Home » Discussion Forums » Blog Post Discussion » camera
| camera [message #37820] |
Mon, 27 December 2010 19:56  |
 |
 Black Bear
Messages: 3216
Registered: September 2008
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA |
Senior Member
[Moderator] |
|
|
The saga of Robin's camera.
"The time is always right to do what's right."--MLK Jr.
|
|
| |
| Re: camera [message #37822 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Mon, 27 December 2010 23:29  |
|
Have you investigated the photographic abilities of Pooka? I know it seems impossible to get good photos from a camera tiny enough to hide inside a device less than half an inch thick, with a lens you can barely even see, but my sister-in-law seems to be able to get phenomenal photos with hers.
(These were sent to me as 1280x960 pixels; I have reduced them to 300x225, as well as cropping the two side ones. So each original could be displayed at over four times the width of these. Not up to making 15"x20" enlargements for your walls, but you might find them satisfactory for a while, without requiring the services of Geraldine again.)
[Updated on: Mon, 27 December 2010 23:45]
|
|
|
| Re: camera [message #37824 is a reply to message #37821 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 00:01 |
|
|
I've been an Olympus fan since I got my trusty Pen FT in 1971. My first digital, an 8-yr-old Olympus C740, is still working for me, but showing its age. I lust after the Ultra-Zoom 590, which has an incredible 26X zoom lens built in somehow.
|
|
|
| Re: camera [message #37825 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 00:47 |
 |
rhymeswithcarrot
Messages: 34
Registered: October 2010
Location: Illinois |
Member |
|
|
I have a Canon PowerShot SD790 IS. A friend of mine whose father is a professional photographer (my friend has a proper camera and comes from a long line of photographers) recommended it me as a low-cost point-and-shoot with lots of options, since I wanted to be able to learn more about proper photography without jumping into SLR waters.
The auto setting is very good (although I haven't tried it on hellhounds, having no hellhounds to hurtle) and comes with a bunch of options: night, beach, snow, water, fireworks, etc.
Here's a photo I took in Ireland a few years ago using the generic auto setting. I think it turned out pretty well, considering:
It also comes with manual ISO settings that go up to 3200, along with a decent array of manual options (including macro and a bunch of other lighting/color). It also comes with a video option that records both sound and images, which might help with capture the hellhounds hurtling. 
I bought it two years ago and it's in great working order. I paid about $200 USD, so it's good deal for the product. It's also pocket-sized, which I loved when I was traveling. I'm generally a bit of a tech idiot myself, but I love it and think it's easy to use.
Another good place to look for camera information without bashing your brains in comparing camera spec is the Pioneer Woman's photography blog. Here are the posts on photography equipment: http://thepioneerwoman.com/photography/category/basic-photog raphy/photography-equipment/
She's usually pretty direct about talking about things, including camera selection. Hope this helps!
[Updated on: Tue, 28 December 2010 00:49]
|
|
|
 Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37826 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 01:04 |
 |
Ford of Rivendell
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2010
Location: Family Farm Country |
Junior Member |
|
|
Oooh a blog post I may have knowledge about, granted I said "knowledge about" not qualified. (insert evil laugh)
Excuse me whilst I crack my knuckles in preparation for serious and lengthy typing...
Okay. Being a..uh...ahem...Professional Photographer (please take note, any purchases or technological problems occurring after this post are not the fault of responding photographer!) I have been asked this question many times and even for friends and have done the research on certain cameras for them to help them decide. However as disclosed prior, I do not make the decision just offer advice. I hate making decisions too and have read thousands of reviews on all sorts of cameras. So like a navigator telling your which direction to turn it is actually you behind the wheel making that decision. Okay I think I've fully covered the "butt-kicking" aspect that is sure to come down the road when techincal issues occur. :0)
Anyway...
"††† Or when said obsessive professional photographer has been informed by nearest and dearest that they’re going on holiday and the camera gear is being left behind. "
I truly dread this, and even in light of walking disability that umpteen pound (which it has become) camera bag goes everywhere with me, and when it does not I regret it because of a missed opportunity. Besides it has my inhaler in it and a compass right? So I really need the whole camera bag, right?
