In article ,
Ignoramus14985 wrote:

On 2012-04-02, 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.

Exactly.

As for the light box, a lot of stuff does not fit into such things.

A room painted white works pretty well, as does a large shop-made tent.

With a studio flash, there is no problem getting enough light, so great
efficiency isn't needed. The objective is to have enough light so the
camera can stop down (giving great depth of field). With light, the
setup becomes non-critical.

Joe Gwinn