search  current discussion  categories  techniques - photography 

digital cameras

updated fri 23 feb 07

 

Mmpottery on sat 27 dec 97

Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
Thanks, Michelle

Kristin Conrad on sun 28 dec 97

Michelle, and all. Because I have started doing some web design on the side,
I have purchased and used both a digital camera and an inexpensive scanner
in the last year. I put together my own web site when I had only the digital
camera and it would not have been acceptable if I did not know how to
use Photoshop (software) to do some color correcting and balancing of the
images. I shot the pictures outside in natural light on slightly cloudy
days (less glare); but still the red tones needed some work and the pictures
in general had a blue cast that needed correcting.

Recently we purchased an inexpensive scanner ($129.00, brand name "Mustek"
500 III SP Plus). I have been quite impressed with the quality of the
scanned images. You can actually decide what resolution to scan a picture
in at and the color has reproduced quite well. I have printed some of
these images out on a plain inkjet printer and they were pretty impressive.
Obviously the digital camera is very immediate if you are going for speed,
but the scanner, in my opinion, does a better job for the money ($129.00 as
opposed to $500.00 for the camera).

Now I hate to seem like I am making a plug for you to look at my website,
but if you want to see what I was able to get with the camera and some
work on the pics in Photoshop, you can view it at:

http://www.dimensional.com/~firechld

But, again, I think you'd be happier using photographs and a scanner.

-----Kristin Conrad
Fire Child Pottery & Tile
Rollinsville, CO

Judith A. Enright on sun 28 dec 97

Hi, Michelle. We have a Casio (can't recall model number right now) which has b
standard and high-resolution capability. Works very well, downloads into our Ma
with a minimum of fuss, time and memory. We're able to manipulate the images wi
Photoshop, then print off the Epson 800. Very handy indeed. I prefer the Casio
over scanner technology any day (primarily because of downloading ease).
---
Judith Enright @ Black Leopard Clayware & Pottery

"The earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth"

-- Chief Seattle
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
>used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
>printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
> Thanks, Michelle
>



Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com

Dobeaglkuv on sun 28 dec 97

In a message dated 97-12-27 12:11:15 EST, you write:

<< I was wondering if any of you had
used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
Thanks, Michelle >>


I use a Kodak DC-50 in my real estate appraisal business - am VERY happy with
it -- can reduce shadows, sharpen image, etc before printing photo --- have
not used a photo scanner so cannot compare ----- I just joined this list
today, and have lots of messages --- are there many ceramic tile people on
this list ??
Thanx Linda Lloyd

Elaine J. Walters on sun 28 dec 97

Hi Michelle,

My son has a digital camera-- and my pieces look great=21. We painted the =
inside
of a cardboard box black (spray paint) and filmed my pots inside. Pictures
turned out great. I would highly recommend the camera.

Elaine

Camano Island, Wa.

----------
From: Mmpottery=5BSMTP:Mmpottery=40aol.com=5D
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 1997 9:03 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list CLAYART
Subject: Digital Cameras

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas=21 I was wondering if any of you =
had
used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
Thanks, Michelle

Ron Wright on sun 28 dec 97

I use a Kodak digital camera as well as a scanner. The resolution is
fair with the camera, very good with the scanner. I use a Canon BJC-620
color printer (I like the separate ink cartridges for each color) and
when printing out an 8x10 it's a little grainy using the camera. When
using pics on a web page try to use the original size as expanding or
shrinking the pics will cause a loss of resolution (see my web page for
an example). On a web page try to keep the pics as small as possible to
decrease loading time. A good graphics program is a must for enlarging,
shrinking photo's and editing. I use Printshop Pro, it's very good and
cheap.

Hope this helps
Ron Wright
Shiresham Pottery
http://www.concentric.net/~wrright


Mmpottery wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
> used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
> printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
> Thanks, Michelle

shelford on mon 29 dec 97

I second that question, and does anyone out there have recommendations about
using digital cameras for photographing their work? And any good deals around?
- Veronica

>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
>used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
>printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
> Thanks, Michelle
>
>
___________________________________________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509

Sharon Clayton on mon 29 dec 97

Hi,
Used a Casio digital camera for pictures you can find at
http://www.coraltech.com/londonpotters Check under gallery section and let
me know what you think. It was quite easy for a non-computer person like
me.


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Digital Cameras
Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
Thanks, Michelle

Dave Eitel on mon 29 dec 97

I chose a scanner--Umax Vista S6E--over a digital camera because of price
and (possibly) versatility. Plus, I have lots of photographs from over
the years that I'd never be able to get into the computer with a digital
camera. The scanner came with Photo Deluxe (a scaled down version of
Photoshop which lets you do most of what you need to do to the photos) for
about $300. It works for Macs as well as PCs. What I miss about a digital
camera is being able to photograph something and get it on the computer
right away--there's always the chore of taking a whole roll of film,
getting it developed, etc. Plus, there's the ongoing cost of film and
processing. Maybe one should have both. I'm keeping my eyes out for a
cheap digital camera--I think the prices will probably be coming down over
the next couple of years. Scanners have become very inexpensive
recently--at or below $200.

Dave Eitel
Cedar Creek Pottery
Cedarburg, WI USA
http://www.cedarcreekpottery.com

Wesley C. Rolley on mon 29 dec 97

At 12:03 PM 12/27/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
>used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
>printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
> Thanks, Michelle

Michelle,

As with anything else, great quality is expensive. The best that I have
been able to do is to use professional quality slide film with a reasonably
good slide scanner. Slides give better color fidelity than you get with
print film. The slide scanners range from 1200x600 dpi optical resolution
up to over 2000 dpi optical. Howver, this costs a lot, but saves me time.
I have found the UMAX PowerLook II to give an acceptible level of slide
scanning capability.

Wes
Reflections Publishing, Inc.
http://www.refpub.com/

Michelle H. Lowe on tue 30 dec 97

At 11:01 AM -0500 12/29/97, Dave Eitel wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I chose a scanner--Umax Vista S6E--over a digital camera because of price
>and (possibly) versatility. Plus, I have lots of photographs from over
>the years that I'd never be able to get into the computer with a digital
>camera.

I think you can get better quality representations on a scanner (based on
my limited experience with digital cameras, however, I got one for
Christmas, I hope to know more soon), ESPECIALLY for print. We bought a
digital camera with a high resolution and a zoom lense, specifically so we
can produce a hard-copy printable product (newsletter for our music store
business). I get to play with it and shoot my pots too. I have scanned
images *and* digital cam images up on my web site
http://www.amug.org/~mishlowe/pottery.html the digital cam images are all
the shots taken without a background, the scanned images have a cloth
backdrop. So far it's wonderful for online images, I'll have to see about
the printed product.

Mishy, working on the clay club newsletter

Michelle Lowe, potter in the Phoenix desert \|/ |
mishlowe@indirect.com -O- | |
mishlowe@aztec.asu.edu /|\ | | |
|_|_|
____ |
http://www.amug.org/~mishlowe -\ /-----|-----
( )
<__>

Ray Carlton on tue 30 dec 97

hi michelle...i don't really feel that digital cameras have arrived yet...i
have crossed it off my list for the moment ... for the quality that you get
it is far too expensive.....hoipefully you will have a reasonable camera if
not buy one [slr] 2nd hand $1-200.00 an a4 flatbed scanner costs $2-300.00
and your in business. You will have excellent reproduction with this setup.
the digital camera while a lot less fiddly does cost around
$A900.00-$A1200.00 for the lower end products

cheers


At 11:05 29/12/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 12:03 PM 12/27/97 EST, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
>>used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
>>printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
>> Thanks, Michelle
>
>Michelle,
>
>As with anything else, great quality is expensive. The best that I have
>been able to do is to use professional quality slide film with a reasonably
>good slide scanner. Slides give better color fidelity than you get with
>print film. The slide scanners range from 1200x600 dpi optical resolution
>up to over 2000 dpi optical. Howver, this costs a lot, but saves me time.
>I have found the UMAX PowerLook II to give an acceptible level of slide
>scanning capability.
>
>Wes
>Reflections Publishing, Inc.
>http://www.refpub.com/
>
>
Please note My NEW!! email address

Ray Carlton





Fabienne on tue 30 dec 97

Hello,

Some of you find a scanner less expensive than a digital camera, but I was
wondering if after the cost of buying the film, getting it developed, and
taking the time to scan it (slow vs downloading from a digital camera to
the PC), if it's not just more advantageous to get the camera and incur the
bulk of the cost right off.

Also, I have a friend that has a digital camera that takes a pictures and
transfers it directly to a floppy disk (easier to transfer to a PC if you
hate downloading). I forgot the model, but could find out if anyone is
interested.

Faye [Newbie]

Arturo M DeVitalis on tue 30 dec 97

Just because I live in Rochester this is not a plug...but my nephew who
live in NYC visited today and showed me a $700+ Kodak Digital that had
some incredible resolution capabilities. While we shot "low"resolution
they viewed on the TV clear and bright and wonderful....and he told me
that the high resolution settings when printied out on his color ink-jet
were fantastic...sooooo the next time I find a spare $700+ sitting around
guess what I want to buy!!

Dave Allen on tue 30 dec 97

I use a video camera and a video board that plugs into my PC. I have
been using it for about 4 years and the prices have dropped to about
$200 for the board. The real advantage for me (and my former newspaper)
is the selection of stills that are available during the preview and the
quick turn around time.

My web page has a few shots done this way and for the most part I am
satisfied. The only drawback (besides lower resolution than a scanner)
is the light requirement, but that can be addressed quite nicely with
the newer video cameras.

Dave

-=-=-=-

shelford wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I second that question, and does anyone out there have recommendations about
> using digital cameras for photographing their work? And any good deals around
> - Veronica
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
> >used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
> >printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
> > Thanks, Michelle
> >
> >
> ___________________________________________
> Veronica Shelford
> e-mail: shelford@island.net
> s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
> Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
> Tel: (250) 246-1509

--
David Russell Allen - Box 363, Sechelt, B.C. Canada V0N 3A0 (604)
885-5327 fax: 885-5890
Selective Wood Carving and Pottery from Sandy Hook's Worn Wood Studios -
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6911

Michelle H. Lowe on wed 31 dec 97


>Also, I have a friend that has a digital camera that takes a pictures and
>transfers it directly to a floppy disk (easier to transfer to a PC if you
>hate downloading). I forgot the model, but could find out if anyone is
>interested.

There is only one brand on the market with floppy so far, it's a Sony
Mavica, (in the catalog I am looking at MacWarehouse)- (Fd-5) $499 or
(FD-7) $699 with a zoom lense and from what I understand the resolution
isn't as good. From what we learned while shopping, people seem to be
buying it *only* because of the ease of floppy transfer, and the picture
quality isn't that good.

Mishy


Michelle Lowe, potter in the Phoenix desert \|/ |
mishlowe@indirect.com -O- | |
mishlowe@aztec.asu.edu /|\ | | |
|_|_|
____ |
http://www.amug.org/~mishlowe -\ /-----|-----
( )
<__>

Kathy McDonald on wed 31 dec 97

Hi.....
Just my 2 cents on the digital camera thread,,,,,,,I have been using an epson
pc500
for about a year now. I really like the quality of photo's for use on the
net,,,,and i agree with Michelle Lowe, a zoom lens is a must. I have not yet
invested in one but its on MY list.

I think that it will be awhile before the average person has accessibility to
great printed
output from digital cameras because of the resolution, but more
importantly,because the
printer technology has not yet arrived. A laser color printer prints absolutely
great
images from my digital.....alas; it will be a LONG time before I can afford to g
a color
laser printer.

Kathy (who is glad she has graphic artist friends with laser printers.....)

Ray Carlton wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> hi michelle...i don't really feel that digital cameras have arrived yet...i
> have crossed it off my list for the moment ... for the quality that you get
> it is far too expensive.....hoipefully you will have a reasonable camera if
> not buy one [slr] 2nd hand $1-200.00 an a4 flatbed scanner costs $2-300.00
> and your in business. You will have excellent reproduction with this setup.
> the digital camera while a lot less fiddly does cost around
> $A900.00-$A1200.00 for the lower end products
>
> cheers
>
> At 11:05 29/12/97 EST, you wrote:
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >At 12:03 PM 12/27/97 EST, you wrote:
> >>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >> Hi All. Hope everyone had a nice X-Mas! I was wondering if any of you had
> >>used a digital camera and what the results were. How did the photos look
> >>printed and did they look better on the web versus scanning???
> >> Thanks, Michelle
> >
> >Michelle,
> >
> >As with anything else, great quality is expensive. The best that I have
> >been able to do is to use professional quality slide film with a reasonably
> >good slide scanner. Slides give better color fidelity than you get with
> >print film. The slide scanners range from 1200x600 dpi optical resolution
> >up to over 2000 dpi optical. Howver, this costs a lot, but saves me time.
> >I have found the UMAX PowerLook II to give an acceptible level of slide
> >scanning capability.
> >
> >Wes
> >Reflections Publishing, Inc.
> >http://www.refpub.com/
> >
> >
> Please note My NEW!! email address
>
> Ray Carlton
>
>
>
>

Jeff Lawrence on thu 1 jan 98

Hello,

For what its worth, I've used the following image formats, with different
degrees of success for different applications:
1. expensive scans from the drum scannaer at a local separation house.
2. Photo-CD images
3. digital camera images

The drum scans worked beautifully for my catalog, principally because the
separation house has all its equipment tuned to work together. However, the
images are large (25-30MB), and pain to manipulate for use on a website.
Probably somebody smarter than me with photo imaging programs could reduce
the size without impacting quality; the best I could do was get large
images on my website that looked mediocre. But I will not go to press
without having the printing house do the scans.

The Photo-CD images looked bad every time I tried to go to press with them.
The problem is the large number of variables in color rendering, which
means that its a crapshoot as to whether the printing house makes the same
assumptions as the Photo-CD house. However, these images were easy to put
on my website, and offer a number of resolutions. I'd see this as a very
attractive alternative to digital cameras, since the good ones are pricey.

A friend with a good digital camera took some shots for me for my website
and it was very easy to get images that worked well. Fast and fun. But his
camera cost $600.

If you need digital images, try shooting a roll and having it put on
Photo-CD. Costs about $30. I urge you to NOT spend your precious printing
dollars on material with these images until you get a printer who will
guarantee your result (and let me know who they are!). I've got 5000
muddy-looking unusable postcards that warn me not to try it again.

Hope this is of help,
Jeff

Scott B. Earl on thu 1 jan 98

I've been following this thread since it started, and I must
say that I am amazed at how many techno-geeks are out there
(and yes, it does take one to know one).

This discussion seems to have centered on the scanner versus
digital camera decision, but . . .

I'd like to point out something. If we can use stereo
equipment as an analogy, then think of the scanner/camera as
the signal source for the system (like a stereo amplifier or
a CD player) and the printer as the output device (like the
speakers of the music system). Anyone who is serious about
their music knows that the place to spend money is on the
speakers. Same thing applies here. Spend your money on the
best quality output that you can get.

Best quality: If the number of copies needed is relatively
low, then have photographic copies made from the original
negative. Very expensive, but nothing commonly available in
the digital world will rival it for resolution, and you can
get the size needed.

Nearly as good: The next step down is the color copier. Have
your pictures printed in the largest format that the photo
lab will economically provide (5 x 7 works well). Then take
it to your local version of Kinko's and have color copies
made. This is much cheaper than the photographic copying and
provides very good results. Again, they can provide output
of the size needed and also place it on the paper in the
location that you specify.

Big step down: If you must do your own printing, get a
mid-line scanner and the best printer that you can afford.
Scan the largest size of original that you can get (8 x 10
would be nice). Be prepared for some truly large files. Then
use the best paper that you can find for the printing. But
you can have a lot of copies of a higher quality made for
the price of this equipment.

At my place of employment we use an Olympus D-600L digital
camera. Cost was about US$1200. It gives pretty good results
by using a 2/3 inch CCD with 1,410,000 pixels. We print
using an HP 1200 DPI laser printer. We looked at almost
everything that was cheaper in digital cameras, and none of
them provided anything near satisfactory results. I couldn't
in good conscience recommend this kind of expenditure to
anyone other than the hobbyist that isn't worried about the
price tag. And I don't know many potters that aren't worried
about the price tag.

Scott Earl

Arturo M DeVitalis on thu 1 jan 98

In an previous post I extoled the merits of a Kodak digital camera...just
learned it was the model 210, introduced at Comdex this past Fall, and
rated "best" by the tech-brainers (except for the professional studio
digital that sells for $3000)...internet search of lowest price is $823
for the camera ( out of California ) but it is wise to spend extra $'s on
a rechargable batery/charger. Digital cameras eat batteries fast er than
the bunny can make them!

JJHerb on mon 5 jan 98

I have heard that stillness is even more important for digital cameras than
for regular cameras. Something about jumping back and forth between pixels.
Before you decide your digital is unacceptable, try a tripod.

Joseph Herbert
JJHerb@aol.com

Cheryl L Litman on mon 5 jan 98

My Sunday paper had a technology year in review and rated digital cameras
as one of the more disappointing new technologies. Said that they
usually deliver about 1/3 of the picture quality that they promise.

Cheryl Litman
Somerset, NJ
email: cheryllitman@juno.com

C Redding on tue 6 jan 98

Here's my 2 cents on the digital thread...this past summer, I interned in
the art computer lab on my campus and my "job" was to publish the annual
art magazine of student art. Well. I took some of the pictures of the
gallery exhibits/student work with a 35 mm and some with a Kodak digital
camera. I scanned the 35 mm...turned out with a nice resolution, nice
printed reproduction. BUT. The dig.cam's resolution sucked...really
really bad...bit mapped....bad reproduction quality. My advice: get a
slide or negative scanner before investing in a digital camera. And get a
zip drive for storage (can hold 100 megs as opposed to 1 meg on a floppy)
They're only about $150 and the disks are about $16-$19. But, beyond a
doubt, a Iomega Zip Drive (for Macs and Windows) is something I could
never live without in the computer world.
cookie

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Cheryl L Litman wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> My Sunday paper had a technology year in review and rated digital cameras
> as one of the more disappointing new technologies. Said that they
> usually deliver about 1/3 of the picture quality that they promise.
>
> Cheryl Litman
> Somerset, NJ
> email: cheryllitman@juno.com
>

Bob Loveland on tue 18 aug 98

Just came across this site, and just had to share it with the group. Its a
device that you can pop into any 35mm camera and convert it to a digital
camera.

http://www.imagek.com

orion on wed 19 aug 98

Folks,

There's an incredibly detailed comparison of digital cameras at the C/Net
(TV show devoted to computers) website -- really worth the visit if you're
considering buying one. Goto:

http://www.cnet.tv.com Their recommendation, "best bang for the buck"
is for a camera with a suggested retail price of $299 !!

