ThePolo Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 So, I'm sick of my camera. I decided today that I'm buying a new one (maybe not this month, but soon!) Right now I've got a Mavica (1.2 Megapixel, Optical Zoom, Macro Setting), and EVERY picture I take comes out rather 'dirty'... pixelated... Not nearly crisp enough. Now I thought it was the lighting situation, but I've tried a few different setups... Including going outside to take my pictures, and I can't seem to get decent shots that don't look 'grainy' or have too much yellow in them, or aren't lit right... Maybe I'm doing my color correction wrong for mini photos, maybe I just can't get a high enough resolution out of the thing... Maybe I suck at lighting... who knows? Now, before I go drop some $$... any last ditch advice from anyone out there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kheprera Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 1.2 MP really isn't enough. Shoot, 5 MP isn't really enough in my book (give me something that can be as clear as 100 ASA film and then I'll think again) and as I understand it the Mavica isn't that great of a camera. Handy, yes, but otherwise a lot of pictures outright stink. Now, it all depends on how much you're willing to spend. I saw some decent cameras out there for about $300, the Coolpix being one of them. Take a mini with you while you're shopping around, and also take a look at Digital Photography Review for some excellent reviews on digital cameras that date back as far as February of 1999. It's a very nice review site for camera shopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flit Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 I really like my Cannon PowerShot A70. It has 3.2 megapixels, macro, and custom white balance. I paid about $300 for it. Here's Cannon's camera site: Cameras My site, all the pics were shot with the PowerShot and posted without any color/contrast adjustment necessary. Hope that helps :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TaleSpinner Posted September 27, 2003 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2003 Right now I've got a Mavica (1.2 Megapixel, Optical Zoom, Macro Setting), and EVERY picture I take comes out rather 'dirty'... pixelated... Not nearly crisp enough. Now I thought it was the lighting situation, but I've tried a few different setups... Including going outside to take my pictures, and I can't seem to get decent shots that don't look 'grainy' or have too much yellow in them, or aren't lit right... So that's what is wrong with my shots (#@*@). I always use the work camera which is a Mavica as well, pretty much the same as what you have. Here is the best I could get out of 20 some odd shots last night: I had one better that I posted, but even that people are telling me that my paint looks rough, when in real life it is smooth. Also, I had the same set up, and yet many pictures came out with good color and others were all yellow. What gives? Unfortunately, a new camera isn't going to be in the budget for a very long time (new baby on the way), so I guess I will have to make due. Thanks for making me realize that it isn't just my poor camera skills. TS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kheprera Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 You might need to reset your white balance, if possible, every time. Otherwise, stop using normal light bulbs. Try the Reveal bulbs, or shoot outside with your lighting setup. The daylight will help counter the color of the bulbs and the lights will help with shadows. Other than that, it doesn't look smooth because of the camera's resolution, and there's not much you can do about that. All I can say is to try and shoot at the highest resolution possible on your camera and then bring it down to a workable size, rather the other way around. If you shoot at the resolution you want to end up with and work up, you'll end up with a pixelated image. And this is why I've been so against digital cameras for so long. :p In no way can they compete with film cameras, especially when you're working on enlarging the image to extreme sizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benhamtroll Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 The thing about the Mavica, especially the older ones, is that they use essentially the same technology as a camcorder. That means that the images you get are essentially video still frames, albeit taken in progressive mode. These will never look as good cameras that use something other than video chips and video technology. I just ordered a Nikon CoolPix 2100, which is very reasonably priced, and takes a good picture at extremely close ranges. It's only 2 megapixel, but I think it looks nice. I ordered mine from Cameta Camera for $219. Here's quick pic I took last night with it of an unfinished mini I'm working on. I didn't really work on the lighting or anything, and I didn't have access to photoshop to fix things up before I posted it here, but I think it came out nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kheprera Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Word of note, Ben. Check your manual for "Depth of Field" to see how you can increase it, otherwise you're going to always get the foreground and background very blurry, like his hands. Something I see so often in mini-pictures because the macro settings for a LOT of automatic cameras assume you want only the small part of the subject in focus and everything else blurred. :glare: Even my auto-camera does this, which irritates me to no end. It makes the Macro function basically useless for miniature picture taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benhamtroll Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Yes, I'd noticed it as well. This is not actually my camera, rather one just like it. I haven't had a chance to read the manual on it yet. I used it zoomed all the way out and about 2 inches from the mini. While this is the normal macro shooting method, I may try some shots from farther away and zoomed in, since this will help to get rid of some of the depth of field issues. I actually had some better pictures, but the lighting and background were not as nice. Like this one. It looks the knuckles on the hand holding the holy symbol are a bit blurry, but in general it's better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kheprera Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Actually, depth of field isn't so much of a distance issue (although in macro mode you're dealing in less of a forgiving mode) but the apeture. The higher the F-Stop (Apeture) means the smaller the hole in the lens shutter. :oo: Let's see if I can explain this better. Every lens has an Apeture setting, generally they run from