|
|
 | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I tried using thick white paper tape over my flash...and all I got was a blurry large glare spot where previously I'd been getting a crisp large glare spot. The problem is not so much in the quality of light as it is in the direction. If the (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| If you don't have alternative flash solutions there's a trick, put a small piece a transparent (Scotch) tape over the flash lens, it acts as a little diffuser and cost ~$0.000001. Maybe even a smear of some vaseline on the flash lens would work (I'm (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Ah, but that only works if you've got hand-held flashes. Not all cameras have that capability (I know mine doesn't). So, to be more accurate, never use the built-in flash to photograph LEGO bricks. If you can set up a flash source that's not (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Yeah, I'll second that. The GIMP rocks. John -- GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. (URL) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) ^^^^^^ Err, I mean a 48-bit image (16 bits per channel) (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Unless you know what you're doing. In which case: nothing beats flashes -- not even the sun.[1] --Todd [1] Yup, high-power strobe flashes are even brighter than the sun. Try making a 1/1000 second exposure at f/22 or f/32 from sunlight! And (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I think that's changing. I've seen explicit aperture settings on $400 consumer-grade digital cameras. (...) Every digital camera has the capability to do multiple apertures -- the trick is coaxing the camera into doing what you want if there (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) That's if he wants the very closest spot to be in perfect focus. :-) If he can shoot with a small aperture, then he should be able to get as close as 1.8 ft -- or closer. It all depends where in the model the lens is focused. Also, just (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I don't think that's quite correct. If your CCD or CMOS chip has greater than 8 bits of depth on each spectral band (most do), then an on-camera digital zoom should contain more information than a post-processed zoom. For example, suppose you (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) The GIMP is totally free and I think it should be useable for this kind of thing. (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
|