I am a nature and life photographer; lots of wildlife, plenty of farm critters, and a plethora of macro shots, with a bit of people and kids too, and oodles of moon and star pics. Sounds like you want a camera for similar shots: roses, macro-life, Hellhounds, Peter, and whatever catches your wandering eye on walks, correct? Not to mention those wonderful packages that contain books with your name on them.
Camera History:
I too had, well still have, the loveliest cameras in the world. I have even started collecting cameras such as an original Kodak Model B from the very early days, my great-grandmother's Brownie, and a bunch of others that have come across my path.
My parents old Minolta and Canon AE-1 were awesome.....but for someone who loves to take a million pics of the moon and sunsets as well as previously mentioned subjects film is expensive...and so too the digital bug caught me, not 100%, but it is so fabulous, wonderful, and cool to take tons of pics just for me, which I can enjoy but not have the cost to print. But here we get into another fix, the camera, equipment, batteries, cards, dvds to backup pics, all cost too.
I still have my first digital camera, a Kodak Z7590...okay it was my second the DX7590 broke and had to be replaced, which is when I bought the Z7590. And I loved it so much I got a back-up (and also to quiet this annoying little voice on road trips and whatnot that kept saying, "take a picture like this" or "take a picture of that" you kn
|
|
|
| Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer 2 [message #37827 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 01:25 |
|
Ford of Rivendell
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2010
Location: Family Farm Country |
Junior Member |
|
|
First thing to note, big bucks does not necessarily mean a good camera and anyone can take pictures and great shots, they just have to know how to use it.
Another thing is look at specifications first, reviews second. this will narrow it down for you. And keep in mind reviewers always have their preferences and many also have their biases because they get $$$$ or free stuff for leaning one way or the other. Get a well-rounded perspective by looking at several reviews. And also take into consideration that the internet is getting more difficult to find anything resembling truth on it. Web searches are ridiculous anymore and if a certain whatever wants this to look great and you to buy it it will pop up in the first 100 results. So get several opinions for each choice is my recommendation. dpreview.com is pretty good for one.
Here are key items for your list. If you compare these when comparing cameras it will help. I actually make a list of my top choices in a table and compare the features.
Tips for making a decision:
1. Camera Sensor = most point and shoots have many mega-pixels, however they have small censors. So essentially they take a postage stamp size picture and stretch those mega-pixels out to say poster size. This can result in blurry images at best, or grain, or other problems. So you want a really high quality sensor.
2. Optical Zoom = if you are considering a point and shoot, always optical zoom never digital zoom. Digital Zoom is evil, misleading. the consumer thinks "Ooh I'm getting 50x zoom" and finds out that all those extra 40-45x of zoom is just digital. This too takes the original image and stretches it beyond it pixels causing horrible grain and messed up shots and nightmare..it's just to horrible to talk about. Never use digital zoom to take a picture. You can do the same effect, if you so choose, by simply zooming in too far once you put the pic on your computer.
What you want is a good optical zoom camera; essentially a large lense. So say a minimum of 10x optical zoom. You know those point and shoot cameras with an itty bitty tiny lens sized like the eraser end of a pencil...you don't want that. You want a good size lense; the wider the lens the more light it lets in and the less distortion you have on your image.
So remember: Optical Zoom = good, Digital Zoom = bad.
3. Memory Card type and size = while CF cards are the preference of Canon, SD cards are much faster and generally cheaper, leastwise here in the States. 2-4GB cards are best and don't get the cheapies. Sandisk is usually good, PNC has been working for me for the last few months. I do not recommend the very large cards such as 8GB and 16GB. I have been that route and found having a few smaller cards is better. Though it kind of a pain to have to change cards, it saves time and patience. The larger the card the longer the write speed from camera to card and the downloading from card to computer. This is even worse when usi
|
|
|
| Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer 3 [message #37828 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 01:45 |
|
Ford of Rivendell
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2010
Location: Family Farm Country |
Junior Member |
|
|
Buying Tips:
1. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. There are "Grey Market" bargains out there and they look terrific, but at what cost of equipment and morals. For me I always buy originals and real, never grey market. Buy from reputable stores. Look up reviews for online stores before buying. There are more hoax and scamming web sites for photography than any other, well accept politics I suppose.
