Photographing Tea

[Salsero]

If anyone wants to make a light box, here's one way that you can.
http://www.studiolighting.net/homemade- ... otography/

Salsero,
What exactly do you "want on the surface of the tea liquor?" If you just want to decrease/eliminate reflections, you could use a polarizing filter

That's the light box I made a few weeks ago and use all the time now -- usually with stobes, but sometimes incandescent. It really is great, cheap, and takes just a few minutes to assemble. Be sure to scroll down the page to get to the instructions.

I don't want to eliminate the reflections. I want to manipulate reflection to make the liquid more attractive, I guess to add depth. Getting "catchlights," so to speak, on the surface would also be nice. I have painted them in on occasion in Photoshop, a technique which almost looks right sometimes.

[scruffmcgruff]

I guess it is the right place to ask:
I might buy a camera (if I don't find any cool teaware to buy instead ).
What are the technical specifications I should take into account?

I would also like to be able to use my camera to make pictures of insects and plants.

Bump!

I'm interested in (maybe) getting an intro dSLR. Any recommendations from you photography gurus out there?

[Geekgirl]

My best recommendation is to actually hold it in your hands before making the purchase.

I shoot with a Canon XTi. I have small hands, and the camera is a perfect fit for me. If my hands were larger, (and my budget too!) I might have gone with the Canon 30D or the Nikon D80 (at the time.) All of these models have been "upgraded" since my purchase.

The camera is only a fraction of the picture though. My main two lenses cost more than twice the expense of the camera body, and believe me, I did not get the priciest lens options by a long shot.

I love my camera, and though I occasionally wish for the beefier big brother to my model, it really does everything I need and then some.

[Space Samurai]

I'm thoroughly in love with my Nikon D40. Consumer Reports rated it Best Buy. It's very user friendly; it only took me 2-3 days of reading the manual and fiddling around with it before I was comfortable that I understood what all the settings were for. You can use it as a very intelient point and shoot, or you can have complete control and set the shot up how you want.

Here's an interesting article on picking a digital camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

[trent]

I 2nd the XTi. I've used it in various photo classes and on my own for about a year now.
But don't trust me, trust the masses! (seriously)

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/
The XTi is the most used camera on flickr!

[Salsero]

My best recommendation is ...

What she said. Except I suspect Brent's hands are bigger than Geekgirl's. I would add that if you are going to sink money into a camera body, you are probably best off getting a Canon or a Nikon that uses lenses that you will still be able to use when you upgrade in 3 or 5 years. When you buy a DSLR, you are really buying into an enormous system of accessories. Not all brands have as much, as good, or as likely to still be here in 15 years.

I have been shooting with a Canon 20D (the current model is 40D), but like Geekgirl said, much cheaper models are virtually as good. Alex is certainly happy with his Nikon (?), on which he got a good price. A used body could be a good way to go too.

There are tons of online guides to current equipment, but I have used http://www.dcresource.com/ in the past.

Oh, and don't forget to set aside an extra few grand for the stobes, light stands, barn doors, lenses, tripod, Photoshop CS3, remote switch, etc. Like GeekGirl said, the lenses have more to do with your photos than does the body.

And ... about $20 for the Homemade Light Box that Trent mentioned.

[Space Samurai]

I would also like to be able to use my camera to make pictures of insects and plants.

Here are some examples I have using the D40 with the standard kit lense.




This one is a little 'weird' I know, but I found some thing sweet about it, dying in a flower. (shrugs).


This picture didn't turn out well, so I messed around with it a bit, but I loved how it looked like a helicopter, with the shadow.

[tenuki]

I would enthusiastically second the advice to hold the camera in your hand before you buy it, it is astonishing how ergonomics change your experience.

I've done a bit of shopping lately to replace my el cheapo point and shoot and narrowed my choices down to the Nikon D40 or
D80, and the Canon Rebel line (450D would be my choice today if I had the money).

It's been interesting catching up on the new gear and not as difficult as I thought. For digital stuff I tend to like the canon colors better (totally subjective and very typical of canon digital owners btw), nikons seem marginally better for low light at least the ones I had my hands on but that is subjective too these new cameras all perform pretty good. Way back when I worked part time as a photographer I used exclusively olympus gear and loved it, but sadly can't recommend them in the digital world, they still probably make some of the best lenses, but the general consensus (and mine) seems to be negative on their E series. Some people like them and I really wanted to like them too... RIP OM. <sob> Their latest 4/3rds offering is almost there, but not quite.

I'm finding http://www.dpreview.com/ very helpful.

I've put off a digital camera purchase another few years unfortunately so I'll continue to use my 130 dollar craptacular old sony cybershot with no manual controls. But hey, I can go sailing whenever I want, choose your money hole I guess.

I should start another thread for people trying to get good pictures out of their sub $150 crappy gear. lol.

[silverneedles]

except for the new nikons (d300?), canon sensors have been better in image resolution and low-light.

that's the reason i bought the rebel xt - for the sensor.

you don't need to buy the manufacturer's lens line, since cheaper & good optical alternatives are available (tamron, sigma)

you can always start with a SLR-like alternative such as the canon S5IS (i still have an S2IS i really like(except at 100% magnification of the JPG), takes real good video too)

you don't need an SLR/500$ cameras to take good pictures... the eye + knowing the camera + @ right time

[tenuki]

Why I am not upgrading my camera...