F22 to F2.5 or thereabouts. In the lens is an iris "door" which controls the amount of light allowed through the lens. The numbers are often referred to as the "F-Stop" (thus the F in front of the number), and the higher the number, the smaller that iris door is. This is where shutter speed comes in. Generally, the larger your apeture, the more "play" you have with your shutter speed. Shutter speed is how long the shutter of your camera is open to expose film to light. How does this apply to digital cameras? The same basic rules apply towards shooting a picture. If your shutter speed is too slow and you're shooting pictures of cars, they're going to be blurry because the camera isn't closing the shutter fast enough, so it's recording that movement. If your apeture is too large and you're shooting a closeup of a flower, you could have the outer petals fuzzy and out of focus, the inside clean and crisp, and the background just something green and fuzzy. So in close-up pictures, if you can adjust your apeture (look for it in the manual) then you'll want it set it to F22 or F11 for the clearest shot you can get of the whole mini. Also look for the term bracketing to see if this is possible with your camera. What bracketing does is takes a shot of your subject with it's best "choice" of apeture and shutter speed, then it stops down (closes the apeture) one to several stops below the "best" and it also stops up (opens the apeture) one to several steps above. By bracketing, you can find the best picture with best depth of field for your use. I hope this wasn't too technical. Maybe I'll go and write a nice, easy to understand, in depth article with definitions and such and post it. Close-up photography is really best done in a studio-type setting with static lighting, a camera stablized on a stand, and with the full kit-and-kaboodle of close-up lenses, step-rings, bellows, and whatnot with a completely manual camera for the best possible freedom to pick and choose what you want to do. Here's some samples of depth of field, btw. Both are flowers that I shot. The first one you notice has a blurred background. This is a shallow depth of field: This next one you notice the whole image is clear and crisp. This is a sharp and deep depth of field. Notice both images convey a different feel. One is softer than the other, even though they have basically the same subject... a flower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benhamtroll Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Depth of field is something I work with all the time, although in different terms and situations. We generally don't have aperture adjustment in video, so you are limited to shutter speed, field of view, and iris. Shutter speed can do funny things to video if you aren't careful, so it generally stays around 1/60th of a second. Adjusting the iris just lets more light in, so it doesn't help. Generally, if you want a narrow depth of field, you bring the focal point as close to the camera as you can and use a wide field of view (zoomed all the way out). You use such a narrow focus, that your focal plain is narrow as well, meaning anything in fron of or behind the plain will be soft. The farther you move away from your subject the more telephoto you have to go, which means that the focal plain gets deeper, and deeper depth of field. I'm not sure how this compares with still photography, since my exerience with still is relegated back to junior high/high school, and a brief period in Korea when I decided I wanted to be a photgrapher. Didn't last long . . . :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kheprera Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I think video and photography are vastly different as the cameras used work in different ways. One is shooting stills, the other moving stuff. I'm not big into the video thing, but from what you've just said you have to work with depth of field in a vastly different manner than in still photography. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I really like my Cannon PowerShot A70. It has 3.2 megapixels, macro, and custom white balance. I paid about $300 for it. Here's Cannon's camera site: Cameras My site, all the pics were shot with the PowerShot and posted without any color/contrast adjustment necessary. Hope that helps :) I have the Powershot G5, I believe. Though I swear mine was 5.3 megapixels as opposed to the 5.0 on the site. One of the reason, I spent a little more for this model was to get a manual focus in addition to all the other features that are beneficial to taking mini pics. This is my first time owning any type of camera, so I'm still learning, but I swear this camera does not many neat things. I'm not going to argue whether digital cameras are better than traditional cameras. I don't know or care. I know you can take quality mini pics either way. However, regular cameras bore me. Digital cameras are fun, gadgetey toys. If I'm going to spend a lot of money, I want something I can play with. This includes excessive numbers of buttons, LCD displays, flashing lights, and tons and tons of menu options. :D I may not know what the option does, but I think its cool that is there. Besides, a digital camera toy interfaces with other toys, like my computer. :) I like it when my toys play nice together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePolo Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 Oh me oh my... I just want to thank all of you for the replies. I'm probably going to end up replacing the camera this winter, but till then I think I'll try some new lighting techniques, and maybe sulk a bit :) Thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOldcorn Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Well I have finally taken the plunge and got a digital camera. It is a Canon EOS 300D. It has 6.5 megapixels. The main reason I went for this one though is, it is a proper SLR camera with real lenses that I can change. So when I can afford it I am getting a proper Macro Lens. (Would appreciate advice on which to get though). The Pictures it takes are awesome. Just need some web space to show them. Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coogle Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 MMM.. I think 1.6mp is enough, really I do, most of my pics, well all of them have been taken with a measly 1.6mp camera. It's old, but once I worked out how to work it, it's been taking nice pictures. I think the trick is, do it on maximum res, then when you get it on the the comp. shrink it down to photo size, and you wil know if you are getting it right. These are also done without a stand, and 99% of the time I don't get any blur. So 6.5mp should be overkill really. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.