gemfeller
Cave Dweller 
Member since June 2011
Posts: 4,062 
|
Post by gemfeller on Feb 3, 2014 11:54:17 GMT -5
The technology has finally gotten inexpensive and $100 cameras are often well more capable than the photographer...Computerized adjustments and manipulation for color, white balance etc makes it a new game. My thoughts exactly James. When I'm capable of effectively using all the truly amazing capabilities of my "old" camera's technology, I'll move on to the current generation's bells and whistles. For someone whose main camera use is posting images to the internet, there's no need to spend big dollars on the latest and greatest (and very expensive) cameras. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 12:04:09 GMT -5
Tripod is very important all right. I have a nice Canon I use for nature photography but you know, for rocks, I like my ancient Nikon Coolpix best of all. Easy to use, good zoom and shows reasonable detail for posting to web. Got to build me a light tent someday though.....Mel Which model Coolpix Mel? I wouldn't be without my old 4500. An incredibly fine lens, great macro capability, easy custom white balance and among its other fine features, the swivel design that allows use of a simple tabletop tripod and provides great flexibility for getting the right angle on still shots, especially on cabs and faceted gems. If that or a similar model is your choice, I recommend a light tent big enough to put your whole camera into. You have to really get "up close" to maximize the macro function. My only complaint is it's getting hard to find CompactFlash cards compatible with it. I learned (at considerable expense) that it won't work with some of the new, faster cards with greater memory. I've standardized on the old Dane Electric 2GB cards. Some really good deals on this model show up now and then on EBay. I just saw a used 4500 for $30 at a pawn shop. Maybe I shoulda bought it. My 3200 is getting crunchy and a cleaning will cost more than $30! |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 3, 2014 13:03:44 GMT -5
Used ones are so cheap Scott.
|
|
miander
spending too much on rocks
Searching for the shop of my dreams...
Member since November 2013
Posts: 407 
|
Post by miander on Feb 3, 2014 23:44:30 GMT -5
You guys rock, I feel so lucky to have all this knowledge at the tips of my fingers; thank you so much for helping a camera idiot like myself avoid costly mistakes! I especially appreciated the photo comparison and info links - thanks again!
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,503
|
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 4, 2014 9:24:49 GMT -5
Something else to keep in mind is, the fancy cameras like My canon take pics that are way to big for posting to a forum like this one so each has to be resized. That's an extra annoying step. My Coolpix takes pics just the right size to go straight into a post....Mel
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 4, 2014 17:55:58 GMT -5
Something else to keep in mind is, the fancy cameras like My canon take pics that are way to big for posting to a forum like this one so each has to be resized. That's an extra annoying step. My Coolpix takes pics just the right size to go straight into a post....Mel Mel, about all digitals have a setting for photo file size. One of mine says 20M 10M 5M 20M=13" x 19" 10M=11" x 17" 5M = 8" x 10" roughly That's what this new camera says anyway. Because i crop a lot i use 10M. And even cropped 10M is big. If not cropping the 5M is plenty for computer screen. There are other sizes for telephones and other apps i don't understand. It is a new but cheap camera but spells out these settings. The new cameras have written descrips in the camera tell you what the heck is going on. This little Sony DSC-H200 was $150 and worth all the instructions/education it gives you. I think 7.5M is about 5200 X 3900 which is pretty big. That varies with photo characteristics. My old Nikon has 'file size' settings on it. Numerical, i use about 3000 X 2000 and get great results for screen size pics. |
|
MrCoffee
has rocks in the head
Member since December 2005
Posts: 634
|
Post by MrCoffee on Feb 7, 2014 5:31:59 GMT -5
I'm liking George's link. I compared the image with several brands of cameras, and the iPhone 4S and learned that the iPhone's camera is more hype, than utility. I couldn't even read the print on the salt jar on the 4S, but could easily read it even with the Sony HX200. The Nikon D3100 has better detail, in my opinion, than the Sony HX100. The text is more readable with the Nikon. The Nikon has interchangeable lenses, and was priced at Best Buy for $100.00 less than the Sony, last time I checked!
