Kodak Picture CD TEST

[PhilL]

I'm posting this here because I know a lot of you makers need a way to photograph and show your work, and buying a digital camera may not be an option at this point.

I don’t own a digital camera, but I do know I will eventually buy one. I was a professional photographer for many years, although I have been out of the business for a long time. I know how I am with equipment I will probably have to go with the best available and that usually means expensive. I’ve been trying to find a way to use the equipment I have for the time being. I have cameras from 35mm to 120 to 8” by 10” and I wanted to be able to use these for my pics that I put on the Net.

I decided to try Kodak’s Picture CD using my 35mm camera. For this test I decided to keep things very simple since it was a test of the quality of images produced. I used the 200 ASA print film that they suggested. I shot these outside on a sunny afternoon, the knives were just on the ground (white card or my leather backpack as a background). I shot a 20 exposure roll of film, I bracketed in 1/2 stops on either side of the meter reading and all 20 exposures were good. In fact I was very pleased by the results, color balance was right on, the latitude of the film was good, and there are several options on the CD program for the detail or resolution on the images. I saved the pics with the highest resolution to Adobe PhotoDeluxe, and there was really no correction needed, aside from some cropping. I reduced the image to 72 dpi for sending the file to PhotoPoint. I am not done playing with all of the possibilities, but I wanted to post my findings.

I ran into one problem with the processing, the place where I went made prints as well as the CD, and charged me for it. I told them when I brought it in that I just wanted the CD. When I went to pick up the CD they told me you have to get prints also. I don’t know if this is true or not, but if it is it’s the dumbest thing I ever heard of, I don’t really need both. If I had wanted prints I could have just scanned them to put my pics on the Net. If I have to get prints to get the CD then this isn’t a cost effective way of getting pics done, and I’ll go to Plan B, which is to shoot transparency film and find an effective way to scan them on my flatbed scanner.

Here’s two frames from the roll I shot.

What do you think?




------------------
"Will work 4 Knives!"
My PhotoPoint Site

 

[John Hollister]

Great Idea!

John

 

[PhilL]

Here's one more, again nothing fancy. Just natural outdoor lighting, no reflectors, or tripod. I did try to pick an angle that would show the shape of the knife and highlight the blade without any hot spots. I would think anyone with access to a 35mm camera could get similar results. I would like to suggest that you come in as close as possible to your subject to fill the frame which will save you from doing a lot of cropping later. The other thing that will save you money on film and processing is to LOOK very carefully before you snap the picture. One of the biggest problems I see with pictures posted (aside from bad lighting) is they're out of focus. My suggestion would be use the highest f/sop on your camera it gives you the greatest Depth of Field. If you find this gives you a shutter speed of less than 1/125 of a second, get yourself a tripod, and the longer the focal length of the lens used the more likelyhood of you getting camera movement. BTW, all these shots were handheld with a zoom lens focal length between 170-200, apeture of f/16-f/22, and a shutter speed of 1/250, using 200 ASA film speed.

I know how much you makers like technical stuff and #'s

[This message has been edited by PhilL (edited 09-15-2000).]

 

[mikeS]

Those look pretty good, thanks for the info.

------------------
Sola Fide

 

[richard rosvall]

Thanks for the ideas and info.

 

[PhilL]

There seems to be a little debate on this subject over on Bernard Levines Forum,
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000744.html

as to what is the best way to show your work.
Bernard says to use a scanner and digital cameras are a waste of money. Rich thinks a digital camera is the way to go and shows some o his work. He doesn't care for shooting film and says a digi will save you money, no film to buy.

Folks, all three ways are good, and each has it's pluses and its minuses. Most of the pics on my PhotoPoint site are done with a scanner, the drawback as I see it is a lack of perspective and I find it really hard to get a good scan of a mirror polished blade, and you are limited to the size of knife that will fit on the scanner screen.

I don't think digital cameras can match the quality of film, but for the resolution on the Net, they are just fine. My biggest problem is that I already have film cameras and digital cameras are still expensive if you want more than just a point and shoot digi.

The conclusion I have come to for myself is that rather than buy a digital camera right now is to wait. What I will probably do is to upgrade my scanner and get one that offers an optional transparency scanner. I will probably do some more Kodak Photo CD's for now, but it really isn't cost effective if you have a lot of stuff to shoot.

I am glad that some of you found this thread useful, all I was hoping to do is offer some options. I love looking at knives, and I'd rather see a good pic of a knife that you have worked hard on than a bad pic.

------------------
"Will work 4 Knives!"
My PhotoPoint Site