Patricia Gilmartin on sun 24 oct 04
I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
the specific application that I want. Any experience/advice?
Carl Finch on sun 24 oct 04
At 09:58 AM 10/24/2004, Patricia Gilmartin wrote:
>I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
>operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
>My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
>doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
>photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
>the specific application that I want.
Well, what exactly IS the application? Covers for Ceramics
monthly? 640x480 pix for eBay? Or something in between?
In what way does your husband's camera not "work well?"
An SLR (by most definitions) will accommodate lenses of various
capabilities. I don't see how any already-bought-and-paid-for camera can
be overkill for shooting pots! (Sure, it might be too heavy for
backpacking, but weight's not an issue here)
As far as "simple to operate," most bell-and-whistle cameras have an
Automatic exposure setting. You turn that big knob on the top to "A" and
that's it. Press the shutter button and you're done. Provides quick
point-and-shoot capability. With more experience, turn that knob to "P"
(for program) and vary some of the settings. Or, finally, to "M" (manual)
to override all the automatic exposure features.
I learned a lot about digital cameras from these sites. They discuss and
evaluate digital cameras.
www.imaging-resource.com
www.dpreview.com
www.steves-digicams.com
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Edy Lynn on sun 24 oct 04
My hubby , who does photgraphy for a living, (who is also drooling at your
hubby's digital SLR-he wants one so bad!!) says you don't need another
camera. What you need is a macro lens and a tripod.
If you need more info, just email me or go to www.mediamoments.com and email
him.
BTW, he uses an Olympus C2100. 3megaP but 10X digital zoom. His pics rock!
He's working towards that Canon Rebel Digital SLR or Nikon Digital SLR.
It's a very good versital camera. He rerads up on it continuously and visits
the Best Buy where they let him play with it. I guess they hope he will buy
it sooner or later!!
Give it another try.
Edy Lynn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Gilmartin"
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 12:58 PM
Subject: digital camera for art photography
> I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
> operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
> My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
> doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
> photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
> the specific application that I want. Any experience/advice?
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Carl Finch on mon 25 oct 04
At 09:58 AM 10/24/2004, Patricia Gilmartin wrote:
>I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
>operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
>My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
>doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
>photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
>the specific application that I want. Any experience/advice?
OK, I'm gettin' a bit confused here!
Four of you folks (Edy, Phil, Scott and Mark) have suggested getting a
camera (or outfitting one) with macro capability.
My understanding has always been that macro capability is for extreme
close-ups. It allows the camera to focus successfully just a few inches,
or even less, from the target object so that a tiny object will fill the image.
So it would be appropriate for jewelry, or coins, or insects, etc. But
unless you're throwing "micro-pots" I don't understand why you would use macro.
It seems to me that one would want to photograph pots from some distance
using a long lens (i.e., telephoto-ish), and using a small aperture.
A small aperture maximizes DOF (depth of field). If one is taking a
picture of, say, a bowl at an elevation of 45 degrees (in order to show the
outside, some of the inside, and the entire rim) if the DOF is
insufficient, then either the near rim or the far rim will be out of
focus. The smaller the aperture (larger the f-stop), the greater the DOF.
And a longer lens (greater focal length) prevents spherical shapes (pots)
from looking 'pregnant' (you've probably seen snapshots of faces taken very
close-up where the subject's nose looks unflatteringly larger than
life). Once the focal length is set much below 55 mm (corresponding to
normal human vision), such a wide-angle photo may include all 25 of your
family reunion members, but there will be noticeable distortion of large or
near objects.
Of course this is all just conjecture. I've been unable to use my Kodak
Brownie for quite some time--can't hardly find that 620 film anymore!
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Geoffrey Gaskell on mon 25 oct 04
Speaking of digital camera's, I've just acquired quite a cheap one rated at
3.2 megapixels with 3 x optical zoom & 9 x digital zoom. The thing also has
a macro setting. For my purposes, this does the trick whether for
landscapes, gardens, insects & other creepy crawlies or pottery.
Of course, an imaginative photographer can get excellent results regardless
of the camera & its features: from a pinhole camera created out of a shoebox
to the most technologically feature laden item with the biggest of all
possible price tags. At the moment the output of the most "advanced" digital
cameras are just beginning to approach the quality of the best 35mm film,
but they've got a very long way to go to match the quality of output
produced by either medium or large format negative film.
Geoffrey Gaskell
Who might actually now get around to updating his website with new images
since the process will now be cheap & easy.
Phil Davenport on mon 25 oct 04
You must have a lens that will allow you to take close-up pictures.
This would be true for a film camera or a digital camera.
If you are not using a digital SLR camera, the image you will see in the
viewfinder will not be that same as the image that is being recorded.
In this case you will have to use the LCD screen to see what will be
recorded.
