Hi Julie, Unlike my colleagues on this list I feel that the actual question is not HOW we can help, but it should be, IF you should be helped. The pros on this list are not helping themselves or the other pros by assisting you. No offense intended but this is really the realm of the professional, qualified commercial photographer. The reason your images are low in quality has nothing to do with the EQUIPMENT, but your actual skills. Your company has several sites, and what looks like enough income to hire a good photographer to do your marketing images, yet they want you to do it for free. Even if you have basic photo skills you should not do any photography for them without either charging them extra or (unless you were hired to be a photographer in which case you do not have even basic skills). But if you are here in our forum asking basic questions you should not be charging for image creation either. That leads me to think that you and/your company feels that having a better camera makes you a better photographer, which is also false. The images you posted are barely good enough for the average company access badge much less advertising or marketing. Go to your manager and tell them to hire a pro you will get better results, faster, and the images will help generate the needed business, and you can go back to your regular job. Nothing looks worse on the printed page then bad photography. Les Baldwin Professional photographer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie A" <juliebread@yahoo.com> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:06 AM Subject: Question about lighting... > Hi ho, > > I'm Julie. > I'm trying to get some advice on lighting. Please let > me know if this is not the appropriate place to ask > this. > > Here's the deal. At work I take pictures of > co-workers for marketing purposes. The camera I use > is a basic Sony digital camera (2.1 megapixel) with a > simple flash. > > Needless to say, indoor pictures stink with this > set-up. The pictures come out dark, the digital color > information isn't there, and the light diffusion is > virtually non-existent. > > I recently borrowed a Canon digital camera with a > nicer flash. One that I could tilt towards the > ceiling to bounce the flash to diffuse the light. The > lighting in these pics was fantastic compared to the > Sony set-up. > > Unfortunately, our budget is limited so the Canon > w/nice flash is out (~$1,200). And I cannot buy the > flash only because the Sony doesn't support external > flashes. > > For reference, here's a pic from each camera - don't > laugh ;) > Sony: > http://www.precisionind.com/pic1.png > Canon: > http://www.precisionind.com/pic2.png > > So my (long winded) question is, assuming the Sony CAN > take good pictures w/appropriate lighting, what kind > of indoor lighting solution would anyone recommend? > I've thought of the nice big, round diffusing lights > you see at the photography studio. Would that do the > trick? Are these affordable (around $300-400)? > > Anyway, sorry for my lack of proper terminology. > Thanks for any advice! > Julie > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > >
