That all may be true, but it's not very constructive. How about telling us what people are doing wrong, and suggestions for improvements?

I agree that a lot of the collector sites have pretty poor photos of the machines they are built for. My site is a perfect example. Most of my pictures simply suck. On my oversized project list is to pull out and re-photograph my entire collection. I agree with all of the recommendations I've seen so far. Here's how I've had the most luck (and what I'll do when I get around to taking pictures again): - Use a medium or dark colored matte item as a background. I have an old black bed sheet that I use as well as a large piece of cardboard with a matte black finish. Between the two I'm able to pretty much black out everything but the computer. - Use a tripod and turn off the flash on your digital camera. - Use multiple diffuse lighting sources. If you can't get those big photography lamps and diffusers then just bounce the light from spots or lamps off of a wall or use something else (like a cardboard box) to block the light that would go directly from the source to the photographic subject. The goal is to light the computer well and eliminate glare - especially on screens. - Prop the machine up at a good viewing angle to show off its form. My biggest mistake is that I take too many head-on shots which make most machines look awful. (See my site for proof) I use milk crates and wooden blocks under the sheet to position the machines. - I like ACDSee for photo editing. It's a great tool for cropping, adjusting levels, changing image formats and sizes and generally preparing a picture for the web. I rarely use Photoshop for much anymore. - I try to do multiple angles and inside shots as well as detail pictures of interesting items (such as cards, unusual cables and the like). Erik www.vintage-computer.com (home of hopeless pictures of hopeless computers) -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey H. Ingber Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:22 PM To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Old machine photos On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 21:04, Eric Smith wrote: lousy. and comparisons. telling Without pointing out specific examples - 1) The size of the pictures are generally too small, sometimes not much larger than a thumbnail. There should be several sizes available, including very high resolution shots. 2) The pictures are often out of focus, grainly, or have poor lighting. 3) Labels or markings are often impossible to discern. The "pictures", as I refer to them, are those generally seen on classic-computer collection-related web sites. Obviously, there are not too many of us who moonlight as photographers and I'm not faulting any individual or collection of photos. Why I brought this up (possibly in a more negative tone than required), is that often I'm left wishing that the pictures were better than they are - the owners have interesting machines, and it would nice to see higher quality photos that can accentuate details, markings, and labels. Jeff

Hi, "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc(a)conman.org> said: Also a black background may cause the auto exposure system to over expose slightly. While you can correct this with software you may lose detail in the lighter areas. A white background may cause the opposite - loss of detail in the shadows. Keep the lights well off the camera axis and glare shouldnt be too much of a problem. I use a polarizing filter to cut glare and reflections, but not many digital cameras are threaded for filters. That's how many professional photographers made their reputation :-) -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com The future was never like this!