What cameras are you guys using for professional pic outcomes?

ERdept

ERdept

Banned
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
757
I use the Nikon CoolPix 4300 especially for the Macro feature since I was selling a lot of things on Ebay. I liked the close up ability but can't seem to take pictures that look like professional photos. What I mean is a lot of detail and clarity with good lighting. A lot photos posted here look great. Was wondering how you guys did it, what lighting and equipment.

Cliff
 
I would like to help, but don't know much about cameras. However you may have better luck in the "Gadgets & Gear" forum or one of the custom gallerys forums.
Good luck.
-KC
 
The trick is to get a camera with Macro capability and decent amount of pixels [4 MP or better].Lighting should never be direct .Use indirect or diffused lighting. Look around for tutorials on the forum....Yes 4 MP does sound more reasonable than 400 MP !!
 
mete said:
The trick is to get a camera with Macro capability and decent amount of pixels [400 MP or better].Lighting should never be direct .Use indirect or diffused lighting. Look around for tutorials on the forum.
Click to expand...

Do you mean 4 MP? 400 MP would be equal to a 4 Giga Pixel camera(something that doesnt exist yet.) Anyways, like Mete said, the most important thing with any photograph is light. The camera you use really isnt quite as important as lighting, but i will say that most point-and-shoot digital cameras arent going to be very helpful. I currently have 3 digital camera (Cannon Rebel, Sony DSC P150, and Sony DSC F717,) and they all perform well at different tasks. I would suggest trying different ways of lighting before investing in more equipment though, or you might end up with the same results.
 
The experts all say it's more skill than having nice equipment. One thing you might want to do is get a tripod and/or use the delayed shutter release (if your camera has one) to eliminate any shaking caused by your hand. Other than that, I find my camera takes grainy pictures if there isn't enough light. It has more than enough manual controls for me, despite being a point and shoot.
 
AcesAndEights said:
Do you mean 4 MP? 400 MP would be equal to a 4 Giga Pixel camera(something that doesn't exist yet.)
Click to expand...

I was going to say "holy crap"! That thing could probably take pictures with such clarity that the human eye would have problems perceiving it.
 
Laceration said:
I was going to say "holy crap"! That thing could probably take pictures with such clarity that the human eye would have problems perceiving it.
Click to expand...

Nah. More megapixels only means bigger photos.
 
I've done a cursory search and couldn't find them, but there are a few threads around on knife photography that looked really handy. Now that my brain is 5% more awake, I realize I should have searched for "light box" or something like that. That's really the key... good lighting.
 
Lighting really is the key.

I have a Nikon 4800, which I bought, like you, because of the macro capability. I originally bought a Kodak somethingorother that had a great 10X zoom, but it's minimum focus distance was 12". 12" isn't what I call macro. :rolleyes: The Nikon however can focus as close as .5" away. Yes, half an inch. A picture of a penny is bigger than my monitor.

My problem though is lighting. I can take a decent picture, but it's 5 minutes to set up a shot, 1 minute to take pictures, and an hour to putz around in Photoshop adjusting levels, colors, and contrast to get it anywhere remotely looking like it should. That's because my lighting sucks. It's just regular lightbulbs in my ceiling fan. Once I get around to setting up a lightbox with proper bulbs, defusers, and such, things'll look much better.
 
I'm working on getting a new camera so I can post some really good photos and that can take better macro shots, but I'll have to figure out better lighting, which seems the key.

Thanks boys,

cliff
 
Ryan8 said:
Nah. More megapixels only means bigger photos.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that depend on the size of the pixel?

I use a Canon 1Ds Mark II with a MP-E65 for best macro results. Here's a shot of the A2 logo on my Surefire Aviator.
 
I am a firm believer in the idea that the camera doesn't matter all that much. As others said, lighting is the key, along with having the poatience and persistance to stick with a knife until you take that one or 2 good shots you are happy with. For every pic I end up keeping, I probably delete 20.

I have been using a $150 SOny Cybershot 3 MP, it's a very small camera, not professional oriented by any stretch, it's made really for the wife to throw in her purse for vacations. But, even that camera is capable of a pretty crisp, detailed shot, if the light is good.

