot at getting reasonably distortion-free images.
"...Most "prosumer" models from the big names like Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc... will let you do this." Even the basic consumer cameras -- my HP635 has the 1/4-20 thread mounting spot on it. I may be wrong, but I think our first digital camera (which had resolution only good enough for posting on the web) had it too.
Anyone needs a tripod, I seem to have accumulated a few extras, LOL.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Thanks everyone for contributing so far, and on the pointers of lighting and the use of a small tripod.
I'm definitely not interested in photography as such but posting to odd picture to get my work sold and to share it with other wood lovers. And that's all i need it for. I don't even take pictures when i'm in gorgeous countrysides travelling.
Personally i was thinking more in the line of a small camera like a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS6.
"Personally i was thinking more in the line of a small camera like a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS6."
I would personally not recommend a camera like this for furniture/shop photography. The lenses in these compact cameras are ideally suited to casual snapshots at parties, but the small diameter of the lens leads to high barrel distortion (an extreme example is a photograph taken with a "fish eye" lens).
This may frustrate you when you're looking to take a photo of a case piece with straight sides - the sides in the photograph will look like they're highly curved.
If this isssue is something you're willing to trade for low price and compact size, that's cool, but you may want to look at some photos taken with a wide angle, small diameter lens first to know what you're getting.
Also, remember that 8 or 10 MP is way, way too much for web posting. You will need to factor some photo processing software into your budget. There are many programs with different prices and performance, from freebie, advertising supported programs off of the net, to the high end of Adobe Photoshop CS4 (which costs around $800 for a single license). Perhaps a decent compromise is Adobe Photoshop Elements, which provides much of the Photoshop functionality when it comes to raw photo processing without all of the high-end professional image creation tools.
DK,
For correcting the inherent distortion of various camera lenses (P&S or otherwise) here is a fine wee tool of little cost. It can operate as a stand-alone program or as a Photoshop plugin.
http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/
The PTL fellow provides a test chart so that anyone may use any camera/lens to submit samples from which he will generate a correction table, added to the PTL reference database available to all customers.
PTL is well-reviewed and well thougght of by many photographers. I can tell you from personal experience that it will do a lot to correct one's photos of furniture, especially if photographed with a wide angle lens. As a tool to instantly and automatically correct the "bulge" in most wideangle landscape shots, it is excellent.
****
I believe that the P&S camera mentioned by the OP (or something very similar) would more than suit his purpose. He is not wanting to publishing state-of-the-art 8 X 10 glossies in FWW, after all.
Lataxe
David - I'm aware of digital correction utilties for keystone, barrel distortion, pincushion, etc..., but my thought is the OP may not either have the software that will run the plug-in, or may well think that such processing is no worth the bother. In my case, I use the utilties in Photoshop sparingly - I find that the degredation in sharpness is bothersome, so I make efforts to get the shot as distortion free as I can in-camera.
But you're right - I think a P&S camera would serve the OP better than a DSLR. I posted my reservations about a particular class of P&S cameras - the "cool" itty-bitty ones with micro lenses. Because of the rather tiny optics, they are typically at the extreme end of the distortion problem. P&S cameras that aren't chicklet-sized are still mighty cheap, but have bigger lenses that don't require such extreme curvature to the optics.
I gave up following the latest and greatest in digital camera technology a few years ago and I can not give recommendations on make and/or model. But I would strongly recommend to purchase a digital camera that gives you a manual exposure mode. Other than that, pretty much any digital camera manufactured within the last few years will be more than good enough for what I think you try to accomplish
Also, don't ignore the used camera market, sometimes you can get last year's model for bargain-basement prices. Take the savings and buy some lights. Good lights combined with a lot of practice will give you a a far better return on your investment than purchasing the latest and greatest digital camera.
---
Chris Scholz
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
Galoot-Tools
I favor the Panasonic Lumix line of cameras because they have high quality Leica lenses that can focus as wide as 28mm (slr equivalent). That means you can get the whole subject in the picture without standing too far away - excellent for taking pictures inside a room (think Thanksgiving table) where distance is limited.
Check out this site for exacting comparisons of all cameras using the same test subjects under the same conditions, so you can really evaluate the differences in sharpness of focus, distortion, color saturation, flash, telephoto, wide angle, and much more.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM
They also group cameras in categories of how you use them, so you don't have to sort through 150 models to find what suits you.
With all the talk of image quality from various cameras, lenses etc. Be sure to use a tripod. A camera with a good lens and a tripod will give you better image quality than a camera with the greatest lens and no tripod. Even with a flash you can get camera movement that can soften you images.
Have fun.
Troy
What do most folks use for processing their pictures. There must be some good freeware software out there.
