Considering buying a digital camera
 

I owe a good optical camera that takes excellent pictures; however film gets frequently damaged by the stronger intensity of X-ray machines used these days at airports. This inconvenience is making me think about purchasing a digital camera. Could somebody be kind enough to tell me what features are more important to look for, in a digital camera used by a painter?

Thank you in advance.

Tito,

Have a look at Mr. Whitaker's post, http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1128, in which he cites a "Best Digital Camera Information Site." Browse as well through the many other postings in this Digital Cameras area. You'll likely find many of your questions already answered there.

Thank you, Steven.

I will follow your advice. However, I have another question: do digital cameras have the same problem as optical ones, for recording intermediate values?

Not putting you off, but I don't have the expertise to answer your question, Tito, other than to say that I get fantastic images with my Sony Cybershot (bit of a dinosaur now, though with a Carl Zeiss lens), with a full range of values, and without either omission or clustering of intermediate values. There are so many variables that remain, even in these point-and-shoot times, that I doubt anyone would say across the board that digital trumps SLR for capturing intermediate values. Perhaps Bill Whitaker or Tim Tyler (or other digital camera wizards) will have some more insight into this.

My larger concern in my photos is the compression of the extreme values, the darks more so than the lights. Any insights here?

Thank you, Steven, for trying to help. I think that there is no "perfect" camera. After all, photos are used for reference only. I believe that film cameras have better definition but having to travel with them and with film is a real problem nowadays. I saw advertised in a magazine the latest NIKON digital Model D-1 with 6.1 Pixels (WOW!).

There's some discussion of features on that Nikon D100 here. Pricey, though, at $2000 base.

(Incidentally, there's some discussion in the Forum on the site Bill Whitaker cited, and it seems that there are some serious concerns about the quality of the D1's images at certain settings.)

My shorthand reference earlier to digital vs. SLR was incorrect - cameras like this Nikon are "digital SLR" cameras, as is my Sony. I should have said "nondigital' or film camera, I guess.

D100-The best bet
 

I own the D100 and would highly recommend it to anyone serious about gettting the best reference they can for painting. I used to use the 990 Coolpix and was quite happy with it except for one large problem that I learned to tolerate, the lag time from the time you hit the shutter button to the actual time it took the shot. And that means you also are not going to get any continuious shots of say, for example, of a model walking.

I shoot in the studio and in the field and I found I was missing shots that normally would have been captured with my film cameras with motor drives and all. I really missed that. Now, I have everything I use to have with my Nikon F100 and more. I read somewhere on the this forum that film cameras have more definition. That's not true anymore. Also, the color is far superior to any film I have ever taken.

$2000 may sound like a lot of money for a camera but it will save you more money than you can ever imagine. It's worth taking out a loan for one. I use to spend around $8000 a year on film and processing alone. Now I shoot to my heart's content and download my cards and that's it. I get 100 sheets of Epson photo paper for $20 at Costco. That's quite a deal.

Last week I had a older couple in the studio dancing the waltz for a painting I am going to do. With my D100 I could take consecutive shots as fast I could push the shutter button and in 3 hours shoot 2600 high resolution shots. From those I was able to sort thru them and find the "magic shot". I could have never done that with the 990.

Being able to have the best lenses on my digital camera is also a plus that is not realized until you experience it too. All in all, take my word for it, there is not one negative I can complain about with this camera.

And, no, I don't own stock in Nikon.

Morgan

Morgan,

Have you found, (or to what extent) that you can photograph your finished paintings with the D-100 so that the the print quality is acceptable to you?

And at what point (enlargement size/resolution, etc.) do you feel that you need to go back to more traditional methods, i.e. 4 x 5" transparencies, or the like?

Others
 

Kodak and Sony have other large (full sixed) ones out for under $2,000. should you already have lens etc.

Shooting paintings
 

Chris,

I have a 8x10 camera that I have been using for 15 years to archive my paintings. But, I don't anymore. I use the D100 for that too. I am published by Millpond Press and they are now using my digital captures to produce high end limited editions of my work. It is amazing how much better the reprodutions are, too.

Here is the biggest selling point though: For years, we have been sending in transparencies to printers and have been at their mercy once it gets in their hands. Now, I control much more than ever before. I can retouch any problems that I could not take care of in the photography end of things, such as pinpoint highlights and dust. I set up the color management on my computer to match the printer's and I can see what they are going to see. I also, and this is important, send a sample print with the disc so that the printer has a standard to judge if he is on the same page as I am. This is important with transparencies or digital.

All my articles and catalogs are printed from my digital captures as well. I have never been satisfied with my reproductions from transparencies anyways. I shoot with color bars and the whole nine yards that I have learned from museums and yet I am still at the mercy of printers that don't pay attention to them.

When I work from my photos, I blow them up at a minimum of 19" X 13". Most of the time I size up my photo to 19" X 28". The resolution is wonderful.