2. To check if it is real: Make sure it has it's full warranty. Go to the manufacturer's web site, find your camera, compare the box contents list with that of the store you wish to buy from. Those "lovely" hoax/scam sites that say only "$300 for a Canon Digital Rebel Camera" actually mean that they only include a grey market, removed from the box...possibly used or even stolen camera body only; no lenses, no battery, no camera strap, no manual, nothing.
3. Also check their terms and conditions. Some even state in their if they may be selling grey market items.
4. Only buy brand accessories. This is a biggie and I know many do not follow this rule, but I am a stickler for fairness. When I come up with a card design with a pic that I want people to buy I don't want someone cheapie to steal my ideas, copy them, and print them in China cheaper and sell next to mine. Not to mention the hazardous consequences. Use brand batteries and lenses. Using a rip-off battery in a Nikon or Canon camera voids your warranty in the event there is a problem and the chance that their could be a problem goes up, such as battery leaking and overheating or shorting. I have a number of friends who would rather "save" a buck than get the better quality, so they bought the cheapie lenses and batteries. One had battery leakage. The other found images were not as focused as they should be with her Canon. She tried it with a Canon lens instead of the cheapie and notices a significant difference in quality. They are made to work together for a reason, better to be safer than sorry later.
5. If at all humanly possible wait. Patience is tough, but Late January and early February electronics go on sale sometimes 60-75% off. If this week right after the holidays you find an excellent deal, go for it. Also if you can't wait because you can't wait to take pics. But say you are getting a DSLR with a lens, first week a February you should be able to buy a really sweet kit complete with DSLR camera kit and kit lens, plus 1, 2, maybe even 3 extra lenses and maybe an extra battery and a tripod all for the price you'd pay just for the camera the rest of the year. This year is kinda different more things are on sale now, or at least appear to be, but generally that is what I have secretly found. People spent all their money on the holidays, the weather is dismal so they are not outdoors as much, so cameras go for less. Again you are over there, but I imagine it is similar.
6. If you can afford it, get the extra warranty
|
|
| | |
| Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer 4 [message #37832 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 03:10 |
|
Ford of Rivendell
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2010
Location: Family Farm Country |
Junior Member |
|
|
A few friendly tips once you get it, though you may already know these things:
- Always shoot in the highest quality mode; sometimes labeled as best or fine or large. If you get a DSLR RAW is wonderful quality and you are able to adjust slightly lighting and whatnot if necessary.
- To conserve power get in habit of using eyepiece for shooting, you'll hold steadier for most shots, plus conserve battery power. Also when traveling don't sift through all pics, only review to check and make sure you got something important or to test lighting and focus. The LCD uses up battery power.
- When you get it, read the manual on how to lock out that digital zoom. Never ever use that digital zoom. Sometimes it seems handy for seeing better something far away, however if you have it able to use, you are likely to take pics with it; which will be grainy at best. You might not notice them as much on camera review, but come print time or post time you will.
- Always shoot in color, or at least one in color and one shot in whatever feature you are trying. 'Cause you can't get the original color back, however most software nowadays lets you play with black and white or sepia and you'll still have the original.
- I recommend getting one SD card at least for pics and one just for video if you plan on using it for video. Also remember video on a regular camera is more like multiple frames of images, so they won't be as steady or as high a quality as an actual video camera. But it does sound fun for what it has and you'll probably have fun taking some.
