Re: digital cameras

**L* M* <l*@sbcglobal.net>**

Hello, Kate et al -
I'm the character you mentioned. Not quite sure how to take your post - was
I just insulted or complimented - hard to tell - whatever...

You're right - that was written in July 2003. I guess you were scouring the
archives for digital photography info to resurrect that old thread. Is there
something in particular you would like to learn? Ask away. If I don't have
the answer, I might be able to point you in the right direction. And there
are other photogs on here that may chime in also - some of which are much
more experienced and qualified than me.

You're also welcome to email me directly if you prefer -
larrymaupin@sbcglobal.net. I'm always glad to help anyone who wants to
learn.
-- 
Take care,
Larry Maupin ?
Maupin Photography
- making my biennial post on digital photography ;-))

on 2/8/2007 4:24 PM, Kate Bryant at kbryant@SpiritOne.com wrote:

> Holy shit, this is (2.5 years) OLD information! But there¹s still some
> useful stuff there... Hopefully the prices have dropped somewhat, at the
> very least. This character (Larry Maupin) makes his living photographing
> gardens and plants so he is a good resource... Now if only he had more
> current postings... I¹ll keep looking.
> ~Kate
> 
> * * * * * * * * 
> 
> On 7/12/03 7:52 AM, "Larry Maupin" <larrymaupin@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> on 7/12/03 2:23 AM, tony fawcett at tonyfawcett@bigpond.com wrote:
>>>> As a writer/photographer faced with publications I contribute to moving
>>> over 
>>>> to using digital submissions (perish the thought!!), I'm just interested if
>>>> there are any members happy with digital cameras they might be using. And
>>> what they might be.
>> I am among the growing list of professional photographers who are "going
>> digital," and I couldn¹t be happier. Three years ago I started with a Fiji
>> point and shoot digital camera that made a 1.3 meg file ($300 in 2000). I
>> took
>> over 7000 photos with it before upgrading to a Canon G2, a 4 meg camera with
>> many pro features ($700 in 2002). Photos from that camera have been printed
>> in
>> a variety of horticultural publications. Last month I purchased the new Canon
>> EOS 10D, a pro grade 6.3 meg camera and I love it ($1500 body in 2003). It
>> accepts the complete line of Canon lenses. The price is steep for most
>> shooters, but it allow the photographer more control over the photographic
>> process than a cheaper camera will. The quality and file size is well within
>> and beyond the needs of most quality publications. This camera is actually
>> the
>> lowest priced digital SLR on the market today. The Nikon D100 currently sells
>> for $1695, and was introduced a year ago based on the Nikon N80 film camera.
>> The Canon blows the Nikon away, and it will be some time before a comparable
>> Nikon is offered. Rumors say that Nikon is testing a new pro digital body
>> with
>> 12 megs for release in the fall -- around $5000 -- well over my budget.
>> 
>> For those with smaller budgets or just starting out, I highly recommend the
>> Canon G2, which is still available at the reduced price of around $500. For
>> $700 the G3 has a few better features and the new G5 is a 5 meg camera with
>> more and better features for around $900. All of these Canon cameras are
>> dependable, have a solid look and feel to them and have excellent optics.
>> 
>>>> I'm a committed 35mm
>>>> Nikon/medium format Mamiya user with Velvia my preferred film and am
>>>> despairing of having to supply the sort of flat looking
>>>> digital shots that I see in so many other publications that have gone this
>>>> way. The reason of course is economics (digital is so much cheaper in the
>>>> longer term) ... and quality is the poorer. Any
>>>> thoughts appreciated.
>>>> Tony Fawcett
>> Remember that when a publication uses your transparency for publication, it
>> must be scanned, at which point your photo becomes digital. A nice, rich,
>> dark
>> slide looks great on your lightbox or in a slide show, but does not scan as
>> well ? shadows go black and the image does lose some of its depth and dynamic
>> look that a normal transparency will produce. ³Digital capture² in the camera
>> replaces the scanning step and the quality of the digital image depends on
>> how
>> well the camera processes and stores the image and how well you process the
>> image yourself before sending it to your editor. This last phase of the
>> digital process is one that cannot be ignored. If you just open, crop and
>> sharpen your images, you are leaving the important work of color correcting
>> the file to someone else. Leave the cropping to the prepress people and don¹t
>> sharpen ? it may ruin the image if overdone. Become skilled at Photoshop,
>> either Photoshop Elements 2.0 at $99 or the full version of Photoshop 7.0 at
>> $599. Do not underestimate the time needed to learn this software and to do
>> your own ³processing.²
>> 
>> There is a serious time commitment needed to make the digital workflow work,
>> but I believe the benefits are worth it. Did you ever shoot a beautiful scene
>> only to find a bit of trash in the picture when you get your slides back? We
>> all have. With digital you can salvage the image easily ? just clone out the
>> trash. You can also darken the background, remove worm holes in leaves and
>> make myriad other retouches that improve the image while retaining its
>> integrity. You could say that the publisher will make those corrections, but
>> they won¹t ? in most cases they don¹t have time. They just skip over your
>> image in search of one that needs no correction. Like it or not, we are all
>> in
>> marketing, helping the publisher get the message out to the public. We all
>> need to put our best foot forward in this effort. Digital helps that to
>> happen
>> if we do our part well.
>> 
>> With the amount of shooting I do, I will pay for my new Canon body in about
>> 15
>> months in the savings on film and processing costs, at which point a newer
>> Canon WhizBang Z5000 or some such will be luring me back into the camera
>> store. But I still have my 35mm Nikon and 645 Mamiya systems also. My new
>> garden photography workflow involves shooting digital for almost all subjects
>> ? those which will be used as small photos on ³inside² stories. Any scene or
>> subject which may be a candidate for a cover, calendar, full page or a
>> spread,
>> I shoot Velvia in my Mamiya 645. I have covered 98% of the possible uses with
>> this method. And since the majority of images never see the light of day
>> anywhere, they cost me almost nothing to create and store. It works for me.
>> 
>> I hope this helps you make the move to digital as painless as possible. Come
>> on in ? the water¹s fine!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gardenwriters mailing list
> gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters
> 
> GWL has searchable archives at:
> http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters
> 
> Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
> at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos
> 
> Post gardening questions/threads to
> &quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;
> 
> For GWL website and Wiki, go to
> http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
&quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters