Re: [lace] Digital cameras (again)
Hello Lacefriends, Today I added my lace-sleeve to our webshot album. Greetings Ilske - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] digital cameras
Bev wrote: ...For a *lace* tool, the decision to buy a digital camera was a good one. I use it more than I would have thought, the main factor being the immediate results. I use it to examine a piece of antique lace, where the screen resolution is easier for me to see than a magnifying glass. I can then print a picture (in black and white to save ink) and draw on it, or snail mail it to someone Thanks, Bev, that's a great suggestion. I certainly agree you couldn't do that with a normal camera!I've parked your email to remember later, if I get one. Helene, the froggy from Melbourne, where it poured with rain yesterday, when the best known horserace in Australia took place!!! Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] digital cameras- for
Hi All, I would heartily endorse all that has been said in favour of digital cameras - I love our Finepix whatever-it-is, and am rarely parted from it. So far, though, I have found only one drawback! No. 1 Grandson, Dylan aged eight, had a bike last Christmas, and I wanted to take a picture of him zooming towards me. So far so good - I thought I caught him perfectly, as he whizzed towards me but, forgetting that there is a miniscule delay when the button is pressed to when the photo is caught, all I ended up with was a lovely, clear picture of the towpath - not even the blur of speed as Dylan sailed past! I am gradually getting to grips with this slight delay, but it does take a time to acclimatise to that! But - even though I used to use my husband'd very posh Nikon 700 (or whatever) which had the facility to do the *very* close work, and the umpteen shots in quick succession, as well as lots of lenses to add on to do all sorts of everything, I think I am happier with the digital - far less clutter and, with the extra lenses to be screwed on, it is still a lot less heavy to cart around, and the results are great! Carol - in Suffolk UK. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: [lace] digital cameras- for - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] digital cameras- for
Carol, That delay is by no means universal in digital cameras. I've heard that more expensive cameras are much faster. The low-end cameras have a noticeable delay, which is a pain if you're not ready for an 'action shot.' (If you are ready, then you can tap the shutter button a couple times to make sure the camera doesn't 'sleep' while you're waiting.) I also noticed that my camera slowed down a bit when I changed from a 16M card to a 256M card. A friend who specializes in pet and animal photography says that her digital cameras don't have this lag, but her cameras are a lot more expensive than mine. Avital, still without a computer at home and wondering whether to subscribe her hassidic rabbi/computer technician to Arachne just to annoy him. On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:56:40 -, Carol Adkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So far, though, I have found only one drawback! No. 1 Grandson, Dylan aged eight, had a bike last Christmas, and I wanted to take a picture of him zooming towards me. So far so good - I thought I caught him perfectly, as he whizzed towards me but, forgetting that there is a miniscule delay when the button is pressed to when the photo is caught, all I ended up with was a lovely, clear picture of the towpath - not even the blur of speed as Dylan sailed past! I am gradually getting to grips with this slight delay, but it does take a time to acclimatise to that! But - even though I used to use my husband'd very posh Nikon 700 (or whatever) which had the facility to do the *very* close work, and the umpteen shots in quick succession, as well as lots of lenses to add on to do all sorts of everything, I think I am happier with the digital - far less clutter and, with the extra lenses to be screwed on, it is still a lot less heavy to cart around, and the results are great! Carol - in Suffolk UK. - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] Digital cameras (again)
I was playing with another feature of mine this morning - 90 second movies. Thought it could come in handy some time to capture what someone's demonstrating on a lace pillow. Now that the brain's down to just a couple of cells, I don't retain what I watch so easily. So to be able to watch it again, even it if took several short movies, would be a great idea. The only thing was (again because of the lessening brain cells) I had 9 tries at taking a movie before I realised I'd actually got it right first time and had taken 9 movies. Couldn't quite grasp the instructions for playback, so thought I hadn't taken anything. Once I realised that the instructions weren't actually written in Chinese, I got the hang of it and I definitely think it will be useful to have both the still and movie function in one small zoom camera. Jean in Poole - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] Digital cameras
DH bought me a digi camera last Christmas - a 3.2 mega pixel Olympus which is really tiny and I now take it nearly everywhere I go. It's easy to use and there's no expensive film to purchase and have processed. Some pictures I print out, others I just store on the computer. I take a lot more photos than I used to. I did buy another memory card - the one with it was very small, only 8Mb, the replacement is 128Mb which will store 55 photos on the highest quality setting, the definition of which is great, and 798 on the lowest quality setting - which is intended for web use but still needs to be compressed a lot of the time. When it comes to printing, yes the quality does depend a great deal on the printer, but if you get something you really want printed at top quality you can always put it onto CD and take it into the photo lab for printing. I have a Canon i560. I took photos of a piece of lace, overall size a bit smaller than A4 to test on all 4 settings and even the lowest quality 640 x 480 pixels printed acceptably at 4 x 6. The highest quality 