ot digital camera recommendations ($100 or so)

[M. John Matlaw]

I'm hoping a digital camera in the $100 range will be good enough to
allow me to take some pictures of about 50 framed pieces of art work
that I need to have appraised. Image sizes of the art are from 3 3/4"w
x 4 1/2"h to to 20"w x 27"h. Unfortunately, my cell phone camera will
not provide the quality that the Chrystie's guy is looking for in his
initial assessment. The appraiser is looking for a good enough image
that he can assess the quality of the art. I may end up paying a
photographer, but I thought I might give it a try myself first. I don't
know much about cameras so I did a little reading.

http://www.squidoo.com/affordable-digital-cameras
Rule #2: Megapixels mean less than sensor size
but the sensor size numbers don't seem to be available (or at least not
readily available).

http://cameras.about.com/od/digitalcameraglossary/g/resolution.htm
(about resolution numbers)
Effective pixels, or effective resolution, is the more useful number
(rather than overall) but I'm guessing the one megapixel number I'm
seeing is the overall resolution number

The art work is almost all black and white. Prints, lithos, etchings
and possible other media. If you're familiar with Al Hirschfeld (the
theater artist) there are a couple of those and they're probable the
finest of the lot in terms of the detail of the lines.

A problem I had with the cell cam was reflection off the glass. I'm
reluctant to take the pictures out of the glass - the one time I tried
(I noticed a dead moth in the frame) it seemed to stick and I didn't
want to risk damage.

If I end up paying a photographer, what do you think a reasonable rate
would be (NYC)?

John

[Bill C]

If you can afford $200, the Nikon S8100 is a great camera. 12.1 megapixels, 1080p video with 10x optical zoom. It would be far cheaper than hiring a professional photographer.

[M. John Matlaw]

On 11/27/11 3:36 PM, Bill C wrote:
> If you can afford $200, the Nikon S8100 is a great camera. 12.1 megapixels, 1080p video with 10x optical zoom. It would be far cheaper than hiring a professional photographer.
>

Thanks, I'll look into it. Don't have an idea of what a good amateur or
pro would charge but I'm assuming it would be about a two hour job.
Couple of hundred dollars for the work wouldn't surprise me. I'm just a
little worried that even with the best of cameras I might not have the
photog skills. Probably worth a try, however, and at least I'd end up
with something better than the cell phone camera

[philo]

A camera like that should be fine.

Assuming the art is behind glass, the problem you will have will be with
glare. Definitely do not use flash. The art work will need diffused
light such as you might find out doors on a fairly bright but cloudy
day...or any place not in the direct sun

[M. John Matlaw]

Thanks for the advice. I thought that might be the way to go. I think
I might have had the overhead lights on when I shot last time. I'm also
thinking the smaller art won't be as big a problem.

[Your Name]

> with something better than the cell phone camera.

About 5 megapixels is more than adequate for most people's photo needs -
few people need or want to print A0-sized posters of their snaps.

Since you using the photos to send to an appraiser, I wouldn't waste money
buying an expensive new camera. Just use whatever reasonable camera you've
already got (as long as it's 5 megapixels or more) and take close-ups of
any interesting / problem areas. They can always ask for more photos of
other areas if they need them.

[M. John Matlaw]

Actually, I don't own a camera and was thinking it might be nice to have
one. I was hoping $100 would do the job but $200 wouldn't break the
budget. Thanks for the suggestions though.

[Bill C]

Another option might be to get an iPhone 4S. The only thing lacking is an optical zoom, but I heard there is at least one company that will soon offer that as part of a case for the phone.

[Suze]

In article <jau5i2$j48$1...@dont-email.me>,

I have an old Canon Powershot A410 that takes great pix. You can see
some of it's pix on Amazon's listing, the frog pix are mine. I saw a new
one on Ebay for under $140. It uses standard AA batteries and takes an
SD card. I've thought about getting a new one, but then I think, why?
This one works fine.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Powershot-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B000AYGDW
U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322515458&sr=8-1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-NEW-Canon-PowerShot-A410-digital-camera-3-2
MP-NIB-/180755449504?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item2a15dd46a0#ht_1949wt_133
4
--
Live every day like it's your last--someday you'll be right.

[Your Name]

In article
<2393052.236.1322514675234.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqoo7>,

There is already an add-on zoom lens for the iPhone, although I'm not sure
if it works with the iPhone 4S (I can't think of any reason it shouldn't)
and I can't recall where I saw it being adversited. :-(

Of course, buying an iPhone is an expensive option if you only want a
camera. There are MUCH cheaper point-n-click cameras around.

[Bill C]

The iPhone 4S costs about the same as what I paid for my Nikon S8100 (about $200). Reviewers say it takes great photos.

