News:

"The phone is a remarkably complex, simple device,
and very rarely ever needs repairs, once you fix them." - Dan/Panther

Main Menu

Hints For Taking Photos For CRPF Postings

Started by DavePEI, March 14, 2013, 01:45:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mr. Bones

Quote from: AE_Collector on March 30, 2013, 11:51:48 AM

Last time I bought a new SLR camera, Canon was still in the "Model A" range! AE1 in 1977! It was THE camera to purchase then.
Terry
I bought a new Canon SLR on base at the NEX in 1986... I had scrimped and saved to get an AE-1, and when I finally went in to get one, horrors!!! :o They had sold the last one, and had the new EOS models in the display case.

     I was quite crestfallen, to say the least, but the clerk told me that they had one remaining A-1, for the same price the AE-1 had been marked down to on closeout!

     I got the A-1 body, and basic 50mm lens for less than the AE-1 body alone had been, just a few weeks previous. I have never, for a minute, been disappointed with it, since that day.

     It's still quite a jewel of a camera!

Best regards!
Sláinte!
   Mr. Bones
      Rubricollis Ferus

twocvbloke

The three cameras I use are my Vivitar ViviCam 5385, my Samsung Galaxy S3 phone, and my Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1... :)

The Vivitar is about 6 or 7 years old now, but still does a good job when I need decent photos, though I don't use it much these days as I have to remember to charge up some AA batteries to use it, so I generally go for the Samsungs as they're usually to hand and already charged... :)

The two Galaxy devices have their own advantages, the Tab can be held quite still given it's size, and the phone has an "Assistive light" option which I can turn on before I use the camera, and it floods the area with light so the camera will properly focus on the object and colour balance properly, still get the bright spots, but most of the pics I've taken like that haven't turned out too bad... :)

WesternElectricBen

Quote from: Mr. Bones on March 30, 2013, 09:59:25 PM
Quote from: WesternElectricBen on March 29, 2013, 10:51:30 PM
I have to disagree, I like minimal "custom" effect like a painted wall or a wood desk to take pictures on.
Ben
Everybody has their own personal preferences, and it most certainly depends on why one is photographing a phone.

     In the case of trying to show extreme detail, in order to sell, let's say, an extremely rare or choice phone... I would most likely utilize the light tent method, or at least a background that would be seamless, and not detract from the subject.

     That being said, for everyday phone photos, I have to agree with WesternElectricBen's taste in aesthetics.

      I, myself, like pictures that show telephones in their 'natural habitat', such as an old rolltop desk, kitchen wall, and often with other items of similar vintage, i.e.; antique radios, kitchenware, signage, furniture, etc.

     For me, few things are warmer and more comforting than the 'Homey' feel this type of setting creates.

Best regards!

     

Thats a really good point, for eBay auctions that makes sence.

TelePlay

This just came up on eBay. It's a good example of how not to use back lighting, the need for a tripod, a good example of how to use a background color not the same as the item and the need to purchase or make a light tent of some sort to diffuse the light.

Seller says it a "Vintage Bell System WesternElectric phone receiver cream color" and could be but not in this photo.

And, Dave, thanks for the info about the Polaroid light tent you use. Just got one for about $42 with free shipping and it's much better than the light tent I made out of stuff laying around the basement.

DavePEI

#19
Another photo of a  bad, bad photo is featured in the CRPF Award for "Worst Picture of an ebaY auction item" topic:

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=3908.0

Still trying to figure out what it is, but it reminds me of the photo below it! Look way up the worm hole. See the detail a little focusing can show? :)
The Telephone Museum of Prince Edward Island:
http://www.islandregister.com/phones/museum.html
Free Admission - Call (902) 651-2762 to arrange a visit!
C*NET 1-651-0001

DavePEI

#20
Hi Folks:

I detailed two of my cameras earlier in this thread, the Canon T1i DSLR and the Canon Powershot A540.

Recently, I have been looking for a cheap digital to keep in the car. On a local electronics Buy Sell and trade board, I saw a Canon Powershot A490 and charger for sale used for $20.