2048 x 1536 printed about a quarter of the mat onto A4, so quite a big enlargement, and every thread is clear. Compared to that the mobile phone camera's 320 x 240 pixels is rubbish. I've started using the digi camera to record students' work. Anyone who teaches LEA classes will know just how much paperwork is required now and it's the easiest way of recording progress (or otherwise!). Every few weeks I go around the class and snap each pillow. I also take pics of finished work. Small size prints (8 to the page) on plain paper is adequate for this. I have a question of my own about digi cameras. Does anyone know of a digital camera of at least 3 megapixels which does not have a moving lens. DH wants to be able to hold a camera against the eyepiece of his telescope to take magnified images (of birds) but the zoom lens prevents this. You can get adaptor rings, which cost about 50GBP and take time to screw on and off of the telescope, but a static lens would be much more convenient. Brenda - back from Suffolk this afternoon and getting up at 5am tomorrow for a day in Bruges. Daresay I'll take a few more photos! http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/paternoster/ - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] Digital Cameras
DH started out with a 2 megapixel digital camera, and got some really great results. It's got 10 x optical zoom and 3 x digital zoom. Digital zoom is a waste of time because it just cuts down the size of the image it takes. This year, I inherited that camera when he bought a better one. Even with just 2 megapixels, which is now regarded as a 'fun' camera, I get excellent results because I can get really close with the macro facility. DH takes pictures in Poole harbour of the wildlife as well as the boats/ships that come into the harbour. One, which he printed at A4 was of a boat on the other side of the harbour, and you could clearly see the grain of the wood in the harbour structure behind the boat. Lord Lichfield, one of the UK's most famous professional photographers, was interviewed on BBC radio a few weeks ago. He said that he's used a digital camera exclusively for about three years now. He also said that apart from the image quality, which he thinks is comparable with or even superior to anything he used to get with film, that can be got now, he can shoot many more useable photographs without worrying about the GBP80,000 it used to cost him in film each year. He can also see the results immediately and make any adjustments needed in the next shot to get the results he's looking for. Jean in Poole - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] digital cameras, general thanks and answer
Hello, hello, I seem to have raised a storm with my Digital cameras-against posting!! Thanks to all who wrote back to me, I can't answer all of you individually, you are too many. Because it isn't directly lace related (although it is indirectly, since we are talking about photographing lace, please write to lace-chat if you want to continue the topic. I just want to say that you still haven't convinced me that *printed* digital photos are any good, everyone just talks about viewing them onscreen, but I do recognize that zooming seems to be better with a digital. Oh, well, I'll have to get DH to buy one, and I'll keep my SLR, and we'll have the best of both worlds...:-) Yours, late for everything, Helene, the froggy from Melbourne, welcoming a bit of rain after a few dry days. Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] digital cameras, general thanks and answer
No, I did mention printing. I have printed digital photos on regular photographic paper and they are, to my eye, identical to 35 mm film prints, at least at the 5x7 size. If you want to print 8x10, then you should get a higher end camera with more megapixels (my low-end camera is 2 megapixels, but you can get 5 or 6 megapixels; just that you should know that those cameras are real memory hogs and slower than the cheaper ones, so you have to balance that out with how often you're going to need the extra high resolution). I upload my digital shots to a local camera site, pay on-line, and they give the photos to my coworker, who lives next to the owner of the business, and he brings them to work. Saves on shipping! g Avital On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:44:05 +1000 (EST), Helene Gannac I just want to say that you still haven't convinced me that *printed* digital photos are any good, everyone just talks about viewing them onscreen, but I do recognize that zooming seems to be better with a digital. Oh, well, I'll have to get DH to buy one, and I'll keep my SLR, and we'll have the best of both worlds...:-) - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] Digital cameras - for
As everyone knows, I'm the Last Dinosaur when it comes to technology (as a matter of fact, I think that, on Nov 2, my sig will change to pox on all technology g), so it may be surprising that I should weigh in on the side of pro, when it comes to a digital camera :) Mine, a Nikon Coolpix 885 received for Christmas '01, is the best example of concerted family effort: I supplied the whine, my geek-son the research, and DH the cash... To this day, I don't know its megapixel capacity; I think it's 3, but can't swear to it, nor can I find the answer in the manual. But it has a macro feature (a sine qua non requirement), it's very small and light (ditto), it can operate off a store-bought battery or off the proprietal, rechargeable one, or off a plug in the wall (in US g), which is very convenient, and it takes a memory *card*, which I think is convenient also (there are more of those to be had at Walmart than on sticks and other devices). It cost around $800 3 yrs ago, I think (my son never seriously considered the price as a factor in choosing, and DH would as soon forget how much it cost g) I was never a snapshot fiend, and if snapshots was what I was aiming for, I'd have been happy with the $5 disposable cameras. But, with this one, I actually started taking pictures - mostly of lace, but some snaps of trivia as well. As many people have pointed out, the ability to ditch - immediately - any photo that's a bomb, is a boon to those of us who do not have a perfect pitch in either eye or hand... I have never gone beyond using two modes - of 6 available - but auto and BSS (best shot of 10, terrific for taking pics in a museum, as it doesn't use flash, on top of choosing the best focus to retain) are perfectly adequate for my needs. And I've never learnt much about puter photo-editing (don't even know how much is available to me, since I have a Mac, with its personal quirks), but, once I learnt to elininate the red eye, I was happy (and red eye never happens when you photograph lace g). I'd have never, not in a million years, been able to set up a brag-site of my lace designs (URL in sig), if it hadn't been for that little digital baby. And even DH is happy: with the digital camera, I've been able to take photos of the family furniture and portraits, which he keeps in his puter, and sends off to different experts for identification. As regards printing... It all depends on your needs. When DH bought me the camera, I invested, on my own, in a charger (and 2 rechargeable batteries) and in the non-battery source of power, on the gut feeling that those were a good thing to have. I also invested, on the recommendation from my geek son, in a photo printer (Epson Stylus 820). The first proved to be a true investment (it's still paying off for the initial outlay), the second a waste of good money. True, the quality of prints was quite good, especially if I used v good quality- ie expensive - paper. But, given that I don't print all that much... The ink dried out between one printing and the next :) With $60 spent - in ink alone - on two printing sessions amounting to some 10 photos, I disconnected the lemon from my puter. If I need to print, I'm gonna put the stuff on a CD , and take it to Walmart to cope with. --- Tamara P Duvall http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) Healthy US through The No-CARB Diet: no C-heney, no A-shcroft, no R-umsfeld, no B-ush. - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] digital cameras- against
Hmmm. That sounds like someone who never got comfortable with a digital camera or who tried one when they first came out and were more temperamental. My $200 Olympus takes very good pictures and I am delighted with it. I took it to Paris when my company sent me there for 48 hours. I took 78 shots without worrying about running out of film (I have a card large enough for 500 photos) and I can get better quality shots on it than on my Canon 35 mm camera because it has more settings. My FIL, formerly a hobby photographer who used to shoot weddings for extra money, traded in his entire high-end camera outfit (expensive large 35 mm single-reflex plus all the lenses) for a digital camera and he is extremely happy. I'm glad that I don't have expensive printing costs and bags of negatives all over the house. I can upload all my photos to the Web for relatives abroad to order their own prints and I can burn them to a CD for storage. Because of the preview function, I can tell fairly quickly whether I got a shot properly framed or not and I can delete the bad shot on the spot, instead of having to pay for printing an entire roll. I use both a small 35 mm and a digital camera and I have to say that I get more use out of the digital camera. The only thing I have to remember to do is to recharge the batteries if I'm going to take it out the next day. For prints I have not noticed any difference in printing quality between a digital and a regular film camera. Of course, you have to make sure that the resolution is set high enough for the digital camera, but that's not a setting I change very often anyway. I like being able to alter my shots with Photoshop. A couple times I've gotten some good shots of my son but the background is a little too dark or there is something intruding in a corner. With Photoshop I can crop extraneous details and change the colour values of the pictures. I use my digital camera for photographing lace and textiles because it can take better closeups (to 7) than my regular camera and because I can see right away whether the shot turned out. Another plus is that it's instant gratification. I am *terrible* about remembering to take pictures with my regular camera. I once had two of my son's birthday parties on a single roll of film! With a digital camera I can take the picture and immediately upload it to the computer or print it. My son likes to make K'nex models but hates to take them apart. We made a deal: I photograph him with every one of his models, put it on the computer as wallpaper or a screen saver, and he takes apart the model. I could never afford to do that with regular film. Different strokes for different folks--I love my digital camera. Avital On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:01:23 +1000 (EST), Helene Gannac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dot wrote: I know there was a long discussion on digital cameras a while ago, when the possibility of my aquiring one was nil. I am now in the market for one and would like to ask who ever posted at that time to forward their very interesting articles to me. Hello, Dot, like you, I've been thinking about a digital camera, and after seing the beautiful prints of lace exhibits from our Adelaide exhibition, taken by one of our Committee members who also owns a camera shop, I asked her which digital camera she used to get so close to the lace. Her answer was: Unless I had about 10,000 dollars to spare, I wouldn't touch a digital camera with a barge-pole! They are dreadful, and only give you very mediocre results. If you want to send your photos through the Internet, get your films done on CD as well as printed, and you will have much better photos. So I'm listening to her and sticking to my 35 single lens!! Helene, the froggy from Melbourne - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] digital cameras- against
Oh Helene, I have to disagree here! Whilst I think there is a place for both types of cameras, I find that my digital does an absolutely fantastic job. I bought an Olympus 3.2 megapixel, with (for photographing closeups of lace) a x10 zoom lens.. Previously I had a very good, top of the range Pentax - and the digital does a MUCH better job!! I'll email you privately with just one of my photos from the exhibition to show you what can be done by just setting it on auto and pointing it in the general direction of the subject and clicking. The other thing I like about the digital camera is the freedom to try a shot - and if you don't like it, you can just delete it from the memory card. I no longer have to carry rolls of film with me...a tiny card about the same size as the SIM card in the mobile phone stores *hundreds* of photos, which in turn can either be printed, or downloaded onto the computer to use as screen savers, and then the card can be reused again. In Adelaide, all the photographic equipment I needed was in one small bag about 5 x 2 - and the photographs are wonderful!!! Ruth Budge (Sydney, Australia) Helene Gannac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Dot wrote: I know there was a long discussion on digital cameras a while ago, when the possibility of my aquiring one was nil. I am now in the market for one and would like to ask who ever posted at that time to forward their very interesting articles to me. Hello, Dot, like you, I've been thinking about a digital camera, and after seing the beautiful prints of lace exhibits from our Adelaide exhibition, taken by one of our Committee members who also owns a camera shop, I asked her which digital camera she used to get so close to the lace. Her answer was: Unless I had about 10,000 dollars to spare, I wouldn't touch a digital camera with a barge-pole! They are dreadful, and only give you very mediocre results. If you want to send your photos through the Internet, get your films done on CD as well as printed, and you will have much better photos. So I'm listening to her and sticking to my 35 single lens!! Helene, the froggy from Melbourne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] digital cameras - for
I have a low end digital camera that does all I want it to do BUT, IMHO the answer is in the software manipulation of the images. It is just amazing what you can do with a good graphic package, even free ones ( The Gimp) Sure they do take a farley steep learning curve, but then on the results are great. Brian and Jean from Cooranbong Australia - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] digital cameras- for
I wouldn't touch a digital camera with a barge-pole! They are dreadful, and only give you very mediocre results. Sorry, I have to disagree with your Committee member. I have a Canon digi (not bottom of the range by any means but nothing even approaching 10,000 dollars!) and if you are interested I can send you a couple of photos I have taken of my lace. No flash, no tripod, just quick photos to be able to show students work in progress. And not only are the full frame photos excellent, they are still crystal clear if I zoom in on details. Yes I did get excellent photos with my Olympus SLR, but I also got a lot of not quite clear enough for lace purposes and one of the main benefits your advisor has omitted is that I can immediately see my photo, take more if it's not good enough (if I need to, which I don't usually), and only have the expense of printing those I need in photo format. And I have it immediately, not when I've finished the film and had it developed. With the cost of film and developing here in England, this has meant I have been able to take far more photos in the last 18 months than ever before and even just counting the films I would have used I have a big chunk towards the cost of my camera (which is now a lot cheaper anyway than it was then). Another reason I love it (which was not a factor I had thought of when I bought it) is that because of the pull-out multi position screen, I can be very discreet when taking photos. No obvious camera-in-front-of-my-face. This has meant I have been able to get shots of my grandchildren which would have been impossible otherwise as they don't pose and/or hide. And I can take high and low level photos without having to perform gymnastics. Finally in this quick review of why I'm glad I jumped in and bought a digi is that in a once in a lifetime situation I can be sure of having good photos (having lost my photo opportunity at my first grandson's Christening because the film wasn't in the camera properly, duh). taken by one of our Committee members who also owns a camera shop I know I might be suspicious, but there is a lot in the media here about Kodak having to close down factories due to lack of demand for film etc. The same will possibly apply to the owner of a camera shop. Once you have bought a digital camera you won't need to buy anything else from the shop unless you want to upgrade at some unspecified time in the future. Jacquie - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] digital cameras- against
Hello Lacefriend, It is always difficult to say this or that camera is the right for you. First you must find out what you personally want, a very small one, or the best what belongs technical data-which of them are the most important for me, could it be expensive or better not and so on. I first wanted one with the highest Pixel-value and found out that a certain Canon has all I was looking for. The man in the shop said ok but why do you want a big one, when you can get a smaller with the same luxury? And he showed me the Sony Cyber-shot 5,0 Mega Pixels. It can do so many things I have to learn the next two years but it works very well and I am satisfied with its quality. And the prize wasn't either the highest nor the cheapest. I can recommand it to people who have the same wishes as I have. What's important, I think, to buy a bigger stick and a second batterie so you can be away somewhere for a longer time. But it could be that the stick in nearly full with carbage, that means on it are all possible PC-programms. So look which one you need and let put out all others before you go in a travel. Otherwise it will happen what happened to me. Good luck finding the right digital-camera. Greetings Ilske - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
