naxie
Registered
That is fabulous Peter, beautifully rich.:peach:
Oh and well turned too.
Oh and well turned too.
-
Thanks for visiting The Penturners Forum today.
There are many features and resources that currently you are unable to see or access, either because you're not yet registered, or if you're already registered, because you're not logged in.
To gain full access to the forum, please log in or register now. Registration is completely free, it only takes a few seconds, and you can join our well established community of like-minded pen makers.
A drop of Pinot Noir
- Thread starter Buckeye
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Posts
- 9,505
- First Name
- Terry
I'll leave well alone then !!!!
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Posts
- 9,505
- First Name
- Terry
Rather than go in what camera settings did Peter use on these photos ????
Same meat different gravy Terry.
If you have that option then it would be that which you use.
The serious kit I am referring to is the lighting, stands and reflectors. It really doesn't matter too much about the camera and lens as long as they give you the resolution necessary. I know I used a D200, but that is my camera about the house, when my wife or Grandaughter don't have their point and shoot available. With more lighting, reflectors and diffusers I can get rid of all the reflections that distract the eye from the detail. These photos were taken with a flash Metz 45 behind the pens but bounced of the light tent ceiling.
You can't always believe the exif data, for example the flash did fire, but not the built in flash, which is what the exif data refers to.
Peter
Last edited:
scouseroy
Graduate Member
wow!!!! very nice !!
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Posts
- 9,505
- First Name
- Terry
Cheers Peter. As I am on a learning curve with camera technology I am more than interested in what settings others use !!!!
I just re-edited my post because I forgot to say how they were taken, have a look.
Peter
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Posts
- 9,505
- First Name
- Terry
Cheers Peter. As I am on a learning curve with camera technology I am more than interested in what settings others use !!!!
The one thing I have noticed with your pics, Terry is that they are fairly grainy, although not as grainy as the one I commented on the other day. The graininess can be caused by some of the settings you use, the post-processing of the image or just a poor quality chip. All digital camera (chips) have a native ISO/ASA approximation some crap manufactures misrepresent the figures you need to find the best for your camera, lighting and situation.
If I can help I will, but please remember I don't know the workings of every digital camera, but one of the biggest jumps in quality you can get with photos is the lighting rather than the camera. To a professional what I have just said is bollocks, but it is the truth
Peter
Wow, stunning pen and nice piece of wood as well..
chas_41_uk
Registered
That is a beautiful piece of wood (if you can call roots wood) and very well turned
I seem to remember when I was looking for a camera to go for a ccd rather than cmos camera and something about interpolation of zoom make sure it's optical and not digital.
Apparently that is or was the mark of a good camera regardless of price, get the best you can afford but make sure it has those.
That advise came from our camera club man up the pub now dead so I can't ask him any more init?
Peter I am sure could put this right or wrong.
Apparently that is or was the mark of a good camera regardless of price, get the best you can afford but make sure it has those.
That advise came from our camera club man up the pub now dead so I can't ask him any more init?
Peter I am sure could put this right or wrong.
Both ccd and cmos have their own advantages and disadvantages. Cmos is quite a bit cheaper to manufacture and takes less power smaller components, but I would rather have a decent ccd than a cheap and nasty cmos. Quality cmos and quality ccd are both fine, there are advocates for each, I am not one of either. Cmos has come on a lot and I believe there are now hybrids, although I gave up following all that crap a couple of years ago as I don't care about advances any more in camera technology. My cameras will still produce the same quality of images now that I required of them when I bought them.
I can't remember the number of people I have taught who have come along with a camera saying it's got a 20million (exaggeration) digital zoom it's fantastic. when you explain to them what it actually means they were sick as pigs.
It's like the cheap scanners when they first came out the shops were quoting interpolation figures and people were buying them because they were bigger figures. Only look at Optical as the digital can be achieved just by cropping that's what digital zoom does, it means nothing worth thinking about.
Peter
I can't remember the number of people I have taught who have come along with a camera saying it's got a 20million (exaggeration) digital zoom it's fantastic. when you explain to them what it actually means they were sick as pigs.
It's like the cheap scanners when they first came out the shops were quoting interpolation figures and people were buying them because they were bigger figures. Only look at Optical as the digital can be achieved just by cropping that's what digital zoom does, it means nothing worth thinking about.
Peter
I've got no problem with the way the thread has gone it's all to do with the end results.
Peter