Elisabeth Maurland on thu 13 jan 11
Hi everybody again,
I am still in my thinking and planning stage of getting my good, =3D
professional web site together, and now I need a decent camera, and I'm =3D
hoping someone here will be able to give advice about that too, like =3D
just about everything else.
The problem is 1: I need to photograph pots to sell them on my web site. =
=3D
2: I'm pennyless.
What I have is something like the digital version of an Instamatic. =3D
Although I'm happy with it for snap shots, I don't think it's blessed =3D
with enough pixels to make my photographs good enough. It doesn't have a =
=3D
tripod option.
I have bought an EZ Cube for the shots, and I have good lights and light =
=3D
stands. (This is what I just did with my camera, that EZ Cube, and no =3D
lights. I just took everything outside in the snow. It wasn't even =3D
sunny. Hardly professional. =3D
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elisabeth-Maurland/90141091321?v=3D3Dphotos&r=
e=3D
f=3D3Dts#!/album.ph)
I send my pots to a professional photographer for jury images, so the =3D
camera doesn't have to be up to that standard (unless that's what I =3D
should get for my web images too).
I used to use a Pentax K-1000 and would like to have something like =3D
that, only digital.
What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main thing to =
=3D
be concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a camera =3D
that is to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web site?
Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000 and =3D
have heard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And =3D
I've heard you can't.
I would be grateful for any responses!
Elisabeth=3D
Nancy Spinella on thu 13 jan 11
My husband still has a Pentax K-1000 he uses from time to time. :)
The difference between film and digital pictures, as I see it, is that film
looks better when it's printed out and digital pictures look better on the
computer.
You *can* use certain accoutrements - filters, for example - if you get a
digital SLR that has a threaded ring around the lens. I've got an old Fuji
Finepix that can handle it (providing the diameter is the same, which I
haven't honestly checked). You may be able to find a digital camera that i=
s
component-based and swap out the entire lens assembly as you do with the
Pentax, but don't quote me on that. I haven't seen them, personally, but
I've heard they exist.
Digital SLRs can run upwards of $300-500 -- and it's sort of overkill for
what you need unless having colored/polarizing/UV filters is really
important to you. ;)
Megapixels are important. I'd say for just website images, go for at least
5, and if you're planning to print from them you'll want preferably 8-10,
more if you can afford it. The more of them you have, the sharper the phot=
o
will appear on the computer screen. If you're printing out photos they will
also appear less grainy; another consideration here is how large the
original image is. If you set the camera to take pictures of 300x400 pixels
and then expect to blow them up to an 8x10" image, they're going to be dark
and grainy. Use the largest possible setting and scale down if you need to.
Good lighting and tripods (or a stable stand of some sort) are always
essential.
The "penniless" side of it is the tough part. You can find digital cameras
for ~$50 (I gave my mother and mother in law both Vivitars I found at Rite
Aid for gifts one year), less when on sale, but I don't know that they're a=
s
high-quality as you may need.
Hope this helps!
--Nancy
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Elisabeth Maurland <
ELISABETH@elisabethmaurland.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody again,
>
> I am still in my thinking and planning stage of getting my good,
> professional web site together, and now I need a decent camera, and I'm
> hoping someone here will be able to give advice about that too, like just
> about everything else.
>
> The problem is 1: I need to photograph pots to sell them on my web site. =
2:
> I'm pennyless.
>
> What I have is something like the digital version of an Instamatic.
> Although I'm happy with it for snap shots, I don't think it's blessed wit=
h
> enough pixels to make my photographs good enough. It doesn't have a tripo=
d
> option.
> I have bought an EZ Cube for the shots, and I have good lights and light
> stands. (This is what I just did with my camera, that EZ Cube, and no
> lights. I just took everything outside in the snow. It wasn't even sunny.
> Hardly professional.
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elisabeth-Maurland/90141091321?v=3Dphotos&r=
ef=3Dts#!/album.ph1321?v=3Dphotos&ref=3Dts#%21/album.ph>
> )
>
> I send my pots to a professional photographer for jury images, so the
> camera doesn't have to be up to that standard (unless that's what I shoul=
d
> get for my web images too).
> I used to use a Pentax K-1000 and would like to have something like that,
> only digital.
>
> What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main thing to =
be
> concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a camera that=
is
> to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web site?
>
> Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000 and have
> heard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And I've hea=
rd
> you can't.