- You can probably protect your best images and may want to and after transferring to computer and backing up then you can delete all or delete the rest and keep the best protected. Either way eventually after reusing that memory card over and over umpteen times it is a good idea to get another. Something can only be rewritten over so many times before quality goes bad. You may notice, maybe not before it is too late, that the images start having errors or blank spots. I protect my best images, copy all even the soso to my computer for back-up, delete all but protected images, and when that disk gets full I get another. Of course I take more photos than the average person, being I am an obsessive addict who goes into withdrawal when her camera is broke. :0)
- Always shoot for yourself and how you want it to look. More fun, more memorable. Never look at online courses for artistic perspective. How to do something yes, if you want, but not for how you want the shot to look. I take a great many pictures that mean nothing to others, but this place in the woods is where we built a treehouse ages ago, or here by this rock was an old cabin 200 years ago. Photographs are memories, and while we often wish to share many of them, some are just reminders for ourselves.
- Recommend trying first to see if you like it, how it works, if you will like learning to use it, and if you can tolerate the weight. Mak
[Updated on: Tue, 28 December 2010 03:35]
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer 4 [message #37833 is a reply to message #37832 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 07:52 |
|
Wow. Now I know where I'm going to start researching when I need a new camera.
Thanks!
[Updated on: Tue, 28 December 2010 07:52]
Smooshes!
|
|
| |
| Re: camera [message #37842 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Tue, 28 December 2010 18:47 |
|
Ford of Rivendell
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2010
Location: Family Farm Country |
Junior Member |
|
|
Yes last year's models do go down in price when new ones come out. Good advice. Ritz Camera.com and others have some older models that are priced well. Adorama is another. And often you can find a few years ago models that are new online. But often as these are made of more durable stuff than many of todays cheapies they are pricier. I did that with my Kodak, both of them. They were already two year old models when I bought them.
I do advise to be careful of used and refurbished. Yes they are more budget friendly, sort of. If you have a lot of luck with electronics, never have break-downs which I do know of people that are, not me unfortunately, then go for it and that's great. If you have bad luck with electronics, even though you take good care of them, I don't recommend it.
Cameras are given a certain life expectancy, so many thousand shots. If it's used there went your so many uses of life expectancy. Even if it is refurbished it is most likely used, then fixed, tested, then reset. It is rather like resetting your car's mileage back to zero without completely replacing and fixing everything.
Also with used and even some refurbished keep in mind that Grey Market issue; missing pieces. These have been removed from their original packaging. Most actually require you purchase all the parts individually.
I know some who have good luck with electronics, trash them, toss them, scratch their cds and dvds, and things seem to work fine. Course these people are never worried about buying another used or new item when they go bad for lack of money. I wish they'd extend their luck to me, 'cause anytime I have ever let them borrow something it comes back scratched and refuses to work!
If you go either used or refurbished I wouldn't recommend the maybe on the warranty, turn that into a definite yes. Contrary to Dell and other company's claims I have yet to have had a refurbished computer, camera, or other electronic that did not have issues, lots of them MAJOR! Such as overheating.
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37887 is a reply to message #37864 ] |
Wed, 29 December 2010 19:23 |
|
| shalea wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 04:16 |
| Ford of Rivendell wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 01:04 |
...When I was resarching last winter, between surgeries, oh boy did I hear the Nikon vs Canon arguements. What I gathered and from my own usage was two key points. First is color. Canon tends more towards warmer colors; skintones and things are slightly more yellow or sun-touched occasionally, but warmer colors are presented well. Nikon tends more towards cooler colors; skintones are natural, warm colors like red kind pop at you as the blue skies seem bluer...
|
|
In general Canons tend towards Red and Nikon towards Green.
To be brutally honest if you are not looking for a high end camera then you will have to make some compromises. The sensor is not as big and not as advanced as in the DSLR and that has some effect. It means you cannot blow up the images to quite large sizes and print them, and if you are limited to shooting in JPG then you get what you get with colour balance.
The other point is that unless you are prepared to shoot in RAW and then spend the time post processing you will ALWAYS get some form of colour shift in your images.
ie shooting on a bright sunny day everything will be washed out a bit
shooting inside you will get colour cast from the colour of the lights
Because of that to a certain extent your choice of model is irrelevant.
