what's your favorite Digital camera for orchid picture taking.
Mike McCann
Figured since I one of the things I want to do is take photos, I'd ask
the pros here, since many of you have such nice web sites, which camera
and camera feature you like.
Mike
Rod C. Venger
Mike,
We use an (older..as in 3+ years old) Kodak DC210+ Zoom. By today's newer
standards it's rather basic. LCD screen, flash, telephoto lens and a 32meg
capture card. The features are very good even if they are no longer top of
the line. It's one bad feature is that the flash is automatic. There's
times where I'd rather not have it flash and I have to cover the light with
one finger. Kind of a hassle. For the same money we paid for this camera,
to be honest, you could get a digital camcorder with freeze-frame
capability. Best Buy probably carries the largest line of cameras on
display. And Camcorders. You should probably go and take a look. If you pay
between 300.00 and 800.00, you're probably in the right ball park. Not too
basic, not too extravagent. -Rod-
Mike McCann wrote:
--
**************************************
Rod C. Venger - T4N0M0
Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Facial Reconstructions 2-5-99, 3-13-00
http://www.vengers.com/nobeard.jpg
**************************************
RayC
Man ... that is really a tough question to answer unless you tell us what all
you want to take pictures of. If you are looking at only taking fairly close
shots of orchids, then just about any of the cameras that have 640x480
capability will work. However, if you ever want to take a picture of anything
more than a few feet away, you are going to need something with a much higher
resolution.
Digital cameras are rated in the number of pixels they can capture in a frame.
The lowest resolution is about 307,200 pixels for the 640x480 cameras. Your best
buy right now are the ones that are rated at about 2.1 mega pixels(million). It
is overkill for web site close-ups, but will give you a much sharper resolution
shot to start with when you begin your digital editing.
The software that you manipulate the picture is where the real secret to doing
good web shots is hidden. The king of the picture manipulation software is
Photoshop. However, it is a bunch of bucks. When you buy your camera, it may
come with a stripped down version called Photo Deluxe which is just fine for
learning photo editing. There are lots of other photo editing packages out there
but I can't help you with any of them.
Basically, you can expect to spend a little more than $400 and a lot less than
$1000 for a good camera. Make sure that what you buy has a cable to attach to
your computer for immediate download so you can save all your shots on your home
hard drive.
Good hunting!
--
Ray Contreras
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Webmonkey for:
http://www.ossystems.com
http://members.aol.com/gaspast
http://www.rayzplace.com
Wendy
FD95 because of one of it's main features. The use of a 3 1/2" disk
slides in the side & it is ready to go. It also has anti shock feature
for those with unsteady hands.
A couple of url's for you:-
http://www.imaging-resource.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm
Cheers Wendy
"Mike McCann" <wsmts...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BA57916...@home.com...
: Trying to learn something about what to look for in digital cameras.
Mike mmccaws@netscape.net
Go to the mountains and shore. I also need pictures of the indoor
school related activities. Also, I will need to take pictures of club
(not orchids, a sports related like swim meets). So the camera should
be good for all occasions.
Thanks
Mike McCann
RayC <rayz...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BA593FE...@home.com>...
Reka
Kodak DC240 zoom and I am quite satisfied with the bang for the buck. It was in the
lower end of the price range and takes fairly good closeups and scenery. You probably
can't buy it any more, but I would think another Kodak DC would be good too. Most of
the pictures on my site (www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html) have been taken with it,
except for someof the pictures of friends and of the kids. The last landscape pics
are on the travel page, and all of the orchid pics except the pink Phal in the middle
were taken with it. I like the fact that it lets me use the preview screen to take
closeup photos, I don't like the fact that I can't get as close as I would like (like
with my macro on the SLR I have) to take real detailed closeups. But if I use the
best settings, I can still get quite a bit of detail.
Reka
"Mike mmc...@netscape.net" schrieb:
Gideon Singer
-> Trying to learn something about what to look for in digital cameras.
-> Figured since I one of the things I want to do is take photos, I'd ask
-> the pros here, since many of you have such nice web sites, which camera
-> and camera feature you like.
