Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 4, 2007, 10:40 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

We replaced the incandescent bulbs in the kitchen w/daylight balanced compact fluorescent bulb. Decided to see how the Z612 auto-balance handled the lights while testing an improvised tent made from two sheets of paper. First the tent.
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 4, 2007, 10:43 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

First shot, everything auto, EXIF attached.
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2007, 10:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Decided to examine noise at ISO 400, aperture priority. Again EXIF attached. All shots were hand-held, I would have had more exposure latitude if I'd used a tripod. No p-p color adustments were done to any but I did brighten them a bit.
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 7:49 AM   #4
Member
 
duga13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
Default

Second one is much better.
Needs little stronger contrast and noise reduction.

(Damn I hate noise on my Kodak).



duga13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2007, 10:19 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

duga13 wrote:
Quote:
Second one is much better.
Needs little stronger contrast and noise reduction.

(Damn I hate noise on my Kodak).


I'm inclined to believe on both #2 and #3 that the auto-exposure, while producing a useable result was biased by both the all white background and the high percentage of white on the subject. Both shotswould likely have been improved by +2/3 to +1 stops exposure compensation.

If your viewing these on a 17" monitor at 1024x768 the image on the screen would actually measure about 2x lifesize for #2 and about 2.2x for #3.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2007, 11:31 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 197
Default

Greetings,

The second image seems better.

I have also used tenting to capture reflective pieces, i.e. Jewelry and coins etc. I those situations, I used a cone and illmuninated on three sides - camera at the top of the cone shooting down. I suspect you can do the same here but from the size. The key here is even illumination and the quality of the tent material. You can always edit the color balance.

Nice job, is this an eBay setup?

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company
Ronbaird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2007, 3:26 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Ronbaird wrote:
Quote:
Nice job, is this an eBay setup?

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company
Ron:

I was simulating an ebay setup. I don't do anything on ebay myself.

History: A couple of weeks ago a camera recommendation for ebay photos was requested in the "What camera should I buy" forum and also an opinion on the $100 portable tent from Ritz. The consensus opinion was that virtually all of the current generation P&S cameras would work well for that application and that lighting was more important. At least a couple of people provided a link to a DIY tent constructed from PVC pipe and a sheet. Bob Nichol provided a link to a $0.02 DIY tent constructed from two sheets of paper.

The point of my test was to see how my Z612 handled the "daylight balanced" compact fluorescent bulbs my wife had installed in the four bulb fixture under the fan in our kitchen. I'd rate overall brightness of the kitchen at "office bright." The nearest bulb was about 4 ½' away. Using the 2 cent tent allowed me to test that as well. All shots were hand held. The principle difference between #2 and #3 (aside from the slight differences resulting from the hand held camera) was #2 was at ISO 160 vs. ISO 400 for #3. Had I been using a tripod I could have locked in ISO 80. The whole process including building the tent, clearing the counter and taking nine photos took less than ten minutes. I cropped the edges of the tent out and then resampled for ~480 pixels vertically.


If I had to set up, from scratch, to do a lot of ebay photos cheap as the thread originator needed I'd build a large PVC tent and have 2 cent tent from 11x14 paper (rather than the 8.5x11 paper in this test) in reserve. Lighting would be 1-3 hardware store clamp-on reflectors using the daylight balanced compact fluorescent bulbs. A small tripod and a C533 would round out the system. I've done informal comparison testing between my son's C533 and my Z612 and I think it's bit more suited for close macro's than my Z612. The complete package could be set-up for less than $150 and I doubt investing more would result in more ebay sales.

A. C.


ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2007, 11:28 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 197
Default

Greetins AC,

Nice test and a great review of your results. Tenting is a great way to standardize your shooting for a common subject. You have done well. I am sure whomever posted there appreciates you as much as those here.

Talk to you soon.

Ron B
Kodak
Ronbaird is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:51 PM.