On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:44:03 -0500, Ignoramus10987
wrote:

On 2012-04-01, Adam wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:47:43 -0500, Ignoramus20530 wrote:

I will need, therefore, to buy a second camera. I am looking for
something heavy duty, as in:

1) Something that would not fall apart from taking up to 500 pictures
per day
2) A camera that does not take a long time to recharge flash 3) A
relatively sturdy camera
4) Camera that is good for photographing "things", like lathe chucks and
electrical fuses, for example.
5) Camera that does a good job with minimum fuss in the hands of
non-professional photographers.

Personally I would just get a cheap camera aimed at people looking to
take a few snaps of their holidays. Spend $50 tops. It should meet all
of your requirements.

Yes you could spend some money on proper lighting, special macro lenses
and all that ******** but you should consider whether any of your buyers
will really give a **** about whether there's shadows cast because you
used an in-built flash. They won't.

And do you want to spend serious money on something that will be used
over and over by different people and more likely to get damaged?


I am paying them by the hour. If they have to stand around and wait
for the flash to recharge, pictures to get processed by slow CPU, etc,
it will be expensive for me.

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

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.

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)

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.

i

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

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:59:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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

Specular reflactions are a bane of industrial photography, and light
tents or other diffusion can make things easier. I use a couple of
sheets of drafting paper for small objects.

But the other bane is a lack of contrast, which a light tent makes
even worse. So sharp lighting sometimes is needed. One recent article
I wrote and photographed has three photos in it -- really pedestrian
industrial illustration -- and I had to use on-camera flash on all
three to avoid undifferentiated shadows.

I shot all three both ways, with diffused light and with harsh,
on-camera flash. In each case, I needed the direct flash.

Something like Iggy's work probably won't allow time or expertise to
play with lighting, so a light tent, or a couple of big transmission
umbrellas, would be a good all-around solution that does the job most
of the time. "Black-on-black" shadows are the biggest killer in that
type of work and overall diffusion at least solves that problem.

The result will be some annoyingly flat photos, but that's better than
shadows in which you can't see anything. If it were me setting it all
up for a non-expert photographer to do the work, I'd use two big
lights, each at 45 degrees from the lens axis, or maybe 60 degrees,
and I'd hang really big drafting-paper sheets in front of each. The
ideal is to have the sheets as far from the lights, and as close to
the subject, as possible. I'd use light stands and gaffer's clips
(spring clips, like big clothes pins) to hold the diffusion sheets.
Sometimes I do the same thing with transmission umbrellas. Regular
reflection umbrellas don't work out very well for that task because
they are too far from the subject and you don't get enough diffusion.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/2/2012 4:50 AM, Ignoramus14985 wrote:

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


If one is doing a lot of this, a relatively inexpensive umbrella could
be a good investment. I got one that can reflect, or the black backing
can be removed and light passed through it. This is similar to mine:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423628-REG/Impact_UBBW30_30_Convertible_Umbrella.html

I've picked up several 60's era light bars dirt cheap at yard sales and
set them up on cheap tripods, bouncing light off the ceiling.

There's all manner of very inexpensive ways to light things and soften
the light to avoid glare and flash hot spots.


Jon

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:59:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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

Specular reflactions are a bane of industrial photography, and light
tents or other diffusion can make things easier. I use a couple of
sheets of drafting paper for small objects.

But the other bane is a lack of contrast, which a light tent makes
even worse. So sharp lighting sometimes is needed. One recent article
I wrote and photographed has three photos in it -- really pedestrian
industrial illustration -- and I had to use on-camera flash on all
three to avoid undifferentiated shadows.

I shot all three both ways, with diffused light and with harsh,
on-camera flash. In each case, I needed the direct flash.

Something like Iggy's work probably won't allow time or expertise to
play with lighting, so a light tent, or a couple of big transmission
umbrellas, would be a good all-around solution that does the job most
of the time. "Black-on-black" shadows are the biggest killer in that
type of work and overall diffusion at least solves that problem.

The result will be some annoyingly flat photos, but that's better than
shadows in which you can't see anything. If it were me setting it all
up for a non-expert photographer to do the work, I'd use two big
lights, each at 45 degrees from the lens axis, or maybe 60 degrees,
and I'd hang really big drafting-paper sheets in front of each. The
ideal is to have the sheets as far from the lights, and as close to
the subject, as possible. I'd use light stands and gaffer's clips
(spring clips, like big clothes pins) to hold the diffusion sheets.
Sometimes I do the same thing with transmission umbrellas. Regular
reflection umbrellas don't work out very well for that task because
they are too far from the subject and you don't get enough diffusion.

All true, but situation dependent. But with machine parts, I've found
the diffuse flat light works pretty well. My shop is painted white, and
I use a studio flash pointing at the wall behind the camera.

The next step up is a ring flash on the camera, plus a white tent.

The next step is crossed polarizers, where the camera lens has a linear
polarizer, and the lamps have a perpendicular polarizer. This
eliminates all specular reflections, and makes shiney metal vanish. One
usually detunes the setup so the metal will show just enough.

