what camera and softwoare takes a picture this clear

[zakiya]

i need to take pictures this clear? somebody please help me.

Have you ever heard of a d flector ?[/list][/code]

[sheila]

Sorry, but how long is a piece of string? Its not software which makes this photograph sharp. Its the camera, the lens and how much you want to spend and, of course, the skill of the photographer.

You will need to do a whole lot more homework before you find out exactly what you want.

Cheers
Sheila

[zakiya]

Sorry, but how long is a piece of string? Its not software which makes this photograph sharp. Its the camera, the lens and how much you want to spend and, of course, the skill of the photographer.

You will need to do a whole lot more homework before you find out exactly what you want.

Cheers
Sheila

thanks for your response but that didn't help unless I am in the wrong topic. What are the best cameras and software to get a quality picture like that. Taking pictures outside with my KODAK CX6330 pictures come out pretty clear. so what software would give that crisp clean background?

[bhusk]

Sorry, but how long is a piece of string? Its not software which makes this photograph sharp. Its the camera, the lens and how much you want to spend and, of course, the skill of the photographer.

You will need to do a whole lot more homework before you find out exactly what you want.

Cheers
Sheila

thanks for your response but that didn't help unless I am in the wrong topic. What are the best cameras and software to get a quality picture like that. Taking pictures outside with my KODAK CX6330 pictures come out pretty clear. so what software would give that crisp clean background?

That was probably taken in a studio with a controlled lighting environment.

You could probably get similar results with a pin-hole camera, a few decent lights and a white backdrop. Camera and lens will add to the sharpness, contrast and overall quality of the shot. But the background is just lighting.

[djwixx]

You can use software (Photoshop) to remove the background so you are left with only the foreground. Any reasonable camera will give the vague results, it then depends on how much post processing you want to do.

By the way, Sheila added a smiley to her post and made a valid comment, so there was no need for the terse response to her response to your vague question.

[edgeoflight]

I agree with djwixx and shiela, there is too many variables here!!
(Oh..and by the way, there is no such thing as a d flector. More on that below)
First of all, everyone stop!!! It is NOT THE SOFTWARE.
Photos have been taken like this and even BETTER THAN THIS, LONG BEFORE PHOTOSHOP AND/OR DIGITAL CAMERAS....OK????
Why is it that everyone is trying to 'cheapen' photography to a gimmik or a quick fix to 'jazz up' an otherwise sucky concept or just an all around badly composed or badly lit image???? Why???? This is an art !!! Did we forget this word?? Photography or 'Photographie' means "painter of light" Not 'lazy,image manipulator'. OK...just kidding.I blew off some steam there. But really America....we are trying to 'fast food' our images !!! No one wants to take time do it right. "just tell me real quick how to look as good as that guy whos been doing it for 30 years." It aint gonna happen. You also can't sharpen a photo that wasnt sharp to begin with. A trained eye can tell, and an untrained can figure it out if pointed out to them. Why is it we don't want quality in our images anymore? I got people who come to me wanting prices on Wedding photography and then say 'wow, how come so much? " or " I was gonna have my friend shoot it, cause she's got a cool camera she bougt at Target." Huh??? You gotta be kidding me!!! Who cheapened Photography??? What the hell...are we not trying to be 'artists'. Photoshop is a tool and NOT the end all. Remember when Cokin came out with its line of cheap, silly, gimmicky, drop in(filter holder on front of lens) filters that would give you a rainbow or 'motion' look, or a zoom, or a fog. Ummmm, yea...where are they now? People are trying to do the same thing but, with software programs and although they may have there rare instances where they are used...it will soon fade away as a laugh from the digital past. Good photography is just that...not 'paste on' gimmicks. Quality images come from 1) education-however you aquire it. Classes, forums, reading magazines, networking with other photographers, whatever...get it. 2) Quality equipment. Not the Wal-Mart camera that says it does 7 megapixals or 'whatever'....ok ...thats not the same as a professional camera. IT'S NOT !!! It's ok if your just trying to quickly document something. Don't get me wrong. But don't expect to sell commercial images with crap. Or to shoot a quality wedding with a $300 camera. Oh sure, they look good on the monitor. Hello...you're looking at them at only 72dpi...duhh!! Try blowing them up to 11x14 or 16x20 @300dpi and tell me how it looks then. Those cameras are being sold to kids and mom and pops for quickies...not to pros. The image is captured by the glass on the camera and that is that. It is not any different whether it was film or digital. 3) Understanding your equipment and knowing it's limitations and its strengths. You cannot go out and buy a $20 Hoya and say 'how come it doesn't take pictures as good as my friends Hassleblad. Mine is a Medium format too???" You can also go out and buy 3 floodlights with reflectors for under $100 but it isn't going to compare to someone who uses strobes if you're trying to achieve maxiumum flash power under certain conditions. Not that you need strobes or floods, IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I have a friend that will not use any flash whatsoever.(ouch!) I'd feel crippled personally. I choose to use reflectors outdoors as well as strobes sometimes.
See what I'm saying? Which leads me to my final thing to wrap it up quick.4) Understanding lighting...where do I start???? yikes! Ever since the camera documented anything... lighting, the presence or the absence of it, has always been (for the most part) the thing that made the image stand out. I think anyone would almost agree that there is no 'hard set rule' on how to light the subject. It all has to be in relation to what your trying to say about your subject. If your trying to say 'it shines' (paraphrasing) but you failed to lite it brightly...you failed. If you say 'it's soft' and it was lit from the side with a hard light....I feel you failed..(to convey that to me anyway.) So learing to understand light whether it's 'Natural' or fabricated is the key to becoming a good photographer and not a 'snapshooter'.
After that if it is heavily manipulated in software programs than you're NOT a photographer, but a digital artist. BUT...That is a whole new conversation....Ha, Ha.... Take the time to get good at it. You'll learn to appreciate it more. I've been doing this for 30 years and I'm still growing!!Take care and good luck on your growth as a PHOTOGRAPHER !
P.S. (don't anyone get angry. this is all about learning and being mature)