[M. John Matlaw]

[M. John Matlaw]

On 11/28/11 4:28 PM, Suze wrote:

I'm afraid I'm getting a bit confused. I checked out the links and it
sounds like a nice camera but it's listed as 3.2 mp. Your Name
(previous post in thread) says "Just use whatever reasonable camera
you've already got (as long as it's 5 megapixels or more) and a relative
passed this along from a friend who's pro photographer and done photos
of art suggests passed this along:
"He'll need a camera that will produce a high resolution image (10
megapixel or greater). He'll need a camera that will allow him to make
the image darker or lighter."
And worst of all, I didn't see any frog pix. Bummer. Where's Kermit
when you need him. But thanks for the suggestion.

[M. John Matlaw]

On 11/28/11 4:11 PM, Bill C wrote:
> Another option might be to get an iPhone 4S. The only thing lacking is an optical zoom, but I heard there is at least one company that will soon offer that as part of a case for the phone.
>

Actually I rarely use the prepaid cell I've got. Just got it for
potential emergencies having to do with caring for a sick relative. Now
that that crisis is over I'm thinking of doing without a cell phone
altogether. Thanks for the suggestions though. I've appreciated your
ideas and I don't mean to be rude or sound ungrateful but you really
don't have to cc to my e-mail address. Thanks again.

[M. John Matlaw]

Just thought I'd get your thoughts on the advice of a pro photographer
(who I think has done some art work photography) friend of a relative
who passed this along:

"He'll need a camera that will produce a high resolution image (10
megapixel or greater). He'll need a camera that will allow him to make
the image darker or lighter.

He'll need to place his camera on a tripod, and have a way to shoot the
art as close to a 90 degree angle as possible to ensure that the image
is square and not skewed (although this---and almost everything else,
can be fixed in Photoshop).

Lastly, to avoid glare and reflection, he'll need two light sources,
each placed at a 45 degree angle to the object."

My cousin also passed along his set-up illustration which I posted at
http://s1127.photobucket.com/albums/l622/mjohnlaw/

The guy actually offered to clean up the photos for me and said I should
send him an image with grey card in it to "calibrate neutrality". Not
sure if this is a necessary step for black and white which most of the
works are.

Will most cameras allow you to make an image darker or lighter?

Thanks.

Thanks

[Your Name]

In article
<15238372.656.1322553082771.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqny18>,

comp.sys.mac....@googlegroups.com wrote:

> The iPhone 4S costs about the same as what I paid for my Nikon S8100
> (about $200). Reviewers say it takes great photos.

Depending on the model, the iPhone 4S costs about $1000 as a "handset
only" price. If you buy it on a contract, then technically it costs you
even more ... but it's a mobile phone you're paying for, not a camera.

Plus, although I personally like the iPhone, there are mobile phones out
there with better cameras, and some are a bit cheaper.

If you need a new mobile phone AND a new camera, then an iPhone or similar
device might well be worth the cost, but if all you want is just a camera,
then buying an iPhone is simply ridiculously expensive way to do it.

[Your Name]

As Suze said, the A410 is an old camera. It's probably been replaced with
a newer model by now. I tend to prefer Canon's cameras too, although I
haven't used enough other models to be sure they are the best.

I still don't believe anybody needs a 10+ megapixel camera ... you're not
doing high quality photographic work for magazines and posters. Any image
can be lightened / darkened, although a camera with a better sensor (not
the number of megapixels) will capture more detail, but unless you're
planning to send off photos that are 5MB is size each or as A2 posters,
then it's largely a pointless waste of time since most of the extra detail
will get lost when you shrink the images to a sensible size for emailing
or when printed at a standard photo size.

Having said that, a quick flick through the junk mail last night shows
that it's (near?) impossible to buy a new camera with only 5 megapixels
these days anyway.

For example, according to the Dick Smith junk mail catalogue, the Canon
PowerShot A1200 is 12.1 megapixels, 4x optical zoom (never use digital
zoom!) costs $108 with a free 4GB memory card.

I don't see any point in spending many hundreds of dollars on a camera for
just taking a few photos to send off to an appraiser.

[Your Name]

In article <jb2uoc$nr$1...@dont-email.me>, mjoh...@att.net wrote:
>
> The guy actually offered to clean up the photos for me and said I should
> send him an image with grey card in it to "calibrate neutrality". Not
> sure if this is a necessary step for black and white which most of the
> works are.

Although the artwork may be black and white, the photos are in colour. A
"grey" card would give an idea of a midtone colour, but what does "grey"
mean - there's hundreds if not thousands of shades of grey.

A better idea might be to use a white sheet of paper, a black sheet of
paper, and a mid-grey.

Either way, it allows whoever does the clean-up of the photos to know what
tones the camera produces for those colours ... rarely does any cmaera
give a pure white or black.

> Will most cameras allow you to make an image darker or lighter?

Any image can be made lighter / darker and edited in various ways. Some
cameras do have such abilities built-in, but it's usually best to use a
computer and Photoshop or similar.

Of course, using such software you could "repair" a tear in the artwork in
order to get a higher appraisal. ;-)