War story: Many years ago, on an Olympus Camera group, I noted that the
pros photographing models all seemed to use Hasselblad cameras with big
ring flashes, which flattened things, which didn't seem like a good idea
a good idea with such models, and expressed mystification. The answer
that came back was that the ringflash eliminated the bags under the eyes
from to much partying, and too many controlled substances. Oh. Never
mind.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:01:59 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:59:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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

Specular reflactions are a bane of industrial photography, and light
tents or other diffusion can make things easier. I use a couple of
sheets of drafting paper for small objects.

But the other bane is a lack of contrast, which a light tent makes
even worse. So sharp lighting sometimes is needed. One recent article
I wrote and photographed has three photos in it -- really pedestrian
industrial illustration -- and I had to use on-camera flash on all
three to avoid undifferentiated shadows.

I shot all three both ways, with diffused light and with harsh,
on-camera flash. In each case, I needed the direct flash.

Something like Iggy's work probably won't allow time or expertise to
play with lighting, so a light tent, or a couple of big transmission
umbrellas, would be a good all-around solution that does the job most
of the time. "Black-on-black" shadows are the biggest killer in that
type of work and overall diffusion at least solves that problem.

The result will be some annoyingly flat photos, but that's better than
shadows in which you can't see anything. If it were me setting it all
up for a non-expert photographer to do the work, I'd use two big
lights, each at 45 degrees from the lens axis, or maybe 60 degrees,
and I'd hang really big drafting-paper sheets in front of each. The
ideal is to have the sheets as far from the lights, and as close to
the subject, as possible. I'd use light stands and gaffer's clips
(spring clips, like big clothes pins) to hold the diffusion sheets.
Sometimes I do the same thing with transmission umbrellas. Regular
reflection umbrellas don't work out very well for that task because
they are too far from the subject and you don't get enough diffusion.

All true, but situation dependent. But with machine parts, I've found
the diffuse flat light works pretty well. My shop is painted white, and
I use a studio flash pointing at the wall behind the camera.

The next step up is a ring flash on the camera, plus a white tent.

The next step is crossed polarizers, where the camera lens has a linear
polarizer, and the lamps have a perpendicular polarizer. This
eliminates all specular reflections, and makes shiney metal vanish. One
usually detunes the setup so the metal will show just enough.

War story: Many years ago, on an Olympus Camera group, I noted that the
pros photographing models all seemed to use Hasselblad cameras with big
ring flashes, which flattened things, which didn't seem like a good idea
a good idea with such models, and expressed mystification. The answer
that came back was that the ringflash eliminated the bags under the eyes
from to much partying, and too many controlled substances. Oh. Never
mind.

Joe Gwinn

G I think they were pulling your leg. There was a style in fashion
photography, begun in London in the '60s and used off and on for
decades, in which the models were made up and lighted for dead-flat
facial appearance -- almost like cardboard cutouts. It went along with
Twiggy-style bodies and skinny legs jutting out at odd angles. When
used in b&w, they'd light up the background so much that you sometimes
couldn't see where the face ended and the background began. Then some
dark eye and lip makeup made the eyes and lips look like they were
suspended in space.

Here's Emma Watson (today's Twiggy) with the flattened lighting but
without the background effect, with a couple of eye sparkles and a
pair of kickers on the hair to modernize the look:

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/emma-wat...tson-wallpaper

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:01:59 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:59:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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

Specular reflactions are a bane of industrial photography, and light
tents or other diffusion can make things easier. I use a couple of
sheets of drafting paper for small objects.

But the other bane is a lack of contrast, which a light tent makes
even worse. So sharp lighting sometimes is needed. One recent article
I wrote and photographed has three photos in it -- really pedestrian
industrial illustration -- and I had to use on-camera flash on all
three to avoid undifferentiated shadows.

I shot all three both ways, with diffused light and with harsh,
on-camera flash. In each case, I needed the direct flash.

Something like Iggy's work probably won't allow time or expertise to
play with lighting, so a light tent, or a couple of big transmission
umbrellas, would be a good all-around solution that does the job most
of the time. "Black-on-black" shadows are the biggest killer in that
type of work and overall diffusion at least solves that problem.

The result will be some annoyingly flat photos, but that's better than
shadows in which you can't see anything. If it were me setting it all
up for a non-expert photographer to do the work, I'd use two big
lights, each at 45 degrees from the lens axis, or maybe 60 degrees,
and I'd hang really big drafting-paper sheets in front of each. The
ideal is to have the sheets as far from the lights, and as close to
the subject, as possible. I'd use light stands and gaffer's clips
(spring clips, like big clothes pins) to hold the diffusion sheets.
Sometimes I do the same thing with transmission umbrellas. Regular
reflection umbrellas don't work out very well for that task because
they are too far from the subject and you don't get enough diffusion.

All true, but situation dependent. But with machine parts, I've found
the diffuse flat light works pretty well. My shop is painted white, and
I use a studio flash pointing at the wall behind the camera.

