What cameras are you guys using for professional pic outcomes?

FoxholeAtheist said:
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! :)


Actually National Geographic uses more. About 300-400 ROLLS of film for a short assignment. That's like 14400 frames.

I've heard before that the hit rate for a picture that appears in a magazine is 1 in 6000 frames. Now i'm not surprised.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/#e

Back to the topic...a lot of good advice here. Especially on the use of a tripod. This is so important for macro shots. Lighting is actually not difficult if you've got a window and a piece of white card as a reflector.

I've been using a Canon G6 and rarely make much use of its 7mp capability. I don't need pictures that big but it is nice to have when i need to crop pictures.

The best advice i can give is practice practice and practice. Just make note of what settings you use for each photo so you can see where you went wrong.
 
tonyccw said:
It's doable. My shot of the A2 had the lens within 1/4". Light source? Another Surefire. :D

I did not say it was impossible. I said it was difficult.

I tried Surefires as a spot light source, but gave them up because the light color isn't very good.
 
Gollnick said:
I tried Surefires as a spot light source, but gave them up because the light color isn't very good.
Try the white LED's. Very easy to compensate with WB adjustment.
 
You can filter out color casts from artifical light sources using various filters. Some digital cameras let you adjust this 'in camera' so you don't need to get a load of filters.

Eg. blue filters compensate for tungsten lighting so you can light your subject with some low cost tungsten lights and the filter will make it look like daylight

Most poeple dont realise but tungsten is much more orange/ yellow than daylight and flourescent is much more green

My camera gear

Canon EOS 5
Canon EOS 300n
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 EX Macro
Canon Speedlite 530ex flashgun

lower quality lenses
Canon 70-300mm USM
Canon 28-80 USM

I'm hoping to add the following soon
Sigma 70-300mm f2.8 EX
Canon EOS 20D digital body 8MP
 
bladefixation2 said:
My camera gear

Canon EOS 5
Canon EOS 300n
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 EX Macro
Canon Speedlite 530ex flashgun

lower quality lenses
Canon 70-300mm USM
Canon 28-80 USM

I'm hoping to add the following soon
Sigma 70-300mm f2.8 EX
Canon EOS 20D digital body 8MP

Quite a bit of kit you got there. I've been looking for a better lens to upgrade my Canon 28-135mm IS so was wondering how the Sigma 17-70mm performs? I originally saved money to buy the Canon 24-70 L lens but got sidetracked and bought an Omega Seamaster instead. Hehehe..

I still have my Canon 100mm f2.8 but i have never used it as i rarely take macro. How does the Sigma macro perform?
 
In physics (and photography is a practice of physics) one of the general rules is: there's no such thing as a free lunch. It's that squeezing of the balloon that I talked about in a previous thread. In general, what you do to fix one problem creates another.




bladefixation2 said:
You can filter out color casts from artificial
light sources using various filters.

Yes. But, these filters reduce the brightness of the light and you end up needing more light.




Some digital cameras let you adjust this 'in camera' so you don't need to get a load of filters.


This is the white balance control that I listed as a must-have for cameras intended for knife photography.

But, these controls aren't magic. The old Law of Free Lunches applies to them too. If you try to push them to far, they also eat into the color depth of the picture. And, they're only able to compensate so for and then they reach their limit.

Cheap cameras and cameras with longer battery life tend to reach those limits sooner.

Why? Because inside of your camera, the
analog voltages that represent the color levels (classically there are three, red, green, and blue but some better cameras now have five or more) go from the CCD to an A/D converter that measures them. But, for several reasons, they pass through a amplifiers along the way (cheaper cameras and cameras with long battery life have only one amplifier and share it between all color channels, but this slows down the process of saving a picture). An amplifier is an electrical circuit that implements the mathematical equation OUTPUT = Gain * INPUT + Offset. When you press the white balance button, the computer inside the camera adjusts the Gains and Offsets (one for each color channel) to get all color channels to read the same value which means white. The problem is that you can only move the gain and offset so far. How far? Well that depends on how high the voltage is in the overall system. The higher the rail voltages, the more range you'll have in gain and offset. But getting higher rail voltages costs more and drains the battery.

The other thing to know is that increasing gain increases the noise in an amplifier. So, if I ask the camera to balance a light source that's very, say, red-deficient, then the gain on the red channel gets turned way up. First, there may not be enough gain range to fully compensate for the deficiency. And, second, the more you turn the gain up, the more noise in that channel has. Noise appears in images several ways. One place it is especially noticeable is on the edges of objects. This can affect the apparent focus of your picture causing a picture that is optically in perfect focus to appear less than perfectly focused. And because it's noise, you can't compensate by defocusing optically.

Moving the offset of the amplifier around eats into the amplifier's dynamic range. This translates into reduced color depth.

This also gets us into setting the ASA on your digital camera. A high ASA setting makes the camera more light-sensitive meaning faster exposures and allowing you to use less light. This is accomplished by raising the gain on those amplifiers. Cheap cameras (and those with long battery life) don't have enough gain range to both compensate for a poor light source and implement a high ASA.

In general, set your camera to the lowest ASA and use bright, good quality light so that the compensations introduced in the gains and offsets are as little as possible.

At the same time, you want to use the fastest possible shutter speed in your camera. Slow speeds allow more time for light to leak between cells on the CCD which means that adjacent pixels are affecting each other. Very bad. Increasing the shutter speed means lowering the aperture. And lower aperture means reduced depth-of-focus. So, again, we see the need for very bright lights. Very bright lights allow fast shutters with high apertures.