->
-> Mike
When I was looking for my first digital I had a very clear goal of
wanting it for orchid pictures only. So my requirements were different
than for those who want to use a digital for all round photography. I
opted for a Nikon Coolpix 900s because it had the best closeup
specifications that I could find at the time. It takes marvelous
pictures and I have been largely satisfied except for it's color
rendition of pink, and light purple and their shades as they are
rendered as blue! The newer Coolpixs are even better with the latest
one at 3.1M pixtels. For web work you don't need all those pixtals,
but if you want to print the pictures the more pixtels the better. I
use the flash seldom as I prefer natural light as much as possible and
I am going after a new camera as I want more manual control over the
picture process. If you want really good pictures then film/slide
cameras are still the ones to beat! Also be aware that the camera is
only the first expense that will occur for a digital. You probably
need to buy a charger, rechargeable batteries, extra memory cards, a
photo manipulation program, a bigger hard drive, a faster video card,
photographic paper, a good inkjet printer, the list goes on and on.
Good hunting.
--
Gideon Singer
Webpage: members.home.net/gsinger
Remove the 'nospam' to email
Cindy
orchids? I'm not experienced in photography, but would like to take decent
pics of my orchids some day.
Cindy
"Gideon Singer" <gsi...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:NymHBqo6l1K2-p...@h24-76-122-231.vc.shawcable.net...
Jim Edgar
Just received an Olympus 2040 for my birthday, and after playing with it
solidly for the past few days, it has my hearty recommendation. I have
extensive experience with photography, darkroom techniques, etc, so it was
important to me to find one with manual controls in addition to full auto
mode.
My wife had done a lot of research via CNET's website - I would heartily
recommend you spend some time there doing comparisons & reading user
feedback:
Olympus 2040 features which I already really like:
- Macro mode down to about 7"
- Full control of exposure (auto-correction, full manual)
- 2.1 mega pixels
- comes with USB connector
- "Plug & Play" transfers - I connect the camera to my Mac via USB, turn it
on, and it appears as a drive on my desktop. This is slick. Transfer photos
just by dragging into a folder on my hard drive.
- 6 "quality" levels of image - from TIFF's to low resolution screen
I've taken a bunch of photos, but haven't put 'em up on my site yet.
But, here's a quick one:
(about 67K - transferred from raw image via Photoshop: resized to 5x7,
slight color correction, unsharp mask, save for web - quicker than it took
to type this...)
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmedgar3/Images/Orchids/Orc_009_digibloom0901.jpg
I'll be incorporating more later this week.
-- Jim
Rob Halgren
real stuff is better. Velvet is good because it doesn't reflect the flash and
glare. For taking pictures of dark colored orchids (vini paphs, for example),
some recommend a dark blue velvet. Velvet is expensive, so I haven't bought
that one yet. Try using a bed sheet or other large piece of cloth first, to get
an idea of the size of the piece of velvet you will need to buy. You will
probably need at least 3 yards to do it right.
You will see all sorts of background colors in orchid photography. I'm
personally fond of the black, and if you are skilled (I'm not) you can get good
pictures of even dark colored flowers against it. What I'm not fond of, and
have seen, is lime green or orange backdrops. Ick... Try to select a backdrop
which is less prominent than your specimen.
Rob
> Can I ask how people get the black background when taking pics of their
> orchids? I'm not experienced in photography, but would like to take decent
> pics of my orchids some day.
>
--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit
RayC
>
> Well, I have a family, so we do all the family things here in the NW.
> Go to the mountains and shore. I also need pictures of the indoor
> school related activities. Also, I will need to take pictures of club
> (not orchids, a sports related like swim meets). So the camera should
> be good for all occasions.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike McCann
That is exactly what I chose my camera for. I got the Kodak DC280. I bought it
a year and a half ago for $699 but now I see it for less than half that. It is
a great camera that does excellent close-ups and I can set it to take extremely
high resolution shots for taking nice country sides or city pictures and not
losing the detail. It came with a 20 MB memory card, but you can get even
bigger ones so you can store a whole vacation's worth of pictures. Be careful
of the cameras such as the Mavica that use standard floppy discs. While the
recording medium is extremely cheap, it is limited to 1.4 MB of information and,
as I remember, they are only 640x480 resolution ... fine for web use but not so
good for prints. You might also consider a digital video camera that has still
capabilities. However, that is a totally different bailiwick.