Regards,

Ellen Baker - Glacier, WA
orion@telcomplus.net

John Hesselberth on thu 20 aug 98

Speaking of digital cameras: If you get one, consider getting one with
the ability to shut off the built-in flash so you can use an external
flash. This will allow you to use it when you photograph your pots in a
studio setting. That, in turn, will allow you to immediately put high
quality pictures of your work on your future web site without having a
scanner. The only one I found (as of a couple months ago) that had this
capability in the "under $1000" class is the Kodak DC120. Every other
one I looked at (and I looked at a lot) had a built in flash that could
not be turned off. Virtually useless for taking high quality pot
pictures unless you do it 1) outdoors where a flash is not needed or 2)
with a high enough level of photoflood lighting that the flash doesn't
trigger.


John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
visit my web site at http://www.frogpondpottery.com

Michelle Lowe on fri 21 aug 98

I have an Agfa 1280 digital cam with the capability to turn off the flash.
I would highly recommend this model to anyone wanting to spend the money to
get a truly quality product.
I think the "suggested" retail price for this camera is at $799 right now.

I find that the best quality I get for pots (not using an external flash)
is as John says below,
without the flash.

YMMV (your milage may vary),
Mishy

At 10:30 AM 8/20/98 EDT, John Hesselberth wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Speaking of digital cameras: If you get one, consider getting one with
>the ability to shut off the built-in flash so you can use an external
>flash. This will allow you to use it when you photograph your pots in a
>studio setting. That, in turn, will allow you to immediately put high
>quality pictures of your work on your future web site without having a
>scanner. The only one I found (as of a couple months ago) that had this
>capability in the "under $1000" class is the Kodak DC120. Every other
>one I looked at (and I looked at a lot) had a built in flash that could
>not be turned off. Virtually useless for taking high quality pot
>pictures unless you do it 1) outdoors where a flash is not needed or 2)
>with a high enough level of photoflood lighting that the flash doesn't
>trigger.






Michelle Lowe, potter in the Phoenix desert \|/ |
mishlowe@indirect.com -O- | |
mishlowe@aztec.asu.edu /|\ | | |
|_|_|
____ |
http://www.amug.org/~mishlowe -\ /-----|-----
( )
<__>

John Lockett on fri 21 aug 98

On Thu 20 Aug, John Hesselberth wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Speaking of digital cameras: If you get one, consider getting one with
> the ability to shut off the built-in flash so you can use an external
> flash. This will allow you to use it when you photograph your pots in a
> studio setting. That, in turn, will allow you to immediately put high
> quality pictures of your work on your future web site without having a
> scanner. The only one I found (as of a couple months ago) that had this
> capability in the "under $1000" class is the Kodak DC120. Every other
> one I looked at (and I looked at a lot) had a built in flash that could
> not be turned off. Virtually useless for taking high quality pot
> pictures unless you do it 1) outdoors where a flash is not needed or 2)
> with a high enough level of photoflood lighting that the flash doesn't
> trigger.
>
>
> John Hesselberth
> Frog Pond Pottery
> Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
> EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
> visit my web site at http://www.frogpondpottery.com
>
>
>

I stick a bit of tape over the flash head on my cheapo digital

regards

-- John Lockett - Here in Birmingham UK at
http://ninedud.u-net.com/home.htm
Interested in Ceramics? Visit http://www.ninedud.u-net.com/mpa.htm

Bonnie Staffel on fri 21 aug 98

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Speaking of digital cameras: If you get one, consider getting one with
> the ability to shut off the built-in flash so you can use an external
> flash. This will allow you to use it when you photograph your pots in a
> studio setting. That, in turn, will allow you to immediately put high
> quality pictures of your work on your future web site without having a
> scanner. The only one I found (as of a couple months ago) that had this
> capability in the "under $1000" class is the Kodak DC120. Every other
> one I looked at (and I looked at a lot) had a built in flash that could
> not be turned off. Virtually useless for taking high quality pot
> pictures unless you do it 1) outdoors where a flash is not needed or 2)
> with a high enough level of photoflood lighting that the flash doesn't
> trigger.
>
>
> John Hesselberth
> Frog Pond Pottery
> Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
> EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
> visit my web site at http://www.frogpondpottery.com
>
>
August 20, 1998
Just printed out some information about a new idea in digital imaging using your

To find out more about this system, their email is MARKETING@IMAGEK.COM and iden

Bonnie Staffel





-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/clayart/?start=30524
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/

Russel Fouts on fri 21 aug 98

John,

>> Speaking of digital cameras: If you get one, consider getting one with
the ability to shut off the built-in flash so you can use an external flash.
.......The only one I found (as of a couple months ago) that had this
capability in the "under $1000" class is the Kodak DC120. Every other one I
looked at (and I looked at a lot) had a built in flash that could not be
turned off. Virtually useless for taking high quality pot pictures unless
you do it 1) outdoors where a flash is not needed or 2) with a high enough
level of photoflood lighting that the flash doesn't trigger. <<

3. Tape over the flash with opaque tape. (but this will waste batteries)

How far has the technology developed in the last year? Would anyone use one
yet to produce jury slides or prints? Or photos for magazine prints?

Russel

John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
visit my web site at http://www.frogpondpottery.com

-----------------------------


Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
32 2 223 02 75
Http://users.skynet.be/russel.fouts
Http://www.japan-net.or.jp/~iwcat

Please send all replies publicly

John Hesselberth on sat 22 aug 98

>How far has the technology developed in the last year? Would anyone use one
>yet to produce jury slides or prints? Or photos for magazine prints?
>
>Russel

My graphic designer daughter says its getting close for high quality
print applications (magazines) if you get one that has, say, 1280 x 960
pixel resolution. This is particularly so since the normal first step in
preparing a magazine ad these days is to digitize everything and produce
the film directly from a digitized file. If you want to use it this way,
though, you need plenty of memory because each picture requires 1.2MB. I
wouldn't consider it for jury slides for 2 reasons--quality and
difficulty of converting to a slide format. Prints are probably OK,
quality-wise, if you have an excellent printer and use photo quality
paper; however this would be an expensive way to get prints. My take on
it right now is that it is a great way to put pictures on a web site, and
maybe for a print ad, but not much else. Another couple years
though.......

John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
visit my web site at http://www.frogpondpottery.com

phyllis michele greenhouse on sat 22 aug 98




and speaking of terrific digital cams at under $1000.00


i just purchased thru an online auction, a Pentax model Ei-c90 for $244
dollars plus shipping...this cam has resolution of 768x560 pixels, with
the ability to hold approximately 31 shots and perhaps more...u can shut
off the built in flash, and it also comes with a neat little 2x2 inch
monitor attachment for immediate viewing of your photos and also the
ability to edit on the spot...its also has 2mg of memory on board, and a
pcmcia memory slot that allows up to 20 megs of memory for true
shutterbugs :) this is my 4th digital choice in about 9 months, and i'm
finally satisfied with the terrific price/ease of use and the quality of
the images...if you wish to read more about the spex, go to :


http://pentax.com/Frames/eic90/eic90.html


this cam appears to be listed at over 900 dollars, but i hear tell that
on these auction sites, u are bound to see it pop up again....the bidding
started at 99 dollars with this one and the highest it climbed was $274,
so IMHO that is STILL quite the bargoon !!! (type "ebay" or "online") in
your web browser and get ready for some incredible deals, but watch out,
its ADDICTIVE !


by the way, i've also won at the auctions, some vintage marbles that were
incredibly cheap...like 300 for under 20 dollars that i plan to imbed
into my mosaic tile mural...so, there is a wealth of thangs there that
i'm certain some of you would be interested in...nothing to lose by
perusing...but beware, everything u've ever wanted is on those lists, and
you might find yourself spending lots of money :( .....


off tile hunting,


phyllis michele greenhouse

earthspinner

rapture@accesspro.net

http://www.accesspro.net/rapture

Joan & Tom Woodward on fri 23 jul 99

I've been following the digital camera thread with interest. B.P (before
pottery), photography was my primary hobby/artistic outlet. I haven't =
gotten my
act together sufficiently to make a lightbox (ok, to be fair, to ask my =
husband
to build me a light box). And without one, I've found it difficult to get
shadowless photos with either my Canon Elan II or my point =26 shoot. What =
are
the advantages of digital cameras for pottery photos? My understanding is =
that
we're still some time away from digital cameras with good enough depth of =
field
to take good landscape shots, etc. And while I'm asking, anyone have good =
info
on the quality of the small camcorders for use in travel? Thanks.

Joan in Alaska where I'm happy to say I missed the termination dust that =
Carla
mentioned. Climbed Flattop(the most climbed mountain in Alaska 'cause it's =
1/2
hour from downtown) today, and it was glorious.

Bruce Girrell on tue 27 jul 99

Joan Woodward wrote:

> I've been following the digital camera thread with interest. B.P (before
> pottery), photography was my primary hobby/artistic outlet. I
> haven't gotten my
> act together sufficiently to make a lightbox (ok, to be fair, to
> ask my husband
> to build me a light box). And without one, I've found it difficult to get
> shadowless photos with either my Canon Elan II or my point &
> shoot.

The photographer's friend is a cloudy day. No harsh shadows. Contrast range
within the limits of the film. Colors tend to be a little blue, though. For
conventional (film) cameras, try Kodak's Elite 100SW film. The S stands for
"saturated," the W stands for "warm." This bias of the film tends to
compensate for the color of the light on cloudy days.

> What are the advantages of digital cameras for pottery photos?

A camera is just a means of capturing an image, so the advantages of a
digital camera for pottery are pretty much simply the advantages of a
digital camera in just about any circumstance.
1) No film cost, processing cost, time spent waiting for processing. Never
run out of film.
2) No scratches, fingerprints, water spots...
3) Confidentiality of your images. There are just some images that you'd
rather not have reviewed by the 16-year-old running the print machine at
your local Fotos-R-Us.
4) Shoot and re-shoot; bracket to your heart's content. Check your results
instantly and do it again if necessary.
5) Easy to load your pictures directly into a computer. No scanners
needed. Easy to crop, adjust color balance, contrast, everything.
6) Digital cameras use critters called charge coupled devices to record
the incoming light. It is possible to handle a greatly expanded contrast
range using CCDs. Theoretically, you could leave your shutter open for a
long time to capture a lot of shadow detail without burning the dickens out
of the highlights. I don't have enough experience with digital cameras to
tell you which models (if any) offer this feature, though.
7) Probably about ten more things that escape me right now.

> My understanding is that we're still some time away from digital cameras
> with good enough depth of field to take good landscape shots, etc.

Now we come to the down side of digital cameras. The primary problem is not
depth of field, which is primarily a function of the lens opening, but
rather resolution. Most affordable (< US$1000) digital cameras use an
imaging chip about 1/3 inch on each side and generate images with about 1 to
2 million pixels maximum (you can store pictures with different levels of
resolution). Many less expensive cameras generate far fewer pixels.

The image area of a 35mm image is about 1.5x1.0 inches and silver grains in
the film can resolve to about 1200 dots to the inch (depending on film grain
size). If you do the numbers, that comes out to about 2 million "pixels" per
image, also. It would seem that the better digital cameras would rival film
in quality.

Unfortunately, our brains have an uncanny ability to recognize patterns.
Regular patterns, such as a nice rectangular grid of pixels, stand out
clearly to our visual system. Film, with its randomly placed grains of
silver, does not suffer this effect. In order to scan images from film with
sufficient resolution to eliminate visible gridding, scan resolutions on the
order of 4000 lines per inch are used, yielding images of approximately 20
million pixels. Only the top-end digital cameras (US$10,000-$50,000) offer
this kind of resolution. For mural type enlargements, a slow speed film
probably still has the advantage even over these heavy price tag
instruments.

Most digital cameras have either a fixed focus lens or a limited zoom lens.
Very few have interchangeable lenses - a definite limit on creativity.

Batteries died? Oops, you're screwed. Most electronic film cameras usually
have a mechanical fall-back that will allow you to continue to shoot, albeit
in a restricted mode.

Digital cameras are not yet built to handle serious field conditions. They'd
never last in the places that a Nikon FM-2 shrugs off as all in a day's
work.

I'm sure that these drawbacks to digital cameras will be addressed as more
are sold.

> And while I'm asking, anyone
> have good info
> on the quality of the small camcorders for use in travel?

Lynne and I have one of the Sony cameras with a tilt out screen on the side
(about 3x4 inches). It's a feature that has come in really handy for us. It
serves as an auxiliary viewfinder while recording (especially useful if you
happen to be recording yourself) and you can share your video with the
family without having to hook up the cabling to the TV or having them look,
one at a time, through the viewfinder.

Bruce & Lynne Girrell
in steamy northern Michigan. Sweating, but thankful because high temp and
humidity seem to produce better reds

tgschs10 on sun 31 oct 99

I have been lurking on this subject and felt I should emerge from the
shadowland. I hope it helps those interested.

I just returned from a trip to N. Carolina. What a group of wonderful
potters I met. I took with me my Sony 2.1 mega pixel camera capable of
taking pictures at 1600 X 1200 pixels. When I went looking for a digital
camera a few months ago, I was impressed by the picture quality [near
photographic] and its small size. It weighs only 4 ounces and easily fit
inside my coat pocket. It has an automatic focus and a 2X zoom lens. I got
beautiful pictures of the fall foliage as well as pictures of all matters of
pots. The camera comes with a 4 megabyte memory card [stix], I purchased 2
extra 16 megabyte memory stixs each capable of holding about 40-50 high
resolution pictures; an extra battery provides me with about 2 1/2 hours of
film time if the camera is left on. Each evening I downloaded my pictures
into my laptop and recharged my batteries so the next day I was ready again.
What is really nice is that you can review the pictures right after taking
them and erase any you don't want to keep. All except one artist and gallery
were comfortable with me taking pictures and I have many wonderful pictures.

The only downside to this camera is that I wish it had a more powerful zoom;
on the other hand, I purchased it primarily for my pottery and family
portraits both which it does exceedingly well without any zoom and as I
mentioned above I took nearly a hundred pictures of N. Carolina seenery much
of which was obtained thru the windshield as my wife was driving.

I also have used the camera for taking pictures of all of my pottery and as
I am just begining to sell pottery, I can take my computer into galleries
and show them my work on screen. By the way I have a wonderful color printer
that produces exceptional pictures of any file I wish to print.

Beth Williams on mon 1 nov 99

How 'bout sharing your pictures with us???? Being from NC, would be very
interested in "seeing" what you saw!
Thanks.
Beth

tgschs10 on tue 2 nov 99

Beth,

I'm uncertain whether the sharing of pictures would be appropriate without
the artist/gallery permission and I am therefore reluctant. What I didn't
say in my former message concerning digital cameras is that I have been
scanning in pictures that I personally like from all of the major pottery
publications for sometime as well as from pottery books. I have on a couple
of occasions showed others some of these images but I have made a point
never to provide anyone with copies as I believe this would be illegal as
well as morally wrong. As a matter of fact, I often explain to artist when
asking whether I might photograph their work that it is for my use only.

As an aside, I recently started to take pictures of my work before and after
it comes out of the fire. If I like a piece or have a new glaze, I've
incorporated these into a data base complete with formula and picture.

I find all of these images very stimulating and I often go off into a corner
of my home or curl up in bed with my laptop and just feast.

Tom Sawyer
----- Original Message -----
From: Beth Williams
To:
Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras


> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> How 'bout sharing your pictures with us???? Being from NC, would be very
> interested in "seeing" what you saw!
> Thanks.
> Beth
>

tgschs10 on fri 5 nov 99

FYI

There is a good review article on digital cameras with ratings in PC
Magazine Vol 18 #-20 November 16, 1999 begining on page 162. You should be
able to get a copy on your newsstand or see a copy at the local library.

Tom Sawyer

eden@sover.net on sun 7 nov 99

I have been on the brink of purchasing a Nikon Coolpix 950 since we saw it
in NYC in September. The pricetag keeps me thinking. I've been devouring
all the info coming up on clayart on the subject, thanks as always. It
seems that this camera is the only one with any real macro capacity, which
I need. Several times people are talking about next year's models. Is
this like new cars that before the end of the year the next year's models
will be out? Not very long to wait if that's so......So does anybody have
any more explicit info about how this works and if these more powerful
cameras will be out in the next few months?

Thanks again..........so as a matter of fact I did race down and set up my
camera and backdrop and run to the drugstore and put a bunch of pots on my
website and got the order......she was pleased as punch to have that
service.....btw I am up at eleanoraeden.com we're just starting to get that
going.

Eleanora
...............

Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
Paradise Hill
Bellows Falls, VT 05101 eden@sover.net

Ronald Wright on mon 8 nov 99

The Kodak DC210 has macro capability. This is my third digital camera
and it's the best that I have found for the price. I've found that there
are 3 things to look for in a digital camera, resolution, resolution,
and resolution.

Ron Wright
3Dogs Pottery
Chicago
3dogspottery@iname.com
http://www.concentric.net/~wrright

LeRoy Price on mon 8 nov 99

Hi Eleanora:

Take a look at the new Nikon Coolpix 800. It costs $200 less and is
quite similar to the 950. (I just ordered mine today.)

LeRoy Price


On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 eden@sover.net wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I have been on the brink of purchasing a Nikon Coolpix 950 since we saw it
> in NYC in September. The pricetag keeps me thinking. I've been devouring
> all the info coming up on clayart on the subject, thanks as always. It
> seems that this camera is the only one with any real macro capacity, which
> I need. Several times people are talking about next year's models. Is
> this like new cars that before the end of the year the next year's models
> will be out? Not very long to wait if that's so......So does anybody have
> any more explicit info about how this works and if these more powerful
> cameras will be out in the next few months?
>
> Thanks again..........so as a matter of fact I did race down and set up my
> camera and backdrop and run to the drugstore and put a bunch of pots on my
> website and got the order......she was pleased as punch to have that
> service.....btw I am up at eleanoraeden.com we're just starting to get that
> going.
>
> Eleanora
> ...............
>
> Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
> Paradise Hill
> Bellows Falls, VT 05101 eden@sover.net
>

Matt Alexander on tue 9 nov 99

Eleanor -
I work in a Camera store, so we often get advanced notice of new models.
For the past 2 years, there has always been something new and better on the
horizon (within 6 months).
Much like computers - if it is something you want to do - plug your nose
and jump in - don't look back for a while.
Without a doubt, 2 weeks after you buy something, a better one will hit the
shelves.

And like I said before - Buy a digital camera if you need the digital image
(for web sites, low res brochures etc..). Don't buy one with the idea that
you are replacing your current 35mm. You'll be disappointed.

Good luck shopping!