It is a 10 megapixel compact digital camera capable of taking images up to 3648x2726. Figuring it would be at least good enough to take photos for the car, I decided to fork out the $20 and pick it up. Original dealer price was about $170.00 - $190.00 new. I couldn't believe my luck, and that would spare my original cameras from wear and tear in the car. Now, after trying it out, it is hard to say which is the better camera.

After a few test shots, I am amazed by the quality of its photos. Moreover, in its automatic mode, it will detect when it is close to the item being photographed, and automatically switch over to the Macro mode, taking excellent close-ups. No need to do it manually. The other thing I noticed about it is it has an exceptional flash. When taking a photo in a dark room, the entire room is lit up, and not only the subject. If you have nothing else and you can find one of these for a reasonable price, it is an excellent camera for forum posts or other uses - at least as good as the more expensive A540.

So I guess what I am saying, if your budget is limited, and if you see one of these for sale second hand don't discount its abilities. Pick it up immediately. With it taking full size pictures, you can fit about 6000 photos on a 16 GB SDHC card. The camera operates off 2 NiMH AA  batteries, which according to specs will take about 400 shots per charge. Cell phone cameras do not offer the clear focus and detail offered by a dedicated camera.

Manual: http://canon.ca/inetCA/products?m=gp&pid=849

Below, shot of first page of camera manual, and below that a sample shot of the battery charger which came with it to show its macro mode shots. Photo has been reduced in size to 600x319 for posting here.

Dave
The Telephone Museum of Prince Edward Island:
http://www.islandregister.com/phones/museum.html
Free Admission - Call (902) 651-2762 to arrange a visit!
C*NET 1-651-0001

Sargeguy

#21
How do I shrink my photos once I have uploaded them?  1000 seems to big and I want to shrink them to 640 without editing them and reloading them all.  What values do I add to the img string?

Note: So people could quote this, I had to remove the square brackets around the work img in the last line above, as it caused all quotes to fail..... Dave
Greg Sargeant
Providence, RI
TCI /ATCA #4409

DavePEI

#22
Quote from: Sargeguy on April 16, 2014, 12:21:46 AM
How do I shrink my photos once I have uploaded them?  1000 seems to big and I want to shrink them to 640 without editing them and reloading them all.  What values do I add to the img string?

Actually, I don't believe the Forum software supports image size tags.

I had a devil of a time replying to your message, and finally figured out what the problem was. You had used the square brackets around the word img - as a result, the board was seeing that as in incomplete img tag and if you quoted the test of your message, you would get the quote and not the reply. So I edited your original post to remove the square brackets - this is the fourth time I tried to reply :)

I have typed this 4 times before and lost it, but I think it is working now.

Alas, when you upload an image using the Attachments and other options image upload routine, the software accepts it in whatever size it is uploaded as. Then it is displayed in a reduced size thumbnail. Then, if one wants to view it in a larger size, the reader can click on the photo with their mouse, and view it in a new wiindow in a larger size.

The maximum size thumbnail I have seen on the screen is about 600 pixels wide, so I wonder why you would want to make it smaller? If you were to make it smaller, you would eliminate the ability for interested people to click to get a larger size. If you want to display it smaller, you would have to upload it in a smaller size (but you will note that if you upload an image in 640x480, it will display in just about that size anyway - only thing it will do is prevent people from viewing it in a larger size if they want to.

I am assuming you are probably thinking of your signs? Let me think about it and I will play with the idea and see if I can come up with something that will help you!

Dave
The Telephone Museum of Prince Edward Island:
http://www.islandregister.com/phones/museum.html
Free Admission - Call (902) 651-2762 to arrange a visit!
C*NET 1-651-0001

Sargeguy

Sorry about that! Yes , they are displaying too large even though I had saved them with a width of 800 pixels. One of the photos I deleted had a value of img: width=1000 or something like that.
Greg Sargeant
Providence, RI
TCI /ATCA #4409

DavePEI

Quote from: Sargeguy on April 16, 2014, 07:41:13 AM
Sorry about that! Yes , they are displaying too large even though I had saved them with a width of 800 pixels. One of the photos I deleted had a value of img: width=1000 or something like that.
Yes, but the image size that shows under the photo isn't the size of it as displayed in the thumbnail - it is the full size of the photo. The actual thumbnail is 600x something. It is only when you double click on it that you see the full size photo.