Your camera doesn't matter.

(thanks for the link brandon and space, exactly what I think)

[tenuki]

Here are some thoughts about these pictures compositionally not because I'm an expert but because conversations have to be started by someone. I am going to be critical, but not in a negative way, or 'as if I know' way, but in a curious way. I just want to point out a couple of things to open a discussion since there may be people reading who haven't had the opportunity to study the basics of composition. I'm not a BFA, but I play one on TV.

I chose these photos by Space because they were here, and also because he clearly submitted them not as compositional examples, but as example of the amazing D40.

First let me note that Space has a great compositional eye IMO. Doesn't matter if it's trained or learned, he's got 'it'. I'll focus on three compositional ideas/tricks/elements in these photos mostly because they are the only three ideas I know.

1) lead in diagonals and bridging elements ( my own terminology just because )
2) rule of thirds
3) Lead room.

The main question for me is 'what is the 'focus' of the picture? And the main concern is 'how is the eye led through the composition'. does it rest upon, or get jerked around?

^ the long diag the body makes is interesting, but leads the eye right off the picture. forum posts usually are read top to bottom, so any lead in to a focal point needs to come from top left usually. the light background leaf contrasting with the dark background however leads the eye back up to the head of the dragonfly, so not so bad. busy, eyes darting around.

^ this one is just BAM. Follows the rule of thirds, all the elements focus you on the bug, the lines and shading of the finger, etc. good composition, needs some better lighting on the bug to make it great.

This one is a little 'weird' I know, but I found some thing sweet about it, dying in a flower. (shrugs).

^ my take on what makes it feel off is the centering of the subject in the exact center of the picture. There is a diag lead in from bottom right which could have been taken advantage of better by moving the main focus upward and to the left in the composition. if that element had been extended a bit the smaller bug crawling and flowers in the background could better lead the eye up to the bug/spider and leave it there. lead room is usually indicative of motion also, so the room on the left of the bug implies the opposite of what the reality is, ie the bug is not moving. so some confusing stuff compositionally. Try imagining the photo per my suggestion with the main focus in the upper left quadrant and the little bug walking your eye up to it. what do you think?

This picture didn't turn out well, so I messed around with it a bit, but I loved how it looked like a helicopter, with the shadow.

Actually this is a great example of why your camera doesn't matter. This is the best shot of the bunch compositionally IMO. It show lead room, rule of thirds, has an exciting diagnal lead in and the two foci play off each other perfectly. Notice the horizontal line that ties the two focus points together, it's a bridge that leads your eye between them. also the falling left to right diag is accentuated by the wood grain and the edge of the log. I think this photo could stand to be cropped a bit on the left hand edge ( try it by holding up your hand to crop it on the left right up to the tail of the shadow visually and watch the composition pop), but this is still good!

Anyway, I just wanted to start a discussion about more important stuff than gear... Hope no-one takes this as the wrong kind of criticism. I really like your photos Space.

Pretty decent summary of the topic of composition here:
http://photoinf.com/General/Robert_Berd ... Design.htm

[Geekgirl]

Why I am not upgrading my camera...

Your camera doesn't matter.

(thanks for the link brandon, exactly what I think)

It has not been my experience, and I shoot (frequently) with both my DSLR (XTi) and a point and shoot (Canon SX100.) My XTi consistently delivers better clarity, color, snap, and versatility, even when I am shooting side by side.

There have been some great arguments made for p & s cameras being programmed to be "idiot proof," and consequently delivering better lighted and focused pictures. Well, I'm not sure about all of that. I believe that if you don't learn how to use your camera, and leave your fancypants SLR in auto-jpg mode, you might as well be shooting with a p & s, but it's all to the positive from there.

Also, I second the idea of the tripod. I have a very nice, very stable tripod, and it has saved difficult shots more times than I can count. I shoot nearly all the time with available light, almost never use flash unless I can bounce it or use some sort of diffusion.

I also continue to shoot film with a 1966 Minolta SRT101. Awesome camera.

[tenuki]

my XTi consistently delivers better clarity, color, snap, and versatility

No argument there. did you read the link?

composition = art

DPI = reproduction


Those are two very very different conversations.

[silverneedles]

dpi = printer's printing resolution

pixels = screen/camera image display/capture elements

[Geekgirl]

No argument there. did you read the link?

Yep, the link said repeatedly that equipment does not affect the quality of the images.

I'm not arguing with your statement that composition can be done on any camera poorly or well. But there are definitely things that a p & s will never do as well as an SLR: most notably depth of field adjustments and shutter delay (can't tell you how many great shots I've missed waiting for shutter delay on a digital p & s.) I also agree that someone who "has it," can produce amazing shots with a $10 Diana. But if the p & s can't get a good representation of the image that you've composed artistically, then it's still just a mediocre picture.

Yesterday I was walking down to the bus. Some peonies are blooming in someone's hedge. I had my p & s in my purse so I brought it out to take a shot. I tried several different settings, and never could get the camera to give me a pleasing DOF, good color representation, and the sharpness that my slr (film or digital) could have delivered in one shot. Quality, not composition, ruined the shot. Under other circumstances, my p & s has been well up to the task of providing quality images. I just hate to lose a shot simply because the equipment won't deliver.