Matt

>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I have been on the brink of purchasing a Nikon Coolpix 950 since we saw it
>in NYC in September. The pricetag keeps me thinking. I've been devouring
>all the info coming up on clayart on the subject, thanks as always. It
>seems that this camera is the only one with any real macro capacity, which
>I need. Several times people are talking about next year's models. Is
>this like new cars that before the end of the year the next year's models
>will be out? Not very long to wait if that's so......So does anybody have
>any more explicit info about how this works and if these more powerful
>cameras will be out in the next few months?
>
>Thanks again..........so as a matter of fact I did race down and set up my
>camera and backdrop and run to the drugstore and put a bunch of pots on my
>website and got the order......she was pleased as punch to have that
>service.....btw I am up at eleanoraeden.com we're just starting to get that
>going.
>
>Eleanora
>...............
>
>Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
>Paradise Hill
>Bellows Falls, VT 05101 eden@sover.net


--------------------------
The spirit of
a three year old
lasts a hundred years

-- Japanese proverb

malexand@students.wisc.edu
mattalexand@hotmail.com

Tom Wirt/Betsy Price on mon 12 jun 00


Subject: Re: digital cameras


> I recently purchased a digital camera, the Olympus C-2020 Zoom, and I have
> been very pleased with it. Street price is in the $700 range, but I found
> it on line for under $550. Anyone wishing to locate the best price on any
> camera should check out www.pricescan.com to find the best deal available.
> Lucien Koonce


Also suggest you price www.ecost.com
Just got a Kodak DC215 for use only for web photos for $20 less than anyone
else was selling.

Tom

Cindy Strnad on mon 12 jun 00


Hi Guys,

After reading reviews of digital cameras until 2 a.m., I'm more confused
than ever. All the numbers mean nothing to me, and the higher dollar cameras
take amazingly beautiful pictures that take several minutes to load. I don't
mind spending the money for the quality I need, but I don't want to over
buy, either. I like taking pictures with my 35mm for personal trips, etc.,
so I only need the camera for web shots of merchandise. Good detail, focus,
light control, and color are important, but I can figure out these things
from the reviews. (Your opinions are welcome.)

Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for? Second,
would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what equipment
do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting one
of the Sony Mavicas)?

Thanks for any and all suggestions.

Cindy Strnad
earthenv@gwtc.net
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730

lucien m koonce on mon 12 jun 00


I recently purchased a digital camera, the Olympus C-2020 Zoom, and I have
been very pleased with it. Street price is in the $700 range, but I found
it on line for under $550. Anyone wishing to locate the best price on any
camera should check out www.pricescan.com to find the best deal available.
Lucien Koonce

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click on http://lmkoonce.home.mindspring.com and visit my on-line gallery.
L M Koonce / Robbins, NC, USA

A Koester on mon 12 jun 00


Another excellent site for checking out digital cameras is
www.beststopdigital.com. My Olympus D-400Zoom (which I love!) has come
down considerably in price in the year since I got mine through that
site.

Anna

Tom Wirt/Betsy Price on tue 13 jun 00


Cindy...
Best source I've found about digital cameras, reviews, and info on how to
use them is at

www.imaging-resource.com
One thing they emphasize repeatedly is that if you're mostly going to use
the camera for web page input or prints up to 5x7, you can use the new 1.3
megapixel cameras that go for $300 US or under.

Tom Wirt

> take amazingly beautiful pictures that take several minutes to load. I
don't
> mind spending the money for the quality I need, but I don't want to over
> buy, either. I like taking pictures with my 35mm for personal trips, etc.,
> so I only need the camera for web shots of merchandise. Good detail,
focus,
> light control, and color are important, but I can figure out these things
> from the reviews. (Your opinions are welcome.)
>
> Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for? Second,
> would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what
equipment
> do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting
one
> of the Sony Mavicas)?
>
> Thanks for any and all suggestions.
>
> Cindy Strnad
> earthenv@gwtc.net
> Earthen Vessels Pottery
> RR 1, Box 51
> Custer, SD 57730
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>

Oooladies@AOL.COM on tue 13 jun 00


I am not a computer whiz, but have learned a few things in my time ....
Resolution, the higher the number the better.... what it means is the number
of dots per inch that make up your pic. the more dots per inch, the clearer
your image. You know when you see pixely looking images? those are low
resolution

We took both a digital camera and a 35mm on vaca to Holland last year. Used
them both, I have the Sony Mavica, which saves to a floppy disc, so I just
had a bunch of floppies in my camera case, just like film. The advantage of
the digital is - 1. it gives you images that are immediately avail for the
web site, as email attatchments if you have a CDwriter you could even then
save them onto a CD. There are resources to inexpensively have your digital
prints made into actual photos so if you need a hard copy it is possible to
do.

I would highly reccommend you get a camera that uses a floppy disc to save
the images on, and that you don't have to upload from camera into the
computer. It is just sooo much easier, and you also don't ever run out of
space in the camera, cause all you do is stick in a clean disc.

Good luck...
marie
www.oooladies.com

In a message dated 6/13/00 5:13:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
earthenv@GWTC.NET writes:

<< Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for? Second,
would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what equipment
do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting one
of the Sony Mavicas)?

Thanks for any and all suggestions.
>>

Lee Love on tue 13 jun 00


----- Original Message -----
From: Cindy Strnad


| Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for?

What do you want to use it for? Low res is good for the web and email.
If you want to make enlargements, go with a higher resolution. Cameras
under a mega pixel can print out good prints of regular snapshot size on a
good printer. Or, you can take them to Walgreens and use their photo
printer.

| Second,
| would I be significantly better off with a good zoom?

Yes. I find that a zoom allows me to more easily frame what I am
photgraphing. This cuts down on computer editing time and gives you the
largest size photo available (you don't loose anthing in the image editor.)

| Third, what equipment
| do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting
one
| of the Sony Mavicas)?

Most cameras hook up to your computer via serial or USB connection. What
is really nice, is using flash cards and a pc card adapter in a laptop.
You just plug the card into your laptop, and the computer treats the card as
if it were another hard drive. This is one of the fastest ways to
transfer photo images.

The Mavicas are huge. They have to be, because they include a
floppy drive. The next generation of this type of camera will probably
use something like the zip drive.

I use a Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom. It is very compact and takes
great pictures. It has much more resolution than you need on the web and
the quality of photos I print out on my Canon Inkjet are very good at
postcard size (I use Canon glossy postcard paper to make prints from. A
16MB flash card holds over 70 images at the highest resolution and around
350 images at the lowest resolution.

Make sure you get rechargable batteries with your camera. They eat
batteries much faster than a film camera. I was using a $12.00 battery a
week until I bought the rechargable pack for my camera.

I think that soon, digital will totally replace film.

--
Lee Love
Nanai , Mashiko-machi ,Tochigi-ken 321-4106 JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Voice Mail and Faxes (a USA number): (303) 256-0374
Help E.T. Phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

The Brinks on tue 13 jun 00


Hi Cindy,

We got a Casio QV11 a few years ago for about $300. Pretty lo-tech compared
to what is out there now. But it is great for computer use. Holds 96 photos
but I usually download after 20 or so. It came with a download program and
connector cable. Our son has a Mavica and I love the idea of the floppy use
for storage, but the camera is a lot bigger (wouldn't fit in my purse on
trips!) The Casio doesn't have a zoom, but has a macro feature and I've
gotten some nice close-ups. When I want to print photos I don't make them
any larger than 3x4" or they look grainy. Shortly after we got the camera
our oldest daughter said "Does this mean I won't ever get real pictures
again?" And the color will fade in 6 months if exposed to daylight. So
they are best for computer use. (this may not be true if the correct paper
is used...I don't know)

Ann Brink in CA

PS. I've often admired your huge pot in the ad in CM! WAAAY bigger than
anything I've done.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cindy Strnad
To:
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:27 PM
Subject: Digital Cameras


> Hi Guys,
>
> After reading reviews of digital cameras until 2 a.m., I'm more confused
> than ever. All the numbers mean nothing to me, and the higher dollar
cameras
> take amazingly beautiful pictures that take several minutes to load. I
don't
> mind spending the money for the quality I need, but I don't want to over
> buy, either. I like taking pictures with my 35mm for personal trips, etc.,
> so I only need the camera for web shots of merchandise. Good detail,
focus,
> light control, and color are important, but I can figure out these things
> from the reviews. (Your opinions are welcome.)
>
> Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for? Second,
> would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what
equipment
> do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting
one
> of the Sony Mavicas)?
>
> Thanks for any and all suggestions.
>
> Cindy Strnad
> earthenv@gwtc.net
> Earthen Vessels Pottery
> RR 1, Box 51
> Custer, SD 57730
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>

Hank Murrow on tue 13 jun 00


>Hi Guys,
>
>After reading reviews of digital cameras until 2 a.m., I'm more confused
>than ever. Would I be significantly better off with a good zoom?
>Cindy Strnad

Dear Cindy; Can't help you with the other two questions; but from my
experience, you need a focal length of 90-110 mm. The reason for this is
that there will be apparent foreshortening of the pieces at focal lengths
under 80mm. Over 120 mm, there will be a 'flattening' of the pieces. The
ideal Focal length is between 90-110 mm. for a 35mm format. Hope this one
thing helps, Hank in Eugene

Oooladies@AOL.COM on tue 13 jun 00


In a message dated 6/13/00 7:47:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ikiru@KAMI.COM
writes:

<< The Mavicas are huge. They have to be, because they include a
floppy drive. The next generation of this type of camera will probably
use something like the zip drive.
>>

The Mavica is smaller than my 35mm - whcih is about 10 years old, but still -
the digital isn't big at all. and it does have a zoom lens, so you can crop
and frame in on your image.

Earl Brunner on tue 13 jun 00


The strict answer would be Yes.....and No. Picture
resolution depends entirely on what you will do with the
pics. For web use, the bigger the file, the slower it will
load, and there is a point of diminishing returns. I.E.
the resolution on monitor is only so good. If you want
photo quality pics, then you need a printer that will do the
job and software (usually comes with the camera) to
manipulate the pics. I DID NOT choose a camera that used
floppies because megapixel pictures take up a lot of space,
very few per floppy. My Olympus D-460 does 1.3 megapixels,
has a flash, & both optical and digital zoom. The
Smartmedia flash memory is not expensive and I have a
Camedia 3 1/2 floppy adapter to download to the computer.

Oooladies@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> I am not a computer whiz, but have learned a few things in my time ....
> Resolution, the higher the number the better.... what it means is the number
> of dots per inch that make up your pic. the more dots per inch, the clearer
> your image. You know when you see pixely looking images? those are low
> resolution
>
> We took both a digital camera and a 35mm on vaca to Holland last year. Used
> them both, I have the Sony Mavica, which saves to a floppy disc, so I just
> had a bunch of floppies in my camera case, just like film. The advantage of
> the digital is - 1. it gives you images that are immediately avail for the
> web site, as email attatchments if you have a CDwriter you could even then
> save them onto a CD. There are resources to inexpensively have your digital
> prints made into actual photos so if you need a hard copy it is possible to
> do.
>
> I would highly reccommend you get a camera that uses a floppy disc to save
> the images on, and that you don't have to upload from camera into the
> computer. It is just sooo much easier, and you also don't ever run out of
> space in the camera, cause all you do is stick in a clean disc.
>
> Good luck...
> marie
> www.oooladies.com
>
> In a message dated 6/13/00 5:13:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> earthenv@GWTC.NET writes:
>
> << Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for? Second,
> would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what equipment
> do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting one
> of the Sony Mavicas)?
>
> Thanks for any and all suggestions.
> >>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.

--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net

Peggy Bjerkan on tue 13 jun 00


Hi Cindy,
I use an inexpensive ($300) Olympus 340 for my website photos. I am =
very happy with it and it is easy to use. The images are captured on a =
"smart card" which is then loaded into a floppy disk adapter. You can =
store up to 60 pictures on an 8 megabyte "smart card" and they take up =
no space whatsoever when traveling. Good luck with your research!
Peggy (getting ready for the heatwave in Napa Valley, Ca.)
peggy@maskwoman.com
http://www.maskwoman.com/

Richard Jeffery on tue 13 jun 00


I'm a convert to digital too - after years of scorn I've settled on a Nikon
Coolpix 850 because it's quicker + easier + cheaper taking shots for
customers' web sites, rather than roll film then scanning.

The Sony has good reviews, but there are a number of points I would
consider.
Data storage:
the floppy disc is a good idea, but limits number of pictures you can take a
high resolution unless you take a bucketful of discs - I think you can only
store 2 per disc at best/highest quality. Why use best quality? Well,
unless you're only interested in web use - perhaps you want printed copy, or
just archival material - it makes sense to start with the highest quality
image. You can always reduce quality/file size for web use through
simple/cheap image software.
There is a version of the Sony which uses a "memory stick". This is a solid
state memory chip much like, and competing with the "Flashcard" that other
cameras use. I think this is a Sony proprietary invention - we may be in a
VHS/Betamax scenario before long. Flashcards are read like mini-hard disks
by computer, and come in varying sizes - a 32Mb card holds about 15 images
at high quality, 30+ at "Fine". I would be wary of the flashcard/memory
stick competition - I don't think there is room in the marketplace for
both. Need to use floppy disc is also the reason why camera is shape/size it
is.

Zooms:
- this doesn't apply to Sony, but check whether zoom is optical (i.e. the
lens assembly alters to provide a different angle of view) or electronic -
where it is only "blowing up" the central section for a trade off in image
quality - however cleverly done. Zooms do help with framing, although you
can usually fine tune that on the computer. Sony has an optical zoom.

USB:
If you look at most recent entries to the market place, you should find USB
cable connections to PC or Mac - this might be quicker if you have a
computer close to where you do the majority of your shots. Oh, and have a
computer with a USB connection! This is much, much, much quicker than
serial or parallel cable transfer.

Colour balance:
whatever you buy, it helps if you can adjust and store alterations to the
colour balance, especially if you plan to use flash. And if you do, you may
find limitations in the built in flash, as you would for any studio work.
There were a number of threads on lighting/backgrounds a few months back.
If you want serious lighting control, you may need to choose a camera that
can cope with off-camera flash guns.

Confusing, ain't it? I choose the Nikon because I went into my local pro
camera shop to buy some roll film (I'm not a pro, but it's the only place to
buy Velvia in good condition) and they were using one to do the shots for
their own web site.

Perhaps most importantly, like any camera it has to feel right in your
hands. Do the controls fall under finger tips? Can you get you eye to the
viewer without switching something on or off with your nose or cheek? Like
any tool it helps if it "fits" your hands..

Hope some of this helps

Richard

Bournemouth UK

By the way, i love the images at oooladies.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Oooladies@AOL.COM
Sent: 13 June 2000 15:00
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Digital Cameras


I am not a computer whiz, but have learned a few things in my time ....
Resolution, the higher the number the better.... what it means is the number
of dots per inch that make up your pic. the more dots per inch, the clearer
your image. You know when you see pixely looking images? those are low
resolution

We took both a digital camera and a 35mm on vaca to Holland last year. Used
them both, I have the Sony Mavica, which saves to a floppy disc, so I just
had a bunch of floppies in my camera case, just like film. The advantage of
the digital is - 1. it gives you images that are immediately avail for the
web site, as email attatchments if you have a CDwriter you could even then
save them onto a CD. There are resources to inexpensively have your digital
prints made into actual photos so if you need a hard copy it is possible to
do.

I would highly reccommend you get a camera that uses a floppy disc to save
the images on, and that you don't have to upload from camera into the
computer. It is just sooo much easier, and you also don't ever run out of
space in the camera, cause all you do is stick in a clean disc.

Good luck...
marie
www.oooladies.com

In a message dated 6/13/00 5:13:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
earthenv@GWTC.NET writes:

<< Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for?
Second,
would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what equipment
do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting one
of the Sony Mavicas)?

Thanks for any and all suggestions.
>>

____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Cindy Strnad on wed 14 jun 00


Hi, Hank.

Thanks for the tip on focal length

(((Dear Cindy; Can't help you with the other two questions; but from my
experience, you need a focal length of 90-110 mm. The reason for this is
that there will be apparent foreshortening of the pieces at focal lengths
under 80mm. Over 120 mm, there will be a 'flattening' of the pieces. The
ideal Focal length is between 90-110 mm. for a 35mm format. Hope this one
thing helps, Hank in Eugene)))

I should know what this means. I've actually read several books on
photography but for some reason this sort of thing is very difficult for me
to assimilate. Anyway, would you please explain what "focal length" is, and
what it would be referred to as in the specifications for digital cameras? I
don't remember seeing any mention of it in the reviews I've read.

Thanks,

Cindy Strnad
earthenv@gwtc.net
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730

Cindy Strnad on wed 14 jun 00


Hi, Earl.

Thanks for your advice.

((Picture resolution depends entirely on what you will do with the
pics. For web use, the bigger the file, the slower it will
load, and there is a point of diminishing returns. I.E.
the resolution on monitor is only so good. If you want
photo quality pics, then you need a printer that will do the
job and software (usually comes with the camera) to
manipulate the pics. I DID NOT choose a camera that used
floppies because megapixel pictures take up a lot of space,
very few per floppy. My Olympus D-460 does 1.3 megapixels,
has a flash, & both optical and digital zoom. The
Smartmedia flash memory is not expensive and I have a
Camedia 3 1/2 floppy adapter to download to the computer.))

What is this Camedia 3 1/2 floppy adapter? Is it a product specific to the
Olympus D-460, or is it something that will work with other digital cameras?
I couldn't find much out (that I could follow) about the various means of
downloading to computers, except that the basic method included with most
digicams is too slow. Is there an on-line site that you know of that sells
the floppy adapter?

Thanks again for your help,

Cindy Strnad
earthenv@gwtc.net
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730

Russel Fouts on wed 14 jun 00


Richard,

You raise some very good points. I'm not ready to convert to digital. I
still find that I have the control and flexibility I want with my 30 year
Canon FTb and a good quality zoom. I take slides and have them scanned onto
a Kodak Photo CD at a professional lab. This way I get slides, images for my
web page (they scan them in at 128 x 192, 256 x 384, 512 x 768, 1024 x 1536
and 2048 x 3072) and can print them as photographs on my printer (after
cleaning up and sizing in Photoshop).

The weakest item is the photos printed on my printer Epson Color Stylus 800,
they're very good printed on Epson Glossy Photographic paper (better on
their Glossy film) but not the same qualitity as a real photo. You just
don't get the same fine gradation that you do on real film. Under a
magnifying glass (ok, call me fussy!) you can still see the dots. However,
I'm willing to cut some slack on this because (I think) they're good enough
to show a gallery.

Juries want slides so these have to be of the best quality. Some galleries
want slides, some want photos but I prefer to use "live" pots whenever
possible so I'm willing to let the photo quality slide a bit. I consider it
a sort of "plan b" for use in an emergency.

Optical zoom over "simulated" zoom is a point well taken, I'd not considered
that before and would opt for the optical zoom.