>
> I would be grateful for any responses!
>
> Elisabeth
--
www.twitter.com/nanspins
www.wix.com/nanspin/pottery
Johanna San Inocencio on thu 13 jan 11
Elisabeth, you can use SLR camera lenses with a digital camera but you =3D
will have to set the aperture and focus manually. Any circuity the =3D
digital camera depends on for automatic settings will not exist on the =3D
lenses. You will also need to make sure the mount is compatible. The =3D
Pentax K1000 used a K mount, with a small, bayonet like protrusion that =3D
has to be lined up. There are digital cameras available with the K =3D
mount.
Johanna San Inocencio
On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Elisabeth Maurland wrote:
> Hi everybody again,
>=3D20
> I am still in my thinking and planning stage of getting my good, =3D
professional web site together, and now I need a decent camera, and I'm =3D
hoping someone here will be able to give advice about that too, like =3D
just about everything else.
>=3D20
> The problem is 1: I need to photograph pots to sell them on my web =3D
site. 2: I'm pennyless.
>=3D20
> What I have is something like the digital version of an Instamatic. =3D
Although I'm happy with it for snap shots, I don't think it's blessed =3D
with enough pixels to make my photographs good enough. It doesn't have a =
=3D
tripod option.
> I have bought an EZ Cube for the shots, and I have good lights and =3D
light stands. (This is what I just did with my camera, that EZ Cube, and =
=3D
no lights. I just took everything outside in the snow. It wasn't even =3D
sunny. Hardly professional. =3D
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elisabeth-Maurland/90141091321?v=3D3Dphotos&r=
e=3D
f=3D3Dts#!/album.ph)
>=3D20
> I send my pots to a professional photographer for jury images, so the =3D
camera doesn't have to be up to that standard (unless that's what I =3D
should get for my web images too).
> I used to use a Pentax K-1000 and would like to have something like =3D
that, only digital.
>=3D20
> What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main thing =3D
to be concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a =3D
camera that is to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web =3D
site?
>=3D20
> Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000 and =3D
have heard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And =3D
I've heard you can't.
>=3D20
> I would be grateful for any responses!
>=3D20
> Elisabeth
William & Susan Schran User on thu 13 jan 11
On 1/13/11 1:30 AM, "Elisabeth Maurland"
wrote:
> What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main thing to =
be
> concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a camera that=
is
> to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web site?
>
> Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000 and have
> heard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And I've hea=
rd
> you can't.
Shooting pots for your web site will not require the same megapixel size as
you would want for show entries. Your computer is only displaying images at
resolution of 96 and posting larger resolution image sizes would take longe=
r
to load on the viewer's computer.
I shot all images on my web site with point & shoot Nikon CoolPix. Having a
small digital camera with close up and zoom capabilities can be had for
$200.
Be sure to shoot all of your work with plain, neutral background so the
focus is only the pot. If you don't have a tripod, then set up a stack of
cinder blocks or a stool with bricks on it, etc. - anything steady and
secure that you can rest the camera on.
Also have a Nikon DSLR and had many lens for the Nikon film SLR's.
The older lens fit the digital camera, but don't couple to the digital
readings. After several tests, the digital lens proved to provide better
quality images.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Steve Mills on thu 13 jan 11
Hi Elisabeth,
I use a Fuji "Bridge" Camera, which is halfway between an SLR and a pocket =
d=3D
igital.=3D20
I Got it re-furbished off the Fuji Website for less than half-price.=3D20
I like it because it has "manual" options so I set it for max depth of fiel=
d=3D
, f8 in this case.=3D20
Not everybody's choice I agree but it works very well for me.=3D20
Steve M
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
Sent from my Itouch
On 13 Jan 2011, at 06:30, Elisabeth Maurland O=3D
M> wrote:
> Hi everybody again,
>=3D20
> I am still in my thinking and planning stage of getting my good, professi=
o=3D
nal web site together, and now I need a decent camera, and I'm hoping someo=
n=3D
e here will be able to give advice about that too, like just about everythi=
n=3D
g else.
>=3D20
> The problem is 1: I need to photograph pots to sell them on my web site. =
2=3D
: I'm pennyless.
>=3D20
> What I have is something like the digital version of an Instamatic. Altho=
u=3D
gh I'm happy with it for snap shots, I don't think it's blessed with enough=
p=3D
ixels to make my photographs good enough. It doesn't have a tripod option.
