Official Luthiers Forum!

As most of you know, I have been struggling with my photos. I just coulden't seem to get them right. Some would turn out great, then others, in the same light would be bad. I was trying to take some pictures today and just could not do it. I'd had enough.
I went to Office Depot and bought a Nikon CoolPix 4600, came home, set it up and shot this on my 1st try. I am in heaven. This has mineral spirits on it, but I didn't have to do a thing with brightness or anything else. I even got a close up. Something unheard of with my other camera. I shot a lot more and they all came out great.
My other camera is being retired.

WOO-HOO!!!!

Nice. I bought the Nikon Coolpix 3200 a year or so ago and have been pleased so far. Except it clicks a bit when filming video and video is low res. Other wise a great camera.

That is some beautiful wood BTW!

Nice Birdseye Doug Good pic's too.

_________________
Beautiful and unusual tone woods at a reasonable price.
http://www.rctonewoods.com/RCT_Store
The Zootman
1109 Military Rd.
Kenmore, NY 14217
(716) 874-1498

There ya go Doug!
Sometime you just need a better tool.

_________________
Wade
Nashua, NH
http://www.wadefx.com

Great Photos, Doug. Now we'll really be able to see all figure in that myrtle of yours!

_________________
Ken Franklin
clumsy yet persistent
https://www.kenfranklinukulele.com

I am so happy with the camera. I still can't get over the difference. Thanks guys for the feedback.

Doug--I've got the 4300, and it's a gem. I especially appreciate that the camera will make a small file out of a large one. I can shoot a pic at something like 600-700K, and the camera will reduce it down to 50K or so, just perfect for the internet. I'm sure yours will do the same, and probably more.

Now all I need is for JohnO to drop by and rig me some lights and I'd be all set.

Beautiful wood, btw!

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

Steve and Doug, how's the battery life with the camera. I have been through 2 camera's and have just bought a third and I am so disapointed with the battery life of digitals. The problem is that I use it all day long with my job and I can only get 148 pictures off of one charge. The new camera I have is a samsung with a 3.7V Li-ion battery 1130 mAh. My first two camera's both took AA and got about the same number of shots. I was hoping that the Li-ion would last much longer.

What's a guy to do?

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

[QUOTE=Rod True] Steve and Doug, how's the battery life with the camera. I have been through 2 camera's and have just bought a third and I am so disapointed with the battery life of digitals. The problem is that I use it all day long with my job and I can only get 148 pictures off of one charge. The new camera I have is a samsung with a 3.7V Li-ion battery 1130 mAh. My first two camera's both took AA and got about the same number of shots. I was hoping that the Li-ion would last much longer.

What's a guy to do?[/QUOTE]

Rod, The newer Sony's are pretty good. I have the big one (DSC-F828)with Zeiss optics and couldn't be more pleased.

Good Luck, Steve

Rod,
Haven't had mine long enough to tell yet. I know that I won't be using mine as much as you do youre, so I probably would not be a very reliable source of info on the battery, But if you want, I'll let you know how many pictures I was able to take before changing them.

Doug,

BIG improvement! If you want to take it a step further, have a look at

http://www.bunnybass.com/e-zine/phototips/direction.shtml

with good info on natural lighting, much of which applies to artificial,

or Frank Ford's Photo Studio link, with readily-available low-tech lighting

http://www.bunnybass.com/e-zine/phototips/direction.shtml

Getting the light source from off-camera will do wonders, especially when it comes to lighting wood grain.

Pat

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

Thanks for the links, Pat. I will head over there asap.

On mine I went to using Energizer E2 Lithium. Expensive for a throw away battery, but they last quite a long time. Not sure how many pictures but a lot.

Rod--

I haven't kept track of battery life, exactly.
I know it can run down quickly, so I always have a backup charged and ready to go.

Nothing's perfect, huh?

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

Ya, I'm sure I take more pictures than the majority or even the manority high end user. This past year for work alone I took 9,800+/- pictures and I always have two back-ups with me. I just want something better. I know, I know, you can't always get what you want, Thanks Mick.

I have found a cool site if your interested with a very large database of digital camera reviews including accessories (batteries in plenty). Very good site, I learned alot today about batteries and the differences in the chargers and battery power and what the best to get is.

Hope it can help someone else.

Sorry Doug for highjacking your post. Great to hear your happy with the results of your camera.Rod True38713.9268287037

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

No worries, Rod. Thanks for the link!

http://www.dpreview.com is another good site, even more in-depth reviews than Steve's Digicams has. As far as battery life goes, a good charger, and good NiMH batteries (if you're not using proprietary systems, anyway), at least 2200 mAh, are reccomended.

Seriously though, if you need long, long battery life, get a DSLR. I can take about 400-650 shots (I rarely if ever use my flash, don't like it much) on one charge of the proprietary Canon battery. You don't get the little screen for live previewing (then again, that's what's eating all your battery power), but you get much faster handling, better image quality (the only non-SLR that's even in the same league is Sony's new R1; larger sensor sizes mean far, far better performance in high ISO setting/low light situations), and, well, them's great. Pricey, but great. Although you should be able to pick up a second hand or even new kit for a decent enough price these days.

Question, I have a great Nikon SLR. When you purchase film now, you can purchase a package that gives you prints and digital pictures on a CD. Are the images on this CD the quality of a picture taken with a digital camera?
Thanks,

That would depend on the companys repo machinery. I know that Wal-mart's in-house developiing and film to CD coping is not that good. I have never used kodak 35mm to CD process so I don't know. I would have my doubts

If you're looking for a smaller less expensive camera that takes great pictures in lower light try the Fuji F10. DP Review has a full review on it. The battery life is 500 pictures so you can shoot all day. It's 6.3 megapixels so there is a lot of detail and the pictures aren't grainy. It has a 2.5 inch screen (but no viewfinder) so it's easy to see what you just took.

_________________
Ken Franklin
clumsy yet persistent
https://www.kenfranklinukulele.com

[QUOTE=bob J] Question, I have a great Nikon SLR. When you purchase film now, you can purchase a package that gives you prints and digital pictures on a CD. Are the images on this CD the quality of a picture taken with a digital camera?
Thanks,[/QUOTE]

In theory, the quality's there for the right scanner to extract. In practice...things can be a little fiddlier. It depends on the the quality of the film processing, and above all the scanning setup/resolution they use. Shooting in RAW on a digital SLR provides you with what's essentially a digital negative; you can make adjustments to exposure, highlights, lowlights, correct for lens abberations, correct colour temperature, tint, saturation, hue, all non-destructively (no permanent changes made to the files). And that's in addition to being able to set 'film speed' per shot, as needed. With film, you shoot, which determines your exposure with somewhat more finality (you always try to get the shot right the first time, of course, but that doesn't always work) and your film and film developer determine the rest of the look. Post-processing in photoshop will always be destructive.

All that said, if you know your camera, your film SLR can and will take just as good pictures as a digital SLR. It's less flexible, but the quality's there.

Another consideration: if you take a lot of pictures, film's really not that cheap. Especially if you get others to do the developing for you. I've taken a hair under 8000 shots with my now 2 year old DSLR, of course about a full 1/3 of those (at least) are redundancies (why take one photo if you can take 2 or 3, and pick the best one?), and I only print off the shots I really like. The cameras are more expensive, but the cost of ownership doesn't have to be higher.

Just my 2 cents.

Thank you Mattia