However the biggest points for me is manual control over exposure, focus and
external lighting. I have all of this with my Canon. In fact, the only
"automatic" thing in it is the light meter, all the rest is manual.

I have two very nice 400 watt strobes that I can contol with the "synch"
socket on the Canon. The strobes can "see" each other and when the one
attached to the camera goes off, the other sees this and goes off as well.
I've not found a digital camera yet that has a synch socket.

I tried a trick with the Mavica's flash, using it to trigger the strobes. I
taped a little piece of cardboard at an angle right in front of the flash.
The idea was to reflect the flash up and away from the object being
photographed towards the sensor on the over head strobe. It worked really
well, both strobes saw the Mavica's flash and went off. However the Mavica
had already set the exposure automatically based on the lighting conditions
before the flash went off so the image was WAY over exposed. The trick would
have worked really well if i'd been able to set the shutter speed and
aperture. This trick would work for someone who uses standard lamps though.
The Mavica should get the correct exposure.

If I found a digital that would give me all of the above at a price I could
afford, I'd be very tempted to buy it.

The camera storage media and transfer method is less important to me than
any of the above factors.

Since the main product for me, right now is great quality slides, the system
I'm using now gives me the most flexibility at the lowest cost.

BTW, I LOVE my Canon FTb, great camera and replacement bodies are about $100
so I have several. It's cheaper to have spare bodies then to FIX a camera of
this age. ;-)

Russel

Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 223 02 75
Mobile: +32 476 55 38 75
Http://www.mypots.com
http://www.Japan-Net.ne.jp/~iwcat

Gary Elfring on wed 14 jun 00


>After reading reviews of digital cameras until 2 a.m., I'm more confused
>than ever. All the numbers mean nothing to me, and the higher dollar cameras
>take amazingly beautiful pictures that take several minutes to load. I don't
>mind spending the money for the quality I need, but I don't want to over
>buy, either. I like taking pictures with my 35mm for personal trips, etc.,
>so I only need the camera for web shots of merchandise. Good detail, focus,
>light control, and color are important, but I can figure out these things
>from the reviews. (Your opinions are welcome.)
>
>Three things confuse me. First, what resolution should I look for? Second,
>would I be significantly better off with a good zoom? Third, what equipment
>do I need to get the photos onto my computer (if I don't end up getting one
>of the Sony Mavicas)?


Features to look for:

Assuming you have a computer with Win 98 and USB ports, make *sure* you get
a camera that has a USB port, and not just a serial port to transfer
pictures. (A serial port take 20 - 100 times as long to send a picture to
your computer.)

If your camera uses AA batteries you *need* rechargable NiMH batteries.
Some cameras
come with these, or you can just buy the batteries and a charger over the
internet. Alkaline AA batteries might give you 10 - 20 pictures with flash,
vs 75 - 150 with the rechargable batteries (and you just charge them up again.)

At least a 2 to 1 optical zoom (3 to 1 is better, but forget the nonsense
"digital-zoom" factor).

The highest resolution you can afford.

Compact flash memory, not Smart Media (compact flash has higher densities
and costs less).

The ability to control the flash, turn it off, or use an external flash.


Elfring Fonts, Inc Bar Codes, MICR, and decorative fonts for Windows
http://www.elfring.com

John Hesselberth on wed 14 jun 00


Russel Fouts wrote:

>I've not found a digital camera yet that has a synch socket.

Hi Russel,

A very few do. One for sure that does (did--I don't think they make it
any longer) is the Kodak DC120. That was the primary reason I bought it.
I have seen it mentioned on one or two other models since but don't
remember which.

I do agree with you that it is still hard to beat a simple 20-30 year old
SLR for taking quality pictures. I still find myself using my old Konica
far more than my digital. It is just simpler and easier and there is no
comparison on the quality. The only advantage I really see in digital,
at this point in their evolution, is rapid turn-around. In my neck of the
woods, though, I can get one hour service on either slides or prints
during regular business hours. Maybe in another few years digital will
have more to offer.

John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
P.O. Box 88
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com web site: http://www.frogpondpottery.com

"Pots, like other forms of art, are human expressions: pleasure, pain or
indifference before them depends upon their natures, and their natures
are inevitably projections of the minds of their creators." Bernard
Leach, A Potter's Book.

Earl Brunner on thu 15 jun 00


I believe it is manufactured for or by Olympus, however it
will work with any camera that uses SmartMedia flash memory,
and that is not just the Olympus. I don't know what other
cameras use this memory though. There are one or two other
types of flash memory and I believe that they each have a
similar adapter. This one does require an accompanying
floppy to be loaded first in order to use. The advantage is
that I can use it on several different computers and only
have to carry the Camedia floppy adapter around.

Cindy Strnad wrote:
>
> Hi, Earl.
>>
> What is this Camedia 3 1/2 floppy adapter? Is it a product specific to the
> Olympus D-460, or is it something that will work with other digital cameras?
> I couldn't find much out (that I could follow) about the various means of
> downloading to computers, except that the basic method included with most
> digicams is too slow. Is there an on-line site that you know of that sells
> the floppy adapter?
>
> Thanks again for your help,
>
> Cindy Strnad
> earthenv@gwtc.net
> Earthen Vessels Pottery
> RR 1, Box 51
> Custer, SD 57730
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.

--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net

Gary Elfring on thu 15 jun 00


>From: Russel Fouts
>The weakest item is the photos printed on my printer Epson Color Stylus 800,
>they're very good printed on Epson Glossy Photographic paper (better on
>their Glossy film) but not the same qualitity as a real photo. You just
>don't get the same fine gradation that you do on real film. Under a
>magnifying glass (ok, call me fussy!) you can still see the dots. However,
>I'm willing to cut some slack on this because (I think) they're good enough
>to show a gallery.
>
>However the biggest points for me is manual control over exposure, focus and
>external lighting. I have all of this with my Canon. In fact, the only
>"automatic" thing in it is the light meter, all the rest is manual.
>
>I have two very nice 400 watt strobes that I can contol with the "synch"
>socket on the Canon. The strobes can "see" each other and when the one
>attached to the camera goes off, the other sees this and goes off as well.
>I've not found a digital camera yet that has a synch socket.
>
>If I found a digital that would give me all of the above at a price I could
>afford, I'd be very tempted to buy it.
>
>Since the main product for me, right now is great quality slides, the system
>I'm using now gives me the most flexibility at the lowest cost.

The absolute weakest link in digital photography is inkjet printing. It
turns out
that both the ink and the paper react with each other and degrade quickly
over time.
Epson paper, in particular, degrades images rather quickly- test results
indicated
significant image fading (visually noticable) in only 6 months! There is an
archival
quality ink that is just being released for Epsons. Also note that the
newer Epsons print even better than the older ones.

As for digital cameras, all the high end Kodaks feature complete control
over exposure, focus, and external lighting. My DC265 has an external sync
socket, manual focus, and I can set exposure time and f-stop (not as easily
as with a SLR though).

You can also have digital images turned into slides, but I would prefer
slide film.

Elfring Fonts, Inc Bar Codes, MICR, and decorative fonts for Windows
http://www.elfring.com

Lee Love on thu 15 jun 00


----- Original Message -----
From: Russel Fouts


| You raise some very good points. I'm not ready to convert to digital. ...

I agree with Russel: digital has not exactly caught up to film yet, for
enlargements and prints. It is only a matter of time, maybe only a few
years. It will be a combination of improvements in the camera and the
print and paper technology. This is why I didn't try to replace the
resolution my 35mm can do. But right now, digital cameras take quality
photos that are perfect for viewing on the computer. To me, it makes
sense to go with a lower res digital now, and wait for the technology to
improve in a couple years. Digital will replace film sooner or later.
Just like the computer replaced the typewriter (Smith Corona just went
bankrupt.)

If this is your route, then things like megapixle resolution or
the difference between digital and optical zoom are not so important.
They are lost on your web page.

I thought of another aspect to consider when buying a digital
camera: try to find one designed so the lens is in a normal position,
where it is on a regular film camera. Some of the lenses are place in
unusual places, because the image does not have to depend on the path of the
light.

Also, I can't stress the importance of rechargeable batteries. You
can go through throwaways quickly and your photos could end up costing you
more than film photos.


--
Lee Love
Nanai , Mashiko-machi ,Tochigi-ken 321-4106 JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Voice Mail and Faxes (a USA number): (303) 256-0374
Help E.T. Phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Tom List on fri 16 jun 00


Beautiful Pictures Lee. How fortunate you are to be spending time is such a
beautiful place. Nancy List

Lee Love wrote:

> One big advantage with digital cameras is that there is no cost for film or
> development and you only print out what images you find interesting.
> Three years ago, when we last visited Japan for a month, we took about 50
> rolls of 24 exposure 35mm film. It took us a year to develop them all.
> Some of the quality of the last rolls had deteriorated slightly.
>
> Since coming to Japan, I take at least 50 photos a week with my
> Canon Digital. To have these developed and printed from my 35mm, it would
> have cost thousands of dollars. I could never have afforded to have them
> developed on my Deshi's (apprentices) budget. :^)
>
> This freedom really allows you to let your creative energies
> fly. My photography abilities have greatly improved and the
> documentation of my experiences here are greatly enhanced.
>
> The next thing I need to do is buy a CDROM writer to archive the
> images on.
>
> You can see some of the photos here:
>
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=815504&a=5927836&p=21044908
> --
> Lee Love
> Nanai , Mashiko-machi ,Tochigi-ken 321-4106 JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
> Voice Mail and Faxes (a USA number): (303) 256-0374
> Help E.T. Phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.

Rosanne Cleveland-King on fri 16 jun 00


Here is another very informative site with digital camera reviews. You can
even choose a megapixel range........
http://www.pcphotoreview.com/

Rosanne Cleveland-King
Mud Pies

Lee Love on fri 16 jun 00


One big advantage with digital cameras is that there is no cost for film or
development and you only print out what images you find interesting.
Three years ago, when we last visited Japan for a month, we took about 50
rolls of 24 exposure 35mm film. It took us a year to develop them all.
Some of the quality of the last rolls had deteriorated slightly.

Since coming to Japan, I take at least 50 photos a week with my
Canon Digital. To have these developed and printed from my 35mm, it would
have cost thousands of dollars. I could never have afforded to have them
developed on my Deshi's (apprentices) budget. :^)

This freedom really allows you to let your creative energies
fly. My photography abilities have greatly improved and the
documentation of my experiences here are greatly enhanced.

The next thing I need to do is buy a CDROM writer to archive the
images on.

You can see some of the photos here:

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=815504&a=5927836&p=21044908
--
Lee Love
Nanai , Mashiko-machi ,Tochigi-ken 321-4106 JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Voice Mail and Faxes (a USA number): (303) 256-0374
Help E.T. Phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Rosanne Cleveland-King on fri 16 jun 00


http://www.zdnet.com/computershopper/stories/reviews/0,7171,2585156,00.html

This site just reviewed a few medium priced digital cameras.......
Rosanne Cleveland-King
Making Mud Pies since 1977........

george koller on tue 20 jun 00


Bill Weaver wrote:

> I have been following the thread about digital cameras hoping to
> enlighten myself. I am in the process of deciding whether to 1) get a
> digital camera or 2) stick with my 35mm and just get a scanner. The
> source of my connundrum is that I know what I can get with 35 mm but I
> am looking for both a cheaper and mor availible means of both recording
> my work and posting it to my web site. I say cheaper because curently I
> have my jury slides shot by a pro and then have them put on CD which I
> then use to post to my web site. I can't afford to everything I make (
> I do one of a kind work) shot so I thought of setting myself up to shoot
> my own photos for record and the web. I keep getting hung on the
> complications and delay in this process. So I thought digital would
> eliminate the problem by allowing me to selectively keep the shots I
> want and eliminate those I don't. This is further complicated by the
> fact that I have done photography and darkroom work since I was 12 (
> nearly forty years).
>
> So my questoin s are directed to those who have digital cameras and are
> using them in the same manner I would like to use it. Specifically, when
> you shoot for you web site using digital what kind of lighting do you
> use? for those who have cameras that do not permit remote lighting or
> studio lighting does the flash interefer or does it give good enough
> light to post images to the web? Areyou satisfied with the images you
> get if you are using a id priced semi-manual camera or do you wish you
> had one with complete manual control availible?
> I have been looking at the Nikon 990, Olympus 3030 and 3000 and 2500L,
> the sony DSC S70 and the Kodak. I have also been looking at the 1 and 2
> megapixel cameraslby these companies as well. I am aware of the
> problems of the proprietary memory systems but has anyone had any first
> hand experience with the advantages or disadvantages to each? I am
> trying to figure out if there is a way to get what I want without
> spending and arm and a leg!!
> Thanks to anywone who wants to respond if you want you can do so
> off-list as well.

=====





Bill,

Perhaps, it may be interesting for you to know that many cameras and
scanners come with entry level "photo-imaging" software that run the
range from "fairly useless" to "very powerful". I would suggest you
look for the Adobe Photoshop package in some trial version (or download)
and you may find yourself enjoying the "filter" features of this powerful
package (or others like it). The Adobe folks invented "postscript" and
are, in my opinion, "kings" of the imaging hill - so you can recoup your
time spent in a starter package directly in to their advanced packages.
Just a thought.

My experience with a low cost scanner was negative. On the other
hand I have found my 500DL Olympus Camera to be a very useful tool.
I'm not sure I agree with people that say anything like "resolution is
everything" Without opening a can of worms - just let me just say that I think
that anything above about 0.75M pixels is probably unncessary for web purpose
pictures.

George Koller

Bill Weaver on tue 20 jun 00


I have been following the thread about digital cameras hoping to
enlighten myself. I am in the process of deciding whether to 1) get a
digital camera or 2) stick with my 35mm and just get a scanner. The
source of my connundrum is that I know what I can get with 35 mm but I
am looking for both a cheaper and mor availible means of both recording
my work and posting it to my web site. I say cheaper because curently I
have my jury slides shot by a pro and then have them put on CD which I
then use to post to my web site. I can't afford to everything I make (
I do one of a kind work) shot so I thought of setting myself up to shoot
my own photos for record and the web. I keep getting hung on the
complications and delay in this process. So I thought digital would
eliminate the problem by allowing me to selectively keep the shots I
want and eliminate those I don't. This is further complicated by the
fact that I have done photography and darkroom work since I was 12 (
nearly forty years).

So my questoin s are directed to those who have digital cameras and are
using them in the same manner I would like to use it. Specifically, when
you shoot for you web site using digital what kind of lighting do you
use? for those who have cameras that do not permit remote lighting or
studio lighting does the flash interefer or does it give good enough
light to post images to the web? Areyou satisfied with the images you
get if you are using a id priced semi-manual camera or do you wish you
had one with complete manual control availible?
I have been looking at the Nikon 990, Olympus 3030 and 3000 and 2500L,
the sony DSC S70 and the Kodak. I have also been looking at the 1 and 2
megapixel cameraslby these companies as well. I am aware of the
problems of the proprietary memory systems but has anyone had any first
hand experience with the advantages or disadvantages to each? I am
trying to figure out if there is a way to get what I want without
spending and arm and a leg!!
Thanks to anywone who wants to respond if you want you can do so
off-list as well.

Tom Wirt/Betsy Price on tue 20 jun 00


Subject: digital cameras


> I have been following the thread about digital cameras hoping to
> enlighten myself. I am in the process of deciding whether to 1) get a
> digital camera or 2) stick with my 35mm and just get a scanner.
> want and eliminate those I don't. This is further complicated by the
> fact that I have done photography and darkroom work since I was 12 (
> nearly forty years).
>
. Specifically, when
> you shoot for you web site using digital what kind of lighting do you
> use? for those who have cameras that do not permit remote lighting or
> studio lighting does the flash interefer or does it give good enough
> light to post images to the web? Areyou satisfied with the images you
> get if you are using a id priced semi-manual camera or do you wish you
> had one with complete manual control availible?
I am aware of the
> problems of the proprietary memory systems but has anyone had any first
> hand experience with the advantages or disadvantages to each? I am
> trying to figure out if there is a way to get what I want without
> spending and arm and a leg!!
>


Bill...take a look at our website www.claycoyote.com
go to retail, coyote tales.
There's a picture there of an iris I shot with my new Kodak DC215.
Downloaded through the serial port which everyone says is too slow, but only
took 10 secs or so, and directly loaded into the web page. Tomorrow I'll
post a photo I took today of two pots under blue bulb tungsten and a flash
studio shot. I'll only leave them up for a couple of days. 2- 5oow bulbs
gave enough light to disable the flash. I forced the flash in one shot and
it overpowered the pots....but that's my doing. I don't think the flash
alone would be very good, but didn't test it yet.The camera is about $285
through ecost.com. Printed on a good printer and paper the photos are damn
near film quality up to 5x7. I've been really impressed with this gem.
Also go to www.imaging-resource.com for camera reviews.

The pot shots in the rest of the site were done with 35mm, home setup,
scanned by the processor onto Kodak Photo disks and then loaded into the web
page. The photo of the farm and Betsy and I were from a print and scanned
by an hp scanner (cheap).

Like you, I've done photography for 40 plus years and worked with pros doing
product and food shots for various jobs I've had in the
advertising/marketing field. Also did all my own darkroom work including
color.

the DC215 uses the compact flash cards which in the 8 mgb version hold about
70 photos. Everything I read says go with the compact flash cards. Setting
various adjustments is a snap with on screen menus and the "do-it" button.

Hope this helps.


Tom Wirt Me

John Hesselberth on tue 20 jun 00


Hi Bill,

I think you will find as many opinions on this as there are people on
Clayart, but I'll stick my foot in it. I have both SLR and a 2 year old
digital (1+ megapixel). In answering, though, I will assume you want to
take pictures of high enough quality to use both on a web site and for
jurying or a catalog/portfolio.

First, I don't think you go digital to save money at this stage of its
evolution. The cameras are still pretty primitive and probably have a
useful life of 2-3 years. In comparison a simple, manual 35mm SLR that
is useful for taking pictures of pots has a life measured in decades.
Mine is currently in its 4th decade and I wouldn't even think of buying a
new one.

Even if you are buying 35mm equipment from scratch I can show you how to
get the camera, lens, flash, softbox, background, and tripod setup for
less than $500. In fact I did in a pair of Clay Times articles a couple
years ago. You can find them on my web site
(http://www.frogpondpottery.com). Add another $100 for a scanner (or have
your photo processor scan the ones you really want to scan) and you are
in business. Yes, there is the ongoing cost of film and processing, but
that is nothing compared to buying the latest digital camera every two
years until they finally stabilize in design a little bit and become user
friendly.

