|
I'm glad to see this discussion today because I recently came to the conclusion that I need both my SLR and my digital.
Michele,
I agree with you - the digital camera is terrific for reference shots. It's also good for taking photos of work in progress, which I've gotten in the habit of doing. Somehow, shrinking the image helps me to see problems in a painting early on (well, that's the goal, anyway) before they get entrenched.
As you also mentioned, my problem is with taking digital photos of my paintings. I am just not happy with the color and I am low on the Photoshop learning curve. (I've upgraded my primitive printer and this has helped a bit.) Focus also looks fuzzy when I shoot my paintings (why is this? Michele, I'm glad I'm not the only one with this problem). Michael, if it's JPEG compression, then why are the resource photos so crisp?
I also sense that the zooms on a SLR and a digital camera are not comparable - sometimes subjects are "fisheyed" on a digital when they wouldn't be at the same shooting range on a SLR - at least that is what seems to be happening to me.
I admit, I need more practice with the digital.
Oh - and let's not forget - artists need SLRs to take slides.
Michael,
I have a Minolta 5 megapixel and I get
enormous JPEG files: typical is 2560 by 1920 pixels, or 35 by 26 inches. Do I really need to shoot TIFs? Stupid question: how do I adjust DPI in Photoshop? I thought I had to go through my printer photo printing software for that.
The computer guy who periodically shows up to rescue my computer claims that Photoshop automatically compresses images when you adjust photos in any manner. Can he be right about this? My printer came with its own photo printing program which seems to produce much better photos that Photoshop does.
Holly, Lisa, Leslie, Mike and Mari,
Thanks for this information, it is very helpful to me. Please keep posting with any new thoughts.
Best regards,
Linda
|