If I was buying P&S to carry around in my handbag then this is what I would be thinking about
1. Size - do I want it to fit into a jacket pocket, a bag or jeans pocket. The smaller your camera the smaller the bits in size and the smaller the options that come with it usually
2. Focal range - one of the good things that P&S have is a really wide angle and some useful range of zoom. My Canon S3IS was 7-70mm
3. Speed of objects being shot - am I shooting moving targets? If so then I will need a camera that does a high speed burst mode and preferably manual options for shutter speed (a dial with Av and Tv - Tv is the Shutter speed )
4. Low light - even my high end DSLR struggles in low light but some of the P&S can do reasonably well but the issue here is in low light the shutter needs to be open for longer and if you are shooting moving targets then they will be blurry usuall. And how steady can you hold it as well? So you will also need to manually change your ISO settings as well.
5. Last thing is cost - because if you want all of the above things you will have to pay to get it. Technology is very much a "you get what you pay for" if you buy a $100 camera you get $100 worth of features. And if you buy $1000 camera the same rules apply)
|
|
| |
| Re: camera [message #37903 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 00:08 |
|
jpg is a file format that is a standard (ie its universally used throughout the IT world - all computers can view jpg files)
RAW is a specialty file format - your computer cannot view it unless you install specific software to do so
Jpg are small files (as far as size goes) RAW files are very large files.
The essence of your answer is that with jpg the camera takes the shot and applies internal processing to it and outputs it in a final format and that format is tagged .jpg
The main difference with RAW is that the file is not processed by the camera. The whole point of shooting in RAW is that you dont accept what the camera gives you as final output. It means you will want to import the image to a computer, view it and then using editing software, alter or adjust the image and then you can output it in to a variety of file formats inc jpg.
The level to which you can adjust a RAW image on a PC is quite astonishing (it is the digital equivalent of developing a negative) and you cannot adjust a jpg image to the same extent or with as much fineness of adjustment.
There are pros who choose to shoot in JPG but most AFAIK shoot either in RAW or some cameras allow you to shoot in both.
Advantages of either?
JPG are smaller files, and you dont have to process every image and are ready for either emailing or uploading to the web quickly
RAW images can be edited to either vastly improve them or do creative things with them. Even small subtle changes can make a big difference. And shooting in conditions where lighting is uneven or bad in RAW means you can tidy up the final shots and get a much higher % of keepers.
Disadvantages of either?
Jpg is a lossy file format so each time you open and close a file it compresses itself a little bit and if you do it a lot the file will degrade over time. And you have limited editing options
RAW are BIG files and need lots of storage space and you HAVE TO PROCESS EVERY FILE to view and then output in the desired format. So it takes a lot of dedicated time and effort to deal with RAW images.
I shoot in RAW because I think the effort is worth it.
Some websites for further detailed explanations
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
http://photo.net/learn/raw/
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37904 is a reply to message #37864 ] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 00:36 |
 |
equus_peduus
Messages: 437
Registered: September 2009
Location: France |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ford of Rivendell wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 01:04 |
...When I was resarching last winter, between surgeries, oh boy did I hear the Nikon vs Canon arguements. What I gathered and from my own usage was two key points. First is color. Canon tends more towards warmer colors; skintones and things are slightly more yellow or sun-touched occasionally, but warmer colors are presented well. Nikon tends more towards cooler colors; skintones are natural, warm colors like red kind pop at you as the blue skies seem bluer...
|
Oddly, I don't feel like this is a problem with my Canon (Powershot A570IS, or its predecessor, the ancient Powershot A70) - I feel like both are able to take great pictures with good color. Though perhaps I haven't got that much of a comparison; I haven't seen that many Nikon pictures while knowing that's what they were, especially not comparisons of the same object at the same time, etc. There's things I don't like about my camera (some of the settings are annoying, closer closeups would be nice, less time between camera click and image taking, grainy pictures in less than optimal light; but then again, it's not that fancy of a camera), but there are things I do like - with a little fiddling, I've figured out the best settings to take certain types of pictures, included figuring out how to get the colors to look best. But I have been thinking about getting a fancier camera, mostly to try to increase the odds of a really good picture (and decrease the number of slightly-blurry pics... though perhaps just getting a newer camera would suffice?)
