 | | taking good photos
|
| Hello Spacers, I'm experiencing mounting frustration with uploading quality images of my lego creation. I've got a kodak digital camera that takes great photos. It looks great when I download it from the camera into the software viewer. But when (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) What's the megapixel rating, optical zoom rating (digital zoom is an oxymoron, and should never be used), total pixel-by-pixel size of the images it produces? Also, what's the listed focal range (you might need to check the manual for that (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Ahh, digital frustration. I have the same problems with my camera. ALWAYS use the Best setting, and try to get a photo editing program that allows you to right-size the picture. The pictures usually become 'huge' because Windows picture (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) No, digital zoom is a complete joke, and it's a really lame way to justify charging more for a camera. Optical zoom actually uses true camera optics to magnify the image before the camera records it. Digital zoom takes the image _after_ the (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| 3.1 megapixels, 3x optical (3.3x evil digital zoom :-) 2160 x 1440 pixels focusing range is 2ft/0.60 mm to "infinity" How do I get legocam? Thanks for your help! I want people to be able to see more than my thumbnails in good detail :-) (...) (22 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Please don't be offended, but looking at this picture: (URL) I would say that the problem is not your camera, but your technique. I have been struggling to improve my photography skills ever since I got a digital camera, and I find that 2/3 of (...) (22 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Since the focus range for your camera is 2 ft to infinity, you will need to place your camera at least two feet from whatever model you are taking a picture of in order to get a sharp photo. Since you have a pretty good optical zoom, that (...) (22 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I've found that with properly arranged directional lighting, I can get very rich, colorful photos with excellent overall illumination. Outdoors gets tricky because sunny days will create stark shadows while overcast days will cause lots of (...) (22 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) True, it's hard to get a perfect day, especially if you don't have time to take pictures while it's light out. It's also more difficult to set up a backdrop or the perfect view angle. I usually take my photos indoors too, but then again my (...) (22 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| I've got the tripod and the extra light available. I'm stuck though on the software for modifying the photos. Any shareware out there? Nice picture by the way. That's how I want mine to look... Thanks for the insight. Wow, what a novice I am. I (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Hi. I live in western Michigan. I also run a popular website. I can't afford to wait six months for a perfect day. I think I'll keep shooting indoors... ;P (...) I've got manually adjustable shutter speed (I think that's what it is, since it (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Not that I'm aware of. Well, unless you want to use a trial version of regular software, but that will expire after a month, usually. (...) When I got my digital camera, I spent an entire Saturday and about 500 discarded shots figuring out (...) (22 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. (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, 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 (...) (22 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) (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) Yeah, I'll second that. The GIMP rocks. John -- GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. (URL) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) For resizing images, I found a freeware program that is pretty useful. It will batch resize. (URL) always shoot in my camera's high-res. Even 2.1 Mega-pixel is too big for comfortable downloading and viewing from brickshelf. I'm not saying (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I think you are confusing color depth with image area resolution. If the CCD chip has an area of X-by-Y pixels and you are at maximum optical zoom, then any form of digital zoom requires interpolating between adjacent real pixels. The color (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I didn't think that sounded right, but I couldn't figure out why. This sounds an awful lot like how LCD laptop screens work, where they look fine if you set the screen size according to the actual physical pixelation of the screen, but if you (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) I don't think I am. :-) I'm not saying that the end result of a 2x-downsampled 10x digital zoom will look any better in 24-bit color than a native 5x optical zoom would look in 24-bit color. It won't. What I'm saying is that a 2x-downsampled (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| | | | | Re: taking good photos
|
| (...) While there is more color fideltiy at higher bit-depths, above a certain point the human eye can't tell the difference. 24-bit is also termed "true color" because it's 16.7 million color range is close to the limit of what the human eye can (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
| |