Just my $.02
RayC
>
> Sure... I use a large piece of black velvet. Well, fake velvet, but the
> real stuff is better. Velvet is good because it doesn't reflect the flash and
> glare. For taking pictures of dark colored orchids (vini paphs, for example),
> some recommend a dark blue velvet. Velvet is expensive, so I haven't bought
> that one yet. Try using a bed sheet or other large piece of cloth first, to get
> an idea of the size of the piece of velvet you will need to buy. You will
> probably need at least 3 yards to do it right.
> You will see all sorts of background colors in orchid photography. I'm
> personally fond of the black, and if you are skilled (I'm not) you can get good
> pictures of even dark colored flowers against it. What I'm not fond of, and
> have seen, is lime green or orange backdrops. Ick... Try to select a backdrop
> which is less prominent than your specimen.
>
> Rob
A lot of "no background" pictures are taken with standard SLR flom cameras with
the aperture adjusted way down and the use of artificial light on the subject
alone.
Another way is to take the lid off your flat bed scanner and lay the bloom down
on the glass. If you are careful and prop it up just right, you will get a
fabulous picture with no background.
Susan Erickson
Velvet is 12.97/yard and 45" wide.
http://store.yahoo.com/hancockfabricstore/hc0361.html
We have had ours for 25 years. Bought it as a backdrop for infant
photo shoots.
Backgrounds: We use a piece of navy velvet we drape it over an
old curtain rod, then use binder clips to hold it. It should be
stitched into a casing. We have a tension rod which is the right
length to tension between the door jams. So setup is: put the drape
up, set table or prop or hang a plant about 6-8" in front. Make
sure the drape is behind the flowers from the angle you are
shooting.
Sometimes we drape the velvet over the prop table. Half of the
setup is getting the background where you want it or covered. The
other half is getting the plant at the height you want. Working
with your back bent over can kill the fun if not you.
John also cut a piece off and attached it to a piece of foam board.
this can be propped up in the gh to get a natural light shot.
SuE
Cindy
"Rob Halgren" <hal...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:3BA63F4C...@msu.edu...
backgrounds. It really enhances the orchids itself.
Cindy
TZ
old theater curtains). The thinner material most of us think of as
velvet is sold as "velvetine" at the fabric shops.
If you have the velvetine close to the subject and use a small
apperture (high F-stop) so that it is in focus you get the nice shiny
effect, however if you just need black, anything will do as long as it
is far enough back to be out of focus (a lower F-stop/wider aperture
helps). If you use natural indirect lighting and a tripod, contrast
is not as great as when using a flash, so details of darker flower
areas stand out better (like the purple in this shot)
http://communities.msn.com/TZ/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=20
Here are some more tips, more will be added soon
http://www.nhm.org/guana/tz-webpg/photo.htm
TZ
Stephen
very important to me.
A little levity
Spartacus
"Mike McCann" <wsmts...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BA57916...@home.com...
Cindy
"TZ" <la_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab9ca7de.01091...@posting.google.com...
This is great help. Thanks!
Cindy
Susan Erickson
Velveteen does not have the SHEEN of velvet.
If you just want a pile fabric... Mick uses Corduroy. It comes in
wide wale (wide bars of cut pile) or narrow.. some narrow is so
narrow it gives the effect of velveteen. Corduroy - often on sale in
fall. Used to make little boys slacks in the days before jeans for
everyone. Often called the talking fabric by kids.
SuE
Mike McCann
think you right that the reds are hard to get, but also the detail in
that photo -- its so fresh.
Thanks everyone. Fun pointers.
Mike
Rod C. Venger
Susan Erickson wrote:
> No Taz. Velveteen is Cotton. Velvet is Rayon or other synthetic.
> Velveteen does not have the SHEEN of velvet.
