HLI PhotoNotes Volume 1 Issue 8 November 2003

Published by Hankins-Lawrence Images, LLC of Bethesda, Maryland

http://www.hankinslawrenceimages.com

Table of Contents

1. Welcome Back to HLI Photonotes

2. Disposable Digital Cameras: The Worst of Both Worlds

3. 3 Tips for Taking Better Photos of Holiday Lights

4. Subscription Information

***********************

1. Welcome back to HLI Photonotes.

It’s been a few months since we were able to put together an issue. Between a hurricane, server problems (our ISP moved our website and then couldn’t figure out what our new password was) and some business travel, our planned monthly publication schedule went astray. Our plan is to return to monthly issues, published mid-week in the last 10 days of the month.

In this issue, we have two articles that may help you get ready for the holiday season. First, a review of the new disposable digital cameras – a gift we’re not recommending any one put on their holiday giving list. And then a few tips on taking photographs of holiday light displays. We’ll see if I pay attention to our advice on a planned trip to Walt Disney World to see their holiday decorations.

Despite everything that’s been happening, we have been enjoying taking photographs this fall. We’ve started doing some work with medium format cameras. In a future issue, we’ll tell you more. But as a hint – my new (or new-to-me) medium format camera – is an Eastman Kodak Rainbow Hawk-eye No 2 Folding Model B. It’s a beautiful green folding camera, fixed focus, 2 shutter speeds, 4 apertures and comes complete with bellows. This model was in production from about 1930 to 1934! It also takes incredible pictures.

One thing I’ve noticed when using the Rainbow Hawk-eye – I get the most amazing looks and comments from people who see it. The funniest one – was a man who walked up to me at Brookside Gardens – and said “That camera’s from when cameras were . . . real cameras!” I’m not ready to give up digital SLR by any means – but it’s fun to use.

Bill and I would like to wish all of you a Happy Thanksgiving – and hope that you’re having as much fun with your photography as we are.

Patty

************************

2. Disposable Digital Cameras: The Worst of Both Worlds

By Patty Hankins & Bill Lawrence

If you have been reading our previous newsletters, you know that most of our photography is digital. Digital cameras have been getting more and more market share, and most consumer photography labs can now handle digital media.

Despite the increasing popularity of digital cameras, we were amazed to read several months ago on Steve’s Digicams website ( www.stevesdigicams.com ) that someone was coming up with a “disposable” digital camera. Given the cost of all the components such as an imaging sensor and processor, storage media, LCD screen to review the photos, etc. needed for a digital camera, we wondered how in the world are they going to produce a usable disposable digital camera for a reasonable price.

The other day we saw them on display in our local Ritz Camera, and we had to give one a try. We knew the disposable couldn’t equal the quality of photography from our Canon SLRs – that wouldn’t be reasonable for a disposable camera. There were, however, two things we did want to know. First whether the disposable digitals would be a good solution for people wanting to try digital photography before buying a digital camera. Secondly, whether the disposable digitals would be a better option for people who currently use the film-based digital cameras.

We realized the only way to know for sure – was to test the cameras. So, we bought one of the disposable digital cameras ($10.99 plus tax). To have something to compare it to, we also purchased a Kodak FunSaver 35 camera (400 ASA film with flash, $7.99 plus tax). The third camera we used for our test was our Nikon Coolpix 775, a two-year-old 2 Megapixel compact digital camera (available used for $75 – 150).

The Disposable Digital Camera:

The Disposable digital camera we purchased was made by Dakota Digital. The camera body is plastic, and feels like it will hold up to some abuse. As photographers – we looked for basic information that might help us take better photos – however we couldn’t find any technical specs for the camera. It is a fixed focus camera, with what appears to be a fixed aperture. It has some light metering capabilities (no information provided on what they are) and a flash. The flash is completely automatic, the user has no way to control whether or not the flash fires. We assume the way the camera varies exposure (using the light meter) is by shutter speed. The lens looks to be the equivalent of a 50 mm lens for a 35 mm camera. You can take 25 pictures with the camera.

One of the advantages of digital photography over film is the ability to review your photo – to see if you got the shot you wanted. If you did, great. If not, you know it immediately and you can delete the bad image, and take another one. With the disposable digital, this is not possible since there is no LCD that displays images. The lack of an LCD is not surprising for an $11 camera. In addition to there being no LCD, there are no external connections that allow you to connect the camera to a computer or to a television to preview your photos.

One of the selling points for the camera is that now you can delete unwanted photos. However, without an LCD or external connections - how can you delete bad shots if there is no way to see them? It will let you delete the most recent photo taken – but how often do you know when you snap the shutter that the photo isn’t what you wanted. The only time we used the delete function was to test it after we accidentally pressed the shutter down.

