What Makes a Good Photo for Model Engineers' Workshop

Even this should do a passable job:

www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-and-camcorders/digital-cameras/compact-and-bridge-cameras/vivitar-vf126-blu-int-compact-camera-blue-10144444-pdt.html

I bought my wife an earlier version of this, it's knockout:

www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-and-camcorders/digital-cameras/compact-and-bridge-cameras/nikon-coolpix-a10-compact-camera-red-10144098-pdt.html

Neil

thanks guys

Michael W

Nick, I would disagree with that statement too - you took it out of context.

I remember a few years back there was a series about a Myford rebuild which were accompanied by photos of his attractive daughter standing beside the finished lathe. Is that the sort of thing your after? Seem to remember she was wearing a cowboy hat!!

I've just received an author photo (fully clad) which shows them actually enjoying being in their workshop and is full of interesting background detail - an ideal cover shot!

I'm hoping they will allow me to use it as one! The photos for the article are very good too.

Pictures of people in their workshops are always most welcome!

Neil

My camera is a Canon Powershot A640 My wife has a Canon Powershot A610. Yes they are old, and both cameras have been used for MEW photos. Neither is SLR, and cost £155 (s/h) and £165 (new). Yet both have a facility which I certainly find very useful - an optical viewfinder, which means that for those awkward shots, I can hold the camera to my head and thus get an additional degree of steadying (at my age, I'm not as steady as I used to be). Neither of the cameras mentioned by Neil appear to have this facility. I do have a tripod which I use wherever possible for workshop photos, but occasionally I can't get it into a suitable position, hence have to resort to manual handling.

Although they are not SLR's, they do have a large number of facilities - macro, manual focusing, auto, TV, AV and a means of focusing on a particular place or spot, and then moving the picture without losing the focus. Plus a host of other facilities which I've never used. So although they cannot compete with a SLR, they can produce photos good enough for the magazine.

The biggest problem I have is that of lighting. Both cameras have built in flash which can be switched off, but there is no facility for external flash. Which does make for problems. Essentially I end up taking large numbers of experimental photos and choosing whichever one seems best.

Peter G. Shaw

I agree. I don't know how people manage without one yet many cameras don't have them nowadays. Digital displays are OK but they don't help with holding and they can be impossible to see in bright light.

I have an A640 too. l find it useful even though I have a more modern SLR and Bridge to play with.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 13/10/2016 16:52:45

I have a personal hatred of optical viewfinders, perhaps because they are rarely compatible with a decent level of myopia. I don't use the one on my bridge camera and not even the one on my DSLR.

Fighting talk Neil!

Seems very short-sighted to me because the obvious answer is to eliminate anyone with an eye-defect.

Should be good for a few hundred posts...

Perhaps that's why I like astrophotography, after a few minutes looking through an eyepiece I give up, even when the view is spectacular. I can watch Jupiter for ages 'live' on the computer screen, but only small doses through a tiny hole...

Neil

I had a Russian 6" reflector for a few years but gave up astronomy mainly because I didn't like the cold on clear nights not to mention cricking my neck to see through the eye-piece. Having astigmatism makes stars look more like commas than points to me and that spoils direct viewing too.

I tried attaching a Digital Camera to the telescope only to find that the batteries coped less well with the cold than I did. This must have been at least 15 years ago when better technology existed but I couldn't afford it, so I wimped out.

I'm pretty sure today that I could run a telescope from indoors without breaking the bank. You are leading me into temptation again!

Dave

This:-

Prompted by a couple of recent mentions on other threads ... I suggest that the primary thing that 'Makes a good photo for MEW' must be that it is informative. Composition needs to be careful; not for Art's sake, but to ensure that [for example] things do not appear to be joined, where they are not.

The classic example in popular photography is the tree or lamp-post 'growing out of someone's head' ... amusing for the family snap-shot, BUT ...

MichaelG.

Google 'video astronomy', the ideal solution for those whose eyes are less than perfect, but who would rather 'look' than spend ages imaging. The basic technique is 'live stacking' which is capable of showing more then the eye can see in almost real time.

Neil

Thanks Neil.

It's probably more than 10 years since I last looked seriously at astrophotography and things have certainly moved on! Bells and Whistles galore. Feels like good value too because the prices are much the same as I remember them. That said I totted up my fantasy purchases and found them to total over £6000. This could easily turn into another expensive hobby.

Fortunately a less ambitious set-up would be a lot cheaper. It's very tempting. I've hardly been naughty at all this year and thoroughly deserve a decent Christmas present.

Dave

My main imaging scope is £172 without amount, plus £126 for coma corrector:

You can buy it with an all-singing all-dancing GOTO mount for £587. A budget of £1000 would get you the CC, a better tripod and a second hand DSLR as well.

Neil

Very impressive Neil. It looks like the sort of picture that not so long ago you would have needed an observatory on a mountain top to produce. How many frames to get that good a picture?

I hope I'm not embarrassing myself by misidentifying it as a galaxy, but which one is it?

It's all too, too tempting!

Dave

Pentax DSLR's now have an "Astrotracer" facility built into them. You don't even need to buy a telescope to get great images of the night sky now. Google K1 Astrotracer for some sample images.

@Dave it's M33 the triangulum galaxy, about five hours total exposure.

@Vic It's good but the tracking period isn't huge with long lenses. A telescope certainly isn't essential, just some form of tracking, I have got some fantastic images with an ancient Zeiss Sonnar 135mm lens I bought in the early 80s (OK it is one of the best short telephoto lenses ever made...)

Neil