Re: THE MISSION: Crisp digital pictures (bunch 'o stuff I want to sell on EBAY). Help?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Samuel Paik, Sep 11, 2003.

  1. Samuel Paik

    Samuel Paik Guest

    (Curious Angel) wrote:
    > ? Have a 30 LB (juuuuuuuuuust kidding) Minolta Maxxum 35 mm and even
    > now couldn't tell you what 3/4 of the settings are for (yes, it was
    > VERY expensive).
    > ? Not planning on ever being Ansel Adams.
    > ? But DO produce a lot of work with Corel Draw and other paint
    > programs and do care BIG TIME that whatever digital camera I buy will
    > produce CRISP RESULTS.


    > and on and on) and there are limits to how much software can clean up
    > a blurred image.


    If you are having problems now, then you probably aren't using
    good light and probably aren't using a good tripod. Most cameras
    can produce sharp images if you give them those two things. Most
    lenses today are sufficiently sharp for most people and uses, but
    it is possible you have a terrible lens.

    You probably need a light box (to supply nice diffuse lighting)
    for small objects, and probably several remote strobes flashes
    for larger objects (finding a camera that can trigger remote
    strobes may limit your camera choices), and definitely a steady
    platform, i.e. good solid tripod.

    I can easily imagine you spending more on lighting and the
    tripod as on a minimally acceptable digital camera (my guess
    is that you might be able to find an acceptable camera for
    under $300, while good tripod kits are about that as well).

    > So I guess I'd like to ask one beginner question, and then bring into
    > focus (no pun heh) what this camera needs to do . . . and what it does
    > NOT need to do <grin>.


    The resolution depends on what you find acceptable at the sizes
    you intend to output at. However, the general rule of thumb (to
    get you started) is to assume about 300 pixels/inch. So for 4x6
    thats about a 2 Mpixel camera, and 8x10 about 7 Mpixels.

    You'll probably want to pay attention to the design of the camera
    as a studio camera, i.e. the quality and location of the tripod
    mount, how convenient it is to work the camera while on a tripod,
    including changing batteries and flash cards, possibly external
    power, compatibility with external strobes, and remote shutter
    trigger. Possibly also instant review/download to a computer
    as you take shots.

    > STORAGE
    > I don't want to be running back and forth to the computer because the
    > capacity of the camera is insufficient for the resolution I want to
    > achieve. I don't have a steady hand, I confess; I may have to take 4
    > or 5 passes of any one shot before I get the right one.


    Most digital cameras have interchangeable flash memory cards, you can
    buy big ones if you need to, but that's why I also suggested you check
    into instant download capabilities.

    > I was looking at this brand new CANON EOS 300D but . . . did I read
    > correctly that it has a PLASTIC LENS?


    It may be plastic (don't recall reading that, but I'm not going to
    check just for this post), but like your Maxxum, you can change
    the lens on it. The kit lens is an option, you can buy the camera
    without it.
    Samuel Paik, Sep 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Dreamer" <> wrote in message news:<bjq8mo$u6k$>...
    > Another really nice option is using a monitor. Most nice digicams have video
    > out. It's mostly used for playing back pictures on a TV, but on all the ones
    > I've ever used, it works even when the camera is in capture mode. Set up a
    > nice TV, and suddenly you've got a 19" viewfinder.


    Too cool! You mean, a regular TV set? Not a computer monitor?

    Angel
    Curious Angel, Sep 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (Curious Angel) writes:

    >Too cool! You mean, a regular TV set? Not a computer monitor?


    That's right. Many digital cameras have such a "TV out" jack.
    You do need a TV that has a direct video input, not just an antenna
    input.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Sep 12, 2003
    #3
  4. Samuel Paik

    Ms. Jaime Guest

    On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:55:22 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    Martindale) wrote:

    > (Curious Angel) writes:
    >
    >>Too cool! You mean, a regular TV set? Not a computer monitor?

    >
    >That's right. Many digital cameras have such a "TV out" jack.
    >You do need a TV that has a direct video input, not just an antenna
    >input.
    >
    > Dave


    The Olympus C-750 UZ has this. It is very user friendly IMO.

    Ms.Jaime

    "This, is an ex-parrot"
    Ms. Jaime, Sep 12, 2003
    #4
  5. Samuel Paik

    Samuel Paik Guest

    (Curious Angel) wrote:
    > > You probably need a light box (to supply nice diffuse lighting)
    > > for small objects, and probably several remote strobes flashes
    > > for larger objects (finding a camera that can trigger remote
    > > strobes may limit your camera choices), and definitely a steady
    > > platform, i.e. good solid tripod.

    >
    > That is VERY good advice (the TRIPOD) given my notoriously unsteady
    > hand. But I'm curious that you suggest STROBES FLASHES for _larger_
    > objects. I would have thought the big stuff wouldn't be my primary
    > concern, but rather the little items (the charm, book illustrations,
    > jewelry etc.) that may themselves require a unique lens given the
    > nature of their "super closeup" shot?


    I suggest a light box for small items, which leaves lighting of
    larger objects. You probably don't need a macro lens, which is
    designed for taking closeups of small items, but you may decide
    you prefer using macro lenses.

    > > The resolution depends on what you find acceptable at the sizes
    > > you intend to output at. However, the general rule of thumb (to
    > > get you started) is to assume about 300 pixels/inch. So for 4x6
    > > thats about a 2 Mpixel camera, and 8x10 about 7 Mpixels.

    >
    > Now this is more in my turf ;) Is it not true that ? despite the
    > physical size of the object you are photographing ? the more
    > pixels-per-inch you can invest the image with at the time of shooting
    > it, the sharper your resolution?


    All else being equal, sure. But I'm pretty sure you are investing
    way too much into this. Getting a stable platform is far more important
    for getting sharp images of nearby, motionless objects than number
    of pixels.

    > Example: The tiny silver charm is
    > shot with a camera that manages 150 ppi + generates an image that is 8
    > X 10" . . . and then that same charm is shot with a camera that
    > manages 300 ppi + generates an image that is 4 X 6. ==> Would not
    > the _smaller_ -generated image be the sharper of the two?


    It would have pixel density. IT isn't necessarily be SHARPER. The
    pixel density (i.e. resolution) sets an upper limit on "sharpness",
    but other factors can interfere in what is actually achieved.

    > > Most digital cameras have interchangeable flash memory cards, you can
    > > buy big ones if you need to, but that's why I also suggested you check
    > > into instant download capabilities.

    >
    > Now THAT is something I didn't realize existed. Something tells me I
    > would pay dearly for that privilege heh. I confess I would trade the
    > feature away for a sharper image, even with the hassle.


    Go to dpreview.com, and look at some of sample images and resolution
    tests. But really, I believe, based on what you have written, that
    your technique is what needs the most improvement. Pros still use
    the Nikon D1H, a $3200+ body despite it being merely 2.6 Mpels, because
    it helps them get the good photos they want, instead of being a hassle
    getting in the way.

    Sam
    Samuel Paik, Sep 13, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gary Long
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    405
    Curious Angel
    Sep 11, 2003
  2. Ms. Jaime
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    301
    Lionel
    Sep 13, 2003
  3. Paul H.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    291
    Ms. Jaime
    Sep 12, 2003
  4. Bigbazza
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,680
    Bigbazza
    Oct 16, 2007
  5. mixer76er
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    371
    VanguardLH
    Mar 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page