The AM Forum

Hello all,

I'm doing more and more digital photography today, and I'm pretty disappointed with my trusty old (2 years) Sony T-10 digital camera.

Much of my shooting is inside the radio barn, of old equipment, and the photo quality leaves a lot to be desired. Sure that some of it has to do with the lighting, but even outside my photos seem too light or dark, and inside they almost always seem to have a yellow cast.

Here is an example of a photo I took last night, you can see how "yellow" it looks, and not terribly clear.

(http://www.me.com/ro/brucehowes/Galleries/100234/DSC02971/web.jpg?ver=12512569480001)

Its sure not going to set the world on fire, nor will it do justice to the rig itself for any published or archived articles.

So some questions:

1) Is this lighting, or the camera? (My other Sony is not much better.)

2) Can I get away with incandescent lighting, or do I need some serious candlepower?

3) What do you think about the new GPS enabled cameras, nice to know where you're shooting, but
does it work?

4) What make/model camera do you suggest for general all around photography work?

5) Other tips/suggestions?

Here is one I took inside at the AWA Conference, is this my camera or just the lighting?
Was inside one of the hotel ballrooms, where the equipment contest was being held.
(http://www.me.com/ro/brucehowes/Galleries/100218/DSC02938/web.jpg?ver=12512079790001)

Nikon D40, D60 or D90. Pick your price/resolution.

For some reason I only see a red X where your photo should be. I'm using IE8.

White balance should be in auto
And the resolution setting for the cam should be the highest and set for SuperFine, if you have this option.
Your Sony camera model doesn't reveal the megapixel number.
I have seen great pix from cameras with 3Megapixels, even reduced to email size still looking good

Fred

Try now Fred, the hosting site for the photos was off line.

Bruce:
The picture links when copied to a browser, show "unauthorized" to view using IE. With Firefox, no pictures or "X in a box" appears in your message.

Bruce

I didn't see any link.  You can go two ways with digital cameras.  DSLR or there are some nice high end Zoom (no detached lens).  Here's a nice place to look at different cameras with excellent reviews

http://dpreview.com/

I use a Nikon 5700 and am quite happy with it.

Al

Pls keep trying to get link for your pics so we can see what the problem is. If it's a Sony DSC T-10 then it's a 7.8 megapixel camera. Should be top notch pics. Sony is pretty good stuff.

Fred

For any camera you buy, make sure it uses readily available/sized batteries, such as AAA or AA, rechargable or otherwise. 

Many cameras now come with a variety of odd ball square, rectangular, thick or thin and uncommon voltage types of very expensive batteries. 

The one in my Sony went south and the replacement runs $30 to 50 even at Wallmart.  I noticed that I'd gotten the last one on the rack.

I guess since the film racket is gone, now it's very expensive batteries turn. 

Nikon P90.  It lists for $400 but it takes very good pictures and is versatile. It has image stabilization.  It's sort of a combination between a point and shoot and a DSLR.

Try Amazon.com for second sources of the expensive weird batteries.   I got a huge battery for my digital camcorder that normally went for $80 at less than $10. Of course it was not made by Canon.

Bruce,

I couldn't see your link/photo but the off color cast is usually a problem with white balance/color temperature.  I shoot in RAW format (instead of jpeg) and I can easily correct this when I "process" the photos.  With most software you can either adjust color temperature or identify a true white area in the photo for the software to use as a reference.  Whatever camera you buy I would suggest getting used to shooting RAW format to get the most out of your camera.

Lighting is very important to getting the best photos.  I admit I often do not take the time to set up proper lighting for vintage gear shots because most of them are images I won't do much with.  Since the gear is not going to move, you will also benefit from using a good tripod.  One of the most important things in getting good photos of a piece of gear is having sufficient depth of field so that the entire area of interest is in proper focus and all parts are properly/equally lit.  Depth of field decreases as you have to open up the lens (F stop) to provide sufficient exposure.  You can increase available light, decrease shutter speed, or increase sensor "sensitivity" to allow a higher F stop.  Using higher sensitivity is roughly equivalent to using faster film on the old "analog" cameras but instead of increased grain you get increased noise.  On the other hand, in some situations you want to highlight only one aspect (i.e. the gorgeous dial on some receivers) while softening or blurring the rest and opening up the lens allows you to accomplish this goal.  The focal length of the lens and your distance from the gear is another factor controlling depth of field.  Most SLR type cameras open the lens iris to its widest setting for ease of framing and focus (brightest view) but have a depth of field preview which will step the lens down to the value that will be used in the shot so you can see what is in focus.