As you get closer to the subject focus becomes critical--so make sure
that you do no get closer than the minimum focusing distance for the
lens that is on the camera.
I hope this helps.
Phil Davenport
Horseshoe Pottery
Garland, Tx
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Patricia
Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:59 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: digital camera for art photography
I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
the specific application that I want. Any experience/advice?
________________________________________________________________________
______
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on mon 25 oct 04
Since we have opened this thread again.......
Olive is prompting my to upgrade our computer and get a better quality
Digicam so I have a techie question.
What is the best way to get images into the computer; directly from
camera or via some sort of Twain gadget. Looking at the Fuji range
they are not consistent. Some use USB 1 the newer ones USB 2. Are
these compatible systems.
Do any of the new 8 mega pixel examples have detachable lenses so that
you can use a "T" mount and a Microscope adaptor?
Which are good sites to look for this sort of information.
Thanks for any prompts and answers.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Scott Paulding on mon 25 oct 04
Another consideration is just buying a macro lense (or macro adapter) for
the SLR. I'm not sure of cost, but i have a friend who purchased one for
taking pictures of flowers.
I own a Canon digital camera, and it has a built in macro feature. I
haven't tried taking pictures of pots with it yet though (no flash
syncronization).
-scott
--- Phil Davenport wrote:
> You must have a lens that will allow you to take close-up pictures.
> This would be true for a film camera or a digital camera.
>
> If you are not using a digital SLR camera, the image you will see in the
> viewfinder will not be that same as the image that is being recorded.
> In this case you will have to use the LCD screen to see what will be
> recorded.
>
> As you get closer to the subject focus becomes critical--so make sure
> that you do no get closer than the minimum focusing distance for the
> lens that is on the camera.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Phil Davenport
> Horseshoe Pottery
> Garland, Tx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Patricia
> Gilmartin
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:59 AM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: digital camera for art photography
>
> I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
> operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
> My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
> doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
> photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
> the specific application that I want. Any experience/advice?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
=====
"I should have been a plumber."
-Albert Einstein
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
mark macdonald on mon 25 oct 04
You need a macro lense, or lense attatchment (you can buy a cheap one that
screws onto the end of an existing lense like a polarizer would or just buy
the whole lense). The other thing you can do is use your husband's camera as
it is and take the closest shot you can with it, then crop out the excess in
photoshop. As long as the resolution is what you want you can resize any
picture you take.
>From: Patricia Gilmartin
>Reply-To: Clayart
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: digital camera for art photography
>Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:58:36 -0400
>
>I'm looking for advice on selecting a digital camera that is simple to
>operate and will work well for close-up photography such as for pottery.
>My husband has an SLR, all-the-bells-and whistles digital camera, but it
>doesn't work that well for close-ups. (He uses it mainly for
>photographing long landscape scenes.) Plus it seems like overkill for
>the specific application that I want. Any experience/advice?
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Kim Lindaberry on tue 26 oct 04
I had a photographer friend say that the best way to avoid lens
distortions of objects is to get a good zoom lens. Then get as far away
from the object being photographed as necessary (but no farther) and
then zoom in. This prevents many distortion problems such as the
bulbous nose image and it helps keep parallel vertical lines from
becoming forced into an unnatural perspective. I love what a good maco
lens can do, but I have found this advice very helpful too.
On Oct 26, 2004, at 3:21 AM, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
> Dear Carl Finch,
> Macro lenses are great for capturing details of glazes, especially
> Crystallines. Extension tubes are even better
> Long focal lengths allow more of a pot to be seen without introducing
> some of the aberrations of perspective common with the 50 mm and
> shorter lenses of 35 mm format cameras. Gets over the bulbous nose
> sort of image.
> Best regards.
> Ivor Lewis.
> Redhill,
> S. Australia.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
Jim Murphy on tue 26 oct 04
on 10/25/04 1:28 AM, Ivor and Olive Lewis at iandol@WESTNET.COM.AU wrote:
> Which are good sites to look for this sort of information.
Hi Ivor,
You'll find an excellent 6-part feature by Ben Long called "Framed and
Exposed: Buying a Digital Camera" at creativepro.com.
You'll find links to these articles here:
http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/109.html
Best wishes,
Jim Murphy
Steve Slatin on tue 26 oct 04
Ivor --
I'm years out of the business, but AFAIK, TWAIN
was designed to permit scanners to interface with
computers -- a task so difficult that the joke was
"never the TWAIN shall meet" (or perhaps that's
just urban folklore). It was a reasonably mature
system when digital cameras were fairly new.
Early digital cameras sometimes had to be 'tethered'
to the computer to transfer an image; Kodak used to
use a TWAIN driver to transfer data, but I
don't know if they do any more. The AIPTEK mini
3-way camera used a TWAIN driver; it wasn't too
good as I recall (I actually had one of these).