If you want quality photos I believe you must set up with artificial
light--either floods or a strobe. Getting consistent exposure day-to-day
or even hour-to-hour with natural light is extremely difficult. You can
tell pot photos taken with natural light every time and they look
inconsistent on-to-the-next. Getting a good matched set for a jury is
nearly impossible. Even for those few digital cameras that allow you to
shut off the flash and synch with an external strobe, the procedure to do
so will drive a sane person crazy. To say it is not user friendly is an
understatement--at least that's the case with my digital and I don't
think that aspect has changed much in 2 years. Flood lights might be
easier; I don't know because I have always worked with a strobe.

Then there is the question of slides. You will not get decent quality
slides made from 2 megapixel digital photos.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is this. If all you will ever want is
web quality photos AND you currently own no 35 mm equipment, a 1
megapixel digital for $300 might make sense. I would sure try to borrow
one and test if first though to see if you will be happy with what you
can do with it. On the other hand if you might want to take slides or you
already own 35 mm equipment, stick with 35 mm for at least another 2-3
years.

For me, I don't use my digital much at all and I have no intention of
buying another one for at least a couple more years. I thought it was
pretty cool right after I bought it, but after you live with one for a
while they just don't measure up. At least that was my experience.

So check out the articles I wrote and see if a setup like that might not
do the job for you.

Regards, John

Bill Weaver wrote:

>I have been following the thread about digital cameras hoping to
>enlighten myself. I am in the process of deciding whether to 1) get a
>digital camera or 2) stick with my 35mm and just get a scanner. The
>source of my connundrum is that I know what I can get with 35 mm but I
>am looking for both a cheaper and mor availible means of both recording
>my work and posting it to my web site. I say cheaper because curently I
>have my jury slides shot by a pro and then have them put on CD which I
>then use to post to my web site. I can't afford to everything I make (
>I do one of a kind work) shot so I thought of setting myself up to shoot
>my own photos for record and the web. I keep getting hung on the
>complications and delay in this process. So I thought digital would
>eliminate the problem by allowing me to selectively keep the shots I
>want and eliminate those I don't. This is further complicated by the
>fact that I have done photography and darkroom work since I was 12 (
>nearly forty years).
>
>So my questoin s are directed to those who have digital cameras and are
>using them in the same manner I would like to use it. Specifically, when
>you shoot for you web site using digital what kind of lighting do you
>use? for those who have cameras that do not permit remote lighting or
>studio lighting does the flash interefer or does it give good enough
>light to post images to the web? Areyou satisfied with the images you
>get if you are using a id priced semi-manual camera or do you wish you
>had one with complete manual control availible?
>I have been looking at the Nikon 990, Olympus 3030 and 3000 and 2500L,
>the sony DSC S70 and the Kodak. I have also been looking at the 1 and 2
>megapixel cameraslby these companies as well. I am aware of the
>problems of the proprietary memory systems but has anyone had any first
>hand experience with the advantages or disadvantages to each? I am
>trying to figure out if there is a way to get what I want without
>spending and arm and a leg!!
>Thanks to anywone who wants to respond if you want you can do so
>off-list as well.
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>____
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.


John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
P.O. Box 88
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com web site: http://www.frogpondpottery.com

"Pots, like other forms of art, are human expressions: pleasure, pain or
indifference before them depends upon their natures, and their natures
are inevitably projections of the minds of their creators." Bernard
Leach, A Potter's Book.

Lee Love on wed 21 jun 00


http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=815504&a=5927836&p=23086952

A digital is a great suppliment to a 35mm. Just about the only think I use
my 35mms for now are slides. I agree with Tom about the compact flash.
It is faster than the other card available. You can also get a compact
flash reader that hooks up to different ports on your computer, depending on
what type you buy. I've mentioned before, the PC Card adapter for
compact flash cards is very fast and it allows you to treat the flashcard as
another hard drive (I can transfer files from my lap top to my hand held
using this arrangement.

Also, the LCD screen is very helpful in setting up a photo.
Unlike the veiwfinder in an SLR, you see exactly what is going to be saved
on the card (in an SLR, you don't see exactly what is going on the film.)
It is also helpful for closeups, especially at ground level, where it is
difficult to put your eye on the veiwfinder. I've also noticed that low
light level photography seems to be more sensitive on the digital. You can
usually tell in the LCD if the light is going to work.

You can also do slideshows on a television directly off your camera.
You can even video tap your photos on your VCR to send them to grandma and
grandpa (or other folks who don't have email yet.) You can save slide
shows on compact flash or VCR tape and show those to people. I've
thought that this might be better than slides while I am traveling in Japan,
because not every body has a slide projector but almost every one has a T.V.
or a T.V. and a VCR player.

Below is a photo of my wife Jean, me & Taiko that a friend mailed us that he
took at the going away dinner we had for him (he used his 35mm and I scanned
the print. He just moved to Yokohama.) It would have been a better photo
on my Canon Powershot.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=815504&a=5927836&p=23086952

--
Lee Love
Nanai , Mashiko-machi ,Tochigi-ken 321-4106 JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Voice Mail and Faxes (a USA number): (303) 256-0374
Help E.T. Phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

JAlexan491@AOL.COM on wed 21 jun 00


As one who works everyday with digital cameras in my graphic arts "day job",
resolution is everything on these cameras. Buy as much resolution as you can
afford. It is the most important thing because no matter how certain you are
now that you may use it only for the web, you will eventually want to use it
for high quality photos---and you will only get these from high resolution.

One big advantage to having high resolution is that I can shoot images of my
work with my digital and print high quality postcards from my printer. I can
mail something the very same day to a gallery who is interested. I can also
customize my mailings---I may not need or want 500 or 1000 postcards of the
same thing---and I often don't want to wait for three to get them from a
printing company.

If you have enough resolution, you can also send your images on diskette to a
lab for slides.

Janice in NC

Jim Bozeman on wed 21 jun 00


I was wondering if anyone has used their 35mm camera to record their pottery
and then scan the photo's to post on eBay. Is this way cheaper than buying a
digital camera? I already have a good quality Nikon 35mm and I'm thinking of
either buying a scanner or else a digital for the sole purpose of putting my
work on eBay. Thanks, Jim
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

BobWicks@AOL.COM on wed 21 jun 00


Hi Bill:
I am a retired Professor of Art & Photography and have just experienced a
change over from traditional photography to digital. First I would say that
if you do this you are not doing photography as you once knew it: it's all
computer. You will have infinite control with digital however there are
other concerns. First you have to calibrate your camera to work at optimum
with your computer and printer and hat is a job. Second, you have to be very
computer literate to feed your pictures from your camera to your computer and
there are several ways that this can be done. All of the high end Digital
cameras are complicated. I have had a Nikon 950 since March and I'm no dummy
and I have not printed a picture without help. I know I will be able to do
it in time. Also I got a Kodak Compact Flash card with a PCMCIA adapter for
my lap top, but it is very slow. Then I went to the Lexar Compact Flash 8X
which uses a card reader fed into the USB, only to find out that it won't
work unless you have Windows 98 or Win 2000. That set me back $90. Let me
say this; digital at the high end is complicated, however at the lo end it is
a bit less complicated as you do not get to make a lot of decisions. The
Nikon 950 is rated first in the top 10 digital cameras according to Computer
world. Hope this sheds some light on your decision. So far I am very
pleased with the 950, but it does not have a USB port which will down load 40
X faster than the serial port.

Bob Wicks

Larry Phillips on wed 21 jun 00


Lee Love wrote:
>
> I agree with Tom about the compact flash. It is faster than the other
> card available. You can also get a compact flash reader that hooks
> up to different ports on your computer, depending on what type you
> buy.

Smartmedia (SSFDC) cards are also fast, when you use an adapter (USB,
parallel, floppy, etc.) I would not choose one camera over another on
the basis of Compact Flash vs. Smartmedia.

> Also, the LCD screen is very helpful in setting up a photo.
> Unlike the veiwfinder in an SLR, you see exactly what is going to be
> saved on the card (in an SLR, you don't see exactly what is going on
> the film.)

Having both, of course, is best. While the LCD is better in some ways,
its disadvantages include being washed out in sunlight and having too
low a resolution for accurate focus.

--
Hukt on fonix werkt fer me!

http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/

Ray Aldridge on thu 22 jun 00


At 05:05 PM 6/21/00 PDT, you wrote:
>I was wondering if anyone has used their 35mm camera to record their pottery
>and then scan the photo's to post on eBay. Is this way cheaper than buying a
>digital camera? I already have a good quality Nikon 35mm and I'm thinking of
>either buying a scanner or else a digital for the sole purpose of putting my
>work on eBay. Thanks, Jim

Jim, good scanners are a lot cheaper than good digital cameras. I have an
ancient Mamiya-Sekor SLR that I use to take photos, which I then scan for
use on the web. I paid less than $100 for the scanner a couple of years
ago. I would recommend that you get a scanner that can handle slides, so
you don't have to make prints as well as slides. Slides are better quality
in general.

Ray

Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com

Eydie DeVincenzi on thu 22 jun 00


Message text written by Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>>.... my 500DL Olympus Camera to be a very useful tool.
I'm not sure I agree with people that say anything like "resolution is
everything" Without opening a can of worms - just let me just say that I=

think
that anything above about 0.75M pixels is probably unncessary for web
purposes.
>>

I just jumped into this thread, so if this question has already been aske=
d,
please forgive me: what about the quality of the camera for SLIDES? =

Eydie

Richard Jeffery on thu 22 jun 00


I think this goes to demonstrate how hard it is synthesising individual
experiences into useful advice and evidence prior to choosing a course of
action...

I would say that digital cameras are all about photography. For many
people, photography stops at the point where you hand over the film for
processing. The quality of the image is likely to be determined more by
what happens up to that point than any other factor. In this respect,
digital is no different.

As for the level of computer literacy required (isn't literacy an emotive
term?), I find that harder to judge. I teach folk how to use computers, so
my personal experience may be of little objective value. However, if you
can copy files from hard disk to floppy, you can get the images off the
camera - once it is set up. I use the Nikon 950 too, after 20 years of 35mm
and roll film (I still use those, for other things). It would be easier if
the camera had a built in USB port, but the external card reader Bob
mentions works a treat: take card out of camera, plug into reader (almost
like a miniature floppy disk), copy files... (card reader appears/mounts
(for the Apple fraternity) like another hard disk). Take out card, put back
into camera. Unfortunately, there is no real support for USB technology
prior to Windows 98. I think the last version of Win 95 did have support,
but it was not available for open sale, only for installation by computer
manufacturers. Besides, a computer of that era isn't likely to have the
hardware support, either. I hope Bob went back to the shop and got his $90
back - they should have checked suitability, maybe...?

At the processing stage I do tend to agree with Bob. In that same way that
what goes on in the darkroom can range from the simple to the contrived and
technically just plain hard, so the range of operations available in a
computer graphics package can seem daunting - I have several clients who
typically buy a scanner, then can't work out what to do with a 6Mb image of
their holiday snaps they want to email to Auntie Jo in Australia. And if
you go digital, you do need to come to terms with using a graphics package.
It's also an area of the computer industry where there is the least
standardisation - different controls have different names, across competing
packages, there are a dozen or more commonly found file formats, not all of
which can be read efficiently by all software. However, you can make it as
easy or as hard as you want. Like any software, it helps if you can try an
evaluation copy before you buy - there are even some really good shareware
packages that help you do just that, like Paintshop Pro. In the end, you
have to put the time in to get something out - just like any other software.
None of us were using email and the internet every day, 10 years ago. There
are printers that will allow you to plug in your compact flash card, press a
button and out streams a set of prints, but more control than that is not
very hard.
I think there are some basic skills to acquire if all you want is to have as
accurate a representation as possible, beyond the open/close/save file/save
file with new name type stuff:
crop image
change image size
change resolution
adjust colour balance
adjust brightness/contrast

To that you might add retouching - getting rid of background clutter, etc -
not hard, but it's usually a damn sight easier to take a clean picture in
the first place.

The last two on the list are less easy, but any decent graphics software
will both offer a preview of the changes you are about to make, and an
"undo" facility for when it goes horribly wrong.

Although I'm saying that it isn't that hard - it isn't - I do have some
gripes. Not one of the packages I have tried does all that I want, how I
want it. I have used Corel draw, Photoshop (you get a free copy with the
Nikon), various Microsoft offerings, the list goes on. I often find I use 2
or 3 graphics packages at the same time, because each might have a
particular strength - daft really. It isn't like a word processor, where
you can predict what the software will do - graphics packages don't just all
have the same set of tools.

I hope this helps, rather than hinders

Richard Jeffery
www.TheEleventhHour.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of BobWicks@AOL.COM
Sent: 22 June 2000 02:11
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: digital cameras


Hi Bill:
I am a retired Professor of Art & Photography and have just experienced a
change over from traditional photography to digital. First I would say that
if you do this you are not doing photography as you once knew it: it's all
computer. You will have infinite control with digital however there are
other concerns. First you have to calibrate your camera to work at optimum
with your computer and printer and hat is a job. Second, you have to be
very
computer literate to feed your pictures from your camera to your computer
and
there are several ways that this can be done. All of the high end Digital
cameras are complicated. I have had a Nikon 950 since March and I'm no
dummy
and I have not printed a picture without help. I know I will be able to do
it in time. Also I got a Kodak Compact Flash card with a PCMCIA adapter for
my lap top, but it is very slow. Then I went to the Lexar Compact Flash 8X
which uses a card reader fed into the USB, only to find out that it won't
work unless you have Windows 98 or Win 2000. That set me back $90. Let me
say this; digital at the high end is complicated, however at the lo end it
is
a bit less complicated as you do not get to make a lot of decisions. The
Nikon 950 is rated first in the top 10 digital cameras according to Computer
world. Hope this sheds some light on your decision. So far I am very
pleased with the 950, but it does not have a USB port which will down load
40
X faster than the serial port.

Bob Wicks

____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Gary Elfring on fri 23 jun 00


>Jim, good scanners are a lot cheaper than good digital cameras. I have an
>ancient Mamiya-Sekor SLR that I use to take photos, which I then scan for
>use on the web. I paid less than $100 for the scanner a couple of years
>ago. I would recommend that you get a scanner that can handle slides, so
>you don't have to make prints as well as slides. Slides are better quality
>in general.

While good scanners are inexpensive ($100 - $200 these days), they are not
useful for scanning slides. Flat bed scanners have a typical optical
resolution of 600 dpi at best. They do a wonderful job scanning printed
photos, but don't work at all for transparencies (scanners work based on
reflected light, slides on transmitted light). You need a special adaptor
(which most scanner makers don't offer) and the adaptors either cost a lot
of money or offer such poor resolution that they aren't worth while.

You can purchase a special slide scanner, but they typically cost $1,000 -
$2,500 (and feature resolutions of 2000 - 3500 dpi). Slides are better
quality than digital cameras, but you don't need that better quality for the
web!

You would be better off looking for one of the lower model Kodak digital
cameras, say a DC 240, which cost about $250. Perfect for web pictures

Elfring Fonts, Inc. Bar code fonts for Windows, Unix, mainframes, and DOS
http://www.barcodingfonts.com

Earl Brunner on fri 23 jun 00


Olympus sells an inexpensive slide scanner for about
$450.00, I've been real pleased with the quality of the
scans, it is a bit slow, but it gets the job done

Gary Elfring wrote:
>
> >Jim, good scanners are a lot cheaper than good digital cameras. I have an
> >ancient Mamiya-Sekor SLR that I use to take photos, which I then scan for
> >use on the web. I paid less than $100 for the scanner a couple of years
> >ago. I would recommend that you get a scanner that can handle slides, so
> >you don't have to make prints as well as slides. Slides are better quality
> >in general.
>
> While good scanners are inexpensive ($100 - $200 these days), they are not
> useful for scanning slides. Flat bed scanners have a typical optical
> resolution of 600 dpi at best. They do a wonderful job scanning printed
> photos, but don't work at all for transparencies (scanners work based on
> reflected light, slides on transmitted light). You need a special adaptor
> (which most scanner makers don't offer) and the adaptors either cost a lot
> of money or offer such poor resolution that they aren't worth while.
>
> You can purchase a special slide scanner, but they typically cost $1,000 -
> $2,500 (and feature resolutions of 2000 - 3500 dpi). Slides are better
> quality than digital cameras, but you don't need that better quality for the
> web!
>
> You would be better off looking for one of the lower model Kodak digital
> cameras, say a DC 240, which cost about $250. Perfect for web pictures
>
> Elfring Fonts, Inc. Bar code fonts for Windows, Unix, mainframes, and DOS
> http://www.barcodingfonts.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.

--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net

Ray Aldridge on fri 30 jun 00


At 10:04 AM 6/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Jim, good scanners are a lot cheaper than good digital cameras. I have an
>>ancient Mamiya-Sekor SLR that I use to take photos, which I then scan for
>>use on the web. I paid less than $100 for the scanner a couple of years
>>ago. I would recommend that you get a scanner that can handle slides, so
>>you don't have to make prints as well as slides. Slides are better quality
>>in general.
>
>While good scanners are inexpensive ($100 - $200 these days), they are not
>useful for scanning slides. Flat bed scanners have a typical optical
>resolution of 600 dpi at best. They do a wonderful job scanning printed
>photos, but don't work at all for transparencies (scanners work based on
>reflected light, slides on transmitted light). You need a special adaptor
>(which most scanner makers don't offer) and the adaptors either cost a lot
>of money or offer such poor resolution that they aren't worth while.
>
>You can purchase a special slide scanner, but they typically cost $1,000 -
>$2,500 (and feature resolutions of 2000 - 3500 dpi). Slides are better
>quality than digital cameras, but you don't need that better quality for the
>web!
>
>You would be better off looking for one of the lower model Kodak digital
>cameras, say a DC 240, which cost about $250. Perfect for web pictures
>

I agree with most of what Gary says here, but the resolution of flatbed
scanners is entirely adequate for the web, and if I remember correctly, the
original questioner already has a SLR camera.

Scanned prints are adequate for web pages (it's what I currently use on my
site) but slides are better, and the issue isn't resolution-- it's tonal
range. If you enter shows and juried exhibitions, you need slides, and
better to only have to set up to shoot one set of pics.

Here's an idea for folks who already have a scanner:

http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/~hasubek/slidescanner/slidescanner.html

Don't know if this homemade adaptor really works, but I think I might give
it a try.

Prices on some dedicated slide scanners have come down a bit from the
prices Gary mentions. For an interesting discussion, visit:

http://www.photo.net/photo/slide-scanners.html

Ray


Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com

Ralph O. Robinson on tue 17 oct 00


Kurt,
The following article appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on
September 24th regarding digital cameras. It contains a great deal of
unbiased educational information.
Ralph

"Digital cameras move to the fore."

John J. Kroll Newhouse News Service

It's time to focus on digital cameras. Their prices have gotten so low
and their
quality has gotten so high _ that they're a good choice for almost
anyone. But how do you choose?

The digital camera doesn't use film, but saves an image on memory
modules or a
floppy disk. The image can then be transferred to a computer for
printing or other
use, such as being sent by e-mail.