Just when I thought this post had probably run its course, you bring up software! That's an entire other subject, and a complicated one.
I don't use any free software in my photo business. For fast editing, sorting and archiving of images, I use either Photo Mechanic or Thumbs Plus. They're about $150 and $100 respectively.
For manipulating images, I use Nikon's proprietary software, NX2; somewhere around $200, if I recall correctly.
As I become more familiar with NX2 and its capabilities I find myself using Photoshop less and less. Photoshop is a $600 program, unless you can purchase it at a student discount, or an earlier version. I'm told that Photoshop Elements has many of the features of regular Photoshop for about a third or less the price.
It may behoove purchasers of digital cameras to first become familiar with the processing software supplied by the camera manufacturer though, before moving on to other programs. Some of it is pretty decent, although some early versions I tried were clunky and slow. Still, I've found that, for optimum image quality, nothing beats the proprietary Nikon software for processing Nikon images.
The larger programs usually require a huge, long, complicated learning curve (and a lot of computer processing power to operate efficiently). Whether it's worth dealing with all that is up to the individual. Like woodworking though, the more you understand and practice using the technology, most of the time you wind up with better results..
Zolton
If you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Zolton,
I have Elements 7 and just upgraded to CS4 when Adobe sent me an offer I could not refuse; CS4 for $299, compared to the $699 regular price.
I have Capture NX but it was always very slow, especially when doing sharpening or noise reduction (I don't do much of the latter). Elements 7 has a RAW converter that works perfectly and I think better than Nikon's own software, plus it is fast. I went to the CS4 because it can handle 12 and 14 bit depth photos and Elements can't. How much difference that ability makes, remains to be seen. It is also supposed to have a good B&W converter. Will I be able to make full use of CS4? Not a chance.
Rob Millard
Rob,
You got a screaming deal on CS4! Congratulations. You said you knew you'd never take full advantage of it...I don't think anyone is capable of that. It's just too huge and comprehensive. In fact, it's pretty daunting sometimes.
Your mention of Elements as a RAW converter is interesting. I didn't know it had that capability. I'll have to try out a download of it sometime to see if I like it better than NX2.
You're right that NX is a very slow software. That's one of its chief drawbacks. I do like it though for its RAW conversion and a few other things. As I alluded to in my previous post, you really do need a lot of processing power to be able to make it even reasonably fast to use..
Zolton
If you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
I tried putting the CF card into my stainless steel film developing tanks for processing. That exercise didn't turn out well. ;-)There have been a few discussions about free image editing software, but I don't recall the applications that were suggested. Whether such apps are sufficient really depends on what you want to do with the images. The old adage of getting what you pay for applies, however.
They don't fit in my 4x5 hangers as well but you can wedge them in my 35mm nikkor reels:)Troy
I am not a pro so cannot really compare packages. But from experience:The GIMP is widely considered to be an excellent program. It is Free and Open Source and well maintained. The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is multiplatform and used to have a very difficult learning curve, However the menu system has now been brought (roughly) into line with other programs.For Windows, Paintshop Pro 7 is great. (It is not freeware.) JASC software then proceeded to to totally mess it up with versions 8 and 9. My advice is don't touch them.Again for Windows, Irfanview is probably "good enough" for a lot of users. It is freeware and what I usually recommend for people who have to ask "How can I resize my pictures...." It started life as an image viewer which handled an astounding range of formats. Somewhere along the line image manipulation crept in.Hope this helps.
Photoshop -- but we have heavy graphics requirements. InDesign etc.
FastStone Image Viewer
PhotoME
Paint.NET
Rawtherapee
Lightbox
All free downloads with varying abilities to edit :)
Cheers, Don Don Kondra - Furniture Designer/Maker
I just bought a Canon SD1200. So far i love it. It's small and cost around 180.00
I will show a couple pics I took.
You do the ww? if so. well done.
Nice table and chairs. Good balance.
BB
Bob,
I will have to take back what I said about tiny sensors and point and shoot cameras. Those are some great photos; especially 003.
Rob Millardhttp://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Thanks for the compliments guys. I can not take credit for the table and chairs though. I built everything else in the pics. The table and chairs were built in the
shop of David Smith in Morrow, Ohio. Rmillard, I have a question for you though.
You have some great stuff on your site. Way over my head. My question...I have been searching for a long time for plans and work dimensions for a tall case clock.
Something maybe in a Eli Terry style. My skills are somewhat intermediate so a good set of plans are needed in my case. Any suggestions for me. Bob
Thx Bob for your contribution.
That quality of pics will do me just fine.
Nice kitchen too, happy cooking
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled