Digital camera advice - Is it nut behind the shutter or the equipment?

[turbo6bar]

I am trying to take indoor pictures at an investment property. The interior designer is on vacation, and I'm trying to send her pictures to get feedback. Well, I don't want to use a flash, because it will screw up the colors.

The camera is a point and shoot Canon SD200. It does great outdoors and works well doing still pictures with controlled lighting. However, I've never had any luck taking indoor pictures. I stabilize the camera on a still object to minimize any movement in my hand. The pics still look like crap. When I use the built-in flash, it's equally terrible.

Shutter speed is on automatic. ISO setting - automatic. Exposure is automatic. What can I do? I need to be able to take quality indoor pictures in varying daylight conditions.

This picture will probably be butchered by vBulletin software, but it can't be much worse than the original pic. The camera was not on a tripod, but it was stabilized on a platform. The camera is set for 1600x1200. Should I drop down to lower resolution?

Thanks, Jurgen

[kstar]

In situations like this I prefer to use a camera where I can set white balance to a known "true white" sample, like a sheet of paper. By doing this you greatly improve the chances that the other colors are true.

I know this probably doesn't provide a quick solution for you. If you need to take pictures showing true color often, you might want to consider a low-priced but high quality DSLR where white balance can be set to sample, like a Nikon D40.

FWIW.

Best,

[nostatic]

Isn't that a pretty old camera? Technology has helped quite a bit over the past few years, but the nut behind the camera is still a big part of it.

Most cameras have a tough time with white balance indoors. Even "good" ones including dslrs. Here are two available light shots (I almost never use flash):





Two different point and shoot cameras. The second one is pretty close to the "true" colors of the couch and curtains.

If you are taking pictures indoors of static objects (ie no people that are moving), then image stabilization is your friend. As is higher ISO although that will also increase noise. This was shot with fire light and some background ambient (at night)





This is indoors, no image stabilization, ISO 800



You also will need a fairly wide lens. Effective 28mm at least (and 24mm would be even better).

You might want to consider a Ricoh GX-100 (the above pics were with a Ricoh GRD2, which is a fixed lens compact). It has 24-72mm zoom, image stabilization, and will output RAW images. But a newer Canon might be "easier" to use (the Ricoh has an auto setting that is fine though).

[turbo6bar]

I'm heading back out there to take new pictures. The camera does allow manual white balance adjustment.

The camera is pretty old. I got it for Christmas 3 or 4 years ago. I don't mind spending bucks for an upgrade as long as I can make good pictures (need training).

A wider lens would be extremely valuable. Do I have to go into DSLRs to get wider than 28mm?

[Steve Carlton]

I'm looking at some data on the camera here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd200.asp

First off, try shooting at ISO 50 or 100. Beyond that, older compact cameras will typically lose it quality-wise. This may require a slow shutter speed, which will require a tripod or something stationary. Use the self timer so pushing the shutter button doesn't move the camera.

Looks like there's 5 settings for white balance. That's what affects the colors. See if there's an indoor setting or a flash setting. I think setting it manually will require an 18% gray card or some such. That will get you the most accurate colors.

Set the image quality to the max, Super-fine.

Set the metering to evaluative, that should balance the overall exposure. If the image needs to be lighter or darker, use the EV (exposure compensation) to adjust it.

Good luck!

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by turbo6bar

I'm heading back out there to take new pictures. The camera does allow manual white balance adjustment.

The camera is pretty old. I got it for Christmas 3 or 4 years ago. I don't mind spending bucks for an upgrade as long as I can make good pictures (need training).

A wider lens would be extremely valuable. Do I have to go into DSLRs to get wider than 28mm?

According to the link above, there should be some WB choices, including manual.

Here's a good resource for various features:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

There's only a handful of compact/ultra compact cameras that go wider than 28mm. The GX100 nostatic mentioned goes to 24mm (I own that camera). For similar money to that, you could get into a Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm lens for as little as $450 delivered. In many ways, it'll kick the ass of any compact. The Nikons are considered to have the best kit lenses.

[RWebb]

you can modify the color balance in a software program after the fact if you want.

If you have some $$ to spend, I also advise a nice DSLR Nikon - one of the D40 series.

[pwd72s]

You know? I used to be okay with a 35mm SLR full of Tri-X...this digital krap? Friends have gifted me with a couple of entry level point & shoots. If the film was still available? I'd rather take pics with my early 1960's Kodak "instamatic".

I'm pretty sure, now that the era of film is ending, that my snapshot days are over.

[RWebb]

I'm sure you can still get Tri-X, Paul... or even Plus-X.

Digital has not wiped out film photography -- only the part of it that is smaller than 4x5 or 2 1/4... it is moving up the ladder tho.

I've still got a nice F3 and a N-90S Nikon that I never use, but I stil keep them around. I'll probably never give up the F3.