Here's a picture from my recent trip to Japan that shows several different colors, including one of the few blue skies (most of the trip was a bit overcast) - the red tree isn't as red as some of the trees I saw (I have pictures of those too, if anyone cares); the colors are pretty close to what I remember (at least, on my monitor)
ETA:
| Ford of Rivendell wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 00:10 |
- When you get it, read the manual on how to lock out that digital zoom. Never ever use that digital zoom.
|
For what it's worth, my camera pauses when it gets to the end of its optical zoom, and starts its digital zoom. The color of the text on the LCD screen that tells you how-many-x zoom you're at changes as well. So I've never bothered to find out if digital zoom was turn-off-able (didn't know that was a possibility, actually) because I can stop at the end of optical zoom on my own just by listening/feeling the camera.
Attachment: Japan.jpg
(Size: 187.29KB, Downloaded 321 time(s))
[Updated on: Thu, 30 December 2010 00:45]
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37913 is a reply to message #37887 ] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 11:38 |
claning
Messages: 266
Registered: February 2010
Location: California |
Senior Member |
|
|
| BlueRose wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 19:23 |
shooting inside you will get colour cast from the colour of the lights
|
This has always annoyed me. Since these days a camera is basically a computer, you'd think they would be able to get this right.
OTOH, I have noticed that digital cameras do much better in low-light conditions than my film camera ever did. The information is *there* in the photo, even if it does take some processing in Photoshop to make it look right.
I unfortunately bought a pretty good P&S just _before_ image stabilization became affordable, and it's something I really need. When I get a new camera I will also be looking for a good, lightweight and packable tripod -- I have a pretty decent one but it's very difficult to use because it requires pushing and holding a button with a lot of force in order to change angles, and my hands aren't strong enough to manage that very well.
Unfortunately buying a new ANYTHING is still out of the question at the moment, since I'm still unemployed (18 months and counting).
O Chris Laning <claning@igc.org> - Davis, California
+
|
|
|
| Re: camera [message #37914 is a reply to message #37903 ] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 11:41 |
claning
Messages: 266
Registered: February 2010
Location: California |
Senior Member |
|
|
| BlueRose wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 00:08 |
RAW is a specialty file format - your computer cannot view it unless you install specific software to do so
|
Yet another gripe with my current camera is that I cannot set the default format to RAW. It reverts to JPG whenever I turn the camera off and then on again. (I too prefer to shoot in RAW when it matters, since I use editing software routinely.)
Admittedly, it has such extensive menus that it might very well be on there SOMEWHERE but I haven't found it yet.
O Chris Laning <claning@igc.org> - Davis, California
+
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37916 is a reply to message #37913 ] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 16:25 |
|
| claning wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 05:38 |
| BlueRose wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 19:23 |
shooting inside you will get colour cast from the colour of the lights
|
This has always annoyed me. Since these days a camera is basically a computer, you'd think they would be able to get this right.
|
How could it be anything else - the camera is picking up on the colour of the light - its usually something we cannot see ourselves as we have a higher dynamic range in our eyes than the camera sensor does (which is why we can see better in a combo of light and shadow as well where the camera can only expose for one or the other)
It is a surprise to most people when you even tell them that light has a colour - until you see the images you never realise I think
|
|
| | |
| Re: camera [message #37937 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2010 08:30 |
skating librarian
Messages: 571
Registered: October 2008
Location: Vermont |
Senior Member |
|
|
Been using Canon P&S cameras for ages ... happily.
Lots of my photos are "notes" for paintings I hope to do ... and I find the color just fine.
But in your situation I would use the i phone for now, to see how it does (given that it's already in your pocket).
Another perspective, as opposed to cameras, I find my photo projects success often depends on software.