There are 2 basic ways to get good light. One is to shoot outdoors and use daylight. This can be problematic at times because, well, you are always at the mercy of the weather, it can start raining, or, the sun can come out very strong and too much sunlight screws things up, on the other hand, a sky that is very blue can also screw it up and give your blades a blue color. It is for these reasons I found a light tent on Ebay for $49, on Coop's advice, I went to Home Depot and bought 3 cheap $5 aluminum clamp on lights, and bought 3 19W Compact Flourescent bulbs, BUT, they must be the daylight balanced ones which have a Kelvin temperature rating of between 5 and 6,000. ANything under 5K, you'll get a warm, yellowish tint. The last thing to get is a copy of Photoshop Elements, you can find V2 now for like $10-$15.

So, for a "studio" that cost me only a bit over $200 including the camera, I am able to get a decent, clear picture, again, it's more about how willing you are to keep on shooting the same subject until you get it right, than the quality of the equipment.

Here are a few quick examples of pics I took with the above setup.

DSC09267v2.jpg


dsc09298.jpg


DSC06535%20copybestctrd.jpg


DSC06682%20copy.jpg


DSC07998%20copy.jpg


DSC07179%20copy.jpg


DSC07225%20copy.jpg


DSC00646%20copytext.jpg


dsc07628.jpg


DSC06563best%20copy.jpg
 
For ultimate detail, good lighting, clear focus, and a tripod with cable release would help produce a sharp detailed image. Here's one example:
49418551-046e-02000180-.jpg
 
Planterz,Megalobyte has the right idea. Stay away from Photoshop except in rare cases. Do everything you can to take the photo right the first time .It's not expensive .Two or three lights ,reflectors, diffusers and set up to be easily rearranged .Photo shop like any darkroom technique cannot make a better photo, it can only make a poor photo less objectional !!! .......I know you guys didn't like my 400 MP idea but with that I should be able to see individual atoms !!
 
I forgot to mention the one secret of photography that was alluded to earlier... take LOTS of pictures. What most people don't know about real photography is that for every really nice picture you see in National Geographic or on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, the photog probably took at least 2-3 rolls of film. The best thing is that with digital cams, it doesn't cost you $.25 per frame! :)
 
While it's all very nice to find a macro lense that can focus to within a quarter-inch of the subject, try getting any light in there.

I always hear people asking, "What camera did you use to take that picture?" The question I often ask is, "What lights did you use to take that picture?"

Once you have a camera with the basic features, the lighting becomes much more important.

For knife photography, a camera needs:

Macro focus, though much closer than about three inches is difficult to actually use.

Manual exposure control.

Point metering.

White balance control.

Either a remote shutter release or a self-timer.

A tri-pod mount.

Megapixels really aren't that important for web-work. An 800x600 picture (a pretty big picture for web work) is only 430Kpixels... Kpixels, not Mpixels. Even a 1600x1200 picture, the largest PC monitors in common use today, is less than 2Mpixels.

My advice: worry less (and spend less) on your camera, and worry more (and spend more) on your lights.
 
FoxholeAtheist said:
What most people don't know about real photography is that for every really nice picture you see in National Geographic or on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, the photog probably took at least 2-3 rolls of film. The best thing is that with digital cams, it doesn't cost you $.25 per frame! :)
Click to expand...


I read a wonderful National Geographic article years ago about a river valley in Africa. The pictures were classic Geographic. They had a little sidebar that was sort of "The making of this article." I can't remember how many HUNDRED rolls of medium-format film they took... hundreds of rolls. And then there were hundreds of 8x10 large-format plates, hundreds. I can't remember how many thousands of pounds of photographic equipment and supplies they said they'd hauled, but it was thousands of pounds.

For a typical eight or ten picture exhibit on my website, I take about fifty pictures (not counting simple bracketing).

Speaking of bracketing, there's another secret. Meter the scene and figure out what you think the exposure should be and then take three pictures, one where you think the exposure should be, one a stop faster, and one a stop slower. This prevents having to try and "save" the picture in Photoshop by dickering around with the brightness and contrast. Photo editting is like squeezing a balloon. Everything that improves one aspect of the picture hurts another. Every time you touch the brightness and/or contrast controls, you're eating into color depth and, with that, focus sharpness, and you can't put that back by then playing with the color balance or using a "sharpening" (aka noise adding) filter either. There is an old oriental proverb, "If pure water flows from upstream, there is no need to filter it downstream." Just take the picture right in the first place. The best way to assure that you get it right in the first place is to bracket.

For macro work, I bracket my focus as well as my exposure which very often means taking a single picture 15 times. Hopefully, one of them will be perfect.
 
Gollnick said:
While it's all very nice to find a macro lense that can focus to within a quarter-inch of the subject, try getting any light in there.
Click to expand...
It's doable. My shot of the A2 had the lens within 1/4". Light source? Another Surefire. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top