> I have bought an EZ Cube for the shots, and I have good lights and light =
s=3D
tands. (This is what I just did with my camera, that EZ Cube, and no lights=
.=3D
I just took everything outside in the snow. It wasn't even sunny. Hardly p=
r=3D
ofessional. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elisabeth-Maurland/90141091321?v=
=3D3D=3D
photos&ref=3D3Dts#!/album.ph)
>=3D20
> I send my pots to a professional photographer for jury images, so the cam=
e=3D
ra doesn't have to be up to that standard (unless that's what I should get =
f=3D
or my web images too).
> I used to use a Pentax K-1000 and would like to have something like that,=
o=3D
nly digital.
>=3D20
> What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main thing to =
b=3D
e concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a camera that=
i=3D
s to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web site?
>=3D20
> Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000 and have=
h=3D
eard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And I've heard =
y=3D
ou can't.
>=3D20
> I would be grateful for any responses!
>=3D20
> Elisabeth
Claudia MacPhee on thu 13 jan 11
> Date: Thu=3D2C 13 Jan 2011 10:33:05 -0500
> From: wschran@COX.NET
> Subject: Re: Camera question
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>=3D20
> On 1/13/11 1:30 AM=3D2C "Elisabeth Maurland" .C=3D
OM>
> wrote:
>=3D20
> > What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main thing t=
=3D
o be
> > concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a camera th=
=3D
at is
> > to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web site?
> >
> > Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000 and ha=
=3D
ve
> > heard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And I've h=
=3D
eard
> > you can't.
>=3D20
> Shooting pots for your web site will not require the same megapixel size =
=3D
as
> you would want for show entries. Your computer is only displaying images =
=3D
at
> resolution of 96 and posting larger resolution image sizes would take lon=
=3D
ger
> to load on the viewer's computer.
>=3D20
> I shot all images on my web site with point & shoot Nikon CoolPix. Having=
=3D
a
> small digital camera with close up and zoom capabilities can be had for
> $200.
>=3D20
> Be sure to shoot all of your work with plain=3D2C neutral background so t=
he
> focus is only the pot. If you don't have a tripod=3D2C then set up a stac=
k =3D
of
> cinder blocks or a stool with bricks on it=3D2C etc. - anything steady an=
d
> secure that you can rest the camera on.
>=3D20
> Also have a Nikon DSLR and had many lens for the Nikon film SLR's.
> The older lens fit the digital camera=3D2C but don't couple to the digita=
l
> readings. After several tests=3D2C the digital lens proved to provide bet=
te=3D
r
> quality images.
>=3D20
> Bill
> --
> William "Bill" Schran
> wschran@cox.net
> wschran@nvcc.edu
> http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
=3D
Beverly Blitzer on thu 13 jan 11
Elisabeth,
I have used the coolpix with much success for both shows and websites.
I just purchased a new Panasonic point and shoot on my daughters
recommendation for around $150.
the reason for the recommendation is that it has a "leika" lense which
is one of the best in that catagory.
The lense is bigger, the display screen is a little larger than the
nikon which is better for "sight impaired" older generation.
good luck with your purchase.
Bev Blitzer
Bev Blitzer Pottery
http://web.me.com/bevblitzer/
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:33 AM, William & Susan Schran User wrote:
> On 1/13/11 1:30 AM, "Elisabeth Maurland" > >
> wrote:
>
>> What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the main
>> thing to be
>> concerned about? What should be the minimum requirement for a
>> camera that is
>> to be used for shots of pottery on a professional web site?
>>
>> Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax K-1000
>> and have
>> heard you can use them with certain digital cameras as well. And
>> I've heard
>> you can't.
>
> Shooting pots for your web site will not require the same megapixel
> size as
> you would want for show entries. Your computer is only displaying
> images at
> resolution of 96 and posting larger resolution image sizes would
> take longer
> to load on the viewer's computer.
>
> I shot all images on my web site with point & shoot Nikon CoolPix.
> Having a
> small digital camera with close up and zoom capabilities can be had
> for
> $200.
>
> Be sure to shoot all of your work with plain, neutral background so
> the
> focus is only the pot. If you don't have a tripod, then set up a
> stack of
> cinder blocks or a stool with bricks on it, etc. - anything steady and
> secure that you can rest the camera on.
>
> Also have a Nikon DSLR and had many lens for the Nikon film SLR's.