>
> If you just want a pile fabric... Mick uses Corduroy. It comes in
> wide wale (wide bars of cut pile) or narrow.. some narrow is so
> narrow it gives the effect of velveteen. Corduroy - often on sale in
> fall. Used to make little boys slacks in the days before jeans for
> everyone. Often called the talking fabric by kids.
> SuE
>
Sue,
Corduroy! I should have thought of that before! I'm in pre-production on a
documentary and have been looking into different background materials. Cord
sounds really appealing. -Rod-
**************************************
Rod C. Venger - T4N0M0
Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Facial Reconstructions 2-5-99, 3-13-00
http://www.vengers.com/model.jpg
**************************************
RJ
to take pictures like you see in Orchids Magazine. The key is to not
only use the right background but also use a light diffuser box.
There's lots of detail at his site at
http://www.orchidworks.com/ozone/fototips/isolate.htm
Hope this helps. RJ
Al
things, battery life expectancy and the method of picture transfer to your
computer.
I have a Olympus 340L which is about 3 years old now. It cost about 3 or 4
hundred when it was new. I forget. I do not like the fact that it will go
through 4 AA batteries before I have taken 6 pictures. This gets really
annoying when you must use the screen as a view finder (when in macro mode,
used for photographing flowers at several inches). It makes me hurry and
won't give the time I need to get the shot the way I want for fear of
draining the battery. Usually just when I am getting ready to depress the
shutter the camera shuts off and beeps to alert me the battery is low. With
this behavior the norm, it is lucky to still be in one piece.
I forget the name of the cable it uses to transfer pictures into my hard
drive. I think coaxial? A thin single cord. Not a printer type cable. It
takes minutes to move one high quality image to the hard drive and a much
longer time to do a Show quality image. A whole group of this type of
picture takes 15 minutes. Long enough to make me remember it only takes an
hour at the photomat to develop film.
Also, this camera has a close focal range of between 3 and 4 inches and a
parallax view finder and this complicates close up shots.
Al
I figure the newer or more expensive cameras have solved these problems.
"Mike McCann" <wsmts...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BA57916...@home.com...
Gideon Singer
-> When looking into digital cameras make sure you investigate, among other
-> things, battery life expectancy and the method of picture transfer to your
-> computer.
->
-> I have a Olympus 340L which is about 3 years old now. It cost about 3 or 4
-> hundred when it was new. I forget. I do not like the fact that it will go
-> through 4 AA batteries before I have taken 6 pictures. This gets really
-> annoying when you must use the screen as a view finder (when in macro mode,
-> used for photographing flowers at several inches). It makes me hurry and
-> won't give the time I need to get the shot the way I want for fear of
-> draining the battery. Usually just when I am getting ready to depress the
-> shutter the camera shuts off and beeps to alert me the battery is low. With
-> this behavior the norm, it is lucky to still be in one piece.
->
-> I forget the name of the cable it uses to transfer pictures into my hard
-> drive. I think coaxial? A thin single cord. Not a printer type cable. It
-> takes minutes to move one high quality image to the hard drive and a much
-> longer time to do a Show quality image. A whole group of this type of
-> picture takes 15 minutes. Long enough to make me remember it only takes an
-> hour at the photomat to develop film.
->
-> Also, this camera has a close focal range of between 3 and 4 inches and a
-> parallax view finder and this complicates close up shots.
->
-> Al
->
-> I figure the newer or more expensive cameras have solved these problems.
-> "Mike McCann" <wsmts...@home.com> wrote in message
-> news:3BA57916...@home.com...
-> > Trying to learn something about what to look for in digital cameras.
-> > Figured since I one of the things I want to do is take photos, I'd ask
-> > the pros here, since many of you have such nice web sites, which camera
-> > and camera feature you like.
-> >
-> > Mike
->
->
That thin cable is a serial cable and the serial transfer is slow
compared to other types of transfers. I suggest that you should
investigate either buying a new camera, or a memory card reader such
as PhotoChute that will transfer a whole card in minutes to the
computer.
Ken Woodward
Try the lithium batteries that are labeled for photo use. I have an Olympus
240 that also eats up AA's but these photo AA's are much better. They cost
more, but they last a lot longer. The Olympus batteries are also long
lasting but the expense is crushing.