Work through the following criteria, and you'll be able to decide what
you're looking
for. Then go to several stores or check the Web to see what's available.

A great source of reviews is the Digital Camera Resource Page at
http://www.dcresource.com.

- Resolution: This is determined by how many pixels _ individual
dots of color _ are in a photo. It's the most important choice
you'll make.

What to buy: If you just want to send photos via e-mail to Grandma or
post them on
the Web, even a camera with a 640 by 480 resolution is OK.

Want to print out 3-by-5 or 4-by-6 prints, such as the kind the
drugstore sells? You
can squeak by with 800 by 600, but get a higher resolution if you can
afford it.

Want to make prints big enough to frame? Go for 1,280 by 960 _ or
higher, if you can afford it.

What to watch out for: Some cameras list a very high resolution based
not on what the camera actually records but on what's called
``extrapolation'' _ basically, using
software to try to enlarge a photo. Compare only physical resolution.

Ignore boasts about how many pictures will fit onto a storage disk; the
differences are insignificant.

- Zoom: In a traditional camera, zoom means the lens adjusts to fill the

frame with
more or less of the scene before you. Focus on a face and you can zoom
in on the nose or zoom out to include the whole body.

What to buy: Almost every digital camera includes 2x or 3x optical zoom,

and there's not a dime's worth of difference for most photographers.

Don't pay extra for a higher optical zoom unless you're sure you'll use
it. Pay attention to the zoom range, expressed as something like 35-105,

especially the low number. If you can find one whose lower number is
under 30, you'll have a good wide-angle lens (one that can take in the
whole extended family for those group portraits).

What to watch out for: Some cameras list ``6x zoom'' and hide in small
type that it
means 2x optical and 3x digital. Digital zoom is like ``extrapolation''
in resolution;
you'll get fuzzier photos if you use it. Ignore digital zoom claims.

- Storage: Instead of film, you'll store your photos on some kind of
removable storage.

What to buy: A few Sony cameras use floppy disks. Skip them; you'll have

to change disks too often. Other Sonys use the company's Memory Sticks.
They're better than floppies, but they may be hard to find in stores.

You might wish to stick with the standard Compact Flash or SmartMedia,
which are
small, thin relatives of the floppy.

What to watch out for: Most cameras come with 4-megabyte or 8-megabyte
storage
cards included. That won't be enough _ but don't worry. Plan to spend
about $100 for a 32MB version of the storage you need, which probably
will be enough to hold close to 90 photos _ and, unlike film, can be
used again and again.

- Connection: You can plug some cameras into your TV or a printer. To
get the best
use, though, you should download your photos into a computer for editing

and storage.

What to buy: You can't put Compact Flash or SmartMedia cards into your
computer directly, so you'll need a transfer device. Choose cameras that

handle the transfer themselves and include a connection cable. Make sure

the cable works with your computer. If you have a newer Macintosh or
Windows computer, lean toward cameras that offer USB connections.

- Power: Digital cameras eat batteries.

What to buy: Reject any camera that will not accept rechargeable
batteries; NiMH is
best. It's a plus if the camera comes with an AC adapter, so you can
give the batteries a rest when you're just flipping through the pictures

you've taken.

What to watch out for: Don't be fooled by claims of how many hours
you'll get out of
your batteries. Assume any camera's batteries will give out after a day

or two of
moderate use.

- Price: The consumer range for a decent digital camera goes from $200
to $1,000,
but bargains abound.

What to buy: If you're a casual photographer, a camera that costs $300
or less can be reasonable if you count the savings on film.
Vacation-only shooters could even find low-resolution models under $200.

An avid amateur? You can find almost anything you'd want under $600.
If you've gotten this far and you still have several cameras on your
list, don't spend
too much time picking a favorite. Unless there's some special feature
that piques your
interest, just check online reviews and then go with the most affordable

choice.

What to watch out for: Stores may carry older models. That doesn't mean
they're not a good buy, if the price is right _ but check online to make

sure the newer, better
versions aren't just as cheap.

- Extras: As prices have come down, camera makers are trying to stand
out by
offering unique features _ built-in special effects, for example.

What to buy: Most of them aren't worth any extra money, but these three
are:
- Swiveling lens. If you like to get creative, look for cameras that
have lenses on
pivots. A swiveling lens could, for example, allow you to hold the
camera over the
heads of parade-watchers with the LCD screen pointed toward you but the
lens
twisted toward the action.

- Movies. Some cameras can take short movies _ as short as 10 seconds; a

few include sound. A 10-second clip of Baby Dumpling playing pat-a-cake
says a lot more than any number of still photos could.

- Flash hot shoe. The flash units built into most digital cameras are
too small to do
anything but give your portraits that annoying ``red-eye'' look. A
hot-shoe connection allows you to plug in a real flash unit.

James L Bowen on tue 17 oct 00


I recommend you buy a camera that uses AA batteries.
The new nickel-metal hydride rechargeable are a great buy at $20 for 4 =
including a charger at Circuit City.

will edwards on tue 24 apr 01


Hi,

Not long ago they were some threads on here about digital camera's. I hav=
e
been to the archives but I didn't see anything on the camera I recently
bought. Does anyone here have or use or know anything about the Olympus
D-360L? Instead of re-starting a thread, I would appreciate it if you cou=
ld
e.mail off line but a thread on this would be appreciated as well if ever=
yone
is willing.

TIA
William Edwards

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
1

Kim Marie on thu 26 apr 01


Hi Will

I got that model digital camera recently as a gift. Don't know if I can
help but if you want to converse my email is kmarie@odyssey.net all in
lower case, I have a fussy ISP
Kim

Cindy Ginter on tue 15 may 01


I have used a digital camera for two years. I absolutely love the immediacy
of getting the picture right out of the camera and into the site. You want
a camera that will take a great macro shot. Nikon Coolpix 800-900 range is
great. I noticed that the Sony mavicas take tight macros, the resolution
and picture quality is not as great as the Nikon, but if you are just
posting the picture to the web, that won't make a big difference. Olympus
is also a good camera. Camera's in the $400 to $600 dollar range are a
pretty good bet. ----- Original Message -----
From: beth ellen brickey
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:23 PM
Subject: digital cameras


> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your
websites?
> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>
> Beth
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>

beth ellen brickey on tue 15 may 01


Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your websit=
es?
Do you recommend them and at what price range?

Beth
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Tony Ferguson on tue 15 may 01


Yes,

Dig cameras are nice. If you want a camera just for
web applications, a sony mavica will work just great.
Check ebay, walmart, etc. Do not get the cheapo
cameras that have the memory inside them and hold only
20-50 pictures.

For web, all you need is 72 dpi which equals a 1.1
megapixel camera--any will really do. I have used
many of the sony models and have been happy. You want
a camera that captures as true a color as possible so
you don't have to color correct in a program like
Adobe Photoshop or any of the others. I just recently
purchased a Canon G1 (like 5 minutes a ago) because I
also want to be able to do digital photography more
seriously, take movie clips of firings, demos, better
battery length, excellent glass lens, etc. I paid
768.00 with a 3 year warranty through Harmony
Computers (authorized canon dealer--saw them on ebay
with lots of transactions and happy customers.) Where
ever you buy a camera, make sure they are an
authorized dealer. Many companies out of New York buy
3rd party/out of country crap and resell it to us.
They get you in restocking fees, hassel, etc. If the
price is too good to be true, it is. Watch out for
anyone who charges you more than $15 for shipping as
well. Good luck. If you have any questions, feel
free to email me.

Tony Duluth, MN
--- beth ellen brickey
wrote:
> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your
> work and for your websites?
> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>
> Beth
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________=
_____
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--Tony Ferguson, fergyart@yahoo.com315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 401Duluth, MN 55=
806(218) 727-6339Looking to see, buy or barter artwork go to:http://acad.=
uwsuper.edu/www/aferguso/fergyart.htm

May Herz on tue 15 may 01


Hello,
Digital cameras are perfect for Websites. I've just changed from a 35mm t=
o a
Sony Mavica DC 1000 and it has made my life so much easier! You don't
sacrifice quality, specially if your pictures are for the web. When
printing, then you have to choose a higher resolution, this means fewer
pictures fit into the mini cd but the results are wonderful!
You can check some of the pictures I just took with it:
http://www.mexicanceramic.com/Preview1.htm
The camera cost me around $1,000 including an optional flash.
May
www.mexicanceramic.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "beth ellen brickey"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: digital cameras


> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your
websites?
> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>
> Beth
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________=
___
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>

Bill Weaver on tue 15 may 01


Beth,
There has been quite a discussion on the list about digital cameras you =3D
might want to check out the archives. The type of camera you use depends =
=3D
on alot of things experience, qualtity of final pictures etc. Most of =3D
the point and shoot cameras will work ok and give you decent results for =
=3D
a web site. If you want to get good color I have found out that shooting =
=3D
at a non-vga resolution will get the best color renditions, withoiut =3D
resulting in to high of a file size. If you are literate in Photoshop 6 =3D
or any image editing proram that will allow you to change the image size =
=3D
you can always shrink the image using one of those programs.=3D20

If ou you have some experience with photography and understand f-stops =3D
and shutter speeds you might find that one of the higher end cameras =3D
like the NIkon 8800,950 or 990 would work. I use a Nikon 800 and wish I =3D
had sprung for the extra flexibility the 950 and 990 offer.

If all you are going to do is use the camera for the web then don't =3D
spend the money on a 3+megapixal camera. A 1.5 or 2 megapixal will do =3D
just fine. If you want to use the photos for enlargments of your work or =
=3D
whatever then the larger the print the better it will be as the pixel =3D
count increases. I have found that I can get excellent 8x10 prints from =3D
using a medium non-vga setting, and outstanding prints at high =3D
resolultion or 2 megapixels.

Many of the pictures on the new work section of my web sitewere shot =3D
with mydigital camera. If you any other questions you can contact me off =
=3D
list.

Bill Weaver
bweaver1@quest.net
http://www.palemoonstudio.com

kruzewski on wed 16 may 01


Hi,

I bought a Fujifilm MX-1500 digital camera over a year ago. It cost me around 250
- about $300. The way things move along with all things computer/digital, I doubt
that this would be available now, and it would be cheaper if it was.

I find it's really good for taking images of my work. for a start I can play around
with lighting, backgrounds etc, see the pictures immediately on the computer, see
what works best, and if it's no good go and take more till I get it right - and
there is no cost or delay. Its good for home produced publicity posters and
leaflets and for sending images over the internet.

Because of the digital I've become the "official" photographer for North Wales
Potters. I take the photos, load them on to the computer, crop out all the unwanted
background and send them by E.mail to Diane, our secretary, who marries them up
with the article written by another in the group and gets the lot to the printer.
So much easier than waiting for people to send photos in, scan them, lose them ....

The drawbacks are - mine has only 4 megabites of memory which means I get 11
reasonable quality photos before I run out of space. I always run out too soon. I
am looking to buying a larger Smartcard to improve this. Mine has an automatic
focus, which means that images viewed close up can be slightly out of focus - and
even slightly can be too much.

You can get cheap digitals, but I'd say get as good a model as you can afford, with
manual focusing - so you can get the pictures really sharp.I have never regretted
buying my digital, and have often blessed it - but I would always use my trusty SLR
for traditional "family" photos - horses for courses. I'd advise you to look hard
before you invest in one you really like.

Jacqui, North Wales.

beth ellen brickey wrote:

> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your websites?
> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>
> Beth
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.

Chris Clarke on wed 16 may 01


I use a digital for all the pics on my site, I love it. But I still use a
'real' camera to take photos and slides. I have Kodak DC260 and it works
wonderfully. You can also use a regular camera and scan them in.

chris
temecula, california
chris@ccpots.com
www.ccpots.com




----- Original Message -----
From: beth ellen brickey
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:23 PM
Subject: digital cameras


> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your
websites?
> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>
> Beth
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Dave Finkelnburg on wed 16 may 01


Beth,
I use an Olympus D-450 Zoom, 1.3 Megapixel, cost about $500 including
battery charger and rechargeable batteries, extra memory card and FlashPath
diskette for quick downloading of the card to my PC's hard drive. It's not
professional by any means but works well for documenting works and creating
digital pics to e-mail to customers.
Dave Finkelnburg

Richard Jeffery on wed 16 may 01


I'm still very happy with my Nikon Coolpix 950, which was replaced by the
990 - however, I understand Nikon have decided t discontinue the 990, at
least in the UK. So that leaves either the 800 series, or a step up to the
digital SLR - D1

Richard
Bournemouth UK
www.TheEleventhHour.co.uk


-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Bill Weaver
Sent: 15 May 2001 22:43
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: digital cameras


Beth,
There has been quite a discussion on the list about digital cameras you
might want to check out the archives. The type of camera you use depends on
alot of things experience, qualtity of final pictures etc. Most of the point
and shoot cameras will work ok and give you decent results for a web site.
If you want to get good color I have found out that shooting at a non-vga
resolution will get the best color renditions, withoiut resulting in to high
of a file size. If you are literate in Photoshop 6 or any image editing
proram that will allow you to change the image size you can always shrink
the image using one of those programs.

If ou you have some experience with photography and understand f-stops and
shutter speeds you might find that one of the higher end cameras like the
NIkon 8800,950 or 990 would work. I use a Nikon 800 and wish I had sprung
for the extra flexibility the 950 and 990 offer.

If all you are going to do is use the camera for the web then don't spend
the money on a 3+megapixal camera. A 1.5 or 2 megapixal will do just fine.
If you want to use the photos for enlargments of your work or whatever then
the larger the print the better it will be as the pixel count increases. I
have found that I can get excellent 8x10 prints from using a medium non-vga
setting, and outstanding prints at high resolultion or 2 megapixels.

Many of the pictures on the new work section of my web sitewere shot with
mydigital camera. If you any other questions you can contact me off list.

Bill Weaver
bweaver1@quest.net
http://www.palemoonstudio.com

____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Celia Littlecreek on wed 16 may 01


Beth, I use a Olympus Digital that I bought at K-Mart, though it costs less
at target. I live in a small area and those are about the only two stores
we have of any consequence. We are going to get a Wal-Mart someday soon.
(Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!). I thought a digital camera would be the first thing I
needed to be able to put my work on a web page. Still don't have a web
page, but use the camera quite a bit. I email pictures to potential
customers. If you want, I can send pictures via email off list, so you can
get an idea of what it does. I also bought and ac adapter so I don't have
to always depend on batteries. Now, if only I could find a way to take
slides with it so I wouldn't have to give all my cash to a professional
photographer for juries.

From northern Minnesota, where Balm of Gilead is perfuming the air.



----- Original Message -----
From: "beth ellen brickey"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: digital cameras


> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your
websites?
> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>
> Beth
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>

Janet Kaiser on wed 16 may 01


From: jacqui kruzewski

I bought a Fujifilm MX-1500 digital camera over a year
ago.
>snip<
The drawbacks are - mine has only 4 megabites of memory
which means I get 11 reasonable quality photos before I
run out of space. I always run out too soon. I am
looking to buying a larger Smartcard to improve this.
>snip<

Jacqui

I do not know anything about your Fujifilm camera, but
there is usually an option for reducing the resolution
when you take photos with digital cameras. In my
limited experience, the minimum is quite good enough
for most uses, including final printing to newspapers,
websites, etc. The higher resolution is just for hard
copies to use as photos or for high-end typo printing
by publishers, etc.

On my little Agfa 1280 the settings are 307S, 780HI,
780S, 1280 and when I use 307S I can get up to 40
images on one smart card! Using 1280, I am back to 8
or 10 maximum. There is absolutely not difference in
quality on-screen.

The only drawback is that I have to reset the
resolution each time I take the smart card out of the
camera or after recharging the batteries... I guess the
camera just returns to the default values.

Most gizmos have all sorts of hidden or little-used
features, so it is well worth going through the
instructions thoroughly or simply pushing all the
buttons and learning by trial and error! Like you say,
it does not cost anything in wasted resources, except
maybe a battery recharge.

What was said in a poll about video recorders recently?
98% of users only use, understand or know about 10% of
the functions? I put digital cameras into this
category! I have only just learned how to change the
date from 01/01/97. It is now 05/16/01 which is
extremely confusing and not really much help for
European old me... Is that why do they write the date
backwards in the USA?

Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk

Steve Mills on thu 17 may 01


I have an Olympus 20/20 2.1 Megapixel (paid about 460.00 sterling for
it). Also an auto focus but produces really sharp images (provided I
haven't imbibed too freely). On the odd occasion I blur it the *sharpen*
facility in the accompanying software repairs the damage pretty well.
I'll never buy film again, honest.

Steve
Bath
UK


In message , kruzewski writes
>Hi,
>
>I bought a Fujifilm MX-1500 digital camera over a year ago. It cost me ar=
>ound =A3250
>- about $300. The way things move along with all things computer/digital,=
> I doubt
>that this would be available now, and it would be cheaper if it was.
>
>I find it's really good for taking images of my work. for a start I can p=
>lay around
>with lighting, backgrounds etc, see the pictures immediately on the compu=
>ter, see
>what works best, and if it's no good go and take more till I get it right=
> - and
>there is no cost or delay. Its good for home produced publicity posters a=
>nd
>leaflets and for sending images over the internet.
>
>Because of the digital I've become the "official" photographer for North =
>Wales
>Potters. I take the photos, load them on to the computer, crop out all th=
>e unwanted
>background and send them by E.mail to Diane, our secretary, who marries t=
>hem up
>with the article written by another in the group and gets the lot to the =
>printer.
>So much easier than waiting for people to send photos in, scan them, lose=
> them ....
>
>The drawbacks are - mine has only 4 megabites of memory which means I get=
> 11
>reasonable quality photos before I run out of space. I always run out too=
> soon. I
>am looking to buying a larger Smartcard to improve this. Mine has an auto=
>matic
>focus, which means that images viewed close up can be slightly out of fo=
>cus - and
>even slightly can be too much.
>
>You can get cheap digitals, but I'd say get as good a model as you can af=
>ford, with
>manual focusing - so you can get the pictures really sharp.I have never r=
>egretted
>buying my digital, and have often blessed it - but I would always use my =
>trusty SLR
>for traditional "family" photos - horses for courses. I'd advise you to l=
>ook hard
>before you invest in one you really like.
>
>Jacqui, North Wales.
>
>beth ellen brickey wrote:
>
>> Do any of you folks use digital cameras for your work and for your webs=
>ites?
>> Do you recommend them and at what price range?
>>
>> Beth
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________=
>_______
>> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>>
>> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>>
>> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pcl=
>ink.com.

--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK

Orchard Valley Ceramic Arts Guild on tue 4 dec 01


Hi Veena,

Besides the camera itself, here are a few other things to consider:

Yes, 3-megapixel pictures take up lots of space. They are generally
too big to e-mail. The cameras allow you to take pictures at lower
resolution, or you can take a high-resolution photo, download it
to your computer, and use a simple image editing program to
scale it to a lower resolution before mailing.