Many digicam manufacturers devised their own solutions
to tethering; I have a Nikon that uses a very slick
but rather slow program called "Nikon View" to
transfer shots (via serial cable). It was slow
enough so I soon bought a USB card-reader to avoid
using it. Many newer cameras can be tethered via USB,
which is easy and cheap if your computer has USB.
USB is supposed to be upwards compatible from 1.1
and downwards compatible from 2.0. I cannot vouch
for the accuracy of this claim, but every time I've
plugged a 1.0 reader or keyboard or printer into
a 2.0 computer it's been correctly identified and
connected without my intervention. Likewise the 2.0
printers I've plugged into 1.1 computers have
fired right up, but I've only done this twice. It
is rare for people to complain of USB incompatibility,
so who knows? Maybe it really does what it says.
Because most cameras have removable storage (Compact
Flash, Secure Digital, Memory stick (Sony only), XD,
and a few others. I believe all of these have plug-in
USB readers available cheap. Most media can be
read by some modern printers as well. (And the
printers can be used as substitutes for external
card readers, though my subjective opinion is they're
not as fast as simple external readers.) Some sort of
external reader strikes me as the best solution.
I don't keep up with new digital cameras, but some
folks have found results from the new 8 MP units no
more satisfying than those from 4, 5, or 6 MP units.
Particular models may have undesireable
characteristics (like fringeing). Research well.
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
--- Ivor and Olive Lewis
wrote:
> Since we have opened this thread again.......
> Olive is prompting my to upgrade our computer and
> get a better quality
> Digicam so I have a techie question.
=====
Steve Slatin -- Lies told, whiskey hauled, widows tended.
Sequim, Washington, USA
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Maurice Weitman on tue 26 oct 04
Dear Ivor and Olive Lewis,
At 3:58 PM +0930 on 10/25/04, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
>What is the best way to get images into the computer; directly from
>camera or via some sort of Twain gadget.
From my perspective, speed of download is not really a consideration;
the only issue would be the camera's battery. If your camera has a
decent (rechargeable) battery, or a mains/house current adapter, that
point is moot.
I use the included USB cable and download images that way except when
I've got hundreds of very large images to download.
I also bought a PC-card (formerly known as PCMCIA in WindowsIntelese)
for my laptop (main) computer that reads many different memory cards
directly, therefore not requiring the camera for the download. There
are USB and other externally-connected devices available for desktop
computers, also.
>Looking at the Fuji range
>they are not consistent.
I thought you were in Australia; are you now in Japan?
>Some use USB 1 the newer ones USB 2. Are
>these compatible systems.
USB 2 is (supposed to be) backward compatible with "USB 1," but,
obviously, at the slower speed.
>Which are good sites to look for this sort of information.
The only site I use is . I believe you will
appreciate the depth of research and testing he does, the breadth of
data, and their objectivity.
Regards,
Maurice
Carl Finch on tue 26 oct 04
At 11:28 PM 10/24/2004, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
>Since we have opened this thread again.......
>Olive is prompting my to upgrade our computer and get a better quality
>Digicam so I have a techie question.
>What is the best way to get images into the computer; directly from
>camera or via some sort of Twain gadget.
No, no, no--neither! I've been doin' digital for five years and have seen
literally dozens of messages from people struggling to use the
download-software that came with their cameras. I don't think I've ever
seen a single message that extolled any such included software. It is
pretty much universally crap!
The easiest and surest way is to buy "card reader." In the US they cost,
like, $20! You plug 'em into a USB port and the memory card magically
appears in Windows Explorer (or Photoshop, or whatever) as just another
hard disk. Then you can just drag or cut-and-paste to wherever you want
the images stored. For the large images you are contemplating, you
probably want to get a USB 2 model for speed. (USB 1 and 2 are
compatible--so there's no problem there)
I think there are probably Firewire (IEEE 1394) card readers, too, which
would be faster.
The high resolution cameras use Compact Flash storage. There are also
'microdrive' CF cards that hold 4GB (perhaps more by now, I dunno). I just
got an ad from buy.com offering a 1GB CF card for $64--amaaaazing! Four
years ago that's what I paid for a 32MB card! Most card readers nowadays
have several slots and can handle several of the card formats.
>Looking at the Fuji range
>they are not consistent. Some use USB 1 the newer ones USB 2. Are
>these compatible systems.