####################
##--Ken Woodward--##
##----Newton, MA---##
###################
"Al" <A...@orchidexchange.com> wrote in message
news:9o7i1b$cnl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dewitt
mAh or better. They are widely available at places like Home Depot
and Best Buy.
deg
DGiunti
Your power shortage problems have been solved (even for your nice little Oly).
All users of AA battery high drain devices can benefit from the use of new
rechargeable battery technology. Most users and virtually all the
professionals use NiMH batteries in their digicams. There are only a few AA
cameras that can not use these (like very early Cassio cameras) wonders. NiMH
batteries are getting more powerful all the time. The current leaders are 1800
mAh rated. These are a bit more expensive than the 1600 mAh which are the
current price/performence leaders. But the difference in price is not really
extraordinary if you feel like splurging a little.
Keeping them charged is the job for a good fast, _smart_ charger. I use a
Maha 204f which does 4 cells (actually 2 pairs) at a time. It's smart in that
it tests the cell to determine if it's charged yet and when it's done it shuts
the circuit down to a trickle. For fresh or completely drained batteries it
takes about 2 hours to charge 'em. Most often it takes about an hour to
recharge after shooting a 'roll' and uploading the images.
There are cheaper chargers but they use timer circuits which may or may not
fully charge the spent cells. Overcharging is said to lower the life of the
rechargeable and these timer chargers can't tell the difference between the
need to top off the cell or completely recharge it... and what happens when the
2000 mAh models come out next year?
The Maha has a couple of nice features. It works on either NiMH or NiCad
batteries. It has a conditioner circuit to drain the NiCads then recharge them
to prevent memory effects, this is not useful for the NiMH, but I have a
walkman too... It also comes with an adapter to use the cigarette lighter in
your car as a power source and a 110v adapter (wall wart) to use your house
plug. If you think that you might go to Europe with your digicam you can
*order* an extra 220v plug adapter when you get the charger.
Radio Shack makes a similar smart charger (comes with the car adapter, but
you must buy both the 110v and 220v adapters separately). Cost is about the
same, but there are not many user reports about how 'good' it is. Ansmann
makes a more expensive charger that has 4 charger circuits (good if you need 1
or 3 batteries for something) and a built to use 110v and 220v sources. No car
adapter for this one.
Quest makes a model similar to the Ansmann and you can see it at Thomas
Distributing.
http://thomasdistributing.com/
This is where I got my Maha and a set of 1600 mAh batteries. The best idea
is to get at least 2 sets. One in the camera and another as backup. I think
that they have the 1800s too. Brand doesn't seem to make much difference in
the batteries (according to most on rec.photo.digital).
The down side (you knew there had to be one, didn't you?). NiMH batteries
self discharge slowly. They loose about 1% of their rated power a day. So if
they have been sitting around for a while doing nothing, they will need to be
'topped off' before use. The Maha is great for this too.
If you don't take many pictures but still want to keep the camera 'ready to
go' at all times, the pros recommend that you use Lithium batteries which are
not as powerful as the NiMhs but have a 10 year shelf life. They are also
quite a bit more expensive than any other type, but they are there when you
need them.
N.B. for those reading and wondering about powering a new DigiCam.
Batteries are the weakest link in the machine. They all wear out with
extended use. NiMH and LI batteries can go through hundreds of cycles, but
they eventually all wear out and will have to be replaced at sometime in the
future. Since AA batteries are a standard size and voltage they represent the
best possibility for future replacement. Other battery types are surely
available now but will their makers still be making them in 10 years? No one
really knows, but there will likely still be AA sized devices on the market,
and likely at your corner market (if you need an extra in an emergency).
Lithium Ion batteries (not available in the voltage or form factor of AAs
unfortunately) pack more power but all of them are what I call 'baroque'. Most
of the designs are incompatible with each other and you are literally at the
mercy of the camera makers to continue to make and sell them after they change
designs. All of these baroque batteries are more expensive than their AA
counterparts.
For these reasons I encourage shoppers to prefer cameras that use AA
batteries, and preferably NiMH batteries in their digicams.