The next step up is a ring flash on the camera, plus a white tent.

The next step is crossed polarizers, where the camera lens has a linear
polarizer, and the lamps have a perpendicular polarizer. This
eliminates all specular reflections, and makes shiney metal vanish. One
usually detunes the setup so the metal will show just enough.

War story: Many years ago, on an Olympus Camera group, I noted that the
pros photographing models all seemed to use Hasselblad cameras with big
ring flashes, which flattened things, which didn't seem like a good idea
a good idea with such models, and expressed mystification. The answer
that came back was that the ringflash eliminated the bags under the eyes
from to much partying, and too many controlled substances. Oh. Never
mind.

Joe Gwinn

G I think they were pulling your leg. There was a style in fashion
photography, begun in London in the '60s and used off and on for
decades, in which the models were made up and lighted for dead-flat
facial appearance -- almost like cardboard cutouts. It went along with
Twiggy-style bodies and skinny legs jutting out at odd angles. When
used in b&w, they'd light up the background so much that you sometimes
couldn't see where the face ended and the background began. Then some
dark eye and lip makeup made the eyes and lips look like they were
suspended in space.

Here's Emma Watson (today's Twiggy) with the flattened lighting but
without the background effect, with a couple of eye sparkles and a
pair of kickers on the hair to modernize the look:

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/emma-wat...ma-watson-wall
paper

Interesting. Can't say that I care for the current fashions in fashion
photography either.

But I think they were serious about the partying. One did hear wild
stories about wild parties.

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:35:45 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:01:59 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:59:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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

Specular reflactions are a bane of industrial photography, and light
tents or other diffusion can make things easier. I use a couple of
sheets of drafting paper for small objects.

But the other bane is a lack of contrast, which a light tent makes
even worse. So sharp lighting sometimes is needed. One recent article
I wrote and photographed has three photos in it -- really pedestrian
industrial illustration -- and I had to use on-camera flash on all
three to avoid undifferentiated shadows.

I shot all three both ways, with diffused light and with harsh,
on-camera flash. In each case, I needed the direct flash.

Something like Iggy's work probably won't allow time or expertise to
play with lighting, so a light tent, or a couple of big transmission
umbrellas, would be a good all-around solution that does the job most
of the time. "Black-on-black" shadows are the biggest killer in that
type of work and overall diffusion at least solves that problem.

The result will be some annoyingly flat photos, but that's better than
shadows in which you can't see anything. If it were me setting it all
up for a non-expert photographer to do the work, I'd use two big
lights, each at 45 degrees from the lens axis, or maybe 60 degrees,
and I'd hang really big drafting-paper sheets in front of each. The
ideal is to have the sheets as far from the lights, and as close to
the subject, as possible. I'd use light stands and gaffer's clips
(spring clips, like big clothes pins) to hold the diffusion sheets.
Sometimes I do the same thing with transmission umbrellas. Regular
reflection umbrellas don't work out very well for that task because
they are too far from the subject and you don't get enough diffusion.

All true, but situation dependent. But with machine parts, I've found
the diffuse flat light works pretty well. My shop is painted white, and
I use a studio flash pointing at the wall behind the camera.

The next step up is a ring flash on the camera, plus a white tent.

The next step is crossed polarizers, where the camera lens has a linear
polarizer, and the lamps have a perpendicular polarizer. This
eliminates all specular reflections, and makes shiney metal vanish. One
usually detunes the setup so the metal will show just enough.

War story: Many years ago, on an Olympus Camera group, I noted that the
pros photographing models all seemed to use Hasselblad cameras with big
ring flashes, which flattened things, which didn't seem like a good idea
a good idea with such models, and expressed mystification. The answer
that came back was that the ringflash eliminated the bags under the eyes
from to much partying, and too many controlled substances. Oh. Never
mind.

Joe Gwinn

G I think they were pulling your leg. There was a style in fashion
photography, begun in London in the '60s and used off and on for
decades, in which the models were made up and lighted for dead-flat
facial appearance -- almost like cardboard cutouts. It went along with
Twiggy-style bodies and skinny legs jutting out at odd angles. When
used in b&w, they'd light up the background so much that you sometimes
couldn't see where the face ended and the background began. Then some
dark eye and lip makeup made the eyes and lips look like they were
suspended in space.

Here's Emma Watson (today's Twiggy) with the flattened lighting but
without the background effect, with a couple of eye sparkles and a
pair of kickers on the hair to modernize the look:

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/emma-wat...ma-watson-wall
paper

Interesting. Can't say that I care for the current fashions in fashion
photography either.

But I think they were serious about the partying. One did hear wild
stories about wild parties.

Joe Gwinn

'Could be. I never did fashion work -- at least, not with models. I
photographed clothing without anything inside of it. g

My agency partner had been Special Projects Art Director for Y&R, and
he cued me into the lighting and other techniques used in high-end
advertising work, but I had little chance to use them.

--
Ed Huntress