This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: digital cameras

Title: Re: [GWL] digital cameras
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 couldn’t 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. “Digital capture” 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 don’t 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 “processing.”

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 won’t — in most cases they don’t 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 “inside” 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 water’s fine!
--
Larry Maupin
Maupin Photography
Freelance Garden Writer/Photographer
Member, Garden Writers Assoc.
Dallas, TX   214/341-3933
 
_______________________________________________
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
"Organic-Gardening" <organic-gardening@lists.ibiblio.org>

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index