I mentioned an image editing program. You will want one! The
absolute best professional tool for image editing is Adobe Photoshop,
but it is quite expensive and probably too complicated to start
with. Fortunately, Adobe makes a simplified version called
Photoshop Elements that sells for under $100, and will do
almost everything its "big brother" can do. It will let you
change image resolution, adjust color balance, crop your photos,
and even reduce glare spots or shadows.

Another thing to think about: how will you store all your digital
photos? They take up a LOT of space on your disk. If you want
to keep copies around for archival purposes, you will soon run
out of disk space. So eventually you will want a CD-ROM recorder,
to allow you to save your photos.

Oh, one more thing - the cameras themselves eat batteries! I have
a compact camera that requires special lithium-ion batteries. I
found I need to carry a couple of extras, and that really upped the
cost of the camera. I think that most full-size cameras take standard
batteries, but even so, you will want a battery charger, and you
should plan for an extra set of batteries.

Hope this isn't too daunting - digital cameras are wonderful, and in
the long run you'll save money on film and processing. Plus, you
can see the results instantly, so you can retake important shots
if you need to.

Regards,

Bob Nicholson

Marvin P Bartel on wed 5 dec 01


I am currently using my forth digital camera. It is a Nikon 990 that I
have used this one for about 18 months and over 6000 thousand exposures.
My first two were Kodak cameras. I donated them to a school. My college
media services has some more recent Kodaks that I have used and they are
okay. I am much happier with what I can do with the Nikon. If I were
buying one today, I would go for the Nikon 5000 I think one of the less
expensive Nikons with at least 2.1 megapixels would make a good starter
camera for somebody who needs it for web page and e-mail images.
IMPORTANT FEATURES that I look for:
For me it is important to be able to use an attached dedicated flash that
can be ceiling bounced. I include a white card on the flash as front fill.
This greatly impoves the quality of the lighting. The Nikon includes a
way to enlarge the little preview image so you can actually tell if it is
sharp before you decide to keep it.
The web site photos in the signature below were made with the 990.
********************************
Marvin Bartel
Goshen College
1700 South Main Street
Goshen IN 46526
*******************************
studio phone 219-533-0171
fax 219-535-7660
marvinpb@goshen.edu
******************************************
http://www.goshen.edu/~marvinpb/throw/cover39.html
http://www.goshen.edu/art/DeptPgs/castable.html
http://www.bartelart.com
******************************************

Bonnie Staffel on wed 5 dec 01


Dear Reena,

I am not too technically savvy about these cameras but did receive an
Olympus D-490 Zoom last Christmas. It seems capable of taking most any kind
of picture I want, from close up to far away. The flash is there, also
movie and video capabilities although I have not tried these yet. Plan to
in a couple of weeks. I found that if you resize your picture to around 500
max. pixels, it will transmit without much stress on the sender or the
recipient. This also produces a faster downloading picture on a web site.
I am learning as I use it and since my daughter owns a Camera Shop, she is
of some help in this department. I also have friends upon whom I call for
assistance. I set my camera to take a large number of pictures; I think 70
were chosen the last time. At first it was only about 20 and the download
time was long. I used up the card too soon. There is a menu where you can
set whatever you want and for whatever use you want to put it. For a
beginner's digital, it is complicated enough for you to know you have a
powerful instrument to work with. Of course, the directions seem to be
written by someone in China that makes no sense in my simple brain. The
card fits into a case that is like a 3 1/2 floppy and is placed in that slot
on your computer. This camera is not out of sight price wise, I understand.

My next purchase will be a graduated background paper for tabletop pictures
so the outcome will look more professional. The pictures on my website
www.bonniestaffel.com were scanned from photographs. When I get Front Page
set up on my computer, I will then be able to process pictures from the
camera directly. So much fun and so little time. Watch for the fireworks
in the sky up north here in a couple of weeks when I hit 80. Working hard
on keeping the brain exercised as well as throwing every day. Threw the
first 25" pot in my career last week. Could have gone taller, but that is
the size of my kiln. Life gets more fun with the challenges it brings.

Winter is still not here and can stay that way the next few months.

Regards, Bonnie

Marianne Lombardo on thu 6 dec 01


Your digital photos are very good. Your pottery is the most inventive and
delightful use of clay that I have seen. In my mind I can see a family
sitting at a table, pushing the little car to pass the soup on to the next
person. Everyone is laughing and having a grand time. Amazing. That's the
first time pottery has painted such vivid pictures in my head.

Marianne Lombardo
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

> For me it is important to be able to use an attached dedicated flash that
> can be ceiling bounced. I include a white card on the flash as front
fill.
> This greatly impoves the quality of the lighting. The Nikon includes a

Ursy Potter on thu 6 dec 01


from Rivrlover@aol.com (ursy Potter)
I just ordered a Nikon Coolpix 5000. It is so new Penn Camera doesn't have it
in yet. I investigated all sorts of other digital cameras, and this seems
the best for my needs. So I am happy to read Marvin's comments. This camera
is 5.24 MPS. Now I'll have to make more bowls and buy Epson printer 1280 to
make copies worthy of the camera. I decided it was important for me to
support a local camera store instead of looking to order it cheaper.

Vicki Hardin on sat 3 jan 04




Think about what it feels like in your hands. Is something this small going to be comfortable to use? One thing I would always want in a digital camera is a lens cap/cover. I've seen some without. And the last thing, I would recommend is getting one that has a viewfinder in addition to the LCD monitor. When I bought my camera, I didn't realize that you really can't see too well using that monitor while in direct sunlight. Oh, and, I might be rusty on the figures here because it has been a while since I read this, but I think that a 5 megapixel will do a 16 by 20 print. Figure out what you want the camera for. If you don't need a lot of high definition, you are paying for something you may not use.

Best Regards,
Vicki Hardin
http://ClayArtWebGuide.com

logan johnson on sat 3 jan 04


Hi Judith,

Logan J. here. I know NOTHING when it comes to these digital goodies
(cameras, 'puters, any notebooks without lined paper,ect.) HOWEVER,
my wonderfull, thoughtfull hubby not only got me new throwing towels
for x-mas, he got me a more important clay tool. A digital camera that
even I can use. I can't brag about this camera enough! It's a Kodak
Easy Share cx6230 It's SO simple I was using it x-mas day!!!
there are so many things you can do with it at the touch of a button!
The best part is you don't need to be an alpha geek to use it.
The instructions are clear, easy to follow & in a language any high school
freshman (home schooled or not) =^ D can understand. Do yourself
a favor and check one out. (no, I don't work for Kodak)
"Judith S. Labovitz" wrote:
Hi...I KNOW this has been around a few times...I checked in the
archives, but still need some of your collective (??) advice

I would like to buy a simple digital camera for personal use...pics of the
grandkid, travel, basic snapshots...nothing fancy....I'm bleary eyed from
looking all this stuff up, and not understanding 99% of it

One that keeps recurring is the Pentax Optio S...very tiny, lots of
features..seemingly easy to use and well recommended, or so it seems....


the camera fits into an Altoids tin!

any feedback????


thanks

judy....in mid-michigan, awaiting the next predicted snow tonight

______________________________________________________________________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.



Logan Johnson
Audeo Studios
"Carpe Argillam!!"



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003

Judith S. Labovitz on sat 3 jan 04


Hi...I KNOW this has been around a few times...I checked in the
archives, but still need some of your collective (??) advice

I would like to buy a simple digital camera for personal use...pics of the
grandkid, travel, basic snapshots...nothing fancy....I'm bleary eyed from
looking all this stuff up, and not understanding 99% of it

One that keeps recurring is the Pentax Optio S...very tiny, lots of
features..seemingly easy to use and well recommended, or so it seems....


the camera fits into an Altoids tin!

any feedback????


thanks

judy....in mid-michigan, awaiting the next predicted snow tonight

wayneinkeywest on sat 3 jan 04


Judy:
The few things i have learned from personal experience with
gizmos of any sort:

smaller means easier to lose...or drop ("oh g @ # $ $ it!!...where is
it??!!)
smaller means harder to push buttons (especially with these big mitts!)
smaller means less folk willing to work on it when it goes "GAAK"
(and it will)
smaller means you need younger eyes in a hurry ("WHAT does that
say?!")
LESS size can also mean MORE dollars

You aren't trying to fit it into the space shuttle, after all.
Any camera that fits in your pocket will serve you well.
I hang mine around my neck, and look like every other tourist.

Wayne Seidl

> Hi...I KNOW this has been around a few times...I checked in the
> archives, but still need some of your collective (??) advice
>
> I would like to buy a simple digital camera for personal use...pics of the
> grandkid, travel, basic snapshots...nothing fancy....I'm bleary eyed
from
> looking all this stuff up, and not understanding 99% of it
>
> One that keeps recurring is the Pentax Optio S...very tiny, lots of
> features..seemingly easy to use and well recommended, or so it seems....
>
>
> the camera fits into an Altoids tin!
>
> any feedback????
>
>
> thanks
>
> judy....in mid-michigan, awaiting the next predicted snow tonight

claybair on sat 3 jan 04


Hey Philly girl,

I am still very happy with my Olympus Camedia C-3030.
I've had it for 2 years and love it.
If I had a camera as small as an Altoids box I fear
I would lose it.
Plus with a camera that small the controls
and buttons must be pretty small too.
That might be an issue for large and/or aging fingers
not to mention baby boomer eyes.

Gayle Bair - saw snow flake today!!! Whoopee
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Judith S. Labovitz


Hi...I KNOW this has been around a few times...I checked in the
archives, but still need some of your collective (??) advice

I would like to buy a simple digital camera for personal use...pics of the
grandkid, travel, basic snapshots...nothing fancy....I'm bleary eyed from
looking all this stuff up, and not understanding 99% of it

One that keeps recurring is the Pentax Optio S...very tiny, lots of
features..seemingly easy to use and well recommended, or so it seems....


the camera fits into an Altoids tin!

any feedback????


thanks

judy....in mid-michigan, awaiting the next predicted snow tonight

Don Hoskisson on sat 3 jan 04


Judy,

I have a Pentax Optio S and love it. If you want a
point and shoot the photos are fine. I slip it into my
shirt pocket to keep it handy while shooting. I took
over 200 shoots on a trip to DC in October. You
will want at least a 128 MB card whatever you get.

I have never come close to having the Pentax get
lost. I do have an extra battery, I would recommend
and extra battery with any camera that uses special
batteries. I gave my wife a Cannon A-70 digital for
Christmas. It uses AA batteries. She wont run out
of battery while carrying the camera (carry a spare
set).

If you want to know any more about the Pentax
write me off list.

Don Hoskisson near Salem, Oregon with lots of snow

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith S. Labovitz"
Date: Saturday, January 3, 2004 3:24 pm
Subject: digital cameras

> Hi...I KNOW this has been around a few times...I checked in the
> archives, but still need some of your collective (??) advice
>
>
I would like to buy a simple digital camera for personal use...pics
> of the
> grandkid, travel, basic snapshots...nothing fancy....I'm bleary
> eyed from
> looking all this stuff up, and not understanding 99% of it
>
> One that keeps recurring is the Pentax Optio S...very tiny, lots of
> features..seemingly easy to use and well recommended, or so it
> seems....
>
> the camera fits into an Altoids tin!
>
> any feedback????
>
>
> thanks
>
> judy....in mid-michigan, awaiting the next predicted snow tonight
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>

Chris Clyburn on sat 21 feb 04


Well I am now in the market for a good digital camera for documenting my
work for my website (well soon to exist website anyway). There are a lot of
options and choices out there and I am not sure where to even start as I
have no photography experience aside from taking family photos. I am hoping
to keep it under $300 and just want something that can take clear sharp
images of my pots to show detail of the scupltural forms etc. If anybody has
any suggestions I would be most appreciative, just e-mail me off-list so as
not to clog the board.

Thanks,
Chris Clyburn

Earl Krueger on sat 21 feb 04


Chris,

On-line books on digital cameras.

http://www.shortcourses.com


On-line reviews, sample pix, side-by-side comparisons,
tell-it-what-you-want and it will choose several, etc.
THIS IS A GREAT SITE.

http://www.dpreview.com


My new Canon G5 just arrived yesterday. Batteries
charged over night. Today I get to take a picture.

Earl K...
Bothell, WA, USA

David Hendley on sat 21 feb 04


This is a copy of my digital camera report to Clayart last summer.
I still love the camera. The price has probably gone down in the last
8 months.
-----------
I've been having a blast this week with my new digital camera.
I can already tell it will go in the "Why did I wait so long to buy one?"
category, along with my small de-airing pugmill that has saved my
wrists and lots of time.
Of course, I bought it for my pottery business. Since I don't have a
"product line", it has always been hard to sell my pieces through my
website. The pieces pictured on the website are always already sold,
so I have to tell inquirers that, "Well, I have one similar to that, but
it is gold instead of green...." Now, I will be able to just send them
a picture.
I also plan to have a new "for sale" page. After each firing (about
once a month), I will pick out 10 or 12 pieces, photograph them, and
put them up for sale exclusively on my webpage. It should only take
an hour or so each month to set up.

Meanwhile, to get the feel for the camera, I am taking pictures of
mundane things around the house and studio. It is so great to see
the results immediately, and since the pictures are basically free except
for battery use, it's fun to be extravagant in a way you would never
do with a film camera.

I'm really happy with the camera and the place I bought it, so here
are the details, in case you are thinking about buying one:

The camera is a Canon Power Shot A60. It is tiny, but does just about
everything a big SLR camera does, so you can set it exactly as you like
or let it run on automatic. It has an optical zoom and a macro (close-up)
setting. Many of the controls are similar to my Canon SLR, so it has
been easy to learn. The purely digital stuff, like the menus, are very
intuitive and also easy to learn.
Consumer Reports tested digital cameras in the May issue, and
the Canon is one of the best for conserving batteries, testing at 800 shots
per battery set (with the LCD screen off). Rapid battery use is a big
drawback with digital cameras. Some models use batteries 10 times faster
(only 80 shots per set). Also, according to CR, Canon has the second best
quality (lack of problems and repairs) record (behind Sony).
This camera is only 2 megapixils, which means that a 5" X 7" is the largest
enlargement it will do that is still first quality. This is plenty good if,
like
me, you want it for webpage pictures and snapshots.
The Power Shot A70 is identical except it measures in at 3.2 megapixils,
which allows it to do a good quality 8 X 10" enlargement.
I got the camera with a case and a 128 MB flash memory card for $256
from http://www.buydig.com.
(Buydig stands for "digital", not "dig-it, groovy")
The camera alone is $206, but you will need more memory. It only comes
with a 16MB card, which only holds about 30 pictures.
Here is the exact link where I ordered it:
http://www.buydig.com/popups/CNPOWERSHOTA60.html
It arrived in 6 days with no charge for shipping and no sales tax.

David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com



----- Original Message -----
> Well I am now in the market for a good digital camera for documenting my
> work for my website (well soon to exist website anyway). There are a lot
of
> options and choices out there and I am not sure where to even start as I
> have no photography experience aside from taking family photos. I am
hoping

Eleanor on sun 22 feb 04


Last June, David Hendley recommended the Canon Power Shot A 60 (see
archives). I referred his recommendation to my son who won't buy any
equipment without extensive research (I'm lucky, I know). He got me
the A 70, a later model, I think, and I'm happy with it. It retails
for about $300.

It has a 227-page instruction booklet and I'm a slow learner when it
comes to equipment, BUT even my first efforts produced really good
pix.

As always, this list is a super resource.

Eleanor Kohler
Centerport, NY

Russel Fouts on mon 23 feb 04


Chris,

I love my Olympus C4000 Zoom. When bought it last year it was about $450.
It's now under $300 some places. My main criteria were that it had a fully
manual mode and a synch socket for my strobes and exceptional battery life.

However, I believe that people should make their own choices and shouldn't
just follow my recommendations, you might have different criteria.

This site gives REALLY detailed reviews of digital cameras of all types.
They get a little technical but they are really thorough.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/

Russel



Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 223 02 75
Mobile: +32 476 55 38 75

Http://www.mypots.com
Home of "The Potters Portal"
Over 3000 Pottery Related Links!
Updated frequently

My work can also be seen on:
The World Crafts Council International Site: http://www.wccwis.gr
The World Crafts Council Belgium Site http://wcc-bf.org:
Members English Pages: http://wcc-bf.org/artistes/ukrussel_fouts.htm
EasyCraft: http://www.easycraft.org

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." --U.S. President (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Theodore
Roosevelt.

Brian O'Neill on tue 24 feb 04


B&H is very good, and they also have a very good general information
page about digital photography.

Brian
On Feb 21, 2004, at 5:52 AM, Sarah Sanford wrote:

>
> Canon and Nikon are always great cameras whether they're digital or
> 35mm. Go
> to www.bhphotovideo.com. They've got the lowest prices of pretty much
> anywhere and they always have nice ones for under $300.
>
> Sarah in TN
> Who's going back to lurking now
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Clayart
> Date: 02/21/04 06:45:29
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Digital Cameras
>
> Well I am now in the market for a good digital camera for documenting
> my
> work for my website (well soon to exist website anyway). There are a
> lot of
> options and choices out there and I am not sure where to even start as
> I
> have no photography experience aside from taking family photos. I am
> hoping
> to keep it under $300 and just want something that can take clear sharp
> images of my pots to show detail of the scupltural forms etc. If
> anybody has
> any suggestions I would be most appreciative, just e-mail me off-list
> so as
> not to clog the board.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Clyburn
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>

Richard Mahaffey on wed 15 dec 04


Hi,

I like the digital camera resource page for camera reviews It is at:
http://dcresource.com/
The author uses some of the same subjects for his tests and is quite
clear in his explainations.

I also think that you should buy as much resolution as you can afford.
There was a post that said that you only need 300 DPI for publication.
While that is true if you want to use a small portion of a shot and
crop it
having a 10 to 14 megabyte file is handy.

Decide what you want to do with the camera. I bought a Minolta Dimage
7Hi with a 5.2 megapixel resolution.
I like it very much. It has a 7 X zoom Optical (digital zoom
translates into unusable image in plain English).
I often print 8 x 10 prints and love the detail in the image.
I also like it because it is smaller and lighter than my SLR, but still
is a serious camera. They call this class of camera
Pro-sumer. I am now lusting after the latest replacement for the 7Hi
the A2 which has anti-shake which would make indoor shots
easier at slower speeds.

YMMV,
Rick

Scott Harrison on thu 9 jun 05


I can usually find good prices on digital from dealmac.com. Dell Home
seems to have great deals with coupons but you have to move fast.
Having dealt with some cheesy online businesses before, Dell is
fairly reputable. I listed some of the deals that came up this
morning and the usual disclaimers apply. I'm a Mac User since 1984!
We have 4 of the A510's and 8 Canon A70's we use in my Digital Photo
class. I bought a Panasonic FZ20 myself last November but the Canon
S2 looks pretty sweet.