I use i-photo for much of my editing. That editing is usually done with scanned images and images digitized from all those thousands of slides taking up storage space. And those old images are the ones which really need help. I am very much an amateur at this, but find I have been able to "rescue" lots of almost unviewable images (badly faded, color changes, etc.).
I do have Photoshop Elements on my computers as well, but i-photo has proven much easier for me to wrap my brain around ... also the sorting/sharing options are a treat. As I am scanning tons of historic family photos, the face recognition part of i-photo is wonderful ... saves so much typing (especially when you have to do the complete name to keep labels accurate, and when one's family is given to names with lots of characters)
I have been doing slide shows for educational programs, family history projects, printing on fabric for quilts, providing photos to organizations for their websites and so forth (for some perspective on how I use photography).
"Winning a war is like winning an earthquake" Jeanette Rankin
|
|
|
| Re: camera [message #37938 is a reply to message #37937 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2010 08:49 |
|
|
skating librarian, does that face recognition really work? Seems like magic... I haven't tried it, because most of my photos aren't people - woods, garden, cats, bees, jewelry, flowers, not people. But I have drawersful of the old family photos too, and if I don't tackle them, who will?
|
|
|
| Re: camera [message #37939 is a reply to message #37820 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2010 12:11 |
 |
Robin
Messages: 6007
Registered: September 2008
Location: England |
Senior Member
[Hellgoddess] |
|
|
Trying to CONSOLIDATE what I've 'learnt' (?) a little, including REreading, especially Ford's and Blue Rose's posts which pretty much sent me over the edge first time. A little of all this is familiar from my previous incarnation as a small-time film-camera junkie (buying brand names, for example, although I bought one lens that I couldn't've afforded the Nikon or whatever version of that the photo-geek store I was mostly depending on swore was (a) legal (not pirate/greyware) and (b) 99% as good as the big bucks one, which was plenty good enough for me) but most of it is new . . . also, I haven't got any head space left!! I emigrated half a camera geek twenty years ago, and gardening knocked me into fully obsessive--but that was BEFORE bells or piano/voice lessons/composing!!!!! So . . . I am NOT going to learn to photo edit, I am NOT going to shoot RAW . . . so that answers that question. But at least I now know what it *is*, and what all the geeks are arguing about on the photo forums. And Ford's point about sensors--er, yes. Someone else has said that of the digital compacts, the S95 has the biggest sensor, the nearest to true SLR. So I'm wavering. Hannah's husband is another photo geek, and he bought her the S95. Decisions, decisions. I want a fairy godmother to go ZAP. (A fairy godmother who could go ZAP circumventing PURCHASE PRICE. Although maybe that would make it greyware???)
Anyway thank you all, and I'm still reading. And dithering.
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37944 is a reply to message #37916 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2010 16:47 |
claning
Messages: 266
Registered: February 2010
Location: California |
Senior Member |
|
|
| BlueRose wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 16:25 |
How could it be anything else - the camera is picking up on the colour of the light - its usually something we cannot see ourselves as we have a higher dynamic range in our eyes than the camera sensor does (which is why we can see better in a combo of light and shadow as well where the camera can only expose for one or the other)
|
Yes, I've had some interesting experiences with indoor/outdoor color. It just seems to me that it ought to be possible to have camera settings called "indoor incandescents," "indoor fluorescents" and so forth, which would at least correct the very worst of the color biases. I get awfully tired of having to correct way-too-yellow indoor photos by hand.
