 | | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
(...) I've worked on "softening" the flash a bit by taping a couple of layers of tissue paper over the flash. I suppose a grey filter could work, too, but tissue is nice and cheap, plus it diffuses the flash a bit. Natural daylight seems to be the (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
Will Middelaer wrote in message ... (...) (fixed (...) My (...) soft, (...) I'll second that, I also have a DC215 (a fancy gold one!) and it has a good macro mode. My complaint about the camera, though, is that its flash is way too harsh, and makes (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
(...) I really like my Nikon Coolpix 950 for taking pictures of Lego. It's got a great feature for taking good shots in low light without flash or even a tripod. This might not be terribly useful for most purposes, but it's great for little shiny (...) (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
Heh. I'm sure you do. But at ~$800 I sure won't be considering it. Thanks anyway, ~Mark (...) (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
(...) Nikon's just come out with a newer slightly fancier model -- I bet there will be a lot of used 950s on the market soon.... (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
(...) Do you have a page up of examples? (LEGO in low light, bright light, macro zoom-in, etc?) One of the most frustrating things about the Mavica is that its CCD really needs a lot of light to take clear pictures. --Todd (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera (Go Kodak!)
|
|
(...) I don't yet; I've got a bunch of pictures (ie thousands; not all of lego) that I need to go through and sort and process and so forth. The pictures on Karen's web page at (URL) aren't the best we've taken, but they're pretty decent. (I think (...) (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