Dave
David Giunti email: DGi...@aol.community
What is the question? Gertrude Stein's last words
No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts
On Display in the UK http://www.web-gallery.co.uk
Tungblade
<kenwo...@mediaone.net> writes:
>Try the lithium batteries that are labeled for photo use.
I use rechargable AA's and just make sure I have a set or two fully charged in
my photobag.
Rod C. Venger
Tungblade,
How long do the rechargables last? My kodak camera is pretty good about battery
use. 20, maybe 30 pics or more per set on alkalines. My wife bought me some
cheapies once and they died after 3 pics. Sometimes it pays to pay more :) -Rod-
Tungblade wrote:
**************************************
wsmts...@home.com
Mike
Reka
flash seem to use the most power, and while a cord while taking photos is not
feasible, using one while the camera is uploading saves batteries.
Reka
DGiunti schrieb:
Ray @ First Rays Orchids
It varies a lot by camera.
Back when I had my Olympus D300L, a set of rechargeable alkaline batteries
would last about 40 or 50 shots. When I sold it and got the Nikon Coolpix
900S, they wouldn't work at all, so I upgraded to a couple of sets of Quest
rechargeable NiMH batteries, which lasted about 100 shots per charge.
My Canon D30 has lithium ion camcorder type batteries, and those last
hundreds and hundreds of shots.
--
Ray Barkalow <> First Rays Orchids
http://www.firstrays.com
Secure Online Ordering & Lots of Free Info!
Ray @ First Rays Orchids
the like), get a good card reader that attaches to your PC - it's relatively
cheap (<$30), VERY fast downloads, and uses none of your batteries at all.
I have a 1GB microdrive with my Canon, and when it's in the card reader, it
acts just like another hard drive on the computer.
The biggest problem I have is that the drive can hold around 700 shots at
extremely high resolution, so I can bracket my butt off without worry, which
is a real pain come editing time!
DGiunti
and BugEye Digital both sell AC adapers with very long leads for not very much
money. You could use one of these to do quite a bit of shooting if you are
within 30 feet of a plug. Guys that do portraits and proms often use this sort
of power setup. There is another setup that uses the same wiring setup the AC
adapter to attach a larger battery system usually stored in a fanny or back
pack.
With 3 sets of batteries and that wonderful fast, smart charger I haven't
really had the need for an AC adapter yet. I've thought about getting one
because my camera is capable of working in a video conferencing system, but
haven't seen any real need for this yet either. I don't like leaving wall
warts plugged in all the time: they use power all the time they are attached to
the mains.
David Giunti email: DGi...@aol.community
DGiunti
don't store as much power as other types (lasts for fewer shots). I've been
told by other photographers that NiCads can be used but have not experimented
myself.
Smart chargers are useful here too.
Dave
David Giunti email: DGi...@aol.community
Jim Edgar
> NiCads can be used; they don't self discharge nearly as fast. BUT they
> don't store as much power as other types (lasts for fewer shots). I've been
> told by other photographers that NiCads can be used but have not experimented
> myself.
>
> Smart chargers are useful here too.
If you have NiCads (Nickel-Cadmium), they would work -- power output would
be the same if they are rated the same (usually AA equivilent). But, I
wouldn't buy NiCads if there are NiMH (Nickle-Metal-Hydride) available. The
price difference is pretty minimal, and NiMH batteries will give you more
power and better recharging performance.
Smart chargers (i.e. chargers that discharge before recharging) are useful
for NiCads because unless they are drained before recharging, they _can_
develop "memory". If you continually drain them halfway down, then charge
them on a conventional charger, they may not want to discharge more than
halfway, after a while. NiMH do not have this problem, and the recharger I
got with mine puts 'em up at full power in one hour (or less).
-- Jim
--
jmedgar3(at)earthlink(dot)net
Orchid Pix & such:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmedgar3/OrchidMain.html
profpam
. . . Pam
Everything Orchid Management System
http://www.pe.net/~profpam/page3.html
Mike
hold. Otherwise, I'm baffled by all the options. It seems that one
takes pictures, down load them to the computer, then crop and make
'color' adjustments. Has anyone had experience with either brands that
can tell me anything to look for?
Mike