I own a little "point and shoot" for the times that I don't want to carry a large camera.  But most of my shooting is with a couple of Canon 1DM2 and 1DSM2 bodies with a selection of lenses.  These are large camera bodies and certainly not for everybody.  But the smaller SLR (single lens reflex) cameras are much more versatile than the typical point and shoot. Once you get used to your camera you want to have one that allows manual selection of aperture value and shutter speed in addition to the various program modes so that you can really take advantage of the capabilities.  If you buy an SLR, ultimately you will have more money invested in glass than in the camera body itself.  This is not a bad thing because as electronics improve you can keep your good quality glass and use it with a newer body in the same camera family.

There are a lot of choices out there and I would suggest taking a look at some of the review sites and then try one out in person for feel and heft.

Be very careful as there are a lot of scam type camera stores online which engage in various forms of sleazy and misleading activities.  I buy most of my gear and supply from B&H but there are other reputable stores.  Realize the "gray market" is alive and well in the photo gear market and among other things the gray market items do not come with a U.S. warranty.  You can find some very good buys on used gear and B&H has a pretty large department and I have traded in gear there before.

This post grew longer than I intended but I hope some of it is useful.

P.S.  The most difficult situation to deal with is when different parts of the scene are illuminated with different types of light sources.  This can be a real issue with vintage gear if your overhead lighting is fluorescent combined with the incandescent lighting of the dials and perhaps a camera flash.  Each has its own color temperature emphasizing different areas so to keep things simple strong incandescent lighting is the easiest way to photograph gear in operation.

Rodger WQ9E

I use a Nikon D40X which is very easy to understand.  It and a SB 600 flash attachment is all that I need out to 40 ft. or so.  

Be sure your white balance is correct.  In the manual for the camera you should find a way to adjust white balance and color intensity.  Color intensity will be for incandescent, florescent, outdoors, starlight, portrait, etc.  If under 1 ft. use the closeup setting.  White balance may require you use something like a white piece of paper and let the camera automatically adjust itself before you shoot good pictures.

Are you setting the flash to respond right?  Be sure of that.  Sony cameras are usually good equipment unless something has happened to it.

Sorry about the photos fellows, seems that my hosting site is being a bit temperamental.

Let's try again, will post here.

http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes#100234&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=2

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100218/DSC02938/web.jpg?ver=12512079790001)

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100234/DSC02960/web.jpg?ver=12512568720001)

Hi Bruce,

I am having a bit of a problem posting an edited version of your photo so one last try with a corrected white balance and a bit of noise reduction. 

It is much easier to get good photos outside when you have plenty of light from a single color temperature source.  Mr. Bee showed up at the right time for some pretty good lighting.

Rodger WQ9E

Wonder if your Sony is Minolta based.  I have a Minolta Z1 and the color is really bad.  About a year after I got it, Sony took over Minolta to start their DSLR division.

That said, I have Sony's first 30GB Hard Drive based Hi Def widescreen camcorder HDR-SR1 AVC and the color is very good.  It also has a 4MP still camera mode that I use so I don't have to carry both a still camera and a camcorder.

I have a little Panasonic 5MP 7X zoom with image stabilization that has pretty good color too

Bruce,

Most of the digital cameras today do pretty good adjustments on the white balance.  Looking at the ballroom picture, I am wondering if the camera took its exposure and white balance settings from the bottom right - you might notice that the exposure and and color is pretty good at that spot.  I don't usually like to use flash and have been amazed how the digital cameras I have used, even an inexpensive ($150) Canon, adjust for the light.  I have taken a lot of inside pictures with different lighting and no flash with the digitals with good results.  No more yellowing from incandescents and no more greening from flourescents.  I would play with the settings on the Sony before you give up on it.  Hey, it ain't like the film days - you aren't wasting film! 