> The older lens fit the digital camera, but don't couple to the digital
> readings. After several tests, the digital lens proved to provide
> better
> quality images.
>
> Bill
> --
> William "Bill" Schran
> wschran@cox.net
> wschran@nvcc.edu
> http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Elisabeth Maurland on thu 13 jan 11
Roly,
You were looking at my Facebook album? I know the light wasn't good, but =
=3D
it was the quickest way I had to get the pots on Facebook before =3D
Christmas. I have good lights that I hadn't dug out yet, and although I =3D
used a light box (EZ Cube) in these photos, I didn't use a gradated =3D
backdrop, which is my next purchase. With a light box, I think sunlight =3D
is better than overcast, provided that the pieces do not have direct =3D
sunlight, which is easy to prevent.
It wasn't so much a critique I was looking for (although I wasn't clear =3D
about that), I just threw in the link as an afterthought to show how =3D
sharp/not sharp my camera could make the pictures. The "hardly =3D
professional" comment was a disclaimer.
That said, I think it is the camera that is the issue. (Well, it's the =3D
only issue left, as I am slowly acquiring all the other equipment =3D
needed.) I need to make a professional-looking web site. That's why I =3D
don't have any of my own photographs on my current web site, but put =3D
them on Facebook instead, just to show people, who already know my work, =
=3D
what's available. The pots on my current web site are not for sale, they =
=3D
are jury images that a professional photographer has done.=3D20
As to your last suggestion, do you mean a zoom lens? My little (digital) =
=3D
camera does have a zoom lens, and I use it sometimes, but I hadn't =3D
really noticed any difference in distortion. I'll pay more attention to =3D
that.
Thanks!
Elisabeth
On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Roland Beevor wrote:
> Dear Elisabeth
>=3D20
> I don't think the camera is the problem (though a digital would make =3D
your life easier for web use). I'd say that there is plenty of =3D
definition for a potential purchaser to buy, and you can put in pictures =
=3D
of details as well as the whole piece.
>=3D20
> I should say that I'm not an expert (and you should get responses from =
=3D
people who really know this business) but here's my critique:
>=3D20
> The light wants to be more diffuse and from behind (but not directly =3D
behind) so that it casts a shadow towards the camera. If you have a =3D
flash its worth getting a cable so that you can put the flash above and =3D
a bit behind the work, but putting something translucent in front so =3D
that the shadow is really diffuse. The pictures on your web site are =3D
the professional's? Isn't that what they've done? An overcast day =3D
should be better than a sunny one. Also the background needs to be far =3D
enough away so that a shadow is not onto the vertical surface. Then the =
=3D
background needs to be really clean and smooth.
>=3D20
> It would be better to take the photographs from a greater distance, =3D
with a narrower angle lense, that should get rid of distortion and put =3D
the whole depth of the piece in focus.
>=3D20
> Good luck
> Roly
>=3D20
>=3D20
Snail Scott on thu 13 jan 11
On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Elisabeth Maurland wrote:
> ...I'm happy with it for snap shots, I don't think it's blessed with =3D
enough pixels to make my photographs good enough. It doesn't have a =3D
tripod option...
No tripod? Prop the camera on anything. A 2X4 of=3D20
suitable length will do wonders for stability, even=3D20
without the side-to-side rigidity that a tripod offers.
Just that little bit of support will eliminate almost=3D20
all the wiggling that a handheld camera is victim to.
Or set it on a stack of boxes, maybe, or prop your=3D20
elbows on the back of a chair. Almost anything can
help, and make a huge difference over being held=3D20
freehand.
As for pixels, these ought to be at maximum for=3D20
high-quality printing (for magazine pictures or for=3D20
advertising, etc) or for projecting on a large screen,=3D20
but for a website or other Internet applications, you=3D20
don't need that kind of resolution. Vast numbers of
pixels are useless if it's more pixels than a computer=3D20
screen has, and unless your images are going to be=3D20
full-screen, you don't even need that many. Even a=3D20
pretty cheap camera is almost certainly adequate.
It's good to shoot with as high a resolution as you can,=3D20
to allow for cropping to 'detail' shots if needed, or for=3D20
some hypothetical high-res use in the future, but I'm=3D20
willing to bet that what you've got now will do just fine.