Again, yes they are compatible, but remember, if you are moving images from
your camera directly to your computer, it is using your camera's battery
power to do it, and you camera is tethered to the computer during the
transfer. (Of course, if you are 'on the road' with a laptop computer, and
don't want to be packing a card reader you might want to do this)
Since you are "looking at the Fuji range" I would guess you are a current
Fuji owner. But, as you surely know, there are zillions of digital cameras
out there, with far more features than the film cameras 'of yore.' I would
decide upon the features you want and then pick a camera. Here are three
sites that evaluate and compare (in great detail).
www.imaging-resource.com
www.dpreview.com
www.steves-digicams.com
For a more chaotic collection of opinions, try the rec.photo.digital news
group! :-)
>Do any of the new 8 mega pixel examples have detachable lenses so that
>you can use a "T" mount and a Microscope adaptor?
You bet! They are called DSLRs (digital SLRs). Just within the last year
or so they have come down into the 'consumer' price range. I had
considered buying a T-mount for use with my microscope four years ago--but
at that time the only one I found was more expensive than I was willing to
pay, and it would have required a second adapter since my lens barrel was
not threaded.
My first digital camera was (still is) a Kodak DC290. As soon as I bought
it and began to use it I began to realize what I wanted in my next
camera. But I'm pretty patient, and new features, though they come out
quickly, seem to take a while to mature. So it was four years before I
bought my Minolta DiMAGE A1. The A1 is the fourth in a series of Minolta
cameras that look pretty much alike and have pretty much the same
features--each was an improvement upon the previous. (and now there's an A2!)
The features I was waiting for were: wider angle zoom (38mm) and higher
power tele zoom (200mm), image stabilization, long battery life, full
control (manual and automatic) of focus and exposure.
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 26 oct 04
Dear Carl Finch,
Macro lenses are great for capturing details of glazes, especially
Crystallines. Extension tubes are even better
Long focal lengths allow more of a pot to be seen without introducing
some of the aberrations of perspective common with the 50 mm and
shorter lenses of 35 mm format cameras. Gets over the bulbous nose
sort of image.
Best regards.
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Kim Lindaberry on tue 26 oct 04
Of course if you have a Mac running OSX you can choose between 2
software packages that come with the operating system, "Image Capture"
or "IPhoto". Both can download images from pretty much any digital
camera using a USB connection. I hate "IPhoto" but I think "Image
Capture" is terrific.
On Oct 26, 2004, at 12:42 PM, Carl Finch wrote:
No, no, no--neither! I've been doin' digital for five years and have
seen
> literally dozens of messages from people struggling to use the
> download-software that came with their cameras. I don't think I've
> ever
> seen a single message that extolled any such included software. It is
> pretty much universally crap!
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 27 oct 04
Dear Kim Lindaberry,
I am continuing with PC. We had a look at the Mac being used by a
friend. The way the GUI was configured left us with the feeling we
would have needed a close vision telescope to read the large print.
I envision a big grunt P IV with max Ram, c GIGs of HD. USB 2, Card
reader to take care of Cinema 4 D V 8.5. Not sure about the GUI yet,
might go for 17" LCD. Not yet sure of the D SLR but I do not want one
with the lens nailed to the body. I love extension tubes and T mounts.
But thanks for your suggestions.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 27 oct 04
Dear Carl Finch,
Thanks for your information and suggestions. Nothing etched in copper
yet.
A new computer plus camera will be a big investment so I am in no
hurry to allow the shekels to flow without having tried to dot all the
"I"s and cross all the "T"s.
I like the sound of card readers and flash cards.
Www Digital Camera Review has Been a good place to get comprehensive
information. Minolta DiMAGE A1 is one I have put on the list to look
at when we visit the Photo Wholesaler. True about the range and
quality of the market. Enormous number to choose from and dozens of
makers so it pays to be wise prior to the event.
Your words are appreciated.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 27 oct 04
Thanks Jim,
I will get into that site today.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 27 oct 04
Dear Steve Slatin,
Thanks for the information. I seem to be on a steep learning pathway.
I like this idea of using a card reader through the USB port.
Had a talk with my local computer chum and have reached a tentative
spec. Next thing is to go to town to have a look at the cameras. Olive
says the next forecast cool Thursday. I'm looking for something that
does not have the lens nailed to the body with the potential to use a
"T" mount to piggy back onto the microscope.
I appreciate the help everyone is giving me on this one.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Lee Love on thu 28 oct 04
Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
>says the next forecast cool Thursday. I'm looking for something that
>does not have the lens nailed to the body with the potential to use a
>
>
You might look at Canon or Nikon. They both have consumer models
for around $1,000.00
Leica makes a digital rangefinder camera with changable lenses,
but they are very expensive. There are several pro models that have
digital backs, including large format cameras.
I bought a used Nikon 35MM film autofocus and lense, so I could
start collecting lenses for my digital Nikon (when they become more
affordable.) Got it on Ebay for $80.00 Takes beautiful photos.
Gave my Minolta SLR to my Daughter-in-law in New Zealand, and my
Pentax SLR is in storage in Minneapolis.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/ WEB LOG
http://public.fotki.com/togeika/ Photos!
| |
|