As far as suggestions, I have to admit that I am a Nikon fan (bought my first Nikon film camera 35 years ago).  My wife and both I have film SLR's and now both have DSLR's (D200 & D80).  We recently bought my daughter a Nikon Coolpix P90 and that is a neat camera with a big zoom (we "test drove" it before giving it to her).  I like to take candids, so the shutter lag on some digitals drives me crazy.  My first pictures of my grandchild with an early Fuji finepix digital (S602) were of the back of her head.  I bought a inexpensive small Canon (A580) about 1.5 years ago because the DSLR was just too big and expensive to carry around all the time, but again the shutter lag drove me nuts (the quality of the pictures was very good, though).  So, sick of listening to me complain, my beautiful wife offered to buy me another small digital for my birthday this year, a Nikon Coolpix P6000.  Lots of features packed into a small package. 

The P6000 has the GPS feature.  I have not got it to lock up, yet.  Probably because it spends of most its time inside, so can't tell you much about the feature, except that it is a battery eater. 

My criteria for a digital camera is restricted because I insist on a viewfinder.  It is what I am used to and I can't see the displays in the bright sunlight. 

You have a Hunts Photo in So. Portland.  Drop by and testdrive some models. 

If you have not decided by Hosstraders, look me up.  I am sure to have the Nikons with me. 

Good luck,
Jack

Thanks for the pics Bruce
Looks like white balance problem. Flash on automatic? Some cameras offer different levels of flash. Go through the set-up one more time. Something definitely doesn't look right in your pics.

Fred

I'm not a camera person, but  the picture was taken on flash and auto colour and I'd assume the colour balance is set to the flash in  that case. The incandesant lights lamps have come out with the typical orangey hue.

Since some annoying issues in the past with auto color balance with my old camera, I usually leave it set to sunlight and tweak later . Is the best option or should I use some other color balance setting as 'default' ?

                                                   
                                                                                Ian VK3KRI

The spectrum of incandescent lights is skewed towards red. This will make stuff look more yellow than it should indoors.

Thanks for the suggestions and tips fellows.
Checked the little Sony which took those photos, all settings are at default.
I think is more a matter of asking the camera to do more than it really can, its one of the small point and shoot models, bought more for convenience than anything else.
You can see by the photo below, its a pretty simple camera.

(http://www.notebookcenter.com/catalog/images/Sony-T10.jpg)

Was looking at the Nikons that you suggested Steve, D60 and D90.
D90 seems like its a little more bulky/large, but clearly has more functions.
What do you think of the new Nikon D-5000? Seems like a good mix of both units.

One thing to be careful about is modifying a photo in .jpg format and then saving it.  Every time you "save" a modification, it re-compresses the image, so it loses some definition.

I understand there are ways around this so that you can modify the image without  re-saving it, but I don't do enough work with images to know how to do it.  I don't think merely copying the image changes it.

Also, be aware of the distinction between a .jpg and .jpeg file.  I always thought they were the same thing, but some time ago I tried to post an image as an attachment on this forum.  I got an error message that I could not post in the format I was using.  I  checked and the image was something.jpeg.  I manually deleted the "e" in the the extension, changing it to .jpg and the image file still opened normally.  So I retried attaching the .jpg file and it worked.

If you plan multiple edits, just use a bit-mapped file format with out any lossy compression. TIFF is a pretty safe bet.

One big problem is expecting a built in flash to reach out more than 3-5 ft.  They just won't do it.  If you want pictures close up you need something with a macro lens and proper light.  If you want 10 ft. with no distortion then you need something that will accept an external flash.  That is why long distance focus photos look yellow.

Took Steve's advice, the Nikon D-90 is in my hands.