The thing that makes for good pictures, beyond having=3D20
the subject in focus and centered on a neutral backdrop,=3D20
is lighting. You've got the EZCube, so that makes it=3D20
much easier, but take advantage of the 'free film' aspect=3D20
of digital photography. Try lighting your work from a=3D20
variety of angles, with and without fill lighting. Some=3D20
forms need different light to look their best, so try a=3D20
range of possibilities for every shape and color scheme.=3D20
It's not like you're wasting film! You can look at all your=3D20
results together, and see what really flatters the work.
Keep those shots, and delete the rest.=3D20
I looked at your Facebook images, and these are my=3D20
observations. First, I love your designs - fun color and=3D20
imagery! but... Lighting is my main concern. The light is=3D20
omnidirectional, which has the effect of visually flattening=3D20
the forms. The only ways our eyes have to discern three-
dimensionality in what we see are focus, and shadow.
On small things like pottery, the whole thing should be=3D20
in focus, so that leaves highlight and shadow. These are=3D20
what make the form look full and dimensional, and add=3D20
a bit of drama as well. Traditionally, documentation=3D20
photography uses a light from the upper left, as this=3D20
convention makes it easy to see whether an unknown=3D20
shape is convex or concave. In art documentation, as=3D20
opposed to scientific photography, we can be more=3D20
flexible, but it's not a bad starting point.
Even if you are shooting in natural light, try for directional=3D20
light. Not direct sunlight, which makes shadows and=3D20
highlights which are too strong and overwhelming, but=3D20
what I might call directional shade. Back in the bad old=3D20
days of film, it was almost impossible to get the color=3D20
right when shooting in shade, but nowadays, 'white=3D20
balance' makes it easy! Porches, loading docks, the=3D20
north side of a building - all these allow you to position=3D20
your backdrop to get more light coming from one side=3D20
or another, without having solid black shadows.=3D20
If you are shooting indoors, don't use ambient light if=3D20
it is too omnidirectional, like office lighting. Floodlights=3D20
are best, since they are bright enough to allow a short=3D20
exposure, but you can make do with household lighting=3D20
too. Get a bright lamp and aim it from one side. Try it=3D20
higher and lower by propping it on things. Look at how=3D20
the shadow hits the backdrop: it shouldn't make a big
distracting shape of its own, so minimize that by moving
the position of the lamp. Then, look at the shaded side=3D20
of the object. if the darkness is obscuring too much,=3D20
prop a big piece of white paper to one side, so that=3D20
the light will be slightly reflected back at the object.=3D20
It's amazing what a big difference this can make,=3D20
especially against a dark backdrop. Using a second,=3D20
weaker (or more distant) light source will work, too,=3D20
but it should be the same type of bulb, so that the=3D20
color of the light will match. (White balance can't=3D20
compensate for multiple colors of light; it can only=3D20
change the overall effect.)=3D20
Backdrop is important, too. Medium gray is a good=3D20
starting point, but some work will look better against=3D20
darker or lighter backgrounds. Always neutral colors,=3D20
though! Photographers' graduated paper (with a dark=3D20
top zone shading to a lighter bottom) gives a very=3D20
professional effect, but it can be pricey. A similar effect=3D20
can be gained by letting your lights fall more strongly=3D20
on the lower part of your backdrop, so the top will look=3D20
darker naturally. It is best to let the backdrop fall in a=3D20
soft curve from the vertical to horizontal so that no line=3D20
shows. It is also best to put the object as far forward of=3D20
the vertical background as possible. This way, it can=3D20
be out of focus and any small flaws will be minimized.
Photographic backdrop paper is nice, but fragile. For=3D20
small, well-behaved pottery, it may be worth it, but for=3D20
my work, which is often cumbersome to reposition on=3D20
the backdrop, paper has a short lifespan. Fabric will=3D20
do as long as it shows no folds or creases, and unlike=3D20
paper, it can be ironed to remove them, and laundered=3D20
to remove clay dust and smudges. I like heavy polyester =3D20
double-knits for this, as they are slow to wrinkle and=3D20
almost indestructible. This is what I use to shoot student=3D20
work. For my own, I mainly use a roll of matte-surface=3D20
gray vinyl from a car-upholstery supplier. It has a good=3D20
color and low sheen, can be sponged off, and resists=3D20
scuffing very nicely. Since I often have to walk on the=3D20
backdrop when setting up larger work, this is a really=3D20
handy thing. I have also heard good things about=3D20
countertop laminate for big work, but I like being able=3D20
to roll up my vinyl.