O Chris Laning <claning@igc.org> - Davis, California
+
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37947 is a reply to message #37944 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2010 17:06 |
b_twin_1
Messages: 2597
Registered: September 2008
Location: Victoria, Australia |
Senior Member
[Moderator] |
|
|
| claning wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 16:47 |
| BlueRose wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 16:25 |
How could it be anything else - the camera is picking up on the colour of the light - its usually something we cannot see ourselves as we have a higher dynamic range in our eyes than the camera sensor does (which is why we can see better in a combo of light and shadow as well where the camera can only expose for one or the other)
|
Yes, I've had some interesting experiences with indoor/outdoor color. It just seems to me that it ought to be possible to have camera settings called "indoor incandescents," "indoor fluorescents" and so forth, which would at least correct the very worst of the color biases. I get awfully tired of having to correct way-too-yellow indoor photos by hand.
|
Ummmm my little Olympus P+S does.... (I only just worked out what the settings were - reading the manual *can* be useful. *facepalm*). Has an Auto, bright sunlight, cloudy, incandescent, and 3 diff fluro lighting settings. Surely this is not unusual??
I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel ~ Blackadder
|
|
|
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37949 is a reply to message #37947 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2010 17:18 |
|
| b_twin_1 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 11:06 |
| claning wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 16:47 |
| BlueRose wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 16:25 |
How could it be anything else - the camera is picking up on the colour of the light - its usually something we cannot see ourselves as we have a higher dynamic range in our eyes than the camera sensor does (which is why we can see better in a combo of light and shadow as well where the camera can only expose for one or the other)
|
Yes, I've had some interesting experiences with indoor/outdoor color. It just seems to me that it ought to be possible to have camera settings called "indoor incandescents," "indoor fluorescents" and so forth, which would at least correct the very worst of the color biases. I get awfully tired of having to correct way-too-yellow indoor photos by hand.
|
Ummmm my little Olympus P+S does.... (I only just worked out what the settings were - reading the manual *can* be useful. *facepalm*). Has an Auto, bright sunlight, cloudy, incandescent, and 3 diff fluro lighting settings. Surely this is not unusual??
|
Yes its the White Balance setting on the camera. Essentially its a way of accounting for the colour of the light and adjusting for it. Most people shoot on AWB - Auto White Balance and you get whatever your camera gives you.
Mine certainly has options for fluoro and tungsten lighting which are common indoor lighting options. You can adjust your white balance manually for some cameras - setting it to a particular kelvin rating
Here is some further reading with good pix explaining. Note one of the benefits of shooting RAW is you can easily adjust the colour tone of your image
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/introduction-to-wh ite-balance
|
|
| | |
| Re: Tips from hesitant Pro Photographer [message #37971 is a reply to message #37949 ] |
Sat, 01 January 2011 11:13 |
claning
Messages: 266
Registered: February 2010
Location: California |
Senior Member |
|
|
...and considering that I *have* an Olympus camera, I should certainly go looking for this. I admit, there are an awful lot of things in the menus that I haven't tried and probably some that I don't know about.
I chose Olympus over Canon, BTW, because I thought the fine details looked better in very close closeups. Alas, that has not proved to be the advantage I thought, because the camera doesn't have image stabilization, and "blurry" is not something that photo editing software can fix. My primary need for a camera is to photograph paintings in dark museums and to do extreme closeups of museum pieces: it hasn't been much of a success at either one, and I can't afford to replace it right now.
O Chris Laning <claning@igc.org> - Davis, California
+
|
|
|
| Re: camera [message #37998 is a reply to message #37938 ] |
Sun, 02 January 2011 12:48 |
skating librarian
Messages: 571
Registered: October 2008
Location: Vermont |
Senior Member |
|
|
The photo recognition part of i-Photo works like this ... you ID some folks as you are scanning or downloading ... and if it thinks you have just added another photo of one of those folks, it just asks is this "so and so" and all you have to do click yes or no ... and it gets shunted into that file or not.
I have been adding photos of folks at different ages, and I have been amazed that it doesn't get confused by the things which change, hair color, wrinkles etc. ... but it does have a tendency to find distinguishing between some family members a bit tricky. But if you looked at some of the photos I'm talking about, the only way you can distinguish between some of these people is by knowing who/when the photos were taken, so I can't fault the software.
I also like that the software deals with photos with several people with ease.
"Winning a war is like winning an earthquake" Jeanette Rankin
|
|
| |
| Pages (2): [1 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 25 22:28:38 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04890 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