And let me just add one more time that even the best editting software can not make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow's ear. Editting software can fix one problem, but it always introduces other problems.

The best thing to do is use the best possible light, take the picture right, and edit it as little as possible.
 
Point44 said:
Quite a bit of kit you got there. I've been looking for a better lens to upgrade my Canon 28-135mm IS so was wondering how the Sigma 17-70mm performs? I originally saved money to buy the Canon 24-70 L lens but got sidetracked and bought an Omega Seamaster instead. Hehehe..

I still have my Canon 100mm f2.8 but i have never used it as i rarely take macro. How does the Sigma macro perform?

The Sigma 17-70 EX image quality is very good and the f2.8 through the range makes it nice to use with a really bright viewfinder and good in low light. The front element doesnt rotate so you get a good petal leaf hood with it too.

Features that might make it not ideal for everyone are; the f2.8 means it is a lot bigger and heavier than 'normal' f3.8 - f5.6 equivalent focal length lenses, I had to buy a new camera case it wouldnt fit in the old one! Also it takes 82mm filters which are pretty expensive!

The only real downside for me is the lack of an ultrasonic focus motor. The focusing is quite good and fast for a standard non USM motor and the f2.8 means the AF mechanism in the camera has plenty of light to work with, but its just not as fast, responsive and quiet as a USM motor. Because of the relatively short focal length this is accesptable however, especially if you look at the nearest option which is the Canon L series you mention which costs about 3 or 4 times more!

The Sigma 105mm macro is a great lens, I've never used the canon equivalent but I've read several reviews that say the sigma is virtually as good but a lot cheaper.
 
Gollnick said:
This also gets us into setting the ASA on your digital camera. A high ASA setting makes the camera more light-sensitive meaning faster exposures and allowing you to use less light. This is accomplished by raising the gain on those amplifiers. Cheap cameras (and those with long battery life) don't have enough gain range to both compensate for a poor light source and implement a high ASA.

In general, set your camera to the lowest ASA and use bright, good quality light so that the compensations introduced in the gains and offsets are as little as possible.

You're completely correct about higher ASA speeds creating more noise and reducing the picture quality. Its similar with film photography, faster films have larger grains and give lower picture quality. Typically 50 or 100 ASA films would be used for still life photography like knife photography

Gollnick said:
At the same time, you want to use the fastest possible shutter speed in your camera. Slow speeds allow more time for light to leak between cells on the CCD which means that adjacent pixels are affecting each other. Very bad. Increasing the shutter speed means lowering the aperture. And lower aperture means reduced depth-of-focus. So, again, we see the need for very bright lights. Very bright lights allow fast shutters with high apertures.

The best thing to do is use the best possible light, take the picture right, and edit it as little as possible.

While I'm not in a position to comment on the physics side of things, from a photography side of things this isnt necessarily the best approach, eg setting an f2.8 aperture would give such a small depth of field that depending on the angle youre shooting from, some of the subject may be out of focus. In addition to this the sharpest image from the lens is often around the f8 area and the lenses often dont give the very sharpest results at very large or very small aperture settings.

You can work out the depth of field and higher spec cameras often have a depth of field preview which shuts the aperture down to the setting it will use to give you an idea of the depth of field you would expect to have.
 
ERdept said:
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

Cliff, the camera is relatively immaterial. It needs to be able to focus closesly, handle manual exposure control and be able to fire a remote flashgun. The one on the camera is useless for product photos. It is all in the technique. Here's an image I made:

nykstockman.jpg


And here is the equipment I used to light it.

lighttent.jpg


The translucent plastic thing acts as a light tent to make the light source much larger relative to the subject than it would be directly from the flash heads. That softens the light something like an overcast day softens sunlight. The two flash heads you see in the image are used to light the light tent.

The camera, since you were interested is a Fuji S1 digital SLR and I used a 60mm Micro Nikkor lens to make the exposure. You might want to go to the library and get some reading material on studio photography. That will probably get you headed in the right direction. Good luck with the photos.
 
Damn, there is a lot of information in this thread. I confess to knowing about 20% of the technical stuff. And only about 5% of what Chuck teaches. Glad someone posted the tutorial links in a post before. That's where to begin.

What I DO support is Chuck's (Gollnick's) sound advice on lighting. More is better. That makes or breaks an image. Like Knife Outlet, I use strobes for my professional work. Usually two, but I have four. It's amazing how much light you need to get clarity like the above photo of the slipjoint. (Great photo, BTW!)

Even my strobes are not daylight balanced. I use a Canon EOS-20D and set my white balance to a Kelvin scale. 4300 works just about right. It is closer to true than my trials with custom white balance with white photo paper. But that's irrellevant....

Unless you need to print out images (and that is not so imperative these days, as computers are our media storage), then as Ari showed us, a 3.1mp camera with a good lens and macro will work like crazy. How can you dispute the clarity of his setup on the cheap? (Cheap tip: I suggest the Sony DSC-S7* with a Zeiss lens for about $150 on eBay. Crazy images!)

Even though I have a clue on photography, I swear I take more images than you can imagine. Probably I average 20 images for each one saved. Insets as well. Really.

I move my strobes 2" one way or another and it is incredible the difference it makes. I do so depending on what I am trying to display. Textured handle? Lower shows the shadows and shapes very nicely. Engraving? Keep the light high and over the subject. Hollow ground? Overhead kills the bevel. Play with it until it is just right. Most of my lighting is from two different heights to get good overall lighting and then display some side lighting for shape distinctions.

There is still no single method to show everything great. That's what keeps me interested in this. :D Look for a professional video next year.....

Coop
 
Back
Top