For your work, Elisabeth, I'd suggest a slightly darker=3D20
gray, beige, or perhaps black backdrop, and more=3D20
directional light. Check the discount shelves for fabric:=3D20
many Wal-Marts have $1.00 fabric that will serve. An=3D20
ordinary household lamp with a 150-watt-equivalent=3D20
(23 or 26 watt) fluorescent bulb will do for lighting if=3D20
you steady the camera.
Experiment with camera angle, too. Some objects look=3D20
best shot side-on i profile, but many (especially pottery)=3D20
may benefit from showing some of the interior, to=3D20
enhance the sense of volume, emphasize the edge =3D20
contour, or to show a glimpse of an contrasting interior.
A really professional photo setup will give better results,=3D20
but only if you know how. If you know how, though, you=3D20
can make pretty nice photos with a $5 investment! The=3D20
single biggest factor isn't the slick setup. It's learning to=3D20
see what is really there through the viewfinder, and=3D20
messing with the lighting until it looks great.=3D20
That's what the best documentation photographers do.=3D20
They can take your 3-D object and re-compose it as a=3D20
fresh 2-D work of art. You'd think that part is easy, but=3D20
it's that ability to see that separates the best from the=3D20
not-quite-there. We look at our own work all the time,=3D20
and we think we know it, but that makes it hard to see =3D20
it fresh when we go to document it.
Look at the photos in CM and elsewhere. Not at the art,=3D20
but the photo. Where is the light set? Does it use fill=3D20
light? How do the shadows fall on the backdrop?=3D20
Where do the reflections fall on the object? What is the=3D20
contrast level between the object and the backdrop?
It's not the equipment. That's useful, but not essential.
Put in the time to experiment with lighting, and you will=3D20
have photos that are professional-looking, offer your=3D20
work the presentation it deserves, and are plenty good=3D20
enough for the Internet, even with your present camera.
-Snail
ivor and olive lewis on fri 14 jan 11
Dear Nancy Spinella,
You suggest "The difference between film and digital pictures, as I see it,
is that film looks better when it's printed out and digital pictures look
better on the computer."
Six months ago I bought a JVC video camera and recently Olive upgraded our
television to a 40 inch model. HD production is the way to go if you wish t=
o
see high definition images. We just plug the camera into the television.
Best regards,
Ivor.
Kathy Forer on fri 14 jan 11
On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Snail Scott wrote=
:=3D
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Elisabeth Maurland wrote:
>> ...I'm happy with it for snap shots, I don't think it's blessed with eno=
u=3D
gh pixels to make my photographs good enough. It doesn't have a tripod opti=
o=3D
n...
>=3D20
>=3D20
> No tripod? Prop the camera on anything. A 2X4 of=3D20
> suitable length will do wonders for stability, even=3D20
> without the side-to-side rigidity that a tripod offers.
> Just that little bit of support will eliminate almost=3D20
> all the wiggling that a handheld camera is victim to.
Another trick is to use your camera's timer to take the shot. Set it, press=
t=3D
he button and stand back. The timer acts like a push shutter release cable =
t=3D
o eliminate hand jitter.=3D20
Velvet is another nice material for backdrop. It absorbs light well and mak=
e=3D
s for an evenly toned background. Keep it rolled inside out and it will las=
t=3D
a very long time. I've a nice black velvet which can emphasize a silhouett=
e=3D
too much or just enough, depending on the piece. Thunder Gray is a standar=
d=3D
neutral color for general use. Also white. Or you can get more colorful.=
=3D20=3D
Also consider using secondary bounce lighting. Aim your light source(s) awa=
y=3D
from the object, at the ceiling or a side wall. You can also substitute Sa=
r=3D
an wrap or tracing paper for scrim, covering the front of the light, to eve=
n=3D
out a light that makes a hot spot. But be careful of overheating.
It may be old-fashioned by now but aluminum foil wrapped around cardboard a=
l=3D
so works to deflect or focus a light. You can put a kind of aluminum foil r=
e=3D
flector at an angle to your light or flash. It's a good setup to eliminate =
r=3D
ed eye and also can make for a pleasing high spot light when you bounce the=
l=3D
ight from the reflector onto the object.=3D20
Barn doors are wings that snap onto old photo floods and help control the l=
i=3D
ght. You can improvise and experiment with cardboard.