Dave
The Telephone Museum of Prince Edward Island:
http://www.islandregister.com/phones/museum.html
Free Admission - Call (902) 651-2762 to arrange a visit!
C*NET 1-651-0001

Fabius

Thanks for the great tips. I don't have Photo Shop but I use a free photo editor that I really like. It's call PicMonkey:

http://www.picmonkey.com/


Tom Vaughn
La Porte, Indiana
ATCA Past President
ATCA #765
C*NET 1+ 821-9905

andre_janew

In regards to Reply #18, light colored objects should be photographed against a dark background. Florescent lights do not produce the harsh shadows that incandescent lights do.  A light background is best for dark objects.

My problem has been blurry pictures.  I know that the flower setting is for distances of less that  three feet and that the mountain setting is for distances of more than three feet.  I have also upped the resolution on my digital camera.  That has really cleared things up!  I could up the resolution some more, but if I up it too much the pictures will not upload (or do I mean download?).  My camera is capable of taking HD pictures, but such pictures would be too good to post.  Does that make sense? 

WesternElectricBen

Quote from: andre_janew on December 17, 2014, 08:19:36 PM
In regards to Reply #18, light colored objects should be photographed against a dark background. Florescent lights do not produce the harsh shadows that incandescent lights do.  A light background is best for dark objects.

My problem has been blurry pictures.  I know that the flower setting is for distances of less that  three feet and that the mountain setting is for distances of more than three feet.  I have also upped the resolution on my digital camera.  That has really cleared things up!  I could up the resolution some more, but if I up it too much the pictures will not upload (or do I mean download?).  My camera is capable of taking HD pictures, but such pictures would be too good to post.  Does that make sense?
Your pictures appear to be very scrunched, do they look fine on your computer? Or is the forum scrunching them?

Ben

DavePEI

#28
Quote from: andre_janew on December 17, 2014, 08:19:36 PM
My problem has been blurry pictures.  I know that the flower setting is for distances of less that  three feet and that the mountain setting is for distances of more than three feet.  I have also upped the resolution on my digital camera.  That has really cleared things up!  I could up the resolution some more, but if I up it too much the pictures will not upload (or do I mean download?).  My camera is capable of taking HD pictures, but such pictures would be too good to post.  Does that make sense?

The way most Macro modes work is put it in Macro (flower) mode, aim the camera at the item to be taken, and press the shutter down half way. You will see on the screen as it adjusts its focus. When it has adjusted, press the rest of the way down. I have seen many cameras that do a very poor job in Macro unless you do it that way.

Insofar as reducing the size of a photo, you are correct - to get the best photo as possible it should be taken in maximum resolution. Then, you can reduce it in size or crop it to wanted areas without much loss. Your best bet to do this is to use an image program with a resize mode to process the file afterwards.

Dave
The Telephone Museum of Prince Edward Island:
http://www.islandregister.com/phones/museum.html
Free Admission - Call (902) 651-2762 to arrange a visit!
C*NET 1-651-0001

TelePlay

Quote from: DavePEI on December 17, 2014, 09:41:05 PM
The way most Macro modes work is put it in Macro (flower) mode, aim the camera at the item to be taken, and press the shutter down half way. You will see on the screen as it adjusts its focus. When it has adjusted, press the rest of the way down.

That's a very good point, Dave, that we just take for granted and skip over that step when explaining how to take photos. My camera has two opposing small square Bradley's in the middle of the view window/finder. When I press the shutter down half way, the brackets show up in red indicating that the camera has not come into focus yet. When it gets into focus, the brackets turn green. Some times they do not turn green and I have to release the shutter button and start over. Sometimes it doesn't focus because I'm too close and have to back up a bit. Sometimes the camera can't get a good lock on the object and I have to hold a flat thin object of about the same color in front of the item being photographed to get the focus lock and then removing it before pushing the shutter down to take the picture. It's a lot easier to do that than try to explain it in words.