Dell Home offers the new Canon PowerShot S2 IS 5-megapixel digital
camera for $424.15. Apply coupon code "1VWL8GL8PSGGVK" and the price
falls to $354.15. With free shipping, that's the lowest total price
we've seen by $127. Features include 12x optical zoom, 1.8" LCD, 16MB
Secure Digital card, and USB 2.0 connectivity. This coupon ends June
14 at 7 am ET or after 3,000 uses.


Dell Home offers the Canon PowerShot A510 3.2-megapixel digital
camera with 4x optical zoom for $199 with free shipping. Coupon code
"$?52D3PB5G$PSW" drops it to $149.15. That's $10 over our last
mention but still $20 less than the closest we could find elsewhere.
Features include 1.8" LCD, 640x480 video capture at 15fps, built-in
microphone, 16MB Secure Digital card, and USB connectivity. Offer
ends June 14 at 7 am.




Scott Harrison
South Fork High School
Humboldt Redwoods CA

Dale Neese on wed 14 feb 07


I purchased a Canon Rebel xTi Digital SLR, 10.1 megapixel with 18-55mm
lens.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14256
I will be photographing my work for my upcoming website. I love the manual
settings that allow you to shoot depth of field and easy with which the
photos download to the computer. You will also need to purchase a memory
card. The card I have is 4GB and stores lots of photos.
Now with Tony Ferguson coming from the great frozen white north country to
conduct a photography workshop at my studio in March I will be ready to take
advantage of his photographic knowledge and expertise.
The Canon is a really nice camera!

Dale Tex
"across the alley from the Alamo"
San Antonio, Texas USA

Randall Moody on thu 15 feb 07


There is also the ability to keep your nice 35mm film camera and just buy a
slide scanner such as the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000ED. You get 4000 dpi,
42-bit color depth etc. It is a little pricey, but still under $2K. Plus you
can scan all of your older slides.

Gary Navarre on thu 15 feb 07


Hi Folks,

Well I don't mean to rain on anyones parade of highend cameras but my x-
brother in law sent me a note with this comment...

"Glad to hear that your happy with your Pentax. They make wonderful
products. I bought a second hand Fujifilm S-7000 with all the
trimmings. It shoots up to 12 meg. I have since learned that the amount
of megapixels is not that important. When you get past say, six meg., It
doesn't make any difference unless your going to blow up 16x 20 or
larger. It's a lot of advertising hype. I took a bunch of pics on 12
meg., and the files were just Huuuuuggggggeeeee."

I think I'm gonna stick with what I got and practice the learning curve
some more. Did ya ever drive West from the Midwest to California? Ya come
out that road past Golden and look up off in the distance and there is
another bigger mountain... and another... and another.... Well I got 2
years before the weather breaks and I can lay bricks again so I better
keep studying. Stay in there ah!

G in da U.P.

Weiland, Jeff on thu 15 feb 07


Gary,
Here is my take on the digital resolution issue. The first thing
you have to decide is what the end product of the image is. If it is
destined for a photo album, 3-4 megapixels would be fine and get great
results. If you are going for enlargements or publication, then up the
number to the 5-10 megapixel range. If you are going to project on a
large screen, then hit the big numbers.=20
In my mind, the resolution quality is determined by the weak
link in whatever process/product you are involved with. Just like clay
work, a really bad pot can gain ground with a zinger of a glaze. A
really great piece can be landfill material with a crappy glaze. It
takes quality work all the way through to achieve the top. Same with
digital images. You need a good camera with a high quality lens. Bad
lens, like those little point and shoot things the size of a dime, and
you are already starting out in the hole. The person holding the camera
needs to know the equipment and what is going on when they push the
button. Then there is any touch-ups necessary. My college prof drilled
into our head that you do 95% of the work with the camera and not rely
on the darkroom to work miracles. Same for digital. Then there is the
output device. Most of the time some sort of printer. Great shot...bad
printer...bad print!!=20
I do a lot a photo work and did a great deal of the printing
myself but found a better way. There is a camera shop in Indy that will
print 4x6 for $0.10 each!!! I cannot by the paper and ink that cheap and
the pictures are professionally crisp and clean. I can either pick them
up or they will ship for $5.00. Their enlargements, like 11x14, are
really wonderful.=20
Bottom line: The ultimate quality is determined not by the top
of the line resolution but by the bottom line of the equipment chain.
The weakest link rules!!!

Jeff Weiland
Greenfield-Central High School
810 North Broadway
Greenfield, IN 46140
jweiland@gcsc.k12.in.us



-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Gary
Navarre
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:08 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Digital Cameras

Hi Folks,

Well I don't mean to rain on anyones parade of highend cameras but my
x-
brother in law sent me a note with this comment...

"Glad to hear that your happy with your Pentax. They make wonderful
products. I bought a second hand Fujifilm S-7000 with all the
trimmings. It shoots up to 12 meg. I have since learned that the
amount
of megapixels is not that important. When you get past say, six meg.,
It
doesn't make any difference unless your going to blow up 16x 20 or
larger. It's a lot of advertising hype. I took a bunch of pics on 12
meg., and the files were just Huuuuuggggggeeeee."

I think I'm gonna stick with what I got and practice the learning curve
some more. Did ya ever drive West from the Midwest to California? Ya
come
out that road past Golden and look up off in the distance and there is
another bigger mountain... and another... and another.... Well I got 2
years before the weather breaks and I can lay bricks again so I better
keep studying. Stay in there ah!

Lee Love on fri 16 feb 07


Gary,

For most people, my old Canon A5-zoom, under a megapixel is
enough. It prints fine snapshots. It also works for the web.

But as I explained earlier, if you are going to submit
images for competition, the minimum requirement, for example, at
Northern Clay Center, for digital images, is a file that will produce
a 300dpi 5X7 image. 3mp barely does this and if you crop at all,
for example to fit the required dimensions, you are going to loose
some dpi. 5mp gives you more flexibility.

If you are going to do creative work and want to work with larger
prints, 10mp gives you a 300dpi image printing 12.91" x 8.64" I
need to work at this quality range for my book.

I fiddled with the chart below so you can look at MPs
and print size at different dpi.

Megapixels vs. Maximum Print Size Chart

Megapixels Pixel Res e @ 300ppi @ 200ppi
@ 150ppi**

3 2048 x 1536 6.82" x 5.12" 10.24" x
7.68" 13.65" x 10.24"

4 2464 x 1632 8.21" x 5.44" 12.32" x
8.16" 16.42" x 10.88"

6 3008 x 2000 10.02" x 6.67" 15.04" x
10.00" 20.05" x 13.34"

8 3264 x 2448 10.88" x 8.16" 16.32" x
12.24" 21.76" x 16.32"

10 3872 x 2592 12.91" x 8.64" 19.36" x
12.96" 25.81" x 17.28"

12 4290 x 2800 14.30" x 9.34" 21.45" x
14.00" 28.60" x 18.67"

16 4920 x 3264 16.40" x 10.88" 24.60" x
16.32" 32.80" x 21.76"

35mmfilm 5380 x 3620 17.93" x 12.06" 26.90" x 18.10"
35.87" x 24.13"
scanned

read more here: http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Lee Love on fri 16 feb 07


On 2/16/07, Weiland, Jeff wrote:

> Here is my take on the digital resolution issue. The first thing
> you have to decide is what the end product of the image is. If it is
> destined for a photo album, 3-4 megapixels would be fine and get great
> results.

Gary, for snapshots and the web, 1 megapixel is probably going to be
enough, especially for the web. Anything over 72dpi is lost, except
if you are going to take a larger image and only use a part of it.


> digital images. You need a good camera with a high quality lens. Bad
> lens, like those little point and shoot things the size of a dime, and
> you are already starting out in the hole.

Quality really varies. Some of those small point and shoot
cameras have very good lenses. But also, your film in the digital is
the sensor so its size and sensitivity is very important. Those
little Fujifilm digitals have very good sensors and are rated very
well in low light situations.

> I do a lot a photo work and did a great deal of the printing
> myself but found a better way. There is a camera shop in Indy that will
> print 4x6 for $0.10 each!!!

Do they do business on the web? Can you share their address?

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Lee Love on sun 18 feb 07


On 2/16/07, Randall Moody wrote:
> There is also the ability to keep your nice 35mm film camera and just buy a
> slide scanner such as the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000ED. You get 4000 dpi,
> 42-bit color depth etc. It is a little pricey, but still under $2K. Plus you
> can scan all of your older slides.

Don't for me, since like I mentioned, my Nikon 35mm SLR bit the dust.

The canon PowerShot A640 arrived yesterday! Pretty
incredible. It actually takes pretty nice video. I ordered a 1gb
memory card to go with it. Also, has a nice slideshow function. I
can put 90dpi "slide" versions of my images on my 32mb card and just
plug the camera into any projector, monitor, VCR or T.V. that has RCA
plugs. Will also print directly to my Canon Pixus printer. The
macro/closeup function is awesome. Will focus at 1cm.

What I am thinking of doing for friends without computers is making
slideshows on VCR tape to send them. Can include video and stills.

I have also thought it might be good to video some online shop
items, especially tea ceremony bowls. A video would give a better
idea about the 3D nature of the object.

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Weiland, Jeff on mon 19 feb 07


Lee,
This company has a great web site. It is: http://www.robertsimaging.com/

Just go to the site and click on the Roberts on-line photo lab Link. You
will see a page with their current print specials. I do see that they
raised their 4x6 prices to $0.15 ea but the 8x10 price of $0.99 is a
great deal.

I love to go to their site to browse to see all of the equipment I
cannot afford!!!

Jeff Weiland

Lee wrote:
Do they do business on the web? Can you share their address?

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

________________________________________________________________________
______
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Stuart & Kathryn Fields on mon 19 feb 07


A note on dpi and picture physical size. Once you take the photo with a =
digital camera it can be loaded into the computer and worked on in a =
graphics program. For our magazine I use Corel Suite, but there are =
lots of others, including Adobe Photo Shop.

Most dig. cams initially take shots at 72 dpi. If the camera is fairly =
good the shot will only be 72 dpi, but will be a huge physical size -- =
mine takes a 48 x 36" shot at 72. Now the trick is to get this photo to =
300 dpi (necessary for any version of commercial print media).

The math is simple and you can usually find the process in the software =
under "image" or some such Menu item dealing with the entire =
file/graphic. There should be a choice relating to RESIZE or RESCALE or =
... in which there are some image tweaking choices. One item will be =
the physical dimensions -- length and width; the second will be the dpi. =
Next to the physical dimension numbers there is hopefully a choice of =
%. =20

To change a 72 dpi to 300 dpi, each, yes EACH, dimension will be set to =
24%. In mine, 24% makes the dimensions about 11 x 9 (perfect for one of =
our cover shots). Then move down to the dpi section and simply change =
72 to 300. If, like Corel, there is a file size also listed in this =
area, you'll notice that the bytes/megs for the before and after changes =
are exactly the same. This works very well every time. (If your camera =
dpi is 96, the % is 32, I think. Just find the % which keeps the file =
size identical or very close to the original.)

There are several other tasks anyone can do to enhance and sharpen any =
digital photo. There are books and books on it, but really there are =
only about 4 tweaks which will bring any decent photo up to really good =
photo level. They tend to be software specific. Email if there is =
anything I can help with. You all have been so very generous to me, its =
nice to find an area where I might be able to put back...

BTW: a cheap/free excellent 'viewing' app for download is ACDSee at =
http://www.acdsee.com Works better than the view system in XP and is =
available for both PC and Mac I think. This program will not do the =
above work, you'll still need a graphics program, but I find it =
invaluable for checking out a whole bunch of shots of the same thing at =
once in thumbnail version, then being able to see the large versions =
with just a click. Takes the light table to a whole new level. =20


Kathryn Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
sfkf@iwvisp.com, eh@iwvisp.com
http://www.experimentalhelo.com

Lee Love on tue 20 feb 07


On 2/20/07, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:


> BTW: a cheap/free excellent 'viewing' app for download is ACDSee at >http://www.acdsee.com

Gimp is a good open source and free image program. There is a
learning curve, but it will do histogram color adjustments:

http://www.gimp.org/

If histogram color adjustments is "greek" to you, please read Louis
Katz's tutorial on it:

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/168682

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Gary Navarre on wed 21 feb 07


On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:13:58 -0500, Randall Moody
wrote:

>There is also the ability to keep your nice 35mm film camera and just buy a
>slide scanner such as the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000ED. You get 4000 dpi,
>42-bit color depth etc. It is a little pricey, but still under $2K. Plus you
>can scan all of your older slides.

I sure could use something like one of those slide scanners now. Not only
have I a bunch of slides I took since the early '70's, I also found a couple
500 slides we took in England in 1956 while we spent 6 months there for
Dad's work. I still have that old Argus with a 50mm Argus coated Cintra lens
(I guess that's what it is called). I could get them scanned at work for I
think 28 cent ea. because they have to do each one by hand. I like using the
Argus on fireworks.

G in da U.P.

Gary Navarre on wed 21 feb 07


Here we are Crew,

I noticed something about resizing in the ACDSee 2.0 for Pentax that came
with the Optio 60....

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:58:21 -0800, Stuart & Kathryn Fields
wrote:


>Most dig. cams initially take shots at 72 dpi. If the camera is fairly
good the shot will only be 72 dpi, but will be a huge physical size -- mine
takes a 48 x 36" shot at 72. Now the trick is to get this photo to 300 dpi
(necessary for any version of commercial print media).
>

>To change a 72 dpi to 300 dpi, each, yes EACH, dimension will be set to
24%. In mine, 24% makes the dimensions about 11 x 9 (perfect for one of our
cover shots). Then move down to the dpi section and simply change 72 to
300. If, like Corel, there is a file size also listed in this area, you'll
notice that the bytes/megs for the before and after changes are exactly the
same. This works very well every time. (If your camera dpi is 96, the % is
32, I think. Just find the % which keeps the file size identical or very
close to the original.)

With the ACDSee I can make it 600 dpi, I shoot a file size of 2848x2136 @
300 dpi (6.8MP)and can resize it to 5000x4272 @ 600 dpi (21.36 MP) then the
last opperation involves using resampling filters to improve the image.
However they do note to avoid increasing the size.

>BTW: a cheap/free excellent 'viewing' app for download is ACDSee at
http://www.acdsee.com Works better than the view system in XP and is
available for both PC and Mac I think. This program will not do the above
work, you'll still need a graphics program, but I find it invaluable for
checking out a whole bunch of shots of the same thing at once in thumbnail
version, then being able to see the large versions with just a click. Takes
the light table to a whole new level.

Most of their products are under $150.00.

G in da U.P.

Gary Navarre on wed 21 feb 07


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:02:17 +0900, Lee Love wrote:

>On 2/20/07, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
>
>
>> BTW: a cheap/free excellent 'viewing' app for download is ACDSee at
>http://www.acdsee.com
>
>Gimp is a good open source and free image program. There is a
>learning curve, but it will do histogram color adjustments:
>
>http://www.gimp.org/

Tony in electronics reminded me about the Gimp again and said it is
comparable to PS (? versions) Might be worth a try too.

G in da U.P.

Randall Moody on thu 22 feb 07


It is a little time consuming if you are doing them one at a time but many
of the slide scanners have the ability to do them in bulk. My next toy is
either going to be a Bronica ETRsi or a Pentax 645. Although I still yearn
for an old Yashicamat G. You can find all sorts of great deals now that
digital cameras are all the rage.

On 2/21/07, Gary Navarre wrote:
>
>
> I sure could use something like one of those slide scanners now. Not only
> have I a bunch of slides I took since the early '70's, I also found a
> couple
> 500 slides we took in England in 1956 while we spent 6 months there for
> Dad's work.

Gary Navarre on thu 22 feb 07


Wuhu Crew,

Couldn't imagine sutding this stuff when I first started out in clay, ah?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:10:33 -0500, Randall Moody
wrote:

>It is a little time consuming if you are doing them one at a time but many
>of the slide scanners have the ability to do them in bulk.

That's not much of a concern for me, I love consuming time. But that is why
Wal*Mart increased the price to scan slides to CD last year after an
equipment upgrade. I wouldn't be surprised if they discontinue the service
as a cost cutting effort. We stopped Lay Away before Christmas and last
weekend we dumped the live fish and removed the aquariums.


My next toy is
>either going to be a Bronica ETRsi or a Pentax 645. Although I still yearn
>for an old Yashicamat G. You can find all sorts of great deals now that
>digital cameras are all the rage.

Haven't seen those yet but since I'm just trying to learn what is available
I ended up finding a link that reviewed a bunch, leading me to begin to
understand what features they have and how to use them. An interesting note
about this page is most except the $100 HP seem to be discontinued, although
the reviews are available, which I'm gonna consume lots of time reading,
I've always been a "slow reader" ya know...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

Well guess I better find something to do. Woke up about 6:30, it was dark
gray out and I thought I slept another day but now the sun is shining so I'm
going out to the woods to play. Stay in there ah!

G in da U.P.

Shula on thu 22 feb 07


DP review is another good place to check out reviews of digital cameras. I used it when I was trying to determine whether I would buy a Nikon D80 or spend $$$$ for the 200. I went with the D80

http://www.dpreview.com/

Shula
in sunny Redondo Beach, California, USA

-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Navarre

>
> Haven't seen those yet but since I'm just trying to learn what is available
>I ended up finding a link that reviewed a bunch, leading me to begin to
>understand what features they have and how to use them.
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM
>

Carl Finch on thu 22 feb 07


At 08:38 AM 2/22/2007, Gary Navarre wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:10:33 -0500, Randall Moody
>wrote:
>
> >It is a little time consuming if you are doing them one at a time but many
> >of the slide scanners have the ability to do them in bulk.

>... I'm just trying to learn what is available

Hey, you're handy--build your own. Your "scanner" is your digital
camera. And it's a heck of a lot faster than a scanner. And it's
already paid for! It's just a matter of creating the proper set up
(focus and back-lighting of the slide). Then insert a slide, click,
and repeat!

Of course you are limited by the resolution of your camera, and you
may need a close-up lens (though maybe not if you have macro
capability). I'm sure that a Google search would turn up plans for
building one.

I purchased such a rig seven years ago for my first digital camera, a
Kodak DC290. It included a camera adapter, an 8" tube with a slide
holder at the end, and a close-up lens. It worked quite satisfactorily.

I see they're still being sold, and for more than just
Kodaks. Here's the site:

http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html

For higher resolution, but still reasonable cost, you might look at
Pacific Images' "PrimeFilm" line of scanners. I think they start around $150.

--Carl
in Medford, Oregon