Kathy Forer
Neon-Cat on fri 14 jan 11
Hi Elisabeth and all!
I don=3D92t have a fancy camera =3D96 just a Kodak Easy Share CX7430, 4.0 M=
ega
Pixel camera one of my kitty clients gave me, or a light box or
lights, or a tripod, or space or money for all the goodies we are
suppose to have for taking photos of our work. What I do have is a
dynamite photo-editor-- Ulead PhotoImpact 12. With the editor I can
take what some folks consider a horrible dark photo with an
unrecognizable subject and turn it into a perfect likeness of the
original subject. Years ago I started using this editor for kitten and
cat photos (=3D91ya can=3D92t cram =3D91um in a light box, they don=3D92t s=
tay stil=3D
l,
and they are not keen on bright lights in their eyes) and I now use it
for my clay work. I like the fact that I can get true-to-life colors
and hues of my work just as they are here. I have no idea if they look
acceptable much less professional, but it is where I am now. There is
no money for more cameras and goodies or a professional to take pics
of my merger work. PhotoImpact 12 allows one to adjust light levels,
color cast, hue, white balance, saturation, reduce all kinds of noise
(impulse, luminance, color), correct for chromatic aberration,
sharpen, and a host of other normal editor tricks plus a slew of
atypical tricks from a very large bag. Sticking with pretty much the
basics I don=3D92t change the work itself but can show it in a better
light. For some photos it is necessary to sacrifice background color a
little to get the proper color of the work. Of all the programs I
tried years ago I have remained with Ulead over several upgrade
versions. Mine is an older version now but just right for most of my
needs and my older-computer=3D92s capabilities. The editor has always been
user-friendly =3D96 if I can work with it anybody can. I just stick work
on a bookcase with white or black art poster board underneath and
behind it and go for it. There are some examples on my web site under
=3D93Ceramic Art: Purchase & Enjoy=3D94 and =3D93Gallery of Ceramic Art=3D9=
4 (menu
links to the left of the page). Holding your cursor over the X at the
top right of each photo makes the slide show box disappear -- I have
not mastered website design yet. Such is life =3D96 there are always new
things to learn, some more pleasant than others.
I=3D92m working on adult Devon Rex photos now and listening to a little
Liquid Soul (goa-psy trance) =3D96 turning icky pics into nicer ones.
White fur picks up so much spurious color it=3D92s nice to make their fur
color the fresh white one sees in person and take out the blur of
movement (theirs and mine). It=3D92s so much easier this way as opposed to
running around frantically trying to impose just the right conditions
at the time of photo-snapping.
Marian
www.neon-cat.com
(home of the hypoallergenic and non-shedding wonderful Devon Rex and
lots of clay, fired & unfired)
Nancy Jonnum on fri 14 jan 11
The discussion of photography and cameras reminds me of a trick I
learned not too long ago. Most cameras have the ability to delay the
photo just a bit, so that the photographer can set up with a tripod
and then run and position themselves in the photo. When I am taking
pictures I use this delay to be sure that the camera has a chance to
be perfectly still when the shutter clicks.
Nancy
Jim Willett on fri 14 jan 11
Hi Elizabeth,
I picked up a little Kodak for around $100 that takes great pictures, has=
=3D
a 10x=3D20
zoom, lots of pixels, and options for flash, aperture and shutter setting=
=3D
s. Has a=3D20
fitting for tripod. The Z915. Really impressed. Bought it for a travel ca=
=3D
mera as an=3D20
option to my big Canon 40D. Photo on the top left and bottom of The Clay=3D=
20=3D
Teacher site were taken with it.=3D20
Jim Willett
Out of the Fire Studio
http://www.theclayteacher.com
Russel Fouts on fri 14 jan 11
Elisabeth,
Bill's suggestions are right on, you don't need a high number of pixels =3D
to photograph for the web and his suggestion of resting the camera on a =3D
stack of books to steady it is also good.
If the camera will sit stably with out your having to hold it, you can =3D
use the internal timer as the shutter release. That way, you will have =3D
no vibration and an even steadier picture.
I lost my shutter release for my SLR and then DSLR years ago and never =3D
bought a replacement. The timer works great.=3D20
The pots aren't going anywhere so they can wait 10 seconds. ;0)
Russel
Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 223 02 75
Mobile: +32 476 55 38 75
http://www.mypots.com
Home of "The Potters Portal"
Over 3000 Pottery Related Links!