[david_arthur_lee]

First of all, everyone stop!!! It is NOT THE SOFTWARE.
Photos have been taken like this and even BETTER THAN THIS, LONG BEFORE PHOTOSHOP AND/OR DIGITAL CAMERAS....OK????

Have to agree with 99.9% of what you said there except I know people who can paint Hi definition paintings in Photoshop from scratch just using the pressure pen.

I can almost achieve it myself but it will take a lot more time.

No copying, no tracing... Just using brush tool and varrying layers of ink and they can produce photo style images that will EASILY match the quality of that picture of the shoe.

Art can be found in many forms..

[vanderstouw]

That picture was definitely taken by someone serious... And yes, it likely had a lot of post-production work done to it...

But the last two posts by David and Edge are right. A person with a consumer camera and Paint Shop Pro are just not going to cut it...

A while back people were asking about some album cover art and how they could have the same kind of effect... The shot did have some edgy PS work done to it, but what made the shot was the lighting...

If you want to take this kind of photography, be prepared to invest a lot... Either a lot of time at being extra super creative in your approach or a lot of money in some serious equipment.

Lighting is everything in photography... You can't just take some boring shot done in the middle of the day for instance and expect photoshop to save the day and get it all done... Boring light will always be boring light.

You need good stuff to start with.

If you want results you can be proud of, get yourself a camera that can shoot RAW, get a really good RAW editor(like C1 pro or C1 light), get yourself photoshop and learn it well, and even think about getting some lighting equipment if that is the type of photography you want to shoot.

[auriga_m38]

I'm sure the lighting and camera are all pro-quality, but take a look at the skin texture of the foot - there is none! The image has been heavily post-processed to give it that glamour magazine i.e. there's no detail left on the skin.

A half-decent photographer with a half-decent camera that's also a wizard with Photoshop can probably reproduce that shot.

[tonif]

i need to take pictures this clear? somebody please help me.

Have you ever heard of a d flector ?[/list][/code]

Nice sexy foot, zakiya

[fraczekp]

What camera and software? Eh, I wish I had the answer...

But I can tell you what camera and software takes pictures this clear:



Nikon D200 w 60mm Micro-Nikkor heavliy (and poorly) post processed in PS elements 4.0

[david_arthur_lee]

Thats funny

[mattmyles06]

what camera and software takes pictures?

