On 4/1/2012 7:54 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/1/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:

The quality of pictures does matter, not in the sense of photo art,
but in the sense of conveying what is being sold and creating a good
impression.


All the more reason to avoid using flash if possible.

Avoid $50 cameras because you do not have any control over the
exposure. Get a camera with independent control of aperture and
exposure time as well as exposure compensation so reflection off a
white wall does not swamp the dark object in front of it

For small stuff macro mode is a must as well as tripping the shutter
without touching the camera on a tripod (I do not have a cable so I
use a 2-second timer).

A light box for small items is highly desirable. You don't need to
spend a ton. I made mine for about $5:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2768312...7625011848457/

I use a Cannon A720IS. My previous camera was also a Cannon. I like
the option of both non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries.

Pictures get edited in Irfanview.

Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

I think you are asking a bit much of the people he described.
They aren't professional photographers in any reach - except that
he's paying them to take pictures.
A properly working AUTO setting would be better.


But I agree about the light box.



also -

What they want is a JPG file - not RAW file.

RAW gives the user a lot of capability in post-processing, but that
takes talent and proper software.

The more one spends on the camera itself (within reason) the better the
camera does in it's own post-processing to deliver a better JPG.

AND - usually - the more options the camera offers in setting those
parameters.

I stand by my Fujis...
Other people love their Cannons.
(My Dad was a Pentax man - Go figure)