Updated infrequently
"Look, it's my misery that I have to paint this kind of painting, it's =3D
your misery that you have to love it, and the price of the misery is =3D
thirteen hundred and fifty dollars. "
- Mark Rothko, In Art/Painting
gary navarre on fri 14 jan 11
Hey Folks, Elisabeth,
First of all I don't believe you are penny less, you are just afraid of be=
ing poor. Second is you already have Pentax lenses and all the new Pentax D=
SLR's are backwards compatible, although some might not have the auto focus=
connected, so you are half way there. I too have a K1000 but only the one =
lens that came with it so taking pictures of pots just didn't work. I hired=
a pro once in Kalamazoo and he didn't do a vary good job. When I finally s=
tarted learning digital I started out using a Pentax Optio 60 but when the =
lens froze open, probably dirty, I switched to their underwater W30 & W80 m=
odels and have not had any clogging problems since the lens moves inside th=
e camera.
Pentax has a decent reputation for giving you a lot of bang for the buck w=
ith many features of more expensive other brand names at a few hundred doll=
ars less. I especially like the idea of the seals they added to keep out du=
st and moisture. The picture quality of what I've taken must be good becaus=
e some were accepted in a local calender contest and I won $25 for one. All=
the shots in my Fotki site are with Pentax cameras. If you buy direct from=
Pentax you are assured of better customer service too so start saving your=
beer money and before you know it you will have a nice new digital camera.
Gary Navarre
Navarre Pottery
Navarre Enterprises
Norway, Michigan, USA
http://www.NavarrePottery.etsy.com
http://www.youtube.com/GindaUP
http://public.fotki.com/GindaUP/
--- On Thu, 1/13/11, Elisabeth Maurland w=
rote:
> From: Elisabeth Maurland
> Subject: [Clayart] Camera question
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 12:30 AM
> Hi everybody again,
>
> I am still in my thinking and planning stage of getting my
> good, professional web site together, and now I need a
> decent camera, and I'm hoping someone here will be able to
> give advice about that too, like just about everything
> else.
>
> The problem is 1: I need to photograph pots to sell them on
> my web site. 2: I'm pennyless.
>
> What I have is something like the digital version of an
> Instamatic. Although I'm happy with it for snap shots, I
> don't think it's blessed with enough pixels to make my
> photographs good enough. It doesn't have a tripod option.
> I have bought an EZ Cube for the shots, and I have good
> lights and light stands. (This is what I just did with my
> camera, that EZ Cube, and no lights. I just took everything
> outside in the snow. It wasn't even sunny. Hardly
> professional. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elisabeth-Maurland/9014109132=
1?v=3Dphotos&ref=3Dts#!/album.ph)
>
> I send my pots to a professional photographer for jury
> images, so the camera doesn't have to be up to that standard
> (unless that's what I should get for my web images too).
> I used to use a Pentax K-1000 and would like to have
> something like that, only digital.
>
> What do you use for your web site? Is number of pixels the
> main thing to be concerned about? What should be the minimum
> requirement for a camera that is to be used for shots of
> pottery on a professional web site?
>
> Another thing is that I have several lenses for my Pentax
> K-1000 and have heard you can use them with certain digital
> cameras as well. And I've heard you can't.
>
> I would be grateful for any responses!
>
> Elisabeth
Elisabeth Maurland on sat 15 jan 11
Hi everybody,
Thanks for all the input regarding my camera purchase. I have decided - =3D
I just ordered a Pentax K-7, body only. Not cheap, but it can take all =3D
my old lenses, and I will again have an SLR camera which I have been =3D
very much missing.
Best part: No payments, no interest for 6 months! (Of course I'll pay it =
=3D
off before the 6 months are up.)
Elisabeth=3D
Lee on sat 15 jan 11
Elisabeth,
I think you made a good choice. It isn't the MPs that
give the SLR the advantage. It is the better optics and sensor.
You can get manual control in a non-SLR, but it isn't as detailed as
SLR.
My first digital was the second consumers digital Canon
made (PowerShot A5 Zoom). It was under a megapixel, but made images
that were larger than required for web dpi. About the only
advantage of larger mps for web images is when you want to crop an
image and use just a small part of it. You still have resolution to
spare.
--
=3DA0Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3DA0"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D9=
7that is, =3D
"The
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
| |
|