[mattmyles06]

I agree with djwixx and shiela, there is too many variables here!!
(Oh..and by the way, there is no such thing as a d flector. More on that below)
First of all, everyone stop!!! It is NOT THE SOFTWARE.
Photos have been taken like this and even BETTER THAN THIS, LONG BEFORE PHOTOSHOP AND/OR DIGITAL CAMERAS....OK????
Why is it that everyone is trying to 'cheapen' photography to a gimmik or a quick fix to 'jazz up' an otherwise sucky concept or just an all around badly composed or badly lit image???? Why???? This is an art !!! Did we forget this word?? Photography or 'Photographie' means "painter of light" Not 'lazy,image manipulator'. OK...just kidding.I blew off some steam there. But really America....we are trying to 'fast food' our images !!! No one wants to take time do it right. "just tell me real quick how to look as good as that guy whos been doing it for 30 years." It aint gonna happen. You also can't sharpen a photo that wasnt sharp to begin with. A trained eye can tell, and an untrained can figure it out if pointed out to them. Why is it we don't want quality in our images anymore? I got people who come to me wanting prices on Wedding photography and then say 'wow, how come so much? " or " I was gonna have my friend shoot it, cause she's got a cool camera she bougt at Target." Huh??? You gotta be kidding me!!! Who cheapened Photography??? What the hell...are we not trying to be 'artists'. Photoshop is a tool and NOT the end all. Remember when Cokin came out with its line of cheap, silly, gimmicky, drop in(filter holder on front of lens) filters that would give you a rainbow or 'motion' look, or a zoom, or a fog. Ummmm, yea...where are they now? People are trying to do the same thing but, with software programs and although they may have there rare instances where they are used...it will soon fade away as a laugh from the digital past. Good photography is just that...not 'paste on' gimmicks. Quality images come from 1) education-however you aquire it. Classes, forums, reading magazines, networking with other photographers, whatever...get it. 2) Quality equipment. Not the Wal-Mart camera that says it does 7 megapixals or 'whatever'....ok ...thats not the same as a professional camera. IT'S NOT !!! It's ok if your just trying to quickly document something. Don't get me wrong. But don't expect to sell commercial images with crap. Or to shoot a quality wedding with a $300 camera. Oh sure, they look good on the monitor. Hello...you're looking at them at only 72dpi...duhh!! Try blowing them up to 11x14 or 16x20 @300dpi and tell me how it looks then. Those cameras are being sold to kids and mom and pops for quickies...not to pros. The image is captured by the glass on the camera and that is that. It is not any different whether it was film or digital. 3) Understanding your equipment and knowing it's limitations and its strengths. You cannot go out and buy a $20 Hoya and say 'how come it doesn't take pictures as good as my friends Hassleblad. Mine is a Medium format too???" You can also go out and buy 3 floodlights with reflectors for under $100 but it isn't going to compare to someone who uses strobes if you're trying to achieve maxiumum flash power under certain conditions. Not that you need strobes or floods, IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I have a friend that will not use any flash whatsoever.(ouch!) I'd feel crippled personally. I choose to use reflectors outdoors as well as strobes sometimes.
See what I'm saying? Which leads me to my final thing to wrap it up quick.4) Understanding lighting...where do I start???? yikes! Ever since the camera documented anything... lighting, the presence or the absence of it, has always been (for the most part) the thing that made the image stand out. I think anyone would almost agree that there is no 'hard set rule' on how to light the subject. It all has to be in relation to what your trying to say about your subject. If your trying to say 'it shines' (paraphrasing) but you failed to lite it brightly...you failed. If you say 'it's soft' and it was lit from the side with a hard light....I feel you failed..(to convey that to me anyway.) So learing to understand light whether it's 'Natural' or fabricated is the key to becoming a good photographer and not a 'snapshooter'.
After that if it is heavily manipulated in software programs than you're NOT a photographer, but a digital artist. BUT...That is a whole new conversation....Ha, Ha.... Take the time to get good at it. You'll learn to appreciate it more. I've been doing this for 30 years and I'm still growing!!Take care and good luck on your growth as a PHOTOGRAPHER !
P.S. (don't anyone get angry. this is all about learning and being mature)

That was queer......NOTE TO SELF - NEVER ASK THIS GUY ANYTHING

Lets see some of your photos hot shot...looks like the 30 year vet as nothing to show.

[dowdell]

Several of the galleries of those who posted previously are empty, not sure if that means they are gone, or not.

The original question paraphrased was "how do I take a photo this clear?"

Lets not worry about the lighting, the colour, the background, all of that is the “artâ€