On the color end, it's unmatched. I shoot under northlight and the digital captures I get pick up every cool and warm beautifully. Better than any film I have ever shot. My Epson 1270 prints those shots perfectly too. Anyone that thinks that working from slides is the best way should really look into it. A digital CCD can pick up way more information than film can in the darks.

What I often do in cases of extreme bright light is shoot and set my exposure for the lights(just like shooting slide film). Then in Photoshop, lighten the shot and create a light exposure of the same shot. I then use a handy Photoshop action from Fred Miranda that combines both exposures. You can't believe the amazing landscape shots you can get this way. It's not as hard as it may sound either. Some may say that they don't want to have to learn too much about photography and digiital darkroom, but I think that's crazy. That's like saying you don't want to take time to get good models or you don't want to learn too much about good composition.

I don't think any artist should settle for "good enough". That's the biggest problem I encounter with students and professionals that come to my workshops. They want me to critique their paintings they bring in but I can't get past the reference that they thought was "good enough".

If I am about to spend days and weeks on a painting, you can be sure that I am "thrilled" with my reference first. Just as thrilled as when I pose models and work from life. Often I have people tell me that the reference is just a stepping off point and doesn't have to be all that great since they are going to "improve " it anyways and "change" it. The problem with that is that I very seldom see the improvement. I usually just see someone who didn't take the time to gather good information for the painting. My teacher always taught us to pick models, lighting and reference that paint themselves.

Painting is hard enough all on its own without adding more problems that you can avoid.

Morgan

p.s. Notice how her hands are perfectly exposed and yet her head is in shadow and yet not devoid of detail and light. If this was shot with film, either her hands would be exposed correctly and her head would go black or her head would be exposed correctly and her hands would be blown out to white.

You all know I mean.

Just thought that I would add this input. A friend of mine is a professional photographer. She has the VERY new Canon D10. It has a CCD and is 6.83 megapixels. It accepts almost all of the Canon EOS lenses.

She had a wedding picture enlarged to a 20" x 30" print and it was incredible. The full length portrait was taken under a large live oak tree. I inspected it with a magnifying glass and could not see any of the digital pixels. You can see every little detail of the bark of the tree. You can make out each individual hair on her dark brown hair, which is made even more incredible by the fact that she has on a white veil pulled away from her face. The best part is that it is only about $1500. If you are like me and already have a Canon EOS SLR, that is pretty good! I'll ask her if I can post part of a shot here.

Rebecca

Large format prints
 

Morgan,

I have a Nikon SLR, with 2 fabulous lenses I would like to be still able to use. I work very large and need the biggest prints I can get. I presently get 30"x40" prints and larger. How big can you reasonably go with the Nikon D100?

I am also looking into the new Epson 24" printer.

Sincerely,

30" X 40" prints
 

Sharon,

30" X 40" prints are pretty big for the D100. You might look into the Canon1D for your needs. It has 11 mega pixels. I have never blown up photos as large as you seem to need so all I can say is that my 19" X 30" prints are great. I slice up my image in halves or thirds and print them in sections and tape them together since my Epson 1270 only prints 19" X 13" prints. It works fine since this is just for reference and will not hang in a photo gallery.

Morgan

Morgan, or anyone one else using a full sized digital, I am starting to kick myself for not investing in a better digital camera, mine is better than average

How many pixels are enough?
 

Beth,

I am going through the digital dilemma myself.

I have an excellent Nikon with 2 fabulous lenses, recommended to me by a top photojournalist. She studied with Henri Cartier-Bresson and her work has appeared in Newsweek, Time, National Geographic, etc.. She always shot in available light, and never used atomatic anything. One is a 55mm Micro Nikor lens which has a flat field and can capture the weave on a dress fabric and is also great for copying art. The other is an 85mm for less than full length.

I talked to the people who do my prints and they told me to get an 11 or better digital camera. I have an explanation of why I like big prints in the biggie pastel thread. The color saturation holds up with a slow film like Portra. It would not in a 6 megapixel. They also warned me that the exposure is very critical, Portra NC is very forgiving. The photo print people also said that my Portra gives me more "roundness" in the skin areas. Digital can be harsher and not as soft and if slightly off in exposure can bleach out skin tones.

So you have to decide what works for you. Do you want large prints to work from, or will a smaller one work? Do you want to work in black and white with Marvin's method? I personally like the simplicity of available light, you don't need a photo studio set-up or anything.

I am going to sit it out for a year, apparently Kodak is coming out with a 14 megapixel camera for a mere $5000 that takes Nikon lenses.

I'm pixelated.

Existing light
 

Beth,

I use existing light with my set-ups. If I really have to brighten the scene, due to moving subjects, I will use a large soft box with a 1000 watt bulb. I get beautiful light with it. Otherwise I shoot by my north light window.

I have found all my digital cameras, especially the d100, to pick up the cools and warms much better than any film I have ever shot. I have also found many professional photographers overlook this point because so many of them are looking for smooth skin tones and when they see those beautiful blues, greens, and purples that are naturally there, they don't know what to make of them. For so long film has given us generic "skin tones", smoothed and monochromatic in many ways. But, as artists who have worked from life for many years, we know that it's those little variations of cools and warms within the skin that make all the difference to evoke emotional color mixtures on our palettes.

The d100 will work fully auto or totally manual. I prefer manual in controlled situations and auto for on the go.

One key to great shots is to understand how to use the spot metering system for perfect exposures. I am always looking for a med. gray value somewhere on my subject to meter with the built in spot meter and then the rest is looking for the composition. I have 3 512 mg. cards. At high resolution setting, I can go out and shoot 450 shots without downloading. On trips, I just bring my laptop.

But, I haven't touched on the most important aspect of all with digital, seeing if you got the shot before you lose your opportunity. I use to blow off roll after roll to cover myself in case I made mistakes with exposure or focus or whatever. I would have 5 hour photoshoots with models "just to make sure". Now, I can confidentally let my models leave in a third of time knowing I got what I needed. I check my shots constantly and I can check dumb mistakes right away. It even helps me check my compostions so I can change things around to make tangent mistakes go away.

This one thing alone would cause me to buy a digital tomorrow. More megapixels is not really the "answer" to all your photo problems. Learning how to take good shots and understanding the camera that is in your hands is worth much more. You have to feel comfortable with your camera too. If it weighs 8 pounds you will find yourself having all kinds of other problems.

I have found the d100 to fit the bill for my needs. Maybe it would fit yours. Go shoot one in a camera store and see for yourself.

Good luck,
Morgan

Thanks Sharon and Morgan. The more research I do, and the more work I do from life, the more my 3.2 megapixel Sony DSC-P71 feels like a Kodak disposable camera, the really cheap one without the flash!

Since I have a postscript ripping software on my inkjet, enlargements have not been a problem, it slows down the printer but I get more of a fiery print. But I am having trouble with the archiving of my work without distortion and the limited range of manual settings are frustrating. At least through Marvin discussing his black and whites and Morgan's Linear exposure tip (which isn't working for me) the seed was planted to under/over expose while bracketing with the camera to see more detail, instead of just in Photoshop.

Since I have been an art director for so many years and have attended countless photo shoots, I know just enough to be dangerous, which is also frustrating - but I called one of my photographers who went digital this year and discussed the cameras with him.

Not feeling too stupid :) as I discussed these amazing 11 mega-pixel cameras, he said he couldn't help me because he didn't know anything about the low range cameras. Low range I thought - hello? Well, his camera (digital attachment) is, are you ready for this...72 mega-pixels. He can also shoot as 18, 32 or 36 mega-pixels too. The raw resolution is 300 and the raw size at 300 is 16" x 22", he gets outdoor board size quality. This attaches to his 4 x 5 and 2 1/4 cameras then goes directly into his server and uses all of his normal studio lighting and camera equipment. The reason I am sharing this is because I find it to be so amazing that the technology has come so far in a short time, meaning 10

Ballooning
 

Beth,

If you are thinking about upgrading to the Nikon, I would suggest you forgo the zoom and purchase the two lenses I mentioned previously. Zooms are slower in speed than a fixed focal length, and unless you go for a real high end lens, not as sharp. The zooms have a tendency to warp or balloon on the edges.

The two lenses I mentioned would work for you. The 55mm Nikor Micro is fabulous for copy work, is incredibly sharp and fast. The 85 mm is great for close ups, and in a limited space that you have, better than a 100. You have to get farther back from your subject with a longer lens.

I find simple is best. Two lenses, one camera, one lens flare hood, one simple spot meter, one 36" reflector, one simple daylight filter, one IB filter ( reduces the green reflections in outdoor shots), one polarizer lens (reduces glare on canvasses), one grey card and a pack of Kodak grey cards that fold to check your lighting and metering.

Thats all folks!

The Kodak 14n
 

This digital 14 megapixel SLR just became available.

It is a collaboration of Nikon and Kodak. Nikon lenses and body; electronics, Kodak.

It was developed with portraiture as its main focus. You can use your existing Nikon lenses with it and it has automatic and manual modes. It is supposed to be easy to use. I am waiting for the reviews. It is, however, about $4900.

Yippie!

Sharon, once the "Biggie Pastel" is out and you are famous - well you may already be famous- let's say rich! Will you buy as both one? :cool:

Beth,

Who knows, maybe if you keep working like you are now, you may soon be able to afford your own.

By the way, what have you done with your husband and children, do you still feed them?

Beth
 

I know a pro photographer that just switched over and he shoots 5-6 mp. His work is printed in books and magazines only... he sells few posters and this size is really quite fine for his needs. I'm thinking of moving up just one million pixels to the D-100 ole what's his name suggests for more reasons than just image size.

Morgan, when's a good day to pick up your laundry? I also have experience cleaning palettes and brushes; additionally I can stretch a pretty tight canvas - even linen.

Wow
 

My post has nothing to do with digital images but everything to do with the result.

Morgan, I saw this painting of yours last week in Jackson Hole. It is just gorgeous. Gorgeous.