[alf]

Try a DSLR with a bounce flash and see what you get. Direct flash typically washes out the colors.

Colors will also depend on the viewers monitor settings.

[911pcars]

"I am trying to take indoor pictures at an investment property. The interior designer is on vacation, and I'm trying to send her pictures to get feedback. Well, I don't want to use a flash, because it will screw up the colors.

The camera is a point and shoot Canon SD200. It does great outdoors and works well doing still pictures with controlled lighting. However, I've never had any luck taking indoor pictures. I stabilize the camera on a still object to minimize any movement in my hand. The pics still look like crap. When I use the built-in flash, it's equally terrible.

Shutter speed is on automatic. ISO setting - automatic. Exposure is automatic. What can I do? I need to be able to take quality indoor pictures in varying daylight conditions.

This picture will probably be butchered by vBulletin software, but it can't be much worse than the original pic. The camera was not on a tripod, but it was stabilized on a platform. The camera is set for 1600x1200. Should I drop down to lower resolution?"

Jurgen,
Not sure what you're trying to convey to your ID, but the image seems fine to me. You've composed the scene so the vertical lines are vertical. That's good. Converging vertical lines bug me in standard architectural pics unless it's composed that way for effect. Most aren't, just sloppily composed.

Color balance might be more important for reviewing architectural finishes like paint, fabric and overall color balance. For this rough dry wall pic, I don't see a problem if that's what you mean to show. Viewed at a smaller image size, the apparent sharpness will increase.

To increase the angle of view, not only will you need a DSLR, but you'll also need a wide angle lens; equivalent to about 20mm focal length in a 35mm film format. Good WA digital lenses with low distortion tend to be quite expensive.

Sherwood

[dad911]

Forget the pics, go with the Dromedary Camel, and call it a day....

[campbellcj]

Originally Posted by RWebb

I'm sure you can still get Tri-X, Paul... or even Plus-X.

Digital has not wiped out film photography -- only the part of it that is smaller than 4x5 or 2 1/4... it is moving up the ladder tho.

I've still got a nice F3 and a N-90S Nikon that I never use, but I stil keep them around. I'll probably never give up the F3.

Yep, you can -- I just shot some Tri-X 400 in the last couple weeks in my new-to-me F100. Also there is a new formulation of TMX 400 (T-Max) that's supposedly nice but I haven't tried it yet. Fuji and Ilford still make dozens of film flavors too.

Regarding white balance etc., you can adjust or fix just about everything in post-processing if you shoot RAW format (obviously need a camera with that capability), as long as you expose the image properly.

[turbo6bar]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

I'm looking at some data on the camera here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd200.asp

First off, try shooting at ISO 50 or 100. Beyond that, older compact cameras will typically lose it quality-wise. This may require a slow shutter speed, which will require a tripod or something stationary. Use the self timer so pushing the shutter button doesn't move the camera.

Looks like there's 5 settings for white balance. That's what affects the colors. See if there's an indoor setting or a flash setting. I think setting it manually will require an 18% gray card or some such. That will get you the most accurate colors.

Update: I took some pictures yesterday afternoon. According to the manual provided, manual white balance can be done with white photo paper. I used a few sheets of white copier paper. When I set the camera to the white paper, the resulting pictures had a bluish tint, as if under a florescent light. It was definitely off. At that time, I actually used higher ISO settings, 200 and 400, because the manual mentioned it would allow no flash in lower light conditions. Numerous times, the camera would flash the red light, indicating it wanted to use the flash (I had flash disabled, though). I thought higher ISO setting would help. Well, yesterday's session was a bomb. The only pictures that came out looking halfway decent were ones taken at the end when I used all automatic settings (ISO and white balance) and permitted flash. However, the colors were slightly off.

Today, I took more pictures. Again, I used automatic settings, but no flash. The light must have been perfect (no direct light), because the pictures came out considerably better, and the colors are accurate. I used the timer, and super-fine (highest quality).

Sherwood, I mainly want to convey the relationship between the colors. The designer has already seen the colors once, and I just need final comments before paint goes on the walls. On the other hand, she's done other work for me and requested before and after pics. Up to now, every picture I've taken has been embarrassing. The photos have been fuzzy, have poor color, or just look terrible. Using the camera timer and highest quality settings has given the most improvement so far. However, I'd really like to be able to show wider angles to give better perspective. That Nikon D40 looks like a good buy. The pricing is very good.

Originally Posted by dad911

Forget the pics, go with the Dromedary Camel, and call it a day....

Not wishing to disparage the advice dispensed before, but I'd have to say you've got it nailed. I'm so damn tired of looking at colors, carpet, tile, hardwood, light fixtures, and all that mess. If I wasn't such a nutjob, I'd have her pick everything out, but no, I have to stick my nose where it doesn't belong.
Jurgen