There is good news for anyone concerned about filling more landfills with disposable items. The cameras aren’t really “disposable”. Ritz’s recycling pledge promised that 100% of the camera (excepting the batteries) will be recycled or reused after you turn it back in. In many ways, you’re renting a camera, not buying something that will be thrown away when you’re done using it.

The competitor camera was the Kodak FunSaver 35 camera – it has a fixed focus lens (looks to be 35mm) , fixed shutter speed, and a manually activated flash. The FunSaver is constructed mainly of cardboard, with a little plastic thrown in. You can take 27 pictures with a FunSaver.

As a digital comparison, we used our Nikon Coolpix 775. This is a two-year old digital camera, 2 Mega-pixel, has a zoom lens, flash (user can control whether the flash fires), and several modes for taking pictures under specific conditions. It is a modest consumer digital camera. Currently, you can buy a used Nikon 775 on Ebay for between 75 and 150 dollars. It’s successor, the Nikon Coolpix 2100 retails for $199.

Shooting:

We’ll focus here on the digital.

The camera shoots like a typical disposable film camera, with the exception that you turn on the power switch before every picture. Basically, you point, look through the viewfinder and shoot . For those used to digital cameras or autofocus film cameras, you need to be aware of when the disposable digital snaps the picture. We’re used pushing the shutter button halfway, getting a beep when it is focused, and pushing it the rest of the way when you activate the shutter. This camera simply beeps when it takes the photo, and since it is fixed focus, there is no “halfway” on the shutter button. It was a little hard at first to realize that we had actually taken the photo. However, from a shooting standpoint, the only difference between this and the film disposable is that you get a “beep” instead of a “click” when you push the shutter. The LCD counter on the back show you how many photos you have left. To delete the most recent picture, you press the delete button on the back of the camera, then press it a second time to confirm the deletion. The camera also has a self-timer – where you push the button and then several seconds later the shutter activates.

One other thing to be aware of – be careful where you put your fingers. It’s a small camera, and it’s pretty easy to cover the lens with your figure (Patty has a lovely photo of her fingers – haven’t done that in a very long time <grin>)

The Photos:

We took the cameras to the National Zoo on a sunny day this weekend to try them out. Patty did most of the shooting. She did get some very strange looks – after all how often do you see a person pull camera after camera out of her pockets, snapping what appears to the be the same photo with each camera. After the Zoo, we took some photos indoors. Finally, we tried using the cameras for night photography.

We got both the disposables “processed” at Ritz Camera. We did get a few more strange looks when we brought in one film and one digital disposable for processing. The photos were done by the one-hour-photo place in only one-and-a-half hours, and came back on 4x6 bordered prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper in both cases. With the digital, you get a “free” photoCD and index print with your prints – total cost (pretax) for processing was $16.74 for the 25 photos the camera gives you, or $0.67 a photo. With the Kodak FunSaver, the cost was $10.39 for 27 prints, plus $6.99 for the photoCD (we asked for one to compare the photos) – Total (pretax): $17.38, or $0.64 per photo. Granted, we declined the ($0.99) index print with the film camera, but the “free” photoCD with processing worked out more expensive per print than the film processing plus buying a photoCD.

Using a loupe to examine the photos, we decided that both sets of photos appear to be low to medium grade digital prints. If either set are silver halide prints, then Ritz’s developing solution is way off. Comparing the two sets of prints, we found the white balance was not particularly good on the digital. Photos had a consistent blue-green cast, while the film prints were warmer with more accurate colors. The film camera prints also appeared to handle high contrast situations (bright sunlight) better. The resolution appeared about the same between the digital and film camera prints.

The photoCDs had software for displaying the photos, for those who need it, and a set of jpeg files of the photos we took. File size was 700 to 1300 KB for the film camera, and 500 to 1300 KB for the digital camera. We don’t know what resolution the camera actually supports, but you get a 1280 by 854 pixel (1 Megapixel) photo with the digital camera, and a 1536 by 1002 pixel (1.5 Megapixel) image with the film camera. With the Nikon 775, you get a 1600 by 1200 (1.9 Megapixel) photo. Interestingly, we found the files made from the film to be quite “grainy” and noisy. This could be cleaned up well in programs such as NeatImage, but it was annoying. The digital camera files were overly sharpened, making some annoying halos, and the color balance was off (too blue, but this is easily correctable). There was what appears to be noticeable jpeg artifacting on close inspection. That being said, for either camera’s photos, you could make a perfectly adequate 4x6 print (especially if you clean them up a bit in a photo editing program), or have a nice file to put on the web. Compared to the two photoCDs, the Nikon 775 gives a smoother image with less artifacts, in addition to a larger image.

Cost:

Between the digital and film (includes PhotoCD, so that you have a disk of Jpeg files):

Digital: Camera $10.99 Film: Camera $ 7.99

Processing $16.74 Processing $17.38

Total $27.73 Total $25.37

Per photo $ 1.11 Per photo $ 0.94

Add an extra dollar to the total on the film camera if you want an index print – we have not found them useful.

We can’t calculate a per photo cost for the Nikon 775. Once you have the camera and a compact flash card, you don’t need to buy them every time you want to take pictures. The Nikon came with cables that let you download your pictures to your computer, or you can use a compact flash reader (about $30). If you have a photo printer, you can print the photos you want at home. Or if you don’t have a photo printer, you can take the compact flash or a CD with edited photos into almost any camera store and they can make prints for about 50 cents a print.

Conclusions:

Our title sums it up. The disposable digital has the disadvantages of some digital cameras, including reduced dynamic range resulting in poor ability to handle high contrast situations, a small and overly sharpened image file, and increased expense. Unfortunately, it loses the main advantage – the ability to review your photo immediately, to see if you captured what you wanted to capture.

If you are trying to decide if digital photography is for you – we would recommend taking some pictures with your current film camera or getting a disposable film camera. Then when you get the film processed, have a photoCD made or have someone scan your negatives for you. You can send the images by email, post the web, and try a bit of editing.

Or if you’re ready to go digital – then invest in a consumer level digital camera such as the Canon Elph or the Nikon 2100. With the cost of processing, you don’t have to take very many pictures with the digital camera before the cost of the camera is offset by the cost of processing your film.

Perhaps someday someone will develop a viable single use digital camera. In our opinion, the Dakota Digital isn’t one. Compared to a disposable film camera, you end up spending more money for photos that aren’t as good, and smaller digital files.

Check out the separate article on the website for sample images from the cameras. 

*********************************

3. 3 Tips for Taking Better Photos of Holiday Lights

by Patty Hankins & Bill Lawrence

Outdoor holiday lights can be one of the toughest scenes to photograph well. All too often, photos come out too dark, too light, blurry, fuzzy or just plain don’t work. The combination of bright lights and dark backgrounds make exposure a challenge. The Here’s a few tips that will help you take better photos this holiday season.

1. Increase your ASA or film speed.

A higher ASA will let you have shorter exposure times. If you are using a film camera, try using ASA 400 film. For a digital camera, reset the ASA setting to at least 200 or 400 (on some digital cameras, setting at ASA 400 or above results in very grainy pictures).

2. Brace Your Camera.

Even with a higher ASA, you’re likely to be shooting exposures longer than a person can easily hold a camera perfectly still. And any camera movement shows up in the pictures as blurry lights. The best thing to use is a tripod. If you don’t have a tripod, place your camera on a stable object, like a wall or a table, and use the self-timer to take the picture. If there’s nothing available to put your camera on, try leaning against a tree or a pole to help keep yourself steady.

3. Turn Off the Flash.

Most on-camera flashes are designed to light up the area 4-6 feet directly in front of the flash, and then darken down what is beyond that range. Most holiday light displays are more than 4-6 feet away. So what happens when you don’t turn off the flash is that you light up whatever is directly in front of you (a wall, a tree, the lawn, or people) and put the holiday lights into darkness. Your camera may complain (with a bunch of beeps) about not using the flash in the dark, but this is one time when it’s best to override the automatic functions and turn off the flash.

If you follow these three tips, you are much more likely to have photos of holiday light displays that will make you remember the holiday season with joy rather than frustration over bad photos. For more information about night photography, please see our article “Tips for Taking Great Photos at Night” from our July issue.

We’ve put pictures of what happens when you use these tips in the online version the article.

*********************************

4. Subscription information

This newsletter is only sent to people who have requested to be added to the HLI PhotoNotes newsletter list. If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, please send an email with subscribe in the subject to

hl_images@earthlink.net

If you would like to be removed from the mailing list, please send an email with unsubscribe in the subject to

hl_images@earthlink.net

Please feel free to forward the newsletter to others you think might be interested in reading it.

Reprint policy

Reprint permission granted in part or whole when the following credit appears: "Reprinted with permission from HLI PhotoNotes. (Copyright, 2003, Patty Hankins & Bill Lawrence, Hankins-Lawrence Images, LLC).” To subscribe to the free newsletter HLI PhotoNotes, visit http://www.hankinslawrenceimages.com

All contents © 2003 Hankins-Lawrence Images, LLC. All rights reserved worldwide.

Please use your browser's "Back" button to return to previous page,

Or use the navigation bar at the top of the page.