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,503
|
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 7, 2014 9:37:02 GMT -5
James, I keep telling myself that one of these days I'll read the instruction book for one of my cameras, just like I keep telling myself, someday I'll take a class on how to use this damn computer. *L*. Never do and probably never will. I'm not a technology type guy. Just pick them up and use them in the simplest possible way I can figure out......Mel
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 7, 2014 14:05:20 GMT -5
James, I keep telling myself that one of these days I'll read the instruction book for one of my cameras, just like I keep telling myself, someday I'll take a class on how to use this damn computer. *L*. Never do and probably never will. I'm not a technology type guy. Just pick them up and use them in the simplest possible way I can figure out......Mel Dito dito Mel. If it wasn't for the cheap new camera w/all the explanations dumb a's like me i would be much less educated. Got the books-just need to study....The camera gave an excellent short hand explanation right on each category of adjustments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 18:51:56 GMT -5
Something else to keep in mind is, the fancy cameras like My canon take pics that are way to big for posting to a forum like this one so each has to be resized. That's an extra annoying step. My Coolpix takes pics just the right size to go straight into a post....Mel That's cuz you guys always use a failed photo host. At jamesp's recommendation I started with flickr. I upload the giant image and let them deal with the size. Then I choose the size I wanna embed in my posts. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 7, 2014 19:05:21 GMT -5
Something else to keep in mind is, the fancy cameras like My canon take pics that are way to big for posting to a forum like this one so each has to be resized. That's an extra annoying step. My Coolpix takes pics just the right size to go straight into a post....Mel That's cuz you guys always use a failed photo host. At jamesp's recommendation I started with flickr. I upload the giant image and let them deal with the size. Then I choose the size I wanna embed in my posts. Flicker is highly rated. I picked it based on Mat Dillon's recommendations. (dardilrocks on flicker). Yep. You can stick it to flicker w/big images and then pick from what, 10 different sizes. Flicker way opened my interest in photography. I used to pay to be pro member. Now they raised the free use storage so large i cannot put a dent in it. I thing it is a Terabyte per year. What ever that is. Sounds big. |
|
MrCoffee
has rocks in the head
Member since December 2005
Posts: 634
|
Post by MrCoffee on Feb 7, 2014 21:08:38 GMT -5
I use the "Save for Web" feature on Photoshop Elements to re-size my images before I upload them. The Paint program on Windows will work just as well. Usually, 1200 pixels on the long side will work fine for messages.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobby1 on Feb 7, 2014 22:14:11 GMT -5
I use a Canon Rebel XT EOS, 18mm-55mm, hand held at about 10", two photo flood lights, highest resolution, crop to bring cab up close, Windows Live photo program, focus and exposure in automatic, post here with Photobucket. Here is an example of a cab that I photographed. Bob  |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Feb 7, 2014 22:29:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 0:44:00 GMT -5
bobby1 what is that lipstick agate really called? It is super nice!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat on Feb 8, 2014 15:49:24 GMT -5
I recently bought a Canon PowerShot SX280 HS. It's terrific. I started out taking jewelry photos with a light box (and old camera), but have since happily switched to a softbox from Adorama.com www.adorama.com/LTBSB2436.html I'm glad I changed. Much more room to arrange jewelry pieces and stone carvings for jewelry. The softbox (has a light in it) came with two other lights and all bulbs. Total cost was under $100. I'm considering getting a SoLux bulb as mentioned in the article by John Betts posted by gemfellertabletopstudio.com/ has a lot of good hints. Some of my camera settings that I check for every shot are White Balance, Macro on, flash off, timer on. I always use a small table top tripod, the softbox and assorted daylight bulb lamps. I also use a stiff filter the same size as the softbox. This does a good job. To get a white or whiter background, I drag the photos from iPhoto (I have a Mini Mac) to Photoshop Elements ( an abbreviated version of Photoshop --- about $80), and use the Levels function. All other light sources are turned off. Objects are either flat on the table, or propped up at an angle by dental wax. Currently working on a Guatemalan blue jadeite pendant. It is a wee bit translucent on thin edges, and has small white spots So far, it still looks black, not dark blue. Glad you posed the question. I've learned a bit. If you are interested, I can post photos of the setup in a separate thread. Hope this helps. |
|
miander
spending too much on rocks
Searching for the shop of my dreams...
Member since November 2013
Posts: 407
|
Post by miander on Feb 9, 2014 4:37:28 GMT -5
Pat - I know I would like to see some photos of your set up and I'm pretty sure there are others that would too! Thanks for all the great info folks and that cab looks good enough to eat!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat on Feb 10, 2014 18:36:13 GMT -5
|
|