Shot some very basic photos outside the house today, right out of the box,
plan on trying it on radio gear after I read the 1" thick manual!  ;)

All I can say, is that it straps!

http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes#100242

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100242/DSC_0006/web.jpg?ver=12516705240001)

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100242/DSC_0001/web.jpg?ver=12516705140001)


http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes#100250

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100250/DSC_0027/web.jpg?ver=12516851570001)

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100250/DSC_0020/web.jpg?ver=12516851390001)

(http://gallery.me.com/brucehowes/100250/DSC_0011/web.jpg?ver=12516851330001)

Is that W1AW?  :D

Good purchase. The Nikons are proven and the lens are excellent. Those separate the D90 from the point-end-shoot type cameras, even the high end ones. You can always use the lens on the next Nikon you buy too.

Ah yes, the northern relay station.  ;)

Just got to find a good bag, that does not look like a camera bag.
Tnx agn for the tip.

What format do you shoot in Steve?
I see there are several choices on the camera itself.

There are some "bags" that are actually backpacks. Lots of room and less hassle to carry.

I usually shot the highest res JPEG setting. If you want to have some fun, shoot with the RAW format. It makes HUGE files but with the Nikon Capture software, you can almost "reshoot" the photo if you don't have the settings exactly correct on the camera. It won't fix out of focus though.  :'(   

There is a NEF plug-in for Photoshop to that will allow some editing directly in Photoshop.

RAW files are really the way to go, you can always convert them to Jpeg or TIFF but with RAW you basically get the original sensor data so you can correct for a number of issues.  Given the cheap price for memory cards and hard drive storage today file size shouldn't be much of an issue.  I imagine your camera also came with photo stitching software which nearly automatically stitches a number of frames together for very high resolution landscapes.  There are some good quality and fairly inexpensive places online to print very large images in case you decide to wall paper your room with images of some of your nicely restored gear  :)

A quick hint for low light shooting in natural light: if you slightly over expose when using the highest sensitivity settings and save as RAW files you can generally end up with less noise in your final processing.

I haven't used Nikon since I had their gear in the 70's but their glass is generally first rate.  They fell behind a bit early in the digital era due to the financial drain from their parent company Mitsubishi Heavy but have now caught up again.  Enjoy the camera and your first samples look very good, great choice!

Digital photography has come a long way in a very short time.  I bought my first digital just before going to Cuba in 1999.  To test the waters and avoid having to bring my bag of camera gear along I bought a little point and shoot with a grand total of 3 megapixels that cost around $1,200 bucks without batteries or memory card.  The images were OK but the speed was horrible; about 35 seconds to "boot up", close to 1 second shutter lag, and worst of all you could shoot one image but then had to wait about 10 seconds for transfer to memory card before you could capture a second image.  That thing almost ended up in Havana bay due to my frustration!  I rarely use the 10 FPS capability of my current camera but I sure wish I had that 10 years ago-I missed a lot of great images from my time in Cuba.

Rodger WQ9E

Nice camera!  :o 

Tamrac makes a wide selection of quality bags:

http://www.tamrac.com/welcome.htm (http://www.tamrac.com/welcome.htm)

We have a Tamrac backpack we use for traveling and it handles both DLSR's and a small laptop.

Bruce:

I am not a pro, but know a few things:

1) White balance. Your photos inside are warm (brownish) because the camera is balanced for outdoor lighting (as you displayed with the photo of your house). Shoot a piece of paper by the radio you wanna shoot. You can then correct somewhat in Photoshop (best to white balance off the paper before taking the shot).

2) More light is better. CCD cameras have a high noise floor. A larger lens helps here as well. I add lighting from the sides at a 30 degree angle to eliminate front on reflections. A key light should be stronger than the fill light. Use depth of field and lower lighting on the background to separate your subject from the background.

3) JPEG compression will garbage not only the dark areas, but color as well. This is why people suggest shooting RAW.

4) As stated earlier, I take photos of a radio outside on a cloudy day...strong smooth light. A bed sheet or old curtian can be the backdrop.

A better camera will give you a larger lens, manual adjustments as well as RAW output.

Good luck!!

Dan
W1DAN